Federal Register/Vol. 83, No. 123/Tuesday, June 26, 2018

29872 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE • Fax: (301) 713–0376; Attn: Jolie NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible Harrison. impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact National Oceanic and Atmospheric Instructions: Comments sent by any resulting from the specified activity that Administration other method, to any other address or cannot be reasonably expected to, and is individual, or received after the end of not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 50 CFR Part 218 the comment period, may not be the species or stock through effects on [Docket No. 170918908–8501–01] considered by NMFS. All comments annual rates of recruitment or survival. received are a part of the public record NMFS has defined ‘‘unmitigable RIN 0648–BH29 and will generally be posted for public adverse impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as viewing on www.regulations.gov an impact resulting from the specified Taking and Importing Marine without change. All personal identifying activity: Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals information (e.g., name, address, etc.), (1) That is likely to reduce the Incidental to the U.S. Navy Training confidential business information, or availability of the species to a level and Testing Activities in the Hawaii- otherwise sensitive information insufficient for a harvest to meet Southern California Training and submitted voluntarily by the sender may subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the Testing Study Area be publicly accessible. Do not submit marine mammals to abandon or avoid AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Confidential Business Information or hunting areas; (ii) directly displacing Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and otherwise sensitive or protected subsistence users; or (iii) placing Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), information. NMFS will accept physical barriers between the marine Commerce. anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in mammals and the subsistence hunters; the required fields if you wish to remain and ACTION: Proposed rule; request for (2) That cannot be sufficiently comments and information. anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft mitigated by other measures to increase SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats the availability of marine mammals to from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for only. allow subsistence needs to be met. The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’ authorization to take marine mammals FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: incidental to the training and testing means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or Stephanie Egger, Office of Protected attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill activities conducted in the Hawaii- Resources, NMFS; phone: (301) 427– Southern California Training and any marine mammal. 8401. Electronic copies of the The 2004 NDAA (Pub. L. 108–136) Testing (HSTT) Study Area. Pursuant to application and supporting documents, removed the ‘‘small numbers’’ and the Marine Mammal Protection Act as well as a list of the references cited ‘‘specified geographical region’’ (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments in this document, may be obtained limitations indicated above and on its proposal to issue regulations and online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ amended the definition of ‘‘harassment’’ subsequent Letters of Authorization national/marine-mammal-protection/ as it applies to a ‘‘military readiness (LOA) to the Navy to incidentally take incidental-take-authorizations-military- activity’’ to read as follows (Section marine mammals during the specified readiness-activities. In case of problems 3(18)(B) of the MMPA): (i) Any act that activities. NMFS will consider public accessing these documents, please call injures or has the significant potential to comments prior to issuing any final rule the contact listed above. injure a marine mammal or marine and making final decisions on the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: mammal stock in the wild (Level A issuance of the requested MMPA Harassment); or (ii) Any act that authorizations. Agency responses to Background disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine public comments will be summarized in Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the mammal or marine mammal stock in the the final rule. The Navy’s activities MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct wild by causing disruption of natural qualify as military readiness activities the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated behavioral patterns, including, but not pursuant to the MMPA, as amended by to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, the National Defense Authorization Act incidental, but not intentional, taking of breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a for Fiscal Year 2004 (2004 NDAA). small numbers of marine mammals by point where such behavioral patterns DATES: Comments and information must U.S. citizens who engage in a specified are abandoned or significantly altered be received no later than August 9, activity (other than commercial fishing) (Level B Harassment). 2018. within a specified geographical region if Summary of Request ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, certain findings are made and either identified by NOAA–NMFS–2018–0071, regulations are issued or, if the taking is On September 13, 2017, NMFS by any of the following methods: limited to harassment, a notice of a received an application from the Navy • Electronic submissions: Submit all proposed authorization is provided to requesting incidental take regulations electronic public comments via the the public for review and the and two LOAs to take individuals of 39 Federal eRulemaking Portal, Go to opportunity to submit comments. marine mammal species by Level A and www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D= An authorization for incidental B harassment incidental to training and NOAA-NMFS-2018-0071, click the takings shall be granted if NMFS finds testing activities (categorized as military ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, complete the that the taking will have a negligible readiness activities) from the use of required fields, and enter or attach your impact on the species or stock(s), will sonar and other transducers, in-water comments. not have an unmitigable adverse impact detonations, air guns, and impact pile • Mail: Submit comments to Jolie on the availability of the species or driving/vibratory extraction in the Harrison, Chief, Permits and stock(s) for subsistence uses (where HSTT Study Area over five years. In Conservation Division, Office of relevant), and if the permissible addition, the Navy is requesting Protected Resources, National Marine methods of taking and requirements incidental take authorization by serious Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring injury or mortality of ten takes of two Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910– and reporting of such takings are set species due to explosives and for up to 3225. forth. three takes of large whales from vessel

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29873

strikes over the five-year period. The 12, 2009) and effective January 14, 2009, acoustic and explosives stressors are Navy’s training and testing activities through January 14, 2014 (74 FR 3882 most likely to result in impacts on would occur over five years beginning on January 21, 2009) for Hawaii and marine mammals that could rise to the in December 2018. On October 13, 2017, Southern California, respectively. The level of harassment. Detailed the Navy sent an amendment to its rulemaking for Phase II (combined both descriptions of these activities are application and Navy’s rulemaking/LOA Hawaii and Southern California) is provided in the HSTT Draft application was considered final and applicable from December 24, 2013, Environmental Impact Statement complete. through December 24, 2018 (78 FR (DEIS)/Overseas EIS (OEIS) (DEIS/OEIS) The Navy requests two five-year 78106; on December 24, 2013). For this and in the Navy’s rule making/LOA LOAs, one for training and one for third rulemaking, the Navy is proposing application (www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ testing activities to be conducted within to conduct similar activities as they national/marine-mammal-protection/ the HSTT Study Area (which extends have conducted over the past nine years incidental-take-authorizations-military- from the north-central Pacific Ocean, under the previous rulemakings. readiness-activities) and are from the mean high tide line in summarized here. Southern California west to Hawaii and Background of Request the International Date Line), including The Navy’s mission is to organize, Overview of Training and Testing the Hawaii and Southern California train, equip, and maintain combat-ready Activities (SOCAL) Range Complexes, as well as naval forces capable of winning wars, The Navy routinely trains and tests in the Silver Strand Training Complex and deterring aggression, and maintaining the HSTT Study Area in preparation for overlapping a small portion of the Point freedom of the seas. This mission is national defense missions. Training and Mugu Sea Range. The Hawaii Range mandated by Federal law (10 U.S.C. testing activities covered in the Navy’s Complex encompasses ocean areas 5062), which ensures the readiness of rulemaking/LOA application are briefly around the Hawaiian Islands, extending the naval forces of the United States. described below, and in more detail from 16 degrees north latitude to 43 The Navy executes this responsibility by within Chapter 2 of the HSTT DEIS/ degrees north latitude and from 150 training and testing at sea, often in OEIS. designated operating areas (OPAREA) degrees west longitude to the Primary Mission Areas International Date Line. The SOCAL and testing and training ranges. The Range Complex is located Navy must be able to access and utilize The Navy categorizes its activities approximately between Dana Point and these areas and associated sea space and into functional warfare areas called San Diego, California, and extends air space in order to develop and primary mission areas. These activities southwest into the Pacific Ocean and maintain skills for conducting naval generally fall into the following seven also includes a small portion of the activities. primary mission areas: Air warfare; Point Mugu Sea Range. The Silver The Navy proposes to conduct amphibious warfare; anti-submarine Strand Training Complex is an training and testing activities within the warfare (ASW); electronic warfare; integrated set of training areas located HSTT Study Area. The Navy has been expeditionary warfare; mine warfare on and adjacent to the Silver Strand, a conducting similar military readiness (MIW); and surface warfare (SUW). Most narrow, sandy isthmus separating the activities in the Study Area since the activities addressed in the HSTT DEIS/ San Diego Bay from the Pacific Ocean. 1940s. The tempo and types of training OEIS are categorized under one of the Please refer to Figure 1–1 of the Navy’s and testing activities have fluctuated primary mission areas; the testing rulemaking/LOA application for a map because of the introduction of new community has three additional of the HSTT Study Area, Figures 2–1 to technologies, the evolving nature of categories of activities for vessel 2–4 for the Hawaii Operating Area international events, advances in evaluation, unmanned systems, and (where the majority of training and warfighting doctrine and procedures, acoustic and oceanographic science and testing activities occur within the and changes in force structure technology. Activities that do not fall Hawaii Range Complex), Figures 2–5 to (organization of ships, weapons, and within one of these areas are listed as 2–7 for the SOCAL Range Complex, and personnel). Such developments ‘‘other activities.’’ Each warfare Figure 2–8 for the Silver Strand influence the frequency, duration, community (surface, subsurface, Training Complex. The following types intensity, and location of required aviation, and special warfare) may train of training and testing, which are training and testing activities, but the in some or all of these primary mission classified as military readiness activities basic nature of sonar and explosive areas. The testing community also pursuant to the MMPA, as amended by events conducted in the HSTT Study categorizes most, but not all, of its the 2004 NDAA, would be covered Area has remained the same. testing activities under these primary under the LOAs (if authorized): The Navy’s rulemaking/LOA mission areas. Amphibious warfare (in-water application reflects the most up to date The Navy describes and analyzes the detonations), anti-submarine warfare compilation of training and testing impacts of its training and testing (sonar and other transducers, in-water activities deemed necessary to activities within the HSTT DEIS/OEIS detonations), surface warfare (in-water accomplish military readiness and the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA detonations), mine warfare (sonar and requirements. The types and numbers of application. In its assessment, the Navy other transducers, in-water detonations), activities included in the proposed rule concluded that sonar and other and other warfare activities (sonar and account for fluctuations in training and transducers, in-water detonations, air other transducers, pile driving, air testing in order to meet evolving or guns, and pile driving/removal were the guns). emergent military readiness stressors that would result in impacts on This will be NMFS’s third rulemaking requirements. marine mammals that could rise to the (Hawaii and Southern California were level of harassment (and serious injury separate rules in Phase I) for HSTT Description of the Specified Activity or mortality by explosives or by vessel activities under the MMPA. NMFS The Navy is requesting authorization strike) as defined under the MMPA. The published the first two rules for Phase to take marine mammals incidental to Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application I effective from January 5, 2009, through conducting training and testing provides the Navy’s assessment of January 5, 2014, (74 FR 1456; on January activities. The Navy has determined that potential effects from these stressors in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29874 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

terms of the various warfare mission performed to ensure effective ship-to- detection systems search for mine areas in which they would be shore coordination and transport of shapes. Personnel train to destroy or conducted. In terms of Navy’s primary personnel, equipment, and supplies. disable mines by attaching underwater warfare areas, this includes: Tests may also be conducted explosives to or near the mine or using • Amphibious warfare (in-water periodically on other systems, vessels, remotely operated vehicles to destroy detonations); and aircraft intended for amphibious the mine. Towed influence mine sweep • ASW (sonar and other transducers, operations to assess operability and to systems mimic a particular ship’s in-water detonations); investigate efficacy of new technologies. magnetic and acoustic signature, which • SUW (in-water detonations); would trigger a real mine causing it to Anti-Submarine Warfare • MIW (sonar and other transducers, explode. in-water detonations); and The mission of ASW is to locate, Testing and development of MIW • Other warfare activities (sonar and neutralize, and defeat hostile submarine systems is conducted to improve sonar, other transducers, impact pile driving/ forces that threaten Navy forces. ASW is laser, and magnetic detectors intended vibratory removal, air guns). based on the principle that surveillance to hunt, locate, and record the positions The Navy’s training and testing and attack aircraft, ships, and of mines for avoidance or subsequent activities in air warfare, electronic submarines all search for hostile neutralization. MIW testing and warfare, and expeditionary warfare do submarines. These forces operate development falls into two primary not involve sonar or other transducers, together or independently to gain early categories: Mine detection or in-water detonations, pile driving/ warning and detection, and to localize, classification, and mine countermeasure removal, air guns or any other stressors track, target, and attack submarine and neutralization. Mine detection or that could result in harassment, serious threats. ASW training addresses basic classification testing involves the use of injury, or mortality of marine mammals. skills such as detecting and classifying air, surface, and subsurface vessels and Therefore, activities in the air, submarines, as well as evaluating uses sonar, including towed and electronic or expeditionary warfare sounds to distinguish between enemy sidescan sonar, and unmanned vehicles areas are not discussed further in this submarines and friendly submarines, to locate and identify objects proposed rule, but are analyzed fully in ships, and marine life. More advanced underwater. Mine detection and the Navy’s HSTT DEIS/OEIS. training integrates the full spectrum of classification systems are sometimes ASW from detecting and tracking a Amphibious Warfare used in conjunction with a mine submarine to attacking a target using neutralization system. Mine The mission of amphibious warfare is either exercise torpedoes (i.e., torpedoes countermeasure and neutralization to project military power from the sea to that do not contain a warhead) or testing includes the use of air, surface, the shore (i.e., attack a threat on land by simulated weapons. These integrated and subsurface units to evaluate the a military force embarked on ships) ASW training exercises are conducted effectiveness of detection systems, through the use of naval firepower and in coordinated, at-sea training events countermeasure and neutralization expeditionary landing forces. involving submarines, ships, and systems. Most neutralization tests use Amphibious warfare operations range aircraft. Testing of ASW systems is mine shapes, or non-explosive practice from small unit reconnaissance or raid conducted to develop new technologies mines, to evaluate a new or enhanced missions to large scale amphibious and assess weapon performance and capability. For example, during a mine exercises involving multiple ships and operability with new systems and neutralization test, a previously located aircraft combined into a strike group. platforms, such as unmanned systems. mine is destroyed or rendered Amphibious warfare training ranges Testing uses ships, submarines, and nonfunctional using a helicopter or from individual, crew, and small unit aircraft to demonstrate capabilities of manned/unmanned surface vehicle events to large task force exercises. torpedoes, missiles, countermeasure based system that may involve the Individual and crew training include systems, and underwater surveillance deployment of a towed neutralization amphibious vehicles and naval gunfire and communications systems. Tests system. support training. Such training includes may be conducted as part of a large- A small percentage of MIW tests shore assaults, boat raids, airfield or scale fleet training event involving require the use of high-explosive mines port seizures, and reconnaissance. Large submarines, ships, fixed-wing aircraft, to evaluate and confirm the ability of scale amphibious exercises involve and helicopters. These integrated the system or the crews conducting the ship-to-shore maneuver, naval fire training events offer opportunities to training or testing to neutralize a high- support, such as shore bombardment, conduct research and acquisition explosive mine under operational and air strike and attacks on targets that activities and to train crews in the use conditions. The majority of MIW are in close proximity to friendly forces. of new or newly enhanced systems systems are deployed by ships, Testing of guns, munitions, aircraft, during a large-scale, complex exercise. helicopters, and unmanned vehicles. ships, and amphibious vessels and Tests may also be conducted in support Mine Warfare vehicles used in amphibious warfare is of scientific research to support these often integrated into training activities The mission of MIW is to detect, new technologies. and, in most cases, the systems are used classify, and avoid or neutralize in the same manner in which they are (disable) mines to protect Navy ships Surface Warfare (SUW) used for fleet training activities. and submarines and to maintain free The mission of SUW is to obtain Amphibious warfare tests, when access to ports and shipping lanes. MIW control of sea space from which naval integrated with training activities or also includes offensive mine laying to forces may operate, and conduct conducted separately as full operational gain control of or deny the enemy access offensive action against other surface, evaluations on existing amphibious to sea space. Naval mines can be laid by subsurface, and air targets while also vessels and vehicles following ships, submarines, or aircraft. MIW defending against enemy forces. In maintenance, repair, or modernization, neutralization training includes conducting SUW, aircraft use guns, air- may be conducted independently or in exercises in which ships, aircraft, launched cruise missiles, or other conjunction with other amphibious ship submarines, underwater vehicles, precision-guided munitions; ships and aircraft activities. Testing is unmanned vehicles, or marine mammal employ torpedoes, naval guns, and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29875

surface-to-surface missiles; and unit level exercises but are generally on source e.g., XYZ2 might evolve for submarines attack surface ships using a smaller scale than an MTE, are shorter testing three years from now, but if it torpedoes or submarine-launched, anti- in duration, use fewer assets, and use falls within the bounds of the same ship cruise missiles. SUW includes fewer hours of hull-mounted sonar per sound source bin, it has been analyzed surface-to-surface gunnery and missile exercise. For the purpose of analysis, and any resulting take authorized. exercises; air-to-surface gunnery, three key factors are used to identify Some testing activities are similar to bombing, and missile exercises; and group major, integrated, and training activities conducted by the submarine missile or torpedo launch coordinated exercises including the fleet. For example, both the fleet and the events, and the use of other munitions scale of the exercise, duration of the research and acquisition community fire against surface targets. exercise, and amount of hull-mounted torpedoes. While the firing of a torpedo Testing of weapons used in SUW is sonar hours modeled/used for the might look identical to an observer, the conducted to develop new technologies exercise. NMFS considered the effects of difference is in the purpose of the firing. and to assess weapon performance and all training exercises, not just these The fleet might fire the torpedo to operability with new systems and major, integrated, and coordinated practice the procedures for such a firing, platforms, such as unmanned systems. training exercises in this proposed rule. whereas the research and acquisition Tests include various air-to-surface guns community might be assessing a new and missiles, surface-to-surface guns Overview of Testing Activities Within the HSTT Study Area torpedo guidance technology or testing and missiles, and bombing tests. Testing it to ensure the torpedo meets events may be integrated into training The Navy’s research and acquisition performance specifications and community engages in a broad spectrum activities to test aircraft or aircraft operational requirements. systems in the delivery of munitions on of testing activities in support of the a surface target. In most cases the tested fleet. These activities include, but are Naval Air Systems Command Testing systems are used in the same manner in not limited to, basic and applied Activities scientific research and technology which they are used for fleet training Naval Air Systems Command testing development; testing, evaluation, and activities. activities generally fall in the primary maintenance of systems (e.g., missiles, mission areas used by the fleets. Naval Other Warfare Activities radar, and sonar) and platforms (e.g., Air Systems Command activities Naval forces conduct additional surface ships, submarines, and aircraft); include, but are not limited to, the training, testing and maintenance and acquisition of systems and activities, which fall under other platforms to support Navy missions and testing of new aircraft platforms (e.g., primary mission areas that are not listed give a technological edge over the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft), above. The HSTT DEIS/OEIS combines adversaries. The individual commands weapons, and systems (e.g., newly these training and testing activities within the research and acquisition developed sonobuoys) that will together in an ‘‘other activities’’ community included in the Navy’s ultimately be integrated into fleet grouping for simplicity. These training rulemaking/LOA application are the training activities. In addition to the and testing activities include, but are Naval Air Systems Command, the Naval testing of new platforms, weapons, and not limited to, sonar maintenance for Sea Systems Command, the Office of systems, Naval Air Systems Command ships and submarines, submarine Naval Research, and the Space and also conducts lot acceptance testing of navigation and under-ice certification, Naval Warfare Systems Command. weapons and systems, such as elevated causeway system (pile driving Testing activities occur in response to sonobuoys. and removal), and acoustic and emerging science or fleet operational Naval Sea Systems Command Testing oceanographic research. These activities needs. For example, future Navy Activities include the use of various sonar experiments to develop a better systems, impact pile driving/vibratory understanding of ocean currents may be Naval Sea Systems Command extraction, and air guns. designed based on advancements made activities are generally aligned with the by non-government researchers not yet primary mission areas used by the Overview of Major Training Exercises published in the scientific literature. fleets. Additional activities include, but and Other Exercises Within the HSTT Similarly, future but yet unknown Navy are not limited to, vessel evaluation, Study Area operations within a specific geographic unmanned systems, and other testing A major training exercise (MTE) is area may require development of activities. In the Navy’s rulemaking/ comprised of several ‘‘unit level’’ range modified Navy assets to address local LOA application, for testing activities exercises conducted by several units conditions. However, any evolving occurring at Navy shipyards and piers, operating together while commanded testing activities that would be covered only system testing is included. and controlled by a single commander. under this rule would be expected to Testing activities are conducted These exercises typically employ an fall within the range of platforms, throughout the life of a Navy ship, from exercise scenario developed to train and activities, sound sources, and other construction through deactivation from evaluate the strike group in naval equipment described in this rule and to the fleet, to verification of performance tactical tasks. In an MTE, most of the have impacts that fall within the range and mission capabilities. Activities activities being directed and (i.e., nature and extent) of those covered include pierside and at-sea testing of coordinated by the strike group within the rule. For example, the Navy ship systems, including sonar, acoustic commander are identical in nature to identifies ‘‘bins’’ of sound sources to countermeasures, radars, torpedoes, the activities conducted during facilitate analyses—i.e., they identify weapons, unmanned systems, and radio individual, crew, and smaller unit level frequency and source level bounds to a equipment; tests to determine how the training events. In an MTE, however, bin and then analyze the worst case ship performs at sea (sea trials); these disparate training tasks are scenario for that bin to understand the development and operational test and conducted in concert, rather than in impacts of all of the sources that fall evaluation programs for new isolation. Some integrated or within a bin. While the Navy might be technologies and systems; and testing coordinated ASW exercises are similar aware that sound source e.g., XYZ1 will on all ships and systems that have in that they are comprised of several definitely be used this year, sound undergone overhaul or maintenance.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29876 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

Office of Naval Research Testing The proposed training and testing The use of source classification bins Activities activities were evaluated to identify provides the following benefits: As the Department of the Navy’s specific components that could act as Provides the ability for new sensors or science and technology provider, the stressors (e.g., acoustic and explosive) munitions to be covered under existing Office of Naval Research provides by having direct or indirect impacts on authorizations, as long as those sources technology solutions for Navy and the environment. This analysis included fall within the parameters of a ‘‘bin;’’ Marine Corps needs. The Office of Naval identification of the spatial variation of improves efficiency of source utilization Research’s mission is to plan, foster, and the identified stressors. data collection and reporting encourage scientific research in requirements anticipated under the Description of Acoustic and Explosive MMPA authorizations; ensures a recognition of its paramount importance Stressors conservative approach to all impact as related to the maintenance of future estimates, as all sources within a given naval power, and the preservation of The Navy uses a variety of sensors, class are modeled as the most impactful national security. The Office of Naval platforms, weapons, and other devices, source (highest source level, longest Research manages the Navy’s basic, including ones used to ensure the safety duty cycle, or largest net explosive applied, and advanced research to foster of Sailors and Marines, to meet its weight) within that bin; allows analyses transition from science and technology mission. Training and testing with these to be conducted in a more efficient to higher levels of research, systems may introduce acoustic (sound) manner, without any compromise of development, test, and evaluation. The energy or shock waves from explosives into the environment. The Navy’s analytical results; and provides a Office of Naval Research is also a parent framework to support the reallocation of organization for the Naval Research rulemaking/LOA application describes specific components that could act as source usage (hours/explosives) Laboratory, which operates as the between different source bins, as long as Navy’s corporate research laboratory stressors by having direct or indirect impacts on the environment. This the total numbers of takes remain within and conducts a broad multidisciplinary the overall analyzed and authorized program of scientific research and analysis includes identification of the spatial variation of the identified limits. This flexibility is required to advanced technological development. support evolving Navy training and Testing conducted by the Office of stressors. The following subsections describe the acoustic and explosive testing requirements, which are linked Naval Research in the HSTT Study Area to real world events. includes acoustic and oceanographic stressors for biological resources within research, large displacement unmanned the Study Area. Stressor/resource Sonar and Other Transducers interactions that were determined to underwater vehicle (an innovative naval Active sonar and other transducers have de minimus or no impacts (i.e., prototype) research, and emerging mine emit non-impulsive sound waves into vessel, aircraft, weapons noise, and countermeasure technology research. the water to detect objects, safely explosions in air) were not carried navigate, and communicate. Passive Space and Naval Warfare Systems forward for analysis in the Navy’s Command Testing Activities sonars differ from active sound sources rulemaking/LOA application. NMFS has in that they do not emit acoustic signals; Space and Naval Warfare Systems reviewed the Navy’s analysis and rather, they only receive acoustic Command is the information warfare conclusions and finds them complete information about the environment, or systems command for the U.S. Navy. and supportable. listen. In the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA The mission of the Space and Naval Acoustic Stressors application, the terms sonar and other Warfare Systems Command is to transducers are used to indicate active acquire, develop, deliver, and sustain Acoustic stressors include acoustic sound sources unless otherwise decision superiority for the warfighter. signals emitted into the water for a specified. Space and Naval Warfare Systems specific purpose, such as sonar, other The Navy employs a variety of sonars Command Systems Center Pacific is the transducers (devices that convert energy and other transducers to obtain and research and development part of Space from one form to another—in this case, transmit information about the undersea and Naval Warfare Systems Command to sound waves), and air guns, as well environment. Some examples are mid- focused on developing and transitioning as incidental sources of broadband frequency hull-mounted sonars used to technologies in the area of command, sound produced as a byproduct of find and track enemy submarines; high- control, communications, computers, impact pile driving and vibratory frequency small object detection sonars intelligence, surveillance, and extraction. Explosives also produce used to detect mines; high frequency reconnaissance. Space and Naval broadband sound but are characterized underwater modems used to transfer Warfare Systems Command Systems separately from other acoustic sources data over short ranges; and extremely Center Pacific conducts research, due to their unique hazardous high-frequency (>200 kilohertz (kHz)) development, test, and evaluation characteristics. Characteristics of each of Doppler sonars used for navigation, like projects to support emerging these sound sources are described in the those used on commercial and private technologies for intelligence, following sections. vessels. The characteristics of these surveillance, and reconnaissance; anti- In order to better organize and sonars and other transducers, such as terrorism and force protection; mine facilitate the analysis of approximately source level, beam width, directivity, countermeasures; anti-submarine 300 sources of underwater sound used and frequency, depend on the purpose warfare; oceanographic research; remote for training and testing by the Navy, of the source. Higher frequencies can sensing; and communications. These including sonars, other transducers, air carry more information or provide more activities include, but are not limited to, guns, and explosives, a series of source information about objects off which they the testing of surface and subsurface classifications, or source bins, was reflect, but attenuate more rapidly. vehicles; intelligence, surveillance, and developed. The source classification Lower frequencies attenuate less reconnaissance/information operations bins do not include the broadband rapidly, so may detect objects over a sensor systems; underwater surveillance sounds produced incidental to pile longer distance, but with less detail. technologies; and underwater driving, vessel or aircraft transits, Propagation of sound produced communications. weapons firing and bow shocks. underwater is highly dependent on

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29877

environmental characteristics such as lower source levels but transmit the positioning, and fathometers. These may bathymetry, bottom type, water depth, sonar signal much more frequently be in use at any time for safe vessel temperature, and salinity. The sound (greater than 80 percent of the time) operation. These sources are typically received at a particular location will be when they are on. The beam width of highly directional to obtain specific different than near the source due to the ASW sonars can be wide-ranging in a navigational data. interaction of many factors, including search mode or highly directional in a Communication propagation loss; how the sound is track mode. reflected, refracted, or scattered; the Most ASW activities involving Sound sources used to transmit data potential for reverberation; and submarines or submarine targets would (such as underwater modems), provide interference due to multi-path occur in waters greater than 600 feet (ft) location (pingers), or send a single brief propagation. In addition, absorption deep due to safety concerns about release signal to bottom-mounted greatly affects the distance over which running aground at shallower depths. devices (acoustic release) may be used higher-frequency sounds propagate. Sonars used for ASW activities would throughout the HSTT Study Area. These Because of the complexity of analyzing typically be used in waters greater than sources typically have low duty cycles sound propagation in the ocean 200 meters (m) which can vary from and are usually only used when it is environment, the Navy relies on beyond three nautical miles (nmi) to 12 desirable to send a detectable acoustic acoustic models in its environmental nmi or more from shore depending on message. analyses that consider sound source local bathymetry. Exceptions include Classification of Sonar and Other characteristics and varying ocean use of dipping sonar by helicopters, Transducers conditions across the HSTT Study Area. maintenance of vessel systems while in The sound sources and platforms port, and system checks while vessels Sonars and other transducers are typically used in naval activities transit to or from port. grouped into classes that share an analyzed in the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA attribute, such as frequency range or Mine Warfare, Small Object Detection, application are described in Appendix purpose of use. Classes are further and Imaging A (Navy Activity Descriptions) of the sorted by bins based on the frequency or HSTT DEIS/OEIS. The effects of these Sonars used to locate mines and other bandwidth; source level; and, when factors are explained in Appendix D small objects, as well those used in warranted, the application in which the (Acoustic and Explosive Concepts) of imaging (e.g., for hull inspections or source would be used, as follows: the HSTT DEIS/OEIS. Sonars and other imaging of the seafloor), are typically • Frequency of the non-impulsive transducers used to obtain and transmit high frequency or very high frequency. acoustic source; information underwater during Navy Higher frequencies allow for greater Æ Low-frequency sources operate training and testing activities generally resolution but, due to their greater below 1 kHz; fall into several categories of use attenuation, are most effective over Æ Mid-frequency sources operate at described below. shorter distances. Mine detection sonar and above 1 kHz, up to and including can be deployed (towed or vessel hull- Anti-Submarine Warfare 10 kHz; mounted) at variable depths on moving Æ High-frequency sources operate Sonar used during ASW would impart platforms (ships, helicopters, or above 10 kHz, up to and including 100 the greatest amount of acoustic energy unmanned vehicles) to sweep a kHz; of any category of sonar and other suspected mined area. Most hull- Æ Very high-frequency sources transducers analyzed in the Navy’s mounted anti-submarine sonars can also rulemaking/LOA application. Types of operate above 100 kHz but below 200 be used in an object detection mode kHz; sonars used to detect enemy vessels known as ‘‘Kingfisher’’ mode. Sonars • Sound pressure level of the non- include hull-mounted, towed, line used for imaging are usually used in impulsive source; array, sonobuoy, helicopter dipping, close proximity to the area of interest, Æ Greater than 160 decibels (dB) re 1 and torpedo sonars. In addition, such as pointing downward near the micro Pascal (mPa), but less than 180 dB acoustic targets and decoys seafloor. (countermeasures) may be deployed to re 1 mPa; Mine detection sonar use would be Æ emulate the sound signatures of vessels concentrated in areas where practice Equal to 180 dB re 1 mPa and up to or repeat received signals. mines are deployed, typically in water 200 dB re 1 mPa; Æ Most ASW sonars are mid frequency depths less than 200 ft and at Greater than 200 dB re 1 mPa; • (1–10 kHz) because mid-frequency established minefields or temporary Application in which the source sound balances sufficient resolution to minefields close to strategic ports and would be used; identify targets with distance over harbors. Kingfisher mode on vessels is Æ Sources with similar functions that which threats can be identified. most likely to be used when transiting have similar characteristics, such as However, some sources may use higher to and from port. Sound sources used pulse length (duration of each pulse), or lower frequencies. Duty cycles (the for imaging could be used throughout beam pattern, and duty cycle. percentage of time acoustic energy is the HSTT Study Area. The bins used for classifying active transmitted) can vary widely, from sonars and transducers that are intermittently active to continuously Navigation and Safety quantitatively analyzed in the HSTT active. For the duty cycle for the AN/ Similar to commercial and private Study Area are shown in Table 1 below. SQS–53C, nominally they produce a 1– vessels, Navy vessels employ While general parameters or source 2 sec ping every 50–60 sec. Continuous navigational acoustic devices including characteristics are shown in the table, active sonars often have substantially speed logs, Doppler sonars for ship actual source parameters are classified.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29878 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1—SONAR AND TRANSDUCERS QUANTITATIVELY ANALYZED

Source class category Bin Description

Low-Frequency (LF): Sources that produce signals less than 1 LF3 LF sources greater than 200 dB. kHz. LF4 LF sources equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB. LF5 LF sources less than 180 dB. LF6 LF sources greater than 200 dB with long pulse lengths. Mid-Frequency (MF): Tactical and non-tactical sources that MF1 Hull-mounted surface ship sonars (e.g., AN/SQS–53C and AN/ produce signals between 1–10 kHz. MF1K SQS–60). Kingfisher mode associated with MF1 sonars. MF3 Hull-mounted submarine sonars (e.g., AN/BQQ–10). MF4 Helicopter-deployed dipping sonars (e.g., AN/AQS–22). MF5 Active acoustic sonobuoys (e.g., DICASS). MF6 Active underwater sound signal devices (e.g., MK84). MF8 Active sources (greater than 200 dB) not otherwise binned. MF9 Active sources (equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB) not otherwise binned. MF10 Active sources (greater than 160 dB, but less than 180 dB) not otherwise binned. MF11 Hull-mounted surface ship sonars with an active duty cycle greater than 80%. MF12 Towed array surface ship sonars with an active duty cycle greater than 80%. MF14 Oceanographic MF sonar. High-Frequency (HF): Tactical and non-tactical sources that HF1 Hull-mounted submarine sonars (e.g., AN/BQQ–10). produce signals between 10–100 kHz. HF3 Other hull-mounted submarine sonars (classified). HF4 Mine detection, classification, and neutralization sonar (e.g., AQS–20). HF5 Active sources (greater than 200 dB) not otherwise binned. HF6 Active sources (equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB) not otherwise binned. HF7 Active sources (greater than 160 dB, but less than 180 dB) not otherwise binned. HF8 Hull-mounted surface ship sonars (e.g., AN/SQS–61). Very High-Frequency Sonars (VHF): Non-tactical sources that VHF1 VHF sources greater than 200 dB. produce signals between 100–200 kHz. Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW): Tactical sources (e.g., active ASW1 MF systems operating above 200 dB. sonobuoys and acoustic counter-measures systems) used dur- ASW2 MF Multistatic Active Coherent sonobuoy (e.g., AN/SSQ–125). ing ASW training and testing activities. ASW3 MF towed active acoustic countermeasure systems (e.g., AN/ SLQ–25). ASW4 MF expendable active acoustic device countermeasures (e.g., MK 3). ASW5 MF sonobuoys with high duty cycles. Torpedoes (TORP): Source classes associated with the active TORP1 Lightweight torpedo (e.g., MK 46, MK 54, or Anti-Torpedo Tor- acoustic signals produced by torpedoes. TORP2 pedo). TORP3 Heavyweight torpedo (e.g., MK 48). Heavyweight torpedo (e.g., MK 48). Forward Looking Sonar (FLS): Forward or upward looking object FLS2 HF sources with short pulse lengths, narrow beam widths, and avoidance sonars used for ship navigation and safety. focused beam patterns. Acoustic Modems (M): Systems used to transmit data through the M3 MF acoustic modems (greater than 190 dB). water. Swimmer Detection Sonars (SD): Systems used to detect divers SD1–SD2 HF and VHF sources with short pulse lengths, used for the de- and submerged swimmers. tection of swimmers and other objects for the purpose of port security. Synthetic Aperture Sonars (SAS): Sonars in which active acoustic SAS1 MF SAS systems. signals are post-processed to form high-resolution images of SAS2 HF SAS systems. the seafloor. SAS3 VHF SAS systems. SAS4 MF to HF broadband mine countermeasure sonar. Broadband Sound Sources (BB): Sonar systems with large fre- BB1 MF to HF mine countermeasure sonar. quency spectra, used for various purposes. BB2 HF to VHF mine countermeasure sonar. BB4 LF to MF oceanographic source. BB5 LF to MF oceanographic source. BB6 HF oceanographic source. BB7 LF oceanographic source. Notes: ASW: Antisubmarine Warfare; BB: Broadband Sound Sources; FLS: Forward Looking Sonar; HF: High-Frequency; LF: Low-Frequency; M: Acoustic Modems; MF: Mid-Frequency; SAS: Synthetic Aperture Sonars; SD: Swimmer Detection Sonars; TORP: Torpedoes; VHF: Very High-Frequency.

Air Guns generated when the air is almost would be used during testing activities instantaneously released into the in various offshore areas of the Southern Air guns are essentially stainless steel surrounding water. Small air guns with California Range Complex and in the tubes charged with high-pressure air via capacities up to 60 cubic inches (in3) Hawaii Range Complex. a compressor. An impulsive sound is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29879

Generated impulses would have short Installing piles for elevated causeways from an explosive) (Reinhall and Dahl, durations, typically a few hundred would involve the use of an impact 2011). An impact pile driver generally milliseconds, with dominant hammer (impulsive) mechanism with operates on average 35 blows per frequencies below 1 kHz. The root- both it and the pile held in place by a minute. mean-square sound pressure level (SPL) crane. The hammer rests on the pile, Pile removal involves the use of and peak pressure (SPL peak) at a and the assemblage is then placed in vibratory extraction (non-impulsive), distance 1 m from the air gun would be position vertically on the beach or, during which the vibratory hammer is approximately 215 dB re 1 mPa and 227 when offshore, positioned with the pile suspended from the crane and attached dB re 1 mPa, respectively, if operated at in the water and resting on the seafloor. to the top of a pile. The pile is then the full capacity of 60 in3. The size of When the pile driving starts, the vibrated by hydraulic motors rotating the air gun chamber can be adjusted, hammer part of the mechanism is raised eccentric weights in the mechanism, which would result in lower SPLs and up and allowed to fall, transferring causing a rapid up and down vibration sound exposure level (SEL) per shot. energy to the top of the pile. The pile in the pile. This vibration causes the is thereby driven into the sediment by sediment particles in contact with the Pile Driving/Extraction a repeated series of these hammer pile to lose frictional grip on the pile. Impact pile driving and vibratory pile blows. Each blow results in an The crane slowly lifts up on the removal would occur during impulsive sound emanating from the vibratory driver and pile until the pile construction of an Elevated Causeway length of the pile into the water column is free of the sediment. Vibratory System (ELCAS), a temporary pier that as well as from the bottom of the pile removal creates continuous non- allows the offloading of ships in areas through the sediment. Because the impulsive noise at low source levels for without a permanent port. Construction impact wave travels through the steel a short duration. of the elevated causeway could occur in pile at speeds faster than the speed of The source levels of the noise sandy shallow water coastal areas at sound in water, a steep-fronted acoustic produced by impact pile driving and Silver Strand Training Complex and at shock wave is formed in the water (note vibratory pile removal from an actual Camp Pendleton, both in the Southern this shock wave has very low peak ELCAS pile driving and removal are California Range Complex. pressure compared to a shock wave shown in Table 2.

TABLE 2—ELEVATED CAUSEWAY SYSTEM PILE DRIVING AND REMOVAL UNDERWATER SOUND LEVELS

Pile size and type Method Average sound levels at 10 m

24-in. Steel Pipe Pile ...... Impact 1 ...... 192 dB re 1 μPa SPL rms. 182 dB re 1 μPa2s SEL (single strike). 24-in. Steel Pipe Pile ...... Vibratory 2 ...... 146 dB re 1 μPa SPL rms. 145 dB re 1 μPa2s SEL (per second of duration). 1 Illingworth and Rodkin (2016). 2 Illingworth and Rodkin (2015). Notes: in = inch, SEL = Sound Exposure Level, SPL = Sound Pressure Level, rms = root mean squared, dB re 1 μPa = decibels referenced to 1 micropascal.

In addition to underwater noise, the would be removed using vibratory Explanations of the terminology and installation and removal of piles also methods over approximately 10 days. metrics used when describing results in airborne noise in the Crews would remove about 12 piles per explosives in the Navy’s rulemaking/ environment. Impact pile driving 24-hour period, each taking about 6 LOA application are also in Appendix D creates in-air impulsive sound about minutes to remove. (Acoustic and Explosive Concepts) of 100 dBA re 20 mPa at a range of 15 m Pile driving for ELCAS training would the HSTT DEIS/OEIS. (Illingworth and Rodkin, 2016). During occur in shallower water, and sound The near-instantaneous rise from vibratory extraction, the three aspects could be transmitted on direct paths ambient to an extremely high peak that generate airborne noise are the through the water, be reflected at the pressure is what makes an explosive crane, the power plant, and the water surface or bottom, or travel shock wave potentially damaging. vibratory extractor. The average sound through bottom substrate. Soft level recorded in air during vibratory Farther from an explosive, the peak substrates such as sand bottom at the pressures decay and the explosive extraction was about 85 dBA re 20 mPa proposed ELCAS locations would waves propagate as an impulsive, (94 dB re 20 mPa) within a range of 10– absorb or attenuate the sound more broadband sound. Several parameters 15 m (Illingworth and Rodkin, 2015). readily than hard substrates (rock), which may reflect the acoustic wave. influence the effect of an explosive: The The size of the pier and number of weight of the explosive warhead, the piles used in an ELCAS event is Most acoustic energy would be type of explosive material, the approximately 1,520 ft long, requiring concentrated below 1,000 hertz (Hz) boundaries and characteristics of the 119 supporting piles. Construction of (Hildebrand, 2009). propagation medium, and, in water, the the ELCAS would involve intermittent Explosive Stressors impact pile driving over approximately detonation depth. The net explosive 20 days. Crews work 24 hours (hrs) a This section describes the weight, the explosive power of a charge day and would drive approximately 6 characteristics of explosions during expressed as the equivalent weight of piles in that period. Each pile takes naval training and testing. The activities trinitrotoluene (TNT), accounts for the about 15 minutes to drive with time analyzed in the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA first two parameters. The effects of these taken between piles to reposition the application that use explosives are factors are explained in Appendix D driver. When training events that use described in Appendix A (Navy Activity (Acoustic and Explosive Concepts) of the ELCAS are complete, the structure Descriptions) of the HSTT DEIS/OEIS. the HSTT DEIS/OEIS.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29880 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

Explosions in Water torpedoes and explosive sonobuoys by the Navy during training and testing could occur in the water column; mines that could detonate in water or at the Explosive detonations during training and demolition charges could be water surface, explosive classification and testing activities are associated with detonated in the water column or on the bins were developed. The use of high-explosive munitions, including, ocean bottom. Most detonations would explosive classification bins provides but not limited to, bombs, missiles, occur in waters greater than 200 ft in the same benefits as described for rockets, naval gun shells, torpedoes, depth, and greater than 3 nmi from acoustic source classification bins in mines, demolition charges, and shore, although most mine warfare, Section 1.4.1 (Acoustic Stressors) of the explosive sonobuoys. Explosive demolition, and some testing Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application. detonations during training and testing detonations would occur in shallow involving the use of high-explosive water close to shore. Those that occur Explosives detonated in water are munitions (including bombs, missiles, close to shore are typically conducted binned by net explosive weight. The and naval gun shells), could occur in on designated ranges. bins of explosives that are proposed for the air or at the water’s surface. In order to better organize and use in the Study Area are shown in Explosive detonations associated with facilitate the analysis of explosives used Table 3 below.

TABLE 3—EXPLOSIVES ANALYZED

Net explosive weight 1 Bin (lb) Example explosive source

E1 ...... 0.1–0.25 ...... Medium-caliber projectile. E2 ...... >0.25–0.5 ...... Medium-caliber projectile. E3 ...... >0.5–2.5 ...... Large-caliber projectile. E4 ...... >2.5–5 ...... Mine neutralization charge. E5 ...... >5–10 ...... 5-inch projectile. E6 ...... >10–20 ...... Hellfire missile. E7 ...... >20–60 ...... Demo block/shaped charge. E8 ...... >60–100 ...... Light-weight torpedo. E9 ...... >100–250 ...... 500 lb. bomb. E10 ...... >250–500 ...... Harpoon missile. E11 ...... >500–650 ...... 650 lb. mine. E12 ...... >650–1,000 ...... 2,000 lb. bomb. E13 2 ...... >1,000–1,740 ...... Mat weave. 1 Net Explosive Weight refers to the equivalent amount of TNT. 2 E13 is not modeled for protected species impacts in water because most energy is lost into the air or to the bottom substrate due to detonation in very shallow water. In addition, activities are confined to small cove without regular marine mammal occurrence. These are not single charges, but multiple smaller charges detonated simultaneously or within a short time period.

Propagation of explosive pressure missile) detonates, fragments of the Other Stressor—Vessel Strike waves in water is highly dependent on weapon are thrown at high-velocity environmental characteristics such as from the detonation point, which can There is a very small chance that a bathymetry, bottom type, water depth, injure or kill marine mammals if they vessel utilized in training or testing temperature, and salinity, which affect are struck. These fragments may be of activities could strike a large whale. Vessel strikes have the potential to how the pressure waves are reflected, variable size and are ejected at result in incidental take from serious refracted, or scattered; the potential for supersonic speed from the detonation. injury and/or mortality. Vessel strikes reverberation; and interference due to The casing fragments will be ejected at multi-path propagation. In addition, are not specific to any particular velocities much greater than debris from training or testing activity, but rather a absorption greatly affects the distance any target due to the proximity of the over which higher frequency limited, sporadic, and incidental result casing to the explosive material. Risk of components of explosive broadband of Navy vessel movement within the fragment injury reduces exponentially noise can propagate. Appendix D Study Area. Vessel strikes from (Acoustic and Explosive Concepts) of with distance as the fragment density is commercial, recreational, and military the HSTT DEIS/OEIS explains the reduced. Fragments underwater tend to vessels are known to seriously injure characteristics of explosive detonations be larger than fragments produced by in- and occasionally kill cetaceans and how the above factors affect the air explosions (Swisdak and Montaro, (Abramson et al., 2011; Berman- propagation of explosive energy in the 1992). Underwater, the friction of the Kowalewski et al., 2010; Calambokidis, water. Because of the complexity of water would quickly slow these 2012; Douglas et al., 2008; Laggner, analyzing sound propagation in the fragments to a point where they no 2009; Lammers et al., 2003; Van der ocean environment, the Navy relies on longer pose a threat. Opposingly, the Hoop et al., 2012; Van der Hoop et al., acoustic models in its environmental blast wave from an explosive detonation 2013), although reviews of the literature analyses that consider sound source moves efficiently through the seawater. on ship strikes mainly involve collisions characteristics and varying ocean Because the ranges to mortality and between commercial vessels and whales conditions across the HSTT Study Area. injury due to exposure to the blast wave (Jensen and Silber, 2003; Laist et al., 2001). Vessel speed, size, and mass are Explosive Fragments are likely to far exceed the zone where fragments could injure or kill an animal, all important factors in determining Marine mammals could be exposed to the threshold are assumed to encompass potential impacts of a vessel strike to fragments from underwater explosions risk due to fragmentation. marine mammals (Conn and Silber, associated with the specified activities. 2013; Gende et al., 2011; Silber et al., When explosive ordnance (e.g., bomb or 2010; Vanderlaan and Taggart, 2007;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29881

Wiley et al., 2016). For large vessels, operations must adjust its speed through of the amount of hull-mounted mid- speed and angle of approach can the water accordingly. Also, there are frequency active sonar estimated to be influence the severity of a strike. The other instances such as launch and necessary to meet training requirements. average speed of large Navy ships ranges recovery of a small rigid hull inflatable It also means that the Navy is requesting between 10 and 15 knots (kn) and boat; vessel boarding, search, and fewer hours of hull-mounted mid- submarines generally operate at speeds seizure training events; or retrieval of a frequency active sonar. Both unit-level in the range of 8–13 kn, while a few target when vessels would be dead in training and major training exercises specialized vessels can travel at faster the water or moving slowly ahead to have been adjusted to meet this speeds. By comparison, this is slower maintain steerage. There are a few representative year, as discussed below. than most commercial vessels where specific events, including high-speed For the purposes of the Navy’s full speed for a container ship is tests of newly constructed vessels, rulemaking/LOA application, the Navy typically 24 kn (Bonney and Leach, where vessels would operate at higher assumes that some unit-level training 2010). Additional information on Navy speeds. would be conducted using synthetic vessel movements is provided in the Large Navy vessels (greater than 18 m means (e.g., simulators). Additionally, Specified Activities section. in length) within the offshore areas of the Specified Activities analysis The Center for Naval Analysis range complexes and testing ranges assumes that some unit-level active conducted studies to determine traffic operate differently from commercial sonar training will be accounted for patterns of Navy and non-Navy vessels vessels in ways that may reduce during the conduct of coordinated and in the HSTT Study Area (Mintz, 2016; potential whale collisions. Surface ships major training exercises. Mintz and Filadelfo, 2011; Mintz, 2012; operated by or for the Navy have The Optimized Fleet Response Plan Mintz and Parker, 2006). The most multiple personnel assigned to stand and various training plans identify the recent analysis covered the 5-year watch at all times, when a ship or number and duration of training cycles period from 2011 to 2015 for vessels surfaced submarine is moving through that could occur over a five-year period. over 65 ft in length (Mintz, 2016). the water (underway). A primary duty of The Specified Activities considers Categories of vessels included in the personnel standing watch on surface fluctuations in training cycles and study were U.S. Navy surface ship ships is to detect and report all objects deployment schedules that do not traffic and non-military civilian traffic and disturbances sighted in the water follow a traditional annual calendar but such as cargo vessels, bulk carriers, that may indicate a threat to the vessel instead are influenced by in-theater commercial fishing vessels, oil tankers, and its crew, such as debris, a demands and other external factors. passenger vessels, tugs, and research periscope, surfaced submarine, or Similar to unit-level training, the vessels (Mintz, 2016). In the Hawaii surface disturbance. Per vessel safety Specified Activities does not analyze a Range Complex, civilian commercial requirements, personnel standing watch maximum number carrier strike group shipping comprised 89 percent of total also report any marine mammals sighted Composite Training Unit Exercises (one vessel traffic while Navy ship traffic in the path of the vessel as a standard type of major exercise) every year, but accounted for eight percent (Mintz, collision avoidance procedure. All instead assumes a maximum number of 2016). In the Southern California Range vessels proceed at a safe speed so they exercises would occur during two years Complex civilian commercial shipping can take proper and effective action to of any five-year period and that a lower comprised 96 percent of total vessel avoid a collision with any sighted object number of exercises would occur in the traffic while Navy ship traffic accounted or disturbance, and can be stopped other 3 years (described in Estimate for four percent (Mintz, 2016). within a distance appropriate to the Take section). Navy ships transit at speeds that are prevailing circumstances and The training activities that the Navy optimal for fuel conservation or to meet conditions. proposes to conduct in the HSTT Study training and testing requirements. Small Specified Activities Area are summarized in Table 4. The craft (for purposes of this analysis, less table is organized according to primary than 18 m in length) have much more Proposed Training Activities mission areas and includes the activity variable speeds (0–50+ kn, dependent The Navy’s Specified Activities are name, associated stressors applicable to on the activity). Submarines generally presented and analyzed as a the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application, operate at speeds in the range of 8–13 representative year of training to description of the activity, sound source kn. While these speeds are considered account for the natural fluctuation of bin, the locations of those activities in averages and representative of most training cycles and deployment the HSTT Study Area, and the number events, some vessels need to operate schedules that generally influences the of Specified Activities. For further outside of these parameters for certain actual level of training that occurs year information regarding the primary times or during certain activities. For after year in any five-year period. Using platform used (e.g., ship or aircraft type) example, to produce the required a representative level of activity rather see Appendix A (Navy Activity relative wind speed over the flight deck, than a maximum tempo of training Descriptions) of the HSTT DEIS/OEIS. an aircraft carrier engaged in flight activity in every year is more reflective BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29882 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

Table 4. Proposed Training Activities Analyzed within the HSTT Study Area.

1}/ajvr T:rJd~ing E±erei$es::...£argelntegrntedAnti-Sub~(lrinrt Warfare

ASW1, ASW2, ASW3, Aircraft carrier and ASW4, carrier air wing integrates ASW5, with surface and HF1, Composite Training submarine units in a Acoustic LF6, SO CAL 2-3 12 21 days Unit Exercise1 challenging multi-threat MF1, operational environment MF3, that certifies them ready MF4, to deploy. MF5, MF11, MF12

A biennial multinational training exercise in which navies from Pacific Rim HRC 0-1 2 nations and others assemble in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, to conduct training throughout the Hawaiian Islands in a ASW2, number of warfare areas. ASW3, Marine mammal systems ASW4, may be used during a HF1, Rim of the Pacific HF3, Rim of the Pacific exercise. Components of Acoustic HF4,M3, 30 days Exercise1 a Rim of the Pacific MF1, exercise, such as certain MF3, mine warfare and MF4, SO CAL 0-1 2 amphibious training, may MF5, be conducted in the MFll Southern California Range Complex.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.071 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29883

. · ..·.· •· .· Medium .. .·• > M4Jor,; TrainingE~erdses·.-:- 1ntt?:grtfiellAntj,..~ubm£Jii~e•1f4r/lll'f .; ···.·. . ... · . Aircraft carrier and ASWl, HRC 1 3 carrier air wing integrates ASW2, with surface and ASW3, submarine units in a ASW4, challenging multi-threat HFl, Fleet operational environment LF6, Up to 10 Acoustic Exercise/Sustainment to maintain ability to MFl, days Exercise1 deploy. MF3, SO CAL 5 22 MF4, MF5, MFll, MF12

Elements of the anti- ASW3, submarine warfare ASW4, tracking exercise HFl, combine in this exercise LF6, Undersea Warfare of multiple air, surface, MFl, Acoustic HRC 3 12 4 days Exercise and subsurface units, over MF3, a period of several days. MF4, Sonobuoys are released MF5, from aircraft. Active and MFll, passive sonar used. MF12 J ... .··.· : .[niepflted!Coordltt(lteaTraining ~·~maU 1ntegrated'A~Su!JinflrUtf!. ~arfare. Tr{ifning ...... ·.··.

Multiple ships, aircraft, ASW3, HRC 1 2 Navy Undersea and submarines integrate ASW4, W arfarc Training and the usc of their sensors to HFl, Assessment Course search for, detect, Acoustic MFl, 2-5 days Surface Warfare classify, localize, and MF3, Advanced Tactical track a threat submarine SO CAL 2-3 12 MF4, Training in order to launch an MF5 exercise torpedo. y> . . •. ~n,tt:gril!ed(Cvor:~m:tlled Tra,i~fng'7C Medlu~ Coqrdmflted An,ti-SubtnftPineWarj'cwt.; T~ainEntr ...... · ·. .· . ... . ·. . :.. ·• . .' .•.. . :· ·.···. ·.· .·· ...··• ...... ASW3, HRC 2 10 ASW4, Train prospective HFl, submarine Commanding MFl, Submarine Acoustic Officers to operate MF3, 2-3 days Commanders Course against surface, air, and MF4, SO CAL 2 2 subsurface threats. MF5, TORPl, TORP2

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.072 29884 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

,; .· JntegrotedJC(}iJr(/i~tateil 'rrainifrg; ... $11Utll (;~ordi~"atifd A~tf-Submarine Warfare '}'rain~g ' ·· · .· ·.·.•·. Amphibious Ready Group/Marine ASW2, HRC 2 10 Expeditionary Unit ASW3, Exercise ASW4, Small-scale, short Group Sail HFl, 2-3 day duration, coordinated Acoustic Independent MFl, anti-submarine Deployer MF3, s warfare exercises Certification MF4, SO CAL 10-14 58 Exercise/Tailored MF5, Anti -Submarine MFll Warfare Training

.·.· . . . ·· .. ··· . .··. A11fl?hibi(Jfl,~ Warjari! ·.···· ...... •.·· .. .··.· ; · .. ... · .·· ·· . .··· .. .····· .. · Surface ship uses large-caliber gun to support forces ashore; Large- however, land target Naval Surface Fire caliber simulated at sea. HRC Explosive Support Exercise - HE 15 75 8 hours Rounds impact water (Wl88) at Sea rounds and are scored by (E5) passive acoustic hydrophones located at or near target area.

ASWl, Navy and Marine LF6, Amphibious Corps forces conduct MFl, Marine advanced integration Acoustic MF3, SO CAL 2-3 12 5-7 days Expeditionary Unit training in preparation MFll, Exercise for deployment MF12, certification. HFl

Navy and Marine Amphibious Corps forces conduct Marine integration training at Up to 21 Acoustic Expeditionary Unit None SO CAL 2-3 12 sea in preparation for days Integration deployment Exercise certification.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.073 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29885

Amphibious Ready Group exercises arc conducted to validate the Marine ASW2, Expeditionary Unit's ASW3, Marine readiness for ASW4, Expeditionary Unit deployment and HFl, Up to 21 Acoustic Composite includes small boat MFl, SO CAL 2-3 12 days Training Unit raids; visit, board, MF3, Exercise search, and seizure MF4, training; helicopter MF5, and mechanized MFll amphibious raids; and a non-combatant evacuation operation. • > . ·.• ...... A 'S b ; Wi :p··· ••• .··· ·...... ·.· .. · n_tr.-. .Jt 11t«nne > {l" arf!_ .·.·. ... ·.·.·. ·.· . .. •· •. < .· ... ·.. · ·..· .. · . ·. . .. .

Helicopter crews HRC 6 30 search for, track, and Anti -Submarine detect submarines. MF4, Warfare Torpedo Acoustic Recoverable air MF5, 2-5 hours Exercise- launched torpedoes are TORPl SO CAL 104 520 Helicopter employed against submarine targets.

Maritime patrol HRC 10 50 aircraft crews search Anti -Submarine for, track, and detect Warfare Torpedo submarines. MF5, Acoustic Exercise- 2-8 hours Recoverable air TORPl Maritime Patrol launched torpedoes are SO CAL 25 125 Aircraft employed against submarine targets.

Surface ship crews HRC 50 250 Anti -Submarine search for, track, and ASW3, Acoustic Warfare Torpedo detect submarines. MFl, 2-5 hours Exercise - Ship Exercise torpedoes are TORPl SO CAL 117 585 used during this event.

Anti -Submarine Submarine crews HRC 48 240 ASW4, Warfare Torpedo search for, track, and HFl, Acoustic Exercise- detect submarines. 8 hours MF3, Submarine Exercise torpedoes are SO CAL 13 65 TORP2 used during this event.

Anti -Submarine Helicopter crews HRC 159 795 Warfare Tracking search for, track, and MF4, Acoustic SOCAL, 2-4 hours Exercise- detect submarines. MF5 524 2,620 PMSR

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.074 29886 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

Helicopter HSTT Transit 6 30 Corridor

Anti -Submarine Maritime patrol HRC 32 160 Warfare Tracking aircraft aircrews Exercise- search for, track, and Maritime Patrol detect submarines. Acoustic MF5 SOCAL, 2-8 hours Aircraft Recoverable air 56 280 launched torpedoes are PMSR employed against submarine targets.

Anti -Submarine Surface ship crews ASW3, HRC 224 1,120 Warfare Tracking search for, track, and MFl, Acoustic SOCAL, 2-4 hours Exercise - Ship detect submarines. MFll, 423 2,115 MF12 PMSR

HRC 200 1,000

Anti -Submarine SOCAL, Submarine crews ASW4, 50 250 Warfare Tracking PMSR Acoustic search for, track, and HFl, 8 hours Exercise- detect submarines. HF3,MF3 HSTT Submarine Transit 7 35 Corridor

HFl, HRC 2 10 Air, surface, or MF3, submarine crews MF6, Explosive, Service Weapons employ explosive TORP2, 8 hours Acoustic Test torpedoes against Explosive SO CAL 1 5 virtual targets. torpedoes (Ell) \ ...... · . . .• ...... · •· . .. .: .. · M.ir:e Walfare> .·· ·.· ·. .. · ·. . .· i .· ·• .··· ...... Helicopter aircrews Airborne Mine detect mines using Acoustic Countermeasure - HF4 SO CAL 10 50 2 hours towed or laser mine Mine Detection detection systems.

Civilian Port Pearl Maritime security Defense- Harbor, 1 5 personnel train to Homeland Security HF4, HI Explosive, protect civilian ports Multiple Anti- SAS2 Acoustic against enemy efforts days Terrorism/Force E2,E4 San to interfere with access Protection Diego, 1-3 12 to those ports. Exercises CA

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.075 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29887

The Navy deploys HRC 10 50 trained bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and California sea lions Marine Mammal Explosive (Zalophus E7 Varies Systems californianus) as part SO CAL 175 875 of the marine mammal mine-hunting and object -recovery system.

Ship crews detect and HRC 30 150 Mine avoid mines while HF4, Countermeasure Up to 15 Acoustic navigating restricted HF8, Exercise - Ship hours areas or channels MF1K SO CAL 92 460 Sonar using active sonar.

Mine countermeasure ship crews detect, locate, identify, and Mine avoid mines while Up to 15 Acoustic Countermeasure HF4 SO CAL 266 1,330 navigating restricted hours Exercise - Surface areas or channels, such as while entering or leaving port.

Mine Ship, small boat, and HRC 6 30 Countermeasures helicopter crews locate Explosive, Mine and disable mines 1.5 to 4 HF4, E4 Acoustic Neutralization using remotely hours SO CAL 372 1,860 Remotely Operated operated underwater Vehicle vehicles.

HRC 20 100 (Puuloa) Mine Personnel disable SO CAL Neutralization E4,E5, Up to 4 Explosive threat mines using (IB, TAR Explosive E6,E7 2, TAR 3, hours explosive charges. 194 970 Ordnance Disposal TAR21, SWAT3, SOAR)

Submarine crews HRC 40 200 Submarine Mine practice detecting Acoustic HF1 6 hours Exercise mines in a designated SO CAL 12 60 area.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.076 29888 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

Ship crews detect and HRC 42 210 avoid mines while Surface Ship MFlK, Up to 15 Acoustic navigating restricted Object Detection HF8 hours areas or channels SO CAL 164 820 using active sonar.

Military personnel use Underwater explosive charges to Demolitions SO CAL destroy barriers or Explosive Multiple Charge - E10, El3 (TAR2, 18 90 4 hours obstacles to Mat Weave and TAR3) amphibious vehicle Obstacle Loading access to beach areas.

Navy divers conduct HRC 25 125 Underwater various levels of (Puuloa) Demolition training and Explosive E6,E7 Varies Qualification and certification in placing SO CAL 120 600 Certification underwater demolition (TAR 2) charges. " ' • • . . < ·, ·...... ·..... ·' .· Surface Warfar.e ..·. . · .. . < i • •. ••• . ·. .·· HRC 187 935

Fixed-wing aircrews SO CAL 640 3,200 Bombing Exercise Explosive deliver bombs against El22 1 hour Air-to-Surface HSTT surface targets. Transit 5 25 Corridor

Gunnery Exercise HRC 10 50 Small boat crews fire Surface-to-Surface Explosive medium-caliber guns El,E2 1 hour Boat Medium- at surface targets. SO CAL 14 70 Caliber

HRC 32 160

Gunnery Exercise Surface ship crews fire SO CAL 200 1,000 Up to 3 Explosive Surface-to-Surface large-caliber guns at E5 HSTT hours Ship Large-caliber surface targets. Transit 13 65 Corridor

HRC 50 250 Gunnery Exercise Surface ship crews fire SO CAL 180 900 Surface-to-Surface Explosive medium-caliber guns El,E2 2-3 hours Ship Medium- HSTT at surface targets. Caliber Transit 40 200 Corridor

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.077 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29889

Multiple ships, aircraft and submarines conduct integrated Independent multi-warfare training Deployer with a surface warfare Explosive, Certification emphasis. Serves as a El, E3, SO CAL 1 5 15 days Acoustic Exercise/Tailored ready -to-deploy E6, E10 Surface Warfare certification for Training individual surface ships tasked with surface warfare missions.

Naval Forces defend HRC 1 5 against a swarm of (Wl88A) surface threats (ships Integrated Live or small boats) with El, E3, Explosive 6-8 hours Fire Exercise bombs, missiles, E6, E10 SO CAL 1 5 rockets, and small-, (SOAR) medium- and large- caliber guns.

Fixed-wing and HRC 10 50 helicopter aircrews Missile Exercise E6,E8, Explosive fire air-to-surface 1 hour Air-to-Surface E10 missiles at surface SO CAL 210 1,050 targets.

Helicopter aircrews HRC 227 1,135 Missile Exercise fire both precision- Explosive Air-to-Surface guided and unguided E3 1 hour Rocket rockets at surface SO CAL 246 1,230 targets.

Surface ship crews HRC 20 100 defend against surface (Wl88) Missile Exercise Explosive threats (ships or small E6, E10 2-5 hours Surface-to-Surface SO CAL boats) and engage 10 50 them with missiles. (W291)

Explosive, Aircraft, ship, and TORP2, 4-8 hours, Sinking Exercise HRC 1-3 7 Acoustic submarine crews E5, E10, over 1-2

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.078 29890 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

deliberately sink a El2 days seaborne target, usually a decommissioned ship made environmentally safe for sinking SO CAL 0-1 1 according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards, with a variety of munitions.

A pier is constructed off of the beach. Piles are driven into the Impact bottom with an impact hanuuer Elevated Causeway Up to 30 Pile driving hammer. Piles are or SO CAL 2 10 System days removed from seabed vibratory via vibratory extractor. extractor Only in-water impacts are analyzed.

Functional check of HRC 60 300 the dipping sonar prior Acoustic Kilo Dip to conducting a full MF4 1.5 hours test or training event SO CAL 2,400 12,000 on the dipping sonar.

Submarine crews Pearl operate sonar for Harbor, 220 1,100 Submarine navigation and object HI Up to 2 Acoustic Navigation detection while HFl, MF3 hours Exercise transiting into and out San of port during reduced Diego 80 400 visibility. Bay, CA

HRC 260 1,300

Pearl Harbor, 260 1,300 HI Maintenance of Submarine Sonar SO CAL 93 465 submarine sonar Up to 1 Acoustic Maintenance and MF3 systems is conducted San hour Systems Checks pierside or at sea. Diego 92 460 Bay, CA

HSTT Transit 10 50 Corridor

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.079 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29891

Submarine crews train HRC 12 60 to operate under ice. Submarine Under Ice conditions are Acoustic HFl 5 days Ice Certification simulated during SO CAL 6 30 training and certification events.

HRC 75 375

Pearl Harbor, 80 400 HI Maintenance of Surface Ship Sonar SO CAL 250 1,250 surface ship sonar Up to 4 Acoustic Maintenance and HF8,MF1 systems is conducted San hours Systems Checks pierside or at sea. Diego, 250 1,250 CA

HSTT Transit 8 40 Corridor

Unmanned underwater vehicle certification HRC 25 125 involves training with unmanned platforms to ensure submarine Unmanned crew proficiency. Underwater Tactical development FLS2, Acoustic Vehicle Training - involves training with 2 days M3, SAS2 Certification and various payloads for Development multiple purposes to SO CAL 10 50 ensure that the systems can be employed effectively in an operational environment...... Notes: HRC ~ Hawau Range Complex, SOCAL ~Southern Cahfornm Range Complex, HSTT ~ Hawau-Southern Cahfornm Trammg and Testing, PMRF ~ Pacific Missile Range Facility, BARSTUR ~ Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range, BSURE ~ Barking Sands Underwater Range Expansion, PMSR ~Point Mugu Sea Range Overlap, TAR~ Training Area and Range, SOAR~ Southern California Anti-Submarine Warfare Range, IB ~Imperial Beach Minefield I. 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 with exact bins NEW.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.080 29892 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

Proposed Testing Activities those conducted currently or in the past. activity, sound source bin, the areas Testing activities covered in the The Specified Activities includes the where the activity is conducted, and the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application are testing of some new systems using new number of activities per year and per described in Table 5 through Table 8. technologies and takes into account five years. Not all sound sources are The five-year Specified Activities inherent uncertainties in this type of used with each activity. Under the presented here is based on the level of testing. ‘‘Annual # of Activities’’ column, testing activities anticipated to be Under the Specified Activities, the activities show either a single number or conducted into the reasonably Navy proposes a range of annual levels a range of numbers to indicate the foreseeable future, with adjustments of testing that reflects the fluctuations in number of times that activity could that account for changes in the types testing programs by recognizing that the occur during any single year. The ‘‘5- and tempo (increases or decreases) of maximum level of testing will not be Year # of Activities’’ is the maximum testing activities to meet current and conducted each year, but further times an activity would occur over the future military readiness requirements. indicates a five-year maximum for each 5-year period of this request. More The Specified Activities includes the activity that will not be exceeded. The detailed activity descriptions can be testing of new platforms, systems, and Specified Activities contains a more found in the HSTT DEIS/OEIS. related equipment that will be realistic annual representation of Naval Air Systems Command introduced after December 2018 and activities, but includes years of a higher during the period of the rule. The maximum amount of testing to account Table 5 summarizes the proposed majority of testing activities that would for these fluctuations. testing activities for the Naval Air be conducted under the Specified The tables include the activity name, Systems Command analyzed within the Activities are the same or similar as associated stressor(s), description of the HSTT Study Area.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29893

Table 5. Proposed Naval Air Systems Command Testing Activities Analyzed within the HSTT Study Area.

Tins event is sinrilar to the training event torpedo exercise. Test eva Inates HRC 17-22 95 Anti-Submarine anti-submarine warfare systems Acoustic Warfare Torpedo onboard rotary-wing and fixed-wing MF5, TORPl 2-6 hrs Test aircraft and the ability to search for, detect, classify, localize, track, and SOCAL 35-71 247 attack a submarine or similar target. This event is similar to the training MF4, MF5, E3 event anti-submarine tracking exercise -helicopter. The test Anti-Submarine Explosive, evaluates the sensors and systems Warfare Tracking SOCAL 30-132 252 2 hrs Acoustic used to detect and track submarines Test- Helicopter and to ensure that helicopter systems used to deploy the tracking systems perform to specifications.

The test evaluates the sensors and systems used by maritime patrol HRC 54-61 284 Anti-Submarine aircraft to detect and track submarines ASW2, ASW5, Explosive, Warfare Tracking and to ensure tl1at aircraft systems MF5, MF6, El, 4-6 hrs Acoustic Test- Maritime used to deploy the tracking systems E3 Patrol Aircraft perform to specifications and meet SOCAL 58-68 310 operational requirements. Sonobuoys are deployed from surface vessels and aircraft to verify the ASW2, ASW5, Explosive, Sonobuoy Lot integrity and performance of a lot or HF5, HF6, LF4, SOCAL 160 800 6 hrs Acoustic Acceptance Test group of sonobuoys in advance of MF5, MF6, El, delivery to the fleet for operational E3,E4 use.

A nrine-hunting dipping sonar system Airborne Dipping that is deployed from a helicopter and Acoustic Sonar Minehunting uses high-frequency sonar for the HF4 SOCAL 0-12 12 2 hrs Test detection and classification of bottom and moored nrines.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.081 29894 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

A lest of the airbome urine neutralization system that evaluates the system's ability to detect and destroy urines from an airbome urine Airborne Mine countermeasures capable helicopter Ex'J)losive Neutralization (e.g., MH-60). The airbome urine E4 SOCAL 11-31 75 2.5 hrs System Test neutralization system uses up to four umnmmed underwater velricles equipped with high-frequency sonar, video cameras, and explosive and non-explosive neutralizers.

A urine-hunting system made up of sonobuoys deployed from a Airbome Sonobuoy helicopter. A field of sonobuoys, Acoustic HF6 SOCAL 1-9 21 2 hrs Minehunting Test using high-frequency sonar, is used for detection and classification of bottom and moored nrines . ,, .. ·.· ... · :'•. ·.. ··.·. .• ··. :< •••• •••••• ••• Tins event is siurilar to the training event bombing exercise air-to-surface. HRC 8 40 Fixed-wing aircraft lest U1e delivery of bombs against surface maritime Air-to-Surface targets with the goal of evaluating the E9 2 hrs Bombing Test bomb, U1e bomb carry and delivery system, and any associated systems SOCAL 14 70 that may have been newly developed or enhanced.

Tins event is similar to the trai1nng event gunnery exercise air-to-surface. Fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircrews HRC 5 25 evaluate new or enhanced aircraft Air-to-Surface guns against surface maritime targets El 2-2.5 hrs Gunnery Test to test that the gun, gun annnunition. or associated systems meet required specifications or to train aircrew in the SOCAL 30-60 240 operation of a new or enhanced weapons system.

Tins event is siurilar to the training event urissilc exercise air-to-surface. HRC 18 90 Test may involve both fixed-wing and Air-to-Surface rotary-wing aircraft launclnng E6. E9, ElO 2-4 hrs Missile Test missiles at surface maritime targets to evaluate the weapons system or as SOCAL 48-60 276 part of another systems integration test.

Rocket tests arc conducted to evaluate 1.5-2.5 Explosive Rocket Test E3 HRC 2 lO the integration, accuracy, lrrs

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.082 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29895

perfonnance, and safe separation of guided and unguided 2.75-inch rockets fired from a hovering or SOCAL 18-22 102 forward flying helicopter or tilt rotor aircraft. ;·· . . ... ·· ....• . · ..... : .·.•...... , : . .·.•· ·.· :. . : •• ·o~{t~r 1'eStint:Adiw~es• ...... ······· ; . ._ ...... :- ·· ...... • •••• . . ' ...... •. . Fuuctional check of a helicopter ·" deployed dipping sonar system (e.g., Acoustic Kilo Dip AN/AQS-22) prior to conducting a l\1F4 SOCAL 0-6 6 1.5 hrs testing or training event using the dipping sonar system Undersea Range Post installation node survey and test Acoustic System Test and periodic testing of range Node l\1F9 HRC 11-28 90 8 hrs transrnit functionality.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.083 29896 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

Table 6 summarizes the proposed Systems Command analyzed within the testing activities for the Naval Sea HSTT Study Area.

Table 6. Proposed Naval Sea Systems Command Testing Activities Analyzed within the HSTT Study Area.

Ships and their supporting ASWl, HRC 22 110 platforms (e.g., rotary-wing aircraft ASW2. Anti-Submarine 4-8 hrs per and mnnanncd aerial systems) ASW3. Acoustic Warfare Mission day over 1- detect, localize, and prosecute ASW5,MF1, Package Testing 2 weeks submarines. MF4,MF5, SO CAL 23 115 MF12, TORPl At -sea testing to ensure systems are ASW3, HRC 16 78 fully functional in an open ocean ASW4, HFI, enviromnent. LF4, LF5, M3, HRC- At-Sea Sonar 5 4 hrs-11 Acoustic MF1,MF1K, SOCAL Testing days MF2,MF3, MF5,MF9, SO CAL 20-21 99 MF10,MF11

Countermeasure testing involves HRC 8 40 the testing of systems that will HRC- detect localize, and track incoming 4 20 weapons, including marine vessel ASW3. SO CAL Countermeasure ASW4.HF5, 4 hrs-6 Acoustic targets. Testing includes surface Testing TORPl, SO CAL ll 55 days ship torpedo defense systems and TORP2 marine vessel stopping payloads. HSTT Transit 2 10 Corridor Pierside testing to ensure systems Pearl are fully functional in a controlled HFl. HF3, Harbor, 7 35 Up to 3 Pierside Sonar pierside environment prior to at-sea HF8,M3, HI weeks, Acoustic test activities. Testing MFI,MF:1, San intermittent MF9 Diego, 7 35 sonar use CA Pierside and at-sea testing of HRC 4 20 submarine systems occurs Pearl periodically following major Up to 3 Harbor, 17 85 Submarine Sonar maintenance periods and for routine HFl, HF3, weeks, Acoustic HI Testing/Maintenance maintenance. M3,MF3 intermittent San sonar use Diego, 24 120 CA

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.084 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29897

Picrsidc and at-sea testing of ship HRC 3 15 systems occurs periodically following major maintenance Pearl periods and for routine Harbor, 3 15 Up to 3 ASW3,MF1, Surface Ship Sonar maintenance. HI weeks, Acoustic MF1KMF9, Testing/Maintenance intermittent MFlO San Diego, 3 15 sonar use CA

SO CAL 3 15

Air, surface, or submarine crews ASW3,HF1, HRC 8 40 employ explosive and non- HF5, HF6, explosive torpedoes against MF1,MF:1, HRC 1-2 days, Explosive, Torpedo (Explosive) 3 15 artificial targets. MF4,MF5, SO CAL daylight Acoustic Testing MF6, TORP1, hours only TORP2, E8, SO CAL 8 40 Ell

Air, surface, or submarine crews ASW3. HRC 8 40 employ non-e:xvlosive torpedoes ASW4,HF1, HRC against submarines or surface HF6,M3, 9 45 Torpedo (Non- vessels. MF1,MF3, SO CAL Up to 2 Acoustic Explosive) Testing MF4,MF5, weeks MF6, TORPL TORP2, SO CAL 8 40 TORP3 . .. .· ... .·.· .. ; •.••..• <·. .Mme. JyiD'fari .·. . ·.> .•• . < • ·.· ...... ·. <, ... ···.· .. • ·. : . .·. . . .. y ··•••·· .•·· ·.··' . <.· ·•·< Mine 1-10 days, Air, surface, and subsurface vessels Explosive, Countermeasure and intermittent neutralize threat mines and mine- HF4, E4 SO CAL 11 55 Acoustic Neutralization use of like objects. Testing systems

Mine Vessels and associated aircraft HRC 19 80 1-2 weeks, Explosive, Countermeasure conduct urine comrterrneasure HF4. SAS2. interrnillent Acoustic Mission Package operations. E4 SO CAL 58 290 use of Testing systems

Air, surface, and subsurface vessels HRC 2 10 Up to 24 and systems detect and classify and Mine Detection and days, up to avoid mines and mine-like objects. HFl, HF8, HRC Acoustic Classification 2 6 12 hrs Vessels also assess their potential MFl,MF5 SO CAL Testing acoustic susceptibility to mines and mine- daily like objects. SO CAL 11 55 . .. ·;· .. ·...... ·.. · .. · . ~' ; . . . ..·· .·.• .· · .··•··· . .. · ..•..... $nrfoceJEt.tr{a~e \ ·•.·· ... ,· ·.·••• . < ..• ••.•• . ..: .. ..;' ' •: : Surface crews test large-caliber HRC 7 35 gtms to defend against surface Gun Testing - HRC- Explosive targets. E3 72 360 1-2 weeks Large-Caliber SO CAL

SO CAL 7 35

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.085 29898 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

Surface crews test mcdimn-calibcr HRC 4 20 guns to defend against surface Gun Testing - HRC- Explosive targets. El 48 240 l-2 weeks Medium-Caliber SO CAL

SO CAL 4 20

Missile and rocket testing includes HRC 13 65 various missiles or rockets fired Missile and Rocket from submarines and surface HRC- 1 day-2 Explosive Eo 24 120 Testing combatants. Testing of the SO CAL weeks launching system and ship defense is performed. SO CAL 20 100 ...... ·..... ' llnmimneiJ8_vitems ·..•.· .·. .' ...... ·: :: ·. . > .'' ····.· .. · ...... •.....· ·.······· ..· . Testing involves the production or ···.·· upgrade of unmanned surface HRC 3 15 Umnanned Surface vehicles. This may include tests of Up to 10 Acoustic Vehicle System urine detection capabilities, HF4, SAS2 days Testing evaluations of the basic functions of SO CAL 4 20 individual platfonns, or complex events with multiple vehicles.

Testing involves the production or upgrade of unmmmed underwater HRC 3 15 Unmanned vehicles. This may include tests of Up to 35 Acoustic Underwater Vehicle urine detection capabilities. HF4.MF9 days Testing evaluations of the basic functions of SO CAL 291 1,455 individual platforms, or complex events with multiple vehicles. . ·... • Pessi!LEvaluidlnit > • ·:. ; . ; ; < . .. : .. • >...... • . ··..... ·.· .... Submarine····· ; weapons and sonar HRC 1 5 Submarine Sea HFL M3. systems are tested at -sea to meet the Up to 7 Acoustic Trials- Weapons MF3,MF9, integrated combat system days System Testing MF10. TORP2 SO CAL 1 5 certification requirements.

Tests the capabilities of shipboard HRC 9 45 sensors to detect, track, and engage surface targets. Testing may include HRC- ships defending against surface 63 313 SO CAL targets using explosive and non- Surface Warfare Explosive explosive rounds, gun system El. E5, E8 7 days Testing structural test firing, and demonstration of the response to SO CAL 14-16 72 Call for Fire against land-based targets (simulated by sea-based locations).

Ships demonstrate capability of HRC 7 35 countermeasure systems and ASW4,HF4, undenvater surveillance, weapons HF8, MFI, HRC Undersea Warfare 12-16 32 Up to 10 Acoustic engagement, and communications MF4, MF5, SO CAL Testing days systems. Tlris tests slrips ability to MF6, TORP1, detect, track, and engage undersea TORP2 SO CAL 11 51 targets.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.086 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29899

Office of Naval Research Research analyzed within the HSTT Table 7 summarizes the proposed Study Area. testing activities for the Office of Naval

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.087 EP26JN18.088 29900 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

Space and Naval Warfare Systems Naval Warfare Systems Command Command analyzed within the HSTT Study Area. Table 8 summarizes the proposed testing activities for the Space and

Summary of Acoustic and Explosive removal activities associated with Navy activities. Under the Specified Sources Analyzed for Training and training and testing activities in the Activities, acoustic source class use Testing HSTT Study Area that were analyzed in would vary annually, consistent with the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application. the number of annual activities Table 9 through Table 12 show the Table 9 shows the acoustic source summarized above. The five-year total acoustic source classes and numbers, classes (i.e., LF, MF, and HF) that could for the Specified Activities takes into explosive source bins and numbers, air occur in any year under the Specified account that annual variability. gun sources, and pile driving and Activities for training and testing

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.089 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29901

Table 9. Acoustic Source Classes Analyzed and Numbers Used During Training and Testing Activities in the HSTT Study Area.

Low-Frequency LF sources (LF): LF3 greater than 200 H 0 0 195 975 Sources that dB produce signals LF sources equal H 0 0 589-777 3,131 less than 1 kHz LF4 to 180 dB and up to 200 dB c 0 0 20 100 LF sources less 1,814- LF5 H 0 0 9,950 than 180 dB LF sources greater than 200 LF6 H 121- 167 668 40-80 240 dB with long

Mid-Frequency (MF): 5,779- Tactical and non- MF1 H 28,809 1,540 5,612 6,702 tactical sources that produce signals between 1 Kingfisher mode and 10kHz MF1K associated with H 100 500 14 70 MF1 sonars Hull-mounted surface ship MF23 H 0 0 54 270 sonars (e.g.,

2,080- MF3 H 10,440 1,311 6,553 2,175

Helicopter- deployed dipping MF4 sonars (e.g., H 414-489 2,070 311-475 1,717 AN/AQS-22 and ANI S-13 Active acoustic 5,704- 5,250- MF5 sonobuoys (e.g., 28,300 27,120 c 6,124 5,863 DICAS Mid-Frequency Active (MF): underwater sound 1,141- MF6 9 45 5,835 Tactical and non- c 1,226 tactical sources that produce Active sources signals between 1 (greater than 200 MF8 H 0 0 70 350 and 10kHz dB) not otherwise binned Active sources 5,139- MF9 H 0 0 25,753 to 180 dB 165

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.090 29902 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

and up to 200 dB) not otherwise binned Active sources (greater than 160 1,824- MF10 dB, but less than H 0 0 9,288 1,992 180 dB) not otherwise binned Hull-mounted surface ship MF11 sonars with an H 718-890 3,597 56 280 active duty cycle greater than 80% Towed array surface ship MF12 sonars with an H 161-215 884 660 3,300 active duty cycle greater than 80% MF13 MF sonar source H 0 0 300 1,500 High-Frequency Hull-mounted (HF): submarine sonars 1,795- HFl H 8,939 772 3,859 Tactical and non- (e.g., AN/BQQ- 1,816 tactical sources 10) that produce HFMarine signals between 10 Mammal HF2 H 0 0 120 600 and 100kHz Monitoring System Other hull- mounted HF3 H 287 1,345 110 549 submarine sonars (classified) High-Frequency Mine detection, (HF): classification, and 16,299- Tactical and non- HF4 neutralization H 2,316 10,380 81,447 16,323 tactical sources sonar (e.g., that produce AN/SQS-20) signals between 10 Active sources H 0 0 960 4,800 and 100kHz (greater than 200 HF5 dB) not otherwise c 0 0 40 200 binned Active sources (equal to 180 dB 1,000- HF6 and up to 200 dB) H 0 0 5,007 1,009 not otherwise binned Active sources (greater than 160 HF7 dB, but less than H 0 0 1,380 6,900 180 dB) not otherwise binned Hull-mounted surface ship HF8 H 118 588 1,032 3,072 sonars (e.g., AN/SQS-61)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.091 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29903

Anti-Submarine l'v1F systems Warlare (ASW): ASW1 operating above H 194- 261 1,048 470 2,350 Tactical sources 200 dB (e.g., active MF Multistatic sonobuoys and Active Coherent 4,334- ASW2 688-790 3,346 23,375 acoustic sonobuoy (e.g., c 5,191 countermeasures AN/SSQ-125) systems) used MF towed active duringASW acoustic 5,005- training and testing ASW3 countermeasure H 25,955 2,741 13,705 6,425 activities systems (e.g., AN/SLQ-25) Anti-Submarine l'v1F expendable Warlare (ASW): active acoustic 1,284- Tactical sources ASW4 device 6,407 2,244 10,910 c 1,332 (e.g., active countermeasures sonobuoys and (e.g., MK 3) acoustic countermeasures systems) used l'v1F sonobuoys ASW5 during ASW 4 with high duty H 220-300 1,260 522-592 2,740 training and testing cycles activities Torpedoes Lightweight (TORP): torpedo (e.g., MK TORP Source classes 46, MK 54, or 231-237 1,137 923-971 4,560 1 c associated with the Anti-Torpedo active acoustic Torpedo) signals produced TORP Heavyweight 521-587 2,407 404 1,948 by torpedoes 2 c torpedo (e.g., MK TORP 48) 0 0 45 225 3 c Forward Looking HF sources with Sonar (FLS): short pulse Forward or upward lengths, narrow FLS2 H 28 140 448-544 2,432 looking object beam widths, and avoidance sonars focused beam used for ship patterns navigation and VHF sources with safety short pulse lengths, narrow FLS3 H 0 0 2,640 13,200 beam widths, and focused beam patterns Acoustic Modems l'v1F acoustic (M): Systems used M3 modems (greater H 61 153 518 2,588 to transmit data than 190 dB) through the water Swimmer HF and VHF Detection Sonars sources with short (SD): pulse lengths, Systems used to SD1 used for the H 0 0 10 50 detect divers and detection of submerged swimmers and swimmers other objects for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.092 29904 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C Table 10 shows the number of air guns shots proposed in the HSTT Study Area for training and testing activities.

TABLE 10—TRAINING AND TESTING AIR GUN SOURCES QUANTITATIVELY ANALYZED IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA

Training Testing Source class category Bin Unit 1 Annual 5-year total Annual 5-year total

Air Guns (AG): Small underwater air guns ...... AG C 0 0 844 4,220 1 C = count. One count (C) of AG is equivalent to 100 air gun firings.

Table 11 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 5-year period of the rule, the a total of 238 piles. Over the 5-year activities that would occur during a 24- Navy will drive a total of 1190 piles by period of the rule, the Navy will extract hour period. Annually, for impact pile impact pile driving. Annually, for a total of 1190 piles by vibratory pile driving, the Navy will drive 119 piles, vibratory pile extraction, the Navy will extraction.

TABLE 11—SUMMARY OF PILE DRIVING AND REMOVAL ACTIVITIES PER 24-HOUR PERIOD IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA

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

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

Table 12 shows the number of in- the Specified Activities, bin use would Specified Activities takes into account water explosives that could be used in vary annually, consistent with the that annual variability. any year under the Specified Activities number of annual activities summarized for training and testing activities. Under above. The five-year total for the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.093 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29905

TABLE 12—EXPLOSIVE SOURCE BINS ANALYZED AND NUMBERS USED DURING TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA

Modeled Training Testing Bin Net explosive Example explosive source underwater weight (lb) detonation Annual 5-year Annual 5-year depths (ft) 1 total total

E1 ...... 0.1–0.25 Medium-caliber projectiles 0.3, 60 ...... 2,940 14,700 8,916–15,216 62,880 E2 ...... >0.25–0.5 Medium-caliber projectiles 0.3, 50 ...... 1,746 8,730 0 0 E3 ...... >0.5–2.5 Large-caliber projectiles ... 0.3, 60 ...... 2,797 13,985 2,880–3,124 14,844 E4 ...... >2.5–5 Mine neutralization charge 10, 16, 33, 50, 61, 65, 650 38 190 634–674 3,065 E5 ...... >5–10 5 in projectiles ...... 0.3, 10, 50 ...... 4,730–4,830 23,750 1,400 7,000 E6 ...... >10–20 Hellfire missile ...... 0.3, 10, 50, 60 ...... 592 2,872 26–38 166 E7 ...... >20–60 Demo block/shaped 10, 50, 60 ...... 13 65 0 0 charge. E8 ...... >60–100 Lightweight torpedo ...... 0.3, 150 ...... 33–88 170 57 285 E9 ...... >100–250 500 lb bomb ...... 0.3 ...... 410–450 2,090 4 20 E10 ...... >250–500 Harpoon missile...... 0.3 ...... 219–224 1,100 30 150 E11 ...... >500–650 650 lb mine ...... 61, 150 ...... 7–17 45 12 60 E12 ...... >650–1,000 2,000 lb bomb ...... 0.3 ...... 16–21 77 0 0 E13 ...... >1,000–1,740 Multiple Mat Weave NA 2 ...... 9 45 0 0 charges. 1 Net Explosive Weight refers to the amount of explosives; the actual weight of a munition may be larger due to other components. 2 Not modeled because charge is detonated in surf zone; not a single E13 charge, but multiple smaller charges detonated in quick succession. Notes: in = inch(es), lb = pound(s), ft = feet.

Vessel Movement ranges. Activities involving vessel • Navy planned maintenance system movements occur intermittently and are instructions and requirements; Vessels used as part of the Specified variable in duration, ranging from a few • Federal Aviation Administration Activities include ships, submarines, hours up to two weeks. regulations; and unmanned vessels, and boats ranging in • International Regulations for size from small, 22 ft (7 m) rigid hull Standard Operating Procedures Preventing Collisions at Sea. inflatable boats to aircraft carriers with For training and testing to be Because standard operating lengths up to 1,092 ft (333 m). Large effective, personnel must be able to procedures are essential to safety and Navy ships greater than 60 ft (18 m) safely use their sensors and weapon mission success, the Navy considers generally operate at speeds in the range systems as they are intended to be used them to be part of the Specified of 10 to 15 kn for fuel conservation. in a real-world situation and to their Activities, and has included them in the Submarines generally operate at speeds optimum capabilities. While standard environmental analysis. Standard in the range of 8 to 13 kn in transits and operating procedures are designed for operating procedures that are less than those speeds for certain the safety of personnel and equipment recognized as providing a potential tactical maneuvers. Small craft, less and to ensure the success of training benefit to marine mammals during than 60 ft (18 m) in length, have much and testing activities, their training and testing activities are noted more variable speeds (dependent on the implementation often yields additional below and discussed in more detail activity). Speeds generally range from benefits to environmental, within the HSTT DEIS/OEIS. 10 to 14 kn. While these speeds for large socioeconomic, public health and • Vessel Safety and small craft are representative of safety, and cultural resources. • Weapons Firing Safety most events, some vessels need to • Navy standard operating procedures Target Deployment Safety temporarily operate outside of these • have been developed and refined over Towed In-Water Device Safety parameters. • years of experience and are broadcast Pile Driving Safety The number of Navy vessels used in via numerous naval instructions and Standard operating procedures (which the HSTT Study Area varies based on manuals, including, but not limited to: are implemented regardless of their military training and testing • Ship, submarine, and aircraft safety secondary benefits) are different from requirements, deployment schedules, manuals; mitigation measures (which are annual budgets, and other unpredictable • designed entirely for the purpose of factors. Most training and testing Ship, submarine, and aircraft standard operating manuals; avoiding or reducing potential impacts activities involve the use of vessels. on the environment). Refer to Section • Fleet Area Control and Surveillance These activities could be widely 1.5.5 Standing Operating Procedures of Facility range operating instructions; dispersed throughout the HSTT Study the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application • Fleet exercise publications and Area, but would be typically conducted for greater detail. near naval ports, piers, and range areas. instructions; • Navy vessel traffic would especially be Naval Sea Systems Command test Duration and Location concentrated near San Diego, California range safety and standard operating Training and testing activities would and Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. There is no instructions; be conducted in the HSTT Study Area seasonal differentiation in Navy vessel • Navy instrumented range operating throughout the year from 2018 through use. The majority of large vessel traffic procedures; 2023 for the five-year period covered by occurs between the installations and the • Naval shipyard sea trial agendas; the regulations. The HSTT Study Area OPAREAS. Support craft would be more • Research, development, test, and (see Figure 1.1–1 of the Navy’s concentrated in the coastal waters in the evaluation plans; rulemaking/LOA application) is areas of naval installations, ports and • Naval gunfire safety instructions; comprised of established operating and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29906 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

warning areas across the north-central entities such as various academic retained the military exclusion language Pacific Ocean, from the mean high tide institutions and other Department of contained in the monument designation. line in Southern California west to Defense agencies (DoD) such as the U.S. Southern California Range Complex Hawaii and the International Date Line. Air Force conduct activities in the The Study Area includes the at-sea areas PMRF. The PMRF activities referred to The SOCAL Range Complex is located of three existing range complexes (the in the HSTT EIS/DEIS are very high between Dana Point and San Diego, and Hawaii Range Complex, the SOCAL altitude missile defense tests conducted extends southwest into the Pacific Range Complex, and the Silver Strand by the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) (a Ocean (Figures 2–5, 2–6, and 2–7 of the Training Complex), and overlaps a non-Navy DoD command). For this Navy’s application). Although the range portion of the Point Mugu Sea Range rulemaking/LOA application, the area is complex extends more than 600 nmi beyond land, most activities occur with (PMSR). Also included in the Study used for Navy ship transits throughout 200 nmi of Southern California. The two Area are Navy pierside locations in the year. Despite the Temporary primary components of the SOCAL Hawaii and Southern California, Pearl OPAREA’s size, nearly all of the training Range Complex are the ocean OPAREAs Harbor, San Diego Bay, and the transit and testing activities in the Hawaii corridor 1 on the high seas where sonar and the special use airspace. These Range Complex (HRC) take place within components encompass 120,000 nmi2 of training and testing may occur. A Navy the smaller Hawaii OPAREA, that range complex consists of geographic sea space and 113,000 nmi2 of special portion of the range complex areas that encompasses a water use airspace. Most of the special use immediately surrounding the island component (above and below the airspace in the SOCAL Range Complex chain from Hawaii to Kauai (Figures 2– surface), airspace, and may encompass a is defined by W–291 (Figure 2–5 of the land component where training and 1 through 2–4 of the Navy’s Navy’s application). This warning area testing of military platforms, tactics, application). The Hawaii OPAREA extends vertically from the ocean 2 munitions, explosives, and electronic consists of 235,000 nmi of special use surface to 80,000 ft above mean sea level warfare systems occur. Range complexes airspace and ocean areas. The HRC and encompasses 113,000 nmi2 of 2 include OPAREAs and special use includes over 115,000 nmi of combined airspace. The SOCAL Range Complex airspace, which may be further divided special use airspace and air traffic includes approximately 120,000 nmi2 of to provide better control of the area and control assigned airspace. As depicted sea and undersea space, largely defined events being conducted for safety in Figure 2–1 of the Navy’s application, as that ocean area underlying the reasons. Please refer to the regional this airspace is almost entirely over the Southern California special use airspace maps provided in the Navy’s ocean and includes warning areas, air described above. The SOCAL Range rulemaking/LOA application (Figures 2– traffic controlled assigned airspace, and Complex also extends beyond this 1 through 2–8) for additional detail of restricted areas. airspace to include the surface and the range complexes and testing ranges. The Hawaii Range Complex includes subsurface area from the northeastern The range complexes and testing ranges the ocean areas as described above, as border of W–291 to the coast of San are described in the following sections. well as specific training areas around Diego County, and includes San Diego Bay. Hawaii Range Complex the islands of Kauai, Oahu, and Maui (Figures 2–2, 2–3, and 2–4 respectively Point Mugu Sea Range Overlap The Hawaii Range Complex of the Navy’s application). The Hawaii encompasses ocean areas located A small portion (approximately 1,000 Range Complex also includes the ocean around the Hawaiian Islands chain. The nmi2) of the Point Mugu Sea Range is portion of the PMRF on Kauai, which is ocean areas extend from 16 degrees included in the HSTT Study Area both a fleet training range and a fleet north latitude to 43 degrees north (Figure 2–5 of the Navy’s application). and DoD testing range. The facility latitude and from 150 degrees west Only that part of the Point Mugu Sea includes 1,100 nmi2 of instrumented longitude to the International Date Line, Range is used by the Navy for anti- ocean area at depths between 129 ft and forming an area approximately 1,700 submarine warfare training. This 15,000 ft. The Hawaii Range Complex nmi by 1,600 nmi. The largest training uses sonar, is conducted in the also includes the ocean areas around the component of the Hawaii Range course of major training exercises, and designated Papahanaumokuakea Marine Complex is the Temporary OPAREA, is analyzed in this request. National Monument, referred hereafter extending north and west from the Silver Strand Training Complex island of Kauai, and comprising over as the Monument. Establishment of the two million square nautical miles (nmi2) Monument in June 2006 triggered a The Silver Strand Training Complex of air and sea space. The Temporary number of prohibitions on activities is an integrated set of training areas OPAREA is used primarily for missile conducted in the Monument area. located on and adjacent to the Silver testing by the Pacific Missile Range However, all military activities and Strand, a narrow, sandy isthmus Facility (PMRF), and those missile tests exercises were specifically excluded separating the San Diego Bay from the are not part of the Navy’s rulemaking/ from the listed prohibitions as long as Pacific Ocean. It is divided into two LOA application and are covered under the military exercises and activities are non-contiguous areas: Silver Strand other NEPA analysis. Other non-Navy carried out in a manner that avoids, to Training Complex-North and Silver the extent practicable and consistent Strand Training Complex-South (Figure 1 Vessel transit corridors are the routes typically with operational requirements, adverse 2–8 of the Navy’s application). The used by Navy assets to traverse from one area to impacts on monument resources and Silver Strand Training Complex-North another. The route depicted in Figure 1–1 of the qualities. In 2016, the Monument was includes 10 oceanside boat training Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application is the shortest expanded from its original 139,818 route between Hawaii and Southern California, lanes (numbered as Boat Lanes 1–10), 2 2 making it the quickest and most fuel efficient. square miles (mi ) to 582,578 mi . The ocean anchorage areas (numbered 101– Depicted vessel transit corridor is notional and may expansion of the Monument was 178), bayside water training areas not represent the actual routes used by ships and primarily to the west—away from the (Alpha through Hotel), and the Lilly submarines transiting from Southern California to portion of the Hawaii Range Complex Hawaii and back. Actual routes navigated are based Ann drop zone. The boat training lanes on a number of factors including, but not limited where most training and testing are each 500 yards (yd) wide stretching to, weather, training, and operational requirements. activities are proposed to occur— and 4,000 yd seaward and forming a 5,000

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29907

yd long contiguous training area. The activities do not interfere with the five-year period. One marine mammal Silver Strand Training Complex-South primary objective of reaching their species, the Hawaiian monk seal, has includes four oceanside boat training intended destination. critical habitat designated under the lanes (numbered as Boat Lanes 11–14) Endangered Species Act in the HSTT Pierside Locations, Pearl Harbor, and and the TA-Kilo training area. Study Area (described below). San Diego Bay The anchorages lie offshore of Information on the status, Coronado in the Pacific Ocean and The Study Area includes select distribution, abundance, population pierside locations where Navy surface overlap a portion of Boat Lanes 1–10. trends, and ecology of marine mammals ship and submarine sonar maintenance The anchorages are each 654 yd in in the HSTT Study Area may be found testing occur. For purposes of the diameter and are grouped together in an in Chapter 4 of the Navy’s rulemaking/ Navy’s application, pierside locations area located primarily due west of Silver LOA application. Additional include channels and routes to and from Strand Training Complex-North, east of information on the general biology and Navy ports, and facilities associated Zuniga Jetty and the restricted areas on ecology of marine mammals are with Navy ports and shipyards. These approach to the San Diego Bay entrance. included in the HSTT DEIS/OEIS. In locations in the Study Area are located addition, NMFS annually publishes Ocean Operating Areas Outside the at Navy ports and naval shipyards in Stock Assessment Reports (SARs) for all Bounds of Existing Range Complexes Pearl Harbor, Hawaii and in San Diego (Transit Corridor) Bay, California (Figure 2–9 of the Navy’s marine mammals in U.S. Exclusive In addition to the range complexes application). In addition, some training Economic Zone (EEZ) waters, including that are part of the Study Area, a transit and testing activities occur throughout stocks that occur within the HSTT corridor outside the boundaries of the San Diego Bay. Study Area and are found specifically in range complexes is also included as part the U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal SAR of the Study Area in the analysis. Description of Marine Mammals and (Carretta et al., 2017) (see https:// Although not part of any defined range Their Habitat in the Area of the www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/ complex, this transit corridor is Specified Activities document/us-pacific-marine-mammal- important to the Navy in that it provides Marine mammal species and their stock-assessments-2016). adequate air, sea, and undersea space in associated stocks that have the potential The species carried forward for which vessels and aircraft conduct to occur in the HSTT Study Area are analysis (and described in Table 13 training and some sonar maintenance presented in Table 13 along with an below) are those likely to be found in and testing while enroute between abundance estimate, an associated the HSTT Study Area based on the most Southern California and Hawaii. The coefficient of variation value, and best/ recent data available, and do not transit corridor, notionally defined by minimum abundance estimates. The include stocks or species that may have the great circle route (e.g., shortest Navy proposes to take individuals of 39 once inhabited or transited the area but distance) from San Diego to the center marine mammal species by Level A and have not been sighted in recent years of the Hawaii Range Complex, as B harassment incidental to training and (e.g., species which were extirpated depicted in Figure 1–1 of the Navy’s testing activities from the use of sonar because of factors such as nineteenth application, is generally used by ships and other transducers, in-water and twentieth century commercial transiting between the SOCAL Range detonations, air guns, and impact pile exploitation). Extralimital species, Complex and Hawaii Range Complex. driving/vibratory extraction activities. species that would not be considered While in transit, ships and aircraft In addition, the Navy is requesting ten part of the HSTT seasonal species would, at times, conduct basic and mortalities of two marine mammal assemblage (e.g., North Pacific right routine unit level activities such as stocks from explosives, and three takes whale, any tropical odontocete species gunnery, bombing, and sonar training, of large whales by serious injury or in SOCAL), were not included in the testing, and maintenance, as long as the mortality from vessel strikes over the analysis. TABLE 13—MARINE MAMMALS OCCURRENCE WITHIN THE HSTT STUDY AREA

Status Stock abundance Common name Scientific name Stock Occurrence Seasonal ab- (CV)/minimum MMPA ESA sence population

Blue whale ...... Balaenoptera Eastern North Depleted ...... Endangered ...... Southern Cali- ...... 1,647 (0.07)/1,551 musculus. Pacific. fornia. Central North Pa- Depleted ...... Endangered ...... Hawaii ...... Summer ...... 81 (1.14)/38 cific. Bryde’s whale ...... Balaenoptera Eastern Tropical ...... Southern Cali- ...... unknown brydei/edeni. Pacific. fornia. Hawaiian ...... Depleted ...... Hawaii ...... 798 (0.28)/633 Fin whale ...... Balaenoptera California, Or- Depleted ...... Endangered ...... Southern Cali- ...... 9,029 (0.12)/8,127 physalus. egon, and fornia. Washington. Hawaiian ...... Depleted ...... Endangered ...... Hawaii ...... Summer ...... 58 (1.12)/27 Gray whale ...... Eschrichtius Eastern North ...... Southern Cali- ...... 20,990 (0.05)/20,125 robustus. Pacific. fornia. Western North Depleted ...... Endangered ...... Southern Cali- ...... 140 (0.04)/135 Pacific. fornia. Humpback whale Megaptera California, Or- Depleted ...... Threatened/En- Southern Cali- ...... 1,918 (0.03)/1,876 novaeangliae. egon, and dangered 1. fornia. Washington. Central North Pa- ...... Hawaii ...... Summer ...... 10,103 (0.30)/7,890 cific. Minke whale ...... Balaenoptera California, Or- ...... Southern Cali- ...... 636 (0.72)/369 acutorostrata. egon, and fornia. Washington. Hawaiian ...... Hawaii ...... Summer ...... unknown

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29908 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 13—MARINE MAMMALS OCCURRENCE WITHIN THE HSTT STUDY AREA—Continued

Status Stock abundance Common name Scientific name Stock Occurrence Seasonal ab- (CV)/minimum MMPA ESA sence population

Sei whale ...... Balaenoptera bo- Eastern North Depleted ...... Endangered ...... Southern Cali- ...... 519 (0.4)/374 realis. Pacific. fornia. Hawaii ...... Depleted ...... Endangered ...... Hawaii ...... Summer ...... 178 (0.90)/93 Sperm whale ...... Physeter California, Or- Depleted ...... Endangered ...... Southern Cali- ...... 2,106 (0.58)/1,332 macrocephalus. egon, and fornia. Washington. Hawaiian ...... Depleted ...... Endangered ...... Hawaii ...... 3,354 (0.34)/2,539 Pygmy sperm Kogia breviceps California, Or- ...... Southern Cali- Winter and Fall .. 4,111 (1.12)/1,924 whale. egon, and fornia. Washington. Hawaiian ...... Hawaii ...... unknown Dwarf sperm Kogia sima ...... California, Or- ...... Southern Cali- ...... unknown whale. egon, and fornia. Washington. Hawaiian ...... Hawaii ...... unknown Baird’s beaked Berardius bairdii California, Or- ...... Southern Cali- ...... 847 (0.81)/466 whale. egon, and fornia. Washington. Blainville’s beaked Mesoplodon Hawaiian ...... Hawaii ...... 2,338 (1.13)/1,088 whale. densirostris. Cuvier’s beaked Ziphius California, Or- ...... Southern Cali- ...... 6,590 (0.55)/4,481 whale. cavirostris. egon, and fornia. Washington. Hawaiian ...... Hawaii ...... 1,941 na/1,142 Longman’s Indopacetus Hawaiian ...... Hawaii ...... 4,571 (0.65)/2,773 beaked whale. pacificus. Mesoplodon Mesoplodon spp. California, Or- ...... Southern Cali- ...... 694 (0.65)/389 beaked whales. egon, and fornia. Washington. Common Tursiops California Coast- ...... Southern Cali- ...... 453 (0.06)/346 Bottlenose dol- truncatus. al. fornia. 1,924 (0.54)/1,255 phin. California, Or- egon, and Washington Offshore. Hawaiian Pelagic ...... Hawain ...... 5,950 (0.59)/3,755 Kauai and Niihau ...... Hawaii ...... 184 (0.11)/168 Oahu ...... Hawaii ...... 743 (0.54)/485 4-Islands ...... Hawaii ...... 191 (0.24)/156 Hawaii Island ...... Hawaii ...... 128 (0.13)/115 False killer whale Pseudorca Main Hawaiian Depleted ...... Endangered ...... Hawaii ...... 151 (0.20)/92 crassidens. Islands Insular. Hawaii Pelagic ...... Hawaii ...... 1,540 (0.66)/928 Northwestern Ha- ...... Hawaii ...... 617 (1.11)/290 waiian Islands. Fraser’s dolphin ... Lagenodelphis Hawaiian ...... Hawaii ...... 16,992 (0.66)/10,241 hosei. Killer whale ...... Orcinus orca ...... Eastern North ...... Southern Cali- ...... 240 (0.49)/162 Pacific Off- fornia. shore. Eastern North ...... Southern Cali- ...... 243 unknown/243 Pacific Tran- fornia. sient/West Coast Tran- sient 2. Hawaiian ...... Hawaii ...... 101 (1.00)/50 Long-beaked com- Delphinus California ...... Southern Cali- ...... 101,305 (0.49)/68,432 mon dolphin. capensis. fornia. Melon-headed Peponocephala Hawaiian Islands ...... Hawaii ...... 5,794 (0.20)/4,904 whale. electra. Kohala Resident 447 (0.12)/404 Northern right Lissodelphis bo- California, Or- ...... Southern Cali- ...... 26,556 (0.44)/18,608 whale dolphin. realis. egon, and fornia. Washington. Pacific white-sided Lagenorhynchus California, Or- ...... Southern Cali- ...... 26,814 (0.28)/21,195 dolphin. obliquidens. egon, and fornia. Washington. Pantropical spot- Stenella Oahu ...... Hawaii ...... unknown ted dolphin. attenuata. 4-Islands ...... unknown Hawaii Island ...... Hawaii ...... unknown Hawaii Pelagic ...... Hawaii ...... 15,917 (0.40)/11,508 Pygmy killer whale Feresa attenuata Tropical ...... Southern Cali- Winter & Spring unknown fornia. Hawaiian ...... Hawaii ...... 3,433 (0.52)/2,274 Risso’s dolphins ... Grampus griseus California, Or- ...... Southern Cali- ...... 6,336 (0.32)/4,817 egon, and fornia. Washington. Hawaiian ...... Hawaii ...... 7,256 (0.41)/5,207 Rough-toothed Steno na 3 ...... Southern Cali- ...... unknown dolphin. bredanensis. fornia. Hawaiian ...... Hawaii ...... 6,288 (0.39)/4,581

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29909

TABLE 13—MARINE MAMMALS OCCURRENCE WITHIN THE HSTT STUDY AREA—Continued

Status Stock abundance Common name Scientific name Stock Occurrence Seasonal ab- (CV)/minimum MMPA ESA sence population

Short-beaked Delphinus del- California, Or- ...... Southern Cali- ...... 969,861 (0.17)/839,325 common dolphin. phis. egon, and fornia. Washington. Short-finned pilot Globicephala California, Or- ...... Southern Cali- ...... 836 (0.79)/466 whale. macrorhynchus. egon, and fornia. Washington. Hawaiian ...... Hawaii ...... 12,422 (0.43)/8,782 Spinner dolphin .... Stenella Hawaii Pelagic ...... Hawaii ...... unknown longirostris. Hawaii Island ..... 631 (0.04)/585 Oahu and 4-Is- ...... Hawaii ...... 355 (0.09)/329 lands. Kauai and Niihau ...... Hawaii ...... 601 (0)/509 Kure and Midway ...... Hawaii ...... unknown Pearl and Her- ...... Hawaii ...... unknown mes. Striped dolphin ..... Stenella California, Or- ...... Southern Cali- ...... 29,211 (0.20)/24,782 coeruleoalba. egon, and fornia. Washington. Hawaiian ...... Hawaii ...... 20,650 (0.36)/15,391 Dall’s porpoise ..... Phocoenoides California, Or- ...... Southern Cali- ...... 25,750 (0.45)/17,954 dalli. egon, and fornia. Washington. Harbor seal ...... Phoca vitulina .... California ...... Southern Cali- ...... 30,968 na/27,348 fornia. Hawaiian monk Neomonachus Hawaiian ...... Depleted ...... Endangered ...... Hawaii ...... 1,272 na/1,205 seal. schauinslandi. Northern elephant Mirounga California ...... Southern Cali- ...... 179,000 na/81,368 seal. angustirostris. fornia. California sea lion Zalophus U.S. Stock ...... Southern Cali- ...... 296,750 na/153,337 californianus. fornia. Guadalupe fur Arctocephalus Mexico to Cali- Depleted ...... Threatened ...... Southern Cali- ...... 20,000 na/15,830 seal. townsendi. fornia. fornia. Northern fur seal .. Callorhinus California ...... Southern Cali- ...... 14,050 na/7,524 ursinus. fornia. Notes: 1 The two humpback whale Distinct Population Segments making up the California, Oregon, and Washington stock present in Southern California are the Mexico Distinct Population Segment, listed under ESA as Threatened, and the Central America Distinct Population Segment, which is listed under ESA as Endangered. 2 This stock is mentioned briefly in the Pacific Stock Assessment Report (Carretta et al., 2017) and referred to as the ‘‘Eastern North Pacific Transient’’ stock; however, the Alaska Stock Assessment Report contains assessments of all transient killer whale stocks in the Pacific and the Alaska Stock Assessment Report refers to this same stock as the ‘‘West Coast Transient’’ stock (Muto et al., 2017). 3 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.

Below, we include additional in 1988 (53 FR 18988; May 26, 1988) Atoll, Pearl and Hermes Reef, Lisianski information about the marine mammals and in 2015 (80 FR 50925; August 21, Island, Laysan Island, Maro Reef, in the area of the Specified Activities, 2015) (NOAA, 2015a) (Figure 4–1 of the Gardner Pinnacles, French Frigate where available, that will inform our Navy’s application). The essential Shoals, Necker Island and Nihoa Island. analysis, such as identifying areas of features of the critical habitat were In the main Hawaiian Islands, Hawaiian important habitat or known behaviors, identified as: (1) Adjacent terrestrial and monk seal critical habitat includes the or where Unusual Mortality Events aquatic areas with characteristics seafloor and marine habitat to 10 m (UME) have been designated. preferred by monk seals for pupping above the seafloor from the 200 m depth and nursing; (2) shallow, sheltered contour through the shoreline and Critical Habitat aquatic areas adjacent to coastal extending into terrestrial habitat 5 m Currently there is one marine locations preferred by monk seals for inland from the shoreline between mammal, the ESA-listed Hawaiian pupping and nursing; (3) marine areas identified boundary points around monk seal, with designated critical from 0 to 500 m in depth preferred by Kaula Island (includes marine habitat habitat within the HSTT Study Area. juvenile and adult monk seals for only, some excluded areas see areas, However, critical habitat for ESA-listed foraging; (4) areas with low levels of Niihau (includes marine habitat from 10 Main Hawaiian Islands insular false anthropogenic disturbance; (5) marine m–200 m in depth; some excluded killer whale was recently proposed in areas with adequate prey quantity and areas), Kauai, Oahu, Maui Nui November 2017 (82 FR 51186; quality; and (6) significant areas used by (including Kahoolawe, Lanai, Maui, and November 3, 2017), designating waters monk seals for hauling out, resting, or Molokai), Hawaii. from the 45 m depth contour to the 3200 molting (NOAA, 2015a). The approximate area encompassed m depth contour around the main In the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands by the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Hawaiian Islands from Niihau east to Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat was designated as the Hawaii. However, some areas were includes all beach areas, sand spits and Papahanaumokuakea Monument in proposed for exclusion based on islets, including all beach crest 2006, in part to protect the habitat of the considerations of economic and national vegetation to its deepest extent inland as Hawaiian monk seal. Hawaiian monk security impacts. well as the seafloor and marine habitat seals are managed as a single stock. Critical habitat for Hawaiian monk 10 m in height above the seafloor from There are six main reproductive seals was designated in 1986 (51 FR the shoreline out to the 200 m depth subpopulations at: French Frigate 16047; April 30, 1986) and later revised contour around Kure Atoll, Midway Shoals, Laysan Island, Lisianski Island,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29910 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

Pearl and Hermes Reef, Midway Island, Whale Special Reporting Areas habitats off the islands, with the highest and Kure Atoll in the northwestern described later in this document (and density between 1,000 and 2,500 m in Hawaiian Islands. also shown in Appendix K of the HSTT depth, dropping off significantly after DEIS/OEIS). The Main Hawaiian Islands 2,500 m (Baird et al., 2013a). This BIA Biologically Important Areas Humpback Whale Reproduction BIA also overlaps the Navy’s Hawaii Island Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) also encompasses the entire Humpback Mitigation Area described later in this include areas of known importance for Whale National Marine Sanctuary. document. reproduction, feeding, or migration, or areas where small and resident Dwarf Sperm Whales Small and Melon-Headed Whales Small and populations are known to occur (Van Resident Population Resident Population Parijs, 2015). Unlike critical habitat, A year-round BIA has been identified A year-round BIA has been identified these areas are not formally designated for a small resident population of dwarf for a small and resident population of pursuant to any statute or law, but are sperm whales located off the island of melon-headed whales off the island of a compilation of the best available Hawaii (Mahaffy et al., 2009; Baird et Hawaii, primarily using the Kohala area. science intended to inform impact and al., 2013a) with sightings between 500 This BIA also overlaps the Navy’s mitigation analyses. An interactive map and 1,000 m in depth (Baird et al., Hawaii Island Mitigation Area described of the BIAs may be found here: https:// 2013a). This BIA also overlaps the later in this document. cetsound.noaa.gov/biologically- Navy’s Hawaii Island Mitigation Area False Killer Whales Small and Resident important-area-map. described later in this document. In Hawaii, 21 BIAs fall within or Population overlap with the HSTT Study Area. Blainville’s Beaked Whales Small and A year-round BIA has been identified These include 11 small and resident Resident Population for a small and resident insular population areas for species including A year-round BIA for a small resident population of false killer whales off the dwarf sperm whales, Blainville’s beaked population of Blainville’s beaked coasts of Oahu, Maui, Molokai, Lanai, whales, Cuvier’s beaked whales, pygmy whales has been identified off the island and Hawaii Island. The known range of killer whales, short-finned pilot whales, of Hawaii (McSweeney et al., 2007; this population extends from west of melon-headed whales, false killer Schorr et al., 2009a) with the highest Niihau to east of Hawaii, out to 122 km whales, pantropical spotted dolphins, density of groups in water between 500 offshore (Baird et al., 2012). This BIA spinner dolphins, rough-toothed and 1,500 m in depth, and density also partially overlap the Navy’s 4- dolphins, and common bottlenose decreasing offshore (Baird et al., 2015c). Islands Region and Hawaii Island dolphins (see Appendix K of the HSTT This BIA also overlaps the Navy’s Mitigation Areas described later in this DEIS/OEIS for figures depicting these Hawaii Island Mitigation Area described document. areas). In addition, six non-contiguous later in this document. areas located adjacent to the eight main Pantropical Spotted Dolphins Small and Hawaiian Islands have been designated Cuvier’s Beaked Whales Small and Resident Populations as a humpback whale reproductive BIA Resident Population Three year-round BIAs have been (Baird et al., 2015c). A year-round BIA for a small resident identified for small and resident Five of the 28 BIAs that were population of Cuvier’s beaked whales populations of pantropical spotted identified for four species off the U.S. has been identified off the island of dolphin. Three stocks of this species west coast (Calambokidis et al., 2015a) Hawaii with the highest density of occurs around the main Hawaiian are located within or overlapping the groups in water between 1,500 and Islands (Oahu, the 4-Island Region, and SOCAL portion of the Study Area (see 4,000 m in depth, and density off the main island of Hawaii). Two of Appendix K of the HSTT DEIS/OEIS for decreasing offshore (Baird et al., 2015c). these BIAs also overlap the Navy’s 4- figures depicting these areas). These This BIA also mostly overlaps the Islands Region and Hawaii Island identified areas include four feeding Navy’s Hawaii Island Mitigation Area Mitigation Areas described later in this areas for blue whales and a migration described later in this document. document. area for gray whales (Calambokidis et al., 2015a). Pygmy Killer Whales Small and Spinner Dolphins Small and Resident Resident Population Populations Main Hawaiian Islands Humpback A year-round BIA for a small resident Year-round BIAs have been identified Whale Reproduction BIA population of pygmy killer whales has for five small and resident populations A single biologically important area been identified for the Hawaii Island of spinner dolphins. The boundaries of around and between portions of eight resident population. This BIA includes these populations are out to 10 nmi islands was identified for breeding the west side of the island of Hawaii, from shore around Kure and Midway humpback whales in the Main Hawaiian from northwest of Kawaihae south to Atolls, Pearl and Hermes Reef, Kauai Islands from December through April the south point of the island, and along and Niihau, Oahu and the 4-Islands (Baird et al., 2015a) (see Figure K.3–1 of the southeast coast of the island. This Region and off the main island of the HSTT DEIS/OEIS). The Main BIA also overlaps the Navy’s Hawaii Hawaii (Carretta et al., 2014). Two of Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Island Mitigation Area described later in these BIAs also overlap the Navy’s 4- Reproduction BIA contains several this document. Islands Region and Hawaii Island humpback whale breeding sub-areas off Mitigation Areas described later in this Short-Finned Pilot Whales Small and the coasts of Kauai, Niihau, Oahu, Maui, document. and Hawaii Island. The highest Resident Population densities of whales occur in waters that A year- round BIA for a small resident Rough-Toothed Dolphins Small and are less than 200 m in depth. The Main population of short-finned pilot whales Resident Population Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale has been identified off the island of A year-round BIA has been identified Reproduction Area also overlaps the Hawaii (Baird et al., 2011c, 2013a; for a small demographically isolated Navy’s 4-Islands Region and Hawaii Mahaffy, 2012). Short-finned pilot resident population off the island of Island Mitigation Areas and Humpback whales are primarily connected to slope Hawaii (Baird et al., 2008a; Albertson,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29911

2015). This species is also found recreational, ecological, historical, Van Parijs (2015) and Baird et al. (2015) elsewhere among the Hawaiian Islands. cultural, archaeological, scientific, (shown in Figure K.3–1 of Appendix K The Navy’s Hawaii Island Mitigation educational, or aesthetic qualities. and as discussed in Appendix K, Area also overlaps with the majority of Sanctuary regulations prohibit Section K.3.1 (Main Hawaiian Islands this BIA described later in this destroying, causing the loss of, or Humpback Whale Reproduction Area of document. injuring any sanctuary resource the HSTT DEIS/OEIS)). managed under the law or regulations Channel Islands NMS Common Bottlenose Dolphins Small for that sanctuary (15 CFR part 922). and Resident Populations NMS are managed on a site-specific The Channel Islands NMS is an Year-round BIAs have been identified basis, and each sanctuary has site- ecosystem-based managed sanctuary for the four insular stocks of bottlenose specific regulations. Most, but not all consisting of an area of 1,109 nmi 2 dolphins in Hawaiian waters. They are sanctuaries have site-specific regulatory around Anacapa Island, Santa Cruz found both nearshore and offshore areas exemptions from the prohibitions for Island, Santa Rosa Island, San Miguel (Barlow, 2006), but around the main certain military activities. Separately, Island, and Santa Barbara Island to the Hawaiian Islands they are primarily section 304(d) of the NMSA requires south. Only 92 nmi 2, or about 8 percent found in depths of less than 1,000 m Federal agencies to consult with the of the sanctuary, occurs within the (Baird et al., 2013a). The Navy’s 4- Office of National Marine Sanctuaries SOCAL portion of the Study Area (see Islands Region Mitigation Area overlaps whenever their Specified Activities are Figure 6.1–4 of the HSTT DEIS/OEIS). portions of the BIA off of Molokai, likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or The Study Area overlaps with the Maui, and Lanai and the Hawaii Island injure a sanctuary resource. There are sanctuary at Santa Barbara Island. In Mitigation Area (described later in this two national marine sanctuaries addition, the Navy has proposed to document) includes the entire BIA off of managed by the Office of National implement the Santa Barbara Island the Island of Hawaii. Marine Sanctuaries within the Study Mitigation Area around Santa Barbara Area, the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Island out to 6 nmi as described later in Blue Whale Feeding BIAs Whale NMS and Channel Islands NMS this document (also see Section K.2.2, There are nine feeding area BIAs (see Table 6.1–2 and Figures 6.1–3 and Mitigation Areas to be Implemented of identified for blue whales off the U.S. 6.1–4 of the HSTT DEIS/OEIS), which the HSTT DEIS/OEIS). As an ecosystem- west coast (Calambokidis et al., 2015a), are described below. based managed sanctuary, key habitats but only four overlap with the SOCAL include kelp forest, surfgrass and portion of the HSTT Study Area (see Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale eelgrass, intertidal zone, nearshore Figure K.4–1 of the HSTT DEIS/OEIS). NMS subtidal, deepwater benthic, and water Two of these feeding areas (the Santa The Hawaiian Islands Humpback column habitat. The diversity of habitats Monica Bay to Long Beach and the San Whale NMS is a single-species managed onshore and offshore contributes to the Nicolas Island feeding area BIAs) are at sanctuary, composed of 1,035 nmi2 of high species diversity in the Channel the extreme northern edge and slightly the waters around Maui, Lanai, and Islands NMS, with more than 195 overlap with the SOCAL portion of the Molokai; and smaller areas off the north species of birds, at least 33 species of HSTT Study Area. The remaining two shore of Kauai, off Hawaii’s west coast, cetaceans, 4 species of sea turtles, at feeding areas (the Tanner-Cortes Bank and off the north and southeast coasts least 492 species of algae and 4 species and the San Diego feeding area BIAs) are of Oahu. The Sanctuary is entirely of sea grasses, a variety of invertebrates entirely within the SOCAL portion of within the HRC of the HSTT Study Area (including two endangered species the HSTT Study Area (Calambokidis et and constitutes one of the world’s most (black abalone and the white abalone)), al., 2015a). The feeding behavior for important Hawaii humpback whale and 481 species of fish (NMS, 2009b). which these areas are designated occurs Distinct Population Segment (DPS) Unusual Mortality Events (UME) from June to October (Aquatic habitats (81 FR 62259; September 8, Mammals, 2015; Calambokidis et al., 2016), and is a primary region for A UME is defined under Section 2015a). The San Diego blue whale humpback reproduction in the United 410(6) of the MMPA as a stranding that feeding area overlaps with the Navy’s States (National Marine Sanctuaries is unexpected; involves a significant San Diego Arc Mitigation Area as Program, 2002). Scientists estimate that die-off of any marine mammal described later in this document. more than 50 percent of the entire North population; and demands immediate Pacific humpback whale population response. From 1991 to the present, Gray Whale Migration BIA migrates to Hawaiian waters each winter there have been 16 formally recognized Calambokidis et al. (2015) identified a to mate, calve, and nurse their young. UMEs affecting marine mammals in gray whale migration area off Southern The North Pacific humpback whale California and Hawaii and involving California and overlapping with all the population has been split into two species under NMFS’s jurisdiction. Two Southern California portion of the HSTT DPSs. The Hawaii humpback whale DPS UMEs that could be relevant to Study Area north of the border with migrates to Hawaiian waters each winter informing the current analysis are Mexico (Figure K.4–7). This migration and is not listed under the ESA. In discussed below. Specifically, the area covers approximately 22,300 km 2 addition to protection under the MMPA, California sea lion UME in California is of water space within the HSTT Study the Hawaii humpback whale DPS is still open, but will be closed soon. The Area. protected in sanctuary waters by the Guadalupe fur seal UME in California is Hawaiian Islands NMS. The sanctuary still active and involves an ongoing National Marine Sanctuaries was created to protect humpback whales investigation. Under Title III of the Marine and shallow, protected waters important Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries for calving and nursing (Office of California Sea Lion UME Act of 1972 (also known as the National National Marine Sanctuaries, 2010). Elevated strandings of California sea Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA)), The Hawaiian Islands Humpback lion pups began in Southern California NOAA can establish as national marine Whale NMS overlaps with the Main in January 2013. In 2013, over 1,600 sanctuaries (NMS), areas of the marine Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale California sea lions stranded alive along environment with special conservation, Reproduction Area (BIA) identified in the Southern California coastline and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29912 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

over 3,500 live stranded California sea from the majority of stranded animals of the genera Kogia and lions stranded on beaches in 2015, include primary malnutrition with Cephalorhynchus; including two which was the highest number on secondary bacterial and parasitic members of the genus Lagenorhynchus, record. Approximately 13,000 California infections. This UME is occurring in the on the basis of recent echolocation data sea lions (both live and dead) stranded same area as the ongoing 2013–2017 and genetic data): Generalized hearing is from January 1, 2013, through December California sea lion UME. This estimated to occur between 31, 2017. Strandings in 2017 have investigation is ongoing. Please refer to approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz; finally returned to baseline https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ • Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true (approximately 1,400/yr). The UME is national/marine-life-distress/2015-2018- seals): Generalized hearing is estimated currently defined to include pup and guadalupe-fur-seal-unusual-mortality- to occur between approximately 50 Hz yearling California sea lions (0–2 years event-california for more information on to 86 kHz; and of age). Many of the sea lions were this UME. • Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared emaciated, dehydrated, and very seals): Generalized hearing is estimated Marine Mammal Hearing underweight for their age. Findings to to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz. date indicate that a likely contributor to Hearing is the most important sensory The pinniped functional hearing the large number of stranded, modality for marine mammals group was modified from Southall et al. malnourished pups was a change in the underwater, and exposure to (2007) on the basis of data indicating availability of sea lion prey, especially anthropogenic sound can have that phocid species have consistently sardines, a high value food source for deleterious effects. To appropriately demonstrated an extended frequency both weaned pups and nursing mothers. assess the potential effects of exposure range of hearing compared to otariids, Current data show changes in to sound, it is necessary to understand especially in the higher frequency range availability of sea lion prey in Southern the frequency ranges marine mammals (Hemila¨ et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., California waters was likely a are able to hear. Current data indicate 2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). contributor to the UME, and this change that not all marine mammal species For more detail concerning these was most likely secondary to ecological have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., groups and associated frequency ranges, factors (El Nin˜ o and Warm Water Blob). Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and please see NMFS (2016) for a review of Sardine spawning grounds shifted Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). available information. To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) further offshore in 2012 and 2013, and Potential Effects of Specified Activities recommended that marine mammals be while other prey were available (market on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat squid and rockfish), these may not have divided into functional hearing groups provided adequate nutrition in the milk based on directly measured or estimated This section includes a summary and of sea lion mothers supporting pups or hearing ranges on the basis of available discussion of the ways that components for newly-weaned pups foraging on behavioral response data, audiograms of the specified activity may impact their own. Although the pups showed derived using auditory evoked potential marine mammals and their habitat. The signs of some viruses and infections, techniques, anatomical modeling, and ‘‘Estimated Take of Marine Mammals’’ findings indicate that this event was not other data. Note that no direct section later in this document includes caused by disease, but rather by the lack measurements of hearing ability have a quantitative analysis of the number of of high quality, close-by food sources for been successfully completed for instances of take that could occur from nursing mothers and weaned pups. mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency these activities. The ‘‘Negligible Impact Current evidence does not support that cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2016) Analysis and Determination’’ section this UME was caused by a single described generalized hearing ranges for considers the content of this section, the infectious agent, though a variety of these marine mammal hearing groups. ‘‘Estimated Take of Marine Mammals’’ disease-causing bacteria and viruses Generalized hearing ranges were chosen section, and the ‘‘Proposed Mitigation’’ were found in samples from sea lion based on the approximately 65 dB section, to draw conclusions regarding pups. This investigation will soon be threshold from the normalized the likely impacts of these activities on closed. Please refer to https:// composite audiograms, with the the reproductive success or survivorship www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ exception for lower limits for low- of individuals and how those impacts marine-life-distress/2013-2017- frequency cetaceans where the lower on individuals are likely to impact california-sea-lion-unusual-mortality- bound was deemed to be biologically marine mammal species or stocks. event-california for more information on implausible and the lower bound from The Navy has requested authorization this UME. Southall et al. (2007) retained. The for the take of marine mammals that functional groups and the associated may occur incidental to training and Guadalupe Fur Seal UME frequencies are indicated below (note testing activities in the HSTT Study Increased strandings of Guadalupe fur that these frequency ranges correspond Area. The Navy analyzed potential seals began along the entire coast of to the range for the composite group, impacts to marine mammals from California in January 2015 and were with the entire range not necessarily acoustic and explosive sources as well eight times higher than the historical reflecting the capabilities of every as vessel strikes. average (approximately 10 seals/yr). species within that group): Other potential impacts to marine Strandings have continued since 2015 • Low-frequency cetaceans mammals from training and testing and have remained well above average (mysticetes): Generalized hearing is activities in the HSTT Study Area were through 2017. As of March 8, 2018, the estimated to occur between analyzed in the HSTT DEIS/OEIS, in total number of Guadalupe fur seals to approximately 7 Hz and 35 kHz; consultation with NMFS as a date in the UME is 241. Strandings are • Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger cooperating agency, and determined to seasonal and generally peak in April toothed whales, beaked whales, and be unlikely to result in marine mammal through June of each year. The most delphinids): Generalized hearing is take. Therefore, the Navy has not Guadalupe fur seal strandings have been estimated to occur between requested authorization for take of mostly weaned pups and juveniles (1– approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz; marine mammals incidental to other 2 years old) with both live and dead • High-frequency cetaceans components of their Specified strandings occurring. Current findings (porpoises, river dolphins, and members Activities, and we agree that take is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29913

unlikely to occur from those along with the potential effects from interest that is above the absolute components. In this proposed rule, vessel strikes. The Negligible Impact hearing threshold) may occur; the NMFS analyzes the potential effects on Analysis Section assesses whether the masking zone may be highly variable in marine mammals from the activity proposed authorized take will have a size. components that may cause the take of negligible impact on the affected species We also describe more severe effects marine mammals: Exposure to acoustic and stocks. (i.e., certain non-auditory physical or or explosive stressors including non- physiological effects). Potential effects Potential Effects of Underwater Sound impulsive (sonar and other active from impulsive sound sources can range acoustic sources) and impulsive Note that, in the following discussion, in severity from effects such as (explosives, impact pile driving, and air we refer in many cases to a review behavioral disturbance or tactile guns) stressors, and vessel strikes. article concerning studies of noise- perception to physical discomfort, slight For the purpose of MMPA incidental induced hearing loss conducted from injury of the internal organs and the take authorizations, NMFS’s effects 1996–2015 (i.e., Finneran, 2015). For auditory system, or mortality (Yelverton assessments serve four primary study-specific citations, please see that et al., 1973). Non-auditory physiological purposes: (1) To prescribe the work. Anthropogenic sounds cover a effects or injuries that theoretically permissible methods of taking (i.e., broad range of frequencies and sound might occur in marine mammals Level B harassment (behavioral levels and can have a range of highly exposed to high level underwater sound harassment and temporary threshold variable impacts on marine life, from or as a secondary effect of extreme shift (TTS), Level A harassment none or minor to potentially severe behavioral reactions (e.g., change in (permanent threshold shift (PTS) or responses, depending on received dive profile as a result of an avoidance non-auditory injury), serious injury, or levels, duration of exposure, behavioral reaction) caused by exposure to sound mortality, including an identification of context, and various other factors. The include neurological effects, bubble the number and types of take that could potential effects of underwater sound formation, resonance effects, and other occur by harassment, serious injury, or from active acoustic sources can types of organ or tissue damage (Cox et mortality) and to prescribe other means possibly result in one or more of the al., 2006; Southall et al., 2007; Zimmer of effecting the least practicable adverse following: temporary or permanent and Tyack, 2007; Tal et al., 2015). impact on such species or stock and its hearing impairment, non-auditory habitat (i.e., mitigation); (2) to determine physical or physiological effects, Acoustic Sources whether the specified activities would behavioral disturbance, stress, and Direct Physiological Effects have a negligible impact on the affected masking (Richardson et al., 1995; species or stocks of marine mammals Gordon et al., 2004; Nowacek et al., Based on the literature, there are two (based on the likelihood that the 2007; Southall et al., 2007; Go¨tz et al., basic ways that non-impulsive sources activities would adversely affect the 2009). The degree of effect is might directly result in direct species or stock through effects on intrinsically related to the signal physiological effects. Noise-induced annual rates of recruitment or survival); characteristics, received level, distance loss of hearing sensitivity (more (3) to determine whether the specified from the source, and duration of the commonly-called ‘‘threshold shift’’ (TS)) activities would have an unmitigable sound exposure. In general, sudden, is the better-understood of these two adverse impact on the availability of the high level sounds can cause hearing effects, and the only one that is actually species or stock(s) for subsistence uses loss, as can longer exposures to lower expected to occur. The second effect, (however, there are no subsistence level sounds. Temporary or permanent acoustically mediated bubble growth communities that would be affected in loss of hearing will occur almost and other pressure-related physiological the HSTT Study Area, so this exclusively for noise within an animal’s impacts are addressed briefly below, but determination is inapplicable to the hearing range. We first describe specific are not expected to result from the HSTT rulemaking); and (4) to prescribe manifestations of acoustic effects before Navy’s activities. Separately, an requirements pertaining to monitoring providing discussion specific to the animal’s behavioral reaction to an and reporting. Navy’s activities. acoustic exposure might lead to In the Potential Effects Section, NMFS Richardson et al. (1995) described physiological effects that might provides a general description of the zones of increasing intensity of effect ultimately lead to injury or death, which ways marine mammals may be affected that might be expected to occur, in is discussed later in the Stranding by these activities in the form of relation to distance from a source and Section. mortality, physical trauma, sensory assuming that the signal is within an Threshold Shift (Noise-Induced Loss of impairment (permanent and temporary animal’s hearing range. First is the area Hearing) threshold shifts and acoustic masking), within which the acoustic signal would physiological responses (particular be audible (potentially perceived) to the When animals exhibit reduced stress responses), behavioral animal, but not strong enough to elicit hearing sensitivity within their auditory disturbance, or habitat effects. any overt behavioral or physiological range (i.e., sounds must be louder for an Explosives and vessel strikes, which response. The next zone corresponds animal to detect them) following have the potential to result in incidental with the area where the signal is audible exposure to a sufficiently intense sound take from serious injury and/or to the animal and of sufficient intensity or a less intense sound for a sufficient mortality, will be discussed in more to elicit behavioral or physiological duration, it is referred to as a noise- detail in the Estimated Take of Marine responsiveness. Third is a zone within induced TS. An animal can experience Mammals section. The Estimated Take which, for signals of high intensity, the a TTS and/or PTS. TTS can last from of Marine Mammals section also received level is sufficient to potentially minutes or hours to days (i.e., there is discusses how the potential effects on cause discomfort or tissue damage to recovery back to baseline/pre-exposure marine mammals from non-impulsive auditory systems. Overlaying these levels), can occur within a specific and impulsive sources relate to the zones to a certain extent is the area frequency range (i.e., an animal might MMPA definitions of Level A and Level within which masking (i.e., when a only have a temporary loss of hearing B Harassment, and quantifies those sound interferes with or masks the sensitivity within a limited frequency effects that rise to the level of a take ability of an animal to detect a signal of band of its auditory range), and can be

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29914 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

of varying amounts (for example, an exposures of equal energy, those that exposures to other LF sources, such as animal’s hearing sensitivity might be were quieter (lower SPL) with longer seismic air guns. Finneran et al. (2015) reduced by only 6 dB or reduced by 30 duration were found to induce TTS suggest that the potential for air guns to dB). Repeated sound exposure that leads onset at lower levels than those of cause hearing loss in dolphins is lower to TTS could cause PTS. In severe cases louder (higher SPL) and shorter than previously predicted, perhaps as a of PTS, there can be total or partial duration. Less TS will occur from result of the low-frequency content of deafness, while in most cases the animal intermittent sounds than from a air gun impulses compared to the high- has an impaired ability to hear sounds continuous exposure with the same frequency hearing ability of dolphins. in specific frequency ranges (Kryter, energy (some recovery can occur Finneran et al. (2015) measured hearing 1985). When PTS occurs, there is between intermittent exposures) (Kryter thresholds in three captive bottlenose physical damage to the sound receptors et al., 1966; Ward, 1997; Mooney et al., dolphins before and after exposure to in the ear (i.e., tissue damage), whereas 2009a, 2009b; Finneran et al., 2010). For ten pulses produced by a seismic air TTS represents primarily tissue fatigue example, one short but loud (higher gun in order to study TTS induced after and is reversible (Southall et al., 2007). SPL) sound exposure may induce the exposure to multiple pulses. Exposures PTS is permanent (i.e., there is same impairment as one longer but began at relatively low levels and incomplete recovery back to baseline/ softer (lower SPL) sound, which in turn gradually increased over a period of pre-exposure levels), but also can occur may cause more impairment than a several months, with the highest in a specific frequency range and series of several intermittent softer exposures at peak SPLs from 196 to 210 amount as mentioned above for TTS. In sounds with the same total energy dB and cumulative (unweighted) SELs addition, other investigators have (Ward, 1997). Additionally, though TTS from 193–195 dB. No substantial TTS suggested that TTS is within the normal is temporary, very prolonged or was observed. In addition, behavioral bounds of physiological variability and repeated exposure to sound strong reactions were observed that indicated tolerance and does not represent enough to elicit TTS, or shorter-term that animals can learn behaviors that physical injury (e.g., Ward, 1997). exposure to sound levels well above the effectively mitigate noise exposures Therefore, NMFS does not consider TTS TTS threshold can cause PTS, at least in (although exposure patterns must be to constitute auditory injury. terrestrial mammals (Kryter, 1985; learned, which is less likely in wild Lonsbury-Martin et al., 1987). The following physiological animals than for the captive animals PTS is considered auditory injury considered in the study). The authors mechanisms are thought to play a role (Southall et al., 2007). Irreparable in inducing auditory TS: Effects to note that the failure to induce more damage to the inner or outer cochlear significant auditory effects was likely sensory hair cells in the inner ear that hair cells may cause PTS; however, reduce their sensitivity; modification of due to the intermittent nature of other mechanisms are also involved, exposure, the relatively low peak the chemical environment within the such as exceeding the elastic limits of sensory cells; residual muscular activity pressure produced by the acoustic certain tissues and membranes in the source, and the low-frequency energy in in the middle ear; displacement of middle and inner ears and resultant certain inner ear membranes; increased air gun pulses as compared with the changes in the chemical composition of frequency range of best sensitivity for blood flow; and post-stimulatory the inner ear fluids (Southall et al., reduction in both efferent and sensory dolphins and other mid-frequency 2007). cetaceans. For pinnipeds in water, neural output (Southall et al., 2007). Although the published body of measurements of TTS are limited to The amplitude, duration, frequency, scientific literature contains numerous harbor seals, elephant seals, and temporal pattern, and energy theoretical studies and discussion California sea lions (summarized in distribution of sound exposure all can papers on hearing impairments that can affect the amount of associated TS and occur with exposure to a loud sound, Finneran, 2015). the frequency range in which it occurs. only a few studies provide empirical Marine mammal hearing plays a Generally, the amount of TS, and the information on the levels at which critical role in communication with time needed to recover from the effect, noise-induced loss in hearing sensitivity conspecifics and in interpretation of increase as amplitude and duration of occurs in nonhuman animals. The environmental cues for purposes such sound exposure increases. Human non- NMFS 2016 Acoustic Technical as predator avoidance and prey capture. impulsive noise exposure guidelines are Guidance, which was used in the Depending on the degree (elevation of based on the assumption that exposures assessment of effects for this action, threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery of equal energy (the same SEL) produce compiled, interpreted, and synthesized time), and frequency range of TTS, and equal amounts of hearing impairment the best available scientific information the context in which it is experienced, regardless of how the sound energy is for noise-induced hearing effects for TTS can have effects on marine distributed in time (NIOSH, 1998). marine mammals to derive updated mammals ranging from discountable to Previous marine mammal TTS studies thresholds for assessing the impacts of serious similar to those discussed in have also generally supported this equal noise on marine mammal hearing, as auditory masking, below. For example, energy relationship (Southall et al., noted above. For cetaceans, published a marine mammal may be able to readily 2007). However, some more recent data on the onset of TTS are limited to compensate for a brief, relatively small studies concluded that for all noise the captive bottlenose dolphin, beluga, amount of TTS in a non-critical exposure situations the equal energy harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless frequency range that takes place during relationship may not be the best porpoise (summarized in Finneran, a time when the animal is traveling indicator to predict TTS onset levels 2015). TTS studies involving exposure through the open ocean, where ambient (Mooney et al., 2009a and 2009b; Kastak to other Navy activities (e.g., SURTASS noise is lower and there are not as many et al., 2007). These studies highlight the LFA) or other low-frequency sonar competing sounds present. inherent complexity of predicting TTS (below 1 kHz) have never been Alternatively, a larger amount and onset in marine mammals, as well as the conducted due to logistical difficulties longer duration of TTS sustained during importance of considering exposure of conducting experiments with low a time when communication is critical duration when assessing potential frequency sound sources. However, for successful mother/calf interactions impacts. Generally, with sound there are TTS measurements for could have more serious impacts if it

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29915

were in the same frequency band as the bubble growth then occurs through 2003; Cox et al., 2006; Rommel et al., necessary vocalizations and of a severity static diffusion of gas out of the tissues. 2006). Crum and Mao (1996) that impeded communication. The fact In such a scenario the marine mammal hypothesized that received levels would that animals exposed to high levels of would need to be in a gas- have to exceed 190 dB in order for there sound that would be expected to result supersaturated state for a long enough to be the possibility of significant in this physiological response would period of time for bubbles to become of bubble growth due to supersaturation of also be expected to have behavioral a problematic size. Recent research with gases in the blood (i.e., rectified responses of a comparatively more ex vivo supersaturated bovine tissues diffusion). Work conducted by Crum et severe or sustained nature is potentially suggested that, for a 37 kHz signal, a al. (2005) demonstrated the possibility more significant than simple existence sound exposure of approximately 215 of rectified diffusion for short duration of a TTS. However, it is important to dB referenced to (re) 1 mPa would be signals, but at SELs and tissue note that TTS could occur due to longer required before microbubbles became saturation levels that are highly exposures to sound at lower levels so destabilized and grew (Crum et al., improbable to occur in diving marine that a behavioral response may not be 2005). Assuming spherical spreading mammals. To date, energy levels (ELs) elicited. loss and a nominal sonar source level of predicted to cause in vivo bubble Depending on the degree and 235 dB re 1 mPa at 1 m, a whale would formation within diving cetaceans have frequency range, the effects of PTS on need to be within 10 m (33 ft) of the not been evaluated (NOAA, 2002b). an animal could also range in severity, sonar dome to be exposed to such sound Jepson et al. (2003, 2005) and Fernandez although it is considered generally more levels. Furthermore, tissues in the study et al. (2004, 2005, 2012) concluded that serious than TTS because it is a were supersaturated by exposing them in vivo bubble formation, which may be permanent condition. Of note, reduced to pressures of 400–700 kilopascals for exacerbated by deep, long-duration, hearing sensitivity as a simple function periods of hours and then releasing repetitive dives may explain why of aging has been observed in marine them to ambient pressures. Assuming beaked whales appear to be relatively mammals, as well as humans and other the equilibration of gases with the vulnerable to MF/HF sonar exposures. It taxa (Southall et al., 2007), so we can tissues occurred when the tissues were has also been argued that traumas from infer that strategies exist for coping with exposed to the high pressures, levels of some beaked whale strandings are this condition to some degree, though supersaturation in the tissues could consistent with gas emboli and bubble- likely not without some cost to the have been as high as 400–700 percent. induced tissue separations (Jepson et animal. These levels of tissue supersaturation al., 2003); however, there is no Acoustically Mediated Bubble Growth are substantially higher than model conclusive evidence of this (Rommel et and Other Pressure-Related Injury predictions for marine mammals al., 2006). (Houser et al., 2001; Saunders et al., In 2009, Hooker et al. tested two One theoretical cause of injury to 2008). It is improbable that this mathematical models to predict blood marine mammals is rectified diffusion mechanism is responsible for stranding and tissue tension N2 (PN2) using field (Crum and Mao, 1996), the process of events or traumas associated with data from three beaked whale species: increasing the size of a bubble by beaked whale strandings because both northern bottlenose whales, Cuvier’s exposing it to a sound field. This the degree of supersaturation and beaked whales, and Blainville’s beaked process could be facilitated if the exposure levels observed to cause whales. The researchers aimed to environment in which the ensonified microbubble destabilization are unlikely determine if physiology (body mass, bubbles exist is supersaturated with gas. to occur, either alone or in concert. diving lung volume, and dive response) Repetitive diving by marine mammals Yet another hypothesis or dive behavior (dive depth and can cause the blood and some tissues to (decompression sickness) has duration, changes in ascent rate, and accumulate gas to a greater degree than speculated that rapid ascent to the diel behavior) would lead to differences is supported by the surrounding surface following exposure to a startling in PN2 levels and thereby decompression environmental pressure (Ridgway and sound might produce tissue gas sickness risk between species. Howard, 1979). The deeper and longer saturation sufficient for the evolution of In their study, they compared results dives of some marine mammals (for nitrogen bubbles (Jepson et al., 2003; for previously published time depth example, beaked whales) are Fernandez et al., 2005; Ferna´ndez et al., recorder data (Hooker and Baird, 1999; theoretically predicted to induce greater 2012). In this scenario, the rate of ascent Baird et al., 2006, 2008) from Cuvier’s supersaturation (Houser et al., 2001b). If would need to be sufficiently rapid to beaked whale, Blainville’s beaked rectified diffusion were possible in compromise behavioral or physiological whale, and northern bottlenose whale. marine mammals exposed to high-level protections against nitrogen bubble They reported that diving lung volume sound, conditions of tissue formation. Alternatively, Tyack et al. and extent of the dive response had a supersaturation could theoretically (2006) studied the deep diving behavior large effect on end-dive PN2. Also, speed the rate and increase the size of of beaked whales and concluded that: results showed that dive profiles had a bubble growth. Subsequent effects due ‘‘Using current models of breath-hold larger influence on end-dive PN2 than to tissue trauma and emboli would diving, we infer that their natural diving body mass differences between species. presumably mirror those observed in behavior is inconsistent with known Despite diel changes (i.e., variation that humans suffering from decompression problems of acute nitrogen occurs regularly every day or most days) sickness. supersaturation and embolism.’’ in dive behavior, PN2 levels showed no It is unlikely that the short duration Collectively, these hypotheses can be consistent trend. Model output (in combination with the source levels) referred to as ‘‘hypotheses of suggested that all three species live with of sonar pings would be long enough to acoustically mediated bubble growth.’’ tissue PN2 levels that would cause a drive bubble growth to any substantial Although theoretical predictions significant proportion of decompression size, if such a phenomenon occurs. suggest the possibility for acoustically sickness cases in terrestrial mammals. However, an alternative but related mediated bubble growth, there is The authors concluded that the dive hypothesis has also been suggested: considerable disagreement among behavior of Cuvier’s beaked whale was Stable bubbles could be destabilized by scientists as to its likelihood (Piantadosi different from both Blainville’s beaked high-level sound exposures such that and Thalmann, 2004; Evans and Miller, whale, and northern bottlenose whale,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29916 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

and resulted in higher predicted tissue 2006; Southall et al., 2007; Zimmer and frequencies above those of the masking and blood N2 levels (Hooker et al., Tyack, 2007; Baird et al., 2008; Hooker stimulus decreases also. This principle 2009) and suggested that the prevalence et al., 2009). Further investigation is is expected to apply to marine mammals of Cuvier’s beaked whales stranding needed to assess the potential validity of as well because of common after naval sonar exercises could be these hypotheses. biomechanical cochlear properties explained by either a higher abundance To summarize, while there are several across taxa. of this species in the affected areas or by hypotheses, there is little data to Under certain circumstances, marine possible species differences in behavior support the potential for strong, mammals experiencing significant and/or physiology related to MF active anthropogenic underwater sounds to masking could also be impaired from sonar (Hooker et al., 2009). cause non-auditory physical effects in maximizing their performance fitness in Bernaldo de Quiros et al. (2012) marine mammals. The available data do survival and reproduction. Therefore, showed that, among stranded whales, not support identification of a specific when the coincident (masking) sound is deep diving species of whales had exposure level above which non- man-made, it may be considered higher abundances of gas bubbles auditory effects can be expected harassment when disrupting or altering compared to shallow diving species. (Southall et al., 2007) or any meaningful critical behaviors. It is important to Kvadsheim et al. (2012) estimated blood quantitative predictions of the numbers distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist (if any) of marine mammals that might after the sound exposure from masking, and tissue PN2 levels in species representing shallow, intermediate, and be affected in these ways. In addition, which occurs during the sound such effects, if they occur at all, would exposure. Because masking (without deep diving cetaceans following be expected to be limited to situations resulting in TS) is not associated with behavioral responses to sonar and their where marine mammals were exposed abnormal physiological function, it is comparisons found that deep diving to high powered sounds at very close not considered a physiological effect, species had higher end-dive blood and range over a prolonged period of time, but rather a potential behavioral effect. tissue N levels, indicating a higher risk 2 which is not expected to occur based on The frequency range of the potentially of developing gas bubble emboli the speed of the vessels operating sonar masking sound is important in compared with shallow diving species. in combination with the speed and determining any potential behavioral Fahlmann et al. (2014) evaluated dive behavior of marine mammals in the impacts. For example, low-frequency data recorded from sperm, killer, long- vicinity of sonar. signals may have less effect on high- finned pilot, Blainville’s beaked and frequency echolocation sounds Cuvier’s beaked whales before and Acoustic Masking produced by odontocetes but are more during exposure to low, as defined by Sound can disrupt behavior through likely to affect detection of mysticete the authors, (1–2 kHz) and mid (2–7 masking, or interfering with, an animal’s communication calls and other kHz) frequency active sonar in an ability to detect, recognize, or potentially important natural sounds attempt to determine if either discriminate between acoustic signals of such as those produced by surf and differences in dive behavior or interest (e.g., those used for intraspecific some prey species. The masking of physiological responses to sonar are communication and social interactions, communication signals by plausible risk factors for bubble prey detection, predator avoidance, anthropogenic noise may be considered formation. The authors suggested that navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995; as a reduction in the communication CO2 may initiate bubble formation and Erbe and Farmer, 2000; Tyack, 2000; space of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009; growth, while elevated levels of N2 may Erbe et al., 2016). Masking occurs when Matthews et al., 2016) and may result in be important for continued bubble the receipt of a sound is interfered with energetic or other costs as animals growth. The authors also suggest that if by another coincident sound at similar change their vocalization behavior (e.g., CO2 plays an important role in bubble frequencies and at similar or higher Miller et al., 2000; Foote et al., 2004; formation, a cetacean escaping a sound intensity, and may occur whether the Parks et al., 2007; Di Iorio and Clark, source may experience increased sound is natural (e.g., snapping shrimp, 2009; Holt et al., 2009). Masking can be metabolic rate, CO2 production, and wind, waves, precipitation) or reduced in situations where the signal alteration in cardiac output, which anthropogenic (e.g., shipping, sonar, and noise come from different could increase risk of gas bubble emboli. seismic exploration) in origin. The directions (Richardson et al., 1995), However, as discussed in Kvadsheim et ability of a noise source to mask through amplitude modulation of the al. (2012), the actual observed biologically important sounds depends signal, or through other compensatory behavioral responses to sonar from the on the characteristics of both the noise behaviors (Houser and Moore, 2014). species in their study (sperm, killer, source and the signal of interest (e.g., Masking can be tested directly in long-finned pilot, Blainville’s beaked, signal-to-noise ratio, temporal captive species (e.g., Erbe, 2008), but in and Cuvier’s beaked whales) did not variability, direction), in relation to each wild populations it must be either imply any significantly increased risk of other and to an animal’s hearing modeled or inferred from evidence of decompression sickness due to high abilities (e.g., sensitivity, frequency masking compensation. There are few levels of N2. Therefore, further range, critical ratios, frequency studies addressing real-world masking information is needed to understand the discrimination, directional sounds likely to be experienced by relationship between exposure to discrimination, age or TTS hearing loss), marine mammals in the wild (e.g., stimuli, behavioral response (discussed and existing ambient noise and Branstetter et al., 2013). in more detail below), elevated N2 propagation conditions. Masking these Masking affects both senders and levels, and gas bubble emboli in marine acoustic signals can disturb the behavior receivers of acoustic signals and can mammals. The hypotheses for gas of individual animals, groups of potentially have long-term chronic bubble formation related to beaked animals, or entire populations. effects on marine mammals at the whale strandings is that beaked whales In humans, significant masking of population level as well as at the potentially have strong avoidance tonal signals occurs as a result of individual level. Low-frequency responses to MF active sonars because exposure to noise in a narrow band of ambient sound levels have increased by they sound similar to their main similar frequencies. As the sound level as much as 20 dB (more than three times predator, the killer whale (Cox et al., increases, though, the detection of in terms of SPL) in the world’s ocean

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29917

from pre-industrial periods, with most their result is the indication of potential span across the frequencies of these of the increase from distant commercial species-wide behavioral change in sonar sources used by the Navy. The shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). All response to gradual, chronic increases closer the characteristics of the masking anthropogenic sound sources, but in underwater ambient noise. Di Iorio signal to the signal of interest, the more especially chronic and lower-frequency and Clark (2010) showed that blue likely masking is to occur. Although signals (e.g., from commercial vessel whale calling rates vary in association hull-mounted sonar accounts for a large traffic), contribute to elevated ambient with seismic sparker survey activity, portion of the area ensonified by Navy sound levels, thus intensifying masking. with whales calling more on days with activities (because of the source strength Richardson et al. (1995b) argued that survey than on days without surveys. and number of hours it is conducted), the maximum radius of influence of an They suggested that the whales called the pulse length and low duty cycle of industrial noise (including broadband more during seismic survey periods as the MFAS/HFAS signal makes it less low-frequency sound transmission) on a a way to compensate for the elevated likely that masking would occur as a marine mammal is the distance from the noise conditions. result. source to the point at which the noise Risch et al. (2012) documented can barely be heard. This range is reductions in humpback whale Impaired Communication determined by either the hearing vocalizations in the Stellwagen Bank In addition to making it more difficult sensitivity of the animal or the National Marine Sanctuary concurrent for animals to perceive acoustic cues in background noise level present. with transmissions of the Ocean their environment, anthropogenic sound Industrial masking is most likely to Acoustic Waveguide Remote Sensing presents separate challenges for animals affect some species’ ability to detect (OAWRS) low-frequency fish sensor that are vocalizing. When they vocalize, communication calls and natural system at distances of 200 km (124 mi) animals are aware of environmental sounds (i.e., surf noise, prey noise, etc.; from the source. The recorded OAWRS conditions that affect the ‘‘active space’’ Richardson et al., 1995). produced a series of frequency of their vocalizations, which is the The echolocation calls of toothed modulated pulses and the signal maximum area within which their whales are subject to masking by high- received levels ranged from 88 to 110 vocalizations can be detected before it frequency sound. Human data indicate dB re: 1 mPa (Risch, et al., 2012). The drops to the level of ambient noise low-frequency sound can mask high- authors hypothesized that individuals (Brenowitz, 2004; Brumm et al., 2004; frequency sounds (i.e., upward did not leave the area but instead ceased Lohr et al., 2003). Animals are also masking). Studies on captive singing and noted that the duration and aware of environmental conditions that odontocetes by Au et al. (1974, 1985, frequency range of the OAWRS signals affect whether listeners can discriminate 1993) indicate that some species may (a novel sound to the whales) were and recognize their vocalizations from use various processes to reduce masking similar to those of natural humpback other sounds, which is more important effects (e.g., adjustments in echolocation whale song components used during than simply detecting that a call intensity or frequency as a function mating (Risch et al., 2012). Thus, the vocalization is occurring (Brenowitz, of background noise conditions). There novelty of the sound to humpback 1982; Brumm et al., 2004; Dooling, is also evidence that the directional whales in the Navy’s Study Area 2004, Marten and Marler, 1977; hearing abilities of odontocetes are (Navy’s Atlantic Fleet Study Area) Patricelli et al., 2006). Most species that useful in reducing masking at the high- provided a compelling contextual vocalize have evolved with an ability to frequencies these cetaceans use to probability for the observed effects make adjustments to their vocalizations echolocate, but not at the low-to- (Risch et al., 2012). However, the to increase the signal-to-noise ratio, moderate frequencies they use to authors did not state or imply that these active space, and recognizability/ communicate (Zaitseva et al., 1980). A changes had long-term effects on distinguishability of their vocalizations study by Nachtigall and Supin (2008) individual animals or populations in the face of temporary changes in showed that false killer whales adjust (Risch et al., 2012). background noise (Brumm et al., 2004; their hearing to compensate for ambient Redundancy and context can also Patricelli et al., 2006). Vocalizing sounds and the intensity of returning facilitate detection of weak signals. animals can make adjustments to echolocation signals. Holt et al. (2009) These phenomena may help marine vocalization characteristics such as the measured killer whale call source levels mammals detect weak sounds in the frequency structure, amplitude, and background noise levels in the one presence of natural or manmade noise. temporal structure, and temporal to 40 kHz band and reported that the Most masking studies in marine delivery. whales increased their call source levels mammals present the test signal and the Many animals will combine several of by one dB SPL for every one dB SPL masking noise from the same direction. these strategies to compensate for high increase in background noise level. The dominant background noise may be levels of background noise. Similarly, another study on St. highly directional if it comes from a Anthropogenic sounds that reduce the Lawrence River belugas reported a particular anthropogenic source such as signal-to-noise ratio of animal similar rate of increase in vocalization a ship or industrial site. Directional vocalizations, increase the masked activity in response to passing vessels hearing may significantly reduce the auditory thresholds of animals listening (Scheifele et al., 2005). masking effects of these sounds by for such vocalizations, or reduce the Parks et al. (2007) provided evidence improving the effective signal-to-noise active space of an animal’s vocalizations of behavioral changes in the acoustic ratio. impair communication between behaviors of the endangered North The functional hearing ranges of animals. Most animals that vocalize Atlantic right whale, and the South mysticetes, odontocetes, and pinnipeds have evolved strategies to compensate Atlantic southern right whale, and underwater all overlap the frequencies for the effects of short-term or temporary suggested that these were correlated to of the sonar sources used in the Navy’s increases in background or ambient increased underwater noise levels. The low-frequency active sonar (LFAS)/mid- noise on their songs or calls. Although study indicated that right whales might frequency active sonar (MFAS)/high- the fitness consequences of these vocal shift the frequency band of their calls to frequency active sonar (HFAS) training adjustments are not directly known in compensate for increased in-band and testing exercises. Additionally, all instances, like most other trade-offs background noise. The significance of almost all species’ vocal repertoires animals must make, some of these

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29918 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

strategies probably come at a cost been implicated in failed reproduction general vessel traffic noise), and (Patricelli et al., 2006). Shifting songs (Moberg, 1987; Rivier and Rivest, 1991), demonstrated impacts do occur (Bain, and calls to higher frequencies may also altered metabolism (Elasser et al., 2000), 2002; Erbe, 2002; Noren et al., 2009; impose energetic costs (Lambrechts, reduced immune competence (Blecha, Williams et al., 2006, 2009, 2014a, 1996). For example in birds, vocalizing 2000), and behavioral disturbance 2014b; Read et al., 2014; Rolland et al., more loudly in noisy environments may (Moberg, 1987; Blecha, 2000). Increases 2012; Pirotta et al., 2015). This body of have energetic costs that decrease the in the circulation of glucocorticosteroids research for the most part has net benefits of vocal adjustment and (cortisol, corticosterone, and investigated impacts associated with the alter a bird’s energy budget (Brumm, aldosterone in marine mammals; see presence of chronic stressors, which 2004; Wood and Yezerinac, 2006). Romano et al., 2004) have been equated differ significantly from the proposed with stress for many years. Stress Response Navy training and testing activities in The primary distinction between the HSTT Study Area. For example, in Classic stress responses begin when stress (which is adaptive and does not an analysis of energy costs to killer an animal’s central nervous system normally place an animal at risk) and whales, Williams et al. (2009) suggested perceives a potential threat to its distress is the biotic cost of the that whale-watching in Canada’s homeostasis. That perception triggers response. During a stress response, an Johnstone Strait resulted in lost feeding stress responses regardless of whether a animal uses glycogen stores that can be opportunities due to vessel disturbance, stimulus actually threatens the animal; quickly replenished once the stress is which could carry higher costs than the mere perception of a threat is alleviated. In such circumstances, the other measures of behavioral change sufficient to trigger a stress response cost of the stress response would not might suggest. Ayres et al. (2012) (Moberg, 2000; Sapolsky et al., 2005; pose a risk to the animal’s welfare. recently reported on research in the Seyle, 1950). Once an animal’s central However, when an animal does not have Salish Sea (Washington state) involving nervous system perceives a threat, it sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the the measurement of southern resident mounts a biological response or defense energetic costs of a stress response, killer whale fecal hormones to assess that consists of a combination of the energy resources must be diverted from two potential threats to the species four general biological defense other biotic function, which impairs recovery: Lack of prey (salmon) and responses: behavioral responses, those functions that experience the impacts to behavior from vessel traffic. autonomic nervous system responses, diversion. For example, when a stress Ayres et al. (2012) suggested that the neuroendocrine responses, or immune response diverts energy away from lack of prey overshadowed any responses. growth in young animals, those animals population-level physiological impacts According to Moberg (2000), in the may experience stunted growth. When a on southern resident killer whales from case of many stressors, an animal’s first stress response diverts energy from a and sometimes most economical (in vessel traffic. Rolland et al. (2012) found fetus, an animal’s reproductive success that noise reduction from reduced ship terms of biotic costs) response is and its fitness will suffer. In these cases, behavioral avoidance of the potential traffic in the Bay of Fundy was the animals will have entered a pre- associated with decreased stress in stressor or avoidance of continued pathological or pathological state which exposure to a stressor. An animal’s North Atlantic right whales. In a is called ‘‘distress’’ (Seyle, 1950) or conceptual model developed by the second line of defense to stressors ‘‘allostatic loading’’ (McEwen and involves the sympathetic part of the Population Consequences of Acoustic Wingfield, 2003). This pathological state Disturbance (PCAD) working group, autonomic nervous system and the will last until the animal replenishes its serum hormones were identified as classical ‘‘fight or flight’’ response biotic reserves sufficient to restore possible indicators of behavioral effects which includes the cardiovascular normal function. Note that these that are translated into altered rates of system, the gastrointestinal system, the examples involved a long-term (days or reproduction and mortality (NRC, 2005). exocrine glands, and the adrenal weeks) stress response exposure to The Office of Naval Research hosted a medulla to produce changes in heart stimuli. rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal Relationships between these workshop (Effects of Stress on Marine activity that humans commonly physiological mechanisms, animal Mammals Exposed to Sound) in 2009 associate with ‘‘stress.’’ These responses behavior, and the costs of stress that focused on this very topic (ONR, have a relatively short duration and may responses have also been documented 2009). Ultimately, the PCAD working or may not have significant long-term fairly well through controlled group issued a report (Cochrem, 2014) effect on an animal’s welfare. experiments in terrestrial vertebrates; that summarized information compiled An animal’s third line of defense to because this physiology exists in every from 239 papers or book chapters stressors involves its neuroendocrine vertebrate that has been studied, it is not relating to stress in marine mammals systems or sympathetic nervous surprising that stress responses and and concluded that stress responses can systems; the system that has received their costs have been documented in last from minutes to hours and, while the most study has been the both laboratory and free-living animals we typically focus on adverse stress hypothalmus-pituitary-adrenal system (for examples see, Holberton et al., responses, stress response is part of a (also known as the HPA axis in 1996; Hood et al., 1998; Jessop et al., natural process to help animals adjust to mammals or the hypothalamus- 2003; Krausman et al., 2004; Lankford et changes in their environment and can pituitary-interrenal axis in fish and al., 2005; Reneerkens et al., 2002; also be either neutral or beneficial. some reptiles). Unlike stress responses Thompson and Hamer, 2000). Despite the lack of robust information associated with the autonomic nervous Information has also been collected on stress responses for marine mammals system, virtually all neuro-endocrine on the physiological responses of exposed to anthropogenic sounds, functions that are affected by stress— marine mammals to exposure to studies of other marine animals and including immune competence, anthropogenic sounds (Fair and Becker, terrestrial animals would also lead us to reproduction, metabolism, and 2000; Romano et al., 2002; Wright et al., expect some marine mammals to behavior—are regulated by pituitary 2008). Various efforts have been experience physiological stress hormones. Stress-induced changes in undertaken to investigate the impact responses and, perhaps, physiological the secretion of pituitary hormones have from vessels (both whale-watching and responses that would be classified as

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29919

‘‘distress’’ upon exposure to high received level alone. For example, exposure, where supporting information frequency, mid-frequency, and low- Goldbogen et al. (2013) demonstrated is available. frequency sounds. For example, Jansen that individual behavioral state was Friedlaender et al. (2016) provided (1998) reported on the relationship critically important in determining the first integration of direct measures of between acoustic exposures and response of blue whales to sonar, noting prey distribution and density variables physiological responses that are that some individuals engaged in deep incorporated into across-individual indicative of stress responses in humans (>50 m) feeding behavior had greater analyses of behavior responses of blue (e.g., elevated respiration and increased dive responses than those in shallow whales to sonar, and demonstrated a heart rates). Jones (1998) reported on feeding or non-feeding conditions. Some five-fold increase in the ability to reductions in human performance when blue whales in the Goldbogen et al. quantify variability in blue whale diving faced with acute, repetitive exposures to (2013) study that were engaged in behavior. These results illustrate that acoustic disturbance. Trimper et al. shallow feeding behavior demonstrated responses evaluated without such (1998) reported on the physiological no clear changes in diving or movement measurements for foraging animals may stress responses of osprey to low-level even when RLs were high (∼160 dB re be misleading, which again illustrates aircraft noise while Krausman et al. 1mPa) for exposures to 3–4 kHz sonar the context-dependent nature of the (2004) reported on the auditory and signals, while others showed a clear probability of response. physiological stress responses of response at exposures at lower RLs of Exposure of marine mammals to endangered Sonoran pronghorn to sonar and pseudorandom noise. sound sources can result in, but is not military overflights. Smith et al. (2004a, Studies by DeRuiter et al. (2012) limited to, no response or any of the 2004b) identified noise-induced indicate that variability of responses to following observable response: physiological transient stress responses acoustic stimuli depends not only on Increased alertness; orientation or in hearing-specialist fish (i.e., goldfish) the species receiving the sound and the attraction to a sound source; vocal that accompanied short- and long-term sound source, but also on the social, modifications; cessation of feeding; hearing losses. Welch and Welch (1970) behavioral, or environmental contexts of cessation of social interaction; alteration reported physiological and behavioral exposure. Another study by DeRuiter et of movement or diving behavior; habitat stress responses that accompanied al. (2013) examined behavioral abandonment (temporary or permanent); damage to the inner ears of fish and responses of Cuvier’s beaked whales to and, in severe cases, panic, flight, several mammals. MF sonar and found that whales stampede, or stranding, potentially responded strongly at low received resulting in death (Southall et al., 2007). Behavioral Response/Disturbance levels (RL of 89–127 dB re 1mPa) by A review of marine mammal responses Behavioral responses to sound are ceasing normal fluking and to anthropogenic sound was first highly variable and context-specific. echolocation, swimming rapidly away, conducted by Richardson (1995). More Many different variables can influence and extending both dive duration and recent reviews (Nowacek et al., 2007; an animal’s perception of and response subsequent non-foraging intervals when DeRuiter et al., 2012 and 2013; Ellison to (nature and magnitude) an acoustic the sound source was 3.4–9.5 km away. et al., 2012) address studies conducted event. An animal’s prior experience Importantly, this study also showed that since 1995 and focused on observations with a sound or sound source affects whales exposed to a similar range of RLs where the received sound level of the whether it is less likely (habituation) or (78–106 dB re 1mPa) from distant sonar exposed marine mammal(s) was known more likely (sensitization) to respond to exercises (118 km away) did not elicit or could be estimated. Southall et al. certain sounds in the future (animals such responses, suggesting that context (2016) states that results demonstrate can also be innately pre-disposed to may moderate reactions. that some individuals of different respond to certain sounds in certain Ellison et al. (2012) outlined an species display clear yet varied ways) (Southall et al., 2007). Related to approach to assessing the effects of responses, some of which have negative the sound itself, the perceived nearness sound on marine mammals that implications, while others appear to of the sound, bearing of the sound incorporates contextual-based factors. tolerate high levels, and that responses (approaching vs. retreating), similarity The authors recommend considering not may not be fully predicable with simple of a sound to biologically relevant just the received level of sound, but also acoustic exposure metrics (e.g., received sounds in the animal’s environment the activity the animal is engaged in at sound level). Rather, the authors state (i.e., calls of predators, prey, or the time the sound is received, the that differences among species and conspecifics), and familiarity of the nature and novelty of the sound (i.e., is individuals along with contextual sound may affect the way an animal this a new sound from the animal’s aspects of exposure (e.g., behavioral responds to the sound (Southall et al., perspective), and the distance between state) appear to affect response 2007, DeRuiter et al., 2013). Individuals the sound source and the animal. They probability. The following sub-sections (of different age, gender, reproductive submit that this ‘‘exposure context,’’ as provide examples of behavioral status, etc.) among most populations described, greatly influences the type of responses that provide an idea of the will have variable hearing capabilities, behavioral response exhibited by the variability in behavioral responses that and differing behavioral sensitivities to animal. This sort of contextual would be expected given the differential sounds that will be affected by prior information is challenging to predict sensitivities of marine mammal species conditioning, experience, and current with accuracy for ongoing activities that to sound and the wide range of potential activities of those individuals. Often, occur over large spatial and temporal acoustic sources to which a marine specific acoustic features of the sound expanses. However, distance is one mammal may be exposed. Predictions and contextual variables (i.e., proximity, contextual factor for which data exist to about of the types of behavioral duration, or recurrence of the sound or quantitatively inform a take estimate, responses that could occur for a given the current behavior that the marine and the new method for predicting sound exposure should be determined mammal is engaged in or its prior Level B harassment proposed in this from the literature that is available for experience), as well as entirely separate notice does consider distance to the each species, or extrapolated from factors such as the physical presence of source. Other factors are often closely related species when no a nearby vessel, may be more relevant considered qualitatively in the analysis information exists, along with to the animal’s response than the of the likely consequences of sound contextual factors.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29920 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

Flight Response predator during the time that predator and silently away when a sonar signal A flight response is a dramatic change cues are impeded. was 3.4–9.5 km away while showing no such reaction to the same signal when in normal movement to a directed and Alteration of Diving or Movement rapid movement away from the the signal was 118 km away even Changes in dive behavior can vary though the RLs were similar. perceived location of a sound source. widely. They may consist of increased Relatively little information on flight or decreased dive times and surface Foraging responses of marine mammals to intervals as well as changes in the rates Disruption of feeding behavior can be anthropogenic signals exist, although of ascent and descent during a dive. difficult to correlate with anthropogenic observations of flight responses to the Variations in dive behavior may reflect sound exposure, so it is usually inferred presence of predators have occurred interruptions in biologically significant by observed displacement from known (Connor and Heithaus, 1996). Flight activities (e.g., foraging) or they may be foraging areas, the appearance of responses have been speculated as being of little biological significance. secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets a component of marine mammal Variations in dive behavior may also or sediment plumes), or changes in dive strandings associated with sonar expose an animal to potentially harmful behavior. Noise from seismic surveys activities (Evans and England, 2001). If conditions (e.g., increasing the chance was not found to impact the feeding marine mammals respond to Navy of ship-strike) or may serve as an behavior in western grey whales off the vessels that are transmitting active sonar avoidance response that enhances coast of Russia (Yazvenko et al., 2007). in the same way that they might survivorship. The impact of a variation Visual tracking, passive acoustic respond to a predator, their probability in diving resulting from an acoustic monitoring, and movement recording of flight responses should increase exposure depends on what the animal is tags were used to quantify sperm whale when they perceive that Navy vessels doing at the time of the exposure and behavior prior to, during, and following are approaching them directly, because the type and magnitude of the response. exposure to air gun arrays at received a direct approach may convey detection Nowacek et al. (2004) reported levels in the range 140–160 dB at and intent to capture (Burger and disruptions of dive behaviors in foraging distances of 7–13 km, following a phase- Gochfeld, 1981, 1990; Cooper, 1997, North Atlantic right whales when in of sound intensity and full array 1998). There are limited data on flight exposed to an alerting stimulus, an exposures at 1–13 km (Madsen et al., response for marine mammals; however, action, they noted, that could lead to an 2006a; Miller et al., 2009). Sperm there are examples of this response in increased likelihood of ship strike. whales did not exhibit horizontal terrestrial species. For instance, the However, the whales did not respond to avoidance behavior at the surface. probability of flight responses in Dall’s playbacks of either right whale social However, foraging behavior may have sheep Ovis dalli dalli (Frid, 2001), sounds or vessel noise, highlighting the been affected. The sperm whales hauled-out ringed seals Phoca hispida importance of the sound characteristics exhibited 19 percent less vocal (buzz) (Born et al., 1999), Pacific brant (Branta in producing a behavioral reaction. rate during full exposure relative to post bernicl nigricans), and Canada geese (B. Conversely, Indo-Pacific humpback exposure, and the whale that was canadensis) increased as a helicopter or dolphins have been observed to dive for approached most closely had an fixed-wing aircraft more directly longer periods of time in areas where extended resting period and did not approached groups of these animals vessels were present and/or resume foraging until the air guns had (Ward et al., 1999). Bald eagles approaching (Ng and Leung, 2003). In ceased firing. The remaining whales (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) perched on both of these studies, the influence of continued to execute foraging dives trees alongside a river were also more the sound exposure cannot be throughout exposure; however, likely to flee from a paddle raft when decoupled from the physical presence of swimming movements during foraging their perches were closer to the river or a surface vessel, thus complicating dives were six percent lower during were closer to the ground (Steidl and interpretations of the relative exposure than control periods (Miller et Anthony, 1996). contribution of each stimulus to the al., 2009). These data raise concerns that response. Indeed, the presence of air gun surveys may impact foraging Response to Predator surface vessels, their approach, and behavior in sperm whales, although Evidence suggests that at least some speed of approach, seemed to be more data are required to understand marine mammals have the ability to significant factors in the response of the whether the differences were due to acoustically identify potential predators. Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Ng exposure or natural variation in sperm For example, harbor seals that reside in and Leung, 2003). Low frequency whale behavior (Miller et al., 2009). the coastal waters off British Columbia signals of the Acoustic Thermometry of Balaenopterid whales exposed to are frequently targeted by certain groups Ocean Climate (ATOC) sound source moderate low-frequency signals similar of killer whales, but not others. The were not found to affect dive times of to the ATOC sound source seals discriminate between the calls of humpback whales in Hawaiian waters demonstrated no variation in foraging threatening and non-threatening killer (Frankel and Clark, 2000) or to overtly activity (Croll et al., 2001), whereas five whales (Deecke et al., 2002), a capability affect elephant seal dives (Costa et al., out of six North Atlantic right whales that should increase survivorship while 2003). They did, however, produce exposed to an acoustic alarm reducing the energy required for subtle effects that varied in direction interrupted their foraging dives attending to and responding to all killer and degree among the individual seals, (Nowacek et al., 2004). Although the whale calls. The occurrence of masking illustrating the equivocal nature of received SPLs were similar in the latter or hearing impairment provides a means behavioral effects and consequent two studies, the frequency, duration, by which marine mammals may be difficulty in defining and predicting and temporal pattern of signal prevented from responding to the them. Lastly, as noted previously, presentation were different. These acoustic cues produced by their DeRuiter et al. (2013) noted that factors, as well as differences in species predators. Whether or not this is a distance from a sound source may sensitivity, are likely contributing possibility depends on the duration of moderate marine mammal reactions in factors to the differential response. Blue the masking/hearing impairment and their study of Cuvier’s beaked whales whales exposed to mid-frequency sonar the likelihood of encountering a showing the whales swimming rapidly in the Southern California Bight were

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29921

less likely to produce low frequency There is no indication this is the case, some disruptions may not have calls usually associated with feeding particularly since unconsumed prey deleterious effects, others, such as long- behavior (Melcoń et al., 2012). However, would likely still be available in the term or repeated disruptions of mother/ Melcoń et al. (2012) were unable to environment in most cases following the calf pairs or interruption of mating determine if suppression of low cessation of acoustic exposure. behaviors, have the potential to affect the growth and survival or reproductive frequency calls reflected a change in Breathing their feeding performance or effort/success of individuals. abandonment of foraging behavior and Variations in respiration naturally vary with different behaviors and Vocalizations (Also See Masking indicated that implications of the Section) documented responses are unknown. variations in respiration rate as a Further, it is not known whether the function of acoustic exposure can be Vocal changes in response to lower rates of calling actually indicated expected to co-occur with other anthropogenic noise can occur across a reduction in feeding behavior or social behavioral reactions, such as a flight the repertoire of sound production contact since the study used data from response or an alteration in diving. modes used by marine mammals, such However, respiration rates in and of as whistling, echolocation click remotely deployed, passive acoustic themselves may be representative of production, calling, and singing. monitoring buoys. In contrast, blue annoyance or an acute stress response. Changes may result in response to a whales increased their likelihood of Mean exhalation rates of gray whales at need to compete with an increase in calling when ship noise was present, rest and while diving were found to be background noise or may reflect an and decreased their likelihood of calling unaffected by seismic surveys increased vigilance or startle response. in the presence of explosive noise, conducted adjacent to the whale feeding For example, in the presence of low- although this result was not statistically grounds (Gailey et al., 2007). Studies frequency active sonar, humpback ´ significant (Melcon et al., 2012). with captive harbor porpoises showed whales have been observed to increase Additionally, the likelihood of an increased respiration rates upon the length of their ‘‘songs’’ (Miller et al., animal calling decreased with the introduction of acoustic alarms 2000; Fristrup et al., 2003), possibly due increased received level of mid- (Kastelein et al., 2001; Kastelein et al., to the overlap in frequencies between frequency sonar, beginning at a SPL of 2006a) and emissions for underwater the whale song and the low-frequency approximately 110–120 dB re 1 mPa data transmission (Kastelein et al., active sonar. A similar compensatory (Melcoń et al., 2012). Results from the 2005). However, exposure of the same effect for the presence of low-frequency 2010–2011 field season of an ongoing acoustic alarm to a striped dolphin vessel noise has been suggested for right behavioral response study in Southern under the same conditions did not elicit whales; right whales have been California waters indicated that, in some a response (Kastelein et al., 2006a), observed to shift the frequency content cases and at low received levels, tagged again highlighting the importance in of their calls upward while reducing the blue whales responded to mid- understanding species differences in the rate of calling in areas of increased frequency sonar but that those responses tolerance of underwater noise when anthropogenic noise (Parks et al., 2007; were mild and there was a quick return determining the potential for impacts Roland et al., 2012). Killer whales off to their baseline activity (Southall et al., resulting from anthropogenic sound the northwestern coast of the United 2011; Southall et al., 2012b). exposure. States have been observed to increase Information on or estimates of the the duration of primary calls once a Social Relationships energetic requirements of the threshold in observing vessel density individuals and the relationship Social interactions between mammals (e.g., whale watching) was reached, between prey availability, foraging effort can be affected by noise via the which has been suggested as a response and success, and the life history stage of disruption of communication signals or to increased masking noise produced by the animal will help better inform a by the displacement of individuals. the vessels (Foote et al., 2004; NOAA, determination of whether foraging Disruption of social relationships 2014b). In contrast, both sperm and disruptions incur fitness consequences. therefore depends on the disruption of pilot whales potentially ceased sound Goldbogen et al. (2013) monitored other behaviors (e.g., caused avoidance, production during the Heard Island behavioral responses of tagged blue masking, etc.). Sperm whales responded feasibility test (Bowles et al., 1994), whales located in feeding areas when to military sonar, apparently from a although it cannot be absolutely exposed to simulated MFA sonar. submarine, by dispersing from social determined whether the inability to Responses varied depending on aggregations, moving away from the acoustically detect the animals was due behavioral context, with some deep sound source, remaining relatively to the cessation of sound production or feeding whales being more significantly silent, and becoming difficult to the displacement of animals from the affected (i.e., generalized avoidance; approach (Watkins et al., 1985). In area. cessation of feeding; increased contrast, sperm whales in the Cerchio et al. (2014) used passive swimming speeds; or directed travel Mediterranean that were exposed to acoustic monitoring to document the away from the source) compared to submarine sonar continued calling (J. presence of singing humpback whales surface feeding individuals that Gordon pers. comm. cited in Richardson off the coast of northern Angola and to typically showed no change in behavior. et al., 1995). Long-finned pilot whales opportunistically test for the effect of The authors indicate that disruption of exposed to three types of disturbance— seismic survey activity on the number of feeding and displacement could impact playbacks of killer whale sounds, naval singing whales. Two recording units individual fitness and health. However, sonar exposure, and tagging all resulted were deployed between March and for this to be true, we would have to in increased group sizes (Visser et al., December 2008 in the offshore assume that an individual whale could 2016). In response to sonar, pilot whales environment; numbers of singers were not compensate for this lost feeding also spent more time at the surface with counted every hour. Generalized opportunity by either immediately other members of the group (Visser et Additive Mixed Models were used to feeding at another location, by feeding al., 2016). However, social disruptions assess the effect of survey day shortly after cessation of acoustic must be considered in context of the (seasonality), hour (diel variation), exposure, or by feeding at a later time. relationships that are affected. While moon phase, and received levels of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29922 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

noise (measured from a single pulse noise received far from the noise source portion of the migration corridor. A during each ten-minute sampled period) can induce behavioral responses. single source was used to broadcast LFA on singer number. The number of sonar sounds at received levels of 170– Avoidance singers significantly decreased with 178 dB re 1mPa. The Navy reported that increasing received level of noise, Avoidance is the displacement of an the whales showed some avoidance suggesting that humpback whale individual from an area as a result of the responses when the source was moored communication was disrupted to some presence of a sound. Richardson et al. one mile (1.8 km) offshore, and located extent by the survey activity. (1995) noted that avoidance reactions within in the migration path, but the Castellote et al. (2012) reported are the most obvious manifestations of whales returned to their migration path acoustic and behavioral changes by fin disturbance in marine mammals. when they were a few kilometers whales in response to shipping and air Avoidance is qualitatively different beyond the source. When the source gun noise. Acoustic features of fin from the flight response, but also differs was moored two miles (3.7 km) offshore, whale song notes recorded in the in the magnitude of the response (i.e., responses were much less even when Mediterranean Sea and northeast directed movement, rate of travel, etc.). the source level was increased to Atlantic Ocean were compared for areas Oftentimes avoidance is temporary, and achieve the same RLs in the middle of with different shipping noise levels and animals return to the area once the noise the migration corridor as whales traffic intensities and during an air gun has ceased. However, longer term received when the source was located survey. During the first 72 hrs of the displacement is possible and can lead to within the migration corridor (Clark et changes in abundance or distribution survey, a steady decrease in song al., 1999). In addition, the researchers patterns of the species in the affected received levels and bearings to singers noted that the offshore whales did not region if they do not become acclimated indicated that whales moved away from seem to avoid the louder offshore to the presence of the sound (Blackwell the acoustic source and out of a Navy source. et al., 2004; Bejder et al., 2006; Study Area. This displacement persisted Also during the LFS SRP, researchers Teilmann et al., 2006). Acute avoidance for a time period well beyond the 10- sighted numerous odontocete and responses have been observed in captive day duration of air gun activity, pinniped species in the vicinity of the porpoises and pinnipeds exposed to a providing evidence that fin whales may sound exposure tests with LFA sonar. number of different sound sources avoid an area for an extended period in The MF and HF hearing specialists (Kastelein et al., 2001; Finneran et al., the presence of increased noise. The present in California and Hawaii 2003; Kastelein et al., 2006a; Kastelein showed no immediately obvious authors hypothesize tha fin whale et al., 2006b). Short-term avoidance of responses or changes in sighting rates as acoustic communication is modified to seismic surveys, low frequency a function of source conditions. compensate for increased background emissions, and acoustic deterrents have Consequently, the researchers noise and that a sensitization process also been noted in wild populations of concluded that none of these species may play a role in the observed odontocetes (Bowles et al., 1994; Goold, had any obvious behavioral reaction to temporary displacement. 1996; 1998; Stone et al., 2000; Morton LFA sonar signals at received levels Seismic pulses at average received and Symonds, 2002) and to some extent similar to those that produced only levels of 131 dB re 1 micropascal in mysticetes (Gailey et al., 2007), while minor short-term behavioral responses squared per second (mPa2-s) caused blue longer term or repetitive/chronic in the baleen whales (i.e., LF hearing whales to increase call production (Di displacement for some dolphin groups specialists). Thus, for odontocetes, the Iorio and Clark, 2010). In contrast, and for manatees has been suggested to chances of injury and/or significant McDonald et al. (1995) tracked a blue be due to the presence of chronic vessel behavioral responses to LFA sonar whale with seafloor seismometers and noise (Haviland-Howell et al., 2007; would be low given the MF/HF reported that it stopped vocalizing and Miksis-Olds et al., 2007). Gray whales specialists’ observed lack of response to changed its travel direction at a range of have been reported deflecting from LFA sounds during the LFS SRP and 10 km from the seismic vessel customary migratory paths in order to due to the MF/HF frequencies to which (estimated received level 143 dB re 1 avoid noise from air gun surveys these animals are adapted to hear (Clark mPa peak-to-peak). Blackwell et al. (Malme et al., 1984). Humpback whales and Southall, 2009). (2013) found that bowhead whale call showed avoidance behavior in the Maybaum (1993) conducted sound rates dropped significantly at onset of presence of an active air gun array playback experiments to assess the air gun use at sites with a median during observational studies and effects of MFAS on humpback whales in distance of 41–45 km from the survey. controlled exposure experiments in Hawaiian waters. Specifically, she Blackwell et al. (2015) expanded this western Australia (McCauley et al., exposed focal pods to sounds of a 3.3- analysis to show that whales actually 2000a). kHz sonar pulse, a sonar frequency increased calling rates as soon as air gun In 1998, the Navy conducted a Low sweep from 3.1 to 3.6 kHz, and a control signals were detectable before Frequency Sonar Scientific Research (blank) tape while monitoring behavior, ultimately decreasing calling rates at Program (LFS SRP) specifically to study movement, and underwater higher received levels (i.e., 10-minute behavioral responses of several species vocalizations. The two types of sonar cSEL of ∼127 dB). Overall, these results of marine mammals to exposure to LF signals differed in their effects on the suggest that bowhead whales may adjust sound, including one phase that focused humpback whales, but both resulted in their vocal output in an effort to on the behavior of gray whales to low avoidance behavior. The whales compensate for noise before ceasing frequency sound signals. The objective responded to the pulse by increasing vocalization effort and ultimately of this phase of the LFS SRP was to their distance from the sound source deflecting from the acoustic source determine whether migrating gray and responded to the frequency sweep (Blackwell et al., 2013, 2015). Captive whales respond more strongly to by increasing their swimming speeds bottlenose dolphins sometimes received levels, sound gradient, or and track linearity. In the Caribbean, vocalized after an exposure to impulse distance from the source, and to sperm whales avoided exposure to mid- sound from a seismic water gun compare whale avoidance responses to frequency submarine sonar pulses, in (Finneran et al., 2010a). These studies an LF source in the center of the the range of 1000 Hz to 10,000 Hz (IWC, demonstrate that even low levels of migration corridor versus in the offshore 2005).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29923

Kvadsheim et al. (2007) conducted a summarize the studies associated with these data were collected from harbor controlled exposure experiment in low-frequency, mid-frequency, and porpoises. Southall et al. (2007) which killer whales fitted with D-tags high-frequency cetacean and pinniped concluded that the existing data were exposed to mid-frequency active responses to non-pulse sounds, based indicate that harbor porpoises are likely sonar (Source A: A 1.0 second upsweep strictly on received level, in Appendix sensitive to a wide range of 209 dB @1–2 kHz every 10 seconds for C of their article (included in this anthropogenic sounds at low received 10 minutes; Source B: With a 1.0 second preamble by reference and summarized levels (∼90 to 120 dB re: 1 mPa), at least upsweep 197 dB @6–7 kHz every 10 in the following paragraphs below). for initial exposures. All recorded seconds for 10 minutes). When exposed The studies that address responses of exposures above 140 dB re: 1 mPa to Source A, a tagged whale and the low-frequency cetaceans to non-pulse induced profound and sustained group it was traveling with did not sounds include data gathered in the avoidance behavior in wild harbor appear to avoid the source. When field and related to several types of porpoises (Southall et al., 2007). Rapid exposed to Source B, the tagged whales sound sources (of varying similarity to habituation was noted in some but not along with other whales that had been MFAS/HFAS) including: Vessel noise, all studies. There are no data to indicate carousel feeding, where killer whales drilling and machinery playback, low- whether other high frequency cetaceans cooperatively herd fish schools into a frequency M-sequences (sine wave with are as sensitive to anthropogenic sound tight ball towards the surface and feed multiple phase reversals) playback, as harbor porpoises. on the fish which have been stunned by tactical low-frequency active sonar The studies that address the responses tailslaps and subsurface feeding (Simila, playback, drill ships, Acoustic of pinnipeds in water to non-impulsive 1997), ceased feeding during the Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC) sounds include data gathered both in approach of the sonar and moved source, and non-pulse playbacks. These the field and the laboratory and related rapidly away from the source. When studies generally indicate no (or very to several different sound sources exposed to Source B, Kvadsheim et al. limited) responses to received levels in including: AHDs, ATOC, various non- (2007) reported that a tagged killer the 90 to 120 dB re: 1 mPa range and an pulse sounds used in underwater data whale seemed to try to avoid further increasing likelihood of avoidance and communication, underwater drilling, exposure to the sound field by the other behavioral effects in the 120 to and construction noise. Few studies following behaviors: Immediately 160 dB re: 1 mPa range. As mentioned exist with enough information to swimming away (horizontally) from the earlier, though, contextual variables include them in the analysis. The source of the sound; engaging in a series play a very important role in the limited data suggested that exposures to of erratic and frequently deep dives that reported responses and the severity of non-pulse sounds between 90 and 140 seemed to take it below the sound field; effects are not linear when compared to dB re: 1 mPa generally do not result in or swimming away while engaged in a received level. Also, few of the strong behavioral responses in series of erratic and frequently deep laboratory or field datasets had common pinnipeds in water, but no data exist at dives. Although the sample sizes in this conditions, behavioral contexts or higher received levels. study are too small to support statistical sound sources, so it is not surprising In 2007, the first in a series of analysis, the behavioral responses of the that responses differ. behavioral response studies (BRS) on killer whales were consistent with the The studies that address responses of deep diving odontocetes conducted by results of other studies. mid-frequency cetaceans to non-pulse NMFS, Navy, and other scientists Southall et al. (2007) reviewed the sounds include data gathered both in showed one Blainville’s beaked whale available literature on marine mammal the field and the laboratory and related responding to an MFAS playback. Tyack hearing and physiological and to several different sound sources (of et al. (2011) indicates that the playback behavioral responses to human-made varying similarity to MFAS/HFAS) began when the tagged beaked whale sound with the goal of proposing including: Pingers, drilling playbacks, was vocalizing at depth (at the deepest exposure criteria for certain effects. This ship and ice-breaking noise, vessel part of a typical feeding dive), following peer-reviewed compilation of literature noise, Acoustic Harassment Devices a previous control with no sound is very valuable, though Southall et al. (AHDs), Acoustic Deterrent Devices exposure. The whale appeared to stop (2007) note that not all data are equal, (ADDs), MFAS, and non-pulse bands clicking significantly earlier than usual, some have poor statistical power, and tones. Southall et al. (2007) were when exposed to MF signals in the 130– insufficient controls, and/or limited unable to come to a clear conclusion 140 dB (rms) received level range. After information on received levels, regarding the results of these studies. In a few more minutes of the playback, background noise, and other potentially some cases, animals in the field showed when the received level reached a important contextual variables. Such significant responses to received levels maximum of 140–150 dB, the whale data were reviewed and sometimes used between 90 and 120 dB re: 1 mPa, while ascended on the slow side of normal for qualitative illustration, but no in other cases these responses were not ascent rates with a longer than normal quantitative criteria were recommended seen in the 120 to 150 dB re: 1 mPa ascent, at which point the exposure was for behavioral responses. All of the range. The disparity in results was terminated. The results are from a single studies considered, however, contain an likely due to contextual variation and experiment and a greater sample size is estimate of the received sound level the differences between the results in needed before robust and definitive when the animal exhibited the indicated the field and laboratory data (animals conclusions can be drawn. Tyack et al. response. typically responded at lower levels in (2011) also indicates that Blainville’s In the Southall et al. (2007) the field). beaked whales appear to be sensitive to publication, for the purposes of The studies that address responses of noise at levels well below expected TTS analyzing responses of marine mammals high-frequency cetaceans to non-pulse (∼160 dB re1mPa). This sensitivity was to anthropogenic sound and developing sounds include data gathered both in manifested by an adaptive movement criteria, the authors differentiate the field and the laboratory and related away from a sound source. This between single pulse sounds, multiple to several different sound sources (of response was observed irrespective of pulse sounds, and non-pulse sounds. varying similarity to MFAS/HFAS) whether the signal transmitted was LFAS/MFAS/HFAS are considered non- including: Pingers, AHDs, and various within the band width of MFAS, which pulse sounds. Southall et al. (2007) laboratory non-pulse sounds. All of suggests that beaked whales may not

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29924 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

respond to the specific sound Cuvier’s beaked whale responses transmissions of either sound type, they signatures. Instead, they may be suggested particular sensitivity to sound noted few obvious behavioral responses sensitive to any pulsed sound from a exposure as consistent with results for detected either by the visual observers point source in this frequency range of Blainville’s beaked whale. Similarly, or on initial inspection of the tag data. the MF active sonar transmission. The beaked whales exposed to sonar during The researchers observed that response to such stimuli appears to British training exercises stopped throughout the CEE transmissions, up to involve the beaked whale increasing the foraging (DSTL, 2007), and preliminary the highest received sound level distance between it and the sound results of controlled playback of sonar (absolute RMS value approximately 160 source. Overall the results from the may indicate feeding/foraging dB re: 1mPa with signal-to-noise ratio 2007–2008 study conducted showed a disruption of killer whales and sperm values over 60 dB), two blue whales change in diving behavior of the whales (Miller et al., 2011). continued surface feeding behavior and Blainville’s beaked whale to playback of In the 2007–2008 Bahamas study, remained at a range of around 3,820 ft MFAS and predator sounds (Boyd et al., playback sounds of a potential (1,000 m) from the sound source 2008; Southall et al., 2009; Tyack et al., predator—a killer whale—resulted in a (Southall et al., 2011). In contrast, 2011). similar but more pronounced reaction, another blue whale (later in the day and Stimpert et al. (2014) tagged a Baird’s which included longer inter-dive greater than 11.5 mi (18.5 km; 10 nmi) beaked whale, which was subsequently intervals and a sustained straight-line from the first CEE location) exposed to exposed to simulated MFAS. Received departure of more than 20 km from the the same stimulus (MFA) while engaged levels of sonar on the tag increased to area (Boyd et al., 2008; Southall et al., in a deep feeding/travel state exhibited a maximum of 138 dB re 1mPa, which 2009; Tyack et al., 2011). The authors a different response. In that case, the occurred during the first exposure dive. noted, however, that the magnified blue whale responded almost Some sonar received levels could not be reaction to the predator sounds could immediately following the start of measured due to flow noise and surface represent a cumulative effect of sound transmissions when received noise on the tag. exposure to the two sound types since sounds were just above ambient Reaction to mid-frequency sounds killer whale playback began background levels (Southall et al., included premature cessation of approximately two hours after MF 2011). The authors note that this kind of clicking and termination of a foraging source playback. Pilot whales and killer temporary avoidance behavior was not dive, and a slower ascent rate to the whales off Norway also exhibited evident in any of the nine CEEs surface. Results from a similar horizontal avoidance of a transducer involving blue whales engaged in behavioral response study in southern with outputs in the mid-frequency range surface feeding or social behaviors, but California waters have been presented (signals in the 1–2 kHz and 6–7 kHz was observed in three of the ten CEEs for the 2010–2011 field season (Southall ranges) (Miller et al., 2011). for blue whales in deep feeding/travel et al., 2011; DeRuiter et al., 2013b). Additionally, separation of a calf from behavioral modes (one involving MFA DeRuiter et al. (2013b) presented results its group during exposure to MFAS sonar; two involving pseudo-random from two Cuvier’s beaked whales that playback was observed on one occasion noise) (Southall et al., 2011). The results were tagged and exposed to simulated (Miller et al., 2011, 2012). Miller et al. of this study, as well as the results of the MFAS during the 2010 and 2011 field (2012) noted that this single observed DeRuiter et al. (2013) study of Cuvier’s seasons of the southern California mother-calf separation was unusual for beaked whales discussed above, further behavioral response study. The 2011 several reasons, including the fact that illustrate the importance of behavioral whale was also incidentally exposed to the experiment was conducted in an context in understanding and predicting MFAS from a distant naval exercise. unusually narrow fjord roughly one km behavioral responses. Received levels from the MFAS signals wide and that the sonar exposure was from the controlled and incidental started unusually close to the pod Through analysis of the behavioral exposures were calculated as 84–144 including the calf. Both of these factors response studies, a preliminary and 78–106 dB re 1 mPa rms, could have contributed to calf overarching effect of greater sensitivity respectively. Both whales showed separation. In contrast, preliminary to all anthropogenic exposures was seen responses to the controlled exposures, analyses suggest that none of the pilot in beaked whales compared to the other ranging from initial orientation changes whales or false killer whales in the odontocetes studied (Southall et al., to avoidance responses characterized by Bahamas showed an avoidance response 2009). Therefore, recent studies have energetic fluking and swimming away to controlled exposure playbacks focused specifically on beaked whale from the source. However, the authors (Southall et al., 2009). responses to active sonar transmissions did not detect similar responses to In the 2010 BRS study, researchers or controlled exposure playback of incidental exposure to distant naval again used controlled exposure simulated sonar on various military sonar exercises at comparable received experiments (CEE) to carefully measure ranges (Defence Science and levels, indicating that context of the behavioral responses of individual Technology Laboratory, 2007; Claridge exposures (e.g., source proximity, animals to sound exposures of MF and Durban, 2009; Moretti et al., 2009; controlled source ramp-up) may have active sonar and pseudo-random noise. McCarthy et al., 2011; Miller et al., been a significant factor. Specifically, For each sound type, some exposures 2012; Southall et al., 2011, 2012a, this result suggests that caution is were conducted when animals were in 2012b, 2013, 2014; Tyack et al., 2011). needed when using marine mammal a surface feeding (approximately 164 ft In the Bahamas, Blainville’s beaked response data collected from smaller, (50 m) or less) and/or socializing whales located on the instrumented nearer sound sources to predict at what behavioral state and others while range will move off-range during sonar received levels animals may respond to animals were in a deep feeding (greater use and return only after the sonar larger sound sources that are than 164 ft (50 m)) and/or traveling transmissions have stopped, sometimes significantly farther away—as the mode. The researchers conducted the taking several days to do so (Claridge distance of the source appears to be an largest number of CEEs on blue whales and Durban 2009; Moretti et al., 2009; important contextual variable and (n=19) and of these, 11 CEEs involved McCarthy et al., 2011; Tyack et al., animals may be less responsive to exposure to the MF active sonar sound 2011). Moretti et al. (2014) used sources at notably greater distances. type. For the majority of CEE recordings from seafloor-mounted

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29925

hydrophones at the Atlantic Undersea be considered mild disruptions if hearing. Further, he noted that of the Test and Evaluation Center (AUTEC) to occurring alone. As previously whales observed, fin whales were the analyze the probability of Blainsville’s mentioned, the responses may co-occur most sensitive of the four species, beaked whale dives before, during, and with other behaviors; for instance, an followed by humpback whales; right after Navy sonar exercises. animal may initially orient toward a whales were the least likely to be Southall et al. (2016) indicates that sound source, and then move away from disturbed and generally did not react to results from Tyack et al. (2011); Miller it. Thus, any orienting response should low-amplitude engine noise. By the end et al. (2015), Stimpert et al. (2014), and be considered in context of other of his period of study, Watkins (1986) DeRuiter et al. (2013) beaked whale reactions that may occur. concluded that fin and humpback studies all demonstrate clear, strong, whales have generally habituated to the Continued Pre-Disturbance Behavior and pronounced but varied behavioral continuous and broad-band noise of and Habituation changes including sustained avoidance Cape Cod Bay while right whales did with associated energetic swimming and Under some circumstances, some of not appear to change their response. As cessation of feeding behavior at quite the individual marine mammals that are mentioned above, animals that habituate low received levels (∼100 to 135 dB re exposed to active sonar transmissions to a particular disturbance may have 1Pa) for exposures to simulated or active will continue their normal behavioral experienced low-level stress responses MF military sonars (1 to 8 kHz) with activities. In other circumstances, initially, but those responses abated sound sources approximately 2 to 5 km individual animals will respond to over time. In most cases, this likely away. sonar transmissions at lower received means a lessened immediate potential Baleen whales have shown a variety levels and move to avoid additional effect from a disturbance. However, of responses to impulse sound sources, exposure or exposures at higher there is cause for concern where the including avoidance, reduced surface received levels (Richardson et al., 1995). habituation occurs in a potentially more intervals, altered swimming behavior, It is difficult to distinguish between harmful situation. For example, animals and changes in vocalization rates animals that continue their pre- may become more vulnerable to vessel (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et al., disturbance behavior without stress strikes once they habituate to vessel 2003; Southall, 2007). While most responses, animals that continue their traffic (Swingle et al., 1993; Wiley et al., bowhead whales did not show active behavior but experience stress responses 1995). avoidance until within 8 km of seismic (that is, animals that cope with Aicken et al. (2005) monitored the vessels (Richardson et al., 1995), some disturbance), and animals that habituate behavioral responses of marine whales avoided vessels by more than 20 to disturbance (that is, they may have mammals to a new low-frequency active km at received levels as low as 120 dB experienced low-level stress responses sonar system used by the British Navy re 1 mPa rms. Additionally, Malme et al. initially, but those responses abated (the United States Navy considers this (1988) observed clear changes in diving over time). Watkins (1986) reviewed to be a mid-frequency source as it and respiration patterns in bowheads at data on the behavioral reactions of fin, operates at frequencies greater than ranges up to 73 km from seismic vessels, humpback, right and minke whales that 1,000 Hz). During those trials, fin with received levels as low as 125 dB re were exposed to continuous, broadband whales, sperm whales, Sowerby’s 1 mPa. low-frequency shipping and industrial beaked whales, long-finned pilot Gray whales migrating along the U.S. noise in Cape Cod Bay. He concluded whales, Atlantic white-sided dolphins, west coast showed avoidance responses that underwater sound was the primary and common bottlenose dolphins were to seismic vessels by 10 percent of cause of behavioral reactions in these observed and their vocalizations were animals at 164 dB re 1 mPa, and by 90 species of whales and that the whales recorded. These monitoring studies percent of animals at 190 dB re 1 mPa, responded behaviorally to acoustic detected no evidence of behavioral with similar results for whales in the stimuli within their respective hearing responses that the investigators could Bering Sea (Malme, 1986; 1988). In ranges. Watkins also noted that whales attribute to exposure to the low- contrast, noise from seismic surveys was showed the strongest behavioral frequency active sonar during these not found to impact feeding behavior or reactions to sounds in the 15 Hz to 28 trials. exhalation rates while resting or diving kHz range, although negative reactions Explosive Sources in western gray whales off the coast of (avoidance, interruptions in Russia (Yazvenko et al., 2007; Gailey et vocalizations, etc.) were generally Underwater explosive detonations al., 2007). associated with sounds that were either send a shock wave and sound energy Humpback whales showed avoidance unexpected, too loud, suddenly louder through the water and can release behavior at ranges of five to eight km or different, or perceived as being gaseous by-products, create an from a seismic array during associated with a potential threat (such oscillating bubble, or cause a plume of observational studies and controlled as an approaching ship on a collision water to shoot up from the water exposure experiments in western course). In particular, whales seemed to surface. The shock wave and Australia (McCauley, 1998; Todd et al., react negatively when they were within accompanying noise are of most concern 1996). Todd found no clear short-term 100 m of the source or when received to marine animals. Depending on the behavioral responses by foraging levels increased suddenly in excess of intensity of the shock wave and size, humpbacks to explosions associated 12 dB relative to ambient sounds. At location, and depth of the animal, an with construction operations in other times, the whales ignored the animal can be injured, killed, suffer Newfoundland, but did see a trend of source of the signal and all four species non-lethal physical effects, experience increased rates of net entanglement and habituated to these sounds. hearing related effects with or without a shift to a higher incidence of net Nevertheless, Watkins concluded that behavioral responses, or exhibit entanglement closer to the noise source. whales ignored most sounds in the temporary behavioral responses or background of ambient noise, including tolerance from hearing the blast sound. Orientation sounds from distant human activities Generally, exposures to higher levels of A shift in an animal’s resting state or even though these sounds may have had impulse and pressure levels would an attentional change via an orienting considerable energies at frequencies result in greater impacts to an response represent behaviors that would well within the whales’ range of individual animal.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29926 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

Injuries resulting from a shock wave can draw comparisons for marine not the sheer presence or magnitude of take place at boundaries between tissues mammals. Several authors have human activities, but rather the directed of different densities. Different reported that disturbance stimuli may interactions and dolphin-focused velocities are imparted to tissues of cause animals to abandon nesting and activities that elicit responses from different densities, and this can lead to foraging sites (Sutherland and dolphins at rest. This information again their physical disruption. Blast effects Crockford, 1993); may cause animals to illustrates the importance of context in are greatest at the gas-liquid interface increase their activity levels and suffer regard to whether an animal will (Landsberg, 2000). Gas-containing premature deaths or reduced respond to a stimulus. Miksis-Olds organs, particularly the lungs and reproductive success when their energy (2006) and Miksis-Olds et al. (2005) gastrointestinal tract, are especially expenditures exceed their energy reported that Florida manatees in susceptible (Goertner, 1982; Hill, 1978; budgets (Daan et al., 1996; Feare, 1976; Sarasota Bay, Florida, reduced the Yelverton et al., 1973). Intestinal walls Mullner et al., 2004); or may cause amount of time they spent milling and can bruise or rupture, with subsequent animals to experience higher predation increased the amount of time they spent hemorrhage and escape of gut contents rates when they adopt risk-prone feeding when background noise levels into the body cavity. Less severe foraging or migratory strategies (Frid increased. Although the acute costs of gastrointestinal tract injuries include and Dill, 2002). Each of these studies these changes in behavior are not likely contusions, petechiae (small red or addressed the consequences of animals to exceed an animal’s ability to purple spots caused by bleeding in the shifting from one behavioral state (e.g., compensate, the chronic costs of these skin), and slight hemorrhaging resting or foraging) to another behavioral shifts are uncertain. (Yelverton et al., 1973). behavioral state (e.g., avoidance or Attention is the cognitive process of Because the ears are the most escape behavior) because of human selectively concentrating on one aspect sensitive to pressure, they are the organs disturbance or disturbance stimuli. of an animal’s environment while most sensitive to injury (Ketten, 2000). One consequence of behavioral ignoring other things (Posner, 1994). Sound-related damage associated with avoidance results in the altered Because animals (including humans) sound energy from detonations can be energetic expenditure of marine have limited cognitive resources, there theoretically distinct from injury from mammals because energy is required to is a limit to how much sensory the shock wave, particularly farther move and avoid surface vessels or the information they can process at any from the explosion. If a noise is audible sound field associated with active sonar time. The phenomenon called to an animal, it has the potential to (Frid and Dill, 2002). Most animals can ‘‘attentional capture’’ occurs when a damage the animal’s hearing by causing avoid that energetic cost by swimming stimulus (usually a stimulus that an decreased sensitivity (Ketten, 1995). away at slow speeds or speeds that animal is not concentrating on or Lethal impacts are those that result in minimize the cost of transport (Miksis- attending to) ‘‘captures’’ an animal’s immediate death or serious debilitation Olds, 2006), as has been demonstrated attention. This shift in attention can in or near an intense source and are not, in Florida manatees (Miksis-Olds, 2006). occur consciously or subconsciously technically, pure acoustic trauma Those energetic costs increase, (for example, when an animal hears (Ketten, 1995). Sublethal impacts however, when animals shift from a sounds that it associates with the include hearing loss, which is caused by resting state, which is designed to approach of a predator) and the shift in exposures to perceptible sounds. Severe conserve an animal’s energy, to an attention can be sudden (Dukas, 2002; damage (from the shock wave) to the active state that consumes energy the van Rij, 2007). Once a stimulus has ears includes tympanic membrane animal would have conserved had it not captured an animal’s attention, the rupture, fracture of the ossicles, damage been disturbed. Marine mammals that animal can respond by ignoring the to the cochlea, hemorrhage, and have been disturbed by anthropogenic stimulus, assuming a ‘‘watch and wait’’ cerebrospinal fluid leakage into the noise and vessel approaches are posture, or treat the stimulus as a middle ear. Moderate injury implies commonly reported to shift from resting disturbance and respond accordingly, partial hearing loss due to tympanic to active behavioral states, which would which includes scanning for the source membrane rupture and blood in the imply that they incur an energy cost. of the stimulus or ‘‘vigilance’’ middle ear. Permanent hearing loss also Morete et al. (2007) reported that (Cowlishaw et al., 2004). can occur when the hair cells are undisturbed humpback whale cows that Vigilance is normally an adaptive damaged by one very loud event, as well were accompanied by their calves were behavior that helps animals determine as by prolonged exposure to a loud frequently observed resting while their the presence or absence of predators, noise or chronic exposure to noise. The calves circled them (milling). When assess their distance from conspecifics, level of impact from blasts depends on vessels approached, the amount of time or to attend cues from prey (Bednekoff both an animal’s location and, at outer cows and calves spent resting and and Lima, 1998; Treves, 2000). Despite zones, on its sensitivity to the residual milling, respectively, declined those benefits, however, vigilance has a noise (Ketten, 1995). significantly. These results are similar to cost of time; when animals focus their those reported by Scheidat et al. (2004) attention on specific environmental Further Potential Effects of Behavioral for the humpback whales they observed cues, they are not attending to other Disturbance on Marine Mammal Fitness off the coast of Ecuador. activities such as foraging. These costs The different ways that marine Constantine and Brunton (2001) have been documented best in foraging mammals respond to sound are reported that bottlenose dolphins in the animals, where vigilance has been sometimes indicators of the ultimate Bay of Islands, New Zealand engaged in shown to substantially reduce feeding effect that exposure to a given stimulus resting behavior just 5 percent of the rates (Saino, 1994; Beauchamp and will have on the well-being (survival, time when vessels were within 300 m, Livoreil, 1997; Fritz et al., 2002). reproduction, etc.) of an animal. There compared with 83 percent of the time Animals will spend more time being are few quantitative marine mammal when vessels were not present. vigilant, which may translate to less data relating the exposure of marine However, Heenehan et al. (2016) report time foraging or resting, when mammals to sound to effects on that results of a study of the response of disturbance stimuli approach them reproduction or survival, though data Hawaiian spinner dolphins to human more directly, remain at closer exists for terrestrial species to which we disturbance suggest that the key factor is distances, have a greater group size (e.g.,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29927

multiple surface vessels), or when they activity rate and energy demand while while the increased traveling incurred co-occur with times that an animal decreasing their caloric intake/energy). an increased energy output of 3–4 perceives increased risk (e.g., when they Ridgway et al. (2006) reported that percent, which suggests that a are giving birth or accompanied by a increased vigilance in bottlenose management action based on avoiding calf). Most of the published literature, dolphins exposed to sound over a five- interference with foraging might be however, suggests that direct day period in open-air, open-water particularly effective. approaches will increase the amount of enclosures in San Diego Bay did not On a related note, many animals time animals will dedicate to being cause any sleep deprivation or stress perform vital functions, such as feeding, vigilant. An example of this concept effects such as changes in cortisol or resting, traveling, and socializing, on a with terrestrial species involved bighorn epinephrine levels. An example of this diel cycle (24-hr cycle). Behavioral sheep and Dall’s sheep, which concept with terrestrial species involved reactions to noise exposure (such as dedicated more time being vigilant, and a study of grizzly bears (Ursus horribilis) disruption of critical life functions, less time resting or foraging, when that reported that bears disturbed by displacement, or avoidance of important aircraft made direct approaches over hikers reduced their energy intake by an habitat) are more likely to be significant them (Frid, 2001; Stockwell et al., average of 12 kilocalories/min (50.2 × for fitness if they last more than one diel 1991). Vigilance has also been 103 kiloJoules/min), and spent energy cycle or recur on subsequent days documented in pinnipeds at haul out fleeing or acting aggressively toward (Southall et al., 2007). Consequently, a sites where resting may be disturbed hikers (White et al., 1999). behavioral response lasting less than one day and not recurring on when seals become alerted and/or flush Lusseau and Bejder (2007) present subsequent days is not considered into the water due to a variety of data from three long-term studies particularly severe unless it could disturbances, which may be illustrating the connections between directly affect reproduction or survival anthropogenic (noise and/or visual disturbance from whale-watching boats (Southall et al., 2007). It is important to stimuli) or due to other natural causes and population-level effects in note the difference between behavioral such as other pinnipeds (Richardson et cetaceans. In Sharks Bay Australia, the reactions lasting or recurring over al., 1995; Southall et al., 2007; abundance of bottlenose dolphins was multiple days and anthropogenic VanBlaricom, 2010; and Lozano and compared within adjacent control and Hente, 2014). activities lasting or recurring over tourism sites over three consecutive 4.5- Several authors have established that multiple days. For example, just year periods of increasing tourism long-term and intense disturbance because an at-sea exercises last for stimuli can cause population declines levels. Between the second and third multiple days does not necessarily mean by reducing the physical condition of time periods, in which tourism doubled, that individual animals will be exposed individuals that have been disturbed, dolphin abundance decreased by 15 to those exercises for multiple days or followed by reduced reproductive percent in the tourism area and did not exposed in a manner that would result success, reduced survival, or both (Daan change significantly in the control area. in a sustained behavioral response. et al., 1996; Madsen, 1994; White, In Fiordland, New Zealand, two In order to understand how the effects 1985). For example, Madsen (1994) populations (Milford and Doubtful of activities may or may not impact reported that pink-footed geese (Anser Sounds) of bottlenose dolphins with species and stocks of marine mammals, brachyrhynchus) in undisturbed habitat tourism levels that differed by a factor it is necessary to understand not only gained body mass and had about a 46 of seven were observed and significant what the likely disturbances are going to percent reproductive success rate increases in travelling time and be, but how those disturbances may compared with geese in disturbed decreases in resting time were affect the reproductive success and habitat (being consistently scared off the documented for both. Consistent short- survivorship of individuals, and then fields on which they were foraging) term avoidance strategies were observed how those impacts to individuals which did not gain mass and had a 17 in response to tour boats until a translate to population-level effects. percent reproductive success rate. threshold of disturbance was reached Following on the earlier work of a Similar reductions in reproductive (average 68 minutes between committee of the U.S. National Research success have been reported for mule interactions), after which the response Council (NRC, 2005), New et al. (2014), deer (Odocoileus hemionus) disturbed switched to a longer-term habitat in an effort termed the Potential by all-terrain vehicles (Yarmoloy et al., displacement strategy. For one Consequences of Disturbance (PCoD), 1988), caribou (Rangifer tarandus population, tourism only occurred in a outline an updated conceptual model of caribou) disturbed by seismic part of the home range. However, the relationships linking disturbance to exploration blasts (Bradshaw et al., tourism occurred throughout the home changes in behavior and physiology, 1998), and caribou disturbed by low- range of the Doubtful Sound population health, vital rates, and population elevation military jet fights (Luick et al., and once boat traffic increased beyond dynamics. In this framework, behavioral 1996, Harrington and Veitch, 1992). the 68-minute threshold (resulting in and physiological changes can either Similarly, a study of elk (Cervus abandonment of their home range/ have direct (acute) effects on vital rates, elaphus) that were disturbed preferred habitat), reproductive success such as when changes in habitat use or experimentally by pedestrians drastically decreased (increased increased stress levels raise the concluded that the ratio of young to stillbirths) and abundance decreased probability of mother-calf separation or mothers was inversely related to significantly (from 67 to 56 individuals predation; they can have indirect and disturbance rate (Phillips and in short period). Last, in a study of long-term (chronic) effects on vital rates, Alldredge, 2000). northern resident killer whales off such as when changes in time/energy The primary mechanism by which Vancouver Island, exposure to boat budgets or increased disease increased vigilance and disturbance traffic was shown to reduce foraging susceptibility affect health, which then appear to affect the fitness of individual opportunities and increase traveling affects vital rates; or they can have no animals is by disrupting an animal’s time. A simple bioenergetics model was effect to vital rates (New et al., 2014). In time budget and, as a result, reducing applied to show that the reduced addition to outlining this general the time they might spend foraging and foraging opportunities equated to a framework and compiling the relevant resting (which increases an animal’s decreased energy intake of 18 percent, literature that supports it, authors have

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29928 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

chosen four example species for which though one exposure without the other Hildebrand, 2004; IWC, 2005; Taylor et extensive long-term monitoring data does not produce the same result al., 2004). For example, based on a exist (southern elephant seals, North (Chroussos, 2000; Creel, 2005; DeVries review of mass stranding events around Atlantic right whales, Ziphidae beaked et al., 2003; Fair and Becker, 2000; Foley the world consisting of two or more whales, and bottlenose dolphins) and et al., 2001; Moberg, 2000; Relyea, individuals of Cuvier’s beaked whales, developed state-space energetic models 2005a; 2005b, Romero, 2004; Sih et al., records from the International Whaling that can be used to effectively forecast 2004). Commission (IWC)(2005) show that a longer-term, population-level impacts Historically, stranding reporting and quarter (9 of 41) were associated with from behavioral changes. While these response efforts have been inconsistent, concurrent naval patrol, explosion, are very specific models with very although significant improvements have maneuvers, or MFAS. D’Amico et al. specific data requirements that cannot occurred over the last 25 years. (2009) reviewed beaked whale stranding yet be applied broadly to project- Reporting forms for basic (‘‘Level A’’) data compiled primarily from the specific risk assessments for the information, rehabilitation disposition, published literature, which provides an majority of species, they are a critical and Human Interaction have been incomplete record of stranding events, first step towards being able to quantify standardized nationally (available at as many are not written up for the likelihood of a population level https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ publication, along with unpublished effect. national/marine-mammal-protection/ information from some regions of the level-data-collection-marine-mammal- Stranding and Mortality world. stranding-events). However, data Most of the stranding events reviewed The definition for a stranding under collected beyond basic information by the IWC involved beaked whales. A title IV of the MMPA is that (A) a marine varies by region (and may vary from mass stranding of Cuvier’s beaked mammal is dead and is (i) on a beach case to case), and are not standardized whales in the eastern Mediterranean Sea or shore of the United States; or (ii) in across the United States. Logistical occurred in 1996 (Frantzis, 1998) and waters under the jurisdiction of the conditions such as weather, time, mass stranding events involving United States (including any navigable location, and decomposition state may Gervais’ beaked whales, Blainville’s waters); or (B) a marine mammal is alive also affect the ability of the stranding beaked whales, and Cuvier’s beaked and is (i) on a beach or shore of the network to thoroughly examine a whales occurred off the coast of the United States and is unable to return to specimen (Carretta et al., 2016b; Moore Canary Islands in the late 1980s the water; (ii) on a beach or shore of the et al., 2013). While the investigation of (Simmonds and Lopez-Jurado, 1991). United States and, although able to stranded animals provides insight into The stranding events that occurred in return to the water, is in need of the types of threats marine mammal the Canary Islands and Kyparissiakos apparent medical attention; or (iii) in populations face, full investigations are Gulf in the late 1990s and the Bahamas the waters under the jurisdiction of the only possible and conducted on a small in 2000 have been the most intensively- United States (including any navigable fraction of the total number of studied mass stranding events and have waters), but is unable to return to its strandings that occur, limiting our been associated with naval maneuvers natural habitat under its own power or understanding of the causes of involving the use of tactical sonar. Other without assistance (16 U.S.C. 1421h). strandings (Carretta et al., 2016a). cetacean species with naval sonar Marine mammal strandings have been Additionally, and due to the variability implicated in stranding events include linked to a variety of causes, such as in effort and data collected, the ability harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) illness from exposure to infectious to interpret long-term trends in stranded agents, biotoxins, or parasites; (Norman et al., 2004, Wright et al., marine mammals is complicated. 2013) and common dolphin (Delphinus starvation; unusual oceanographic or Along the coasts of the continental delphis) (Jepson and Deaville 2009). weather events; or anthropogenic causes United States and Alaska between 2001 including fishery interaction, ship and 2009, there were on average Strandings Associated With Impulsive strike, entrainment, entrapment, sound approximately 12,545 cetacean Sound exposure, or combinations of these strandings and 39,104 pinniped Silver Strand stressors sustained concurrently or in strandings (51,649 total) per year series. Historically, the cause or causes (National Marine Fisheries Service, During a Navy training event on of most strandings have remained 2016i). Several mass strandings March 4, 2011 at the Silver Strand unknown (Geraci et al., 1976; Eaton, (strandings that involve two or more Training Complex in San Diego, 1979, Odell et al., 1980; Best, 1982), but individuals of the same species, California, three or possibly four the development of trained, professional excluding a single mother-calf pair) that dolphins were killed in an explosion. stranding response networks and have occurred over the past two decades During an underwater detonation improved analyses have led to a greater have been associated with training event, a pod of 100 to 150 long- understanding of marine mammal anthropogenic activities that introduced beaked common dolphins were stranding causes (Simeone and Moore in sound into the marine environment observed moving towards the 700-yd press). such as naval operations and seismic (640.1 m) exclusion zone around the Numerous studies suggest that the surveys. An in-depth discussion of explosive charge, monitored by physiology, behavior, habitat, social, strandings is in the Navy’s Technical personnel in a safety boat and relationships, age, or condition of Report on Marine Mammal Strandings participants in a dive boat. cetaceans may cause them to strand or Associated with U.S. Navy Sonar Approximately five minutes remained might pre-dispose them to strand when Activities (U.S. Navy Marine Mammal on a time-delay fuse connected to a exposed to another phenomenon. These Program & Space and Naval Warfare single 8.76 lb (3.97 kg) explosive charge suggestions are consistent with the Systems Command Center Pacific, (C–4 and detonation cord). Although the conclusions of numerous other studies 2017). dive boat was placed between the pod that have demonstrated that Worldwide, there have been several and the explosive in an effort to guide combinations of dissimilar stressors efforts to identify relationships between the dolphins away from the area, that commonly combine to kill an animal or cetacean mass stranding events and effort was unsuccessful and three long- dramatically reduce its fitness, even military active sonar (Cox et al., 2006, beaked common dolphins near the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29929

explosion died. In addition to the three Gulf of California, Mexico 12 kHz multi-beam echosounder during dolphins found dead on March 4, the One stranding event was an industry seismic survey was a remains of a fourth dolphin were contemporaneous with and reasonably plausible and likely initial trigger that discovered on March 7, 2011 near associated spatially with the use of caused a large group of melon-headed Oceanside, California (3 days later and seismic air guns. This event occurred in whales to leave their typical habitat and approximately 68 km north of the the Gulf of California, coincident with then ultimately strand as a result of detonation), which might also have been seismic reflection profiling by the R/V secondary factors such as related to this event. Association of the Maurice Ewing operated by Columbia malnourishment and dehydration. The fourth stranding with the training event University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth report indicates that the risk of this is uncertain because dolphins strand on Observatory and involved two Cuvier’s particular convergence of factors and a regular basis in the San Diego area. beaked whales (Hildebrand, 2004). The ultimate outcome is likely very low, but Details such as the dolphins’ depth and vessel had been firing an array of 20 air recommends that the potential be considered in environmental planning. distance from the explosive at the time guns with a total volume of 8,500 in3 Because of the association between of the detonation could not be estimated (Hildebrand, 2004; Taylor et al., 2004). tactical mid-frequency active sonar use from the 250 yd (228.6 m) standoff point Strandings Associated With Active and a small number of marine mammal of the observers in the dive boat or the Sonar strandings, the Navy and NMFS have safety boat. Over the past 21 years, there have been considering and addressing the These dolphin mortalities are the only been five stranding events coincident potential for strandings in association known occurrence of a U.S. Navy with military MF active sonar use in with Navy activities for years. In training or testing event involving which exposure to sonar is believed to addition to the proposed mitigation impulsive energy (underwater have been a contributing factor: Greece measures intended to more broadly detonation) that caused mortality or (1996); the Bahamas (2000); Madeira minimize impacts to marine mammals, injury to a marine mammal. Despite this (2000); Canary Islands (2002); and Spain the Navy will abide by the Notification being a rare occurrence, the Navy has (2006) (Cox et al., 2006; Fernandez, and Reporting Plan, which sets out notification, reporting, and other reviewed training requirements, safety 2006; U.S. Navy Marine Mammal requirements when dead, injured, or procedures, and possible mitigation Program & Space and Naval Warfare stranding whales are detected in certain measures and implemented changes to Systems Command Center Pacific, circumstances. reduce the potential for this to occur in 2017). These five mass strandings have the future. Discussions of procedures resulted in about 40 known cetacean Greece (1996) associated with underwater explosives deaths consisting mostly of beaked Twelve Cuvier’s beaked whales training and other training events are whales and with close linkages to mid- stranded atypically (in both time and presented in the Proposed Mitigation frequency active sonar activity. In these space) along a 38.2-km strand of the section. circumstances, exposure to non- Kyparissiakos Gulf coast on May 12 and impulsive acoustic energy was Kyle of Durness, Scotland 13, 1996 (Frantzis, 1998). From May 11 considered a potential indirect cause of through May 15, the North Atlantic On July 22, 2011 a mass stranding death of the marine mammals (Cox et Treaty Organization (NATO) research event involving long-finned pilot al., 2006). Only one of these stranding vessel Alliance was conducting sonar whales occurred at Kyle of Durness, events, the Bahamas (2000), was tests with signals of 600 Hz and 3 kHz Scotland. An investigation by Brownlow associated with exercises conducted by and source levels of 228 and 226 dB re: the U.S. Navy. Additionally, in 2004, et al. (2015) considered unexploded 1mPa, respectively (D’Amico and during the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) ordnance detonation activities at a Verboom, 1998; D’Spain et al., 2006). exercises, between 150 and 200 usually Ministry of Defense bombing range, The timing and location of the testing pelagic melon-headed whales occupied conducted by the Royal Navy prior to encompassed the time and location of the shallow waters of Hanalei Bay, and during the strandings, as a plausible the strandings (Frantzis, 1998). Kauai, Hawaii for over 28 hours. NMFS Necropsies of eight of the animals contributing factor in the mass stranding determined that MFAS was a plausible, were performed but were limited to event. While Brownlow et al. (2015) if not likely, contributing factor in what basic external examination and concluded that the serial detonations of may have been a confluence of events sampling of stomach contents, blood, underwater ordnance were an that led to the Hanalei Bay stranding. A and skin. No ears or organs were influential factor in the mass stranding number of other stranding events collected, and no histological samples event (along with presence of a coincident with the operation of MFAS, were preserved. No apparent potentially compromised animal and including the death of beaked whales or abnormalities or wounds were found. navigational error in a topographically other species (minke whales, dwarf Examination of photos of the animals, complex region) they also suggest that sperm whales, pilot whales), have been taken soon after their death, revealed mitigation measures—which included reported; however, the majority have that the eyes of at least four of the observations from a zodiac only and by not been investigated to the degree individuals were bleeding. Photos were personnel not experienced in marine necessary to determine the cause of the taken soon after their death (Frantzis, mammal observation, among other stranding. Most recently, the 2004). Stomach contents contained the deficiencies—were likely insufficient to Independent Scientific Review Panel flesh of cephalopods, indicating that assess if cetaceans were in the vicinity investigating potential contributing feeding had recently taken place of the detonations. The authors also cite factors to a 2008 mass stranding of (Frantzis, 1998). information from the Ministry of melon-headed whales in Antsohihy, All available information regarding Defense indicating ‘‘an extraordinarily Madagascar released its final report the conditions associated with this high level of activity’’ (i.e., frequency suggesting that the stranding was likely stranding event were compiled, and and intensity of underwater explosions) initially triggered by an industry seismic many potential causes were examined on the range in the days leading up to survey. This report suggests that the including major pollution events, the stranding. operation of a commercial high-powered prominent tectonic activity, unusual

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29930 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

physical or meteorological events, and spotted dolphin strandings and the increased vigilance while operating magnetic anomalies, epizootics, and operation of MFAS. MFAS in these areas, especially when conventional military activities Necropsies were performed on five of beaked whales (or potentially other (International Council for the the stranded beaked whales. All five deep divers) are likely present. necropsied beaked whales were in good Exploration of the Sea, 2005a). Madeira, Portugal (2000) However, none of these potential causes body condition, showing no signs of coincided in time or space with the infection, disease, ship strike, blunt From May 10–14, 2000, three Cuvier’s mass stranding, or could explain its trauma, or fishery related injuries, and beaked whales were found atypically characteristics (International Council for three still had food remains in their stranded on two islands in the Madeira the Exploration of the Sea, 2005a). The stomachs. Auditory structural damage archipelago, Portugal (Cox et al., 2006). robust condition of the animals, plus the was discovered in four of the whales, A fourth animal was reported floating in recent stomach contents, is inconsistent specifically bloody effusions or the Madeiran waters by fisherman but with pathogenic causes. In addition, hemorrhaging around the ears. Bilateral did not come ashore (Woods Hole environmental causes can be ruled out intracochlear and unilateral temporal Oceanographic Institution, 2005). Joint as there were no unusual environmental region subarachnoid hemorrhage, with NATO amphibious training circumstances or events before or during blood clots in the lateral ventricles, peacekeeping exercises involving this time period and within the general were found in two of the whales. Three participants from 17 countries and 80 proximity (Frantzis, 2004). of the whales had small hemorrhages in warships, took place in Portugal during their acoustic fats (located along the jaw May 2–15, 2000. Because of the rarity of this mass The bodies of the three stranded stranding of Cuvier’s beaked whales in and in the melon). A comprehensive investigation was whales were examined post mortem the Kyparissiakos Gulf (first one in conducted and all possible causes of the (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, historical records), the probability for stranding event were considered, 2005), though only one of the stranded the two events (the military exercises whether they seemed likely at the outset whales was fresh enough (24 hours after and the strandings) to coincide in time or not. Based on the way in which the stranding) to be necropsied (Cox et al., and location, while being independent strandings coincided with ongoing 2006). Results from the necropsy of each other, was thought to be naval activity involving tactical MFAS revealed evidence of hemorrhage and extremely low (Frantzis, 1998). use, in terms of both time and congestion in the right lung and both However, because full necropsies had geography, the nature of the kidneys (Cox et al., 2006). There was not been conducted, and no physiological effects experienced by the also evidence of intercochlear and abnormalities were noted, the cause of dead animals, and the absence of any intracranial hemorrhage similar to that the strandings could not be precisely other acoustic sources, the investigation which was observed in the whales that determined (Cox et al., 2006). A team concluded that MFAS aboard U.S. stranded in the Bahamas event (Cox et Bioacoustics Panel convened by NATO Navy ships that were in use during the al., 2006). There were no signs of blunt concluded that the evidence available active sonar exercise in question were trauma, and no major fractures (Woods did not allow them to accept or reject the most plausible source of this Hole Oceanographic Institution, 2005). sonar exposures as a causal agent in acoustic or impulse trauma to beaked The cranial sinuses and airways were these stranding events. The analysis of whales. This sound source was active in found to be clear with little or no fluid this stranding event provided support a complex environment that included deposition, which may indicate good for, but no clear evidence for, the cause- the presence of a surface duct, unusual preservation of tissues (Woods Hole and-effect relationship of tactical sonar and steep bathymetry, a constricted Oceanographic Institution, 2005). training activities and beaked whale channel with limited egress, intensive Several observations on the Madeira strandings (Cox et al., 2006). use of multiple, active sonar units over stranded beaked whales, such as the Bahamas (2000) an extended period of time, and the pattern of injury to the auditory system, presence of beaked whales that appear are the same as those observed in the NMFS and the Navy prepared a joint to be sensitive to the frequencies Bahamas strandings. Blood in and report addressing the multi-species produced by these active sonars. The around the eyes, kidney lesions, pleural stranding in the Bahamas in 2000, investigation team concluded that the hemorrhages, and congestion in the which took place within 24 hrs of U.S. cause of this stranding event was the lungs are particularly consistent with Navy ships using MFAS as they passed confluence of the Navy MFAS and these the pathologies from the whales through the Northeast and Northwest contributory factors working together, stranded in the Bahamas, and are Providence Channels on March 15–16, and further recommended that the Navy consistent with stress and pressure 2000. The ships, which operated both avoid operating MFAS in situations related trauma. The similarities in AN/SQS–53C and AN/SQS–56, moved where these five factors would be likely pathology and stranding patterns through the channel while emitting to occur. This report does not conclude between these two events suggest that a sonar pings approximately every 24 that all five of these factors must be similar pressure event may have seconds. Of the 17 cetaceans that present for a stranding to occur, nor that precipitated or contributed to the stranded over a 36-hr period (Cuvier’s beaked whales are the only species that strandings at both sites (Woods Hole beaked whales, Blainville’s beaked could potentially be affected by the Oceanographic Institution, 2005). whales, minke whales, and a spotted confluence of the other factors. Based on Even though no definitive causal link dolphin), seven animals died on the this, NMFS believes that the operation can be made between the stranding beach (five Cuvier’s beaked whales, one of MFAS in situations where surface event and naval exercises, certain Blainville’s beaked whale, and the ducts exist, or in marine environments conditions may have existed in the spotted dolphin), while the other 10 defined by steep bathymetry and/or exercise area that, in their aggregate, were returned to the water alive (though constricted channels may increase the may have contributed to the marine their ultimate fate is unknown). As likelihood of producing a sound field mammal strandings (Freitas, 2004): discussed in the Bahamas report (DOC/ with the potential to cause cetaceans Exercises were conducted in areas of at DON, 2001), there is no likely (especially beaked whales) to strand, least 547 fathoms (1,000 m) depth near association between the minke whale and therefore, suggests the need for a shoreline where there is a rapid

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29931

change in bathymetry on the order of affected organ, which contained factors. Cause of death could not be 547 to 3,281 fathoms (1,000 to 6,000 m) macroscopic gas-filled cavities and had definitively determined, but it is likely occurring across a relatively short variable degrees of fibrotic that maternal separation, poor horizontal distance (Freitas, 2004); encapsulation. In some animals, nutritional condition, and dehydration multiple ships were operating around cavitary lesions had extensively contributed to the final demise of the Madeira, though it is not known if replaced the normal tissue (Jepson et al., animal. Although it is not known when MFAS was used, and the specifics of the 2003). Stomachs contained a large the calf was separated from its mother, sound sources used are unknown (Cox amount of fresh and undigested the animals’ movement into the Bay and et al., 2006, Freitas, 2004); and exercises contents, suggesting a rapid onset of subsequent milling and re-grouping may took place in an area surrounded by disease and death (Fernandez et al., have contributed to the separation or landmasses separated by less than 35 2005). Head and neck lymph nodes lack of nursing, especially if the nmi (65 km) and at least 10 nmi (19 km) were enlarged and congested, and maternal bond was weak or this was an in length, or in an embayment. Exercises parasites were found in the kidneys of inexperienced mother with her first calf. involving multiple ships employing all animals (Fernandez et al., 2005). Environmental factors, abiotic and MFAS near land may produce sound The association of NATO MFAS use biotic, were analyzed for any anomalous directed towards a channel or close in space and time to the beaked occurrences that would have embayment that may cut off the lines of whale strandings, and the similarity contributed to the animals entering and egress for marine mammals (Freitas, between this stranding event and remaining in Hanalei Bay. The Bay’s 2004). previous beaked whale mass strandings bathymetry is similar to many other coincident with sonar use, suggests that sites within the Hawaiian Island chain Canary Islands, Spain (2002) a similar scenario and causative and dissimilar to sites that have been The southeastern area within the mechanism of stranding may be shared associated with mass strandings in other Canary Islands is well known for between the events. Beaked whales parts of the U.S. The weather conditions aggregations of beaked whales due to its stranded in this event demonstrated appeared to be normal for that time of ocean depths of greater than 547 brain and auditory system injuries, year with no fronts or other significant fathoms (1,000 m) within a few hundred hemorrhages, and congestion in features noted. There was no evidence meters of the coastline (Fernandez et al., multiple organs, similar to the of unusual distribution, occurrence of 2005). On September 24, 2002, 14 pathological findings of the Bahamas predator or prey species, or unusual beaked whales were found stranded on and Madeira stranding events. In harmful algal blooms, although Mobley Fuerteventura and Lanzarote Islands in addition, the necropsy results of Canary et al. (2007) suggested that the full moon the Canary Islands (International Islands stranding event lead to the cycle that occurred at that time may Council for Exploration of the Sea, hypothesis that the presence of have influenced a run of squid into the 2005a). Seven whales died, while the disseminated and widespread gas Bay. Weather patterns and bathymetry remaining seven live whales were bubbles and fat emboli were indicative that have been associated with mass returned to deeper waters (Fernandez et of nitrogen bubble formation, similar to strandings elsewhere were not found to al., 2005). Four beaked whales were what might be expected in occur in this instance. found stranded dead over the next three decompression sickness (Jepson et al., The Hanalei event was spatially and days either on the coast or floating 2003; Ferna´ndez et al., 2005). temporally correlated with RIMPAC. offshore. These strandings occurred Official sonar training and tracking within near proximity of an Hanalei Bay (2004) exercises in the Pacific Missile Range international naval exercise that utilized On July 3 and 4, 2004, approximately Facility (PMRF) warning area did not MFAS and involved numerous surface 150 to 200 melon-headed whales commence until approximately 8 a.m. warships and several submarines. occupied the shallow waters of the on July 3 and were thus ruled out as a Strandings began about four hours after Hanalei Bay, Kauai, Hawaii for over 28 possible trigger for the initial movement the onset of MFAS activity hrs. Attendees of a canoe blessing into the Bay. However, six naval surface (International Council for Exploration of observed the animals entering the Bay vessels transiting to the operational area the Sea, 2005a; Fernandez et al., 2005). in a single wave formation at 7 a.m. on on July 2 intermittently transmitted Eight Cuvier’s beaked whales, one July 3, 2004. The animals were observed active sonar (for approximately nine Blainville’s beaked whale, and one moving back into the shore from the hours total from 1:15 p.m. to 12:30 a.m.) Gervais’ beaked whale were necropsied, mouth of the Bay at 9 a.m. The usually as they approached from the south. The 6 of them within 12 hours of stranding pelagic animals milled in the shallow potential for these transmissions to have (Fernandez et al., 2005). No pathogenic bay and were returned to deeper water triggered the whales’ movement into bacteria were isolated from the carcasses with human assistance beginning at 9:30 Hanalei Bay was investigated. Analyses (Jepson et al., 2003). The animals a.m. on July 4, 2004, and were out of with the information available indicated displayed severe vascular congestion sight by 10:30 a.m. that animals to the south and east of and hemorrhage especially around the Only one animal, a calf, was known Kaua’i could have detected active sonar tissues in the jaw, ears, brain, and to have died following this event. The transmissions on July 2, and reached kidneys, displaying marked animal was noted alive and alone in the Hanalei Bay on or before 7 a.m. on July disseminated microvascular Bay on the afternoon of July 4, 2004, 3. However, data limitations regarding hemorrhages associated with and was found dead in the Bay the the position of the whales prior to their widespread fat emboli (Jepson et al., morning of July 5, 2004. A full arrival in the Bay, the magnitude of 2003; International Council for necropsy, magnetic resonance imaging, sonar exposure, behavioral responses of Exploration of the Sea, 2005a). Several and computerized tomography melon-headed whales to acoustic organs contained intravascular bubbles, examination were performed on the calf stimuli, and other possible relevant although definitive evidence of gas to determine the manner and cause of factors preclude a conclusive finding embolism in vivo is difficult to death. The combination of imaging, regarding the role of sonar in triggering determine after death (Jepson et al., necropsy and histological analyses this event. Propagation modeling 2003). The livers of the necropsied found no evidence of infectious, suggests that transmissions from sonar animals were the most consistently internal traumatic, congenital, or toxic use during the July 3 exercise in the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29932 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

PMRF warning area may have been common factor (e.g., there was a full aggregate, may have contributed to the detectable at the mouth of the Bay. If the moon on July 2, 2004, as well as during marine mammal strandings (Freitas, animals responded negatively to these other melon-headed whale strandings 2004): Exercises were conducted in signals, it may have contributed to their and nearshore aggregations (Brownell et areas of at least 547 fathoms (1,000 m) continued presence in the Bay. The U.S. al., 2009; Lignon et al., 2007; Mobley et depth near a shoreline where there is a Navy ceased all active sonar al., 2007). Brownell et al. (2009) rapid change in bathymetry on the order transmissions during exercises in this compared the two incidents, along with of 547 to 3,281 fathoms (1,000 to 6,000 range on the afternoon of July 3. one other stranding incident at Nuka m) occurring across a relatively short Subsequent to the cessation of sonar Hiva in French Polynesia and normal horizontal distance (Freitas, 2004); use, the animals were herded out of the resting behaviors observed at Palmyra multiple ships (in this instance, five) Bay. Island, in regard to physical features in were operating MFAS in the same area While causation of this stranding the areas, melon-headed whale over extended periods of time (in this event may never be unequivocally behavior, and lunar cycles. Brownell et case, 20 hours) in close proximity; and determined, NMFS consider the active al., (2009) concluded that the rapid exercises took place in an area sonar transmissions of July 2–3, 2004, a entry of the whales into Hanalei Bay, surrounded by landmasses, or in an plausible, if not likely, contributing their movement into very shallow water embayment. Exercises involving factor in what may have been a far from the 100-m contour, their multiple ships employing MFAS near confluence of events. This conclusion is milling behavior (typical pre-stranding land may have produced sound directed based on the following: (1) The behavior), and their reluctance to leave towards a channel or embayment that evidently anomalous nature of the the bay constituted an unusual event may have cut off the lines of egress for stranding; (2) its close spatiotemporal that was not similar to the events that the affected marine mammals (Freitas, correlation with wide-scale, sustained occurred at Rota (but was similar to the 2004). use of sonar systems previously events at Palmyra), which appear to be Behaviorally Mediated Responses to associated with stranding of deep-diving similar to observations of melon-headed MFAS That May Lead to Stranding marine mammals; (3) the directed whales resting normally at Palmyra movement of two groups of transmitting Island. Additionally, there was no Although the confluence of Navy vessels toward the southeast and correlation between lunar cycle and the MFAS with the other contributory southwest coast of Kauai; (4) the results types of behaviors observed in the factors noted in the report was of acoustic propagation modeling and Brownell et al. (2009) examples. identified as the cause of the 2000 an analysis of possible animal transit Bahamas stranding event, the specific times to the Bay; and (5) the absence of Spain (2006) mechanisms that led to that stranding any other compelling causative The Spanish Cetacean Society (or the others) are not understood, and explanation. The initiation and reported an atypical mass stranding of there is uncertainty regarding the persistence of this event may have four beaked whales that occurred ordering of effects that led to the resulted from an interaction of January 26, 2006, on the southeast coast stranding. It is unclear whether beaked biological and physical factors. The of Spain, near Mojacar (Gulf of Vera) in whales were directly injured by sound biological factors may have included the the Western Mediterranean Sea. (e.g., acoustically mediated bubble presence of an apparently uncommon, According to the report, two of the growth, as addressed above) prior to deep-diving cetacean species (and whales were discovered the evening of stranding or whether a behavioral possibly an offshore, non-resident January 26 and were found to be still response to sound occurred that group), social interactions among the alive. Two other whales were ultimately caused the beaked whales to animals before or after they entered the discovered during the day on January be injured and strand. Bay, and/or unknown predator or prey 27, but had already died. The first three Although causal relationships conditions. The physical factors may animals were located near the town of between beaked whale stranding events have included the presence of nearby Mojacar and the fourth animal was and active sonar remain unknown, deep water, multiple vessels transiting found dead, a few kilometers north of several authors have hypothesized that in a directed manner while transmitting the first three animals. From January stranding events involving these species active sonar over a sustained period, the 25–26, 2006, Standing NATO Response in the Bahamas and Canary Islands may presence of surface sound ducting Force Maritime Group Two (five of have been triggered when the whales conditions, and/or intermittent and seven ships including one U.S. ship changed their dive behavior in a startled random human interactions while the under NATO Operational Control) had response to exposure to active sonar or animals were in the Bay. conducted active sonar training against to further avoid exposure (Cox et al., A separate event involving melon- a Spanish submarine within 50 nmi (93 2006; Rommel et al., 2006). These headed whales and rough-toothed km) of the stranding site. authors proposed three mechanisms by dolphins took place over the same Veterinary pathologists necropsied which the behavioral responses of period of time in the Northern Mariana the two male and two female Cuvier’s beaked whales upon being exposed to Islands (Jefferson et al., 2006), which is beaked whales. According to the active sonar might result in a stranding several thousand miles from Hawaii. pathologists, the most likely primary event. These include the following: Gas Some 500 to 700 melon-headed whales cause of this type of beaked whale mass bubble formation caused by excessively came into Sasanhaya Bay on July 4, stranding event was anthropogenic fast surfacing; remaining at the surface 2004, near the island of Rota and then acoustic activities, most probably anti- too long when tissues are supersaturated left of their own accord after 5.5 hours; submarine MFAS used during the with nitrogen; or diving prematurely no known active sonar transmissions military naval exercises. However, no when extended time at the surface is occurred in the vicinity of that event. positive acoustic link was established as necessary to eliminate excess nitrogen. The Rota incident led to scientific a direct cause of the stranding. Even More specifically, beaked whales that debate regarding what, if any, though no causal link can be made occur in deep waters that are in close relationship the event had to the between the stranding event and naval proximity to shallow waters (for simultaneous events in Hawaii and exercises, certain conditions may have example, the ‘‘canyon areas’’ that are whether they might be related by some existed in the exercise area that, in their cited in the Bahamas stranding event;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29933

see D’Spain and D’Amico, 2006), may tissues that are more supersaturated may indicate that ‘‘bounce dives’’ are respond to active sonar by swimming with nitrogen gas than other marine associated with something other than into shallow waters to avoid further mammals. Based on these data, Cox et behavioral regulation of dissolved exposures and strand if they were not al. (2006) hypothesized that a critical nitrogen levels, which would be able to swim back to deeper waters. dive sequence might make beaked necessary day and night. Second, beaked whales exposed to whales more prone to stranding in If marine mammals respond to a Navy active sonar might alter their dive response to acoustic exposures. The vessel that is transmitting active sonar behavior. Changes in their dive behavior sequence began with (1) very deep (to in the same way that they might might cause them to remain at the depths as deep as 2 km) and long (as respond to a predator, their probability surface or at depth for extended periods long as 90 minutes) foraging dives; (2) of flight responses could increase when of time which could lead to hypoxia relatively slow, controlled ascents; and they perceive that Navy vessels are directly by increasing their oxygen (3) a series of ‘‘bounce’’ dives between approaching them directly, because a demands or indirectly by increasing 100 and 400 m in depth (also see direct approach may convey detection their energy expenditures (to remain at Zimmer and Tyack, 2007). They and intent to capture (Burger and depth) and increase their oxygen concluded that acoustic exposures that Gochfeld, 1981, 1990; Cooper, 1997, demands as a result. If beaked whales disrupted any part of this dive sequence 1998). The probability of flight are at depth when they detect a ping (for example, causing beaked whales to responses could also increase as from an active sonar transmission and spend more time at surface without the received levels of active sonar increase change their dive profile, this could lead bounce dives that are necessary to (and the ship is, therefore, closer) and to the formation of significant gas recover from the deep dive) could as ship speeds increase (that is, as bubbles, which could damage multiple produce excessive levels of nitrogen approach speeds increase). For example, organs or interfere with normal supersaturation in their tissues, leading the probability of flight responses in physiological function (Cox et al., 2006; to gas bubble and emboli formation that Dall’s sheep (Ovis dalli dalli) (Frid Rommel et al., 2006; Zimmer and produces pathologies similar to 2001a, b), ringed seals (Phoca hispida) Tyack, 2007). Baird et al. (2005) found decompression sickness. (Born et al., 1999), Pacific brant (Branta that slow ascent rates from deep dives Zimmer and Tyack (2007) modeled bernic nigricans) and Canada geese (B. and long periods of time spent within nitrogen tension and bubble growth in canadensis) increased as a helicopter or 50 m of the surface were typical for both several tissue compartments for several fixed-wing aircraft approached groups Cuvier’s and Blainville’s beaked whales, hypothetical dive profiles and of these animals more directly (Ward et the two species involved in mass concluded that repetitive shallow dives al., 1999). Bald eagles (Haliaeetus strandings related to naval sonar. These (defined as a dive where depth does not leucocephalus) perched on trees two behavioral mechanisms may be exceed the depth of alveolar collapse, alongside a river were also more likely necessary to purge excessive dissolved approximately 72 m for Ziphius), to flee from a paddle raft when their nitrogen concentrated in their tissues perhaps as a consequence of an perches were closer to the river or were during their frequent long dives (Baird extended avoidance reaction to sonar closer to the ground (Steidl and et al., 2005). Baird et al. (2005) further sound, could pose a risk for Anthony, 1996). suggests that abnormally rapid ascents decompression sickness and that this Despite the many theories involving or premature dives in response to high- risk should increase with the duration bubble formation (both as a direct cause intensity sonar could indirectly result in of the response. Their models also of injury (see Acoustically Mediated physical harm to the beaked whales, suggested that unrealistically rapid rates Bubble Growth Section) and an indirect through the mechanisms described of ascent from normal dive behaviors cause of stranding (See Behaviorally above (gas bubble formation or non- are unlikely to result in supersaturation Mediated Bubble Growth Section), elimination of excess nitrogen). to the extent that bubble formation Southall et al. (2007) summarizes that Because many species of marine would be expected. Tyack et al. (2006) there is either scientific disagreement or mammals make repetitive and suggested that emboli observed in a lack of information regarding each of prolonged dives to great depths, it has animals exposed to mid-frequency range the following important points: (1) long been assumed that marine sonar (Jepson et al., 2003; Fernandez et Received acoustical exposure conditions mammals have evolved physiological al., 2005; Ferna´ndez et al., 2012) could for animals involved in stranding mechanisms to protect against the stem from a behavioral response that events; (2) pathological interpretation of effects of rapid and repeated involves repeated dives shallower than observed lesions in stranded marine decompressions. Although several the depth of lung collapse. Given that mammals; (3) acoustic exposure investigators have identified nitrogen gas accumulation is a passive conditions required to induce such physiological adaptations that may process (i.e., nitrogen is metabolically physical trauma directly; (4) whether protect marine mammals against inert), a bottlenose dolphin was trained noise exposure may cause behavioral nitrogen gas supersaturation (alveolar to repetitively dive a profile predicted to reactions (such as atypical diving collapse and elective circulation; elevate nitrogen saturation to the point behavior) that secondarily cause bubble Kooyman et al., 1972; Ridgway and that nitrogen bubble formation was formation and tissue damage; and (5) Howard, 1979), Ridgway and Howard predicted to occur. However, inspection the extent the post mortem artifacts (1979) reported that bottlenose dolphins of the vascular system of the dolphin via introduced by decomposition before that were trained to dive repeatedly had ultrasound did not demonstrate the sampling, handling, freezing, or muscle tissues that were substantially formation of asymptomatic nitrogen gas necropsy procedures affect supersaturated with nitrogen gas. bubbles (Houser et al., 2007). Baird et al. interpretation of observed lesions. Houser et al. (2001) used these data to (2008), in a beaked whale tagging study Strandings Along Southern California model the accumulation of nitrogen gas off Hawaii, showed that deep dives are and Hawaii within the muscle tissue of other marine equally common during day or night, mammal species and concluded that but ‘‘bounce dives’’ are typically a Stranding events, specifically UMEs cetaceans that dive deep and have slow daytime behavior, possibly associated that occurred along Southern California ascent or descent speeds would have with visual predator avoidance. This or Hawaii (inclusive of the HSTT Study

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29934 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

Area) were previously discussed in the Southern California portion of the HSTT relation to large vessels than are large Description of Marine Mammals section. Study Area) indicate that there were 143 whales, they may also be susceptible to Data were gathered from stranding cetacean and 1,235 pinniped strandings strike. The severity of injuries typically networks that operate within and between 2010 and 2014, an annual depends on the size and speed of the adjacent to the HSTT Study Area and average of about 29 and 247 per year, vessel (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001; Laist reviewed in an attempt to better respectively. A total of 16 different et al., 2001; Vanderlaan and Taggart, understand the frequency that marine species have been reported as stranded 2007; Conn and Silber, 2013). Impact mammal strandings occur and what within this time frame. The majority of forces increase with speed, as does the major causes of strandings (both human- species reported include long-beaked probability of a strike at a given distance related and natural) exist in areas common dolphins and California sea (Silber et al., 2010; Gende et al., 2011). around the HSTT Study Area (NMFS, lions, but there were also reports of The most vulnerable marine mammals 2015a). From 2010 through 2014, there pacific white-sided, bottlenose and are those that spend extended periods of were 314 cetacean and phocid Risso’s dolphins, gray, humpback, and time at the surface in order to restore strandings reported in Hawaii, an fin whales, harbor seals and Northern oxygen levels within their tissues after annual average of 63 strandings per elephant seals (National Marine deep dives (e.g., the sperm whale). In year. Twenty-seven species stranded in Fisheries Service, 2015b, 2016a). addition, some baleen whales, seem this region. The most common species However, stranded marine mammals are generally unresponsive to vessel sound, reported include the Hawaiian monk reported along the entire western coast making them more susceptible to vessel seal, humpback whale, sperm whale, of the United States each year. Within collisions (Nowacek et al., 2004). These striped and spinner dolphin. Although the same timeframe, there were 714 species are primarily large, slow moving many marine mammals likely strand cetacean and 11,132 pinniped whales. Marine mammal responses to due to natural or anthropogenic causes, strandings reported outside of the Study vessels may include avoidance and the majority of reported type of Area, an annual average of about 142 changes in dive pattern (NRC, 2003). occurrences in marine mammal and 2,226 respectively. Species that An examination of all known ship strandings in the HSTT Study Area strand along the entire west coast are strikes from all shipping sources include fisheries interactions, similar to those that typically strand (civilian and military) indicates vessel entanglement, vessel strike and within the Study Area with additional speed is a principal factor in whether a predation. Bradford and Lyman (2015) reports of harbor porpoise, Dall’s vessel strike results in death or serious address overall threats from human porpoise, Steller sea lions, and various injury (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001; Laist activities and industries on stocks in fur seals. The most common reported et al., 2001; Jensen and Silber, 2003; Hawaii. type of occurrence in stranded marine Pace and Silber, 2005; Vanderlaan and In 2004, a mass out-of-habitat mammals in this region include fishery Taggart, 2007). In assessing records in aggregation of melon-headed whales interactions, illness, predation, and which vessel speed was known, Laist et occurred in Hanalei Bay (see discussion vessel strikes (NMFS, 2016a). It is al. (2001) found a direct relationship above under ‘‘Strandings Associated important to note that the mass between the occurrence of a whale with Active Sonar’’). It is speculated stranding of pinnipeds along the west strike and the speed of the vessel that sonar operated during a major coast considered part of a NMFS involved in the collision. The authors training exercise may be related to the declared UME are still being evaluated. concluded that most deaths occurred incident. Upon further investigation, The likely cause of this event is the lack when a vessel was traveling in excess of sonar was only considered as a of available prey near rookeries due to 13 kn. plausible, but not sole, contributing warming ocean temperatures (NOAA, Jensen and Silber (2003) detailed 292 factor among many factors in the event. 2016a). Carretta et al. (2013b; 2016b) records of known or probable ship The Hanalei Bay incident does not share provide additional information and data strikes of all large whale species from the characteristics observed with other on the threats from human-related 1975 to 2002. Of these, vessel speed at mass strandings of whales coincident activities and the potential causes of the time of collision was reported for 58 with sonar activity (e.g., specific strandings for the U.S. Pacific coast cases. Of these 58 cases, 39 (or 67 traumas, species composition, etc.) marine mammal stocks. percent) resulted in serious injury or (Southall et al., 2006; U.S. Navy Marine death (19 of those resulted in serious Mammal Program & Space and Naval Potential Effects of Vessel Strike injury as determined by blood in the Warfare Systems Command Center Vessel collisions with marine water, propeller gashes or severed Pacific, 2017). Additional information mammals, also referred to as vessel tailstock, and fractured skull, jaw, on this event is available in the Navy’s strikes or ship strikes, can result in vertebrae, hemorrhaging, massive Technical Report on Marine Mammal death or serious injury of the animal. bruising or other injuries noted during Strandings Associated with U.S. Navy Wounds resulting from ship strike may necropsy and 20 resulted in death). Sonar Activities (U.S. Navy Marine include massive trauma, hemorrhaging, Operating speeds of vessels that struck Mammal Program & Space and Naval broken bones, or propeller lacerations various species of large whales ranged Warfare Systems Command Center (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001). An animal from 2 to 51 kn. The majority (79 Pacific, 2017). In addition, on October at the surface could be struck directly by percent) of these strikes occurred at 31, 2017, at least five pilot whales live- a vessel, a surfacing animal could hit speeds of 13 kn or greater. The average stranded in Nawiliwili Harbor on Kauai. the bottom of a vessel, or an animal just speed that resulted in serious injury or NMFS has yet to determine a cause for below the surface could be cut by a death was 18.6 kn. Pace and Silber that stranding, but Navy activities can vessel’s propeller. Superficial strikes (2005) found that the probability of be dismissed from consideration given may not kill or result in the death of the death or serious injury increased rapidly there were no Navy training or testing animal. Lethal interactions are typically with increasing vessel speed. stressors present in the area before or associated with large whales, which are Specifically, the predicted probability of during the stranding (National Marine occasionally found draped across the serious injury or death increased from Fisheries Service, 2017b). bulbous bow of large commercial ships 45 to 75 percent as vessel speed Records for strandings in San Diego upon arrival in port. Although smaller increased from 10 to 14 kn, and County (covering the shoreline for the cetaceans are more maneuverable in exceeded 90 percent at 17 kn. Higher

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29935

speeds during collisions result in greater species and one humpback whale in and, for some, is not well documented. force of impact and also appear to 2003, one sperm whale in 2007, and an Here, we describe studies regarding the increase the chance of severe injuries or unknown species in 2008. No more than effects of noise on known marine death. While modeling studies have two whales were struck by Navy vessels mammal prey. Fish utilize the suggested that hydrodynamic forces in any given year in the HRC portion of soundscape and components of sound pulling whales toward the vessel hull the HSTT within the last 20 years. There in their environment to perform increase with increasing speed (Clyne, was only one 12-month period in 20 important functions such as foraging, 1999; Knowlton et al., 1995), this is years in the HRC when two whales were predator avoidance, mating, and inconsistent with Silber et al. (2010), struck in a single year (2003). spawning (e.g., Zelick et al., 1999; Fay, which demonstrated that there is no Overall, there have been zero 2009). The most likely effects on fishes such relationship (i.e., hydrodynamic documented vessel strikes associated exposed to loud, intermittent, low- forces are independent of speed). with training and testing in the SOCAL frequency sounds are behavioral In a separate study, Vanderlaan and and HRC portions of the HSTT Study responses (i.e., flight or avoidance). Taggart (2007) analyzed the probability Area since 2010 and 2008, respectively. Short duration, sharp sounds (such as of lethal mortality of large whales at a Between 2007 and 2009, the Navy pile driving or air guns) can cause overt given speed, showing that the greatest developed and distributed additional or subtle changes in fish behavior and rate of change in the probability of a training, mitigation, and reporting tools local distribution. The reaction of fish to lethal injury to a large whale as a to Navy operators to improve marine acoustic sources depends on the function of vessel speed occurs between mammal protection and to ensure physiological state of the fish, past 8.6 and 15 kn. The chances of a lethal compliance with permit requirements. exposures, motivation (e.g., feeding, injury decline from approximately 80 In 2009, the Navy implemented Marine spawning, migration), and other percent at 15 kn to approximately 20 Species Awareness Training designed to environmental factors. Key impacts to percent at 8.6 kn. At speeds below 11.8 improve effectiveness of visual fishes may include behavioral kn, the chances of lethal injury drop observation for marine resources responses, hearing damage, barotrauma below 50 percent, while the probability including marine mammals. In (pressure-related injuries), and asymptotically increases toward 100 subsequent years, the Navy issued mortality. percent above 15 kn. refined policy guidance on ship strikes Fishes, like other vertebrates, have The Jensen and Silber (2003) report in order to collect the most accurate and variety of different sensory systems to notes that the database represents a detailed data possible in response to a glean information from ocean around minimum number of collisions, because possible incident (also see the them (Astrup and Mohl, 1993; Astrup, the vast majority probably goes Notification and Reporting Plan for this 1999; Braun and Grande, 2008; Carroll undetected or unreported. In contrast, proposed rule). For over a decade, the et al., 2017; Hawkins and Johnstone, Navy vessels are likely to detect any Navy has implemented the Protective 1978; Ladich and Popper, 2004; Ladich strike that does occur because of the Measures Assessment Protocol software and Schulz-Mirbach, 2016; Mann, 2016; required personnel training and tool, which provides operators with Nedwell et al., 2004; Popper et al., 2003; lookouts (as described in the Proposed notification of the required mitigation Popper et al., 2005). Depending on their Mitigation Measures section), and they and a visual display of the planned hearing anatomy and peripheral sensory are required to report all ship strikes training or testing activity location structures, which vary among species, involving marine mammals. Overall, the overlaid with relevant environmental fishes hear sounds using pressure and percentage of Navy traffic relative to data. particle motion sensitivity capabilities overall large shipping traffic are very and detect the motion of surrounding small (on the order of two percent) and Marine Mammal Habitat water (Fay et al., 2008) (terrestrial therefore represent a correspondingly The Navy’s proposed training and vertebrates generally only detect smaller threat of potential ship strikes testing activities could potentially affect pressure). Most marine fishes primarily when compared to commercial marine mammal habitat through the detect particle motion using the inner shipping. introduction of impacts to the prey ear and lateral line system, while some In the SOCAL portion of the HSTT species of marine mammals, acoustic fishes possess additional morphological Study Area, the Navy has struck a total habitat (sound in the water column), adaptations or specializations that can of 16 marine mammals in the 20-year water quality, and important habitat for enhance their sensitivity to sound period from 1991 through 2010 for an marine mammals. Each of these pressure, such as a gas-filled swim average of one per year. Of the 16 Navy components was considered in the bladder (Braun and Grande, 2008; vessel strikes over the 20-year period in HSTT DEIS/OEIS and was determined Popper and Fay, 2011). SOCAL, there were seven mortalities by the Navy to have no effect on marine Hearing capabilities vary considerably and nine injuries reported. The vessel mammal habitat. Based on the between different fish species with data struck species include: Two mortalities information below and the supporting only available for just over 100 species and eight injuries of unknown species, information included in the HSTT out of the 34,000 marine and freshwater three mortalities of gray whales (one in DEIS/OEIS, NMFS has determined that fish species (Eschmeyer and Fong 2016). 1993 and two in 1998), one mortality of the proposed training and training In order to better understand acoustic a blue whale in 2004, and one morality activities would not have adverse or impacts on fishes, fish hearing groups and one injury of fin whales in 2009. long-term impacts on marine mammal are defined by species that possess a In the HRC portion of the HSTT Study habitat. similar continuum of anatomical Area, the Navy struck a total of five features which result in varying degrees marine mammals in the 20-year period Effects to Prey of hearing sensitivity (Popper and from 1991 through 2010, for an average Sound may affect marine mammals Hastings, 2009a). There are four hearing of zero to one per year. Of the five Navy through impacts on the abundance, groups defined for all fish species vessel strikes over the 20-year period in behavior, or distribution of prey species (modified from Popper et al., 2014) the HRC, all were reported as injuries. (e.g., crustaceans, cephalopods, fish, within this analysis and they include: The vessel struck species include: one zooplankton). Marine mammal prey Fishes without a swim bladder (e.g., humpback whale in 1998, one unknown varies by species, season, and location flatfish, sharks, rays, etc.); fishes with a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29936 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

swim bladder not involved in hearing In terms of behavioral responses, was recoverable within 24 hrs for one (e.g., salmon, cod, pollock, etc.); fishes Juanes et al. (2017) discuss the potential species. Impacts would be most severe with a swim bladder involved in for negative impacts from anthropogenic when the individual fish is close to the hearing (e.g., sardines, anchovy, herring, soundscapes on fish, but the author’s source and when the duration of etc.); and fishes with a swim bladder focus was on broader based sounds such exposure is long. No mortality occurred involved in hearing and high-frequency as ship and boat noise sources. to fish in any of these studies. hearing (e.g., shad and menhaden). Most Watwood et al. (2016) also documented Occasional behavioral reactions to marine mammal fish prey species would no behavioral responses by reef fish intermittent explosions and impulsive not be likely to perceive or hear Navy after exposure to mid-frequency active sound sources are unlikely to cause mid- or high-frequency sonars (see sonar. Doksaeter et al. (2009; 2012) long-term consequences for individual Figure 9–1 of the Navy’s rulemaking/ reported no behavioral responses to fish or populations. Fish that experience LOA application). Within Southern mid-frequency naval sonar by Atlantic hearing loss as a result of exposure to California, the Clupeiformes order of herring, specifically, no escape reactions explosions and impulsive sound sources fish include the Pacific sardine (vertically or horizontally) observed in may have a reduced ability to detect (Clupeidae), and northern anchovy free swimming herring exposed to mid- relevant sounds such as predators, prey, (Engraulidae), key forage fish in frequency sonar transmissions. Based on or social vocalizations. However, PTS Southern California. While hearing these results (Doksaeter et al., 2009; has not been known to occur in fishes studies have not been done on sardines Doksaeter et al., 2012; Sivle et al., 2012), and any hearing loss in fish may be as and northern anchovies, it would not be Sivle et al. (2014) created a model in temporary as the timeframe required to unexpected for them to have hearing order to report on the possible repair or replace the sensory cells that similarities to Pacific herring (up to 2– population-level effects on Atlantic were damaged or destroyed (Popper et 5 kHz) (Mann et al., 2005). Currently, herring from active naval sonar. The al., 2005; Popper et al., 2014; Smith et authors concluded that the use of naval less data are available to estimate the al., 2006). It is not known if damage to sonar poses little risk to populations of range of best sensitivity for fishes auditory nerve fibers could occur, and if herring regardless of season, even when without a swim bladder. In terms of so, whether fibers would recover during the herring populations are aggregated physiology, multiple scientific studies this process. It is also possible for fish and directly exposed to sonar. Finally, have documented a lack of mortality or to be injured or killed by an explosion Bruintjes et al. (2016) commented that in the immediate vicinity of the surface physiological effects to fish from fish exposed to any short-term noise exposure to low- and mid-frequency from dropped or fired ordnance, or near within their hearing range might the bottom from shallow water bottom- sonar and other sounds (Halvorsen et initially startle, but would quickly < placed underwater mine warfare al., 2012; J rgensen et al., 2005; Juanes return to normal behavior. et al., 2017; Kane et al., 2010; detonations. Physical effects from The potential effects of air gun noise pressure waves generated by underwater Kvadsheim and Sevaldsen, 2005; on fishes depends on the overlapping sounds (e.g., underwater explosions) Popper et al., 2007; Popper et al., 2016; frequency range, distance from the could potentially affect fish within Watwood et al., 2016). Techer et al. sound source, water depth of exposure, proximity of training or testing (2017) exposed carp in floating cages for and species-specific hearing sensitivity, activities. The shock wave from an up to 30 days to low-power 23 and 46 anatomy, and physiology. Some studies underwater explosion is lethal to fish at kHz source without any significant have shown no or slight reaction to air close range, causing massive organ and physiological response. Other studies gun sounds (e.g., Pena et al., 2013; tissue damage and internal bleeding have documented either a lack of TTS Wardle et al., 2001; Jorgenson and (Keevin and Hempen, 1997). At greater in species whose hearing range cannot Gyselman, 2009; Cott et al., 2012). More distance from the detonation point, the perceive Navy sonar, or for those commonly, though, the impacts of noise extent of mortality or injury depends on species that could perceive sonar-like on fish are temporary. Investigators a number of factors including fish size, signals, any TTS experienced would be reported significant, short-term declines body shape, orientation, and species recoverable (Halvorsen et al., 2012; in commercial fishing catch rate of (Keevin and Hempen, 1997; Wright, Ladich and Fay, 2013; Popper and gadid fishes during and for up to five 1982). At the same distance from the Hastings, 2009a, 2009b; Popper et al., days after survey operations, but the source, larger fish are generally less 2014; Smith, 2016). Only fishes that catch rate subsequently returned to susceptible to death or injury, elongated have specializations that enable them to normal (Engas et al., 1996; Engas and forms that are round in cross-section are hear sounds above about 2,500 Hz (2.5 Lokkeborg, 2002); other studies have less at risk than deep-bodied forms, and kHz) such as herring (Halvorsen et al., reported similar findings (Hassel et al., fish oriented sideways to the blast suffer 2012; Mann et al., 2005; Mann, 2016; 2004). However, even temporary effects the greatest impact (Edds-Walton and Popper et al., 2014) would have the to fish distribution patterns can impact Finneran, 2006; O’Keeffe, 1984; potential to receive TTS or exhibit their ability to carry out important life- O’Keeffe and Young, 1984; Wiley et al., behavioral responses from exposure to history functions (Paxton et al., 2017). 1981; Yelverton et al., 1975). Species mid-frequency sonar. In addition, any SPLs of sufficient strength have been with gas-filled organs are more sonar induced TTS to fish whose known to cause injury to fish and fish susceptible to injury and mortality than hearing range could perceive sonar mortality and, in some studies, fish those without them (Gaspin, 1975; would only occur in the narrow auditory systems have been damaged by Gaspin et al., 1976; Goertner et al., spectrum of the source (e.g., 3.5 kHz) air gun noise (McCauley et al., 2003; 1994). Barotrauma injuries have been compared to the fish’s total hearing Popper et al., 2005; Song et al., 2008). documented during controlled exposure range (e.g., 0.01 kHz to 5 kHz). Overall, However, in most fish species, hair cells to impact pile driving (an impulsive Navy sonar sources are much narrower in the ear continuously regenerate and noise source, as are explosives and air in terms of source frequency compared loss of auditory function likely is guns) (Halvorsen et al., 2012b; Casper et to a given fish species full hearing range restored when damaged cells are al., 2013). For seismic surveys, the (see examples in Figure 9–1 of the replaced with new cells. Halvorsen et al. sound source is constantly moving, and Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application). (2012a) showed that a TTS of 4–6 dB most fish would likely avoid the sound

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29937

source prior to receiving sound of sound and energy from underwater frequency sound (McCauley et al., sufficient intensity to cause explosions is not likely given fish 2000b; Samson et al., 2014). Squids, like physiological or anatomical damage. movement patterns, especially most fish species, are likely more Fish not killed or driven from a schooling prey species. Most acoustic sensitive to low frequency sounds, and location by an explosion might change effects, if any, are expected to be short- may not perceive mid- and high- their behavior, feeding pattern, or term and localized. Long-term frequency sonars such as Navy sonars. distribution. Changes in behavior of fish consequences for fish populations Cumulatively for squid as a prey have been observed as a result of sound including key prey species within the species, individual and population produced by explosives, with effect HSTT Study Area would not be impacts from exposure to Navy sonar intensified in areas of hard substrate expected. and explosives, like fish, are not likely (Wright, 1982). However, Navy Invertebrates appear to be able to to be significant, and explosive impacts explosive use avoids hard substrate to detect sounds (Pumphrey, 1950; Frings would be short-term and localized. the best extent practical during and Frings, 1967) and are most sensitive Vessels and in-water devices do not underwater detonations, or deep-water to low-frequency sounds (Packard et al., normally collide with adult fish, most of surface detonations (distance from 1990; Budelmann and Williamson, which can detect and avoid them. bottom). Stunning from pressure waves 1994; Lovell et al., 2005; Mooney et al., Exposure of fishes to vessel strike could also temporarily immobilize fish, 2010). Data on response of invertebrates stressors is limited to those fish groups making them more susceptible to such as squid, another marine mammal that are large, slow-moving, and may occur near the surface, such as ocean predation. The abundances of various prey species, to anthropogenic sound is fish (and invertebrates) near the sunfish, whale sharks, basking sharks, more limited (de Soto, 2016; Sole et al., detonation point for explosives could be and manta rays. These species are 2017b). Data suggest that cephalopods altered for a few hours before animals distributed widely in offshore portions are capable of sensing the particle from surrounding areas repopulate the of the Study Area. Any isolated cases of motion of sounds and detect low area. However, these populations would a Navy vessel striking an individual frequencies up to 1–1.5 kHz, depending likely be replenished as waters near the could injure that individual, impacting on the species, and so are likely to detonation point are mixed with the fitness of an individual fish. Vessel detect air gun noise (Kaifu et al., 2008; adjacent waters. Repeated exposure of strikes would not pose a risk to most of Hu et al., 2009; Mooney et al., 2010; individual fish to sounds from the other marine fish groups, because Samson et al., 2014). Sole et al. (2017b) underwater explosions is not likely and many fish can detect and avoid vessel are expected to be short-term and reported physiological injuries to movements, making strikes rare and localized. Long-term consequences for cuttlefish in cages placed at-sea when allowing the fish to return to their fish populations would not be expected. exposed during a controlled exposure normal behavior after the ship or device Several studies have demonstrated that experiment to low-frequency sources passes. As a vessel approaches a fish, (315 Hz, 139 to 142 dB re 1 mPa2 and air gun sounds might affect the 2 they could have a detectable behavioral distribution and behavior of some 400 Hz, 139 to 141 dB re 1 mPa ). or physiological response (e.g., fishes, potentially impacting foraging Fewtrell and McCauley (2012) reported swimming away and increased heart opportunities or increasing energetic squids maintained in cages displayed rate) as the passing vessel displaces costs (e.g., Fewtrell and McCauley, startle responses and behavioral changes them. However, such reactions are not 2012; Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al., when exposed to seismic air gun sonar expected to have lasting effects on the 2 1992; Santulli et al., 1999; Paxton et al., (136–162 re 1 mPa ·s). However, the survival, growth, recruitment, or 2017). sources Sole et al. (2017a) and Fewtrell reproduction of these marine fish In conclusion, for fishes exposed to and McCauley (2012) used are not groups at the population level and Navy sonar, there would be limited similar and much lower than typical therefore would not have an impact on sonar use spread out in time and space Navy sources within the HSTT Study marine mammals species as prey items. across large offshore areas such that Area. Nor do the studies address the In addition to fish, prey sources such only small areas are actually ensonified issue of individual displacement as marine invertebrates could (10’s of miles) compared to the total life outside of a zone of impact when potentially be impacted by sound history distribution of fish prey species. exposed to sound. Cephalopods have a stressors as a result of the proposed There would be no probability for specialized sensory organ inside the activities. However, most marine mortality and physical injury from head called a statocyst that may help an invertebrates’ ability to sense sounds is sonar, and for most species, no or little animal determine its position in space very limited. In most cases, marine potential for hearing or behavioral (orientation) and maintain balance invertebrates would not respond to effects, except to a few select fishes with (Budelmann, 1992). Packard et al. impulsive and non-impulsive sounds, hearing specializations (e.g., herring) (1990) showed that cephalopods were although they may detect and briefly that could perceive mid-frequency sensitive to particle motion, not sound respond to nearby low-frequency sonar. Training and testing exercises pressure, and Mooney et al. (2010) sounds. These short-term responses involving explosions are dispersed in demonstrated that squid statocysts act would likely be inconsequential to space and time; therefore, repeated as an accelerometer through which invertebrate populations. Impacts to exposure of individual fishes are particle motion of the sound field can be benthic communities from impulsive unlikely. Morality and injury effects to detected. Auditory injuries (lesions sound generated by active acoustic fishes from explosives would be occurring on the statocyst sensory hair sound sources are not well documented. localized around the area of a given in- cells) have been reported upon (e.g., Andriguetto-Filho et al., 2005; water explosion, but only if individual controlled exposure to low-frequency Payne et al., 2007; 2008; Boudreau et al., fish and the explosive (and immediate sounds, suggesting that cephalopods are 2009). There are no published data that pressure field) were co-located at the particularly sensitive to low-frequency indicate whether temporary or same time. Fishes deeper in the water sound (Andre et al., 2011; Sole et al., permanent threshold shifts, auditory column or on the bottom would not be 2013). Behavioral responses, such as masking, or behavioral effects occur in affected by water surface explosions. inking and jetting, have also been benthic invertebrates (Hawkins et al., Repeated exposure of individual fish to reported upon exposure to low- 2014) and some studies showed no

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29938 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

short-term or long-term effects of air gun would not be expected to have contributions to the total acoustics of a exposure (e.g., Andriguetto-Filho et al., measurable effects on populations of place. These acoustic conditions, 2005; Payne et al., 2007; 2008; Boudreau marine mammal prey species. Prey termed acoustic habitat, are one et al., 2009). Exposure to air gun signals species exposed to sound might move attribute of an animal’s total habitat. was found to significantly increase away from the sound source, experience Soundscapes are also defined by, and mortality in scallops, in addition to TTS, experience masking of biologically acoustic habitat influenced by, the total causing significant changes in relevant sounds, or show no obvious contribution of anthropogenic sound. behavioral patterns during exposure direct effects. Mortality from This may include incidental emissions (Day et al., 2017). However, the authors decompression injuries is possible in from sources such as vessel traffic, may state that the observed levels of close proximity to a sound, but only be intentionally introduced to the mortality were not beyond naturally limited data on mortality in response to marine environment for data acquisition occurring rates. Explosions and pile air gun noise exposure are available purposes (as in the use of air gun driving could potentially kill or injure (Hawkins et al., 2014). The most likely arrays), or for Navy training and testing nearby marine invertebrates; however, impacts for most prey species in a given purposes (as in the use of sonar and mortality or long-term consequences for area would be temporary avoidance of explosives and other acoustic sources). a few animals is unlikely to have the area. Surveys using towed air gun Anthropogenic noise varies widely in its measurable effects on overall stocks or arrays move through an area relatively frequency, content, duration, and populations. quickly, limiting exposure to multiple loudness and these characteristics Vessels also have the potential to impulsive sounds. In all cases, sound greatly influence the potential habitat- impact marine invertebrates by levels would return to ambient once a mediated effects to marine mammals disturbing the water column or survey ends and the noise source is shut (please also see the previous discussion sediments, or directly striking down and, when exposure to sound on ‘‘Masking’’), which may range from organisms (Bishop, 2008). The propeller ends, behavioral and/or physiological local effects for brief periods of time to wash (water displaced by propellers responses are expected to end relatively chronic effects over large areas and for used for propulsion) from vessel quickly (McCauley et al., 2000b). The long durations. Depending on the extent movement and water displaced from duration of fish avoidance of a given of effects to habitat, animals may alter vessel hulls can potentially disturb area after survey effort stops is their communications signals (thereby marine invertebrates in the water unknown, but a rapid return to normal potentially expending additional column and is a likely cause of recruitment, distribution, and behavior energy) or miss acoustic cues (either zooplankton mortality (Bickel et al., is anticipated. While the potential for conspecific or adventitious). Problems 2011). The localized and short-term disruption of spawning aggregations or arising from a failure to detect cues are exposure to explosions or vessels could schools of important prey species can be more likely to occur when noise stimuli displace, injure, or kill zooplankton, meaningful on a local scale, the mobile are chronic and overlap with invertebrate eggs or larvae, and macro- and temporary nature of most surveys biologically relevant cues used for invertebrates. However, mortality or and the likelihood of temporary communication, orientation, and long-term consequences for a few avoidance behavior suggest that impacts predator/prey detection (Francis and animals is unlikely to have measurable would be minor. Long-term Barber, 2013). For more detail on these effects on overall stocks or populations. consequences to marine invertebrate concepts see, e.g., Barber et al., 2009; There is little information concerning populations would not be expected as a Pijanowski et al., 2011; Francis and potential impacts of noise on result of exposure to sounds or vessels Barber, 2013; Lillis et al., 2014. zooplankton populations. However, one in the Study Area. Military expended The term ‘‘listening area’’ refers to the recent study (McCauley et al., 2017) materials resulting from training and region of ocean over which sources of investigated zooplankton abundance, testing activities could potentially result sound can be detected by an animal at diversity, and mortality before and after in minor long-term changes to benthic the center of the space. Loss of exposure to air gun noise, finding that habitat. Military expended materials communication space concerns the area the exposure resulted in significant may be colonized over time by benthic over which a specific animal signal, depletion for more than half the taxa organisms that prefer hard substrate and used to communicate with conspecifics present and that there were two to three would provide structure that could in biologically-important contexts (e.g., times more dead zooplankton after air attract some species of fish or foraging, mating), can be heard, in gun exposure compared with controls invertebrates. noisier relative to quieter conditions for all taxa. The majority of taxa present (Clark et al., 2009). Lost listening area were copepods and cladocerans; for Acoustic Habitat concerns the more generalized these taxa, the range within which Acoustic habitat is the soundscape contraction of the range over which effects on abundance were detected was which encompasses all of the sound animals would be able to detect a up to approximately 1.2 km. In order to present in a particular location and variety of signals of biological have significant impacts on r-selected time, as a whole when considered from importance, including eavesdropping on species such as plankton, the spatial or the perspective of the animals predators and prey (Barber et al., 2009). temporal scale of impact must be large experiencing it. Animals produce sound Such metrics do not, in and of in comparison with the ecosystem for, or listen for sounds produced by, themselves, document fitness concerned (McCauley et al., 2017). conspecifics (communication during consequences for the marine animals Therefore, the large scale of effect feeding, mating, and other social that live in chronically noisy observed here is of concern— activities), other animals (finding prey environments. Long-term population- particularly where repeated noise or avoiding predators), and the physical level consequences mediated through exposure is expected—and further study environment (finding suitable habitats, changes in the ultimate survival and is warranted. navigating). Together, sounds made by reproductive success of individuals are Overall, the combined impacts of animals and the geophysical difficult to study, and particularly so sound exposure, explosions, vessel environment (e.g., produced by underwater. However, it is increasingly strikes, and military expended materials earthquakes, lightning, wind, rain, well documented that aquatic species resulting from the proposed activities waves) make up the natural rely on qualities of natural acoustic

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29939

habitats, with researchers quantifying from the degrading ordnance. Taken result from exposure to the sound reduced detection of important together, it is possible that marine sources utilized in training and testing ecological cues (e.g., Francis and Barber, mammals could be exposed to activities. Lastly, a limited number of 2013; Slabbekoorn et al., 2010) as well degrading explosives, but it would be serious injuries or mortalities could as survivorship consequences in several within a very small radius of the occur for California sea lion and short- species (e.g., Simpson et al., 2014; explosive (1–6 ft (0.3–2 m)). beaked common dolphin (10 mortalities Nedelec et al., 2015). Equipment used by the Navy within total between the two species over the Sound produced from training and the HSTT Study Area, including ships 5-year period) from explosives, and no testing activities in the HSTT Study and other marine vessels, aircraft, and more than three serious injuries or Area is temporary and transitory. The other equipment, are also potential mortalities total (over the five-year sounds produced during training and sources of by-products. All equipment is period) of large whales through vessel testing activities can be widely properly maintained in accordance with collisions. Although we analyze the dispersed or concentrated in small areas applicable Navy or legal requirements. impacts of these potential serious for varying periods. Any anthropogenic All such operating equipment meets injuries or mortalities that are proposed noise attributed to training and testing Federal water quality standards, where for authorization, the proposed activities in the HSTT Study Area applicable. mitigation and monitoring measures are would be temporary and the affected Estimated Take of Marine Mammals expected to minimize the likelihood area would be expected to immediately (i.e., further lower the already low return to the original state when these This section indicates the number of probability) that ship strike or these activities cease. takes that NMFS is proposing to explosive exposures (and the associated authorize which is based on the amount Water Quality serious injury or mortality) occur. of take that NMFS anticipates could or Described in the most basic way, we The HSTT DEIS/OEIS analyzed the is likely to occur, depending on the type estimate the amount and type of potential effects on water quality from of take and the methods used to harassment by considering: (1) Acoustic military expended materials. Training estimate it, as described in detail below. thresholds above which NMFS believes and testing activities may introduce NMFS coordinated closely with the the best available science indicates water quality constituents into the water Navy in the development of their marine mammals will be behaviorally column. Based on the analysis of the incidental take application, and with harassed (in this case, as defined in the HSTT DEIS/OEIS, military expended one exception, preliminarily agrees that military readiness definition included materials (e.g., undetonated explosive the methods the Navy has put forth above) or incur some degree of materials) would be released in described herein to estimate take temporary or permanent hearing quantities and at rates that would not (including the model, thresholds, and impairment; (2) the area or volume of result in a violation of any water quality density estimates), and the resulting water that will be ensonified above standard or criteria. High-order numbers estimated for authorization, are these levels in a day; (3) the density or explosions consume most of the appropriate and based on the best occurrence of marine mammals within explosive material, creating typical available science. combustion products. For example, in Takes are predominantly in the form these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the the case of Royal Demolition Explosive, of harassment, but a small number of number of days during which activities 98 percent of the products are common mortalities are also estimated. For a might occur. Below, we describe these seawater constituents and the remainder military readiness activity, the MMPA components in more detail and present is rapidly diluted below threshold effect defines ‘‘harassment’’ as (i) Any act that the proposed take estimate. level. Explosion by-products associated injures or has the significant potential to Acoustic Thresholds with high order detonations present no injure a marine mammal or marine Using the best available science, and secondary stressors to marine mammals mammal stock in the wild (Level A in coordination with the Navy, NMFS through sediment or water. However, Harassment); or (ii) Any act that has established acoustic thresholds low order detonations and unexploded disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine above which exposed marine mammals ordnance present elevated likelihood of mammal or marine mammal stock in the would reasonably be expected to impacts on marine mammals. wild by causing disruption of natural experience a disruption in behavioral Indirect effects of explosives and behavioral patterns, including, but not patterns to a point where they are unexploded ordnance to marine limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, abandoned or significantly altered, or to mammals via sediment is possible in the breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a incur TTS (equated to Level B immediate vicinity of the ordnance. point where such behavioral patterns harassment) or PTS of some degree Degradation products of Royal are abandoned or significantly altered (equated to Level A harassment). Demolition Explosive are not toxic to (Level B Harassment). marine organisms at realistic exposure Authorized takes would primarily be Thresholds have also been developed to levels (Rosen and Lotufo, 2010). in the form of Level B harassment, as identify the pressure levels above which Relatively low solubility of most use of the acoustic and explosive animals may incur different types of explosives and their degradation sources (i.e., sonar, air guns, pile tissue damage from exposure to pressure products means that concentrations of driving, explosives) is likely to result in waves from explosive detonation. these contaminants in the marine the disruption of natural behavioral Hearing Impairment (TTS/PTS and environment are relatively low and patterns to a point where they are Tissue Damage and Mortality) readily diluted. Furthermore, while abandoned or significantly altered (as explosives and their degradation defined specifically at the beginning of Non-Impulsive and Impulsive products were detectable in marine this section, but referred to generally as NMFS’s Technical Guidance for sediment approximately 6–12 in (0.15– behavioral disruption) or TTS for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic 0.3 m) away from degrading ordnance, marine mammals. There is also the Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing the concentrations of these compounds potential for Level A harassment, in the (Technical Guidance, 2016) identifies were not statistically distinguishable form of auditory injury and/or tissue dual criteria to assess auditory injury from background beyond 3–6 ft (1–2 m) damage (latter for explosives only) to (Level A harassment) to five different

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29940 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

marine mammal groups (based on includes the use of non-impulsive inform the final product, and are hearing sensitivity) as a result of (sonar, vibratory pile driving/removal) provided in the table below. The exposure to noise from two different sources and impulsive (explosives, air references, analysis, and methodology types of sources (impulsive or non- guns, impact pile driving) sources. used in the development of the impulsive). The Technical Guidance These thresholds (Tables 14–15) were thresholds are described in NMFS 2016 also identifies criteria to predict TTS, developed by compiling and Technical Guidance, which may be which is not considered injury and falls synthesizing the best available science accessed at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ into the Level B Harassment category. and soliciting input multiple times from pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm. The Navy’s Specified Activities both the public and peer reviewers to

TABLE 14—ACOUSTIC THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF TTS AND PTS FOR NON-IMPULSIVE SOUND SOURCES BY FUNCTIONAL HEARING GROUPS

Non-impulsive TTS PTS Functional hearing group threshold threshold SEL SEL (weighted) (weighted)

Low-Frequency Cetaceans ...... 179 199 Mid-Frequency Cetaceans ...... 178 198 High-Frequency Cetaceans ...... 153 173 Phocid Pinnipeds (Underwater) ...... 181 201 Ottarid Pinnipeds (Underwater) ...... 199 219 Note: SEL thresholds in dB re 1 μPa2s.

Based on the best available science, thresholds indicated in Table 15 to (impulsive) and other impulsive sound the Navy (in coordination with NMFS) predict the onset of TTS, PTS, tissue sources. used the acoustic and pressure damage, and mortality for explosives TABLE 15—ONSET OF TTS, PTS, TISSUE DAMAGE, AND MORTALITY THRESHOLDS FOR MARINE MAMMALS FOR EXPLOSIVES AND OTHER IMPULSIVE SOURCES

Mean onset Functional hearing group Species Weighted onset TTS Weighted onset PTS Mean onset slight slight lung Mean onset GI tract injury injury mortality

Low-frequency cetaceans ...... All mysticetes ...... 168 dB SEL or 213 dB 183 dB SEL or 219 dB 237 dB Peak SPL Equation 1 .. Equation 2. Peak SPL. Peak SPL. Mid-frequency cetaceans ...... Most delphinids, medium and 170 dB SEL or 224 dB 185 dB SEL or 230 dB 237 dB Peak SPL. large toothed whales. Peak SPL. Peak SPL. High-frequency cetaceans ..... Porpoises and Kogia spp ..... 140 dB SEL or 196 dB 155 dB SEL or 202 dB 237 dB Peak SPL. Peak SPL. Peak SPL. Phocidae ...... Harbor seal, Hawaiian monk 170 dB SEL or 212 dB 185 dB SEL or 218 dB 237 dB Peak SPL. seal, Northern elephant Peak SPL. Peak SPL. seal. Otariidae ...... California sea lion, Guada- 188 dB SEL or 226 dB 203 dB SEL or 232 dB 237 dB Peak SPL. lupe fur seal, Northern fur Peak SPL. Peak SPL. seal. Notes: 1/3 1/6 Equation 1: 47.5M (1 + [DRm / 10.1]) Pa-sec. 1/3 1/6 Equation 2: 103M (1 + [DRm / 10.1]) Pa-sec. M = mass of the animals in kg. DRm = depth of the receiver (animal) in meters. SPL = sound pressure level.

Impulsive—Air Guns and Impact Pile detailed information on how the criteria Section 6.4.2.1, Methods for Analyzing Driving and thresholds were derived. Impacts from Sonars and Other Transducers in the Navy’s rulemaking/ Impact pile driving produces Non-Impulsive—Sonar and Vibratory Pile Driving/Removal LOA application). Refer to the Criteria impulsive noise; therefore, the criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic used to assess the onset of TTS and PTS Vibratory pile removal (that will be and Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase are identical to those used for air guns, used during the ELCAS) creates III) report (U.S. Department of the Navy, as well as explosives (see Table 15 continuous non-impulsive noise at low 2017c) for detailed information on how above) (see Hearing Loss from air guns source levels for a short duration. the criteria and thresholds were derived. in Section 6.4.3.1, Methods for Therefore, the criteria used to assess the Non-auditory injury (i.e., other than Analyzing Impacts from air guns in the onset of TTS and PTS due to exposure PTS) and mortality from sonar and other Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application). to sonars (non-impulsive, see Table 14 transducers is so unlikely as to be Refer to the Criteria and Thresholds for above) are also used to assess auditory discountable under normal conditions U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive impacts to marine mammals from for the reasons explained in the Effects Analysis (Phase III) report (U.S. vibratory pile driving (see Hearing Loss Potential Effects of Specified Activities Department of the Navy, 2017c) for from Sonar and Other Transducers in on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29941

section under ‘‘Acoustically Mediated number of behavioral disturbances and Sonar Bubble Growth and other Pressure- responses that are reasonably possible to As noted, the Navy coordinated with related Injury’’ and is therefore not occur. NMFS to propose behavioral harassment considered further in this analysis. Air Guns and Pile Driving thresholds specific to their military Behavioral Harassment readiness activities utilizing active Though significantly driven by Marine mammal responses (some of sonar. Behavioral response criteria are which are considered disturbances that received level, the onset of behavioral used to estimate the number of animals rise to the level of a take) to sound are disturbance from anthropogenic noise that may exhibit a behavioral response highly variable and context specific exposure is also informed to varying to sonar and other transducers. The way (affected by differences in acoustic degrees by other factors related to the the criteria were derived is discussed in conditions, differences between species source (e.g., frequency, predictability, detail in the Criteria and Thresholds for and populations; differences in gender, duty cycle), the environment (e.g., U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive age, reproductive status, or social bathymetry), and the receiving animals Effects Analysis (Phase III) report (U.S. behavior; or other prior experience of (hearing, motivation, experience, Department of the Navy, 2017c). the individuals), which means that there demography, behavioral context) and Developing the new behavioral criteria is support for alternative approaches for can be difficult to predict (Southall et involved multiple steps. All peer- estimating behavioral harassment. al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2011). Based on reviewed published behavioral response Although the statutory definition of what the available science indicates and studies conducted both in the field and Level B harassment for military the practical need to use a threshold on captive animals were examined in readiness activities requires that the based on a factor that is both predictable order to understand the breadth of natural behavior patterns of a marine and measurable for most activities, behavioral responses of marine mammal be significantly altered or NMFS uses a generalized acoustic mammals to sonar and other abandoned in order to qualify as a take, threshold based on received level to transducers. NMFS supported the the current state of science for estimate the onset of behavioral development of this methodology and determining those thresholds is still harassment. NMFS predicts that marine considered it appropriate to calculate evolving and indefinite. In its analysis mammals are likely to be behaviorally take and support the preliminary of impacts associated with sonar harassed in a manner we consider Level determinations made in the proposed acoustic sources (which was B harassment when exposed to rule. coordinated with NMFS), the Navy underwater anthropogenic noise above In the Navy acoustic impact analyses proposes, and NMFS supports, an received levels of 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) during Phase II, the likelihood of updated conservative approach that for continuous (e.g., vibratory pile- behavioral effects to sonar and other likely overestimates the number of takes driving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 transducers was based on a probabilistic by Level B harassment due to behavioral mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive function (termed a behavioral response disturbance and response. Many of the (e.g., seismic air guns) or intermittent function—BRF), that related the responses estimated using the Navy’s (e.g., scientific sonar) sources. To likelihood (i.e., probability) of a quantitative analysis are most likely to estimate behavioral effects from air behavioral response to the received SPL. be moderate severity (see Southall et al., guns, the existing NMFS Level B The BRF was used to estimate the 2007 for behavior response severity harassment threshold of 160 dB re 1 mPa percentage of an exposed population scale). Moderate severity responses (rms) is used. The root mean square that is likely to exhibit altered behaviors would be considered significant if they calculation for air guns is based on the or behavioral disturbance at a given were sustained for a duration long duration defined by 90 percent of the received SPL. This BRF relied on the enough that it caused an animal to be cumulative energy in the impulse. assumption that sound poses a negligible risk to marine mammals if outside of normal variation in daily The existing NMFS Level B they are exposed to SPL below a certain behavioral patterns in feeding, harassment thresholds were also ‘‘basement’’ value. Above the basement reproduction, resting, migration/ applied to estimate behavioral effects exposure SPL, the probability of a movement, or social cohesion. Many of from impact and vibratory pile driving response increased with increasing SPL. the behavioral reactions predicted by (Table 16). the Navy’s quantitative analysis are only Two BRFs were used in Navy acoustic expected to exceed an animal’s impact analyses: BRF1 for mysticetes TABLE 16—PILE DRIVING LEVEL B behavioral threshold for a single and BRF2 for other species. BRFs were exposure lasting several minutes. It is THRESHOLDS USED IN THIS ANAL- not used for beaked whales during therefore likely that some of the YSIS TO PREDICT BEHAVIORAL RE- Phase II analyses. Instead, step exposures that are included in the SPONSES FROM MARINE MAMMALS functions at SPLs of 120 dB re 1 mPa and estimated behavioral harassment takes 140 dB re 1 mPa were used for harbor would not actually constitute significant Pile driving criteria (SPL, dB re 1 μPa) porpoises and beaked whales, alterations or abandonment of natural Level B disturbance threshold respectively, as thresholds to predict behavior patterns. The Navy and NMFS Underwater vibratory Underwater impact behavioral disturbance. It should be have used the best available science to noted that in the HSTT Study Area there address the challenge of differentiating 120 dB rms ...... 160 dB rms. are no harbor porpoise. between behavioral reactions that rise to Developing the new behavioral Notes: Root mean square calculation for criteria for Phase III involved multiple the level of a take and those that do not, impact pile driving is based on the duration but have erred on the side of caution defined by 90 percent of the cumulative en- steps: All available behavioral response where uncertainty exists (e.g., counting ergy in the impulse. Root mean square for vi- studies conducted both in the field and these lower duration reactions as take). bratory pile driving is calculated based on a on captive animals were examined in This conservative choice likely results representative time series long enough to cap- order to better understand the breadth of ture the variation in levels, usually on the in some degree of overestimation of order of a few seconds. behavioral responses of marine behavioral harassment take. Therefore, dB: decibel; dB re 1 μPa: decibel referenced mammals to sonar and other this analysis includes the maximum to 1 micropascal; rms: root mean square. transducers. Marine mammal species

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29942 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

were placed into behavioral criteria therefore Level B harassment) is (i.e., doubled) from values derived from groups based on their known or considered to be unlikely (see Table 16 the literature. The use of multiple suspected behavioral sensitivities to below). For animals within the cutoff platforms and intense sound sources are sound. In most cases these divisions distance, a behavioral response function factors that probably increase were driven by taxonomic based on a received SPL as presented in responsiveness in marine mammals classifications (e.g., mysticetes, Section 3.1.0 of the Navy’s rulemaking/ overall. There are currently few pinnipeds). The data from the LOA application was used to predict the behavioral observations under these behavioral studies were analyzed by probability of a potential significant circumstances; therefore, the Navy looking for significant responses, or lack behavioral response. For training and conservatively predicted significant thereof, for each experimental session. testing events that contain multiple behavioral responses at farther ranges as The Navy used cutoff distances platforms or tactical sonar sources that shown in Table 17, versus less intense beyond which the potential of exceed 215 dB re 1 mPa @1 1 m, this events. significant behavioral responses (and cutoff distance is substantially increased

TABLE 17—CUTOFF DISTANCES FOR MODERATE SOURCE LEVEL, SINGLE PLATFORM TRAINING AND TESTING EVENTS AND FOR ALL OTHER EVENTS WITH MULTIPLE PLATFORMS OR SONAR WITH SOURCE LEVELS AT OR EXCEEDING 215 dB re 1 μPa @1 m

Moderate SL/ High SL/ single platform multi-platform Criteria group cutoff distance cutoff distance (km) (km)

Odontocetes ...... 10 20 Pinnipeds ...... 5 10 Mysticetes ...... 10 20 Beaked Whales ...... 25 50 Harbor Porpoise ...... 20 40 Notes: dB re 1 μPa @1 m: Decibels referenced to 1 micropascal at 1 meter; km: kilometer; SL: source level. There are no harbor porpoise in the HSTT Study Area, but are included in Table 16 for consistency with other Navy Proposed Rules.

Tables 18–22 show the range to level exceeds the distance cutoff range the derivation and use of the behavioral received sound levels in 6-dB steps from for a particular hearing group and response functions, thresholds, and the 5 representative sonar bins and the therefore are not included in the cutoff distances, which were percentage of animals that may be taken estimated take. See Section 6.4.2.1.1 coordinated with NMFS. Table 18 under each behavioral response (Methods for Analyzing Impacts from illustrates the potentially significant function. Cells are shaded if the mean Sonars and Other Transducers) of the behavioral response for LFAS. range value for the specified received Navy’s application for further details on BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29943

Table 18. Ranges to a Potentially Significant Behavioral Response for Sonar Bin LF5 over a Representative Range of Environments within the HSTT Study Area.

1 178 97% 59% 92% 100% (1-1) 2 172 91% 30% 76% 99% (1-2) 3 166 78% 20% 48% 97% (1-5) 7 160 58% 18% 27% 93% (1-13) 16 154 40% 17% 18% 83% (1-30) 35 148 29% 16% 16% 66% (1-85) 81 142 25% 13% 15% 45% (1-230) 183 136 23% 9% 15% 28% (1-725) 404 130 20% 5% 15% 18% (1-1,525) 886 124 17% 2% 14% 14% (1-3,025) 1,973 118 12% 1% 13% 12% (725-5,775) 4,472 112 6% 0% 9% 11% (900-18,275) 8,936 106 3% 0% 5% 11% (900-54,525) 27,580 100 8% (900-88,775) Note: Cells are shaded if the mean range value for the specified received level exceeds the distance cutoff range for a particular hearing group. Any impacts within the cutoff range for a criteria group are included in the estimated impacts. dB re lf!Pa2- s: decibels referenced to 1 micropascal squared second; m: meters

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.094 29944 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

Tables 19 through Table 21 illustrates the potentially significant behavioral response for MFAS.

Table 19. Ranges to a Potentially Significant Behavioral Response for Sonar Bin MFl over a Representative Range of Environments within the HSTT Study Area.

196 100% 100% 100% 100%

239 190 100% 98% 99% 100% (190-250) 502 184 99% 88% 98% 100% (310-575) 1,024 178 97% 59% 92% 100% (550-2,025) 2,948 172 91% 30% 76% 99% (625-5,775) 6,247 166 78% 20% 48% 97% (625-10,025) 11,919 160 (650-20,525) 20,470 154 (650-62, 025) 33,048 148 (725-63,525) 43,297 142 (2,025-71,775) 52,912 136 (2,275-91,525) 61,974 130 (2,275-100,000*) 66,546 124 (2,275-100,000*) 69,637 118 (2,525-100,000*) 73,010 112 (2,525-100,000*) 75,928 106 (2,525-100,000*) 78,899 100 (2,525-100,000*) Note: Cells are shaded if the mean range value for the specified received level exceeds the distance cutoff range for a particular hearing group. Any impacts within the cutoff range for a criteria group are included in the estimated impacts. dB re 1f!Pa2- s: decibels referenced to 1 micropascal squared second; m: meters * Indicates maximum range to which acoustic model was run, a distance of approximately 100 kilometers from the sound source.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.095 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29945

Table 20. Ranges to a Potentially Significant Behavioral Response for Sonar Bin MF4 over a Representative Range of Environments within the HSTT Study Area.

196 100% 100% 100% 100%

17 190 100% 98% 99% 100% (1-17) 34 184 99% 88% 98% 100% (1-35) 68 178 97% 59% 92% 100% (1-75) 145 172 91% 30% 76% 99% (130-300) 388 166 78% 20% 48% 97% (270-875) 841 160 58% 18% 27% 93% (470-1,775) 1,748 154 40% 17% 18% 83% (700-6,025) 3,163 148 29% 16% 16% 66% (1,025-13,775) 5,564 142 25% 13% 15% 45% (1,275-27,025) 8,043 136 23% 9% 15% 28% (1,525-54,275) 17,486 130 18% (1,525--65,525) 27,276 124 14% (1,525-84,775) 33,138 118 12% (2,775-85,275) 39,864 112 11% (3,775-100,000*) 45,477 106 11% (5,275-100,000*) 48,712 100 8% (5,275-100,000*) Note: Cells are shaded if the mean range value for the specified received level exceeds the distance cutoff range for a particular hearing group. Any impacts within the cutoff range for a criteria group are included in the estimated impacts. dB re 1f!Pa2- s: decibels referenced to 1 micropascal squared second; m: meters * Indicates maximum range to which acoustic model was run, a distance of approximately 100 kilometers from the sound source.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.096 29946 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

Table 21. Ranges to a Potentially Significant Behavioral Response for Sonar Bin MF5 over a Representative Range of Environments within the HSTT Study Area.

196 100% 100% 100% 100%

2 190 100% 98% 99% 100% (1-3) 4 184 99% 88% 98% 100% (1-7) 14 178 97% 59% 92% 100% (1-15) 29 172 91% 30% 76% 99% (1-30) 59 166 78% 20% 48% 97% (1-70) 133 160 58% 18% 27% 93% (1-340) 309 154 40% 17% 18% 83% (1-950) 688 148 29% 16% 16% 66% (430-2,275) 1,471 142 25% 13% 15% 45% (650-4,025) 2,946 136 23% 9% 15% 28% (700-7 ,525) 5,078 130 20% 5% 15% 18% (725-11,775) 7,556 124 17% 2% 14% 14% (725-19 ,525) 10,183 118 12% (725-27,775) 13,053 112 11% (725--63,025) 16,283 106 11% (1,025-64,525) 20,174 100 8% (1,025-70,525) Note: Cells are shaded if the mean range value for the specified received level exceeds the distance cutoff range for a particular hearing group. Any impacts within the cutoff range for a criteria group are included in the estimated impacts. dB re 1 11Pa2 - s: decibels referenced to 1 micropascal squared second; m: meters * Indicates maximum range to which acoustic model was run, a distance of approximately 100 kilometers from the sound source.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.097 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29947

Table 22 illustrates the potentially significant behavioral response for HFAS.

Table 22. Ranges to a Potentially Significant Behavioral Response for Sonar Bin HF4 over a Representative Range of Environments within the HSTT Study Area.

196 100% 100% 100% 100%

8 190 100% 98% 99% 100% (1-16) 17 184 99% 88% 98% 100% (1-35) 34 178 97% 59% 92% 100% (1-90) 68 172 91% 30% 76% 99% (1-180) 133 166 78% 20% 48% 97% (12-430) 255 160 58% 18% 27% 93% (30-750) 439 154 40% 17% 18% 83% (50-1,525) 694 148 29% 16% 16% 66% (85-2,275) 989 142 25% 13% 15% 45% (110-3,525) 1,378 136 23% 9% 15% 28% (170-4,775) 1,792 130 20% 5% 15% 18% (270-6,025) 2,259 124 17% 2% 14% 14% (320-7,525) 2,832 118 12% 1% 13% 12% (320-8,525) 3,365 112 6% 0% 9% 11% (320-10,525) 3,935 106 3% 0% 5% 11% (320-12,275) 4,546 100 1% 0% 2% 8% (320-16, 775) Note: Cells are shaded if the mean range value for the specified received level exceeds the distance cutoff range for a particular hearing group. Any impacts within the cutoff range for a criteria group are included in the estimated impacts. dB re 1 11Pa2- s: decibels referenced to 1 micropascal squared second; m: meters * Indicates maximum range to which acoustic model was run, a distance of approximately 100 kilometers from the sound source.

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.098 29948 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

Explosives unknowns. Naval activities are modeled the SPLrms criteria was only applied to Phase III explosive criteria for as though they would occur regardless air guns. See the technical report titled behavioral thresholds for marine of proximity to marine mammals Quantifying Acoustic Impacts on mammals is the hearing groups’ TTS meaning that no mitigation is Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles: threshold minus 5 dB (see Table 23 considered (i.e., no power down or shut Methods and Analytical Approach for below and Table 15 for the TTS down modeled) and without any Phase III Training and Testing report thresholds for explosives) for events that avoidance of the activity by the animal. (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017b) contain multiple impulses from The final step of the quantitative for additional details. explosives underwater. This was the analysis of acoustic effects is to consider Underwater noise effects from pile same approach as taken in Phase II for the implementation of mitigation and driving and vibratory pile extraction explosive analysis. See the Criteria and the possibility that marine mammals were modeled using actual measures of Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and would avoid continued or repeated impact pile driving and vibratory Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III) sound exposures. For more information removal during construction of an report (U.S. Department of the Navy, on this process, see the discussion in Elevated Causeway System (Illingworth 2017c) for detailed information on how the ‘‘Take Requests’’ subsection below. and Rodkin, 2015, 2016). A conservative the criteria and thresholds were derived. Many explosions from ordnance such as estimate of spreading loss of sound in bombs and missiles actually occur upon shallow coastal waters (i.e., TABLE 23—PHASE III BEHAVIORAL impact with above-water targets. transmission loss = 16.5 * Log10 (radius)) was applied based on THRESHOLDS FOR EXPLOSIVES FOR However, for this analysis, sources such as these were modeled as exploding spreading loss observed in actual MARINE MAMMALS underwater. This overestimates the measurements. Inputs used in the model are provided in Section 1.4.1.3 (Pile Functional amount of explosive and acoustic Medium hearing SEL energy entering the water. Driving) of the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA group (weighted) The model estimates the impacts application, including source levels; the caused by individual training and number of strikes required to drive a Underwater ...... LF 163 testing exercises. During any individual pile and the duration of vibratory Underwater ...... MF 165 modeled event, impacts to individual removal per pile; the number of piles Underwater ...... HF 135 animats are considered over 24-hour driven or removed per day; and the Underwater ...... PW 165 Underwater ...... OW 183 periods. The animats do not represent number of days of pile driving and actual animals, but rather they represent removal. Note: Weighted SEL thresholds in dB re 1 a distribution of animals based on μ 2 Range to Effects Pa s underwater. density and abundance data, which Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model allows for a statistical analysis of the The following section provides range number of instances that marine to effects for sonar and other active Sonar and Other Transducers and mammals may be exposed to sound acoustic sources as well as explosives to Explosives levels resulting in an effect. Therefore, specific acoustic thresholds determined The Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model the model estimates the number of using the Navy Acoustic Effects Model. calculates sound energy propagation instances in which an effect threshold Marine mammals exposed within these from sonar and other transducers and was exceeded over the course of a year, ranges for the shown duration are explosives during naval activities and but does not estimate the number of predicted to experience the associated the sound received by animat individual marine mammals that may be effect. Range to effects is important dosimeters. Animat dosimeters are impacted over a year (i.e., some marine information not only for predicting virtual representations of marine mammals could be impacted several acoustic impacts, but also in verifying mammals distributed in the area around times, while others would not the accuracy of model results against the modeled naval activity that each experience any impact). A detailed real-world situations and determining records its individual sound ‘‘dose.’’ explanation of the Navy’s Acoustic adequate mitigation ranges to avoid The model bases the distribution of Effects Model is provided in the higher level effects, especially animats over the HSTT Study Area on technical report Quantifying Acoustic physiological effects to marine the density values in the Navy Marine Impacts on Marine Mammals and Sea mammals. Species Density Database and Turtles: Methods and Analytical Sonar distributes animats in the water column Approach for Phase III Training and proportional to the known time that Testing report (U.S. Department of the The range to received sound levels in species spend at varying depths. Navy, 2017b). 6-dB steps from 5 representative sonar The model accounts for bins and the percentage of the total Air Guns and Pile Driving environmental variability of sound number of animals that may exhibit a propagation in both distance and depth The Navy’s quantitative analysis significant behavioral response (and when computing the received sound estimates the sound and energy received therefore Level B harassment) under level received by the animats. The by marine mammals distributed in the each behavioral response function are model conducts a statistical analysis area around planned Navy activities shown in Table 18 through Table 22 based on multiple model runs to involving air guns. The analysis for air above, respectively. See Section compute the estimated effects on guns was similar to explosives as an 6.4.2.1.1 (Impact Ranges for Sonar and animals. The number of animats that impulsive source, except explosive Other Transducers) of the Navy’s exceed the thresholds for effects is impulsive sources were placed into bins rulemaking/LOA application for tallied to provide an estimate of the based on net explosive weights, while additional details on the derivation and number of marine mammals that could each non-explosive impulsive source use of the behavioral response be affected. (air guns) was assigned its own unique functions, thresholds, and the cutoff Assumptions in the Navy model bin. The impulsive model used in the distances. intentionally err on the side of Navy’s analysis used metrics to describe The ranges to the PTS for five overestimation when there are the sound received by the animats and representative sonar systems for an

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29949

exposure of 30 seconds is shown in would realistically be exposed to levels average range to PTS, as well as the Table 24 relative to the marine that could cause the onset of PTS based range from the minimum to the mammal’s functional hearing group. on platform (e.g., ship) speed and a maximum distance at which PTS is This period (30 seconds) was chosen nominal animal swim speed of possible for each hearing group. based on examining the maximum approximately 1.5 m per second. The amount of time a marine mammal ranges provided in the table include the

TABLE 24—RANGE TO PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT (METERS) FOR FIVE REPRESENTATIVE SONAR SYSTEMS

Approximate range in meters for PTS from 30 seconds exposure Functional hearing group Sonar bin LF Sonar bin MF1 Sonar bin MF4 Sonar bin MF5 Sonar bin HF4

Low-frequency Cetacean ...... 0 (0–0) 65 (65–65) 14 (0–15) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) Mid-frequency Cetacean ...... 0 (0–0) 16 (16–16) 3 (3–3) 0 (0–0) 1 (0–2) High-frequency Cetacean ...... 0 (0–0) 181 (180–190) 30 (30–30) 9 (8–10) 30 (8–80) Otariidae ...... 0 (0–0) 6 (6–6) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) Phocinae ...... 0 (0–0) 45 (45–45) 11 (11–11) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 1 PTS ranges extend from the sonar or other active acoustic sound source to the indicated distance. The average range to PTS is provided as well as the range from the estimated minimum to the maximum range to PTS in parenthesis.

The tables below illustrate the range from 5 representative sonar systems (see to TTS for 1, 30, 60, and 120 seconds Table 25 through Table 29).

TABLE 25—RANGES TO TEMPORARY THRESHOLD SHIFT FOR SONAR BIN LF5 OVER A REPRESENTATIVE RANGE OF ENVIRONMENTS WITHIN THE HSTT STUDY AREA

Approximate TTS ranges (meters) 1 Hearing group Sonar bin LF5M (low frequency sources <180 dB source level) 1 second 30 seconds 60 seconds 120 seconds

Low-frequency Cetacean ...... 3 (0–4) 3 (0–4) 3 (0–4) 3 (0–4) Mid-frequency Cetacean ...... 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) High-frequency Cetacean ...... 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) Otariidae ...... 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) Phocinae ...... 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 1 Ranges to TTS represent the model predictions in different areas and seasons within the Study Area. The zone in which animals are expected to suffer TTS extend from onset-PTS to the distance indicated. The average range to TTS is provided as well as the range from the estimated minimum to the maximum range to TTS in parentheses.

TABLE 26—RANGES TO TEMPORARY THRESHOLD SHIFT FOR SONAR BIN MF1 OVER A REPRESENTATIVE RANGE OF ENVIRONMENTS WITHIN THE HSTT STUDY AREA

Approximate TTS ranges (meters) 1

Hearing group Sonar bin MF1 (e.g., SQS–53 ASW hull-mounted sonar) 1 second 30 seconds 60 seconds 120 seconds

Low-frequency Cetacean ...... 903 (850–1,025) 903 (850–1,025) 1,264 (1,025–2,275) 1,839 (1,275–3,025) Mid-frequency Cetacean ...... 210 (210–210) 210 (210–210) 302 (300–310) 379 (370–390) High-frequency Cetacean ...... 3,043 (1,525–4,775) 3,043 (1,525–4,775) 4,739 (2,025–6,275) 5,614 (2,025–7,525) Otariidae ...... 65 (65–65) 65 (65–65) 106 (100–110) 137 (130–140) Phocinae ...... 669 (650–725) 669 (650–725) 970 (900–1,025) 1,075 (1,025–1,525) 1 Ranges to TTS represent the model predictions in different areas and seasons within the Study Area. The zone in which animals are expected to suffer TTS extend from onset-PTS to the distance indicated. The average range to TTS is provided as well as the range from the estimated minimum to the maximum range to TTS in parentheses.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29950 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 27—RANGES TO TEMPORARY THRESHOLD SHIFT (METERS) FOR SONAR BIN MF4 OVER A REPRESENTATIVE RANGE OF ENVIRONMENTS WITHIN THE HSTT STUDY AREA

Approximate TTS ranges (meters) 1 Hearing group Sonar bin MF4 (e.g., AQS–22 ASW dipping sonar) 1 second 30 seconds 60 seconds 120 seconds

Low-frequency Cetacean ...... 77 (0–85) 162 (150–180) 235 (220–290) 370 (310–600) Mid-frequency Cetacean ...... 22 (22–22) 35 (35–35) 49 (45–50) 70 (70–70) High-frequency Cetacean ...... 240 (220–300) 492 (440–775) 668 (550–1,025) 983 (825–2,025) Otariidae ...... 8 (8–8) 15 (15–15) 19 (19–19) 25 (25–25) Phocinae ...... 65 (65–65) 110 (110–110) 156 (150–170) 269 (240–460) 1 Ranges to TTS represent the model predictions in different areas and seasons within the Study Area. The zone in which animals are expected to suffer TTS extend from onset-PTS to the distance indicated. The average range to TTS is provided as well as the range from the estimated minimum to the maximum range to TTS in parentheses.

TABLE 28—RANGES TO TEMPORARY THRESHOLD SHIFT (METERS) FOR SONAR BIN MF5 OVER A REPRESENTATIVE RANGE OF ENVIRONMENTS WITHIN THE HSTT STUDY AREA

Approximate TTS ranges (meters) 1 Hearing group Sonar bin MF5 (e.g., SSQ–62 ASW sonobuoy) 1 second 30 seconds 60 seconds 120 seconds

Low-frequency Cetacean ...... 10 (0–12) 10 (0–12) 14 (0–18) 21 (0–25) Mid-frequency Cetacean ...... 6 (0–9) 6 (0–9) 12 (0–13) 17 (0–21) High-frequency Cetacean ...... 118 (100–170) 118 (100–170) 179 (150–480) 273 (210–700) Otariidae ...... 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) Phocinae ...... 9 (8–10) 9 (8–10) 14 (14–16) 21 (21–25) 1 Ranges to TTS represent the model predictions in different areas and seasons within the Study Area. The zone in which animals are expected to suffer TTS extend from onset-PTS to the distance indicated. The average range to TTS is provided as well as the range from the estimated minimum to the maximum range to TTS in parentheses.

TABLE 29—RANGES TO TEMPORARY THRESHOLD SHIFT (METERS) FOR SONAR BIN HF4 OVER A REPRESENTATIVE RANGE OF ENVIRONMENTS WITHIN THE HSTT STUDY AREA

Approximate TTS ranges (meters) 1 Hearing group Sonar bin HF4 (e.g., SQS–20 mine hunting sonar) 1 second 30 seconds 60 seconds 120 seconds

Low-frequency Cetacean ...... 1 (0–3) 2 (0–5) 4 (0–7) 6 (0–11) Mid-frequency Cetacean ...... 10 (4–17) 17 (6–35) 24 (7–60) 34 (9–90) High-frequency Cetacean ...... 168 (25–550) 280 (55–775) 371 (80–1,275) 470 (100–1,525) Otariidae ...... 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 1 (0–1) Phocinae ...... 2 (0–5) 5 (2–8) 8 (3–13) 11 (4–22) 1 Ranges to TTS represent the model predictions in different areas and seasons within the Study Area. The zone in which animals are expected to suffer TTS extend from onset-PTS to the distance indicated. The average range to TTS is provided as well as the range from the estimated minimum to the maximum range to TTS in parentheses.

Explosives calculations from the Navy Acoustic thresholds specific to a hearing group Effects Model (see Chapter 6.5.2.1.3, that will cause behavioral response (to The following section provides the Navy Acoustic Effects Model of the the degree of a take), TTS, PTS, and range (distance) over which specific Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application). non-auditory injury. Ranges are physiological or behavioral effects are The range to effects are shown for a provided for a representative source expected to occur based on the range of explosive bins, from E1 (up to depth and cluster size for each bin. For explosive criteria (see Chapter 6.5.2.1.1 of the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA 0.25 lb net explosive weight) to E12 (up events with multiple explosions, sound application and the Criteria and to 1,000 lb net explosive weight) (Tables from successive explosions can be Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and 30 through 35). Ranges are determined expected to accumulate and increase the Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III) by modeling the distance that noise range to the onset of an impact based on report (U.S. Department of the Navy, from an explosion will need to SEL thresholds. Range to effects is 2017c) and the explosive propagation propagate to reach exposure level important information in not only

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29951

predicting impacts from explosives, but on how ranges to impacts from Table 30 shows the minimum, also in verifying the accuracy of model explosions were estimated, see the average, and maximum ranges to onset results against real-world situations and technical report Quantifying Acoustic of auditory and behavioral effects for determining adequate mitigation ranges Impacts on Marine Mammals and Sea high-frequency cetaceans based on the to avoid higher level effects, especially Turtles: Methods and Analytical developed thresholds. physiological effects to marine Approach for Phase III Training and mammals. For additional information Testing (U.S. Navy, 2017b).

TABLE 30—SEL-BASED RANGES (METERS) TO ONSET PTS, ONSET TTS, AND BEHAVIORAL REACTION FOR HIGH- FREQUENCY CETACEANS

Range to effects for explosives: high frequency cetacean 1 Source depth Bin (m) Cluster size PTS TTS Behavioral

E1 ...... 0.1 1 353 (130–825) 1,234 (290–3,025) 2,141 (340–4,775) 25 1,188 (280–3,025) 3,752 (490–8,525) 5,196 (675–12,275) E2 ...... 0.1 1 425 (140–1,275) 1,456 (300–3,525) 2,563 (390–5,275) 10 988 (280–2,275) 3,335 (480–7,025) 4,693 (650–10,275) E3 ...... 0.1 1 654 (220–1,525) 2,294 (350–4,775) 3,483 (490–7,775) 12 1,581 (300–3,525) 4,573 (650–10,275) 6,188 (725–14,775) 18.25 1 747 (550–1,525) 3,103 (950–6,025) 5,641 (1,000–9,275) 12 1,809 (875–4,025) 7,807 (1,025–12,775) 10,798 (1,025–17,775) E4 ...... 3 2 2,020 (1,025–3,275) 3,075 (1,025–6,775) 3,339 (1,025–9,775) 15.25 2 970 (600–1,525) 4,457 (1,025–8,525) 6,087 (1,275–12,025) 19.8 2 1,023 (1,000–1,025) 4,649 (2,275–8,525) 6,546 (3,025–11,025) 198 2 959 (875–1,525) 4,386 (3,025–7,525) 5,522 (3,025–9,275) E5 ...... 0.1 25 2,892 (440–6,275) 6,633 (725–16,025) 8,925 (800–22,775) 15.25 25 4,448 (1,025–7,775) 10,504 (1,525–18,275) 13,605 (1,775–24,775) E6 ...... 0.1 1 1,017 (280–2,525) 3,550 (490–7,775) 4,908 (675–12,275) 3 1 2,275 (2,025–2,525) 6,025 (4,525–7,275) 7,838 (6,275–9,775) 15.25 1 1,238 (625–2,775) 5,613 (1,025–10,525) 7,954 (1,275–14,275) E7 ...... 3 1 3,150 (2,525–3,525) 7,171 (5,525–8,775) 8,734 (7,275–10,525) 18.25 1 2,082 (925–3,525) 6,170 (1,275–10,525) 8,464 (1,525–16,525) E8 ...... 0.1 1 1,646 (775–2,525) 4,322 (1,525–9,775) 5,710 (1,525–14,275) 45.75 1 1,908 (1,025–4,775) 5,564 (1,525–12,525) 7,197 (1,525–18,775) E9 ...... 0.1 1 2,105 (850–4,025) 4,901 (1,525–12,525) 6,700 (1,525–16,775) E10 ...... 0.1 1 2,629 (875–5,275) 5,905 (1,525–13,775) 7,996 (1,525–20,025) E11 ...... 18.5 1 3,034 (1,025–6,025) 7,636 (1,525–16,525) 9,772 (1,775–21,525) 45.75 1 2,925 (1,525–6,025) 7,152 (2,275–18,525) 9,011 (2,525–24,525) E12 ...... 0.1 1 2,868 (975–5,525) 6,097 (2,275–14,775) 8,355 (4,275–21,275) 3 3,762 (1,525–8,275) 7,873 (3,775–20,525) 10,838 (4,275–26,525) 1 Average distance (m) to PTS, TTS, and behavioral thresholds are depicted above the minimum and maximum distances which are in parentheses. Values depict the range produced by SEL hearing threshold criteria levels. E13 not modeled due to surf zone use and lack of marine mammal receptors at site-specific location.

Table 31 shows the minimum, mid-frequency cetaceans based on the average, and maximum ranges to onset developed thresholds. of auditory and behavioral effects for

TABLE 31—SEL-BASED RANGES (METERS) TO ONSET PTS, ONSET TTS, AND BEHAVIORAL REACTION FOR MID- FREQUENCY CETACEANS

Range to effects for explosives: mid-frequency cetacean 1 Source depth Bin (m) Cluster size PTS TTS Behavioral

E1 ...... 0.1 1 25 (25–25) 118 (80–210) 178 (100–320) 25 107 (75–170) 476 (150–1,275) 676 (240–1,525) E2 ...... 0.1 1 30 (30–35) 145 (95–240) 218 (110–400) 10 88 (65–130) 392 (140–825) 567 (190–1,275) E3 ...... 0.1 1 50 (45–65) 233 (110–430) 345 (130–600) 12 153 (90–250) 642 (220–1,525) 897 (270–2,025) 18.25 1 38 (35–40) 217 (190–900) 331 (290–850) 12 131 (120–250) 754 (550–1,525) 1,055 (600–2,525) E4 ...... 3 2 139 (110–160) 1,069 (525–1,525) 1,450 (875–1,775) 15.25 2 71 (70–75) 461 (400–725) 613 (470–750) 19.8 2 69 (65–70) 353 (350–360) 621 (600–650) 198 2 49 (0–55) 275 (270–280) 434 (430–440) E5 ...... 0.1 25 318 (130–625) 1,138 (280–3,025) 1,556 (310–3,775) 15.25 25 312 (290–725) 1,321 (675–2,525) 1,980 (850–4,275)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29952 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 31—SEL-BASED RANGES (METERS) TO ONSET PTS, ONSET TTS, AND BEHAVIORAL REACTION FOR MID- FREQUENCY CETACEANS—Continued

Range to effects for explosives: mid-frequency cetacean 1 Source depth Bin (m) Cluster size PTS TTS Behavioral

E6 ...... 0.1 1 98 (70–170) 428 (150–800) 615 (210–1,525) 3 1 159 (150–160) 754 (650–850) 1,025 (1,025–1,025) 15.25 1 88 (75–180) 526 (450–875) 719 (500–1,025) E7 ...... 3 1 240 (230–260) 1,025 (1,025–1,025) 1,900 (1,775–2,275) 18.25 1 166 (120–310) 853 (500–1,525) 1,154 (550–1,775) E8 ...... 0.1 1 160 (150–170) 676 (500–725) 942 (600–1,025) 45.75 1 128 (120–170) 704 (575–2,025) 1,040 (750–2,525) E9 ...... 0.1 1 215 (200–220) 861 (575–950) 1,147 (650–1,525) E10 ...... 0.1 1 275 (250–480) 1,015 (525–2,275) 1,424 (675–3,275) E11 ...... 18.5 1 335 (260–500) 1,153 (650–1,775) 1,692 (775–3,275) 45.75 1 272 (230–825) 1,179 (825–3,025) 1,784 (1,000–4,275) E12 ...... 0.1 1 334 (310–350) 1,151 (700–1,275) 1,541 (800–3,525) 0.1 3 520 (450–550) 1,664 (800–3,525) 2,195 (925–4,775) 1 Average distance (m) to PTS, TTS, and behavioral thresholds are depicted above the minimum and maximum distances which are in parentheses. Values depict the range produced by SEL hearing threshold criteria levels. E13 not modeled due to surf zone use and lack of marine mammal receptors at site-specific location.

Table 32 shows the minimum, low-frequency cetaceans based on the average, and maximum ranges to onset developed thresholds. of auditory and behavioral effects for

TABLE 32—SEL-BASED RANGES (METERS) TO ONSET PTS, ONSET TTS, AND BEHAVIORAL REACTION FOR LOW- FREQUENCY CETACEANS

Range to effects for explosives: low frequency cetacean 1 Source depth Bin (m) Cluster size PTS TTS Behavioral

E1 ...... 0.1 1 51 (40–70) 227 (100–320) 124 (70–160) 25 205 (95–270) 772 (270–1,275) 476 (190–725) E2 ...... 0.1 1 65 (45–95) 287 (120–400) 159 (80–210) 10 176 (85–240) 696 (240–1,275) 419 (160–625) E3 ...... 0.1 1 109 (65–150) 503 (190–1,000) 284 (120–430) 12 338 (130–525) 1,122 (320–7,775) 761 (240–6,025) 18.25 1 205 (170–340) 996 (410–2,275) 539 (330–1,275) 12 651 (340–1,275) 3,503 (600–8,275) 1,529 (470–3,275) E4 ...... 3 2 493 (440–1,000) 2,611 (1,025–4,025) 1,865 (950–2,775) 15.25 2 583 (350–850) 3,115 (1,275–5,775) 1,554 (1,000–2,775) 19.8 2 378 (370–380) 1,568 (1,275–1,775) 926 (825–950) 198 2 299 (290–300) 2,661 (1,275–3,775) 934 (900–950) E5 ...... 0.1 25 740 (220–6,025) 2,731 (460–22,275) 1,414 (350–14,275) 15.25 25 1,978 (1,025–5,275) 8,188 (3,025–19,775) 4,727 (1,775–11,525) E6 ...... 0.1 1 250 (100–420) 963 (260–7,275) 617 (200–1,275) 3 1 711 (525–825) 3,698 (1,525–4,275) 2,049 (1,025–2,525) 15.25 1 718 (390–2,025) 3,248 (1,275–8,525) 1,806 (950–4,525) E7 ...... 3 1 1,121 (850–1,275) 5,293 (2,025–6,025) 3,305 (1,275–4,025) 18.25 1 1,889 (1,025–2,775) 6,157 (2,775–11,275) 4,103 (2,275–7,275) E8 ...... 0.1 1 460 (170–950) 1,146 (380–7,025) 873 (280–3,025) 45.75 1 1,049 (550–2,775) 4,100 (1,025–14,275) 2,333 (800–7,025) E9 ...... 0.1 1 616 (200–1,275) 1,560 (450–12,025) 1,014 (330–5,025) E10 ...... 0.1 1 787 (210–2,525) 2,608 (440–18,275) 1,330 (330–9,025) E11 ...... 18.5 1 4,315 (2,025–8,025) 10,667 (4,775–26,775) 7,926 (3,275–21,025) 45.75 1 1,969 (775–5,025) 9,221 (2,525–29,025) 4,594 (1,275–16,025) E12 ...... 0.1 1 815 (250–3,025) 2,676 (775–18,025) 1,383 (410–8,525) 0.1 3 1,040 (330–6,025) 4,657 (1,275–31,275) 2,377 (700–16,275) 1 Average distance (m) to PTS, TTS, and behavioral thresholds are depicted above the minimum and maximum distances which are in parentheses. Values depict the range produced by SEL hearing threshold criteria levels. E13 not modeled due to surf zone use and lack of marine mammal receptors at site-specific location.

Table 33 shows the minimum, phocids based on the developed average, and maximum ranges to onset thresholds. of auditory and behavioral effects for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29953

TABLE 33—SEL-BASED RANGES (METERS) TO ONSET PTS, ONSET TTS, AND BEHAVIORAL REACTION FOR PHOCIDS

Range to effects for explosives: phocids 1 Source depth Bin (m) Cluster size PTS TTS Behavioral

E1 ...... 0.1 1 45 (40–65) 210 (100–290) 312 (130–430) 25 190 (95–260) 798 (280–1,275) 1,050 (360–2,275) E2 ...... 0.1 1 58 (45–75) 258 (110–360) 383 (150–550) 10 157 (85–240) 672 (240–1,275) 934 (310–1,525) E3 ...... 0.1 1 96 (60–120) 419 (160–625) 607 (220–900) 12 277 (120–390) 1,040 (370–2,025) 1,509 (525–6,275) 18.25 1 118 (110–130) 621 (500–1,275) 948 (700–2,025) 12 406 (330–875) 1,756 (1,025–4,775) 3,302 (1,025–6,275) E4 ...... 3 2 405 (300–430) 1,761 (1,025–2,775) 2,179 (1,025–3,275) 15.25 2 265 (220–430) 1,225 (975–1,775) 1,870 (1,025–3,275) 19.8 2 220 (220–220) 991 (950–1,025) 1,417 (1,275–1,525) 198 2 150 (150–150) 973 (925–1,025) 2,636 (2,025–3,525) E5 ...... 0.1 25 569 (200–850) 2,104 (725–9,275) 2,895 (825–11,025) 15.25 25 920 (825–1,525) 5,250 (2,025–10,275) 7,336 (2,275–16,025) E6 ...... 0.1 1 182 (90–250) 767 (270–1,275) 1,011 (370–1,775) 3 1 392 (340–440) 1,567 (1,275–1,775) 2,192 (2,025–2,275) 15.25 1 288 (250–600) 1,302 (1,025–3,275) 2,169 (1,275–5,775) E7 ...... 3 1 538 (450–625) 2,109 (1,775–2,275) 2,859 (2,775–3,275) 18.25 1 530 (460–750) 2,617 (1,025–4,525) 3,692 (1,525–5,275) E8 ...... 0.1 1 311 (290–330) 1,154 (625–1,275) 1,548 (725–2,275) 45.75 1 488 (380–975) 2,273 (1,275–5,275) 3,181 (1,525–8,025) E9 ...... 0.1 1 416 (350–470) 1,443 (675–2,025) 1,911 (800–3,525) E10 ...... 0.1 1 507 (340–675) 1,734 (725–3,525) 2,412 (800–5,025) E11 ...... 18.5 1 1,029 (775–1,275) 5,044 (2,025–8,775) 6,603 (2,525–14,525) 45.75 1 881 (700–2,275) 3,726 (2,025–8,775) 5,082 (2,025–13,775) E12 ...... 0.1 1 631 (450–750) 1,927 (800–4,025) 2,514 (925–5,525) 0.1 3 971 (550–1,025) 2,668 (1,025–6,275) 3,541 (1,775–9,775) 1 Average distance (m) to PTS, TTS, and behavioral thresholds are depicted above the minimum and maximum distances which are in parentheses. Values depict the range produced by SEL hearing threshold criteria levels. E13 not modeled due to surf zone use and lack of marine mammal receptors at site-specific location.

Table 34 shows the minimum, ottariids based on the developed average, and maximum ranges to onset thresholds. of auditory and behavioral effects for

TABLE 34—SEL-BASED RANGES (METERS) TO ONSET PTS, ONSET TTS, AND BEHAVIORAL REACTION FOR OTARIIDS

Range to effects for explosives: otariids 1range to effects for explosives: mid-frequency cetacean Source depth Bin (m) Cluster size PTS TTS Behavioral

E1 ...... 0.1 1 7 (7–7) 34 (30–40) 56 (45–70) 25 30 (25–35) 136 (80–180) 225 (100–320) E2 ...... 0.1 1 9 (9–9) 41 (35–55) 70 (50–95) 10 25 (25–30) 115 (70–150) 189 (95–250) E3 ...... 0.1 1 16 (15–19) 70 (50–95) 115 (70–150) 12 45 (35–65) 206 (100–290) 333 (130–450) 18.25 1 15 (15–15) 95 (90–100) 168 (150–310) 12 55 (50–60) 333 (280–750) 544 (440–1,025) E4 ...... 3 2 64 (40–85) 325 (240–340) 466 (370–490) 15.25 2 30 (30–35) 205 (170–300) 376 (310–575) 19.8 2 25 (25–25) 170 (170–170) 290 (290–290) 198 2 17 (0–25) 117 (110–120) 210 (210–210) E5 ...... 0.1 25 98 (60–120) 418 (160–575) 626 (240–1,000) 15.25 25 151 (140–260) 750 (650–1,025) 1,156 (975–2,025) E6 ...... 0.1 1 30 (25–35) 134 (75–180) 220 (100–320) 3 1 53 (50–55) 314 (280–390) 459 (420–525) 15.25 1 36 (35–40) 219 (200–380) 387 (340–625) E7 ...... 3 1 93 (90–100) 433 (380–500) 642 (550–800) 18.25 1 73 (70–75) 437 (360–525) 697 (600–850) E8 ...... 0.1 1 50 (50–50) 235 (220–250) 385 (330–450) 45.75 1 55 (55–60) 412 (310–775) 701 (500–1,525) E9 ...... 0.1 1 68 (65–70) 316 (280–360) 494 (390–625) E10 ...... 0.1 1 86 (80–95) 385 (240–460) 582 (390–800) E11 ...... 18.5 1 158 (150–200) 862 (750–975) 1,431 (1,025–2,025) 45.75 1 117 (110–130) 756 (575–1,525) 1,287 (950–2,775) E12 ...... 0.1 1 104 (100–110) 473 (370–575) 709 (480–1,025)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29954 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 34—SEL-BASED RANGES (METERS) TO ONSET PTS, ONSET TTS, AND BEHAVIORAL REACTION FOR OTARIIDS— Continued

Range to effects for explosives: otariids 1range to effects for explosives: mid-frequency cetacean Source depth Bin (m) Cluster size PTS TTS Behavioral

0.1 3 172 (170–180) 694 (480–1,025) 924 (575–1,275) 1 Average distance (m) to PTS, TTS, and behavioral thresholds are depicted above the minimum and maximum distances which are in parentheses. Values depict the range produced by SEL hearing threshold criteria levels. E13 not modeled due to surf zone use and lack of marine mammal receptors at site-specific location.

Table 35 which show the minimum, TABLE 35—RANGES 1 TO 50 PERCENT TABLE 35—RANGES 1 TO 50 PERCENT average, and maximum ranges due to NON-AUDITORY INJURY RISK FOR NON-AUDITORY INJURY RISK FOR varying propagation conditions to non- ALL MARINE MAMMAL HEARING ALL MARINE MAMMAL HEARING auditory injury as a function of animal GROUPS AS A FUNCTION OF ANIMAL GROUPS AS A FUNCTION OF ANIMAL mass and explosive bin (i.e., net MASS MASS—Continued explosive weight). These ranges [10–72,000 kg] [10–72,000 kg] represent the larger of the range to slight lung injury or gastrointestinal tract Range (m) Bin Range (m) injury for representative animal masses Bin (min-max) (min-max) ranging from 10 to 72,000 kg and different explosive bins ranging from E1 ...... 12 (11–13) E12 ...... 232 (110–775) 0.25 to 1,000 lb net explosive weight. E2 ...... 15 (15–20) Note: Animals within these water volumes E3 ...... 25 (25–30) 1 Average distance (m) to mortality is de- would be expected to receive minor E4 ...... 32 (0–75) picted above the minimum and maximum distances which are in parentheses. injuries at the outer ranges, increasing to E5 ...... 40 (35–140) E6 ...... 52 (40–120) E13 not modeled due to surf zone use and more substantial injuries, and finally lack of marine mammal receptors at site- E7 ...... 145 (100–500) mortality as an animal approaches the specific location. Differences between bins E8 ...... 117 (75–400) E11 and E12 due to different ordnance types detonation point. E9 ...... 120 (90–290) and differences in model parameters. E10 ...... 174 (100–480) Ranges to mortality, based on animal E11 ...... 443 (350–1,775) mass, are show in Table 36 below.

TABLE 36—RANGES 1 TO 50 PERCENT MORTALITY RISK FOR ALL MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS AS A FUNCTION OF ANIMAL MASS

Animal mass intervals (kg) 1 Bin 10 250 1,000 5,000 25,000 72,000

E1 ...... 3 (2–3) 0 (0–3) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) E2 ...... 4 (3–5) 1 (0–4) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) E3 ...... 8 (6–10) 4 (2–8) 1 (0–2) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) E4 ...... 15 (0–35) 9 (0–30) 4 (0–8) 2 (0–6) 0 (0–3) 0 (0–2) E5 ...... 13 (11–45) 7 (4–35) 3 (3–12) 2 (0–8) 0 (0–2) 0 (0–2) E6 ...... 18 (14–55) 10 (5–45) 5 (3–15) 3 (2–10) 0 (0–3) 0 (0–2) E7 ...... 67 (55–180) 35 (18–140) 16 (12–30) 10 (8–20) 5 (4–9) 4 (3–7) E8 ...... 50 (24–110) 27 (9–55) 13 (0–20) 9 (4–13) 4 (0–6) 3 (0–5) E9 ...... 32 (30–35) 20 (13–30) 10 (8–12) 7 (6–9) 4 (3–4) 3 (2–3) E10 ...... 56 (40–190) 25 (16–130) 13 (11–16) 9 (7–11) 5 (4–5) 4 (3–4) E11 ...... 211 (180–500) 109 (60–330) 47 (40–100) 30 (25–65) 15 (0–25) 13 (11–22) E12 ...... 94 (50–300) 35 (20–230) 16 (13–19) 11 (9–13) 6 (5–8) 5 (4–8) Note: 1 Average distance (m) to mortality is depicted above the minimum and maximum distances which are in parentheses. E13 not modeled due to surf zone use and lack of marine mammal receptors at site-specific location. Differences between bins E11 and E12 due to different ordnance types and differences in model parameters (see Table 6–42 for details).

Air Guns specific locations where animals from frequencies below 1 kHz. The SPL and the hearing groups and the air gun SPL peak (at a distance 1 m from the air Table 37 and Table 38 present the activities could overlap. Small air guns gun) would be approximately 215 dB re approximate ranges in meters to PTS, (12–60 in3) would be used during 1 mPa and 227 dB re 1 mPa, respectively, TTS, and potential behavioral reactions testing activities in the offshore areas of if operated at the full capacity of 60 in3. for air guns for 1 and 10 pulses, the Southern California Range Complex The size of the air gun chamber can be respectively. Ranges are specific to the and in the Hawaii Range Complex. adjusted, which would result in lower HSTT Study Area and also to each Generated impulses would have short SPLs and SEL per shot. Single, small air marine mammal hearing group, durations, typically a few hundred guns lack the peak pressures that could dependent upon their criteria and the milliseconds, with dominant cause non-auditory injury (see Finneran

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29955

et al., (2015)); therefore, potential impacts could include PTS, TTS, and behavioral reactions.

TABLE 37—RANGE TO EFFECTS (METERS) FROM AIR GUNS FOR 1 PULSE

Range to effects for air guns 1 for 1 pulse (m) PTS PTS TTS TTS 2 Hearing group (SEL) (peak SPL) (SEL) (peak SPL) Behavioral

High-Frequency Cetacean ...... 0 (0–0) 18 (15–25) 1 (0–2) 33 (25–80) 702 (290–1,525) Low-Frequency Cetacean ...... 3 (3–4) 2 (2–3) 27 (23–35) 5 (4–7) 651 (200–1,525) Mid-Frequency Cetacean ...... 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 689 (290–1,525) Otariidae ...... 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 590 (290–1,525) Phocids ...... 0 (0–0) 2 (2–3) 0 (0–0) 5 (4–8) 668 (290–1,525) 1 Average distance (m) to PTS, TTS, and behavioral thresholds are depicted above the minimum and maximum distances which are in parentheses. PTS and TTS values depict the range produced by SEL and Peak SPL (as noted) hearing threshold criteria levels. 2 Behavioral values depict the ranges produced by RMS hearing threshold criteria levels.

TABLE 38—RANGE TO EFFECTS (METERS) FROM AIR GUNS FOR 10 PULSES

Range to effects for air guns 1 for 10 pulses (m)

PTS PTS TTS TTS 2 Hearing group (SEL) (Peak SPL) (SEL) (Peak SPL) Behavioral

High-Frequency Cetacean ...... 0 (0–0) 18 (15–25) 3 (0–9) 33 (25–80) 702 (290–1,525) Low-Frequency Cetacean ...... 15 (12–20) 2 (2–3) 86 (70–140) 5 (4–7) 651 (200–1,525) Mid-Frequency Cetacean ...... 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 689 (290–1,525) Otariidae ...... 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 590 (290–1,525) Phocids ...... 0 (0–0) 2 (2–3) 4 (3–5) 5 (4–8) 668 (290–1,525) 1 Average distance (m) to PTS, TTS, and behavioral thresholds are depicted above the minimum and maximum distances which are in parentheses. PTS and TTS values depict the range produced by SEL and Peak SPL (as noted) hearing threshold criteria levels. 2 Behavioral values depict the ranges produced by RMS hearing threshold criteria levels.

Pile Driving TTS, and potential behavioral reactions injury is not predicted for pile driving Table 39 and Table 40 present the for impact pile driving and vibratory activities. approximate ranges in meters to PTS, pile removal, respectively. Non-auditory

TABLE 39—AVERAGE RANGES TO EFFECTS (METERS) FROM IMPACT PILE DRIVING

PTS TTS Behavioral Hearing group (m) (m) (m)

Low-frequency Cetaceans ...... 65 529 870 Mid-frequency Cetaceans ...... 2 16 870 High-frequency Cetaceans ...... 65 529 870 Phocids ...... 19 151 870 Otariids ...... 2 12 870 Note: PTS: Permanent threshold shift; TTS: Temporary threshold shift.

TABLE 40—AVERAGE RANGES TO EFFECT (METERS) FROM VIBRATORY PILE EXTRACTION

PTS TTS Behavioral Hearing group (m) (m) (m)

Low-frequency Cetaceans ...... 0 3 376 Mid-frequency Cetaceans ...... 0 4 376 High-frequency Cetaceans ...... 7 116 376 Phocids ...... 0 2 376 Otariids ...... 0 0 376 Note: PTS: Permanent threshold shift; TTS: Temporary threshold shift.

Serious Injury or Mortality From Ship through 2017 (nine years), the period in commonly struck whales in California Strikes which Navy began implementing are gray whales, fin whales, and effective mitigation measures to reduce humpback whales. The majority of these There have been two recorded Navy the likelihood of vessel strikes. From strikes are from non-Navy commercial vessel strikes of marine mammals (two unpublished NMFS data, the most shipping. For both areas (Hawaii and fin whales off San Diego, CA in 2009) commonly struck whales in Hawaii are California), the higher strike rates to in the HSTT Study Area from 2009 humpback whales, and the most these species is largely attributed to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29956 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

higher species abundance in these areas. information on the species distribution developed for areas, species, and, when Prior to 2009, the Navy had struck or concentrations within that area, and available, specific timeframes (months multiple species of whales off California it does not estimate density for other or seasons) with sufficient survey data. or Hawaii, but also individuals that timeframes, areas, or seasons that were 2. Stratified designed-based density were not identified to species. Further, not surveyed. More recently, habitat estimates use line-transect survey data because the overall number of Navy modeling has been used to estimate with the sampling area divided strikes is small, it is appropriate to cetacean densities (e.g., Barlow et al., (stratified) into sub-regions, and a consider the larger record of known ship 2009; Becker et al., 2010; 2012a; 2014; density is predicted for each sub-region strikes (by other types of vessels) in Becker et al., 2016; Ferguson et al., (see Barlow, 2016; Becker et al., 2016; predicting what species may potentially 2006; Forney et al., 2012; 2015; Redfern Bradford et al., 2017; Campbell et al., be involved in a Navy ship strike. Based et al., 2006). These models estimate 2014; Jefferson et al., 2014). While on this information, and as described in cetacean density as a continuous geographically stratified density more detail in Navy’s rulemaking/LOA function of habitat variables (e.g., sea estimates provide a better indication of application and below, the Navy surface temperature, seafloor depth, a species’ distribution within the study proposes, and NMFS preliminary etc.) and thus allow predictions of area, the uncertainty is typically high agrees, to three ship strike takes to select cetacean densities on finer spatial scales because each sub-region estimate is large whale species and stocks over the than traditional line-transect or mark based on a smaller stratified segment of five years of the authorization, with no recapture analyses and for areas that the overall survey effort. more than two takes to several specific have not been surveyed. Within the 3. Design-based density estimations stocks with a higher likelihood of being geographic area that was modeled, use line-transect survey data from land struck and no more than one take of densities can be predicted wherever and aerial surveys designed to cover a other specific stocks with a lesser these habitat variables can be measured specific geographic area (see Carretta et likelihood of being struck (described in or estimated. al., 2015). These estimates use the same detail below in the Vessel Strike To characterize the marine species survey data as stratified design-based section). density for large areas such as the Study estimates, but are not segmented into Area, the Navy compiled data from sub-regions and instead provide one Marine Mammal Density several sources. The Navy developed a estimate for a large surveyed area. A quantitative analysis of impacts on protocol to select the best available data Although relative environmental a species requires data on their sources based on species, area, and time suitability (RES) models provide abundance and distribution that may be (season). The resulting Geographic estimates for areas of the oceans that affected by anthropogenic activities in Information System database called the have not been surveyed using the potentially impacted area. The most Navy Marine Species Density Database information on species occurrence and appropriate metric for this type of includes seasonal density values for inferred habitat associations and have analysis is density, which is the number every marine mammal species present been used in past density databases, of animals present per unit area. Marine within the HSTT Study Area. This these models were not used in the species density estimation requires a database is described in the technical current quantitative analysis. In the significant amount of effort to both report titled U.S. Navy Marine Species HSTT analysis, due to the availability of collect and analyze data to produce a Density Database Phase III for the other density methods along the reasonable estimate. Unlike surveys for Hawaii-Southern California Training hierarchy the use of RES model was not terrestrial wildlife, many marine species and Testing Study Area (U.S. necessary. spend much of their time submerged, Department of the Navy, 2017e), When interpreting the results of the and are not easily observed. In order to hereafter referred to as the Density quantitative analysis, as described in the collect enough sighting data to make Technical Report. Density Technical Report, ‘‘it is reasonable density estimates, multiple A variety of density data and density important to consider that even the best observations are required, often in areas models are needed in order to develop estimate of marine species density is that are not easily accessible (e.g., far a density database that encompasses the really a model representation of the offshore). Ideally, marine mammal entirety of the HSTT Study Area. values of concentration where these species sighting data would be collected Because this data is collected using animals might occur. Each model is for the specific area and time period different methods with varying amounts limited to the variables and assumptions (e.g., season) of interest and density of accuracy and uncertainty, the Navy considered by the original data source estimates derived accordingly. However, has developed a model hierarchy to provider. No mathematical model in many places, poor weather ensure the most accurate data is used representation of any biological conditions and high sea states prohibit when available. The Density Technical population is perfect, and with regards the completion of comprehensive visual Report describes these models in detail to marine mammal biodiversity, any surveys. and provides detailed explanations of single model method will not For most cetacean species, abundance the models applied to each species completely explain the actual within U.S. waters is estimated using density estimate. The below list distribution and abundance of marine line-transect surveys or mark-recapture describes models in order of preference. mammal species. It is expected that studies (e.g., Barlow, 2010, Barlow and 1. Spatial density models are there would be anomalies in the results Forney, 2007, Calambokidis et al., preferred and used when available that need to be evaluated, with 2008). The result provides one single because they provide an estimate with independent information for each case, density estimate value for each species the least amount of uncertainty by to support if we might accept or reject across a broad geographic area. This is deriving estimates for divided segments a model or portions of the model (U.S. the general approach applied in of the sampling area. These models (see Department of the Navy, 2017a).’’ estimating cetacean abundance in the Becker et al., 2016; Forney et al., 2015) The Navy’s estimate of abundance NMFS SARS. Although the single value predict spatial variability of animal (based on the density estimates used) in provides a good average estimate of presence as a function of habitat the HSTT Study Area may differ from abundance (total number of individuals) variables (e.g., sea surface temperature, population abundances estimated in the for a specified area, it does not provide seafloor depth, etc.). This model is NMFS’s SARS for a variety of reasons.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29957

Mainly because the Pacific SAR • Physical Disturbance and Strike Navy elected to only account for the overlaps only 35 percent of the Hawaii (vessel strike). minimum number of required Lookouts part of HSTT and only about 14 percent Acoustic and explosive sources have used for each activity; therefore, the of SOCAL. The Alaska SAR covering the potential to result in incidental takes mitigation effectiveness factors may humpbacks present in Hawaii is another of marine mammals by harassment, underestimate the likelihood that some complicating factor. For some species, injury, or mortality. Vessel strikes have marine mammals may be detected the stock assessment for a given species the potential to result in incidental take during activities that are supported by may exceed the Navy’s density from injury, serious injury and/or additional personnel who may also be prediction because those species’ home mortality. observing the mitigation zone. range extends beyond the Study Area The quantitative analysis process The Navy used the equations in the boundaries. For other species, the stock used for the HSTT DEIS/OEIS and the below sections to calculate the assessment abundance may be much Navy’s request in the rulemaking/LOA reduction in model-estimated mortality less than the number of animals in the application to estimate potential impacts due to implementing Navy’s modeling given the HSTT Study exposures to marine mammals resulting mitigation. from acoustic and explosive stressors is Area extends well beyond the U.S Equation 1: waters covered by the SAR abundance detailed in the technical report titled Mitigation Effectiveness = Species estimate. The primary source of density Quantifying Acoustic Impacts on Sightability × Visibility × estimates are geographically specific Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles: Observation Area × Positive Control survey data and either peer-reviewed Methods and Analytical Approach for line-transect estimates or habitat-based Phase III Training and Testing report Whereas, Species Sightability is the density models that have been (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017b). ability to detect marine mammals is extensively validated to provide the The Navy Acoustic Effects Model dependent on the animal’s presence at most accurate estimates possible. estimates acoustic and explosive effects the surface and the characteristics of the These factors and others described in without taking mitigation into account; animal that influence its sightability. the Density Technical Report should be therefore, the model overestimates The Navy considered applicable data considered when examining the predicted impacts on marine mammals from the best available science to estimated impact numbers in within mitigation zones. To account for numerically approximate the comparison to current population mitigation for marine species in the take sightability of marine mammals and abundance information for any given estimates, the Navy conducts a determined that the standard ‘‘detection species or stock. For a detailed quantitative assessment of mitigation. probability’’ referred to as g(0). Also, description of the density and The Navy conservatively quantifies the Visibility = 1¥sum of individual assumptions made for each species, see manner in which mitigation is expected visibility reduction factors; Observation the Density Technical Report. to reduce model-estimated PTS to TTS Area = portion of impact range that can NMFS coordinated with the Navy in for exposures to sonar and other be continuously observed during an the development of its take estimates transducers, and reduce model- event; and Positive Control = positive and concurs that the Navy’s proposed estimated mortality to injury for control factor of all sound sources approach for density appropriately exposures to explosives. The Navy involving mitigation. For further details utilizes the best available science. Later, assessed the effectiveness of its on these mitigation effectiveness factors in the Negligible Impact Determination mitigation measures on a per-scenario please refer to the technical report titled Section, we assess how the estimated basis for four factors: (1) Species Quantifying Acoustic Impacts on take numbers compare to stock sightability, (2) a Lookout’s ability to Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles: abundance in order to better understand observe the range to PTS (for sonar and Methods and Analytical Approach for the potential number of individuals other transducers) and range to Phase III Training and Testing report impacted—and the rationale for which mortality (for explosives), (3) the (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017b). abundance estimate is used is included portion of time when mitigation could To quantify the number of marine there. potentially be conducted during periods mammals predicted to be sighted by of reduced daytime visibility (to include Take Requests Lookouts during implementation of inclement weather and high sea-state) mitigation in the range to injury (PTS) The HSTT DEIS/OEIS considered all and the portion of time when mitigation for sonar and other transducers, the training and testing activities proposed could potentially be conducted at night, species sightability is multiplied by the to occur in the HSTT Study Area that and (4) the ability for sound sources to mitigation effectiveness scores and have the potential to result in the be positively controlled (e.g., powered number of model-estimated PTS MMPA defined take of marine down). impacts, as shown in the equation mammals. The Navy determined that During the conduct of training and below: the following three stressors could testing activities, there is typically at Equation 2: result in the incidental taking of marine least one, if not numerous, support personnel involved in the activity (e.g., Number of Animals Sighted by Lookouts mammals. NMFS has reviewed the × Navy’s data and analysis and range support personnel aboard a = Mitigation Effectiveness Model- determined that it is complete and torpedo retrieval boat or support Estimated Impacts accurate and agrees that the following aircraft). In addition to the Lookout The marine mammals sighted by stressors have the potential to result in posted for the purpose of mitigation, Lookouts during implementation of takes of marine mammals from the these additional personnel observe for mitigation in the range to PTS, as Specified Activities. and disseminate marine species sighting calculated by the equation above, would • Acoustics (sonar and other information amongst the units avoid being exposed to these higher transducers; air guns; pile driving/ participating in the activity whenever level impacts. The Navy corrects the extraction). possible as they conduct their primary category of predicted impact for the • Explosives (explosive shock wave mission responsibilities. However, as a number of animals sighted within the and sound (assumed to encompass the conservative approach to assigning mitigation zone (e.g., shifts PTS to TTS), risk due to fragmentation). mitigation effectiveness factors, the but does not modify the total number of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29958 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

animals predicted to experience impacts mitigation on acoustic exposures and that it is complete and accurate and that from the scenario. explosive takes, and NMFS concurs the takes by harassment proposed for To quantify the number of marine with the Navy that it is appropriate to authorization are reasonably expected to mammals predicted to be sighted by incorporate into the take estimates occur and that the takes by mortality Lookouts during implementation of based on the best available science. For could occur as in the case of vessel mitigation in the range to mortality additional information on the strikes. Five-year total impacts may be during events using explosives, the quantitative analysis process and less than the sum total of each year species sightability is multiplied by the mitigation measures, refer to the because although the annual estimates mitigation effectiveness scores and technical report titled Quantifying are based on the maximum estimated number of model-estimated mortality Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals takes, five-year estimates are based on impacts, as shown in equation 1 above. and Sea Turtles: Methods and the sum of two maximum years and The marine mammals and sea turtles Analytical Approach for Phase III three nominal years. predicted to be sighted by Lookouts Training and Testing report (U.S. during implementation of mitigation in Department of the Navy, 2017b) and Nonlethal Take Reasonably Expected To the range to mortality, as calculated by Section 6 (Take Estimates for Marine Occur From Training Activities the above equation 2, are predicted to Mammals) and Section 11 (Mitigation avoid exposure in these ranges. The Measures) of the Navy’s rulemaking/ Table 41 summarizes the Navy’s take Navy corrects the category of predicted LOA application. request and the amount and type of take impact for the number of animals that is reasonably likely to occur (Level sighted within the mitigation zone, but Summary of Proposed Authorized Take A and Level B harassment) by species does not modify the total number of From Training and Testing Activities associated with all training activities. animals predicted to experience impacts Based on the methods outlined in the Note that Level B harassment take from the scenario. For example, the previous sections and the Navy’s model includes both behavioral disruption and number of animals sighted (i.e., number and the quantitative assessment of TTS. Figures 6–12 through 6–50 in of animals that will avoid mortality) is mitigation, the Navy summarizes the Section 6 of the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA first subtracted from the model- take request for acoustic and explosive application illustrate the comparative predicted mortality impacts, and then sources for training and testing activities amounts of TTS and behavioral added to the model-predicted injurious both annually (based on the maximum disruption (at the level of a take) for impacts. number of activities per 12-month each species, noting that if a ‘‘taken’’ NMFS coordinated with the Navy in period) and over a 5-year period. NMFS animat was exposed to both TTS and the development of this quantitative has reviewed the Navy’s data and behavioral disruption in the model, it method to address the effects of analysis and preliminary determined was recorded as a TTS.

TABLE 41—SPECIES-SPECIFIC PROPOSED TAKE AUTHORIZATION FOR ACOUSTIC AND EXPLOSIVE EFFECTS FOR ALL TRAINING ACTIVITIES IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA

Annual 5-Year total** Species Stock Level B Level A Level B Level A

Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)

Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals)

Blue whale * ...... Central North Pacific ...... 34 0 139 0 Eastern North Pacific ...... 1,155 1 5,036 3 Bryde’s whale † ...... Eastern Tropical Pacific ...... 27 0 118 0 Hawaiian † ...... 105 0 429 0 Fin whale * ...... California, Oregon, and Washington 1,245 0 5,482 0 Hawaiian ...... 33 0 133 0 Humpback whale† ...... California, Oregon, and Wash- 1,254 1 5,645 3 ington †. Central North Pacific ...... 5,604 1 23,654 5 Minke whale ...... California, Oregon, and Washington 649 1 2,920 4 Hawaiian ...... 3,463 1 13,664 2 Sei whale * ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... 53 0 236 0 Hawaiian ...... 118 0 453 0

Family Eschrichtiidae

Gray whale † ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... 2,751 5 11,860 19 Western North Pacific † ...... 4 0 14 0

Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)

Family Physeteridae (sperm whale)

Sperm whale * ...... California, Oregon, and Washington 1,397 0 6,257 0 Hawaiian ...... 1,714 0 7,078 0

Family Kogiidae (sperm whales)

Dwarf sperm whale ...... Hawaiian ...... 13,961 35 57,571 148

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29959

TABLE 41—SPECIES-SPECIFIC PROPOSED TAKE AUTHORIZATION FOR ACOUSTIC AND EXPLOSIVE EFFECTS FOR ALL TRAINING ACTIVITIES IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA—Continued

Annual 5-Year total** Species Stock Level B Level A Level B Level A

Pygmy sperm whale ...... Hawaiian ...... 5,556 16 22,833 64 Kogia whales ...... California, Oregon, and Washington 6,012 23 27,366 105

Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales)

Baird’s beaked whale ...... California, Oregon, and Washington 1,317 0 6,044 0 Blainville’s beaked whale ...... Hawaiian ...... 3,687 0 16,364 0 Cuvier’s beaked whale ...... California, Oregon, and Washington 6,965 0 32,185 0 Hawaiian ...... 1,235 0 5,497 0 Longman’s beaked whale ...... Hawaiian ...... 13,010 0 57,172 0 Mesoplodon spp ...... California, Oregon, and Washington 3,750 0 17,329 0

Family Delphinidae (dolphins)

Bottlenose dolphin ...... California Coastal ...... 214 0 876 0 California, Oregon, and Washington 31,986 2 142,966 9 Offshore. Hawaiian Pelagic ...... 2,086 0 9,055 0 Kauai & Niihau ...... 74 0 356 0 Oahu ...... 8,186 1 40,918 5 4-Island ...... 152 0 750 0 Hawaii ...... 42 0 207 0 False killer whale † ...... Hawaii Pelagic ...... 701 0 3,005 0 Main Hawaiian Islands Insular† ...... 405 0 1,915 0 Northwestern Hawaiian Islands ...... 256 0 1,094 0 Fraser’s dolphin ...... Hawaiian ...... 28,409 1 122,784 3 Killer whale ...... Eastern North Pacific Offshore ...... 73 0 326 0 Eastern North Pacific Transient/ 135 0 606 0 West Coast Transient. Hawaiian ...... 84 0 352 0 Long-beaked common dolphin ...... California ...... 128,994 14 559,540 69 Melon-headed whale ...... Hawaiian Islands ...... 2,335 0 9,705 0 Kohala Resident ...... 182 0 913 0 Northern right whale dolphin California, Oregon, and Washington 56,820 8 253,068 40 Pacific white-sided dolphin ...... California, Oregon, and Washington 43,914 3 194,882 12 Pantropical spotted dolphin ...... Hawaii Island ...... 2,585 0 12,603 0 Hawaii Pelagic ...... 6,809 0 29,207 0 Oahu ...... 4,127 0 20,610 0 4-Island ...... 260 0 1,295 0 Pygmy killer whale ...... Hawaiian ...... 5,816 0 24,428 0 Tropical ...... 471 0 2,105 0 Risso’s dolphin ...... California, Oregon, and Washington 76,276 6 338,560 30 Hawaiian ...... 6,590 0 28,143 0 Rough-toothed dolphin ...... Hawaiian ...... 4,292 0 18,506 0 NSD 1 ...... 0 0 0 0 Short-beaked common dolphin ...... California, Oregon, and Washington 932,453 46 4,161,283 222 Short-finned pilot whale ...... California, Oregon, and Washington 990 1 4,492 5 Hawaiian ...... 8,594 0 37,077 0 Spinner dolphin ...... Hawaii Island ...... 89 0 433 0 Hawaii Pelagic ...... 3,138 0 12,826 0 Kauai & Niihau ...... 310 0 1,387 0 Oahu & 4-Island ...... 1,493 1 7,445 5 Striped dolphin ...... California, Oregon, and Washington 119,219 1 550,936 3 Hawaiian ...... 5,388 0 22,526 0

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)

Dall’s porpoise ...... California, Oregon, and Washington 27,282 137 121,236 634

Suborder Pinnipedia

Family Otariidae (eared seals)

California sea lion ...... U.S ...... 69,543 91 327,136 455 Guadalupe fur seal * ...... Mexico ...... 518 0 2,386 0 Northern fur seal ...... California ...... 9,786 0 44,017 0

Family Phocidae (true seals)

Harbor seal ...... California ...... 3,119 7 13,636 34

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29960 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 41—SPECIES-SPECIFIC PROPOSED TAKE AUTHORIZATION FOR ACOUSTIC AND EXPLOSIVE EFFECTS FOR ALL TRAINING ACTIVITIES IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA—Continued

Annual 5-Year total** Species Stock Level B Level A Level B Level A

Hawaiian monk seal * ...... Hawaiian ...... 139 1 662 3 Northern elephant seal ...... California ...... 38,169 72 170,926 349 * ESA-listed species (all stocks) within the HSTT Study Area. ** 5-year total impacts may be less than sum total of each year. Not all activities occur every year; some activities occur multiple times within a year; and some activities only occur a few times over course of a 5-year period. † Only designated stocks are ESA-listed. 1 NSD: No stock designation.

Nonlethal Take Reasonably Expected To associated with all testing activities. amounts of TTS and behavioral Occur From Testing Activities Note that Level B harassment take disruption (at the level of a take) for Table 42 summarizes the Navy’s take includes both behavioral disruption and each species, noting that if a ‘‘taken’’ request and the amount and type of take TTS. Figures 6–12 through 6–50 in animat was exposed to both TTS and that is reasonably likely to occur (Level Section 6 of the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA behavioral disruption in the model, it A and Level B harassment) by species application illustrate the comparative was recorded as a TTS.

TABLE 42—SPECIES-SPECIFIC PROPOSED TAKE AUTHORIZATION FOR ACOUSTIC AND EXPLOSIVE SOUND SOURCE EFFECTS FOR ALL TESTING ACTIVITIES IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA

Annual 5-Year total** Species Stock Level B Level A Level B Level A

Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)

Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals)

Blue whale * ...... Central North Pacific ...... 14 0 65 0 Eastern North Pacific ...... 833 0 4,005 0 Bryde’s whale † ...... Eastern Tropical Pacific ...... 14 0 69 0 Hawaiian † ...... 41 0 194 0 Fin whale * ...... California, Oregon, and Washington 980 1 4,695 3 Hawaiian ...... 15 0 74 0 Humpback whale† ...... California, Oregon, and Wash- 740 0 3,508 0 ington †. Central North Pacific ...... 3,522 2 16,777 10 Minke whale ...... California, Oregon, and Washington 276 0 1,309 0 Hawaiian ...... 1,467 1 6,918 4 Sei whale * ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... 26 0 124 0 Hawaiian ...... 49 0 229 0

Family Eschrichtiidae

Gray whale † ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... 1,920 2 9,277 7 Western North Pacific † ...... 2 0 11 0

Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)

Family Physeteridae (sperm whale)

Sperm whale * ...... California, Oregon, and Washington 1,096 0 5,259 0 Hawaiian ...... 782 0 3,731 0

Family Kogiidae (sperm whales)

Dwarf sperm whale ...... Hawaiian ...... 6,459 29 30,607 140 Pygmy sperm whale ...... Hawaiian ...... 2,595 13 12,270 60 Kogia whales ...... California, Oregon, and Washington 3,120 15 14,643 67

Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales)

Baird’s beaked whale ...... California, Oregon, and Washington 727 0 3,418 0 Blainville’s beaked whale ...... Hawaiian ...... 1,698 0 8,117 0 Cuvier’s beaked whale ...... California, Oregon, and Washington 4,461 0 20,919 0 Hawaiian ...... 561 0 2,675 0 Longman’s beaked whale ...... Hawaiian ...... 6,223 0 29,746 0 Mesoplodon spp ...... California, Oregon, and Washington 2,402 0 11,262 0

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29961

TABLE 42—SPECIES-SPECIFIC PROPOSED TAKE AUTHORIZATION FOR ACOUSTIC AND EXPLOSIVE SOUND SOURCE EFFECTS FOR ALL TESTING ACTIVITIES IN THE HSTT STUDY AREA—Continued

Annual 5-Year total** Species Stock Level B Level A Level B Level A

Family Delphinidae (dolphins)

Bottlenose dolphin ...... California Coastal ...... 1,595 0 7,968 0 California, Oregon, and Washington 23,436 1 112,410 4 Offshore. Hawaiian Pelagic ...... 1,242 0 6,013 0 Kauai & Niihau ...... 491 0 2,161 0 Oahu ...... 475 0 2,294 0 4-Island ...... 207 0 778 0 Hawaii ...... 38 0 186 0 False killer whale † ...... Hawaii Pelagic ...... 340 0 1,622 0 Main Hawaiian Islands Insular † ...... 184 0 892 0 Northwestern Hawaiian Islands ...... 125 0 594 0 Fraser’s dolphin ...... Hawaiian ...... 12,664 1 60,345 5 Killer whale ...... Eastern North Pacific Offshore ...... 34 0 166 0 Eastern North Pacific Transient/ 64 0 309 0 West Coast Transient. Hawaiian ...... 40 0 198 0 Long-beaked common dolphin ...... California ...... 118,278 6 568,020 24 Melon-headed whale ...... Hawaiian Islands ...... 1,157 0 5,423 0 Kohala Resident ...... 168 0 795 0 Northern right whale dolphin ...... California, Oregon, and Washington 41,279 3 198,917 15 Pacific white-sided dolphin ...... California, Oregon, and Washington 31,424 2 151,000 8 Pantropical spotted dolphin ...... Hawaii Island ...... 1,409 0 6,791 0 Hawaii Pelagic ...... 3,640 0 17,615 0 Oahu ...... 202 0 957 0 4-Island ...... 458 0 1,734 0 Pygmy killer whale ...... Hawaiian ...... 2,708 0 13,008 0 Tropical ...... 289 0 1,351 0 Risso’s dolphin ...... California, Oregon, and Washington 49,985 3 240,646 15 Hawaiian ...... 2,808 0 13,495 0 Rough-toothed dolphin ...... Hawaiian ...... 2,193 0 10,532 0 NSD 1 ...... 0 0 0 0 Short-beaked common dolphin ...... California, Oregon, and Washington 560,120 45 2,673,431 222 Short-finned pilot whale ...... California, Oregon, and Washington 923 0 4,440 0 Hawaiian ...... 4,338 0 20,757 0 Spinner dolphin ...... Hawaii Island ...... 202 0 993 0 Hawaii Pelagic ...... 1,396 0 6,770 0 Kauai & Niihau ...... 1,436 0 6,530 0 Oahu & 4-Island ...... 331 0 1,389 0 Striped dolphin ...... California, Oregon, and Washington 56,035 2 262,973 10 Hawaiian ...... 2,396 0 11,546 0

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)

Dall’s porpoise ...... California, Oregon, and Washington 17,091 72 81,611 338

Suborder Pinnipedia

Family Otariidae (eared seals)

California sea lion ...... U.S...... 48,665 6 237,870 23 Guadalupe fur seal * ...... Mexico ...... 939 0 4,357 0 Northern fur seal ...... California ...... 5,505 1 26,168 4

Family Phocidae (true seals)

Harbor seal ...... California ...... 2,325 1 11,258 5 Hawaiian monk seal * ...... Hawaiian ...... 66 0 254 0 Northern elephant seal ...... California ...... 22,702 27 107,343 131 * ESA-listed species (all stocks) within the HSTT Study Area. ** 5-year total impacts may be less than sum total of each year. Not all activities occur every year; some activities occur multiple times within a year; and some activities only occur a few times over course of a 5-year period. † Only designated stocks are ESA-listed. 1 NSD: No stock designation.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29962 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

Take From Vessel Strikes and Results of this approach are presented Analytical Approach for Phase III Explosives by Serious Injury or in Table 5–4 of the Navy’s rulemaking/ Training and Testing report (U.S. Mortality LOA application. Department of the Navy, 2017b). The Navy anticipates, and NMFS Specifically, over the course of a year, Vessel Strike preliminarily concurs, based on the the Navy’s model and quantitative A detailed analysis for vessel strike is Navy’s ship strike analysis presented in analysis process estimates mortality of contained in Chapters 5 and 6 the the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application, two short-beaked common dolphin and Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application. that three vessel strikes could occur one California sea lion as a result of Vessel strike to marine mammals is not over the course of five years, and that exposure to explosive training and associated with any specific training or no more than two would involve (and testing activities (please refer to section testing activity but rather is a limited, therefore the Navy is requesting no more 6 of the Navy’s rule making/LOA sporadic, and incidental result of Navy than two lethal takes from) the application). Over the 5-year period of vessel movement within the HSTT following species and stocks: the regulations being requested, Study Area. To support the prediction • Gray whale (Eastern North Pacific mortality of 10 marine mammals in total of strikes that could occur in the five stock); (6 short-beaked common dolphins and 4 years covered by the rule, the Navy • Fin whale (California, Oregon, California sea lions) is estimated as a calculated probabilities derived from a Washington stock); result of exposure to explosive training Poisson distribution using ship strike • Humpback whale (California, and testing activities. NMFS data between 2009–2016 in the HSTT Oregon, California stock or Mexico coordinated with the Navy in the Study Area, as well as historical at-sea DPS); development of their take estimates and days in HSTT from 2009–2016 and • Humpback whale (Central Pacific concurs with the Navy’s proposed estimated potential at-sea days for the stock or Hawaii DPS); and approach for estimating the number of period from 2019 to 2023 to determine • Sperm whale (Hawaiian stock). animals from each species that could be the probabilities of a specific number of Of the possibility for three vessel affected by mortality takes from strikes (n=0, 1, 2, etc.) over the period strikes over the five years, no more than explosives. from 2019 to 2023. The Navy struck two one would involve the species below; Proposed Mitigation Measures whales in 2009 (both fin whales) in the therefore, the Navy is requesting no HSTT Study Area, and there have been more than one lethal take from) the Under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the no strikes since that time from activities following species and stocks: MMPA, NMFS must set forth the in the HSTT study area that would be • Blue whale (Eastern North Pacific ‘‘permissible methods of taking covered by these regulations. The Navy stock); pursuant to such activity, and other used those two fin whale strikes in their • Bryde’s whale (Eastern Tropical means of effecting the least practicable calculations and evaluated data Pacific stock); adverse impact on such species or stock beginning in 2009 as that was the start • Bryde’s whale (Hawaiian stock); and its habitat, paying particular of the Navy’s Marine Species Awareness • Humpback whale (California, attention to rookeries, mating grounds, Training and adoption of additional Oregon, California stock or Central and areas of similar significance, and on mitigation measures to address ship America DPS); the availability of such species or stock strike. However, there have been no • Minke whale (California, Oregon, for subsistence uses’’ (‘‘least practicable incidents of vessel strikes between June Washington stock); adverse impact’’). NMFS does not have 2009 and April 2018 from HSTT Study • Minke whale (Hawaiian stock); a regulatory definition for least Area activities. Based on the resulting • Sperm whale (California, Oregon, practicable adverse impact. The NDAA probabilities presented in the Navy’s Washington stock); for FY 2004 amended the MMPA as it analysis, there is a 10 percent chance of • Sei whale (Hawaiian stock); and relates to military readiness activities three strikes over the period from 2019 • Sei whale (Eastern North Pacific and the incidental take authorization to 2023. Therefore, the Navy estimates, stock). process such that a determination of and NMFS agrees, that there is some Vessel strikes to the stocks below are ‘‘least practicable adverse impact’’ shall probability that it could strike, and take very unlikely to occur due to their include consideration of personnel by serious injury or mortality, up to relatively low occurrence in the Study safety, practicality of implementation, three large whales incidental to training Area, particularly in core HSTT training and impact on the effectiveness of the and testing activities within the HSTT and testing subareas, and therefore the ‘‘military readiness activity.’’ Study Area over the course of the five Navy is not requesting lethal take In Conservation Council for Hawaii v. years. authorization for the following species National Marine Fisheries Service, 97 F. The Navy then refined its take request and stocks: Supp.3d 1210, 1229 (D. Haw. 2015), the based on the species/stocks most likely • Blue whale (Central North Pacific Court stated that NMFS ‘‘appear[s] to to be present in the HSTT Study Area stock); think [it] satisf[ies] the statutory ‘least based on documented abundance and • Fin whale (Hawaiian stock); and practicable adverse impact’ requirement where overlap is between a species’ • Gray whale (Western North Pacific with a ‘negligible impact’ finding.’’ common occurrence and core Navy stock). More recently, expressing similar training and testing areas within the concerns in a challenge to a U.S. Navy HSTT Study Area. To determine which Explosives Operations of Surveillance Towed Array species may be struck, a weight of The Navy’s model and quantitative Sensor System Low Frequency Active evidence approach was used to analysis process used for the HSTT Sonar (SURTASS LFA) incidental take qualitatively rank range complex DEIS/OEIS and in the Navy’s rule (77 FR 50290), the Ninth Circuit specific species using historic and rulemaking/LOA application to estimate Court of Appeals in Natural Resources current stranding data from NMFS, potential exposures of marine mammals Defense Council (NRDC) v. Pritzker, 828 relative abundance as derived by NMFS to explosive stressors is detailed in the F.3d 1125, 1134 (9th Cir. 2016), stated, for the HSTT Phase II Biological technical report titled Quantifying ‘‘[c]ompliance with the ‘negligible Opinion, and the Navy funded Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals impact’ requirement does not mean monitoring within each range complex. and Sea Turtles: Methods and there [is] compliance with the ‘least

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29963

practicable adverse impact’ standard.’’ adverse impact on such species or stock accordingly these same metrics are also As the Ninth Circuit noted in its and its habitat, paying particular used in the evaluation of population opinion, however, the Court was attention to rookeries, mating grounds, level impacts for the least practicable interpreting the statute without the and areas of similar significance’’ 50 adverse impact standard. benefit of NMFS’s formal interpretation. CFR 216.102(b), which are typically Recognizing this common focus of the We state here explicitly that NMFS is in identified as mitigation measures.3 least practicable adverse impact and full agreement that the ‘‘negligible The negligible impact and least negligible impact provisions on the impact’’ and ‘‘least practicable adverse practicable adverse impact standards in ‘‘species or stock’’ does not mean we impact’’ requirements are distinct, even the MMPA both call for evaluation at conflate the two standards; despite some though both statutory standards refer to the level of the ‘‘species or stock.’’ The common statutory language, we species and stocks. With that in mind, MMPA does not define the term recognize the two provisions are we provide further explanation of our ‘‘species.’’ However, Merriam-Webster different and have different functions. interpretation of least practicable Dictionary defines ‘‘species’’ to include First, a negligible impact finding is adverse impact, and explain what ‘‘related organisms or populations required before NMFS can issue an distinguishes it from the negligible potentially capable of interbreeding.’’ incidental take authorization. Although impact standard. This discussion is See www.merriam-webster.com/ it is acceptable to use the mitigation consistent with, and expands upon, dictionary/species (emphasis added). measures to reach a negligible impact previous rules we have issued (such as The MMPA defines ‘‘stock’’ as ‘‘a group finding (see 50 CFR 216.104(c)), no the Navy Gulf of Alaska rule (82 FR of marine mammals of the same species amount of mitigation can enable NMFS 19530; April 27, 2017)). or smaller taxa in a common spatial to issue an incidental take authorization Before NMFS can issue incidental arrangement that interbreed when for an activity that still would not meet take regulations under section mature.’’ 16 U.S.C. 1362(11). The the negligible impact standard. 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, it must make definition of ‘‘population’’ is ‘‘a group of Moreover, even where NMFS can reach a finding that the total taking will have interbreeding organisms that represents a negligible impact finding—which we a ‘‘negligible impact’’ on the affected the level of organization at which emphasize does allow for the possibility ‘‘species or stocks’’ of marine mammals. speciation begins.’’ www.merriam- of some ‘‘negligible’’ population-level NMFS’s and U.S. Fish and Wildlife webster.com/dictionary/population. The impact—the agency must still prescribe Service’s implementing regulations for definition of ‘‘population’’ is strikingly measures that will affect the least section 101(a)(5) both define ‘‘negligible similar to the MMPA’s definition of practicable amount of adverse impact impact’’ as ‘‘an impact resulting from ‘‘stock,’’ with both involving groups of upon the affected species or stock. the specified activity that cannot be individuals that belong to the same Section 101(a)(5)(A)(i)(II) requires reasonably expected to, and is not species and located in a manner that NMFS to issue, in conjunction with its reasonably likely to, adversely affect the allows for interbreeding. In fact, the authorization, binding—and species or stock through effects on term ‘‘stock’’ in the MMPA is enforceable—restrictions (in the form of annual rates of recruitment or survival’’ interchangeable with the statutory term regulations) setting forth how the (50 CFR 216.103 and 50 CFR 18.27(c)). ‘‘population stock.’’ 16 U.S.C. 1362(11). activity must be conducted, thus Recruitment (i.e., reproduction) and Thus, the MMPA terms ‘‘species’’ and ensuring the activity has the ‘‘least survival rates are used to determine ‘‘stock’’ both relate to populations, and practicable adverse impact’’ on the 2 population growth rates and, therefore it is therefore appropriate to view both affected species or stocks. In situations are considered in evaluating population the negligible impact standard and the where mitigation is specifically needed level impacts. least practicable adverse impact to reach a negligible impact As we stated in the preamble to the standard, both of which call for determination, section 101(a)(5)(A)(i)(II) final rule for the incidental take evaluation at the level of the species or also provides a mechanism for ensuring implementing regulations, not every stock, as having a population-level compliance with the ‘‘negligible population-level impact violates the focus. impact’’ requirement. Finally, we negligible impact requirement. The This interpretation is consistent with reiterate that the least practicable negligible impact standard does not Congress’s statutory findings for adverse impact standard also requires require a finding that the anticipated enacting the MMPA, nearly all of which consideration of measures for marine take will have ‘‘no effect’’ on population are most applicable at the species or mammal habitat, with particular numbers or growth rates: ‘‘The statutory stock (i.e., population) level. See 16 attention to rookeries, mating grounds, standard does not require that the same U.S.C. 1361 (finding that it is species and other areas of similar significance, recovery rate be maintained, rather that and population stocks that are or may be no significant effect on annual rates of in danger of extinction or depletion; that and for subsistence impacts; whereas recruitment or survival occurs. [T]he it is species and population stocks that the negligible impact standard is key factor is the significance of the level should not diminish beyond being concerned solely with conclusions of impact on rates of recruitment or significant functioning elements of their about the impact of an activity on annual rates of recruitment and survival.’’ (54 FR 40338, 40341–42; ecosystems; and that it is species and 4 September 29, 1989). population stocks that should not be survival. While some level of impact on permitted to diminish below their In NRDC v. Pritzker, the Court stated, population numbers or growth rates of optimum sustainable population level). ‘‘[t]he statute is properly read to mean a species or stock may occur and still Annual rates of recruitment (i.e., that even if population levels are not satisfy the negligible impact reproduction) and survival are the key threatened significantly, still the agency requirement—even without biological metrics used in the evaluation must adopt mitigation measures aimed consideration of mitigation—the least of population-level impacts, and at protecting marine mammals to the practicable adverse impact provision greatest extent practicable in light of separately requires NMFS to prescribe 3 For purposes of this discussion we omit reference to the language in the standard for least 4 Outside of the military readiness context, means of ‘‘effecting the least practicable practicable adverse impact that says we also must mitigation may also be appropriate to ensure mitigate for subsistence impacts because they are compliance with the ‘‘small numbers’’ language in 2 A growth rate can be positive, negative, or flat. not at issue in this rule. MMPA sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29964 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

military readiness needs.’’ Id. at 1134 Impact Analysis and Determination’’ potential that new information, or a new (emphases added). This statement is below. recommendation that we had not consistent with our understanding Our evaluation of potential mitigation previously considered, becomes stated above that even when the effects measures includes consideration of two available and necessitates reevaluation of an action satisfy the negligible impact primary factors: of mitigation measures (which may be standard (i.e., in the Court’s words, (1) The manner in which, and the addressed through adaptive ‘‘population levels are not threatened degree to which, implementation of the management) to see if further reductions significantly’’), still the agency must potential measure(s) is expected to of population impacts are possible and prescribe mitigation under the least reduce adverse impacts to marine practicable. practicable adverse impact standard. mammal species or stocks, their habitat, In the evaluation of specific measures, However, as the statute indicates, the and their availability for subsistence the details of the specified activity will focus of both standards is ultimately the uses (where relevant). This analysis necessarily inform each of the two considers such things as the nature of impact on the affected ‘‘species or primary factors discussed above the potential adverse impact (such as stock,’’ and not solely focused on or (expected reduction of impacts and likelihood, scope, and range), the directed at the impact on individual practicability), and are carefully likelihood that the measure will be marine mammals. considered to determine the types of effective if implemented, and the We have carefully reviewed and mitigation that are appropriate under likelihood of successful considered the Ninth Circuit’s opinion the least practicable adverse impact implementation; and in NRDC v. Pritzker in its entirety. (2) The practicability of the measures standard. Analysis of how a potential While the Court’s reference to ‘‘marine for applicant implementation. mitigation measure may reduce adverse mammals’’ rather than ‘‘marine mammal Practicability of implementation may impacts on a marine mammal stock or species or stocks’’ in the italicized consider such things as cost, impact on species, consideration of personnel language above might be construed as a operations, and, in the case of a military safety, practicality of implementation, holding that the least practicable readiness activity, specifically considers and consideration of the impact on adverse impact standard applies at the personnel safety, practicality of effectiveness of military readiness individual ‘‘marine mammal’’ level, i.e., implementation, and impact on the activities are not issues that can be that NMFS must require mitigation to effectiveness of the military readiness meaningfully evaluated through a yes/ minimize impacts to each individual activity. 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)(ii). no lens. The manner in which, and the marine mammal unless impracticable, While the language of the least degree to which, implementation of a we believe such an interpretation practicable adverse impact standard measure is expected to reduce impacts, reflects an incomplete appreciation of calls for minimizing impacts to affected as well as its practicability in terms of the Court’s holding. In our view, the species or stocks, we recognize that the these considerations, can vary widely. opinion as a whole turned on the reduction of impacts to those species or For example, a time/area restriction Court’s determination that NMFS had stocks accrues through the application could be of very high value for not given separate and independent of mitigation measures that limit decreasing population-level impacts meaning to the least practicable adverse impacts to individual animals. (e.g., avoiding disturbance of feeding impact standard apart from the Accordingly, NMFS’s analysis focuses females in an area of established negligible impact standard, and further, on measures designed to avoid or biological importance) or it could be of that the Court’s use of the term ‘‘marine minimize impacts on marine mammals lower value (e.g., decreased disturbance mammals’’ was not addressing the from activities that are likely to increase in an area of high productivity but of question of whether the standard the probability or severity of less firmly established biological applies to individual animals as population-level effects. importance). Regarding practicability, a opposed to the species or stock as a While complete information on measure might involve restrictions in an whole. We recognize that while impacts to species or stocks from a area or time that impede the Navy’s consideration of mitigation can play a specified activity is not available for ability to certify a strike group (higher role in a negligible impact every activity type, and additional impact on mission effectiveness), or it determination, consideration of information would help NMFS and the could mean delaying a small in-port mitigation measures extends beyond Navy better understand how specific training event by 30 minutes to avoid that analysis. In evaluating what disturbance events affect the fitness of exposure of a marine mammal to mitigation measures are appropriate, individuals of certain species, there injurious levels of sound (lower impact). NMFS considers the potential impacts have been significant improvements in A responsible evaluation of ‘‘least of the Specified Activities, the understanding the process by which practicable adverse impact’’ will availability of measures to minimize disturbance effects are translated to the consider the factors along these realistic those potential impacts, and the population. With recent scientific scales. Accordingly, the greater the practicability of implementing those advancements (both marine mammal likelihood that a measure will measures, as we describe below. energetic research and the development contribute to reducing the probability or of energetic frameworks), the relative severity of adverse impacts to the Implementation of Least Practicable likelihood or degree of impacts on species or stock or their habitat, the Adverse Impact Standard species or stocks may typically be greater the weight that measure is given Given the NRDC v. Pritzker decision, predicted given a detailed when considered in combination with we discuss here how we determine understanding of the activity, the practicability to determine the whether a measure or set of measures environment, and the affected species or appropriateness of the mitigation meets the ‘‘least practicable adverse stocks. This same information is used in measure, and vice versa. In the impact’’ standard. Our separate analysis the development of mitigation measures evaluation of specific measures, the of whether the take anticipated to result and helps us understand how mitigation details of the specified activity will from Navy’s activities meets the measures contribute to lessening effects necessarily inform each of the two ‘‘negligible impact’’ standard appears in to species or stocks. We also primary factors discussed above the section ‘‘Preliminary Negligible acknowledge that there is always the (expected reduction of impacts and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29965

practicability), and will be carefully when practicable for implementation by assess, and select mitigation measures, considered to determine the types of the applicant. which was informed by input from mitigation that are appropriate under The status of the species or stock is NMFS, can be found in Chapter 5 the least practicable adverse impact also relevant in evaluating the (Mitigation) and Appendix K standard. We discuss consideration of appropriateness of potential mitigation (Geographic Mitigation Assessment) of these factors in greater detail below. measures in the context of least the HSTT DEIS/OEIS and is 1. Reduction of adverse impacts to practicable adverse impact. The summarized below. We agree that the marine mammal species or stocks and following are examples of factors that process described in Chapter 5 and their habitat.5 The emphasis given to a may (either alone, or in combination) Appendix K of the HSTT DEIS/OEIS is measure’s ability to reduce the impacts result in greater emphasis on the an accurate and appropriate process for on a species or stock considers the importance of a mitigation measure in evaluating whether the mitigation degree, likelihood, and context of the reducing impacts on a species or stock: measures proposed in this rule meet the anticipated reduction of impacts to The stock is known to be decreasing or least practicable adverse impact individuals (and how many individuals) status is unknown, but believed to be standard for the testing and training as well as the status of the species or declining; the known annual mortality activities in this proposed rule. The stock. (from any source) is approaching or Navy proposes to implement these The ultimate impact on any exceeding the Potential Biological mitigation measures to avoid potential individual from a disturbance event Removal (PBR) level (as defined in 16 impacts from acoustic, explosive, and (which informs the likelihood of U.S.C. 1362(20)); the affected species or physical disturbance and strike adverse species- or stock-level effects) is stock is a small, resident population; or stressors. dependent on the circumstances and the stock is involved in a UME or has In summary (and described in more associated contextual factors, such as other known vulnerabilities, such as detail below), the Navy proposes duration of exposure to stressors. recovering from an oil spill. Though any proposed mitigation needs Habitat mitigation, particularly as it procedural mitigation measures that we to be evaluated in the context of the relates to rookeries, mating grounds, and find will reduce the probability and/or specific activity and the species or areas of similar significance, is also severity of impacts expected to result stocks affected, measures with the relevant to achieving the standard and from acute exposure to acoustic sources following types of effects have greater can include measures such as reducing or explosives, ship strike, and impacts value in reducing the likelihood or impacts of the activity on known prey to marine mammal habitat. Specifically, severity of adverse species- or stock- utilized in the activity area or reducing the Navy would use a combination of level impacts: Avoiding or minimizing impacts on physical habitat. As with delayed starts, powerdowns, and injury or mortality; limiting interruption species- or stock-related mitigation, the shutdowns to minimize or avoid serious of known feeding, breeding, mother/ emphasis given to a measure’s ability to injury or mortality, minimize the young, or resting behaviors; minimizing reduce impacts on a species or stock’s likelihood or severity of PTS or other the abandonment of important habitat habitat considers the degree, likelihood, injury, and reduce instances of TTS or (temporally and spatially); minimizing and context of the anticipated reduction more severe behavioral disruption the number of individuals subjected to of impacts to habitat. Because habitat caused by acoustic sources or these types of disruptions; and limiting value is informed by marine mammal explosives. The Navy also proposes to degradation of habitat. Mitigating these presence and use, in some cases there implement multiple time/area types of effects is intended to reduce the may be overlap in measures for the restrictions (several of which have been likelihood that the activity will result in species or stock and for use of habitat. added since the Phase II rule) that energetic or other types of impacts that We consider available information would reduce take of marine mammals are more likely to result in reduced indicating the likelihood of any measure in areas or at times where they are reproductive success or survivorship. It to accomplish its objective. If evidence known to engage in important is also important to consider the degree shows that a measure has not typically behaviors, such as feeding or calving, of impacts that are expected in the been effective nor successful, then where the disruption of those behaviors absence of mitigation in order to assess either that measure should be modified would have a higher probability of the added value of any potential or the potential value of the measure to resulting in impacts on reproduction or measures. Finally, because the least reduce effects should be lowered. survival of individuals that could lead practicable adverse impact standard 2. Practicability. Factors considered to population-level impacts. The Navy gives NMFS discretion to weigh a may include cost, impact on operations, assessed the practicability of the variety of factors when determining and, in the case of a military readiness measures it proposed in the context of what should be included as appropriate activity, personnel safety, practicality of personnel safety, practicality of mitigation measures and because the implementation, and impact on the implementation, and their impacts on focus is on reducing impacts at the effectiveness of the military readiness the Navy’s ability to meet their Title 10 species or stock level, it does not activity (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)(ii)). requirements and found that the compel mitigation for every kind of NMFS reviewed the Specified measures were supportable. As take, or every individual taken, even Activities and the proposed mitigation summarized in this paragraph and measures as described in the Navy’s described in more detail below, NMFS 5 We recognize the least practicable adverse rulemaking/LOA application and the has evaluated the measures the Navy impact standard requires consideration of measures HSTT DEIS/OEIS to determine if they has proposed in the manner described that will address minimizing impacts on the would result in the least practicable earlier in this section (i.e., in availability of the species or stocks for subsistence consideration of their ability to reduce uses where relevant. Because subsistence uses are adverse effect on marine mammals. not implicated for this action we do not discuss NMFS worked with the Navy in the adverse impacts on marine mammal them. However, a similar framework would apply development of the Navy’s initially species or stocks and their habitat and for evaluating those measures, taking into account proposed measures, which are informed their practicability for implementation) the MMPA’s directive that we make a finding of no and has determined that the measures unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of by years of implementation and the species or stocks for taking for subsistence, and monitoring. A complete discussion of will both significantly and adequately the relevant implementing regulations. the evaluation process used to develop, reduce impacts on the affected marine

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29966 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

mammal species or stocks and their impact standard because they are not was not warranted because the habitat and be practicable for Navy practicable. anticipated reduction of adverse implementation. Therefore, the Second in Chapter 5 of the DEIS/ impacts on marine mammal species or mitigation measures assure that Navy’s OEIS, the Navy evaluated additional stock and their habitat was not activities will have the least practicable potential procedural mitigation sufficient to offset the impracticability adverse impact on the species and measures, including increased of implementation (in some cases stocks and their habitat. mitigation zones, ramp-up measures, potential benefits to marine mammals additional passive acoustic and visual were limited to non-existent, in others The Navy also evaluated numerous monitoring, and decreased vessel the consequences on mission measures in the Navy’s HSTT DEIS/ speeds. Some of these measures have effectiveness were too great). NMFS has OEIS that are not included in the Navy’s the potential to incrementally reduce reviewed the Navy’s analysis (Chapter 5 rulemaking/LOA application for the take to some degree in certain and Appendix K referenced above), Specified Activities, and NMFS circumstances, though the degree to which considers the same factors that preliminarily concurs with Navy’s which this would occur is typically low NMFS would consider to satisfy the analysis that their inclusion was not or uncertain. However, as described in least practical adverse impact standard, appropriate under the least practicable the Navy’s analysis, the impracticability and has preliminarily concurred with adverse impact standard based on our of implementation outweighed the the conclusions, and is not proposing to assessment. The Navy considers these potential reduction of impacts to marine include any of the measures that the additional potential mitigation measures mammal species or stocks (see Chapter Navy ruled out in the proposed in two groups. Chapter 5 of the HSTT 5 of HSTT DEIS/OEIS). NMFS reviewed regulations. Below are the mitigation DEIS/OEIS, in the ‘‘Measures the Navy’s evaluation and concurred measures that NMFS determined will Considered but Eliminated’’ section, with this assessment that this additional ensure the least practicable adverse includes an analysis of an array of mitigation was not warranted. impact on all affected species and stocks different types of mitigation that have Appendix K describes a and their habitat, including the specific been recommended over the years by comprehensive method for analyzing considerations for military readiness NGOs or the public, through scoping or potential geographic mitigation that activities. The following sections public comment on environmental includes consideration of both a summarize the mitigation measures that compliance documents. Appendix K of biological assessment of how the will be implemented in association with the HSTT DEIS/OEIS includes an in- potential time/area limitation would the training and testing activities depth analysis of time/area restrictions benefit the species or stock and its analyzed in this document. The that have been recommended over time habitat (e.g., is a key area of biological mitigation measures are organized into or previously implemented as a result of importance or would result in two categories: Procedural mitigation litigation. As described in Chapter 5 of avoidance or reduction of impacts) in and mitigation areas. the context of the stressors of concern in the DEIS/OEIS, commenters sometimes Procedural Mitigation recommend that the Navy reduce their the specific area and an operational overall amount of training, reduce assessment of the practicability of Procedural mitigation is mitigation explosive use, modify their sound implementation (e.g., including an that the Navy will implement whenever sources, completely replace live training assessment of the specific importance of and wherever an applicable training or testing activity takes place within the with computer simulation, or include that area for training—considering proximity to training ranges and HSTT Study Area. The Navy customizes time of day restrictions. All of these emergency landing fields and other procedural mitigation for each proposed measures could potentially issues). The analysis analyzes an applicable activity category or stressor. reduce the number of marine mammals extensive list of areas including Procedural mitigation generally taken, via direct reduction of the Biologically Important Areas, areas involves: (1) The use of one or more activities or amount of sound energy put agreed to under the HSTT settlement trained Lookouts to diligently observe in the water. However, as the Navy has agreement, areas identified by the for specific biological resources described in Chapter 5 of the HSTT California Coastal Commission, and (including marine mammals) within a DEIS/OEIS, they need to train and test areas suggested during scoping. For the mitigation zone, (2) requirements for in the conditions in which they fight— areas that were agreed to under the Lookouts to immediately communicate and these types of modifications settlement agreement, the Navy notes sightings of specific biological resources fundamentally change the activity in a two important facts that NMFS to the appropriate watch station for manner that would not support the generally concurs with: (1) The information dissemination, and (3) purpose and need for the training and measures were derived pursuant to requirements for the watch station to testing (i.e., are entirely impracticable) negotiations with plaintiffs and were implement mitigation (e.g., halt an and therefore are not considered further. specifically not evaluated or selected activity) until certain recommencement NMFS finds the Navy’s explanation for based on the examination of the best conditions have been met. The first why adoption of these available science that NMFS typically procedural mitigation (Table 42) is recommendations would unacceptably applies to a mitigation assessment and; designed to aid Lookouts and other undermine the purpose of the testing (2) the Navy’s adoption of restrictions applicable personnel with their and training persuasive. In addition, on its activities as part of a relatively observation, environmental compliance, NMFS must rely on Navy’s judgment to short-term settlement does not mean and reporting responsibilities. The a great extent on issues such as its that those restrictions are practicable to remainder of the procedural mitigations personnel’s safety, practicability of implement over the longer term. (Tables 43 through Tables 62) are Navy’s implementation, and extent to Navy has proposed several time/area organized by stressor type and activity which a potential measure would mitigations that were not included in category and includes acoustic stressors undermine the effectiveness of Navy’s the Phase II HSTT regulations. For the (i.e., active sonar, air guns, pile driving, testing and training. For these reasons, areas that are not included in the weapons firing noise), explosive NMFS finds that these measures do not proposed regulations, though, the Navy stressors (i.e., sonobuoys, torpedoes, meet the least practicable adverse found that on balance, the mitigation medium-caliber and large-caliber

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29967

projectiles, missiles and rockets, bombs, grenades), and physical disturbance and explosive practice munitions, non- sinking exercises, mines, underwater strike stressors (i.e., vessel movement, explosive missiles and rockets, non- demolition multiple charge mat weave towed in-water devices, small-, explosive bombs and mine shapes). and obstacles loading, anti-swimmer medium-, and large-caliber non-

TABLE 43—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS AND EDUCATION

Procedural mitigation description

Stressor or Activity: • All training and testing activities, as applicable. Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements: • Appropriate personnel involved in mitigation and training or testing activity reporting under the Specified Activities will complete one or more modules of the U.S. Navy Afloat Environmental Compliance Training Series, as identified in their career path training plan. Modules include: • Introduction to the U.S. Navy Afloat Environmental Compliance Training Series. The introductory module provides information on environmental laws (e.g., ESA, MMPA) and the corresponding responsibilities relevant to Navy training and testing. The material explains why environmental compliance is important in supporting the Navy’s commitment to environmental stewardship. • Marine Species Awareness Training. All bridge watch personnel, Commanding Officers, Executive Officers, maritime patrol aircraft aircrews, anti-submarine warfare and mine warfare rotary-wing aircrews, Lookouts, and equivalent civilian personnel must successfully complete the Marine Species Awareness Training prior to standing watch or serving as a Lookout. The Marine Species Aware- ness Training provides information on sighting cues, visual observation tools and techniques, and sighting notification procedures. Navy biologists developed Marine Species Awareness Training to improve the effectiveness of visual observations for biological resources, focusing on marine mammals and sea turtles, and including floating vegetation, jellyfish aggregations, and flocks of seabirds. • U.S. Navy Sonar Positional Reporting System and Marine Mammal Incident Reporting. This module provides instruction on the procedures and activity reporting requirements for the Sonar Positional Reporting System and marine mammal incident reporting. • U.S. Navy Protective Measures Assessment Protocol. This module provides the necessary instruction for accessing mitigation requirements during the event planning phase using the Protective Measures Assessment Protocol software tool. Also related are annual marine mammal awareness messages promulgated annually to Fleet units: For Hawaii: • Humpback Whale Awareness Notification Message Area (November 15–April 15): —The Navy will issue a seasonal awareness notification message to alert ships and aircraft operating in the area to the possible presence of concentrations of large whales, including humpback whales. —To maintain safety of navigation and to avoid interactions with large whales during transits, the Navy will instruct vessels to remain vigilant to the presence of large whale species (including humpback whales), that when concentrated seasonally, may become vulnerable to vessel strikes. —Lookouts will use the information from the awareness notification message to assist their visual observation of applicable mitigation zones during training and testing activities and to aid in the implementation of procedural mitigation. For Southern California: • Blue Whale Awareness Notification Message Area (June 1–October 31): —The Navy will issue a seasonal awareness notification message to alert ships and aircraft operating in the area to the possible presence of concentrations of large whales, including blue whales. —To maintain safety of navigation and to avoid interactions with large whales during transits, the Navy will instruct vessels to remain vigilant to the presence of large whale species (including blue whales), that when concentrated seasonally, may become vulnerable to vessel strikes. —Lookouts will use the information from the awareness notification messages to assist their visual observation of applicable mitigation zones during training and testing activities and to aid in the implementation of procedural mitigation observation of applicable mitigation zones during training and testing activities and to aid in the implementation of procedural mitigation. • Gray Whale Awareness Notification Message Area (November 1–March 31): —The Navy will issue a seasonal awareness notification message to alert ships and aircraft operating in the area to the possible presence of concentrations of large whales, including gray whales. —To maintain safety of navigation and to avoid interactions with large whales during transits, the Navy will instruct vessels to remain vigilant to the presence of large whale species (including gray whales), that when concentrated seasonally, may become vulnerable to vessel strikes. —Lookouts will use the information from the awareness notification messages to assist their visual observation of applicable mitigation zones during training and testing activities and to aid in the implementation of procedural mitigation. • Fin Whale Awareness Notification Message Area (November 1–May 31): —The Navy will issue a seasonal awareness notification message to alert ships and aircraft operating in the area to the possible presence of concentrations of large whales, including fin whales. —To maintain safety of navigation and to avoid interactions with large whales during transits, the Navy will instruct vessels to remain vigilant to the presence of large whale species (including fin whales), that when concentrated seasonally, may become vulnerable to vessel strikes. —Lookouts will use the information from the awareness notification messages to assist their visual observation of applicable mitigation zones during training and testing activities and to aid in implementation of procedural mitigation.

Procedural Mitigation for Acoustic Procedural Mitigation for Active Sonar Stressors Procedural mitigation for active sonar Mitigation measures for acoustic is described in Table 44 below. stressors are provided in Tables 44 through 47.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29968 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 44—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR ACTIVE SONAR

Procedural mitigation description

Stressor or Activity: • Low-frequency active sonar, mid-frequency active sonar, high-frequency active sonar. • For vessel-based active sonar activities, mitigation applies only to sources that are positively controlled and deployed from manned surface vessels (e.g., sonar sources towed from manned surface platforms). • For aircraft-based active sonar activities, mitigation applies only to sources that are positively controlled and deployed from manned aircraft that do not operate at high altitudes (e.g., rotary-wing aircraft). Mitigation does not apply to active sonar sources deployed from unmanned aircraft or aircraft operating at high altitudes (e.g., maritime patrol aircraft). Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • Hull-mounted sources: • Platforms without space or manning restrictions while underway: 2 Lookouts at the forward part of the ship. • Platforms with space or manning restrictions while underway: 1 Lookout at the forward part of a small boat or ship • Platforms using active sonar while moored or at anchor (including pierside): 1 Lookout • Sources that are not hull-mounted: • 1 Lookout on the ship or aircraft conducting the activity. Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements: • Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station), observe for floating vegetation and marine mammals; if resource is observed, do not commence use of active sonar. • Low-frequency active sonar at 200 dB or more, and hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar will implement the following mitigation zones: • During the activity, observe for marine mammals; power down active sonar transmission by 6 dB if resource is observed within 1,000 yd of the sonar source; power down by an additional 4 dB (10 dB total) if resource is observed within 500 yd of the sonar source; and cease transmission if resource is observed within 200 yd of the sonar source. • Low-frequency active sonar below 200 dB, mid-frequency active sonar sources that are not hull-mounted, and high-frequency active sonar will implement the following mitigation zone: • During the activity, observe for marine mammals; cease active sonar transmission if resource is observed within 200 yd of the sonar source. • To allow an observed marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not recommence active sonar transmission until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the sonar source; (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min for aircraft-deployed sonar sources or 30 min for vessel-deployed sonar sources; (4) for mobile activities, the active sonar source has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting; or (5) for activities using hull-mounted sonar, the Lookout concludes that dolphins are deliberately closing in on the ship to ride the ship’s bow wave, and are therefore out of the main transmission axis of the sonar (and there are no other marine mammal sightings within the mitigation zone).

Procedural Mitigation for Air Guns Procedural mitigation for air guns is described in Table 45 below.

TABLE 45—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR AIR GUNS

Procedural mitigation description

Stressor or Activity: • Air guns. Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • 1 Lookout positioned on a ship or pierside. Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements: • 150 yd around the air gun: • Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station), observe for floating vegetation and marine mammals; if resource is observed, do not commence use of air guns. • During the activity, observe for marine mammals; if resource is observed, cease use of air guns. • To allow an observed marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not recommence the use of air guns until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the air gun; (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min; or (4) for mobile activities, the air gun has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting.

Procedural Mitigation for Pile Driving Procedural mitigation for pile driving is described in Table 46 below.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29969

TABLE 46—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR PILE DRIVING

Procedural mitigation description

Stressor or Activity: • Pile driving and pile extraction sound during Elevated Causeway System Training. Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • 1 Lookout positioned on the shore, the elevated causeway, or a small boat. Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements: • 100 yd around the pile driver: • 30 min prior to the start of the activity, observe for floating vegetation and marine mammals; if resource is observed, do not commence impact pile driving or vibratory pile extraction. • During the activity, observe for marine mammals; if resource is observed, cease impact pile driving or vibratory pile extraction. • To allow an observed marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not recommence pile driving until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the pile driving location; or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min.

Procedural Mitigation for Weapons Firing Noise Procedural mitigation for weapons firing noise is described in Table 47 below.

TABLE 47—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR WEAPONS FIRING NOISE

Procedural mitigation description

Stressor or Activity: • Weapons firing noise associated with large-caliber gunnery activities. Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • 1 Lookout positioned on the ship conducting the firing. • Depending on the activity, the Lookout could be the same as the one described in Table 50 (Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Medium- Caliber and Large-Caliber Projectiles) or Table 60 (Procedural Mitigation for Small-, Medium-, and Large-Caliber Non-Explosive Practice Munitions) Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements: • 30 degrees on either side of the firing line out to 70 yd from the muzzle of the weapon being fired: • Prior to the start of the activity, observe for floating vegetation and marine mammals; if resource is observed, do not commence weapons firing. • During the activity, observe for marine mammals; if resource is observed, cease weapons firing. • To allow an observed marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not recommence weapons firing until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the firing ship; (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min; or (4) for mobile activities, the firing ship has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting.

Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Stressors Sonobuoys Mitigation measures for explosive Procedural mitigation for explosive stressors are provided in Tables 48 sonobuoys is described in Table 48 through 52. below.

TABLE 48—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE SONOBUOYS

Procedural mitigation description

Stressor or Activity: • Explosive sonobuoys. Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • 1 Lookout positioned in an aircraft or on small boat. Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements: • 600 yd around an explosive sonobuoy: • Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., during deployment of a sonobuoy field, which typically lasts 20–30 min), conduct passive acoustic monitoring for marine mammals, and observe for floating vegetation and marine mammals; if resource is visually observed, do not commence sonobuoy or source/receiver pair detonations. • During the activity, observe for marine mammals; if resource is observed, cease sonobuoy or source/receiver pair detonations.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29970 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 48—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE SONOBUOYS—Continued

Procedural mitigation description

• To allow an observed marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not recommence the use of explosive sonobuoys until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the sonobuoy; or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min when the activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained.

Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Torpedoes Procedural mitigation for explosive torpedoes is described in Table 49 below.

TABLE 49—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE TORPEDOES

Procedural mitigation description

Stressor or Activity: • Explosive torpedoes. Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • 1 Lookout positioned in an aircraft. Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements: • 2,100 yd around the intended impact location: • Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., during deployment of the target), conduct passive acoustic monitoring for marine mammals, and observe for floating vegetation, jellyfish aggregations and marine mammals; if resource is visually observed, do not commence firing. • During the activity, observe for marine mammals and jellyfish aggregations; if resource is observed, cease firing. • To allow an observed marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not recommence firing until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended impact location; or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min when the activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained. • After completion of the activity, observe for marine mammals; if any injured or dead resources are observed, follow established incident reporting procedures.

Procedural Mitigation for Medium- and Large-Caliber Projectiles Procedural mitigation for medium- and large-caliber projectiles is described in Table 50 below.

TABLE 50—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE MEDIUM-CALIBER AND LARGE-CALIBER PROJECTILES

Procedural mitigation description

Stressor or Activity: • Gunnery activities using explosive medium-caliber and large-caliber projectiles. • Mitigation applies to activities using a surface target. Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • 1 Lookout on the vessel or aircraft conducting the activity. Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements: • 200 yd around the intended impact location for air-to-surface activities using explosive medium-caliber projectiles, or • 600 yd around the intended impact location for surface-to-surface activities using explosive medium-caliber projectiles, or • 1,000 yd around the intended impact location for surface-to-surface activities using explosive large-caliber projectiles: • Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station), observe for floating vegetation and marine mammals; if resource is observed, do not commence firing. • During the activity, observe for marine mammals; if resource is observed, cease firing. • To allow an observed marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not recommence firing until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended impact location; (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min for aircraft-based firing or 30 min for vessel-based firing; or (4) for activities using mobile targets, the intended impact location has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29971

Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Missiles and Rockets Procedural mitigation for explosive missiles and rockets is described in Table 51 below.

TABLE 51—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE MISSILES AND ROCKETS

Procedural mitigation description

Stressor or Activity: • Aircraft-deployed explosive missiles and rockets. • Mitigation applies to activities using a surface target. Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • 1 Lookout positioned in an aircraft. Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements: • 900 yd around the intended impact location during activities for missiles or rockets with 0.6–20 lb net explosive weight, or • 2,000 yd around the intended impact location for missiles with 21–500 lb net explosive weight: • Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., during a fly-over of the mitigation zone), observe for floating vegetation and marine mammals; if resource is observed, do not commence firing. • During the activity, observe for marine mammals; if resource is observed, cease firing. • To allow an observed marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not recommence firing until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended impact location; or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min when the activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained.

Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Bombs Procedural mitigation for explosive bombs is described in Table 52 below.

TABLE 52—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE BOMBS

Procedural mitigation description

Stressor or Activity: • Explosive bombs. Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • 1 Lookout positioned in the aircraft conducting the activity. Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements: • 2,500 yd around the intended target: • Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., when arriving on station), observe for floating vegetation and marine mammals; if resource is observed, do not commence bomb deployment. • During target approach, observe for marine mammals; if resource is observed, cease bomb deployment. • To allow an observed marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not recommence bomb deployment until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended target; (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min; or (4) for activities using mobile targets, the intended target has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting.

Procedural Mitigation for Sinking Exercises Procedural mitigation for sinking exercises is described in Table 53 below.

TABLE 53—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR SINKING EXERCISES

Procedural mitigation description

Stressor or Activity: • Sinking exercises. Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • 2 Lookouts (one positioned in an aircraft and one on a vessel). Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements: • 2.5 nmi around the target ship hulk: • 90 min prior to the first firing, conduct aerial observations for floating vegetation, jellyfish aggregations and marine mammals; if resource is observed, do not commence firing.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29972 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 53—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR SINKING EXERCISES—Continued

Procedural mitigation description

• During the activity, conduct passive acoustic monitoring and visually observe for marine mammals from the vessel; if resource is visually observed, cease firing. • Immediately after any planned or unplanned breaks in weapons firing of longer than 2 hours, observe for marine mammals from the aircraft and vessel; if resource is observed, do not commence firing. • To allow an observed marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not recommence firing until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the target ship hulk; or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min. • For 2 hours after sinking the vessel (or until sunset, whichever comes first), observe for marine mammals; if any injured or dead resources are observed, follow established incident reporting procedures.

Procedural Mitigation for Explosive activities is described in Table 54 Mine Countermeasure and below. Neutralization Activities Procedural mitigation for explosive mine countermeasure and neutralization

TABLE 54—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE MINE COUNTERMEASURE AND NEUTRALIZATION ACTIVITIES

Procedural mitigation description

Stressor or Activity: • Explosive mine countermeasure and neutralization activities. Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • 1 Lookout positioned on a vessel or in an aircraft when implementing the smaller mitigation zone. • 2 Lookouts (one positioned in an aircraft and one on a small boat) when implementing the larger mitigation zone. Mitigaton Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements: • 600 yd around the detonation site for activities using 0.1–5-lb net explosive weight, or 2,100 yd around the detonation site for 6–650 lb net explosive weight (including high explosive target mines): • Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station; typically, 10 min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min when the activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained), observe for floating vegetation and marine mammals; if resource is observed, do not commence detonations. • During the activity, observe for marine mammals; if resource is observed, cease detonations. • To allow an observed marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not recommence detonations until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to detonation site; or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min when the activity involves aircraft with fuel constraints, or 30 min when the activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained. • After completion of the activity, observe for marine mammals (typically 10 min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints or 30 min when the activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained); if any injured or dead resources are observed, follow established incident reporting procedures.

Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Navy divers is described in Table 55 Mine Neutralization Activities Involving below. Navy Divers Procedural mitigation for explosive mine neutralization activities involving

TABLE 55—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE MINE NEUTRALIZATION ACTIVITIES INVOLVING NAVY DIVERS

Procedural mitigation description

Stressor or Activity: • Explosive mine neutralization activities involving Navy divers. Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • 2 Lookouts (two small boats with one Lookout each, or one Lookout on a small boat and one in a rotary-wing aircraft) when implementing the smaller mitigation zone. • 4 Lookouts (two small boats with two Lookouts each), and a pilot or member of an aircrew will serve as an additional Lookout if aircraft are used during the activity, when implementing the larger mitigation zone. Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements: • The Navy will not set time-delay firing devices (0.1–29 lb net explosive weight) to exceed 10 min. • 500 yd around the detonation site during activities under positive control using 0.1–20 lb net explosive weight, or • 1,000 yd around the detonation site during all activities using time-delay fuses (0.1–29 lb net explosive weight) and during activities under positive control using 21–60 lb net explosive weight:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29973

TABLE 55—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE MINE NEUTRALIZATION ACTIVITIES INVOLVING NAVY DIVERS— Continued

Procedural mitigation description

• Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station for activities under positive control; 30 min for activities using time-delay firing devices), observe for floating vegetation and marine mammals; if resource is observed, do not commence detonations or fuse initiation. • During the activity, observe for marine mammals; if resource is observed, cease detonations or fuse initiation. • All divers placing the charges on mines will support the Lookouts while performing their regular duties and will report all sightings to their supporting small boat or Range Safety Officer. • To the maximum extent practicable depending on mission requirements, safety, and environmental conditions, boats will position themselves near the mid-point of the mitigation zone radius (but outside of the detonation plume and human safety zone), will position themselves on opposite sides of the detonation location (when two boats are used), and will travel in a circular pattern around the detonation location with one Lookout observing inward toward the detonation site and the other observing outward toward the perimeter of the mitigation zone. • If used, aircraft will travel in a circular pattern around the detonation location to the maximum extent practicable. • To allow an observed marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not recommence detonations or fuse initiation until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the detonation site; (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min during activities under positive control with aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min during activities under positive control with aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained and during activities using time-delay firing devices. • After completion of an activity using time-delay firing devices, observe for marine mammals for 30 min; if any injured or dead resources are observed, follow established incident reporting procedures.

Procedural Mitigation for Underwater and obstacle Loading is described in Demolition Multiple Charge—Mat Table 56 below. Weave and Obstacle Loading Procedural mitigation for underwater demolition multiple charge—mat weave

TABLE 56—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR UNDERWATER DEMOLITION MULTIPLE CHARGE—MAT WEAVE AND OBSTACLE LOADING

Procedural mitigation description

Stressor or Activity: • Underwater Demolition Multiple Charge—Mat Weave and Obstacle Loading exercises. Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • 2 Lookouts (one on a small boat and one on shore from an elevated platform). Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements: • 700 yd around the detonation site: • For 30 min prior to the first detonation, the Lookout positioned on a small boat will observe for floating vegetation and marine mammals; if resource is observed, do not commence the initial detonation. • For 10 min prior to the first detonation, the Lookout positioned on shore will use binoculars to observe for marine mammals; if resource is observed, do not commence the initial detonation until the mitigation zone has been clear of any additional sightings for a minimum of 10 min. • During the activity, observe for marine mammals; if resource is observed, cease detonations. • To allow an observed marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not recommence detonations until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the detonation site; or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min (as determined by the shore observer). • After completion of the activity, the Lookout positioned on a small boat will observe for marine mammals for 30 min; if any injured or dead resources are observed, follow established incident reporting procedures.

Procedural Mitigation for Maritime Security Operations—Anti-Swimmer Grenades Procedural mitigation for maritime security operations—anti-swimmer grenades is described in Table 57 below.

TABLE 57—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR MARITIME SECURITY OPERATIONS—ANTI-SWIMMER GRENADES

Procedural mitigation description

Stressor or Activity: • Maritime Security Operations—Anti-Swimmer Grenades.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29974 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 57—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR MARITIME SECURITY OPERATIONS—ANTI-SWIMMER GRENADES—Continued

Procedural mitigation description

Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • 1 Lookout positioned on the small boat conducting the activity. Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements: • 200 yd around the intended detonation location: • Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station), observe for floating vegetation and marine mammals; if resource is observed, do not commence detonations. • During the activity, observe for marine mammals; if resource is observed, cease detonations. • To allow an observed marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not recommence detonations until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended detonation location; (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min; or (4) the intended detonation location has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting.

Procedural Mitigation for Physical Procedural Mitigation for Vessel Disturbance and Strike Stressors Movement Mitigation measures for physical Procedural mitigation for vessel disturbance and strike stressors are movement is described in Table 58 provided in Table 58 through Table 62. below.

TABLE 58—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR VESSEL MOVEMENT

Procedural mitigation description

Stressor or Activity: • Vessel movement. • The mitigation will not be applied if (1) the vessel’s safety is threatened, (2) the vessel is restricted in its ability to maneuver (e.g., during launching and recovery of aircraft or landing craft, during towing activities, when mooring, etc.), (3) the vessel is operated autonomously, or (4) when impracticable based on mission requirements (e.g., during Amphibious Assault—Battalion Landing exercises). Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • 1 Lookout on the vessel that is underway. Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements: • 500 yd around whales: • When underway, observe for marine mammals; if a whale is observed, maneuver to maintain distance. • 200 yd around all other marine mammals (except bow-riding dolphins and pinnipeds hauled out on man-made navigational structures, port structures, and vessels): • When underway, observe for marine mammals; if a marine mammal other than a whale, bow-riding dolphin, or hauled-out pinniped is observed, maneuver to maintain distance.

Procedural Mitigation for Towed In- Water Devices Procedural mitigation for towed in- water devices is described in Table 59 below.

TABLE 59—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR TOWED IN-WATER DEVICES

Procedural mitigation description

Stressor or Activity: • Towed in-water devices. • Mitigation applies to devices that are towed from a manned surface platform or manned aircraft. • The mitigation will not be applied if the safety of the towing platform or in-water device is threatened. Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • 1 Lookout positioned on the manned towing platform. Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements: • 250 yd around marine mammals: • During the activity, observe for marine mammals; if resource is observed, maneuver to maintain distance.

Procedural Mitigation for Small-, explosive practice munitions is Medium-, and Large-Caliber Non- described in Table 60 below. Explosive Practice Munitions Procedural mitigation for small-, medium-, and large-caliber non-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29975

TABLE 60—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR SMALL-, MEDIUM-, AND LARGE-CALIBER NON-EXPLOSIVE PRACTICE MUNITIONS

Procedural mitigation description

Stressor or Activity: • Gunnery activities using small-, medium-, and large-caliber non-explosive practice munitions. • Mitigation applies to activities using a surface target. Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • 1 Lookout positioned on the platform conducting the activity. • Depending on the activity, the Lookout could be the same as the one described in Table 47 (Procedural Mitigation for Weapons Firing Noise). Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements: • 200 yd around the intended impact location: • Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station), observe for floating vegetation and marine mammals; if resource is observed, do not commence firing. • During the activity, observe for marine mammals; if resource is observed, cease firing. • To allow an observed marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not recommence firing until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended impact location; (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min for aircraft-based firing or 30 min for vessel-based firing; or (4) for activities using a mobile target, the intended impact location has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting.

Procedural Mitigation for Non-Explosive Missiles and Rockets Procedural mitigation for non- explosive missiles and rockets is described in Table 61 below.

TABLE 61—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR NON-EXPLOSIVE MISSILES AND ROCKETS

Procedural mitigation description

Stressor or Activity: • Aircraft-deployed non-explosive missiles and rockets. • Mitigation applies to activities using a surface target. Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • 1 Lookout positioned in an aircraft. Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements: • 900 yd around the intended impact location: • Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., during a fly-over of the mitigation zone), observe for floating vegetation and marine mammals; if resource is observed, do not commence firing. • During the activity, observe for marine mammals; if resource is observed, cease firing. • To allow an observed marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not recommence firing until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended impact location; or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min when the activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained.

Procedural Mitigation for Non-Explosive Bombs and Mine Shapes Procedural mitigation for non- explosive bombs and mine shapes is described in Table 62 below.

TABLE 62—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR NON-EXPLOSIVE BOMBS AND MINE SHAPES

Procedural mitigation description

Stressor or Activity: • Non-explosive bombs. • Non-explosive mine shapes during mine laying activities. Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • 1 Lookout positioned in an aircraft. Mitigation Zone Size and Mitigation Requirements: • 1,000 yd around the intended target: • Prior to the start of the activity (e.g., when arriving on station), observe for floating vegetation and marine mammals; if resource is observed, do not commence bomb deployment or mine laying. • During approach of the target or intended minefield location, observe for marine mammals; if resource is observed, cease bomb deployment or mine laying.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29976 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 62—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR NON-EXPLOSIVE BOMBS AND MINE SHAPES—Continued

Procedural mitigation description

• To allow an observed marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone, the Navy will not recommence bomb deployment or mine laying until one of the recommencement conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended target or minefield location; (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min; or (4) for activities using mobile targets, the intended target has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting.

Mitigation Areas account public comments received from work with NMFS to finalize its the HSTT DEIS/OEIS, best available mitigation areas through the In addition to procedural mitigation, science, and the practicability of development of the rule. the Navy will implement mitigation implementing additional mitigations Information on the mitigation measures within mitigation areas to and has enhanced their mitigation areas measures that the Navy will implement avoid or minimize potential impacts on and mitigation measures to further within mitigation areas is provided in marine mammals (see the revised reduce impacts to marine mammals, and Tables 63 and 64. The mitigation Figures provided in the Navy’s therefore, the Navy revised their applies year-round unless specified addendum to the application). A full mitigation areas since their application. otherwise in the tables. technical analysis (for which the These revisions are discussed below and methods were summarized above) of the can be found as an addendum to the Mitigation Areas for the HRC mitigation areas that the Navy Navy’s application at https:// Mitigation areas for the HRC are considered for marine mammals is www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ described in Table 63 below. The provided in Appendix K (Geographic marine-mammal-protection/incidental- location of each mitigation area is in the Mitigation Assessment) of the HSTT take-authorizations-military-readiness- Navy’s addendum to the application on DEIS/OEIS. The Navy has taken into activities. The Navy will continue to Mitigation Areas.

TABLE 63—MITIGATION AREAS FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE HAWAII RANGE COMPLEX

Mitigation area description

Stressor or Activity: Sonar. Explosives.1 Vessel strikes. Resource Protection Focus: Marine mammals Mitigation Area Requirements: Hawaii Island Mitigation Area (year-round): • The Navy will minimize the use of mid-frequency active anti-submarine warfare sensor bins MF1 and MF4 to the maximum extent practicable. • The Navy will not conduct more than 300 hrs of MF1 and 20 hrs of MF4 per year. • Should national security present a requirement to conduct more than 300 hrs of MF1 or 20 hrs of MF4 per year, naval units will obtain permission from the appropriate designated Command authority prior to commencement of the activity. The Navy will provide NMFS with advance notification and include the information (e.g., hours of sonar usage) in its annual activity reports. • The Navy will not use explosives 1 during training and testing. • Should national security present a requirement for the use of explosives in the area, naval units will obtain permission from the appropriate designated Command authority prior to commencement of the activity. The Navy will provide NMFS with advance notification and include the information (e.g., explosives usage) in its annual activity reports. 4-Islands Region Mitigation Area (November 15–April 15): • The Navy will not use mid-frequency active anti-submarine warfare sensor MF1 from November 15–April 15. • Should national security present a requirement for the use of MF1 in the area from November 15–April 15, naval units will obtain permission from the appropriate designated Command authority prior to commencement of the activity. The Navy will provide NMFS with advance notification and include the information (e.g., hours of sonar usage) in its annual activity reports. Humpback Whale Special Reporting Areas (December 15–April 15): • The Navy will report the hours of MF1 used in the special reporting areas in its annual activity reports. Humpback Whale Awareness Notification Message Area (November 1–April 30): • The Navy will issue a seasonal awareness notification message to alert ships and aircraft operating in the area to the possible presence of concentrations of large whales, including humpback whales. • To maintain safety of navigation and to avoid interactions with large whales during transits, the Navy will instruct vessels to remain vigilant to the presence of large whale species (including humpback whales), that when concentrated seasonally, may become vulnerable to vessel strikes. • Lookouts will use the information from the awareness notification message to assist their visual observation of applicable mitigation zones during training and testing activities and to aid in the implementation of procedural mitigation. Notes: 1 Explosive restrictions for the Hawaii Island Mitigation Area apply only to those activities for which the Navy seeks MMPA authorization (e.g., surface-to-surface or air-to-surface missile and gunnery events, BOMBEX, and mine neutralization).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29977

Mitigation Areas for the SOCAL Portion in Table 64 below. The location of each of the Study Area mitigation area is shown in the Navy’s Mitigation areas for the SOCAL addendum to the application on portion of the Study Area are described Mitigation Areas.

TABLE 64—MITIGATION AREAS FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PORTION OF THE STUDY AREA

Mitigation area description

Stressor or Activity: Sonar. Explosives. Vessel strikes. Resource Protection Focus: Marine mammals. Mitigation Area Requirements: San Diego Arc Mitigation Area (June 1–October 31): • The Navy will minimize the use of mid-frequency active anti-submarine warfare sensor bin MF1 to the maximum extent practicable. • The Navy will not conduct more than 200 hrs of MF1 (with the exception of active sonar maintenance and systems checks) per year from June 1–October 31. • Should national security present a requirement to conduct more than 200 hrs of MF1 (with the exception of active sonar maintenance and systems checks) per year from June 1–October 31, naval units will obtain permission from the appropriate designated Command authority prior to commencement of the activity. The Navy will provide NMFS with advance notification and include the information (e.g., hours of sonar usage) in its annual activity reports. • The Navy will not use explosives during large-caliber gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and missile (including 2.75 in rockets) activities during training and testing. • Should national security present a requirement to conduct large-caliber gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and missile (including 2.75 in rockets) activities using explosives, naval units will obtain permission from the appropriate designated Command authority prior to commencement of the activity. The Navy will provide NMFS with advance notification and include the information (e.g., explosives usage) in its annual activity reports. Santa Barbara Island Mitigation Area (year-round): • The Navy will not use mid-frequency active anti-submarine warfare sensor MF1 and explosives in small-, medium-, and large-caliber gunnery; torpedo; bombing; and missile (including 2.75 in rockets) activities during unit-level training and major training exercises. • Should national security present a requirement for the use of mid-frequency active anti-submarine warfare sensor MF1 or explosives in small-, medium-, and large-caliber gunnery; torpedo; bombing; and missile (including 2.75 in rockets) activities during unit-level training or major training exercises for national security, naval units will obtain permission from the appropriate designated Command authority prior to commencement of the activity. The Navy will provide NMFS with advance notification and include the information in its annual activity reports. Blue Whale (June 1–October 31), Gray Whale (November 1–March 31), and Fin Whale (November 1–May 31) Awareness Notification Mes- sage Areas: • The Navy will issue a seasonal awareness notification message to alert ships and aircraft operating in the area to the possible presence of concentrations of large whales, including blue, gray, or fin whales. • To maintain safety of navigation and to avoid interactions with large whales during transits, the Navy will instruct vessels to remain vigilant to the presence of large whale species, that when concentrated seasonally, may become vulnerable to vessel strikes. • Lookouts will use the information from the awareness notification messages to assist their visual observation of applicable mitigation zones during training and testing activities and to aid in the implementation of procedural mitigation.

NMFS conducted an independent than prior studies had indicated. In Common bottlenose dolphin, analysis of the mitigation areas that the addition, a portion of this area has also pantropical spotted dolphin, and Navy proposed, which are described been identified as biologically important spinner dolphin (small and resident below. NMFS concurs with the Navy’s for the ESA-listed small and resident populations). analysis, which indicates that the population, main Hawaiian Island Hawaii Island Mitigation Area (Year- measures in these mitigation areas are insular false killer whales. While the round): The endangered main Hawaiian both practicable (which is the Navy’s season for this area used to be from Island insular false killer whale, which purview to determine) and will reduce December 15 to April 15, the Navy has is a small and resident populations, and the likelihood or severity of adverse proposed to extend it from November 15 two species of beaked whales (Cuvier impacts to marine mammal species or to April 15. Extending the season and and Blainville’s) have been documented stocks or their habitat in the manner size of the 4-Islands Region Mitigation using this area year-round to support described in the Navy’s analysis. Area will provide some added multiple biological functions. Main Specifically, the mitigation areas will protection for that species during half of Hawaiian Island insular false killer provide the following benefits to the the year. Minimizing impacts in this whales are an endangered species and affected stocks: area and time is expected to reduce the beaked whales are scientifically shown 4-Islands Region Mitigation Area likelihood of more serious impacts from to be highly sensitive to exposure to (Seasonal Nov 15–Apr 15): The Maui/ sonar that could interfere with sonar. This area also overlaps with other Molokai area (4-Islands Region) is an important cow/calf communication or identified biologically important areas important reproductive and calving area have unforeseen impacts on more for other marine mammal species such for humpback whales. Recent scientific sensitive calves. This area also overlaps as humpback whale (important research indicates peak humpback with identified biologically important reproductive/calving area), dwarf sperm whale season has expanded, with higher areas for other marine mammal species whale (small and resident populations), densities of whales occurring earlier such as dolphin species including pygmy killer whale (small and resident

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29978 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

population), melon-headed whale (small behavioral exposures to small numbers blue whales have been documented and resident population), short-finned of individuals will result in energetic foraging in this area seasonally. pilot whale (small and resident impacts, or other impacts with the Reducing harassing exposures of marine population) and dolphin species potential to reduce survival or mammals to sonar and explosives in including Common bottlenose dolphin, reproductive success on individuals that feeding areas, even when the animals pantropical spotted dolphin, spinner will more readily accrue to population have demonstrated some tolerance for dolphin, and rough-toothed dolphin level impacts in smaller stocks. disturbance when in a feeding state, is (small and resident populations) for Santa Barbara Island Mitigation Area expected to reduce the likelihood that which the Hawaii Island Mitigation (Year-round): Numerous marine feeding would be interrupted to a degree Area would provide additional mammal species use the Channel that energetic reserves might be affected protection. Islands NMS and it provides valuable, in a manner that could reduce Potential benefits to humpback and protected, marine mammal habitat. survivorship or reproductive success. whales are noted in the section above. Particularly, this mitigation area will This mitigation area will also partially For beaked whales, which have been overlap with identified biologically overlap with an important migration shown to be more sensitive to loud important feeding area for blue whales area for gray whales. sounds, a reduction of impacts in and migration areas for gray whales. general where the stock is known to live Generally, a reduction of impacts in the Summary of Mitigation or concentrate is expected to reduce the Santa Barbara Island Mitigation Area likelihood that more severe responses (inclusive of a portion of the Channel The Navy’s proposed mitigation that could affect individual fitness Islands NMS) is expected to reduce measures are summarized in Tables 65 would occur. For small resident stressors in an area that likely contains and 66. populations, one goal is to ensure that high value habitat that is more typically Summary of Procedural Mitigation the entirety of any small population is free of other anthropogenic stressors. not being extensively impacted, in order San Diego Arc Mitigation Area A summary of procedural mitigation to reduce the probability that repeated (Seasonal Jun 1–Oct 31): Endangered is described in Table 65 below.

TABLE 65—SUMMARY OF PROCEDURAL MITIGATION

Stressor or activity Summary of mitigation requirements

Environmental Awareness and Education ...... Afloat Environmental Compliance Training program for applicable personnel. Active Sonar (depending on system) ...... Depending on sonar source: 1,000 yd power down, 500 yd power down, and 200 yd shut down or 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) or 200 yd (medium-caliber projectiles during air-to- surface activities). Explosive Missiles and Rockets ...... 900 yd (0.6–20 lb net explosive weight) or 2,000 yd (21–500 lb net explosive weight). Explosive Bombs ...... 2,500 yd. Sinking Exercises ...... 2.5 nmi. Explosive Mine Countermeasure and Neutralization Activities 600 yd (0.1–5 lb net explosive weight) or 2,100 yd (6–650 lb net explosive weight). Explosive Mine Neutralization Activities Involving Navy Divers 500 yd (0.1–20 lb net explosive weight for positive control charges), or 1,000 yd (21–60 lb net explosive weight for positive control charges and all charges using time-delay fuses). Underwater Demolition Multiple Charge—Mat Weave and 700 yd. Obstacle Loading. Maritime Security Operations—Anti-Swimmer Grenades ...... 200 yd. Vessel Movement ...... 500 yd (whales) or 200 yd (other marine mammals). Towed In-Water Devices ...... 250 yd. 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.

Summary of Mitigation Areas A summary of mitigation areas for marine mammals is described in Table 66 below.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29979

TABLE 66—SUMMARY OF MITIGATION AREAS FOR MARINE MAMMALS

Mitigation area Summary of mitigation requirements

Mitigation Areas for Marine Mammals

Hawaii Island Mitigation Area • The Navy would not exceed 300 hrs of mid-frequency active anti-submarine warfare sensor MF1 and 20 (Year-round). hrs of mid-frequency active anti-submarine warfare sensor MF4 per season annually. • Should national security present a requirement to conduct additional training and testing using MF1 or MF4 in the mitigation area for national security, naval units will obtain permission from the appropriate designated Command authority prior to commencement of the activity. The Navy will provide NMFS with advance notification and include the information in associated reports. • The Navy will not use explosives 1 during training or testing activities. • Should national security present a requirement to use explosives, naval units will obtain permission from the appropriate designated Command authority prior to commencement of the activity. The Navy will provide NMFS with advance notification and include the information in associated annual reports. 4-Islands Region Mitigation Area • The Navy will not use mid-frequency active anti-submarine warfare sensor MF1 during training or testing (November 15–April 15). activities. • Should national security present a requirement to use MF1 during training or testing, naval units will obtain permission from the appropriate designated Command authority prior to commencement of the activity. The Navy will provide NMFS with advance notification and include the information in associated annual reports. San Diego Arc Mitigation Area • The Navy would not exceed 200 hrs of mid-frequency active anti-submarine warfare sensor MF1 (with (June 1–October 31). the exception of active sonar maintenance and systems checks) annually within the area. • Should national security present a requirement to conduct additional training and testing using MF1, naval units will obtain permission from the appropriate designated Command authority prior to commencement of the activity. The Navy will provide NMFS with advance notification and include the information in associated annual reports. • The Navy will not use explosives during large-caliber gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and missile (including 2.75 in rockets) activities during training or testing activities. • Should national security present a requirement to use these explosives during training or testing activities, naval units will obtain permission from the appropriate designated Command authority prior to commencement of the activity. The Navy will provide NMFS with advance notification and include the information in associated annual reports. Santa Barbara Island Mitigation • The Navy will not use mid-frequency active anti-submarine warfare sensor MF1 and explosives in small-, Area (Year-round). medium-, and large-caliber gunnery; torpedo; bombing; and missile (including 2.75 in rockets) activities during unit-level training or major training exercises. • Should national security present a requirement to use MF1 or these explosives during training or testing activities, naval units will obtain permission from the appropriate designated Command authority prior to commencement of the activity. The Navy will provide NMFS with advance notification and include the information in associated annual reports. Notes: 1 Explosive restrictions within the Hawaii Island Mitigation Area apply only to those activities for which the Navy seeks MMPA authorization (e.g., surface-to-surface or air-to-surface missile and gunnery events, BOMBEX, and mine neutralization).

Mitigation Conclusions species and stocks and their habitat; the ensure that mitigation is regularly NMFS has carefully evaluated the proven or likely efficacy of the assessed and opportunities are available Navy’s proposed mitigation measures— measures; and the practicability of the to improve the mitigation, based on the many of which were developed with measures for applicant implementation, factors above, through modification as NMFS’s input during the previous including consideration of personnel appropriate. The proposed rule phases of Navy training and testing safety, practicality of implementation, comment period provides the public an authorizations—and considered a broad and impact on the effectiveness of the opportunity to submit range of other measures (i.e., the military readiness activity. recommendations, views, and/or measures considered but eliminated in Based on our evaluation of the Navy’s concerns regarding the proposed the Navy’s DEIS/OEIS, which reflect proposed measures, as well as other mitigation measures. While NMFS has many of the comments that have arisen measures considered by the Navy and preliminarily determined that the via NMFS or public input in past years) NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily Navy’s proposed mitigation measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS determined that the Navy’s proposed would effect the least practicable prescribes the means of effecting the mitigation measures are adequate means adverse impact on the affected species least practicable adverse impact on the of effecting the least practicable adverse or stocks and their habitat, NMFS will affected marine mammal species and impacts on marine mammals species or consider all public comments to help stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation stocks and their habitat, paying inform our final decision. Consequently, of potential measures included particular attention to rookeries, mating the proposed mitigation measures may consideration of the following factors in grounds, and areas of similar be refined, modified, removed, or added relation to one another: The manner in significance, while also considering to prior to the issuance of any final rule which, and the degree to which, the personnel safety, practicality of based on public comments received, successful implementation of the implementation, and impact on the and where appropriate, further analysis mitigation measures is expected to effectiveness of the military readiness of any additional mitigation measures. reduce the likelihood and/or magnitude activity. Additionally, the adaptive of adverse impacts to marine mammal management component helps further

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29980 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

Proposed Monitoring allow for adaptive management of of one or more of the following: (1) The Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA marine resources. Monitoring is action and the environment in which it states that in order to issue an ITA for required under the MMPA, and details occurs (e.g., sound source an activity, NMFS must set forth of the monitoring program for the characterization, propagation, and ‘‘requirements pertaining to the specified activities have been developed ambient noise levels); (2) the affected monitoring and reporting of such through coordination between NMFS species (e.g., life history or dive taking.’’ The MMPA implementing and the Navy through the regulatory patterns); (3) the likely co-occurrence of regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) process for previous Navy at-sea marine mammals and/or ESA-listed indicate that requests for LOAs must training and testing actions. Input marine species with the action (in include the suggested means of received during the public comment whole or part), and/or; (4) the likely period and discussions with other biological or behavioral context of accomplishing the necessary monitoring agencies or NMFS offices during the exposure to the stressor for the marine and reporting that will result in rulemaking process could result in mammal and/or ESA-listed marine increased knowledge of the species and changes to the monitoring as described species (e.g., age class of exposed of the level of taking or impacts on in this document. animals or known pupping, calving or populations of marine mammals that are feeding areas); Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring expected to be present. • An increase in understanding of Although the Navy has been Program (ICMP) how individual marine mammals or conducting research and monitoring in The Navy’s ICMP is intended to ESA-listed marine species respond the HSTT Study Area for over 20 years, coordinate marine species monitoring (behaviorally or physiologically) to the they developed a formal marine species efforts across all regions and to allocate specific stressors associated with the monitoring program in support of the the most appropriate level and type of action (in specific contexts, where MMPA and ESA authorizations for the effort for each range complex based on possible, e.g., at what distance or Hawaii and Southern California range a set of standardized objectives, and in received level); complexes in 2009. This robust program acknowledgement of regional expertise • An increase in understanding of has resulted in hundreds of technical and resource availability. The ICMP is how anticipated individual responses, reports and publications on marine designed to be flexible, scalable, and to individual stressors or anticipated mammals that have informed Navy and adaptable through the adaptive combinations of stressors, may impact NMFS analysis in environmental management and strategic planning either: (1) The long-term fitness and planning documents, Rules and processes to periodically assess progress survival of an individual; or (2) the Biological Opinions. The reports are and reevaluate objectives. This process population, species, or stock (e.g., made available to the public on the includes conducting an annual adaptive through effects on annual rates of Navy’s marine species monitoring management review meeting, at which recruitment or survival); website (www.navymarinespecies the Navy and NMFS jointly consider the • An increase in understanding of the monitoring.us) and the data on the prior-year goals, monitoring results, and effectiveness of mitigation and Ocean Biogeographic Information related scientific advances to determine monitoring measures; System Spatial Ecological Analysis of if monitoring plan modifications are • A better understanding and record Megavertebrate Populations (OBIS– warranted to more effectively address of the manner in which the authorized SEAMAP) (www.seamap.env.duke.edu). program goals. Although the ICMP does entity complies with the ITA and The Navy would continue collecting not specify actual monitoring field work Incidental Take Statement; monitoring data to inform our or individual projects, it does establish • An increase in the probability of understanding of: The occurrence of a matrix of goals and objectives that detecting marine mammals (through marine mammals in the action area; the have been developed in coordination improved technology or methods), both likely exposure of marine mammals to with NMFS. As the ICMP is specifically within the mitigation zone stressors of concern in the area; the implemented through the Strategic (thus allowing for more effective response of marine mammals to Planning Process, detailed and specific implementation of the mitigation) and exposures to stressors; the consequences studies will be developed which in general, to better achieve the above of a particular marine mammal response support the Navy’s and NMFS top-level goals; and to their individual fitness and, monitoring goals. In essence, the ICMP • A reduction in the adverse impact ultimately, populations; and, the directs that monitoring activities of activities to the least practicable effectiveness of implemented mitigation relating to the effects of Navy training level, as defined in the MMPA. measures. Taken together, mitigation and testing activities on marine species Strategic Planning Process for Marine and monitoring comprise the Navy’s should be designed to contribute Species Monitoring integrated approach for reducing towards one or more of the following environmental impacts from the top-level goals: The Navy also developed the Strategic specified activities. The Navy’s overall • An increase in understanding of the Planning Process for Marine Species monitoring approach will seek to likely occurrence of marine mammals Monitoring, which establishes the leverage and build on existing research and/or ESA-listed marine species in the guidelines and processes necessary to efforts whenever possible. vicinity of the action (i.e., presence, develop, evaluate, and fund individual Consistent with the cooperating abundance, distribution, and/or density projects based on objective scientific agency agreement between the Navy and of species); study questions. The process uses an NMFS, monitoring measures presented • An increase in understanding of the underlying framework designed around here, as well as the mitigation measures nature, scope, or context of the likely the ICMP’s top-level goals, and a described above, focus on the protection exposure of marine mammals and/or conceptual framework incorporating a and management of potentially affected ESA-listed species to any of the progression of knowledge, spanning marine mammals. A well-designed potential stressor(s) associated with the occurrence, exposure, response, and monitoring program can provide action (e.g., sound, explosive consequences. The Strategic Planning important feedback for validating detonation, or military expended Process for Marine Species Monitoring assumptions made in analyses and materials), through better understanding is used to set overarching intermediate

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29981

scientific objectives, develop individual • SOCAL to NMFS in both classified and monitoring project concepts, identify Æ Blue and Fin Whale Satellite unclassified annual exercise reports. potential species of interest at a regional Tagging; Past and Current Monitoring in the scale, evaluate, prioritize and select Æ Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Impact Study Area specific monitoring projects to fund or Assessment at the Southern California continue supporting for a given fiscal Offshore Antisubmarine Warfare Range NMFS has received multiple years’ year, execute and manage selected (SOAR); worth of annual exercise and monitoring projects, and report and Æ Cuvier’s Beaked Whale, Blue monitoring reports addressing active evaluate progress and results. This Whale, and Fin Whale Impact sonar use and explosive detonations process addresses relative investments Assessments at Non-Instrumented within the HSTT Study Area and other to different range complexes based on Range Locations in SOCAL; and Navy range complexes. The data and goals across all range complexes, and Æ Marine Mammal Sightings during information contained in these reports monitoring leverages multiple California Cooperative Oceanic have been considered in developing techniques for data acquisition and Fisheries Investigation (CalCOFI) mitigation and monitoring measures for analysis whenever possible. The Cruises. the proposed training and testing activities within the HSTT Study Area. Strategic Planning Process for Marine Numerous publications, dissertations The Navy’s annual exercise and Species Monitoring is also available and conference presentations have monitoring reports may be viewed at: online (http://www.navymarinespecies resulted from research conducted under http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ monitoring.us/). the Navy’s marine species monitoring incidental/military.htm and http:// program (https://www.navymarine Monitoring Progress in the Study Area www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us. speciesmonitoring.us/reading-room/ The monitoring program has The Navy has been funding various publications/), resulting in a significant marine mammal studies and research undergone significant changes that contribution to the body of marine highlight its evolution through the within the HSTT Study Area for the past mammal science. Publications on 20 years. Under permitting from NMFS process of adaptive management. The occurrence, distribution and density monitoring program developed for the starting in 2009, this effort has have fed the modeling input, and transitioned from a specific metric first cycle of environmental compliance publications on exposure and response documents (e.g., (U.S. Department of the based approach, to a broader new have informed Navy and NMFS research only approach (e.g., set number Navy, 2008)) utilized effort-based analyses of behavioral response and compliance metrics that were somewhat of visual surveys, specific number of consideration of mitigation measures. passive acoustic recording devices, etc.), limiting. Through adaptive management Furthermore, collaboration between discussions, the Navy designed and and more recently since 2014 a more the monitoring program and the Navy’s regional (Hawaii or Southern California) conducted monitoring studies according research and development (e.g., the to scientific objectives, thereby species-specific study question design Office of Naval Research) and (e.g., what is distribution of species A eliminating basing requirements upon demonstration-validation (e.g., Living metrics of level-of-effort. Furthermore, within the HSTT Study Area, what is Marine Resources) programs has been response of species B to Navy activities, refinements of scientific objective have strengthened, leading to research tools continued through the latest permit etc.). and products that have already In adaptive management consultation cycle through 2018. transitioned to the monitoring program. Progress has also been made on the with NMFS, some variation of these These include Marine Mammal monitoring program’s conceptual ongoing studies or proposed new Monitoring on Ranges (M3R), controlled framework categories from the Scientific studies will continue within the HSTT exposure experiment behavioral Advisory Group for Navy Marine Study Area for either the duration of response studies (CEE BRS), acoustic Species Monitoring (U.S. Department of any new regulations, or for a set period sea glider surveys, and global the Navy, 2011e), ranging from as specified in a given project’s scope. positioning system-enabled satellite Some projects may only require one or occurrence of animals, to their tags. Recent progress has been made two years of field effort. Other projects exposure, response, and population with better integration of monitoring could entail multi-year field efforts (two consequences. Lessons-learned with across all Navy at-sea study areas, to five years). For instance, in the Phase I and II monitoring in HRC and including study areas in the Pacific and SOCAL portion of the HSTT Study SOCAL suggested that ‘‘layering’’ the Atlantic Oceans, and various testing Area, the Navy has funded development multiple components of monitoring ranges. Publications from the Living and application of new passive acoustic simultaneously provides a way to Marine Resources and Office of Naval technology since the early 2000’s for leverage an increase in return of the Research programs have also resulted in detecting Cuvier’s beaked whales. This progress toward answering scientific significant contributions to hearing, also includes ongoing effort to further monitoring questions. Specific Phase II monitoring has acoustic criteria used in effects identify and update population included: modeling, exposure, and response, as demographics for Cuvier’s beaked • HRC well as developing tools to assess whales (re-sighting rates, population Æ Long-term Trends in Abundance of biological significance (e.g., population- growth, calving rates, movements, etc.) Marine Mammals at PMRF; level consequences). specific to Navy training and testing Æ Estimation of Received Levels of NMFS and Navy also consider data areas, as well as responses to Navy Mid-Frequency Active Sonar on Marine collected during procedural mitigations activity. Variations of these Cuvier’s Mammals at PMRF; as monitoring. Data are collected by beaked whale monitoring studies will Æ Behavioral Response of Marine shipboard personnel on hours spent likely continue under future Mammals to Navy Training and Testing training, hours of observation, hours of authorizations. The Navy’s marine at PMRF; and sonar, marine mammals observed species monitoring web portal provides Æ Navy Civilian Marine Mammal within the mitigation zone during Major details on past and current monitoring Observers on MFAS Ships in Offshore Training Exercises when mitigations are projects, including technical reports, Waters of HRC. implemented. These data are provided publications, presentations, and access

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29982 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

to available data and can be found at: adaptive management component both speciesmonitoring.us. Currently, there https://www.navymarinespecies valuable and necessary within the are several different reporting monitoring.us/regions/pacific/current- context of five-year regulations. requirements pursuant to these projects/. The reporting requirements associated proposed regulations: The Navy’s marine species monitoring with this proposed rule are designed to Notification of Injured, Live Stranded or program typically supports 6–10 provide NMFS with monitoring data Dead Marine Mammals monitoring projects in the HSTT Study from the previous year to allow NMFS Area at any given time. Projects can be to consider whether any changes to The Navy will abide by the either major multi-year major efforts, or existing mitigation and monitoring Notification and Reporting Plan, which one to two year special studies. Navy requirements are appropriate. NMFS sets out notification, reporting, and monitoring projects in HSTT through and the Navy would meet to discuss the other requirements when injured, live 2018 currently include: monitoring reports, Navy R&D stranded, or dead marine mammals are • Long-term Trends In Abundance Of developments, and current science and detected. The Notification and Marine Mammals At The Pacific Missile whether mitigation or monitoring Reporting Plan will be available for Range Facility (Hawaii—began in 2015); modifications are appropriate. The use review at https:// • Estimation Of Received Levels Of of adaptive management allows NMFS www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ Mid-frequency Active Sonar On Marine to consider new information from marine-mammal-protection/incidental- Mammals At The Pacific Missile Range different sources to determine (with take-authorizations-military-readiness- Facility (Hawaii—began in 2009); input from the Navy regarding activities. • Behavioral Response Of Marine practicability) on an annual or biennial Annual HSTT Monitoring Report Mammals To Training And Testing At basis if mitigation or monitoring The Pacific Missile Range Facility measures should be modified (including The Navy shall submit an annual (Hawaii—began in 2009); additions or deletions). Mitigation report to NMFS of the HSTT monitoring • Humpback Whale Satellite Tracking measures could be modified if new data describing the implementation and And Genetics (Hawaii, Southern suggests that such modifications would results from the previous calendar year. California—began in 2017); have a reasonable likelihood of reducing Data collection methods will be • Navy Civilian Marine Mammal adverse effects to marine mammals and standardized across range complexes Observers On Navy Destroyers (Hawaii, if the measures are practicable. and HSTT Study Area to allow for Southern California began in 2010); The following are some of the comparison in different geographic • Blue and Fin Whale Satellite possible sources of applicable data to be locations. The draft of the annual Tracking And Genetics (Southern considered through the adaptive monitoring report shall be submitted California—field work 2014–2017 with management process: (1) Results from either three months after the calendar ongoing analysis); monitoring and exercises reports, as year, or three months after the • Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Population required by MMPA authorizations; (2) conclusion of the monitoring year to be Assessment And Impact Assessment At compiled results of Navy funded R&D determined by the Adaptive Southern California Anti-Submarine studies; (3) results from specific Management process. Such a report Range (Southern California—began in stranding investigations; (4) results from would describe progress of knowledge 2015); general marine mammal and sound made with respect to intermediate • Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Occurrence research; and (5) any information which scientific objectives within the HSTT In Southern California From Passive reveals that marine mammals may have Study Area associated with the Acoustic Monitoring (Southern been taken in a manner, extent, or Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring California—began in 2012); and number not authorized by these Program. Similar study questions shall • Guadalupe Fur Seal Satellite regulations or subsequent LOAs. be treated together so that summaries Tracking and Census (Southern can be provided for each topic area. The Proposed Reporting California—one-year effort beginning in report need not include analyses and 2018). In order to issue an incidental take content that does not provide direct Additional scientific projects may authorization for an activity, section assessment of cumulative progress on have field efforts within Hawaii and 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that the monitoring plan study questions. Southern California under separate NMFS must set forth ‘‘requirements NMFS will submit comments on the Navy funding from the Navy’s two pertaining to the monitoring and draft monitoring report, if any, within marine species research programs, the reporting of such taking.’’ Effective three months of receipt. The report will Office of Naval Research Marine reporting is critical both to compliance be considered final after the Navy has Mammals and Biology Program and the as well as ensuring that the most value addressed NMFS’s comments, or three Living Marine Resources Program. The is obtained from the required months after the submittal of the draft periodicity of these research projects are monitoring. Some of the reporting if NMFS does not have comments. more variable than the Navy’s requirements are still in development As an alternative, the Navy may compliance monitoring described above. and the final rulemaking may contain submit a multi-Range Complex annual additional minor details not contained Monitoring Plan report to fulfill this Adaptive Management here. Additionally, proposed reporting requirement. Such a report would The final regulations governing the requirements may be modified, describe progress of knowledge made take of marine mammals incidental to removed, or added based on information with respect to monitoring study Navy training and testing activities in or comments received during the public questions across multiple Navy ranges the Study Area would contain an comment period. Reports from associated with the ICMP. Similar study adaptive management component. Our individual monitoring events, results of questions shall be treated together so understanding of the effects of Navy analyses, publications, and periodic that progress on each topic shall be training and testing activities (e.g., progress reports for specific summarized across multiple Navy acoustic and explosive stressors) on monitoring projects would be posted to ranges. The report need not include marine mammals continues to evolve, the Navy’s Marine Species Monitoring analyses and content that does not which makes the inclusion of an web portal: http://www.navymarine provide direct assessment of cumulative

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29983

progress on the monitoring study • Annual Adaptive Management to be considered in the negligible question. This will continue to allow meetings with NMFS, regulators and impact analysis (e.g., the context of Navy to provide a cohesive monitoring Marine Mammal Commission (recently behavioral exposures such as duration report covering multiple ranges (as per modified to occur in conjunction with or intensity of an disturbance, the health ICMP goals), rather than entirely the annual monitoring technical review of impacted animals, the status of a separate reports for the HSTT, Gulf of meeting). species that incurs fitness-level impacts to individuals, etc.). Here, we evaluate Alaska, Mariana Islands, and the Preliminary Negligible Impact Analysis the likely impacts of the enumerated Northwest Study Areas, etc. and Determination harassment takes that are proposed for Annual HSTT Training Exercise Report Negligible Impact Analysis authorization and anticipated to occur and Testing Activity Report in this rule, in the context of the specific Introduction Each year, the Navy will submit two circumstances surrounding these preliminary reports to NMFS detailing NMFS has defined negligible impact predicted takes. We also include a the status of authorized sound sources as ‘‘an impact resulting from the specific assessment of serious injury or within 21 days after the anniversary of specified activity that cannot be mortality takes that could occur, as well the date of issuance of the LOA. Each reasonably expected to, and is not as consideration of the traits and year, the Navy shall submit detailed reasonably likely to, adversely affect the statuses of the affected species and reports to NMFS within 3 months after species or stock through effects on stocks. Last, we pull all of this the anniversary of the date of issuance annual rates of recruitment or survival: information, as well as other more taxa- of the LOA. The annual reports shall (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact specific information and the mitigation contain information on MTEs, Sinking finding is based on the lack of likely measure effectiveness, together into Exercise (SINKEX) events, and a adverse effects on annual rates of group-specific discussions that support summary of all sound sources used recruitment or survival (i.e., population- our negligible impact conclusions for (total hours or quantity (per the LOA) of level effects). An estimate of the number each stock. of takes alone is not enough information each bin of sonar or other non- Harassment impulsive source; total annual number on which to base an impact of each type of explosive exercises; and determination. In addition to The Navy’s Specified Activities total annual expended/detonated considering estimates of the number of reflects representative levels/ranges of rounds (missiles, bombs, sonobuoys, marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ training and testing activities, etc.) for each explosive bin). The through mortality, serious injury, and accounting for the natural fluctuation in Level A or Level B harassment (as analysis in the detailed reports will be training, testing, and deployment presented in Tables 41 and 42), NMFS schedules. This approach is based on the accumulation of data from considers other factors, such as the representative of how Navy’s activities the current year’s report and data likely nature of any responses (e.g., are conducted over any given year over collected from previous reports. The intensity, duration), the context of any any given five-year period. Specifically, Annual HSTT Training Exercise Report responses (e.g., critical reproductive to calculate take, the Navy provided a and Testing Activity Navy reports can time or location, migration), as well as range of levels for each activity/source be consolidated with other exercise effects on habitat, and the likely type for a year—they used the maximum reports from other range complexes in effectiveness of the mitigation. We also annual level to calculate annual takes, the Pacific Ocean for a single Pacific assess the number, intensity, and and they used the sum of three nominal Exercise Report, if desired. Specific sub- context of estimated takes by evaluating years (average level) and two maximum reporting in these annual reports this information relative to population years to calculate five-year takes for include: • status. Consistent with the 1989 each source type. The Specified Humpback Whale Special Reporting preamble for NMFS’s implementing Activities section contains a more Area (December 15–April 15): The Navy regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, realistic annual representation of will report the total hours of operation 1989), the impacts from other past and activities, but includes years of a higher of surface ship hull-mounted mid- ongoing anthropogenic activities are maximum amount of training and frequency active sonar used in the incorporated into this analysis via their testing to account for these fluctuations. special reporting area; impacts on the environmental baseline There may be some flexibility in the • HSTT Mitigation Areas (see section (e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status exact number of hours, items, or 11 of the Navy’s application): The Navy of the species, population size and detonations that may vary from year to will report any use that occurred as growth rate where known, other ongoing year, but take totals would not exceed specifically described in these areas; sources of human-caused mortality, the five-year totals indicated in Tables and ambient noise levels, and specific 41 and 42. We base our analysis and • Information included in the consideration of take by Level A negligible impact determination (NID) classified annual reports may be used to harassment or serious injury or on the maximum number of takes that inform future adaptive management of mortality (hereafter referred to as M/SI) could occur or are likely to occur, activities within the HSTT Study Area. previously authorized for other NMFS although, as stated before, the number of Other Reporting and Coordination activities). takes are only a part of the analysis, In the Estimated Take section, we which includes extensive qualitative The Navy will continue to report and identified the subset of potential effects consideration of other contextual factors coordinate with NMFS for the that would be expected to rise to the that influence the degree of impact of following: level of takes, and then identified the the takes on the affected individuals. To • Annual marine species monitoring number of each of those takes that we avoid repetition, we provide some technical review meetings with believe could occur (mortality) or are general analysis immediately below that researchers, regulators and Marine likely to occur (harassment) based on applies to all the species listed in Tables Mammal Commission (currently, every the methods described. The impact that 41 and 42, given that some of the two years a joint Pacific-Atlantic any given take will have is dependent anticipated effects of the Navy’s training meeting is held); and on many case-specific factors that need and testing activities on marine

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29984 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

mammals are expected to be relatively response to sound—i.e., sounds of a predicted to be taken for more than a similar in nature. However, below that, similar level emanating from a more few days in a row, at most. As described we break our analysis into species (and/ distant source have been shown to be elsewhere, the nature of the majority of or stock), or groups of species (and the less likely to evoke a response of equal the exposures would be expected to be associated stocks) where relevant magnitude (DeRuiter 2012). The of a less severe nature and based on the similarities exist, to provide more estimated number of Level A and Level numbers it is still likely that any specific information related to the B takes does not equate to the number individual exposed multiple times is anticipated effects on individuals of a of individual animals the Navy expects still only taken on a small percentage of specific stock or where there is to harass (which is lower), but rather to the days of the year. The greater information about the status or structure the instances of take (i.e., exposures likelihood is that not every individual is of any species that would lead to a above the Level A and Level B taken, or perhaps a smaller subset is differing assessment of the effects on the harassment threshold) that are taken with a slightly higher average and species or stock. anticipated to occur over the five-year larger variability of highs and lows, but The Navy’s harassment take request is period. These instances may represent still with no reason to think that any based on its model and quantitative either brief exposures (seconds or individuals would be taken every day assessment of mitigation, which NMFS minutes) or, in some cases, longer for months out of the year, much less on believes appropriately predicts that durations of exposure within a day. sequential days. amount of harassment that is likely to Some individuals may experience Depending on the location, duration, occur. In the discussions below, the multiple instances of take (meaning over and frequency of activities, along with the distribution and movement of ‘‘acoustic analysis’’ refers to the Navy’s multiple days) over the course of the modeling results and quantitative marine mammals, individual animals year, while some members of a species assessment of mitigation. The model may be exposed to impulse or non- or stock may not experience take at all calculates sound energy propagation impulse sounds at or above the Level A which means that the number of from sonar, other active acoustic and Level B harassment threshold on individuals taken is smaller than the sources, and explosives during naval multiple days. However, the Navy is total estimated takes. In other words, activities; the sound or impulse received currently unable to estimate the number where the instances of take exceed the by animat dosimeters representing of individuals that may be taken during number of individuals in the marine mammals distributed in the area training and testing activities. The population, repeated takes (on more around the modeled activity; and model results estimate the total number whether the sound or impulse energy than one day) of some individuals are of takes that may occur to a smaller received by a marine mammal exceeds predicted. Generally speaking, the number of individuals. the thresholds for effects. Assumptions higher the number of takes as compared Some of the lower level physiological in the Navy model intentionally err on to the population abundance, the more stress responses (e.g., orientation or the side of overestimation when there repeated takes of individuals are likely, startle response, change in respiration, are unknowns. Naval activities are and the higher the actual percentage of change in heart rate) discussed earlier modeled as though they would occur individuals in the population that are would also likely co-occur with the regardless of proximity to marine likely taken at least once in a year. We predicted harassments, although these mammals, meaning that no mitigation is look at this comparative metric to give responses are more difficult to detect considered (e.g., no power down or shut us a relative sense across species/stocks and fewer data exist relating these down) and without any avoidance of the of where larger portions of the stocks are responses to specific received levels of activity by the animal. The final step of being taken by Navy activities and sound. Level B takes, then, may have a the quantitative analysis of acoustic where there is a higher likelihood that stress-related physiological component effects, which occurs after the modeling, the same individuals are being taken as well; however, we would not expect is to consider the implementation of across multiple days and where that the Navy’s generally short-term, mitigation and the possibility that number of days might be higher. In the intermittent, and (typically in the case marine mammals would avoid ocean, the use of sonar and other active of sonar) transitory activities to create continued or repeated sound exposures. acoustic sources is often transient and is conditions of long-term, continuous NMFS provided input to, and concurred unlikely to repeatedly expose the same noise leading to long-term physiological with, the Navy on this process and the individual animals within a short stress responses in marine mammals. Navy’s analysis, which is described in period, for example within one specific The estimates calculated using the detail in Section 6 of the Navy’s exercise, however, some repeated behavioral response function do not rulemaking/LOA application (https:// exposures across different activities differentiate between the different types www.fisheries.noaa.gov/;national/ could occur over the year, especially of behavioral responses that rise to the marine-mammal-protection/incidental- where events occur in generally the level of Level B harassments. As take-authorizations-military-readiness- same area with more resident species. In described in the Navy’s application, the activities), was used to quantify short, we expect that the total Navy identified (with NMFS’s input) the harassment takes for this rule. anticipated takes represent exposures of types of behaviors that would be Generally speaking, the Navy and a smaller number of individuals of considered a take (moderate behavioral NMFS anticipate more severe effects which some were exposed multiple responses as characterized in Southall et from takes resulting from exposure to times, but based on the nature of the al., 2007 (e.g., altered migration paths or higher received levels (though this is in Navy activities and the movement dive profiles, interrupted nursing no way a strictly linear relationship for patterns of marine mammals, it is breeding or feeding, or avoidance) that behavioral effects throughout species, unlikely any particular subset would be also would be expected to continue for individuals, or circumstances) and less taken over more than a few sequential the duration of an exposure) and then severe effects from takes resulting from days—i.e., where repeated takes of compiled the available data indicating exposure to lower received levels. individuals are likely to occur, they are at what received levels and distances However, there is also growing evidence more likely to result from non- those responses have occurred, and of the importance of distance in sequential exposures from different used the indicated literature to build predicting marine mammal behavioral activities and marine mammals are not biphasic behavioral response curves that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29985

are used to predict how many instances being equal, an animal’s exposure to a day training events may decrease of behavioral take occur in a day. Nor higher received level is more likely to foraging behavior for Blainville’s beaked do the estimates provide information result in a behavioral response that is whale (Manzano-Roth et al., 2016). regarding the potential fitness or other more likely to lead to adverse effects, Consequently, a behavioral response biological consequences of the reactions which could more likely accumulate to lasting less than one day and not on the affected individuals. We impacts on reproductive success or recurring on subsequent days is not therefore consider the available activity- survivorship of the animal, but as considered severe unless it could specific, environmental, and species- mentioned previously other contextual directly affect reproduction or survival specific information to determine the factors (such as distance) are important (Southall et al., 2007). Note that there is likely nature of the modeled behavioral also. The majority of Level B takes are a difference between multiple-day responses and the potential fitness expected to be in the form of milder substantive behavioral reactions and consequences for affected individuals. responses (i.e., lower-level exposures multiple-day anthropogenic activities. Use of sonar and other transducers that still rise to the level of take, but For example, just because an at-sea would typically be transient and would likely be less severe in the range exercise lasts for multiple days does not temporary. The majority of acoustic of responses that qualify as take) of a necessarily mean that individual effects to mysticetes from sonar and generally shorter duration. We animals are either exposed to those other active sound sources during anticipate more severe effects from takes exercises for multiple days or, further, testing and training activities would be when animals are exposed to higher exposed in a manner resulting in a primarily from ASW events. It is received levels or at closer proximity to sustained multiple day substantive important to note although ASW is one the source. These discussions are behavioral response. Large multi-day of the warfare areas of focus during presented within each species group Navy exercises such as ASW activities, MTEs, there are significant periods below in the Group and Species- typically include vessels that are when active ASW sonars are not in use. Specific Analysis section. Specifically, continuously moving at speeds typically Nevertheless, behavioral reactions are given a range of behavioral responses 10–15 kn, or higher, and likely cover assumed more likely to be significant that may be classified as Level B large areas that are relatively far from harassment, to the degree that higher during MTEs than during other ASW shore (typically more than 3 nmi from received levels are expected to result in activities due to the duration (i.e., shore) and in waters greater than 600 ft more severe behavioral responses, only multiple days), scale (i.e., multiple deep, in addition to the fact that marine a smaller percentage of the anticipated sonar platforms), and use of highpower mammals are moving as well, which Level B harassment (see the Group and hull-mounted sonar in the MTEs. In would make it unlikely that the same Species-Specific Analysis section below other words, in the range of potential animal could remain in the immediate for more detailed information) from behavioral effects that might expect to vicinity of the ship for the entire Navy activities might necessarily be be part of a response that qualifies as an duration of the exercise. Further, the expected to potentially result in more instance take (which by nature of the Navy does not necessarily operate active severe responses. To fully understand way it is modeled/counted, occurs sonar the entire time during an exercise. the likely impacts of the predicted/ While it is certainly possible that these within one day), the less severe end authorized take on an individual (i.e., might include exposure to sorts of exercises could overlap with what is the likelihood or degree of individual marine mammals multiple comparatively lower levels of a sound, fitness impacts), one must look closely at a detectably greater distance from the days in a row at levels above those at the available contextual information, anticipated to result in a take, because animal, for a few or several minutes, such as the duration of likely exposures and that could result in a behavioral of the factors mentioned above, it is and the likely severity of the exposures considered unlikely for the majority of response such as avoiding an area that (e.g., will they occur from high level an animal would otherwise have chosen takes. However, it is also worth noting hull-mounted sonars or smaller less that the Navy conducts many different to move through or feed in for some impactful sources). Moore and Barlow amount of time or breaking off one or a types of noise-producing activities over (2013) emphasizes the importance of the course of the year and it is likely few feeding bouts. The more severe end, context (e.g., behavioral state of the that some marine mammals will be which occurs a smaller amount of the animals, distance from the sound exposed to more than one and taken on time (when the animal gets close source, etc.) in evaluating behavioral multiple days, even if they are not enough to the source to receive a responses of marine mammals to sequential. comparatively higher level, is exposed acoustic sources. continuously to one source for a longer Durations of Navy activities utilizing time, or is exposed intermittently to Diel Cycle tactical sonar sources and explosives different sources throughout a day) As noted previously, many animals vary and are fully described in might result in an animal having a more perform vital functions, such as feeding, Appendix A of the HSTT DEIS/OEIS. severe flight response and leaving a resting, traveling, and socializing on a Sonar used during ASW would impart larger area for a day or more or diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Behavioral the greatest amount of acoustic energy potentially losing feeding opportunities reactions to noise exposure (when of any category of sonar and other for a day. To help assess this, for sonar taking place in a biologically important transducers analyzed in the Navy’s (LFAS/MFAS/HFAS) used in the HSTT context, such as disruption of critical rulemaking/LOA application and Study Area, the Navy provided life functions, displacement, or included hull-mounted, towed, information estimating the percentage of avoidance of important habitat) are sonobuoy, helicopter dipping, and animals that may exhibit a significant more likely to be significant if they last torpedo sonars. Most ASW sonars are behavior response under each more than one diel cycle or recur on MFAS (1–10 kHz); however, some behavioral response function that would subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007). sources may use higher or lower occur within 6-dB increments Henderson et al., 2016 found that frequencies. ASW training activities (percentages discussed below in the ongoing smaller scale events had little using hull mounted sonar proposed for Group and Species-Specific Analysis to no impact on foraging dives for the HSTT Study Area generally last for section). As mentioned above, all else Blainville’s beaked whale, while multi- only a few hours. Some ASW training

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29986 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

and testing can generally last for 2–10 of that stock. For example, if there are However, the Study Area encompasses days, or as much as 21 days for an MTE- 100 takes in a population of 100, one large areas of ocean space outside U.S. Large Integrated ASW (see Table 4). For can assume either that every individual waters; therefore, the SARs do not these multi-day exercises there will be was exposed above acoustic thresholds account for the total abundance in the extended intervals of non-activity in in no more than one day, or that some Study Area. Additionally, the SARs are between active sonar periods. Because smaller number were exposed in one not to the only information used to of the need to train in a large variety of day but a few of those individuals were estimate takes, instead modeled density situations, the Navy does not typically exposed multiple days within a year. layers are used, which incorporate the conduct successive ASW exercises in Where the instances of take exceed 100 SAR surveys and other survey data. If the same locations. Given the average percent of the population, multiple takes are calculated from another length of ASW exercises (times of sonar takes of some individuals are predicted dataset (for example a broader sample of use) and typical vessel speed, combined to occur within a year. Generally survey data) and compared to the with the fact that the majority of the speaking, the higher the number of takes population estimate from the SARs, it cetaceans would not likely remain in as compared to the population may distort the percent of the proximity to the sound source, it is abundance, the more multiple takes of population affected because of different unlikely that an animal would be individuals are likely, and the higher population baselines. The estimates exposed to LFAS/MFAS/HFAS at levels the actual percentage of individuals in found in NMFS’s SARs remain the or durations likely to result in a the population that are likely taken at official estimates of stock abundance substantive response that would then be least once in a year. We look at this where they are current. These estimates carried on for more than one day or on comparative metric to give us a relative are typically generated from the most successive days. sense across species/stocks of where recent shipboard and/or aerial surveys Most planned explosive events are larger portions of the stocks are being conducted. Studies based on abundance scheduled to occur over a short duration taken by Navy activities and where and distribution surveys restricted to (1–8 hours); however, the explosive there is a higher likelihood that the U.S. waters are unable to detect component of the activity only lasts for same individuals are being taken across temporal shifts in distribution beyond minutes (see Tables 4 through 7). multiple days and where that number of U.S. waters that might account for any Although explosive exercises may days might be higher. At a minimum, it changes in abundance within U.S. sometimes be conducted in the same provides a relative picture of the scale waters. In some cases, NMFS’s general areas repeatedly, because of of impacts to each stock. their short duration and the fact that In the ocean, unlike a modeling abundance estimates show substantial they are in the open ocean and animals simulation with static animals, the use year-to-year variability. However, for can easily move away, it is similarly of sonar and other active acoustic highly migratory species (e.g., large unlikely that animals would be exposed sources is often transient, and is whales) or those whose geographic for long, continuous amounts of time. unlikely to repeatedly expose the same distribution extends well beyond the Although SINKEXs may last for up to 48 individual animals within a short boundaries of the Navy’s study area hrs (4–8 hrs, possibly 1–2 days), they period, for example within one specific (e.g., population with distribution along are almost always completed in a single exercise. However, some repeated the entire California Current versus just day and only one event is planned exposures across different activities SOCAL), comparisons to the SAR may annually for the HSTT training would likely occur over the year, be more appropriate. This is because the activities. They are stationary and especially where numerous activities Navy’s acoustic modeling process does conducted in deep, open water (where occur in generally the same area (for not horizontally move animats, and fewer marine mammals would typically example on instrumented ranges) with therefore does not account for be expected to be randomly more resident species. In short, we immigration and emigration within the encountered), and they have rigorous expect that the total anticipated takes study area. For instance, while it may be monitoring (i.e., during the activity, represent exposures of a smaller number accurate that the abundance of animals conduct passive acoustic monitoring of individuals of which some would be in Southern California at any one time and visually observe for marine exposed multiple times, but based on for a particular species is 200 mammals 90 min prior to the first firing, the nature of the Navy’s activities and individuals, if the species is highly during the event, and 2 hrs after sinking the movement patterns of marine migratory or has large daily home the vessel) and shutdown procedures all mammals, it is unlikely that any ranges, it is not likely that the same 200 of which make it unlikely that particular subset would be taken over individuals would be present every day. individuals would be exposed to the more than a few sequential days—i.e., A good descriptive example is blue exercise for extended periods or on where repeated takes of individuals are whales, which tagging data have shown consecutive days. likely to occur. They are more likely to traverse the SOCAL area in a few days Last, as described previously, Navy result from non-sequential exposures to weeks on their migrations. Therefore, modeling uses the best available science from different activities and the majority at any one time there may be a stable to predict the instances of exposure of marine mammal stocks are not number of animals, but over the course above certain acoustic thresholds, predicted to be taken for more than a of the entire year the entire population which are equated, as appropriate, to few days in a row. may cycle through SOCAL. Therefore, harassment takes (and further corrected When calculating the proportion of a when comparing the estimated takes to to account for mitigation and population affected by takes (e.g., the an abundance, in this case the SAR, avoidance). As further noted, for active number of takes divided by population which represents the total population, acoustics, it is more challenging to parse abundance), it is important to choose an may be more appropriate than the out the number of individuals taken appropriate population estimate to make Navy’s modeled abundance for SOCAL. from this larger number of instances. the comparison. The SARs provide the In each of the species write-ups for the One method that NMFS can use to help official population estimate for a given negligible impact assessment we explain better understand the overall scope of species or stock in U.S. waters in a which abundance was used for making the impacts is to compare these total given year (and are typically based the comparison of takes to the impacts instances of take against the abundance solely on the most recent survey data). to the population.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29987

NMFS’s Southwest Fisheries Science take tell us about either the likely TTS studies (see Threshold Shift Center derived densities for the Navy, number of individuals taken, and/or section), some using exposures of and NMFS supports, the use of spatially over how many days they might be almost an hour in duration or up to 217 and temporally explicit density models taken. These comparisons are SEL, most of the TTS induced was 15 that vary in space and time to estimate undertaken below in the taxa-specific dB or less, though Finneran et al. (2007) their potential impacts to species. See sections. induced 43 dB of TTS with a 64-second the U.S. Navy Marine Species Density exposure to a 20 kHz source. However, Temporary Threshold Shift Database Phase III Hawaii-Southern since any hull-mounted sonar such as California Training and Testing Area NMFS and the Navy have estimated the SQS–53 (MFAS), emits a ping Technical Report to learn more on how that some individuals of some species of typically every 50 sec, incurring those the Navy selects density information marine mammals may sustain some levels of TTS is highly unlikely. and the models selected for individual level of TTS from active sonar. As 3. Duration of TTS (recovery time)— species. These models may better mentioned previously, TTS can last In the TTS laboratory studies (see characterize how Navy impacts can vary from a few minutes to days, be of Threshold Shift) section), some using in space and time but often predict varying degree, and occur across various exposures of almost an hour in duration different population abundances than frequency bandwidths, all of which or up to 217 SEL, almost all individuals the SARs. determine the severity of the impacts on recovered within 1 day (or less, often in Models may predict different the affected individual, which can range minutes), although in one study population abundances for many from minor to more severe. Tables 69– (Finneran et al., 2007), recovery took 4 reasons. The models may be based on 81 indicate the amounts of TTS that days. different data sets or different temporal may be incurred by different stocks from Based on the range of degree and predictions may be made. The SARs are exposure to acoustic sources (sonar, air duration of TTS reportedly induced by often based on single years of NMFS guns, pile driving) and explosives. The exposures to non-pulse sounds of surveys, whereas the models used by TTS sustained by an animal is primarily energy higher than that to which free- the Navy generally include multiple classified by three characteristics: swimming marine mammals in the field years of survey data from NMFS, the 1. Frequency—Available data (of mid- are likely to be exposed during LFAS/ Navy, and other sources. To present a frequency hearing specialists exposed to MFAS/HFAS training and testing single, best estimate, the SARs often use mid- or high-frequency sounds; Southall exercises in the HSTT Study Area, it is a single season survey where they have et al., 2007) suggest that most TTS unlikely that marine mammals would the best spatial coverage (generally occurs in the frequency range of the ever sustain a TTS from MFAS that summer). Navy models often use source up to one octave higher than the alters their sensitivity by more than 20 predictions for multiple seasons, where source (with the maximum TTS at 1⁄2 dB for more than a few hours (and any appropriate for the species, even when octave above). The Navy’s MF sources incident of TTS would likely be far less survey coverage in non-summer seasons the 1–10 kHz frequency band, which severe due to the short duration of the is limited, to characterize impacts over suggests that if TTS were to be induced majority of the events and the speed of multiple seasons as Navy activities may by any of these MF sources would be in a typical vessel). Also, for the same occur in any season. Predictions may be a frequency band somewhere between reasons discussed in the Diel Cycle made for different spatial extents. Many approximately 2 and 20 kHz. There are section, and because of the short different, but equally valid, habitat and fewer hours of HF source use and the distance within which animals would density modeling techniques exist and sounds would attenuate more quickly, need to approach the sound source, it is these can also be the cause of plus they have lower source levels, but unlikely that animals would be exposed differences in population predictions. if an animal were to incur TTS from to the levels necessary to induce TTS in Differences in population estimates may these sources, it would cover a higher subsequent time periods such that their be caused by a combination of these frequency range (sources are between 10 recovery is impeded. Additionally, factors. Even similar estimates should and 100 kHz, which means that TTS though the frequency range of TTS that be interpreted with caution and could range up to 200 kHz; however, HF marine mammals might sustain would differences in models be fully systems are typically used less overlap with some of the frequency understood before drawing conclusions. frequently and for shorter time periods ranges of their vocalization types, the The Navy Study Area covers a broad than surface ship and aircraft MF frequency range of TTS from MFAS (the area off of Hawaii and Southern systems, so TTS from these sources is source from which TTS would most California, and the Navy has tried to even less likely). TTS from explosives likely be sustained because the higher find density estimates for this entire would be broadband. source level and slower attenuation area, where appropriate given species 2. Degree of the shift (i.e., by how make it more likely that an animal distributions. However, only a small many dB the sensitivity of the hearing would be exposed to a higher received number of Navy training and testing is reduced)—Generally, both the degree level) would not usually span the entire activities occur outside of the U.S. EEZ. of TTS and the duration of TTS will be frequency range of one vocalization Because of the differences in the greater if the marine mammal is exposed type, much less span all types of availability of data in the U.S. EEZ to a higher level of energy (which would vocalizations or other critical auditory versus outside (which results in more occur when the peak dB level is higher cues. If impaired, marine mammals accurate density and abundance or the duration is longer). The threshold would typically be aware of their estimates inside the U.S. EEZ) and the for the onset of TTS was discussed impairment and would sometimes able fact that activities and takes are more previously in this proposed rule. An to implement behaviors to compensate concentrated in the U.S. EEZ, NMFS animal would have to approach closer (see Acoustic Masking or chose to look at how estimated to the source or remain in the vicinity Communication Impairment section), instances of take compare to predicted of the sound source appreciably longer though these compensations may incur abundance both within the U.S. EEZ to increase the received SEL, which energetic costs. and across the entire study area to help would be difficult considering the Therefore, even though the models better understand, at least in a relative Lookouts and the nominal speed of an show that the affected species and sense, what the estimated instances of active sonar vessel (10–15 kn). In the stocks will experience Level B

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29988 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

harassment at the levels shown in activities are geographically dispersed and stock for which Level A harassment Tables 69–81 and that much of that and last for only a few hours, often with in the form of tissue damage resulting harassment will occur in the form of intermittent sonar use even within this from exposure to explosive detonations TTS, the actual TTS that will result period. Most ASW sonars also have a is estimated to occur. The number of from Navy’s activities is expected to be narrow frequency band (typically less individuals to potentially incur PTS both mild and short-term for the than one-third octave). These factors annually (from sonar and explosives) for majority of exposed animals. While the reduce the likelihood of sources causing the predicted species ranges from 0 to TTS experienced by some animals significant masking in mysticetes. HF 209 (209 for Dall’s porpoise), but is would overlap with the frequency sonars are typically used for mine more typically zero or a few up to 18 ranges of their vocalizations, it is hunting, navigation, and object (with the exception of a few species i.e., unlikely that it would affect all detection, HF (greater than 10 kHz) short-beaked common dolphin, Kogia vocalizations and other critical auditory sonars fall outside of the best hearing whales, Dall’s porpoise, California sea clues, and impaired animals may be and vocalization ranges of mysticetes. lion, and Northern elephant seal). The able to compensate until they have Furthermore, HF (above 10 kHz) number of individuals to potentially recovered. For these reasons, the attenuate more rapidly in the water due incur tissue damage from explosives for majority of the Level B harassment in to absorption than do lower frequency the predicted species ranges from 0 to the form of TTS shown in Tables 69–81 signals, thus producing only a small 10 (10 for short-beaked common is expected to be short-term and not to zone of potential masking. Masking in dolphin and 9 for California sea lion), have significant impacts on affected mysticetes due to exposure to high- but is typically zero in most cases. animals in a manner that would affect frequency sonar is unlikely. Masking Overall the Navy’s model estimated that reproduction or survival. effects from LFAS/MFAS/HFAS are a total 24 marine mammals annually expected to be minimal. If masking or would be exposed to explosives during Acoustic Masking or Communication communication impairment were to training and testing at levels that could Impairment occur briefly, it would be in the result in non-auditory injury. Overall, Masking only occurs during the time frequency range of MFAS, which takes from Level A harassment (PTS and of the signal (and potential secondary overlaps with some marine mammal Tissue Damage) account for less than arrivals of indirect rays), versus TTS, vocalizations; however, it would likely one percent of all total takes. which continues beyond the duration of not mask the entirety of any particular NMFS believes that many marine the signal. Standard MFAS typically vocalization, communication series, or mammals would deliberately avoid pings every 50 seconds for hull- other critical auditory cue, because the exposing themselves to the received mounted sources. Hull-mounted anti- signal length, frequency, and duty cycle levels of active sonar necessary to submarine sonars can also be used in an of the MFAS/HFAS signal does not induce injury by moving away from or object detection mode known as perfectly resemble the characteristics of at least modifying their path to avoid a ‘‘Kingfisher’’ mode (e.g., used on vessels any marine mammal’s vocalizations. close approach. Additionally, in the when transiting to and from port), pulse Masking could occur in mysticetes due unlikely event that an animal length is shorter, but pings are much to the overlap between their low- approaches the sonar-emitting vessel at closer together in both time and space, frequency vocalizations and the a close distance, NMFS believes that the since the vessel goes slower when dominant frequencies of air gun pulses. mitigation measures (i.e., shutdown/ operating in this mode. For the majority However, masking in odontocetes or powerdown zones for active sonar) of sources, the pulse length is pinnipeds is less likely unless the air would typically ensure that animals significantly shorter than hull-mounted gun activity is in close range when the would not be exposed to injurious levels active sonar, on the order of several pulses are more broadband. Masking is of sound. Some, but likely not all, of the microseconds to tens of microseconds. more likely to occur in the presence of anticipated avoidance and mitigation For hull-mounted active sonar, though broadband, relatively continuous noise has been accounted for in the Navy’s some of the vocalizations that marine sources such as during vibratory pile quantitative assessment of mitigation— mammals make are less than one second driving and from vessels. The other regardless we analyze the impacts of long, there is only a 1 in 50 chance that sources used in Navy training and those potential takes in case they should they would occur exactly when the ping testing, many of either higher occur. As discussed previously, the was received, and when vocalizations frequencies (meaning that the sounds Navy utilizes both aerial (when are longer than one second, only parts generated attenuate even closer to the available) and passive acoustic of them are masked. Alternately, when source) or lower amounts of operation, monitoring (during ASW exercises— the pulses are only several are similarly not expected to result in passive acoustic detections are used as microseconds long, the majority of most masking. For the reasons described here, a cue for Lookouts’ visual observations animals’ vocalizations would not be any limited masking that could when passive acoustic assets are already masked. potentially occur would be minor and participating in an activity) in addition Most ASW sonars and short-term and not expected to have to lookouts on vessels to detect marine countermeasures use MF frequencies adverse impacts on reproductive mammals for mitigation and a few use LF and HF frequencies. success or survivorship. implementation. Most of these sonar signals are limited If a marine mammal is able to in the temporal, frequency, and spatial PTS From Sonar Acoustic Sources and approach a surface vessel within the domains. The duration of most Explosives and Tissue Damage From distance necessary to incur PTS, the individual sounds is short, lasting up to Explosives likely speed of the vessel (nominally a few seconds each. Very few systems Tables 69–81 indicate the number of 10–15 kn) would make it very difficult operate with higher duty cycles or individuals of each species and stock for for the animal to remain in range long nearly continuously, but typically use which Level A harassment in the form enough to accumulate enough energy to lower power. Nevertheless, masking of PTS resulting from exposure to active result in more than a mild case of PTS. may be more prevalent at closer ranges sonar and/or explosives is estimated to As mentioned previously and in relation to these high-duty cycle and continuous occur. Tables 69–81 also indicate the to TTS, the likely consequences to the active sonar systems. Most ASW number of individuals of each species health of an individual that incurs PTS

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29989

can range from mild to more serious significant or long-term impacts on time, and is the product of factors dependent upon the degree of PTS and affected animals in a manner that would relating to the minimum population the frequency band it is in, and many affect reproduction or survival. estimate of the stock (Nmin); the animals are able to compensate for the productivity rate of the stock at a small Serious Injury and Mortality shift, although it may include energetic population size; and a recovery factor. costs. We also assume that the acoustic NMFS proposes to authorize a very Determination of appropriate values for exposures sufficient to trigger onset PTS small number of serious injuries or these three elements incorporates (or TTS) would be accompanied by mortalities that could occur in the event significant precaution, such that physiological stress responses, although of a ship strike or as a result of marine application of the parameter to the the sound characteristics that correlate mammal exposure to explosive management of marine mammal stocks with specific stress responses in marine detonations. We note here that the takes may be reasonably certain to achieve the mammals are poorly understood. As from potential ship strikes or explosive goals of the MMPA. For example, discussed above for Behavioral exposures enumerated below could calculation of Nmin incorporates the Harassment, we would not expect the result in non-serious injury, but their precision and variability associated with Navy’s generally short-term, worse potential outcome (mortality) is abundance information and is intended intermittent, and (in the case of sonar) analyzed for the purposes of the to provide reasonable assurance that the transitory activities to create conditions negligible impact determination. stock size is equal to or greater than the of long-term, continuous noise leading In addition, we discuss here the estimate (Barlow et al., 1995). In to long-term physiological stress connection between the mechanisms for general, the three factors are developed responses in marine mammals. authorizing incidental take under on a stock-specific basis in For explosive activities, the Navy section 101(a)(5) for activities, such as consideration of one another in order to implements mitigation measures Navy’s testing and training in the HSTT produce conservative PBR values that (described in Proposed Mitigation Study Area, and for authorizing appropriately account for both Measures) during explosive activities, incidental take from commercial imprecision that may be estimated, as including delaying detonations when a fisheries. In 1988, Congress amended well as potential bias stemming from marine mammal is observed in the the MMPA’s provisions for addressing lack of knowledge (Wade, 1998). mitigation zone. Observing for marine incidental take of marine mammals in PBR can be used as a consideration of mammals during the explosive activities commercial fishing operations. Congress the effects of M/SI on a marine mammal will include aerial and passive acoustic directed NMFS to develop and stock but was applied specifically to detection methods (when they are recommend a new long-term regime to work within the management available and part of the activity) before govern such incidental taking (see framework for commercial fishing the activity begins, in order to cover the MMC, 1994). The need to develop a incidental take. PBR cannot be applied mitigation zones that can range from system suited to the unique appropriately outside of the section 118 200 yds (183 m) to 2,500 yds (2,286 m) circumstances of commercial fishing regulatory framework for which it was depending on the source (e.g., explosive operations led NMFS to suggest a new designed without consideration of how sonobuoy, explosive torpedo, explosive conceptual means and associated it applies in section 118 and how other bombs) and 2.5 nmi for sinking exercise regulatory framework. That concept, statutory management frameworks in (see Tables 48–55). Potential Biological Removal (PBR), and the MMPA differ. PBR was not designed Nearly all explosive events will occur a system for developing plans as an absolute threshold limiting during daylight hours to improve the containing regulatory and voluntary commercial fisheries, but rather as a sightability of marine mammals measures to reduce incidental take for means to evaluate the relative impacts improving mitigation effectiveness. The fisheries that exceed PBR were of those activities on marine mammal proposed mitigation is expected to incorporated as sections 117 and 118 in stocks. Even where commercial fishing reduce the likelihood that all of the the 1994 amendments to the MMPA. is causing M/SI at levels that exceed proposed takes will occur. Some, PBR is defined in the MMPA (16 PBR, the fishery is not suspended. though likely not all, of that reduction U.S.C. 1362(20)) as ‘‘the maximum When M/SI exceeds PBR, NMFS may was quantified in the Navy’s number of animals, not including develop a take reduction plan, usually quantitative assessment of mitigation; natural mortalities, that may be removed with the assistance of a take reduction however, we analyze the type and from a marine mammal stock while team. The take reduction plan will amount of Level A take indicated in allowing that stock to reach or maintain include measures to reduce and/or Tables 41 and 42. Generally speaking, its optimum sustainable population’’ minimize the taking of marine mammals the number and degree of potential (OSP) and is a measure to be considered by commercial fisheries to a level below injury are low. when evaluating the effects of M/SI on the stock’s PBR. That is, where the total Therefore, given that the numbers of a marine mammal species or stock. OSP annual human-caused M/SI exceeds anticipated injury in the form of PTS or is defined by the MMPA (16 U.S.C. PBR, NMFS is not required to halt tissue damage are very low (<18 or 1362(9)) as ‘‘the number of animals fishing activities contributing to total single digits, respectively), for any given which will result in the maximum M/SI but rather utilizes the take stock, with the exception of a few productivity of the population or the reduction process to further mitigate the species, and the severity of these species, keeping in mind the carrying effects of fishery activities via additional impacts are expected to be on the less capacity of the habitat and the health of bycatch reduction measures. PBR is not severe end of what could potentially the ecosystem of which they form a used to grant or deny authorization of occur because of the factors described constituent element.’’ A primary goal of commercial fisheries that may above, as well as the fact that any PTS the MMPA is to ensure that each species incidentally take marine mammals. incurred may overlap with the or stock of marine mammal is Similarly, to the extent consideration frequency ranges of their vocalizations, maintained at or returned to its OSP. of PBR may be relevant to considering but is unlikely to affect all vocalizations PBR values are calculated by NMFS as the impacts of incidental take from and other critical auditory clues, the the level of annual removal from a stock activities other than commercial Level A harassment shown in Tables that will allow that stock to equilibrate fisheries, using it as the sole reason to 69–81 is not expected to have within OSP at least 95 percent of the deny incidental take authorization for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29990 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

those activities would be inconsistent decreasing, stable, or unknown, the size impact on the species or stock. This with Congress’s intent under section and distribution of the population, and 10% was identified as a workload 101(a)(5) and the use of PBR under existing impacts and environmental simplification consideration to avoid section 118. The standard for conditions. To specifically use PBR, the need to provide unnecessary authorizing incidental take under along with other factors, to evaluate the additional information when the section 101(a)(5) continues to be, among effects of M/SI, we first calculate a conclusion is relatively obvious, but as other things, whether the total taking metric for each species or stock that described above, values above 10 will have a negligible impact on the incorporates information regarding percent have no particular significance species or stock. When Congress ongoing anthropogenic M/SI into the associated with them until and unless amended the MMPA in 1994 to add PBR value (i.e., PBR minus the total they approach residual PBR. section 118 for commercial fishing, it annual anthropogenic mortality/serious Our evaluation of the M/SI for each of did not alter the standards for injury estimate), which is called the species and stocks for which authorizing non-commercial fishing ‘‘residual PBR.’’ (Wood et al., 2012). We mortality could occur follows. In incidental take under section 101(a)(5), then consider how the anticipated addition, all mortality authorized for acknowledging that negligible impact potential incidental M/SI from the some of the same species or stocks over under section 101(a)(5) is a separate activities being evaluated compares to the next several years pursuant to our standard from PBR under section 118. In residual PBR. Anticipated or potential final rulemaking for the NMFS fact, in 1994 Congress also amended M/SI that exceeds residual PBR is Southwest and Pacific Islands Fisheries section 101(a)(5)(E) (a separate considered to have a higher likelihood Science Centers has been incorporated provision governing commercial fishing of adversely affecting rates of into the residual PBR. incidental take for species listed under recruitment or survival, while We first consider maximum potential the Endangered Species Act) to add anticipated M/SI that is equal to or less incidental M/SI from Navy’s ship strike compliance with the new section 118 than residual PBR has a lower analysis for the affected mysticetes and but kept the requirement for a negligible likelihood (both examples given without sperm whales (see Table 67) and from impact finding, showing that the consideration of other types of take, the Navy’s explosive detonations for determination of negligible impact and which also obviously factor into a California sea lions and short-beaked application of PBR may share certain negligible impact determination). In common dolphin (see Table 68) in features but are different. such cases where the anticipated M/SI consideration of NMFS’s threshold for Since the introduction of PBR, NMFS is near, at, or above PBR, consideration identifying insignificant M/SI take (10 has used the concept almost entirely of other factors, including those percent of residual PBR (69 FR 43338; within the context of implementing outlined above as well as mitigation and July 20, 2004)). By considering the maximum potential incidental M/SI in sections 117 and 118 and other other factors (positive or negative), is relation to PBR and ongoing sources of commercial fisheries management- especially important to assessing anthropogenic mortality, we begin our related provisions of the MMPA. The whether the M/SI will have a negligible evaluation of whether the potential MMPA requires that PBR be estimated impact on the stock. As described incremental addition of M/SI through in stock assessment reports and that it above, PBR is a conservative metric and Navy’s ship strikes and explosive be used in applications related to the is not intended to be used as a solid cap detonations may affect the species’ or management of take incidental to on mortality—accordingly, impacts from stocks’ annual rates of recruitment or commercial fisheries (i.e., the take M/SI that exceed PBR may still reduction planning process described in survival. We also consider the potentially be found to be negligible in section 118 of the MMPA and the interaction of those mortalities with light of other factors that offset concern, determination of whether a stock is incidental taking of that species or stock especially when robust mitigation and ‘‘strategic’’ (16 U.S.C. 1362(19))), but by harassment pursuant to the specified adaptive management provisions are nothing in the MMPA requires the activity. included. application of PBR outside the Based on the methods discussed management of commercial fisheries Alternately, for a species or stock with previously, NMFS believes that mortal interactions with marine mammals. incidental M/SI less than 10 percent of takes of three large whales over the Nonetheless, NMFS recognizes that as residual PBR, we consider M/SI from course of the five-year rule, with no a quantitative metric, PBR may be useful the specified activities to represent an more than two from any of the following in certain instances as a consideration insignificant incremental increase in species/stocks over the five-year period: when evaluating the impacts of other ongoing anthropogenic M/SI that alone Gray whale (Eastern North Pacific human-caused activities on marine (i.e., in the absence of any other take) stock), fin whale (CA/OR/WA stock), mammal stocks. Outside the commercial cannot affect annual rates of recruitment humpback whale (CA/OR/WA stock or fishing context, and in consideration of and survival. In a prior incidental take Mexico DPS), humpback whale (Central all known human-caused mortality, PBR rulemaking and in the commercial Pacific stock or Hawaii DPS) and sperm can help inform the potential effects of fishing context, this threshold is whale (Hawaiian stock). Of the mortal M/SI caused by activities authorized identified as the significance threshold, takes of three large whales that could under 101(a)(5)(A) on marine mammal but it is more accurately an occur, no more than one mortality stocks. As noted by NMFS and the insignificance threshold outside would occur from any of the following USFWS in our implementation commercial fishing because it represents species/stocks over the five-year period: regulations for the 1986 amendments to the level at which there is no need to Blue whale (Eastern North Pacific the MMPA (54 FR 40341, September 29, consider other factors in determining stock), Bryde’s whale (Eastern Tropical 1989), the Services consider many the role of M/SI in affecting rates of Pacific stock), Bryde’s whale (Hawaiian factors, when available, in making a recruitment and survival. Assuming that stock), humpback whale (CA/OR/WA negligible impact determination, any additional incidental take by stock or Central America DPS), minke including, but not limited to, the status harassment would not exceed the whale (CA/OR/WA stock), minke whale of the species or stock relative to OSP negligible impact level, the anticipated (Hawaiian stock), sperm whale (CA/OR/ (if known), whether the recruitment rate M/SI caused by the activities being WA stock), sei whale (Hawaiian stock), for the species or stock is increasing, evaluated would have a negligible and sei whale (Eastern North Pacific

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29991

stock). The Navy is not requesting, and average of 0.2 whales from each species The Navy has also requested a small we do not anticipate, ship strike takes or stock where one mortality may occur number of takes by serious injury or to blue whale (Central North Pacific or an annual average of 0.4 whales from mortality from explosives. To calculate stock), fin whale (Hawaiian stock), and each species or stock where two the annual average of mortalities for gray whale (Western North Pacific mortalities may occur as described in explosives in Table 68 we used the same stock) due to their relatively low Table 67 (i.e., 1 or 2 takes over 5 years method as described for vessel strikes. occurrence in the Study Area, in divided by 5 to get the annual number) The annual average is the number of particular core HSTT training and is proposed for authorization. takes divided by five years to get the testing subareas. This means an annual annual number. TABLE 67—SUMMARY INFORMATION RELATED TO MORTALITIES REQUESTED FOR SHIP STRIKE, 2018–2023

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

Fin whale (CA/OR/WA) ...... 9,029 0.4 ≥2.0 Y; ≥2.0 ...... 1.8 81 78 ↑ N Gray whale (Eastern N Pa- 20,990 0.4 132 4.25...... 2.0 624 492 Stable N cific). since 2003 Humpback whale (CA/OR,WA 1,918 0.4 ≥6.5 Y; ≥5.3 ...... 1.0 11.0 4.5 ↑ N stock or Mexico DPS). Humpback whale (Central 10,103 0.4 24 Y; 7.4...... 4.7 83 59 ↑ N North Pacific stock or Ha- waii DPS). Sperm whale (Hawaiian stock) 3,354 0.4 0.7 0.7 ...... 0 10.2 9.5 ? N Blue whale (Eastern North Pa- 1,647 0.2 0.9 0...... 0.9 2.3 1.4 stable Y; 3, 2007. cific stock). Bryde’s whale (Eastern Trop- unknown 0.2 0.2 unknown...... 0.2 undet NA ? N ical Pacific stock). Bryde’s whale (Hawaiian 798 0.2 0 0...... 0 6.3 6.3 ? N stock). Humpback whale (CA/OR/WA 1,918 0.4 ≥6.5 Y; ≥5.3 ...... 1.0 11.0 4.5 ↑ N stock or Central America DPS). Minke whale (CA/OR/WA 636 0.2 ≥1.3 ≥1.3 ...... 0 3.5 2.2 ? N stock). Minke whale (Hawaiian stock) unknown 0.2 0 0 ...... 0 undet NA ? N Sperm whale (CA/OR/WA 2,106 0.2 1.7 1.7...... 0 2.7 1.0 ? N stock). Sei whale (Hawaiian stock) .... 178 0.2 0.2 0.2 ...... 0 0.2 0 ? N Sei whale (Eastern N Pacific 519 0.2 0 0...... 0 0.75 0.75 ? N stock). * Presented in the SARS. 1 This column represent the annual take by serious injury or mortality by vessel collision and was calculated by the number of mortalities proposed for authorization divided by five years (the length of the rule and LOAs). 2 This column represents the total number of incidents of M/SI that could potentially accrue to the specified species or stock. This number comes from the SAR, but deducts the takes accrued from either Navy strikes or SWFSC takes to ensure not double-counted against PBR. However, for these species, there were no takes from either Navy or SWFSC to deduct that would be considered double-counting. 3 This value represents the calculated PBR less the average annual estimate of ongoing anthropogenic mortalities (i.e., total annual human-caused M/SI, which is presented in the SARs). 4 See relevant SARs for more information regarding stock status and trends.

The following species are being common dolphins over the 5-year common dolphin) are described in requested for mortality takes from period (therefore 0.8 mortalities Table 68. explosions. A total of 10 mortalities: 4 annually for California sea lions and 1.2 California sea lions and 6 short-beaked mortalities annually for short-beaked TABLE 68—SUMMARY INFORMATION RELATED TO MORTALITIES FROM EXPLOSIVES, 2018–2023

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

California sea lion (U.S.) ...... 296,750 0.8 385 Y; 331 ...... 9,200 6.6 8,808.4 ↑ Y Short-beaked common dolphin 969,861 1.2 ≥40 Y; ≥40 ...... 8,393 2.8 8,350.2 ? N (CA/OR/WA). * Presented in the SARS. 1 This column represents the annual take by serious injury or mortality during explosive detonations and was calculated by the number of mortalities proposed for authorization divided by five years (the length of the rule and LOAs).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29992 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

2 This column represents the total number of incidents of M/SI that could potentially accrue to the specified species or stock. This number comes from the SAR, but deducts the takes accrued from either Navy or NMFS’s Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) rulemaking/LOAs takes to ensure not double-counted against PBR. 3 This column represents annual take authorized for NMFS’s 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, which is presented in the SARs). 5 See relevant SARs for more information regarding stock status and trends.

Species With M/SI Below the (including acoustic pingers) to reduce Guard, California Department of Fish Insignificance Threshold bycatch and incidental serious injury and Game, and U.S. Navy chartered and mortality of sperm whales, and aircraft. Information on seasonal As noted above, for a species or stock other whales in the CA/OR swordfish presence, movement and general with incidental M/SI less than 10 drift gillnet fishery. There have been distribution patterns of large whales is percent of residual PBR, we consider few observed interactions with sperm shared with mariners, NMFS Office of M/SI from the specified activities to whales since the fishery was observed, Protected Resources, U.S. Coast Guard, represent an insignificant incremental both pre and post-take reduction plan, California Department of Fish and increase in ongoing anthropogenic M/SI however, pingers are within the hearing Game, the Santa Barbara Museum of that alone (i.e., in the absence of any range of sperm whales, and we can infer Natural History, the Marine Exchange of other take) cannot affect annual rates of that they may play a part in reducing Southern California, and whale recruitment and survival. There are no sperm whale interactions in this fishery. scientists. Real time and historical known factors that could affect a species This information will be considered in whale observation data collected from or stock to the point where anticipated combination with our assessment of the multiple sources can be viewed on the M/SI below the insignificance threshold impacts of harassment takes later in the Point Blue Whale Database. This could have effects on annual rates of section. information will be considered in recruitment or survival. In this case, as combination with our assessment of the shown in Table 67, the following Blue Whale (Eastern North Pacific Stock) impacts of harassment takes later in the species or stocks have anticipated, and section. proposed authorized, M/SI below their For blue whales (Eastern North Pacific insignificance threshold and, therefore, stock), PBR is currently set at 2.3 and Sei Whale (Eastern North Pacific Stock) additional factors are not discussed: Fin the total annual M/SI of 0.9 yielding a For sei whales (Eastern North Pacific whale (CA/OR/WA), gray whale residual PBR of 1.4. The M/SI value stock) PBR is currently set at 0.75 and (Eastern North Pacific), Humpback includes incidental fishery interaction the total annual M/SI is 0 yielding a whale (CA/OR/WA stock or Mexico records of 0, and records of vessel residual PBR of 0.75. The M/SI value DPS), humpback whale (Central Pacific collisions of 0.9. The proposed includes incidental fishery interaction stock or Hawaii DPS), sperm whale authorization of 0.2 represents 14 records of 0, and records of vessel (Hawaiian stock), Bryde’s whale percent of residual PBR. Because this collisions of 0. The proposed (Hawaiian stock), humpback whale (CA/ value is not close to, at, or exceeding authorization of 0.2 mortalities annually OR/WA stock or Central America DPS), residual PBR, it means that the represents 26 percent of residual PBR. minke whale (CA/OR/WA stock), proposed M/SI is not expected to result Because this value is not close to, at, or California sea lion (U.S.), and short- in more than a negligible impact on this exceeding residual PBR, it means that beaked common dolphin (CA/OR/WA stock, however, we still address other the proposed M/SI is not expected to stock). For the remaining six stocks with factors, where available. We note that result in more than a negligible impact anticipated potential M/SI, how that the Eastern North Pacific blue whale on this stock. This information will be M/SI compares to residual PBR, as well stock is considered stable. considered in combination with our as additional factors, as appropriate, are In regard to mitigation that may lessen assessment of the impacts of harassment discussed below. other human-caused mortality in the takes later in the section. future, NOAA is currently Sperm Whale (California, Oregon, implementing marine mammal take Sei Whale (Hawaiian Stock) Washington Stock) reduction measures as identified in the For sei whales (Hawaiian stock) PBR For sperm whales (CA/OR/WA stock), Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take is currently set at 0.2 and the total PBR is currently 2.7 and the total annual Reduction Plan (including the use of annual M/SI is 0.2 yielding a residual M/SI is 1.7 and yields a residual PBR of acoustic pingers) to reduce the bycatch PBR of 0. The M/SI value includes 1.0. The M/SI value includes incidental of blue whales and other marine incidental fishery interaction records of fishery interaction records of 1.7, and mammals. In addition, the Channel 0.2, and records of vessel collisions of records of vessel collisions of 0. The Islands NMS staff coordinates, collects 0. The proposed authorization of 0.2 proposed authorization of 0.2 and monitors whale sightings in and mortalities is above residual PBR (by mortalities represents 20 percent of around the Whale Advisory Zone and 0.2). We note, however, that this stock residual PBR. Because this value is not the Channel Islands NMS region. The occurs within the Hawaiian Islands EEZ close to, at, or exceeding residual PBR, seasonally established Whale Advisory and in adjacent high seas waters; it means that the proposed M/SI is not Zone spans from Point Arguello to Dana however, because data on abundance, expected to result in more than a Point, including the Traffic Separation distribution, and human-caused impacts negligible impact on this stock, Schemes in the Santa Barbara Channel are largely lacking for high seas waters, however, we still address other factors, and San Pedro Channel. Vessels the status of this stock is evaluated where available. In regard to mitigation transiting the area from June through based on data from U.S. EEZ waters measures that may lessen other human- November are recommended to exercise (NMFS 2005). If the higher number of caused mortality in the future, NOAA is caution and voluntarily reduce speed to whales in the high seas (which are currently implementing marine 10 kn or less for blue, humpback and fin uncounted) are considered in mammal take reduction measures as whales. Channel Island NMS observers combination with the lower likely identified in the Pacific Offshore collect information from aerial surveys numbers of mortality in the high seas Cetacean Take Reduction Plan conducted by NOAA, the U.S. Coast (since the only known mortality is from

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29993

fishery interaction, which occurs M/SI value includes incidental fishery occur from exposures to sonar and other predominantly in the U.S. EEZ), then interaction records of 0, and records of active acoustic sources and explosions the current PBR is likely overly vessel collisions of 0. Given the fact that during the five-year training and testing conservative in the context of M/SI this stock contains animals that reside period are shown in Tables 41 and 42. takes that could occur in or outside of both within and outside the U.S. EEZ (a The vast majority of predicted the U.S. EEZ. Additionally, as noted in very large range) and there is no known exposures (greater than 99 percent) are the discussion above, PBR is a M/SI, it is unlikely that the addition of expected to be Level B harassment (non- conservative metric that is not intended 0.2 annual mortality would result in injurious TTS and behavioral reactions) to serve as an absolute cap on more than a negligible impact on this from acoustic and explosive sources authorized mortality, one mortality is stock. This information will be during training and testing activities at the smallest amount that could possibly considered in combination with our relatively low received levels. occur in a five-year period, and when assessment of the impacts of harassment The analysis below may in some cases this fractional addition is considered in takes later in the section. (e.g., mysticetes, porpoises, pinnipeds) the context of barely exceeding residual Group and Species-Specific Analysis address species collectively if they PBR, any impacts on the stock are not occupy the same functional hearing expected to be more than negligible. In the discussions below, the group (i.e., low, mid, and high- ‘‘acoustic analysis’’ refers to the Navy’s This information will be considered in frequency cetaceans and pinnipeds in analysis, which includes the use of combination with our assessment of the water), have similar hearing capabilities, several models and other applicable impacts of harassment takes later in the and/or are known to generally calculations as described in the section. behaviorally respond similarly to Estimated Take of Marine Mammals acoustic stressors. Animals belonging to Bryde’s Whale (Eastern Tropical Pacific section. The quantitative analysis each stock within a species would have Stock) process used for the HSTT DEIS/OEIS the same hearing capabilities and For Bryde’s whales (Eastern Tropical and the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA behaviorally respond in the same Pacific stock) PBR is currently application to estimate potential manner as animals in other stocks undetermined and the total annual exposures to marine mammals resulting within the species. Therefore, our M/SI is 0.2. Therefore, residual PBR is from acoustic and explosive stressors is analysis below also considers the effects unknown. The M/SI value includes detailed in the technical report titled of Navy’s activities on each affected incidental fishery interaction records Quantifying Acoustic Impacts on stock. Where there are meaningful which are unknown, and records of Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles: differences between species or stocks in vessel collisions are 0.2. The total Methods and Analytical Approach for anticipated individual responses to human-caused mortality is very low and Phase III Training and Testing report activities, impact of expected take on the Navy’s activities would add a (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017b). the population due to differences in fractional amount. Given the fact that The Navy Acoustic Effects Model population status, or impacts on habitat, this stock contains animals that reside estimates acoustic and explosive effects they will either be described within the both within and outside the U.S. EEZ (a without taking mitigation into account. section or the species will be included very large range) and there known M/SI Therefore, the model overestimates as a separate sub-section. of only 0.2, it is unlikely that the predicted impacts on marine mammals addition of 0.2 annual mortality would within mitigation zones. To account for Mysticetes result in more than a negligible impact mitigation, as well as avoidance, for In Table 69 and Table 70 below, for on this stock. This information will be marine mammals, the Navy developed a mysticetes, we indicate the total annual considered in combination with our methodology to conservatively quantify mortality, Level A and Level B assessment of the impacts of harassment the likely degree that mitigation and harassment, and a number indicating takes later in the section. avoidance will reduce model-estimated PTS to TTS for exposures to sonar and the instances of total take as a Minke Whale (Hawaiian Stock) other transducers, and reduce model- percentage of abundance. Overall, takes For minke whales (Hawaiian stock) estimated mortality and injury for from Level A harassment (PTS and PBR is currently undetermined and the exposures to explosives. Tissue Damage) account for less than total annual M/SI is unknown; The amount and type of incidental one percent of all total takes. therefore, residual PBR is unknown. The take of marine mammals anticipated to BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29994 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

Table 69. Annual takes of Level B and Level A harassment, mortality for mysticetes in the HRC of the HSTT study area and number indicating the instances of total take as a percentage of stock abundance.

level A Instance of total take as level B Harassment Total Takes Abundance Harassment percent of abundance

Total take Mortality TOTAL as EEZ take as Species Takes Total Navy Within TIS (may TAKES percentage percentage Stock Behavioral Tissue (within Abundance Navy EEZ also include PTS (entire of total ofEEZ Navy EEZ Disturbance Damage NAVY in and out Abundance disturbance) Study Navy abundance location (HRC) EEZ) EEZ (HRC) HRC Area) abundance (HRC) (HRC)

Blue whale Central North 15 33 0 0 0 48 40 43 33 112 121 Pacific (HRC)

Bryde's whale 40 107 0 0 0 147 123 108 89 136 138 Hawaiian (HRC)

Fin whale Hawaiian 21 28 0 0 0 49 41 52 40 94 103 (HRC) Humpback whale Central North 2838 6290 5 0 0 9133 7389 5078 4595 180 161 Pacific (HRC) Minke whale Hawaiian 1233 3697 2 0 0 4932 4030 3652 2835 135 142 (HRC) Sei whale Hawaiian 47 121 0 0 0 168 135 138 107 122 126 (HRC) Note: For the Hl take estimates. compare pred1cted takes to abundance estJmates generated !rom the same underlymg denstty estimates, both in and outside ofthe EEL Because the portion of the action area inside the U.S. EEZ generally concomitant with the study 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 there is no need to separately compare the take to the SARs abundance estimate.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.099 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29995

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 70). Alternately when compared to the for any individual would be relatively Of these species, blue whale, fin abundance estimates within the Navy’s low and unlikely to result in fitness whale, sei whale, humpback whale (CA/ SOCAL action area, based on static effects that would impact reproductive OR/WA stock) and gray whale (Western density estimates, the percentages range success or survival. North Pacific stock) are listed as from 0 to 3,154, suggesting that if any Most Level B harassments to endangered under the ESA and depleted of these exposed individuals remained mysticetes from hull-mounted sonar under the MMPA. NMFS is currently in the action area the whole year, they (MF1) in the HSTT Study Area would engaged in an internal Section 7 might be taken on average on 32 days result from received levels between 154 consultation under the ESA and the in a year. Although we generally do not and 172 dB SPL (62 percent). As outcome of that consultation will expect individuals to remain in the mentioned earlier in this section, we further inform our final decision. action area for the whole year (or to anticipate more severe effects from takes Of the total instances of all of the accrue take over this many days), these when animals are exposed to higher different types of takes, the numbers numbers do suggest that individuals received levels. Comparatively minor to indicating the instances of total take as residing in the action area for some potentially moderate behavioral a percentage of abundance for amount of time could accrue take on reactions are unlikely to cause long-term mysticetes ranges from 94 to 180 more than the average one or two days consequences for individual animals or percent for HRC stocks (blue, Bryde’s, per year. Effects are such that these populations, and even if some smaller fin, humpback minke and sei whales), averages allow that perhaps a smaller subset of the takes are in the form of a suggesting that most individuals are subset is taken with a slightly higher longer (several hours or a day) and more taken in an average of 1 to 2 days per average and larger variability of highs moderate response, because they are not year (Table 69). For SOCAL stocks (blue, and lows, but still with no reason to expected to be repeated over sequential Bryde’s, fin, humpback, minke, sei, and think that any individuals would be multiple days, impacts to individual gray whales), the percentages as taken every day for weeks or months out fitness are not anticipated. Also, as compared to the abundances across the of the year, much less on sequential noted in the Potential Effects section, U.S. EEZ stock range (Predicted in the days. These behavioral takes are while there are multiple examples from SAR) are between 4 and 146, suggesting expected to be of a milder to potentially behavioral response studies of that across these wide-ranging stocks moderate intensity and are not likely to odontocetes ceasing their feeding dives individuals are taken on average on occur over sequential days, which when exposed to sonar pulses at certain between 0 and 2 days per year (Table suggests that the overall scale of impacts levels, but alternately, blue whales were

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.100 29996 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

less likely to show a visible response to mysticetes may avoid larger activities Diego Arc Mitigation Area from June 1 sonar exposures at certain levels when such as a MTE as it moves through an through October 31 to protect blue feeding then they have been observed area, although these activities generally whales. The San Diego Arc overlaps the responding to when traveling. do not use the same training locations San Diego Blue Whale Feeding Area Research and observations show that day-after-day during multi-day (BIA) (see also the HSTT DEIS/OEIS if mysticetes are exposed to sonar or activities. Therefore, displaced animals Section K.4 (BIAs within the SOCAL other active acoustic sources they may could return quickly after the MTE Portion of the HSTT Study Area for blue react in a number of ways depending on finishes. Due to the limited number and whale feeding areas)). In the San Diego the characteristics of the sound source, broad geographic scope of MTEs, it is Arc Mitigation Area the Navy will not their experience with the sound source, unlikely that most mysticetes would exceed 200 hrs of MFAS sensor MF1 use and whether they are migrating or on encounter a major training exercise ((with the exception of active sonar seasonal grounds (i.e., breeding or multiple times per year when transiting maintenance and systems checks) feeding). Behavioral reactions may through the area. In the ocean, the use between June 1 and October 31 include alerting, breaking off feeding of sonar and other active acoustic annually. Additionally, in the San Diego dives and surfacing, diving or sources is transient and is unlikely to Arc Mitigation Area, the Navy will not swimming away, or no response at all expose individuals repeatedly over a use explosives during large-caliber (Richardson, 1995; Nowacek, 2007; short period except around homeports gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and missile Southall et al., 2007; Finneran and and fixed instrumented ranges. (including 2.75 in rockets) activities Jenkins, 2012). Overall, mysticetes have However, the more impactful training during training or testing. been observed to be more reactive to exercises that result in higher numbers In addition, the Navy will implement acoustic disturbance when a noise or more severe forms of take do not the Santa Barbara Island Mitigation Area sources is located directly on their occur around homeports. While training year-round for the protection of blue, migration route. Mysticetes disturbed exercises may be concentrated in fin, and gray whales (and other marine while migrating could pause their instrumented ranges, they are large mammals) within that portion of the migration or route around the areas, and in most cases the animals are Channel Islands NMS. The Santa disturbance. Although they may pause not limited to those areas and the Barbara Island Mitigation Area will temporarily, they will resume migration numbers in the analysis above do not partially protect the identified shortly after. Animals disturbed while suggest that any individual mysticetes important feeding area, San Nicolas engaged in other activities such as are being exposed to levels above the Island for blue whales. The Navy will feeding or reproductive behaviors may Level B harassment threshold within restrict the use of MFAS sensor MF1 be more likely to ignore or tolerate the more than than maybe 20–30 days at and explosives used in gunnery (all disturbance and continue their natural most over the course of a year. calibers), torpedo, bombing, and missile behavior patterns. Therefore, most The implementation of mitigation and exercises (including 2.75 in rockets) behavioral takes of mysticetes are likely the sightability of mysticetes (due to during unit-level training and MTEs. to be short-term and low to moderate their large size) and therefore higher The Navy will implement mitigation severity. likelihood that shutdown and other areas that will avoid or reduce impacts While MTEs may have a longer mitigation measures will be effective for to mysticetes and where BIAs for large duration, they are not concentrated in these species and reduces the potential whales have been identified in the HRC small geographic areas over that time for a more significant behavioral portion of the HSTT Study Area as period. MTES use hundreds of square reaction or a threshold shift to occur described below. miles of ocean space during the course (which would be more likely within the In the 4-Islands Region Mitigation of the event. For example, Goldbogen et shutdown zone, were the mitigation not Area, the Navy will not use MFAS al. (2013) indicated some horizontal implemented). As noted previously, sensor MF1 during training or testing displacement of deep foraging blue when an animal incurs a threshold shift, activities from November 15 through whales in response to simulated MFA it occurs in the frequency from that of April 15. Since 2009, the Navy has sonar. Given these animals’ mobility the source up to one octave above—this adhered to a Humpback Whale and large ranges, we would expect these means that threshold shift caused by Cautionary Area as a mitigation area individuals to temporarily select Navy sonar sources will typically occur within the Hawaiian Islands Humpback alternative foraging sites nearby until in the range of 2–20 kHz, and if Whale NMS an area identified as having the exposure levels in their initially resulting from hull-mounted sonar, will one of the highest concentrations of selected foraging area have decreased. be in the range of 3.5–7 kHz. The humpback whales, with calves, during Therefore, temporary displacement from majority of mysticete vocalizations the critical winter months. As added initially selected foraging habitat is not occur in frequencies below 1 kHz, protection, the Navy proposes to expand expected to impact the fitness of any which means that TTS incurred by the size and extend the season of the individual animals because we would mysticetes will not interfere with current Humpback Whale Cautionary expect suitable foraging to be available conspecific communication. When we Area, renaming this area the 4-Islands in close proximity. look in ocean areas where the Navy has Region Mitigation Area to reflect the Richardson et al. (1995) noted that been intensively training and testing benefits afforded to multiple species. avoidance (temporary displacement of with sonar and other active acoustic The season is currently between an individual from an area) reactions are sources for decades, there is no data December 15 and April 15; the Navy the most obvious manifestations of suggesting any long-term consequences proposes to extend it from November 15 disturbance in marine mammals. to mysticetes from exposure to sonar through April 15 because the peak Avoidance is qualitatively different and other active acoustic sources. humpback whale season has expanded. from the startle or flight response, but The Navy will implement mitigation The size of the 4-Islands Region also differs in the magnitude of the areas that will avoid or reduce impacts Mitigation Area would expand to response (i.e., directed movement, rate to mysticetes and where BIAs for large include an area north of Maui and of travel, etc.). Oftentimes avoidance is whales have been identified in the Molokai and overlaps an area identified temporary, and animals return to the SOCAL portion of the HSTT Study as a BIA for the critically endangered area once the noise has ceased. Some Area. The Navy will implement the San Main Hawaiian Islands insular false

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29997

killer whales (Baird et al., 2015; Van The 4-Islands Region Mitigation Area the Navy’s activities would add a Parijs, 2015) (see Figure 5.4–3, in and the Hawaii Island Mitigation Area fractional amount to these wide-ranging Chapter 5 Mitigation Areas for Marine both also overlap with portions of the stocks. Mammals in the Hawaii Range Complex Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale • As described above, any PTS that of the HSTT DEIS/OEIS). This proposed NMS. It is also of note that Navy may occur is expected to be of a small measure to include the additional area training and testing in the Hawaiian degree, and any TTS of a relatively north of Maui and Molokai for this 4- Islands Humpback Whale NMS will small degree because of the Islands Region Mitigation Area further follow the procedural mitigation unlikelihood that animals would be reduces impacts to humpback whales measure that humpbacks are not close enough for a long enough period (and false killer whales). approached within 100 yds and aircraft of time to incur more severe PTS (from Within the 4-Islands Region operate above 1,000 ft, which further sonar) and the anticipated effectiveness Mitigation Area is the Hawaiian Island lessens the likelihood of ship strike and of mitigation in preventing very close Humpback Whale Reproduction Area behavioral disturbance resulting from exposures for explosives, as discussed BIA (4-Islands Region and Penguin aircraft, respectively. above. Further, as noted above, any Bank). The use of sonar and other The Navy will continue to issue an threshold shift incurred from sonar transducers primarily occur farther annual humpback whale awareness would be in the frequency range of 2– offshore than the designated boundaries notification message to remind ships 20 kHz, which is above the frequency of of the Hawaiian Islands Humpback and aircraft to be extra vigilant during the majority of mysticete vocalizations, Whale Reproduction Area BIA. times of high densities of humpback and therefore would not be expected to Explosive events are typically whales while in transit and to maintain interfere with conspecific conducted in areas that are designated certain distances from animals during communication. for explosive use, which are areas the operation of ships and aircraft. • While the majority of harassment outside of the Hawaiian Islands In summary and as described above, takes are caused by exposure during Humpback Whale Reproduction Area the following factors primarily support ASW activities, the impacts from these BIA. our preliminary determination that the exposures are not expected to be The restrictions on MFAS sensor MF1 impacts resulting from Navy’s activities significant and are generally expected to in this area and the fact that the Navy are not expected to adversely affect the be short-term because (and as discussed does not plan to use any explosives in mysticetes stocks through effects on above): this area means that the number of takes annual rates of recruitment or survival. Æ ASW activities typically involve of humpback whales will be lessened, as • As described in the ‘‘Serious Injury fast-moving assets (relative to marine will their potential severity, in that the or Mortality’’ section above, between mammal swim speeds) and individuals Navy is avoiding exposures in an area zero and two serious injuries or are not expected to be exposed either for and time where they would be more mortalities over the five-year period long periods within a day or over many likely to interfere with cow/calf could occur for large whales (see Tables sequential days. communication or potentially 67) depending on the species. Æ The majority of the harassment heightened impacts on sensitive or Æ Using PBR as a consideration in takes result from hull-mounted sonar naı¨ve individuals (calves). assessing these possible mortalities, the during MTEs. When distance cut offs for The Navy is also proposing an possible mortality for fin whale (CA/ mysticetes are applied, this means that additional mitigation area, the Hawaii OR/WA), gray whale (Eastern North all of the takes from hull-mounted sonar Island Mitigation Area. The Hawaii Pacific stock), humpback whales (CA/ (MF1) result from above exposure 154 Island Mitigation Area would be OR/WA and Central Pacific stocks), dB. However, the majority (e.g., 62 established where year-round, where Bryde’s whale (Hawaiian stock), and percent) of the takes results from the Navy will not use more than 300 hrs Minke whale (CA/OR/WA stock) is exposures below 172 dB. The majority of MFAS sensory MF1 and will not below the insignificance threshold of 10 of the takes are not from higher level exceed 20 hrs of MFAS senory MF4 percent of residual PBR. exposures from which more severe year-round. Also within the Hawaii Æ The possible total mortality for responses would be expected. Island Mitigation Area, the Navy will sperm whale (CA/OR/WA stock), blue Æ As described in more detail above, not use any explosives (e.g., surface-to- whale (Eastern North Pacific Stock) and the scale of effects are such that most surface or air-to-surface missile and sei whales (Eastern North Pacific stock) individuals of the HRC stocks are taken gunnery events, BOMBEX, and mine is below residual PBR. in an average of 1 or 2 days per year and neutralization) during testing and Æ The possible total mortality for sei individuals of the SOCAL stocks are training year-round. Of note here, this whale (Hawaiian stock) is equal to PBR, taken an average of a few days per year, measure would provide additional which places it slightly above residual with the likelihood that some smaller protection in this important PBR because of the other known human subset might be taken in notably more reproductive area for humpback whales, mortality. PBR is a conservative metric than a few days per year, but likely reducing impacts in an area and time that is not intended to serve as an something less than 6–32 days per year, where they would likely be more severe absolute cap on authorized mortality. but, given this number of takes spread if incurred. Separately (and addressed One mortality is the smallest amount across a year and the nature of the more later), these protected areas also that could possibly occur in a five-year Navy’s activities, these takes are not reduce impacts for identified period, and when this fractional expected to typically occur over biologically important areas for addition is considered in the context of sequential days. endangered Main Hawaiian Islands barely exceeding residual PBR, any • The Navy is implementing insular false killer whales, two species impacts on the stock are not expected to mitigation areas that specifically reduce of beaked whales (Cuvier and be more than negligible. or avoid impacts to humpback whales in Blainville’s), dwarf sperm whale, pygmy Æ While residual PBR is not known their important Hawaii calving area and killer whale, melon-headed whale, for minke whales (Hawaiian stock) and blue whales in their California feeding short-finned pilot whale, and dolphin Bryde’s whales (Eastern Tropical Pacific areas, and further reduce impacts over species (Baird et al., 2015; Van Parijs, stock), very little other human-caused all to mysticetes in several other areas, 2015). mortality is known for either stock, and all of which is expected to reduce the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 29998 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

extent, and severity in certain stocks of mysticete whales (Table 69 annual mortality, Level A and Level B circumstances, of impacts to mysticetes. and 70 above in this section). harassment, and a number indicating the instances of total take as a Consequently, the HSTT activities are Sperm Whales not expected to adversely impact rates percentage of abundance. No PTS or of recruitment or survival of any of the In Table 71 and Table 72 below, for tissue damage is anticipated. sperm whales we indicate the total BILLING CODE 3510–22–P the of of of as as estimates 147 take outside take abundance. compare HRC and percentage EEZ EEZ (HRC) abundance abundance total in of of abundance the stock both the in take separately of 151 percent total to Instance Navy percentage (HRC) of as abundance Total generate need estimates, to no whales EEZ used (gray) density percentage there area Navy HRC Abundance Within a sperm use, as study to underlying for Abundance out Navy the (HRC) 1656 1317 and same take with EEZ in Abundance Total the abundance total from mortality EEZ) 1317 NAVY Takes of (within prefen·ed concomitant Takes the generated is Total 1930 Area) Study TAKES TOTAL (entire generally is instances estimates estimates harassment, EEL 0 the A LS. Mortality density the abundance to Level 0 take A inside Tissue underlying takes Damage indicating and area level individuals, B Harassment same 0 incidental PTS the action predicted of by separate Level disturbance) number types (may compare for 30 of include the and predicted we TIS estimate. of also disturbance) represent indicated Harassment takes especially of B area takes pmiion estimates, all abundance abundance the level 2466 the take (not Instances Behavioral study Disturbance SARs III Annual and Because the the 71. to EEZ SARs, For EEZ. HSTT take the Stock (HRC) Species location Navy in Hawaiian (HRC) whale the Note: Sperm Table the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.101 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29999 as take as total SAR 125 but take of Total percentage abundance to H abundance total of of Mexico, north take far as total Action 913 Area Navy percent of in Instance Total northern percentage abundance range and may 2 stock SARS NMFS 1997 a California Abundance (i.e., 1 Abundance Southern stocks Action 273 Area to NAVY SARs. SOCAL in abundance the MMPA limited as is well many area Total Area) Study Takes 2493 TAKES as (entire TOTAL of area, action ranges the 0 Navy action the Mortality for the for overlaps while area 0 EEZ, Tissue estimates take Damage especially action U.S. Harassment the A Navy 0 incidental abundance PTS the level individuals, of within the which both types in to separate predicted disturbance) (may include 56 be for takes manner indicated TTS also disturbance) only of the represent Harassment of may B predicted takes all Instances level because 2437 (not compare Behavioral Disturbance abundance we and estimates, EEZ), take beyond Stock U.S. and CA/OR/WA the SOCAL state the beyond For Species whale Washington extends Sperm Note:

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C depleted under the MMPA. NMFS is (MF1) in the HSTT Study Area would All takes annually for sperm whales currently engaged in an internal Section result from received levels between 154 are from Level B harassment either 7 consultation under the ESA and the and 166 dB SPL (85 percent). Therefore, behavioral or TTS (Tables 71 and 72 outcome of that consultation will the majority of Level B takes are above). Sperm whales are listed as further inform our final decision. expected to be in the form of milder endangered under the ESA (both CA/ Most Level B harassments to sperm responses (i.e., lower-level exposures OR/WA and Hawaii stocks) and whales and from hull-mounted sonar that still rise to the level of take, but

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.102 30000 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

would likely be less severe in the range Southall et al., 2007; Finneran and activities, the impacts from these of responses that qualify as take). As Jenkins, 2012). Some (but not all) sperm exposures are not expected to have mentioned earlier in this section, we whale vocalizations might overlap with either significant or long-term effects anticipate more severe effects from takes the MFAS/HFAS TTS frequency range, because (and as discussed above): when animals are exposed to higher which could temporarily decrease an Æ ASW activities typically involve received levels. Occasional mild to animal’s sensitivity to the calls of fast-moving assets (relative to marine moderate behavioral reactions are conspecifics or returning echolocation mammal swim speeds) and individuals unlikely to cause long-term signals. However, as noted previously, are not expected to be exposed either for consequences for individual animals or NMFS does not anticipate TTS of a long long periods within a day or over many populations, and even if some smaller duration or severe degree to occur as a sequential days. subset of the takes are in the form of a result of exposure to MFAS/HFAS. Æ As discussed, the majority of the longer (several hours or a day) and more Recovery from a threshold shift (TTS) harassment takes result from hull- moderate response, because they are not can take a few minutes to a few days, mounted sonar during MTEs. When expected to be repeated over sequential depending on the exposure duration, distance cutoffs are applied for multiple days, impacts to individual sound exposure level, and the odontocetes, this means that all of the fitness are not anticipated. magnitude of the initial shift, with takes from hull-mounted sonar (MF1) For the total instances of all of the larger threshold shifts and longer result from above exposure 154 dB. different types of takes, the numbers exposure durations requiring longer However, the majority (e.g., 85 percent) indicating the instances of total take as recovery times (Finneran et al., 2005; of the takes results from exposures a percentage of abundance for sperm Mooney et al., 2009a; Mooney et al., below 166 dB. The majority of the takes whales are generally between 125 and 2009b; Finneran and Schlundt, 2010). are not from higher level exposures from 151, with 913 for the CA/OR/WA stock In summary and as described above, which more severe responses would be of sperm whales specifically when the following factors primarily support expected. compared against the Navy’s action area our preliminary determination that the • As described in more detail above abundance. Based on the percentages impacts resulting from Navy’s activities above, most individuals are taken in an (Table 71 and 72), the scale of the effects are not expected to adversely affect are such that for sperm whales, most average of 1–2 days per year based on sperm whales through effects on annual the overall abundance of these far- individuals are take in an average of 1– rates of recruitment or survival: 2 days per year, while some subset of ranging stocks, while some sperm whale • As described in the ‘‘Serious Injury individuals that might remain in the individuals that might remain in the or Mortality’’ section (Table 67), one or Navy’s SOCAL action area for extended Navy’s SOCAL action area for extended two mortalities over five years is periods could be taken on an average of periods may be taken on more like an proposed for authorization for sperm 9 days per year. As described above, average of nine days in a year. These whales (for CA/OR/WA and Hawaiian given this number of takes spread across averages allow that perhaps a smaller stocks, respectively). subset is taken with a slightly higher Æ The proposed serious injury or a year and the nature of the Navy’s average and larger variability of highs mortality for the sperm whale (Hawaiian activities, these takes are not expected and lows, but still with no reason to to typically occur over sequential days. stock) does fall below the insignificance • think that any individuals would be threshold and, therefore, we consider The HSTT activities are not taken every day for weeks or months out the addition an insignificant expected to occur in an area/time of of the year, much less on sequential incremental increase to human-caused specific importance for reproductive, days. The majority of these behavioral mortality. feeding, or other known critical takes are expected to be of a milder Æ The possible total serious injury or behaviors for sperm whales and there is intensity (compared to those that occur total mortality for sperm whale (CA/OR/ no designated critical habitat in the at higher levels) and are not likely to WA stock) falls below residual PBR. HSTT Study Area. occur over sequential days, which NOAA is currently implementing Consequently, the HSTT activities are suggests that the overall scale of impacts marine mammal take reduction not expected to adversely impact rates for any individual would be relatively measures as identified in the Pacific of recruitment or survival of any of the low and unlikely to result in fitness Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Plan analyzed stocks of sperm whales (Table effects that would impact reproductive that addresses incidental serious injury 73 above in this section). success or survival. and mortality of sperm whales, and Kogia spp. Sperm whales have shown resilience other whales in the CA/OR swordfish to acoustic and human disturbance, drift gillnet fishery. The total In Table 73 and 74 below, for Kogia although they may react to sound anticipated human-caused mortality is spp. we indicate the total annual sources and activities within a few not expected to exceed PBR for both mortality, Level A and Level B kilometers. Sperm whales that are stocks. harassment, and a number indicating exposed to activities that involve the • No PTS or injury from acoustic or the instances of total take as a use of sonar and other active acoustic explosive stressors is proposed for percentage of abundance. Overall, takes sources may alert, ignore the stimulus, authorization or anticipated to occur for from Level A harassment (PTS and avoid the area by swimming away or sperm whales. Tissue Damage) account for less than diving, or display aggressive behavior • While the majority of takes are one percent of all total takes. (Richardson, 1995; Nowacek, 2007; caused by exposure during ASW BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30001 of as as 235 240 take take outside EEZ HRC EEZ (HRC) of abundance and abundance total stock separately abundance in of of to the the of both in take need 244 249 percent total no Instance generate Navy percentage percentage is (HRC) of as abundance Total to estimates, there species used percentage EEZ use, 2600 6379 density a area to Navy HRC Abundance Within as Kogia study the for Abundance out underlying take abundance Navy (HRC) with 3349 8218 and same EEZ in Abundance Total total the prelim-ed of the mortality from is concomitant EEZ) 6098 NAVY 15310 Takes (within Takes generated generally estimates Total instances is 8178 Area) Study 20484 TAKES TOTAL (entire EEZ density the estimates harassment, U.S. A 0 0 the Mortality underlying abundance Level to inside indicating same take 0 0 area A takes the and Tissue Damage by B level action individuals, Harassment 27 64 incidental predicted PTS number of predicted Navy"s Level estimate. separate and disturbance) the of types compare of (may for include 5822 14550 abundance TTS area abundance also disturbance) represent takes portion the indicated Harassment especially of the SARs B and takes estimates, study the all level take to 2329 5870 SARs, Annual (not Because HI Behavioral Instances Disturbance take the the 73. HSTT in the EEZ. For EEZ the C.S. (HRC) Stock Species location Navy Dwarf Hawaiian Pygmy Hawaiian (HRC) (HRC) Table abundance. of whale whale compare estimates sperm sperm Note: the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.103 30002 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules as take to as total SAR 223 take of Total Mexico, abundance percentage north the abundance total far of of of northern take range as total Action Area Navy 1211 and percent of in Instance Total may abundance percentage abundance. SOCAL stock a in California 2 stock SARS (i.e., NMFS 4111 of Abundance SARs. Southern stocks species to the 1 Abundance as Action 757 Area MMPA NAVY limited SOCAL well in is abundance Kogia as percentage many area a for of area, as Total action Area) Study Takes 9170 TAKES TOTAL (entire ranges action the the take Navy for the mortality 0 total overlaps Mortality while of estimates area EEZ, 0 action U.S. Tissue take Damage abundance the harassment, Navy Harassment instances the A A individuals, the within 38 PTS incidental both the level of to which Level in separate disturbance) types takes predicted for be (may include manner 6353 Band represent only TTS indicating the also predicted indicated Disturbance) of especially of may Harassment takes B Level all compare because of (not level we number Instances 2779 abundance Behavioral Disturbance and EEZ), and takes estimates, U.S. take beyond area the Stock and Annual CA/OR/WA SOCAL beyond state study 74. the For extends Species but Kogia Table whales Washington HSTT Note:

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C Most Level B harassments to Kogia anticipate more severe effects from takes Nearly all takes annually for Kogia spp. from hull-mounted sonar (MF1) in when animals are exposed to higher species are from Level B harassment the HSTT Study Area would result from received levels. either behavioral or TTS (less than 1 received levels between 154 and 166 dB For the total instances of all of the percent PTS) (Tables 73 and 74 above). SPL (85 percent). Therefore, the different types of takes, the numbers No serious injury, or mortalities are majority of Level B takes are expected indicating the instances of total take as anticipated. These species are not ESA- to be in the form of milder responses (as a percentage of abundance for Kogia listed. compared to higher level exposures). As whales are generally between 223 and mentioned earlier in this section, we 249, with 1,211 for the CA/OR/WA

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.104 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30003

stock of Kogia, specifically when Area that limits the use of mid- effects are such that pygmy and dwarf compared against the Navy’s action area frequency active anti-submarine warfare sperm whale are taken an average of 2– abundance. Based on the percentages sensor bins MF1 and MF4 and where 3 days per year, while some subset of above, most individuals are taken in an the Navy will not use explosives during individuals that might remain in the average of 3 days in a year, while some testing and training (e.g., surface-to- SOCAL action area for extended periods Kogia individuals that might remain in surface or air-to-surface missile and could be taken on an average of 12 days the SOCAL action area may be taken an gunnery events, BOMBEX, and mine per year (based on the percentages average of 12 days in a year. These neutralization). above, respectively, but with some taken averages allow that perhaps a smaller In summary and as described above, more or less). As described above, given subset is taken with a slightly higher the following factors primarily support this number of takes spread across a average and larger variability of highs our preliminary determination that the year and the nature of the Navy’s and lows, but still with no reason to impacts resulting from Navy’s activities activities, these takes are not expected think that any individuals would be are not expected to adversely affect to typically occur over sequential days. taken every day for weeks or months out Kogia spp. through effects on annual • Impacts to these small and resident of the year, much less on sequential rates of recruitment or survival. populations of dwarf and pygmy sperm days. The majority of these behavioral • No serious injuries or mortalities whale stocks will be reduced through takes are expected to be of a milder are proposed for authorization or the implementation of the requirements intensity (compared to those that occur anticipated to occur for Kogia spp. in the Hawaii Island Mitigation Area. at higher levels) and nor are they likely • While the majority of takes are • Kogia spp. are not depleted under to occur over sequential days, which caused by exposure during ASW the MMPA, nor are they listed under the suggests that the overall scale of impacts activities, the impacts from these ESA. for any individual would be relatively exposures are not expected to have • The HSTT activities are not low and unlikely to result in fitness either significant or long-term effects expected to occur in an area/time of effects that would impact reproductive because (and as discussed above): specific importance for reproductive, success or survival. Æ ASW activities typically involve feeding, or other known critical The quantitative analysis predicts fast-moving assets (relative to marine behaviors for Kogia spp. and there is no small numbers of PTS per year from mammal swim speeds) and individuals designated critical habitat in the HSTT sonar and other transducers (during are not expected to be exposed either for Study Area. training and testing activities). However, long periods within a day or over many Consequently, the HSTT activities are Kogia whales would likely avoid sound sequential days. not expected to adversely impact rates levels that could cause higher levels of Æ As discussed, the majority of the of recruitment or survival of any of the TTS (greater than 20 dB) or PTS. TTS harassment takes result from hull- analyzed stocks of Kogia whales (Table and PTS thresholds for high-frequency mounted sonar during MTEs. When 73 above in this section). cetaceans, including Kogia whales, are distance cutoffs are applied for lower than for all other marine odontocetes, this means that all of the Beaked Whales mammals, which leads to a higher takes from hull-mounted sonar (MF1) In Tables 75 and 76 below, for beaked number of estimated impacts relative to result from above exposure 154 dB. whales, we indicate the total annual the number of animals exposed to the However, the majority (e.g., 85 percent) mortality, Level A and Level B sound as compared to other hearing of the takes results from exposures harassment, and a number indicating groups (e.g., mid-frequency cetaceans). below 166 dB. The majority of the takes the instances of total take as a Impacts to dwarf and pygmy sperm have a relatively lower likelihood in percentage of abundance. No Level A whale stocks (small and resident have severe impacts. harassment (PTS and Tissue Damage) populations BIAs) will be reduced • As described in more detail above takes are anticipated. through the Hawaii Island Mitigation (Tables 73 and 74), the scale of the BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 30004 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules as as 514 527 take take EEZ outside HSTT percentage EEZ (HRC) of abundance abundance abundance total and separately of of the in the to take in both 521 539 545 539 need percent total Instance generate abund no Navy percentage (HRC) as of abundance Total to is estimates, whales used there stock EEZ 268 768 area 2770 use, of density to Navy HRC Abundance Within study beaked the Abundance out for Navy underlying abundance with (HRC) 345 989 3568 and EEZ in Abundance Total oercenta2:e same a the pref(m-ed as concomitant the mortality from EEZ) 4140 NAVY Takes is (within Takes take generally generated is Total estimates total 1796 1377 5386 Area) Study 19233 14585 TAKES TOTAL (entire EEZ of density estimates harassment, U.S. the 0 0 0 Mortality underlying abundance inside instances Level A to area same take 0 0 0 A the takes the and Tissue Damage action by B level individuals, Harassment 0 0 0 PTS incidental predicted Navy's of predicted Level estimate. the separate indicatim! disturbance) of of types compare (may 4 17 81 include for we TTS abundance also portion abundance disturbance) represent takes indicated the the Harassment number especially of B S:\Rs takes and estimates, all the level and 1792 5369 Because take to 19152 SARs, (not Annual Behavioral HI Instances Disturbance take the EEZ. the area 75. in the For EEZ C.S. the (HRC) Stock tudv Species location Navy Blainville's Hawaiian Hawaiian Hawaiian Longman's beaked beaked beaked (HRC) Cuvier's (HRC) (HRC) Table whale whale whale compare estimates of Note:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.105 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30005 as take as total 76 SAR 202 349 take to of Total Mexico, abundance the total north of of in far take northern as total Navy range 2762 2197 6912 percent of Instance and Total abundance abundance percentage percentage may abundance. SOCAL stock in a 2 California SARS NMFS 2697 3274 3044 stock (i.e., Abundance of Southern SARs. whales 1 stocks to Abundance the 74 89 as Action 520 Area NAVY SOCAL in MMPA limited abundance well is beaked as percentage many area a for of area, Total Area) Study Takes 2044 6152 TAKES TOTAL (entire as 11426 action ranges action the Navy the take for the 0 0 0 mortality Mortality total overlaps while of estimates area EEZ, 0 0 0 take A Tissue Damage action U.S. level the abundance harassment, individuals, Navy Harassment 0 0 0 instances PTS incidental the the of within both the separate disturbance) to which types Level A in for (may include 14 predicted 79 43 takes be TTS and represent also disturbance) indicated manner B only Harassment especially of indicating the takes predicted B of may all level Level 2030 6109 (not 11347 Instances compare Behavioral Disturbance because of we number abundance and EEZ), and takes estimates, Stock U.S. beyond take CA/OR/WA CA/OR/WA CA/OR/WA the and Annual SOCAL state beyond study area 76. the For Species extends Washington but Mesoplodon Baird's beaked beaked spp. Cuvier's Table whale whale HSTT Note:

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C Most Level B harassments to beaked to the level of take, but would likely be Nearly all takes annually for beaked whales from hull-mounted sonar (MF1) less severe in the range of responses that whales from Level B harassment are in the HSTT Study Area would result qualify as take). As mentioned earlier in behavioral, less than 1 percent are TTS from received levels between 154 and this section, we anticipate more severe (Tables 75 and 76 above). No PTS, 160 dB SPL (94 percent). Therefore, the effects from takes when animals are injury, serious injury, or mortalities are majority of Level B takes are expected exposed to higher received levels. anticipated. No beaked whales are listed to be in the form of milder responses For the total instances of all of the under the ESA. (i.e., lower-level exposures that still rise different types of takes, the numbers

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.106 30006 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

indicating the instances of total take as subset of SOCAL Mesoplodon beaked with MFAS use. Research and a percentage of abundance range from whale individuals will likely observations show that if beaked whales 514 to 545 for Blainville’s beaked whale, occasionally be taken across sequential are exposed to sonar or other active Cuvier’s beaked whale, and Longman’s days. However, given the milder acoustic sources they may startle, break beaked whale (all Hawaiian stocks), comparative nature of the majority of off feeding dives, and avoid the area of with no notable difference in and the anticipated exposures (i.e., the the sound source to levels of 157 dB re outside of the U.S. EEZ (Table 75). For received level and the fact that most 1 mPa, or below (McCarthy et al., 2011). beaked whales off of SOCAL, the individual exposures would be expected Acoustic monitoring during actual sonar instances of total take as a percentage of not to be of a long duration due to the exercises revealed some beaked whales abundance are between 76 and 349 as nature of the operations and the moving continuing to forage at levels up to 157 compared to the total abundance of animals), combined with the fact that dB re 1 mPa (Tyack et al. 2011). Stimpert these far-ranging stocks. However, the there are ample alternative nearby et al. (2014) tagged a Baird’s beaked percentages are 2762, 2197, and 6912 for feeding opportunities available for whale, which was subsequently exposed Baird’s beaked whale, Cuvier’s beaked odontocetes should disturbances to simulated MFAS. Changes in the whale, and Mesoplodon spp., interrupt feeding bouts, and the animal’s dive behavior and locomotion respectively, when compared to the evidence that beaked whales often leave were observed when received level abundance within the Navy’s action and area during training exercises but reached 127 dB re 1mPa. However, area, which is based on static density return a few days later (Claridge and Manzano-Roth et al. (2013) found that estimates (Table 76). This means that Durban, 2009; Moretti et al., 2009, 2010; for beaked whale dives that continued generally, beaked whales might be Tyack et al., 2010, 2011; McCarthy et to occur during MFAS activity, expected to be taken on an average of 1– al., 2011), impacts to individual fitness differences from normal dive profiles 6 days per year, while some individuals that could affect survivorship or and click rates were not detected with that might remain in the Navy SOCAL reproductive success are not estimated received levels up to 137 dB action area for extended periods of time anticipated. re 1 mPa while the animals were at Beaked whales have been shown to be could be taken on more, but not likely depth during their dives. And in particularly sensitive to sound and as high as 22–28 days per year, or research done at the Navy’s fixed therefore have been assigned a lower potentially more, though not likely as tracking range in the Bahamas, animals harassment threshold, i.e., a more high as 69 days per year, for were observed to leave the immediate distant distance cutoff (50 km for high area of the anti-submarine warfare Mesoplodon spp. While the likelihood source level, 25 km for moderate source and extent of repeated takes for some training exercise (avoiding the sonar level). This means that many of the acoustic footprint at a distance where subset of Mesoplodon individuals is authorized takes are expected to result comparatively high when using the the received level was ‘‘around 140 dB’’ from lower-level exposures. But we also SPL, according to Tyack et al. (2011)) Navy’s abundance, this is likely a result note the growing literature to support of the fact that the acoustic modeling but return within a few days after the the fact that marine mammals event ended (Claridge and Durban, process does not account for horizontal differentiate sources of the same level animal movement and thus and 2009; Moretti et al., 2009, 2010; Tyack emanating from different distances, and et al., 2010, 2011; McCarthy et al., migration of beaked whales in and out exposures from more distant sources are the Study Area. The Navy’s abundance 2011). Tyack et al. (2011) report that, in likely comparatively less impactful. reaction to sonar playbacks, most indicates a population of approximately Behavioral responses can range from beaked whales stopped echolocating, 89 Mesoplodon individuals in Southern a mild orienting response, or a shifting made long slow ascent to the surface, California. However, it is unlikely that of attention, to flight and panic it is the same 89 individuals that are (Richardson, 1995; Nowacek, 2007; and moved away from the sound. A present all year long. Even for those Southall et al., 2007; Finneran and similar behavioral response study beaked whales which show high site Jenkins, 2012). Research has also shown conducted in Southern California waters fidelity, tagging data indicates that they that beaked whales are especially during the 2010–2011 field season can travel tens of km to up to 100 km sensitive to the presence of human found that Cuvier’s beaked whales from an initial tagging or sighting activity (Tyack et al., 2011; Pirotta et al., exposed to MFAS displayed behavior location (e.g., Schorr et al., 2009, 2012). Beaked whales have been ranging from initial orientation changes Sweeney et al., 2007, etc.). Therefore, documented to exhibit avoidance of to avoidance responses characterized by additional individuals up to a 100 km human activity or respond to vessel energetic fluking and swimming away or more from the study area may also at presence (Pirotta et al., 2012). Beaked from the source (DeRuiter et al., 2013b). some time move into the study area and whales were observed to react However, the authors did not detect be available to be exposed to Navy negatively to survey vessels or low similar responses to incidental exposure activities. As a result, the potential for altitude aircraft by quick diving and to distant naval sonar exercises at repeated exposures of Mesoplodon other avoidance maneuvers, and none comparable received levels, indicating likely falls somewhere in between the were observed to approach vessels that context of the exposures (e.g., numbers estimated using the SAR (Wursig et al., 1998). Some beaked source proximity, controlled source abundance and the Navy’s abundance. whale vocalizations may overlap with ramp-up) may have been a significant Also, we’d note that NMFS’s 2017 draft the MFAS/HFAS TTS frequency range factor. The study itself found the results SAR (Caretta et al., 2017) indicates a (2–20 kHz). However, as noted above, inconclusive and meriting further slight increasing population trend for NMFS does not anticipate TTS of a investigation. Cuvier’s beaked whale this stock when 2014 survey data are serious degree or extended duration to responses suggested particular considered, lessening the likelihood of occur as a result of exposure to MFAS/ sensitivity to sound exposure as adverse impacts on rates of recruitment HFAS. consistent with results for Blainville’s or survival, if some small number of It has been speculated for some time beaked whale. individuals incur fitness impacts. Given that beaked whales might have unusual Populations of beaked whales and the numbers of days within the year that sensitivities to sonar sound due to their other odontocetes on the Bahamas and they are expected to be taken, some likelihood of stranding in conjunction other Navy fixed ranges that have been

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30007

operating for decades, appear to be to sonar is believed to have been a Æ ASW activities typically involve stable. Behavioral reactions (avoidance contributing factor were detailed in the fast-moving assets (relative to marine of the area of Navy activity) seem likely Stranding and Mortality section of this mammals swim speeds) and individuals in most cases if beaked whales are proposed rule. However, for some of are not expected to be exposed either for exposed to anti-submarine sonar within these stranding events, a causal long periods within a day or over many a few tens of kilometers, especially for relationship between sonar exposure sequential days. prolonged periods (a few hours or more) and the stranding could not be clearly Æ As discussed, the majority of the since this is one of the most sensitive established (Cox et al., 2006). In other harassment takes result from hull- marine mammal groups to instances, sonar was considered only mounted sonar during MTEs. When anthropogenic sound of any species or one of several factors that, in their distance cutoffs are applied for beaked group studied to date and research aggregate, may have contributed to the whales, this means that all of the takes indicates beaked whales will leave an stranding event (Freitas, 2004; Cox et from hull-mounted sonar (MF1) result area where anthropogenic sound is al., 2006). Because of the association from above exposure 154 dB. However, present (Tyack et al., 2011; De Ruiter et between tactical MFAS use and a small the majority (e.g., 94 percent) of the al., 2013; Manzano-Roth et al., 2013; number of marine mammal strandings, takes results from exposures below 160 Moretti et al., 2014). Research involving the Navy and NMFS have been dB. The majority of the takes have a tagged Cuvier’s beaked whales in the considering and addressing the relatively lower likelihood to have SOCAL Range Complex reported on by severe impacts. potential for strandings in association • Falcone and Schorr (2012, 2014) with Navy activities for years. In As described in more detail above indicates year-round prolonged use of addition to the proposed mitigation (Tables 75 and 76), the scale of the the Navy’s training and testing area by measures intended to more broadly effects are such that individuals in these these beaked whales and has minimize impacts to marine mammals, stocks are likely taken in an average of documented movements in excess of the reporting requirements set forth in 1–6 days per year, while a subset of hundreds of kilometers by some of those this rule ensure that NMFS is notified beaked whale individuals that remain in animals. Given that some of these if a stranded marine mammal is found the SOCAL action area for a substantial animals may routinely move hundreds (see General Notification of Injured or portion of the year could be taken in of kilometers as part of their normal Dead Marine Mammals in the regulatory more, though not likely above 22–28 pattern, leaving an area where sonar or text below). Additionally, through the days per year, with Mesolplodon other anthropogenic sound is present MMPA process (which allows for individuals potentially taken more, may have little, if any, cost to such an adaptive management), NMFS and the though not likely above 69 days per animal. Photo identification studies in Navy will determine the appropriate year. While the likelihood and extent of the SOCAL Range Complex, a Navy way to proceed in the event that a repeated takes for some subset of range that is utilized for training and causal relationship were to be found Mesoplodon individuals is testing, have identified approximately between Navy activities and a future comparatively high, we note that the 100 individual Cuvier’s beaked whale stranding. population trend for this stock is increasing slightly, lessening the individuals with 40 percent having been Biologically important areas for small likelihood of adverse impacts on rates of seen in one or more prior years, with re- and resident populations of Cuvier’s recruitment or survival. While some of sightings up to seven years apart and Blainville’s beaked whales will be the individuals in SOCAL may (Falcone and Schorr, 2014). These protected by the Hawaii Island occasionally be taken in sequential results indicate long-term residency by Mitigation Area that limits the use of days, because of the nature of the individuals in an intensively used Navy mid-frequency active anti-submarine exposures and the other factors training and testing area, which may warfare sensor bins MF1 and MF4 and also suggest a lack of long-term discussed above, any impacts to where the Navy will not use explosives consequences as a result of exposure to individual fitness would be limited and during testing and training (e.g., surface- Navy training and testing activities. with the potential to accrue to no more to-surface or air-to-surface missile and Finally, results from passive acoustic than a limited number of individuals gunnery events, BOMBEX, and mine monitoring estimated regional Cuvier’s and would not be expected to affect neutralization). beaked whale densities were higher rates of recruitment or survival. than indicated by the NMFS’s broad In summary and as described above, • Impacts to BIAs for small and scale visual surveys for the U.S. west the following factors primarily support resident populations of Cuvier’s and coast (Hildebrand and McDonald, 2009). our preliminary determination that the Blainville’s beaked whales will be Based on the findings above, it is clear impacts resulting from the Navy’s reduced through implementation of that the Navy’s long-term ongoing use of activities are not expected to adversely requirements in the Hawaii Island sonar and other active acoustic sources affect beaked whales taken through Mitigation Area. has not precluded beaked whales from effects on annual rates of recruitment or Consequently, the activities are not also continuing to inhabit those areas. survival. expected to adversely impact rates of • Based on the best available science, the No mortalities of beaked whales are recruitment or survival of any of the Navy and NMFS believe that beaked proposed for authorization or beaked whale stocks analyzed (Tables whales that exhibit a significant TTS or anticipated to occur. 75 and 76 above in this section). behavioral reaction due to sonar and • No PTS or injury of beaked whales Odontocetes (Small Whales and other active acoustic training or testing from acoustic or explosives stressors are activities would generally not have proposed for authorization or Dolphins) long-term consequences for individuals anticipated to occur. In Tables 77 and 78 below, for or populations. • While the majority of takes are odontocetes (in this section odontocetes NMFS does not expect strandings, caused by exposure during ASW refers specifically to the small whales serious injury, or mortality of beaked activities the impacts from these and dolphins indicated in Tables 77 and whales to occur as a result of training exposures are not expected to have 78), we indicate the total annual activities. Stranding events coincident either significant or long-term effects mortality, Level A and Level B with Navy MFAS use in which exposure because (and as discussed above): harassment, and a number indicating

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00137 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 30008 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

the instances of total take as a Tissue Damage) account for less than percentage of abundance. Overall, takes one percent of all total takes. from Level A harassment (PTS and BILLING CODE 3510–22–P of as percent 32 151 324 143 167 172 1130 as abundance take take percentage EEZ EEZ (HRC) abundance total HSTT as of of Navy the 60 take 190 161 218 307 400 1169 total in abundance. Instance percentage (HRC) of abundance Total stock EEZ 147 507 of Navy HRC Abundance Within odontocetes Abundance for out Navy (HRC) 184 184 189 189 147 131 131 741 741 645 1528 1442 and EEZ in Abundance Total percentage a as 42 mortality 264 316 766 476 EEZ) 2481 8376 NAVY Takes (within Takes take Total 79 359 588 565 1041 3329 8663 Area) Study TAKES TOTAL (entire total of harassment, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A Mortality Level instances take 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A Tissue Damage level individuals, Harassment Band 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 PTS incidental of separate disturbance) Level types (may 5 10 16 31 62 42 include for indicating the 133 of TIS also disturbance) represent indicated Harassment takes especially of B takes number all 74 349 534 572 level 999 3196 8600 (not Behavioral Instances and Disturbance Annual 77. area EEZ & killer killer (HRC) Stock Species location Navy Niihau Pelagic Hawaii Bottlenose Hawaiian Bottlenose Kauai Bottlenose Bottlenose Bottlenose False Hawaii Main Hawaiian Pelagic Islands Insular dolphin dolphin dolphin dolphin dolphin Oahu (HRC) (HRC) (HRC) (HRC) (HRC) (HRC) (HRC) Table study whale whale 4-lsland False

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.107 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30009 41 96 164 166 166 143 172 107 166 1127 79 191 173 196 180 166 109 177 760 1164 54 169 657 372 2405 3931 4637 18763 69 215 372 447 447 1782 1782 2405 5462 5408 4928 93 182 280 634 657 2557 2576 6538 7600 4194 31120 124 351 381 719 3491 8523 3994 4329 10449 41075 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 17 10 16 45 231 401 227 476 1289 118 341 365 702 3260 8122 3767 4284 9973 39784 Island killer killer whale Kohala Fraser's Killer Pelagic Northwestern Melon- Melon- Pantropical Pantropical Pantropical Pantropical Pygmy Hawaii Hawaiian Hawaiian Hawaiian False Hawaiian Resident Hawaii Hawaiian Islands Islands dolphin dolphin dolphin dolphin dolphin Oahu (HRC) (HRC) (HRC) (HRC) (HRC) (HRC) (HRC) (HRC) (HRC) headed headed whale whale whale whale 4-lsland spotted spotted spotted spotted

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.108 30010 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 14 134 172 173 174 165 157 482 2130 outside abundance and separately the in to both 46 163 157 289 212 201 516 777 478 need generate no to is estimates, used there area 23 usc, 604 629 354 2808 5784 3646 4199 density to study the underlying abundance with 159 629 604 354 1210 2885 2229 6433 3054 4779 same the prcfcrTed concomitant the from 490 812 1708 6034 3491 7318 4859 9946 is generally generated is 291 89 estimates 760 1825 1746 6485 7784 4533 9398 12933 EEZ density estimates U.S. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 the underlying abundance inside to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 area same takes the action by 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 predicted Navy's predicted estimate. the 12 63 34 50 of 202 373 405 433 448 compare we abundance portion abundance the the S:\Rs and estimates, 279 710 1790 1683 6112 7379 4331 8950 12499 the Because take to SARs, HI take the EEZ. the in the 4- Island killer For C.S. & & whale the Kauai Niihau Pygmy Hawaii Hawaii Hawaiian Pelagic Hawaiian Hawaiian Risso's Rough- Hawaiian Island dolphin dolphin dolphin dolphin dolphin dolphin dolphin Oahu (HRC) (HRC) (HRC) (HRC) (HRC) (HRC) (HRC) (HRC) (HRC) (HRC) pilot whale Tropical compare estimates of Short-finned Spinner Spinner Spinner Spinner Striped Note: toothed

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.109 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30011 as take total e as SAR 82 45 351 369 take 244 of 2881 e abundanc percentag Total HSTT abundance total of of the take total as Action of Navy Area 932 760 663 of 1273 2675 2411 in percent e abundanc percentag e Instance Total 2 SARS e SOCAL 240 243 515 1924 26556 101305 Abundanc in NMFS abundance. 1 Abundance Action 4 stock 30 Area 238 NAVY in 7705 5946 SOCAL 10258 Abundanc of e odontocetes Takes for 107 199 Area) Study TAKES (entire 1809 TOTAL 98110 55425 247292 Total percentage a 0 0 0 0 0 0 as mortality Mortality take 1 2 0 0 0 0 take Tissue Damage total Harassment of individuals, harassment, A incidental 3 0 0 0 A 10 18 PTS of level separate disturbance) types Level for instances ) (may include 11 20 38 3695 8047 13787 represent and TTS also disturbance indicated B especially of Harassment takes B all e 96 (not Level level 179 1771 Instances 51727 90052 233485 Disturbanc Behavioral indicating the of takes Stock number Pacific North (ENP) Offshore Offshore Coast Coastal West Transient/ Transient ENP Eastern California CA/OR/WA CA/OR/WA California and Annual right 78. area whale whale Species dolphin dolphin dolphin dolphin common whale Table study Bottlenose Bottlenose Killer Long-beaked Killer Northern

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.110 30012 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules to 281 229 154 600 1993 Mexico, north far northern 920 571 440 range 1137 1622 and may stock a California 836 6336 26814 29211 969861 (i.e., Southern SARs. stocks to the 208 7784 6626 as 39862 261438 MMPA limited well is as many area of area, 1914 75343 126270 175257 1492664 action ranges action the Navy the 2 0 0 0 0 for the overlaps while area estimates EEZ, 0 0 0 0 10 action U.S. the abundance Navy 1 9 3 5 the 79 the within both to which in predicted takes 124 6093 be 11614 10118 118525 manner only the predicted of may 1789 69245 compare 116143 163640 1374048 because abundance and EEZ), we estimates, U.S. take beyond CA/OR/WA CA/OR/WA CA/OR/WA CA/OR/WA CA/OR/WA the and SOCAL beyond the dolphin white- dolphin whale For extends pilot sided dolphin dolphin common Washington state Note: but Pacific Risso's Short-beaked Striped Short-finned

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C are listed as endangered under the ESA (MF1) in the HSTT Study Area would Nearly all takes annually for and depleted under the MMPA. NMFS result from received levels between 154 odonotocetes are from Level B is currently engaged in an internal and 166 dB SPL (85 percent). Therefore, harassment either behavioral or TTS Section 7 consultation under the ESA the majority of Level B takes are (less than 1 percent PTS) (Tables 77 and and the outcome of that consultation expected to be in the form of milder 78 above). No serious injuries or will further inform our final decision. responses compared to higher level mortalities are anticipated. False killer Most Level B harassments to exposures). As mentioned earlier in this whales (Main Hawaiian Islands Insular) odontocetes from hull-mounted sonar section, we anticipate more severe

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.111 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30013

effects from takes when animals are expected not to be of a long duration pantropical spotted dolphin, spinner exposed to higher received levels. due to the nature of the operations and dolphin, rough-toothed dolphins) by For the total instances of all of the the moving animals), combined with the limiting the use of mid-frequency active different types of takes, the numbers fact that there are ample alternative anti-submarine warfare sensor bins MF1 indicating the instances of total take for nearby feeding opportunities available and MF4 and not using explosives odontocetes addressed in this section as for odontocetes should disturbances during testing and training (e.g., surface- a percentage of abundance range from interrupt feeding bouts, impacts to to-surface or air-to-surface missile and 14 to 1,169 for Hawaiian stocks (Table individual fitness that could affect gunnery events, BOMBEX, and mine 77). For most odontocetes off SOCAL, survivorship or reproductive success are neutralization). the instances of total take as a not anticipated. In summary and as described above, percentage of abundance are between 45 Research and observations show that the following factors primarily support and 1,273 (Table 78). However, the if delphinids are exposed to sonar or our preliminary determination that the percentages are 2,675 and 2,411 for other active acoustic sources they may impacts resulting from Navy’s activities Killer whale and Long-beaked common react in a number of ways depending on are not expected to adversely affect dolphin, respectively, when compared their experience with the sound source dolphins and small whales taken to the abundance within the Navy and what activity they are engaged in at through effects on annual rates of action area, which is based on static the time of the acoustic exposure. recruitment or survival. • As described in the ‘‘Serious Injury density estimates (Table 78). The Delphinids may not react at all until the sound source is approaching within a or Mortality’’ section (Table 68), 1.2 percentages are 1,993 and 1,622 for few hundred meters to within a few mortalities annually over five years is Risso’s dolphin when compared to the kilometers depending on the proposed for authorization for short- total U.S. EEZ abundance (from the environmental conditions and species. beaked common dolphin (CA/OR/WA SARs) and to the abundance within the Delphinids that are exposed to activities stock). The proposed mortality for short- Navy action area, respectively, and that involve the use of sonar and other beaked common dolphin (CA/OR/WA 2,811 for Bottlenose dolphin (CA/OR/ active acoustic sources may alert, ignore stock) falls below the insignificance WA offshore stock) when compared to the stimulus, change their behaviors or threshold and, therefore, we consider the total abundance. This means that vocalizations, avoid the sound source by the addition an insignificant generally, Hawaiian and SOCAL swimming away or diving, or be incremental increase to human-caused odontocetes stocks might be expected to attracted to the sound source mortality. be taken an average of 2–13 days per (Richardson, 1995; Nowacek, 2007; • There are no PTS or injury from year, while some of a subset of Southall et al., 2007; Finneran and acoustic or explosive sources proposed individuals of four stocks (Offshore Jenkins, 2012). for authorization or anticipated to occur bottlenose dolphins, killer whales, long- Many of the recorded delphinid for most odontocetes. As described beaked common dolphin, and Risso’s vocalizations overlap with the MFAS/ above, any PTS that may occur is dolphin) that might remain in the Navy HFAS TTS frequency range (2–20 kHz); expected to be of a relatively smaller SOCAL action area for extended periods however, as noted above, NMFS does degree because of the unlikelihood that of time could be taken on more, 17 to not anticipate TTS of a serious degree or animals would be close enough for a 27 days per year. It is notable that for extended duration to occur as a result of long enough amount of time to incur the offshore stock of bottlenose dolphins exposure to MFAS/HFAS. more severe PTS (for sonar) and the and for Risso’s dolphins, the SAR Identified important areas for anticipated effectiveness of mitigation abundances are actually less than the odontocetes will be protected by the in preventing very close exposures for Navy action area abundances, likely Navy’s mitigation areas. The size of the explosives. because these are more offshore species 4-Islands Region Mitigation Area would • Large threshold shifts are not and the navy abundance captures the expand to include an area north of Maui anticipated for these activities because abundance generated outside the U.S. and Molokai and overlaps an area of the unlikelihood that animals will EEZ from the Navy action are density identified as a BIA for the endangered remain within the ensonified area (due estimates, and therefore the percentages Main Hawaiian Islands insular false to the short duration of the majority of are higher—but either way these stock killer whales (Baird et al., 2015; Van exercises, the speed of the vessels comparisons fall within the general Parijs, 2015) (see Figure 5.4–3, in (relative to marine mammals swim bounds discussed above. We further Chapter 5 Mitigation Areas for Marine speeds), and the short distance within note that long-beaked common dolphin, Mammals in the Hawaii Range Complex which the animal would need to which have a high percentage generated of the HSTT DEIS/OEIS). The 4-Islands approach the sound source) at high from a high number of takes and a high Region Mitigation Area provides partial levels for the duration necessary to abundance, have an increasing protection for identified biologically induce larger threshold shifts. population trend (Caretta et al., 2017), important area for dolphin species • While the majority of takes are further lessening the likelihood of (small and resident populations) caused by exposure during ASW adverse impacts to rates of recruitment including common bottlenose dolphin, activities, the impacts from these or survival. The majority of the takes are pantropical spotted dolphin, and exposures are not expected to have not from higher level exposures from spinner dolphin by not using mid- either significant or long-term effects which more severe responses would be frequency active anti-submarine warfare because (and as discussed above): expected. Given the numbers of days sensor MF1. The Navy’s Hawaii Island Æ ASW activities typically involve within the year that they are expected Mitigation Area also provides additional fast-moving assets (relative to marine to be taken, some subset of individuals protection for identified biologically mammal swim speeds) and individuals will likely occasionally be taken across important areas (small and resident are not expected to be exposed either for sequential days, however, given the populations) for Main Hawaiian Islands long periods within a day or over many milder to moderate nature of the insular false killer whales, pygmy killer sequential days. majority of the anticipated exposures whale, melon-headed whale, short- Æ As discussed, the majority of the (i.e., the received level and the fact that finned pilot whale, and dolphin species harassment takes result from hull- most individual exposures would be (common bottlenose dolphin, mounted sonar during MTEs. When

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 30014 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

distance cutoffs are applied for days, because of the nature of the and dolphin species by limiting the use odontocetes, this means that all of the exposures and the other factors of mid-frequency MF1 and MF4 and not takes from hull-mounted sonar (MF1) discussed above, any impacts to using explosives during testing and result from above exposure 154 dB. individual fitness would be limited and training. However, the majority (e.g., 85 percent) with the potential to accrue to no more • All odontocetes in the HSTT Study of the takes results from exposures than a limited number of individuals Area with the exception of endangered below 166 dB. The majority of the takes and would not be expected to affect Main Hawaiian Islands Insular false are not from higher level exposures from rates of recruitment or survival. We killer whale are not depleted under the which more severe responses would be further note that long-beaked common MMPA, nor are they listed under the expected. dolphin have an increasing population ESA. • As described in more detail above trend. Consequently, the activities are not (Tables 77 and 78) for the stocks • The 4-Islands Region Mitigation expected to adversely impact rates of addressed in this section, the scale of Area provides partial protection for recruitment or survival of any of the the effects are such that individuals of identified biologically important area stocks of analyzed odontocete species most Hawaiian and SOCAL odontocete for dolphin species (small and resident (Table 74, above in this section). stocks are likely taken an average of 2– populations) by not using mid- Porpoise 13 days per year, while killer whale, frequency active anti-submarine warfare long-beaked common dolphin, and sensor MF1. In Table 79 below, for Dall’s porpoise, Risso’s dolphin individuals that remain • The Navy’s Hawaii Island we indicate the total annual mortality, in the SOCAL action area could be taken Mitigation Area also provides additional Level A and Level B harassment, and a an average of 17–27 days per year. protection for identified biologically number indicating the instances of total Bottlenose dolphin (CA/OR/WA important areas (small and resident take as a percentage of abundance. offshore stock) could be taken an populations) for endangered Main Overall, takes from Level A harassment average of 10–29 days per year. While Hawaiian Islands insular false killer (PTS and Tissue Damage) account for some of the individuals in SOCAL may whales, pygmy killer whale, melon- less than one percent of all total takes. occasionally be taken in sequential headed whale, short-finned pilot whale, BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30015 as take as study but SAR 173 take oftotal Total abundance percentage to abundance of oftotal :VIexico, nmih HSTT take far as Action Area Navy 2170 the percent oftotal in northern Instance Total abundance percentage range in and may 2 stock SARS NMFS Califomia 25750 SOCAL Abundance in 1 Abundance Southern stocks to abundance. SARs. Action Area NAVY 2054 SOCAL in the abundance :VlMPi\ limited porpoises is stock well many area of as for of Total Area) Study Takes TAKES TOTAL (entire 44582 area, action ranges the Navy action 0 the mortality the percentage Mortality tor overlaps a while as area (not EEZ, 0 estimates Tissue A Damage action take take LX especially harassment, the Level Navy Harassment A abundance total PTS 209 the incidental within the of individuals, of which both Level in to types (may predicted disturbance) include separate be and 29891 for ITS takes manner also disturbance) B instances only indicated the Harassment of B of represent the may predicted Level Level takes 14482 of because all Behavioral Instances Disturbance compare abundance and takes indicating estimates, EEZ), Stock take beyond U.S. CA/OR/WA and the Annual number SOCAL state 79: the beyond and For Species Dall's porpoise Table area \Vashington e>.1:cnds Note:

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C mortalities are anticipated. Dall’s the majority of Level B takes are Nearly all takes annually for Dall’s porpoise are not listed under the ESA. expected to be in the form of milder porpoises are from Level B harassment Most Level B harassments to Dall’s responses compared to higher level either behavioral or TTS. Less than 1 porpoise from hull-mounted sonar exposures. As mentioned earlier in this percent of all takes are Level A (MF1) in the HSTT Study Area would section, we anticipate more severe harassment (PTS) (Table 79 above). No result from received levels between 154 effects from takes when animals are injury (tissue damage) serious injury or and 166 dB SPL (85 percent). Therefore, exposed to higher received levels.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.112 30016 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

The majority of Level B takes are from these activities, as described the average length of ASW events (times expected to be in the form of milder to above. TTS would be recoverable and of continuous sonar use) and typical moderate responses. As mentioned PTS would leave some residual hearing vessel speed, combined with the fact earlier in this section, we anticipate loss. During the period that a Dall’s that the majority of porpoises in the more severe effects from takes when porpoise had hearing loss, biologically HSTT Study Area would not likely animals are exposed to higher received important sounds could be more remain in an area for successive days, it levels. difficult to detect or interpret. is unlikely that an animal would be For the total instances of all of the Odontocetes, including Dall’s porpoises, exposed to active sonar at levels likely different types of takes, the numbers use echolocation clicks to find and to result in a substantive response (e.g., indicating the instances of total take for capture prey. These echolocation clicks interruption of feeding) that would then Dall’s porpoise as a percentage of are at frequencies above 100 kilohertz in be carried on for more than one day or abundance is 173 when compared to the Dall’s porpoises. Therefore, on successive days. total abundance and 2,170 when echolocation is unlikely to be affected In summary and as described above, compared to the abundance within the by a threshold shift at lower frequencies the following factors primarily support Navy action area, which is based on and should not affect a Dall’s porpoise our preliminary determination that the static density estimates (Table 79). This ability to locate prey or rate of feeding. impacts resulting from Navy’s activities means that generally, Dall’s porpoise The information available on harbor are not expected to adversely affect might be expected to be taken on an porpoise behavioral reactions to human Dall’s porpoise taken through effects on average of 2 days per year, while some disturbance (a closely related species) annual rates of recruitment or survival. subset of individuals that might remain suggests that these species may be more • As described above, any PTS that in the Navy SOCAL action area for sensitive and avoid human activity, and may occur is expected to be of a extended periods of time could be taken sound sources, to a longer range than relatively smaller degree because of the on more like an average of 22 days per most other odontocetes. This would unlikelihood that animals would be year. Occasional mild to moderate make Dall’s porpoises less susceptible to close enough for a long enough amount behavioral reactions are unlikely to hearing loss; therefore, it is likely that of time to incur more severe PTS (for cause long-term consequences for the quantitative analysis over-predicted sonar) and the anticipated effectiveness individual animals or populations, and hearing loss impacts (i.e., TTS and PTS) of mitigation in preventing very close because of the overall number of likely in Dall’s porpoises. exposures for explosives. days taken and the nature of the Harbor porpoises (similar to Dall’s • Large threshold shifts are not operations, exposures are generally not porpoise) have been observed to be anticipated for these activities because expected to occur on many sequential especially sensitive to human activity of the unlikelihood that animals will days. Impacts to individual fitness that (Tyack et al., 2011; Pirotta et al., 2012). remain within the ensonified area (due could affect survivorship or The information currently available to the short duration of the majority of reproductive success are not regarding harbor porpoises suggests a exercises, the speed of the vessels anticipated. very low threshold level of response for (relative to marine mammals swim Animals that experience hearing loss both captive (Kastelein et al., 2000; speeds), and the short distance within (TTS or PTS) may have reduced ability Kastelein et al., 2005) and wild which the animal would need to to detect relevant sounds such as (Johnston, 2002) animals. Southall et al. approach the sound source) at high predators, prey, or social vocalizations. (2007) concluded that harbor porpoises levels for the duration necessary to Some porpoise vocalizations might are likely sensitive to a wide range of induce larger threshold shifts. overlap with the MFAS/HFAS TTS anthropogenic sounds at low received • While the majority of takes are frequency range (2–20 kHz). Recovery levels (∼ 90 to 120 dB). Research and caused by exposure during ASW from a threshold shift (TTS; partial observations of harbor porpoises for activities, the impacts from these hearing loss) can take a few minutes to other locations show that this species is exposures are not expected to have a few days, depending on the exposure wary of human activity and will display either significant or long-term effects duration, sound exposure level, and the profound avoidance behavior for because (and as discussed above): magnitude of the initial shift, with anthropogenic sound sources in many Æ ASW activities typically involve larger threshold shifts and longer situations at levels down to 120 dB re fast-moving assets (relative to marine exposure durations requiring longer 1 mPa (Southall, 2007). Harbor porpoises mammal swim speeds) and individuals recovery times (Finneran et al., 2005; routinely avoid and swim away from are not expected to be exposed either for Mooney et al., 2009a; Mooney et al., large motorized vessels (Barlow et al., long periods within a day or over many 2009b; Finneran and Schlundt, 2010). 1988; Evans et al., 1994; Palka and sequential days. As discussed, the More severe shifts may not fully recover Hammond, 2001; Polacheck and majority of the harassment takes result and thus would be considered PTS. TTS Thorpe, 1990). Harbor porpoises may from hull-mounted sonar during MTEs. and PTS thresholds for high-frequency startle and temporarily leave the When distance cutoffs are applied for cetaceans, including Dall’s porpoises, immediate area of the training or testing odontocetes, this means that all of the are lower than for all other marine until after the event ends. takes from hull-mounted sonar (MF1) mammals, which leads to a higher ASW training activities using hull result from above exposure 154 dB. number of estimated impacts relative to mounted sonar proposed for the HSTT However, the majority (e.g., 85 percent) the number of animals exposed to the Study Area generally last for only a few of the takes results from exposures sound as compared to other hearing hours. Some ASW exercises can below 166 dB. The majority of the takes groups (e.g., mid-frequency cetaceans). generally last for 2–10 days, or as much are not from higher level exposures from Dall’s porpoises that do experience as 21 days for an MTE-Large Integrated which more severe responses would be hearing loss (i.e., TTS or PTS) from ASW (see Table 4). For these multi-day expected. sonar sounds may have a reduced exercises there will be extended • As described in detail above (Table ability to detect biologically important intervals of non-activity in between 79), the scale of the effects are such that sounds until their hearing recovers, but active sonar periods. In addition, the individuals of Dall’s porpoise might be recovery time is not expected to be long Navy does not generally conduct ASW expected to be taken on an average of 2 for any small amount of TTS incurred activities in the same locations. Given days per year, while some subset of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30017

individuals that might remain in the expected to affect rates of recruitment or Pinnipeds Navy SOCAL action area for extended survival. In Tables 80 and 81 below, for periods of time could be taken on more • Dall’s porpoise in the HSTT Study pinnipeds, we indicate the total annual like an average of 22 days per year. Area are not depleted under the MMPA, mortality, Level A and Level B Because of the nature of the exposures nor are they listed under the ESA. harassment, and a number indicating and the other factors discussed above, Consequently, the activities are not the instances of total take as a any impacts to individual fitness would expected to adversely impact rates of percentage of abundance. Overall, takes be limited and with the potential to recruitment or survival of any of the from Level A harassment (PTS and accrue to no more than a limited Tissue Damage) account for less than Dall’s porpoise stock (CA/OR/WA). number of individuals and would not be one percent of all total takes. BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.113 30018 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules as take 7 as 18 34 40 SAR 109 take of total of Total abundance percentage to abundance total of of as Mexico, HSTT north Navy I take Action the 124 Area 1698 1484 1726 2896 percent tota Instance in northern abundance percentage in range far Total of and may 2 stock a California 14050 SOCAL 20000 30968 179000 296750 NMFSSARS Abundance abundance. (i.e., for 1 SARs. Southern Abundance stocks to the stock Action 321 886 Area NAVY 1171 4085 4108 as SOCAL in of abundance MMPA limited well is pinnipeds as many area Takes for of area, Area) Study 1457 5452 TAKES TOTAL (entire 15292 60970 118305 Total action ranges action percentage a the the Navy 0 0 0 0 for as the mortality Mortality overlaps while take estimates area EEZ, 2 9 1 0 0 0 take A Tissue total Damage action U.S. level of abundance the individuals, harassment, Harassment 1 8 0 Navy 97 87 PTS incidental the A the of within both separate disturbance) to which types (may Level instances include for in 15 124 4789 17955 takes predicted TIS also disturbance) be represent the and indicated manner Harassment B especially of only B takes the predicted of all may level 1442 2450 2994 Level (not 15167 42916 113419 Instances Behavioral compare Disturbance indicating because of we abundance and EEZ), takes estimates, Stock number U.S. take Mexico u.s. California California California beyond the and and Annual fur SOCAL sea beyond state fur seal 81. the area seal For Species extends but Northern Northern Harbor lion seal seal elephant Table California study Guadalupe Washington Note:

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C are anticipated. Hawaiian monk seal outcome of that consultation will Nearly all takes annually for and Guadalupe fur seal are listed as further inform our final decision. The pinnipeds are from Level B harassment endangered under the ESA and depleted UME for Guadalupe fur seal is ongoing. either behavioral or TTS (less than 1 under the MMPA. NMFS is currently Separately, the UME for California sea percent PTS) (Tables 80 and 81 above). engaged in an internal Section 7 lions, not an ESA-listed species, will be No, injury, serious injury, or mortalities consultation under the ESA and the closed soon.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP26JN18.114 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30019

Most Level B harassments to Kastelein et al., 2006c). Based on the The Navy’s testing and training pinnipeds from hull-mounted sonar limited data on pinnipeds in the water activities do occur in areas of specific (MF1) in the HSTT Study Area would exposed to multiple pulses (small importance, critical habitat for Hawaiian result from received levels between 160 explosives, impact pile driving, and monk seals. However, monk seals in the and 172 dB SPL (83 percent). Therefore, seismic sources), exposures in the main Hawaiian islands have increased the majority of Level B takes are approximately 150 to 180 dB SPL range while the Navy has continued its expected to be in the form of milder to generally have limited potential to activities. The Hawaiian monk seal moderate responses. As mentioned induce avoidance behavior in pinnipeds overall population trend has been on a earlier in this section, we anticipate (Harris et al., 2001; Blackwell et al., decline from 2004 through 2013, with more severe effects from takes when 2004; Miller et al., 2004). If pinnipeds the total number of Hawaiian monk animals are exposed to higher received are exposed to sonar or other active seals decreasing by 3.4 percent per year levels. acoustic sources they may react in a (Carretta et al., 2017). While the decline For the total instances of all of the number of ways depending on their has been driven by the population different types of takes, the numbers experience with the sound source and segment in the northwestern Hawaiian indicating the instances of total take for what activity they are engaged in at the Islands, the number of documented pinnipeds as a percentage of abundance time of the acoustic exposure. Pinnipeds sightings and annual births in the main ranges from 7 to 124 when compared to may not react at all until the sound Hawaiian Islands has increased since the total abundance (Tables 80 and 81). source is approaching within a few the mid-1990s (Baker, 2004; Baker et al., However, for most pinnipeds off hundred meters and then may alert, 2016). In the main Hawaiian Islands, the SOCAL, the instance of total take as a ignore the stimulus, change their estimated population growth rate is 6.5 percentage of abundance are between behaviors, or avoid the immediate area percent per year (Baker et al., 2011; 1,484 and 2,896 when compared to the by swimming away or diving. Effects on Carretta et al., 2017). Of note, in the abundance within the Navy action area, pinnipeds in the HSTT Study Area that 2013 HRC Monitoring Report, tagged which is based on static density are taken by Level B harassment, on the monk seals did not show any behavioral estimates (Table 81). This means that basis of reports in the literature as well changes during periods of MFAS. generally, pinnipeds might be expected as Navy monitoring from past activities, Generally speaking, most pinniped to be taken on an average of less than will likely be limited to reactions such stocks in the HSTT Study Area are 2 days per year. However, some subset as increased swimming speeds, thought to be stable or increasing. In of individuals of the California sea lion, increased surfacing time, or decreased summary and as described above, the Northern fur seal, and harbor seal stocks foraging (if such activity were following factors primarily support our that might remain in the Navy SOCAL occurring). Most likely, individuals will preliminary determination that the action area for extended periods of time simply move away from the sound impacts resulting from the Navy’s could be taken on more like an average source and be temporarily displaced activities are not expected to adversely of 29, 18, and 17 days per year, from those areas, or not respond at all. affect pinnipeds taken through effects respectively. The majority of the takes In areas of repeated and frequent on annual rates of recruitment or are not from higher level exposures from acoustic disturbance, some animals may survival. • As described in the ‘‘Serious Injury which more severe responses would be habituate or learn to tolerate the new or Mortality’’ section (Table 68), 0.8 expected. Given the numbers of days baseline or fluctuations in noise level. mortalities annually over five years is within the year that they are expected Habituation can occur when an animal’s to be taken, some subset of individuals, proposed for authorization for California response to a stimulus wanes with particularly California sea lions will sea lions. The proposed mortality for repeated exposure, usually in the likely occasionally be taken across California falls below the insignificance absence of unpleasant associated events sequential days, however, given the threshold and, therefore, we consider (Wartzok et al., 2003). While some milder to moderate nature of the the addition an insignificant animals may not return to an area, or majority of the anticipated exposures incremental increase to human-caused may begin using an area differently due (i.e., the received level and the fact that mortality. No mortalities of other to training and testing activities, most most individual exposures would be pinnipeds are proposed for animals are expected to return to their expected not to be of a long duration authorization or anticipated to occur. usual locations and behavior. Given due to the nature of the operations and • As described above, any PTS that the moving animals), impacts to their documented tolerance of may occur is expected to be of a individual fitness that could affect anthropogenic sound (Richardson et al., relatively smaller degree because of the survivorship or reproductive success are 1995 and Southall et al., 2007), repeated unlikelihood that animals would be not anticipated. We note that for exposures of individuals (e.g., harbor close enough for a long enough amount California sea lions there is an seals) to levels of sound that may cause of time to incur more severe PTS (for increasing population trend. Level B harassment are unlikely to sonar) and the anticipated effectiveness Research and observations show that result in hearing impairment or to of mitigation in preventing very close pinnipeds in the water may be tolerant significantly disrupt foraging behavior. exposures for explosives. of anthropogenic noise and activity (a As stated above, pinnipeds may • While the majority of takes are review of behavioral reactions by habituate to or become tolerant of caused by exposure during ASW pinnipeds to impulsive and non- repeated exposures over time, learning activities, the impacts from these impulsive noise can be found in to ignore a stimulus that in the past has exposures are not expected to have Richardson et al., 1995 and Southall et not accompanied any overt threat. either significant or long-term effects al., 2007). Available data, though Thus, even repeated Level B because (and as discussed above): limited, suggest that exposures between harassment of some small subset of an Æ ASW activities typically involve approximately 90 and 140 dB SPL do overall stock is unlikely to result in any fast-moving assets (relative to marine not appear to induce strong behavioral significant realized decrease in fitness to mammals swim speeds) and individuals responses in pinnipeds exposed to non- those individuals, and would not result are not expected to be exposed either for pulse sounds in water (Jacobs and in any adverse impact to the stock as a long periods within a day or over many Terhune, 2002; Costa et al., 2003; whole. sequential days.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 30020 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

Æ As discussed, the majority of the measures, NMFS preliminarily finds Accordingly, NMFS plans to adopt harassment takes result from hull- that the total marine mammal take from the Navy’s EIS/OEIS for the HSTT Study mounted sonar during MTEs. When the Specified Activities will have a Area provided our independent distance cutoffs are applied for negligible impact on all affected marine evaluation of the document finds that it pinnipeds, this means that all of the mammal species or stocks. includes adequate information takes from hull-mounted sonar (MF1) analyzing the effects on the human result from above exposure 160 dB. Subsistence Harvest of Marine environment of issuing regulations and However, the majority (e.g., 83 percent) Mammals LOAs. NMFS is a cooperating agency on of the takes results from exposures There are no relevant subsistence uses the Navy’s HSTT DEIS/OEIS and has below 172 dB. The majority of the takes of marine mammals implicated by this worked extensively with the Navy in have a relatively lower likelihood in action. Therefore, NMFS has developing the document. have severe impacts. preliminarily determined that the total The Navy’s HSTT DEIS/OEIS was • As described in detail above (Tables taking affecting species or stocks would made available for public comment at 80 and 81), the scale of the effects are not have an unmitigable adverse impact https://hstteis.com/ on October 13, such that pinnipeds are taken an on the availability of such species or 2017. average of less than 2 days per year. stocks for taking for subsistence We will review all comments While some individuals of California purposes. submitted in response to this notice sea lions, Northern fur seal, and harbor prior to concluding our NEPA process seals that might remain in the Navy Endangered Species Act or making a final decision on the final SOCAL action area for extended periods There are nine marine mammal rule and LOA requests. of time could be taken on more, 17 to species under NMFS jurisdiction that Classification 29 days per year. These behavioral takes are listed as endangered or threatened The Office of Management and Budget are not all expected to be of particularly under the ESA with confirmed or high intensity and nor are they likely to has determined that this proposed rule possible occurrence in the Study Area: is not significant for purposes of occur over sequential days, which Blue whale (Eastern and Central North suggests that the overall scale of impacts Executive Order 12866. Pacific stocks), fin whale (CA/OR/WA Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility for any individual would be relatively and Hawaiian stocks), gray whale low. Some California sea lion Act (RFA), the Chief Counsel for (Western North Pacific stock), Regulation of the Department of individuals in SOCAL may occasionally humpback whale (Mexico and Central be taken in sequential days, because of Commerce has certified to the Chief America DPSs), sei whale (Eastern the nature of the exposures and the Counsel for Advocacy of the Small North Pacific and Hawaiian stocks), other factors discussed above, any Business Administration that this sperm whale (CA/OR/WA and Hawaiian impacts to individual fitness would be proposed rule, if adopted, would not stocks), false killer whale (Main limited and with the potential to accrue have a significant economic impact on Hawaiian Islands Insular), Hawaiian to no more than a limited number of a substantial number of small entities. monk seal (Hawaiian stock), and individuals and would not be expected The RFA requires Federal agencies to Guadalupe fur seal (Mexico to to affect rates of recruitment or survival. prepare an analysis of a rule’s impact on California). There is also critical habitat We further note that California sea lions small entities whenever the agency is designated for Hawaiian monk seal and have an increasing population trend. required to publish a notice of proposed proposed critical habitat for Main • The HSTT activities are expected to rulemaking. However, a Federal agency Hawaiian Island insular false killer occur in an area/time of specific may certify, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), whales. The Navy will consult with importance for reproductive, feeding, or that the action will not have a NMFS pursuant to section 7 of the ESA, other known critical behaviors for significant economic impact on a and NMFS will also consult internally pinnipeds, particularly in critical substantial number of small entities. on the issuance of LOAs under section habitat for ESA-listed Hawaiian monk The Navy is the sole entity that would 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA for HSTT seal; however, Navy’s activities are not be affected by this rulemaking, and the activities. Consultation will be anticipated to affect critical habitat. Navy is not a small governmental concluded prior to a determination on Populations are increasing for monk jurisdiction, small organization, or small the issuance of the final rule and LOAs. seals on the main Hawaiian islands. business, as defined by the RFA. Any • Pinnipeds found in the HSTT Study National Marine Sanctuaries Act requirements imposed by an LOA Area are not depleted under the MMPA, issued pursuant to these regulations, nor are they listed under the ESA with NMFS will work with NOAA’s Office and any monitoring or reporting the exception of the Hawaiian monk of National Marine Sanctuaries to fulfill requirements imposed by these seal and Guadalupe fur seal which are our responsibilities under the NMSA as regulations, would be applicable only to listed as endangered under the ESA and warranted and will complete any NMSA the Navy. NMFS does not expect the depleted under the MMPA. requirements prior to a determination issuance of these regulations or the Consequently, the activities are not on the issuance of the final rule and associated LOA to result in any impacts expected to adversely impact rates of LOAs. to small entities pursuant to the RFA. recruitment or survival of any of the National Environmental Policy Act Because this action, if adopted, would analyzed stocks of pinnipeds (Table 77 directly affect the Navy and not a small above in this section). To comply with the National entity, NMFS concludes the action Environmental Policy Act of 1969 would not result in a significant Preliminary Determination (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and economic impact on a substantial Based on the analysis contained NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) number of small entities. herein of the likely effects of the 216–6A, NMFS must review its specified activity on marine mammals Specified Activities (i.e., the issuance of List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 218 and their habitat, and taking into an incidental take authorization) with Exports, Fish, Imports, Incidental consideration the implementation of the respect to potential impacts on the take, Indians, Labeling, Marine proposed monitoring and mitigation human environment. mammals, Navy, Penalties, Reporting

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00150 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30021

and recordkeeping requirements, (c) The taking of marine mammals by taking results in an unmitigable adverse Seafood, Sonar, Transportation. the Navy is only authorized if it occurs impact on the species or stock of such Dated: June 14, 2018. incidental to the Navy’s conducting marine mammal for taking for Samuel D. Rauch III, training and testing activities. The subsistence uses. Navy’s use of sonar and other Deputy Assistant Administrator for § 218.74 Mitigation requirements. transducers, in-water detonations, air Regulatory Programs, National Marine When conducting the activities Fisheries Service. guns, pile driving/extraction, and vessel movements incidental to training and identified in § 218.70(c), the mitigation PART 218—REGULATIONS testing exercises may cause take by measures contained in any LOAs issued GOVERNING THE TAKING AND harassment, serious injury or mortality under § 216.106 of this chapter and IMPORTING OF MARINE MAMMALS as defined by the MMPA through the § 218.76 must be implemented. These various warfare mission areas in which mitigation measures shall include the ■ 1. The authority citation for part 218 the Navy would conduct including following requirements, but are not continues to read as follows: amphibious warfare, anti-submarine limited to: (a) Procedural Mitigation. Procedural Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. warfare, expeditionary warfare, surface mitigation is mitigation that the Navy warfare, mine warfare, and other ■ 2. Revise subpart H to part 218 to read shall implement whenever and activities (sonar and other transducers, as follows: wherever an applicable training or pile driving and removal activities, air Sec. testing activity takes place within the guns, vessel strike). 218.70 Specified activity and specified HSTT Study Area for each applicable geographical region. § 218.71 Effective dates. activity category or stressor category and 218.71 Effective dates. includes acoustic stressors (i.e., active 218.72 Permissible methods of taking. Regulations in this subpart are 218.73 Prohibitions. effective [date 30 days after date of sonar, air guns, pile driving, weapons 218.74 Mitigation requirements. publication of the final rule in the firing noise), explosive stressors (i.e., 218.75 Requirements for monitoring and Federal Register] through [date 5 sonobuoys, torpedoes, medium-caliber reporting. years and 30 days after date of and large-caliber projectiles, missiles 218.76 Letters of Authorization. publication of the final rule in the and rockets, bombs, sinking exercises, 218.77 Renewals and modifications of Federal Register]. mines, anti-swimmer grenades, and mat Letters of Authorization weave and obstacle loading), and 218.78 [Reserved] § 218.72 Permissible methods of taking. physical disturbance and strike stressors 218.79 [Reserved] Under LOAs issued pursuant to (i.e., vessel movement, towed in-water Subpart H—Taking and Importing § 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.77, devices, small-, medium-, and large- Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy’s Hawaii- the Holder of the LOAs (hereinafter caliber non-explosive practice Southern California Training and ‘‘Navy’’) may incidentally, but not munitions, non-explosive missiles and Testing (HSTT) intentionally, take marine mammals rockets, non-explosive bombs and mine within the area described in § 218.70(b) shapes). § 218.70 Specified activity and specified by Level A harassment and Level B (1) Environmental Awareness and geographical region. harassment associated with the use of Education. Appropriate personnel (a) Regulations in this subpart apply active sonar and other acoustic sources involved in mitigation and training or only to the U.S. Navy for the taking of and explosives as well as serious injury testing activity reporting under the marine mammals that occurs in the area or mortality associated with vessel Specified Activities shall complete one outlined in paragraph (b) of this section strikes provided the activity is in or more modules of the U.S Navy Afloat and that occurs incidental to the compliance with all terms, conditions, Environmental Compliance Training activities described in paragraph (c) of and requirements of these regulations in Series, as identified in their career path this section. this subpart and the applicable LOAs. training plan. Modules include: (b) The taking of marine mammals by Introduction to the U.S. Navy Afloat the Navy may be authorized in Letters § 218.73 Prohibitions. Environmental Compliance Training of Authorization (LOAs) only if it occurs Notwithstanding takings Series, Marine Species Awareness within the Hawaii-Southern California contemplated in § 218.72 and Training, U.S. Navy Protective Measures Training and Testing (HSTT) Study authorized by LOAs issued under Assessment Protocol, and U.S. Navy Area, which includes established § 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.76, Sonar Positional Reporting System and operating and warning areas across the no person in connection with the Marine Mammal Incident Reporting. north-central Pacific Ocean, from the activities described in § 218.72 may: Additionally, to increase the mean high tide line in Southern (a) Violate, or fail to comply with, the environmental awareness of naval assets California west to Hawaii and the terms, conditions, and requirements of operating in designated areas to the International Date Line. The Study Area this subpart or an LOA issued under potential seasonal presence of includes the at-sea areas of three § 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.76; concentrations of large whales, existing range complexes (the Hawaii (b) Take any marine mammal not including humpback whales, gray Range Complex (HRC), the Southern specified in such LOAs; whales, blue whales, and fin whales, the California Range Complex (SOCAL), and (c) Take any marine mammal Navy will issue seasonal awareness the Silver Strand Training Complex, and specified in such LOAs in any manner notification messages. These messages overlaps a portion of the Point Mugu other than as specified; include: Sea Range (PMSR)). Also included in (d) Take a marine mammal specified (i) Humpback Whale Awareness the Study Area are Navy pierside in such LOAs if NMFS determines such Notification Message Area (November locations in Hawaii and Southern taking results in more than a negligible 15–April 15). The Navy shall issue a California, Pearl Harbor, San Diego Bay, impact on the species or stocks of such seasonal awareness notification message and the transit corridor on the high seas marine mammal; or or to alert ships and aircraft operating in where sonar training and testing may (e) Take a marine mammal specified the area to the possible presence of occur. in such LOAs if NMFS determines such concentrations of large whales,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00151 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 30022 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

including humpback whales. To awareness notification message to alert is observed within 500 yd of the sonar maintain safety of navigation and to ships and aircraft operating in the area source; and cease transmission if avoid interactions with large whales to the possible presence of resource is observed within 200 yd of during transits, the Navy shall instruct concentrations of large whales, the sonar source. vessels to remain vigilant to the including fin whales. To maintain safety (C) During low-frequency active sonar presence of large whale species of navigation and to avoid interactions below 200 dB, mid-frequency active (including humpback whales), that with large whales during transits, the sonar sources that are not hull mounted, when concentrated seasonally, may Navy shall instruct vessels to remain and high-frequency active sonar the become vulnerable to vessel strikes. vigilant to the presence of large whale Navy shall observe for marine mammals Lookouts shall use the information from species (including fin whales), that and cease active sonar transmission if the awareness notification message to when concentrated seasonally, may resource is observed within 200 yd of assist their visual observation of become vulnerable to vessel strikes. the sonar source. applicable mitigation zones during Lookouts shall use the information from (D) To allow an observed marine training and testing activities and to aid the awareness notification messages to mammal to leave the mitigation zone, in the implementation of procedural assist their visual observation of the Navy shall not recommence active mitigation. applicable mitigation zones during sonar transmission until one of the (ii) Blue Whale Awareness training and testing activities and to aid recommencement conditions has been Notification Message Area (June 1– in implementation of procedural met: The animal is observed exiting the October 31). The Navy shall issue a mitigation. mitigation zone; the animal is thought to seasonal awareness notification message (2) Active Sonar. Active sonar have exited the mitigation zone based to alert ships and aircraft operating in includes low-frequency active sonar, on a determination of its course, speed, the area to the possible presence of mid-frequency active sonar, and high- and movement relative to the sonar concentrations of large whales, frequency active sonar. For vessel-based source; the mitigation zone has been including blue whales. To maintain active sonar activities, mitigation clear from any additional sightings for safety of navigation and to avoid applies only to sources that are 10 min for aircraft-deployed sonar interactions with large whales during positively controlled and deployed from sources or 30 min for vessel-deployed transits, the Navy shall instruct vessels manned surface vessels (e.g., sonar sonar sources; for mobile activities, the to remain vigilant to the presence of sources towed from manned surface active sonar source has transited a large whale species (including blue platforms). For aircraft-based active distance equal to double that of the whales), that when concentrated sonar activities, mitigation applies to mitigation zone size beyond the location seasonally, may become vulnerable to sources that are positively controlled of the last sighting; or for activities vessel strikes. Lookouts shall use the and deployed from manned aircraft that using hull-mounted sonar, the lookout information from the awareness do not operate at high altitudes (e.g., concludes that dolphins are deliberately notification messages to assist their rotary-wing aircraft). Mitigation does closing in on the ship to ride the ship’s visual observation of applicable not apply to active sonar sources bow wave, and are therefore out of the mitigation zones during training and deployed from unmanned aircraft or main transmission axis of the sonar (and testing activities and to aid in the aircraft operating at high altitudes (e.g., there are no other marine mammal implementation of procedural maritime patrol aircraft). sightings within the mitigation zone). mitigation observation of applicable (i) Number of Lookouts and (3) Air Guns. (i) Number of Lookouts mitigation zones during training and Observation Platform—(A) Hull- and Observation Platform—One lookout testing activities and to aid in the mounted sources: Two lookouts at the implementation of procedural forward part of the ship for platforms positioned on a ship or pierside. mitigation. without space or manning restrictions (ii) Mitigation Zone and (iii) Gray Whale Awareness while underway; One lookout at the Requirements—150 yd around the air Notification Message Area (November forward part of a small boat or ship for gun. 1–March 31). The Navy shall issue a platforms with space or manning (A) Prior to the start of the activity seasonal awareness notification message restrictions while underway; and One (e.g., when maneuvering on station), the to alert ships and aircraft operating in lookout for platforms using active sonar Navy shall observe for floating the area to the possible presence of while moored or at anchor (including vegetation, and marine mammals; if concentrations of large whales, pierside). resource is observed, the Navy shall not including gray whales. To maintain (B) Non-hull mounted sources: One commence use of air guns. safety of navigation and to avoid lookout on the ship or aircraft (B) During the activity, the Navy shall interactions with large whales during conducting the activity. observe for marine mammals; if resource transits, the Navy shall instruct vessels (ii) Mitigation Zone and is observed, the Navy shall cease use of to remain vigilant to the presence of Requirements—(A) Prior to the start of air guns. large whale species (including gray the activity the Navy shall observe for (C) To allow an observed marine whales), that when concentrated floating vegetation and marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone, seasonally, may become vulnerable to mammals; if resource is observed, the the Navy shall not recommence the use vessel strikes. Lookouts shall use the Navy shall not commence use of active of air guns until one of the information from the awareness sonar. recommencement conditions has been notification messages to assist their (B) During low-frequency active sonar met: The animal is observed exiting the visual observation of applicable at or above 200 decibel (dB) and hull- mitigation zone; the animal is thought to mitigation zones during training and mounted mid-frequency active sonar the have exited the mitigation zone based testing activities and to aid in the Navy shall observe for marine mammals on a determination of its course, speed, implementation of procedural and power down active sonar and movement relative to the air gun; mitigation. transmission by 6 dB if resource is the mitigation zone has been clear from (iv) Fin Whale Awareness Notification observed within 1,000 yards (yd) of the any additional sightings for 30 min; or Message Area (November 1–May 31). sonar source; power down by an for mobile activities, the air gun has The Navy shall issue a seasonal additional 4 dB (10 dB total) if resource transited a distance equal to double that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30023

of the mitigation zone size beyond the on a determination of its course, speed, observed exiting the mitigation zone; location of the last sighting. and movement relative to the firing the animal is thought to have exited the (4) Pile Driving. Pile driving and pile ship; the mitigation zone has been clear mitigation zone based on a extraction sound during Elevated from any additional sightings for 30 determination of its course, speed, and Causeway System training. min; or for mobile activities, the firing movement relative to the intended (i) Number of Lookouts and ship has transited a distance equal to impact location; or the mitigation zone Observation Platform—One lookout double that of the mitigation zone size has been clear from any additional positioned on the shore, the elevated beyond the location of the last sighting. sightings for 10 min when the activity causeway, or a small boat. (6) Explosive Sonobuoys. (i) Number involves aircraft that have fuel (ii) Mitigation Zone and of Lookouts and Observation Platform— constraints, or 30 min when the activity Requirements—100 yd around the pile One lookout positioned in an aircraft or involves aircraft that are not typically driver. on small boat. fuel constrained. After completion of (A) Thirty minutes prior to the start of (ii) Mitigation Zone and the activity, the Navy shall observe for the activity, the Navy shall observe for Requirements—600 yd around an marine mammals; if any injured or dead floating vegetation and marine explosive sonobuoy. resources are observed, the Navy shall mammals; if resource is observed, the (A) Prior to the start of the activity follow established incident reporting Navy shall not commence impact pile (e.g., during deployment of a sonobuoy procedures. driving or vibratory pile extraction. field, which typically lasts 20–30 min), (8) Explosive Medium-Caliber and (B) During the activity, the Navy shall the Navy shall conduct passive acoustic Large-Caliber Projectiles. Gunnery observe for marine mammals; if resource monitoring for marine mammals, and activities using explosive medium- is observed, the Navy shall cease impact observe for floating vegetation and caliber and large-caliber projectiles. pile driving or vibratory pile extraction. marine mammals; if resource is visually Mitigation applies to activities using a (C) To allow an observed marine observed, the Navy shall not commence surface target. mammal to leave the mitigation zone, sonobuoy or source/receiver pair (i) Number of Lookouts and the Navy shall not recommence pile detonations. Observation Platform—One Lookout on driving until one of the (B) During the activity, the Navy shall the vessel or aircraft conducting the recommencement conditions has been observe for marine mammals; if resource activity. For activities using explosive met: The animal is observed exiting the is observed, the Navy shall cease large-caliber projectiles, depending on mitigation zone; the animal is thought to sonobuoy or source/receiver pair the activity, the Lookout could be the have exited the mitigation zone based detonations. same as the one described in Weapons on a determination of its course, speed, (C) To allow an observed marine Firing Noise in paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this and movement relative to the pile mammal to leave the mitigation zone, section. driving location; or the mitigation zone the Navy shall not recommence the use (ii) Mitigation Zone and has been clear from any additional of explosive sonobuoys until one of the Requirements—(A) 200 yd around the sightings for 30 min. recommencement conditions has been intended impact location for air-to- (5) Weapons Firing Noise. Weapons met: The animal is observed exiting the surface activities using explosive firing noise associated with large-caliber mitigation zone; the animal is thought to medium-caliber projectiles, gunnery activities. have exited the mitigation zone based (B) 600 yd around the intended (i) Number of Lookouts and on a determination of its course, speed, impact location for surface-to-surface Observation Platform—One lookout and movement relative to the sonobuoy; activities using explosive medium- shall be positioned on the ship or the mitigation zone has been clear caliber projectiles, or conducting the firing. Depending on the from any additional sightings for 10 min (C) 1,000 yd around the intended activity, the lookout could be the same when the activity involves aircraft that impact location for surface-to-surface as the one described in Explosive have fuel constraints, or 30 min when activities using explosive large-caliber Medium-Caliber and Large-Caliber the activity involves aircraft that are not projectiles. Projectiles or in Small-, Medium-and typically fuel constrained. (D) Prior to the start of the activity Large-Caliber Non-Explosive Practice (7) Explosive Torpedoes. (i) Number (e.g., when maneuvering on station), the Munitions. of Lookouts and Observation Platform— Navy shall observe for floating (ii) Mitigation Zone and One lookout positioned in an aircraft. vegetation and marine mammals; if Requirements—Thirty degrees on either (ii) Mitigation Zone and resource is observed, the Navy shall not side of the firing line out to 70 yd from Requirements—2,100 yd around the commence firing. the muzzle of the weapon being fired. intended impact location. (E) During the activity, observe for (A) Prior to the start of the activity, (A) Prior to the start of the activity marine mammals; if resource is the Navy shall observe for floating (e.g., during deployment of the target), observed, the Navy shall cease firing. vegetation, and marine mammals; if the Navy shall conduct passive acoustic (F) To allow an observed marine resource is observed, the Navy shall not monitoring for marine mammals, and mammal to leave the mitigation zone, commence weapons firing. observe for floating vegetation, jellyfish the Navy shall not recommence firing (B) During the activity, the Navy shall aggregations, and marine mammals; if until one of the recommencement observe for marine mammals; if resource resource is visually observed, the Navy conditions has been met: The animal is is observed, the Navy shall cease shall not commence firing. observed exiting the mitigation zone; weapons firing. (B) During the activity, the Navy shall the animal is thought to have exited the (C) To allow an observed marine observe for marine mammals and mitigation zone based on a mammal to leave the mitigation zone, jellyfish aggregations; if resource is determination of its course, speed, and the Navy shall not recommence observed, the Navy shall cease firing. movement relative to the intended weapons firing until one of the (C) To allow an observed marine impact location; the mitigation zone has recommencement conditions has been mammal to leave the mitigation zone, been clear from any additional sightings met: The animal is observed exiting the the Navy shall not recommence firing for 10 min for aircraft-based firing or 30 mitigation zone; the animal is thought to until one of the recommencement min for vessel-based firing; or for have exited the mitigation zone based conditions has been met: The animal is activities using mobile targets, the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00153 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 30024 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

intended impact location has transited a have exited the mitigation zone based detonation site for activities using 0.1– distance equal to double that of the on a determination of its course, speed, 5 lb net explosive weight, or mitigation zone size beyond the location and movement relative to the intended (B) 2,100 yd around the detonation of the last sighting. target; the mitigation zone has been site for activities using 6–650 lb net (9) Explosive Missiles and Rockets. clear from any additional sightings for explosive weight (including high Aircraft-deployed explosive missiles 10 min; or for activities using mobile explosive target mines). and rockets. Mitigation applies to targets, the intended target has transited (C) Prior to the start of the activity activities using a surface target. a distance equal to double that of the (e.g., when maneuvering on station; (i) Number of Lookouts and mitigation zone size beyond the location typically, 10 min when the activity Observation Platform—One lookout of the last sighting. involves aircraft that have fuel positioned in an aircraft. (11) Sinking Exercises. (i) Number of constraints, or 30 min when the activity (ii) Mitigation Zone and Lookouts and Observation Platform— involves aircraft that are not typically Requirements—(A) 900 yd around the Two lookouts (one positioned in an fuel constrained), the Navy shall intended impact location for missiles or aircraft and one on a vessel). observe for floating vegetation and rockets with 0.6–20 lb net explosive (ii) Mitigation Zone and marine mammals; if resource is weight, or Requirements—2.5 nmi around the observed, the Navy shall not commence (B) 2,000 yd around the intended target ship hulk. detonations. impact location for missiles with 21– (A) 90 min prior to the first firing, the 500 lb net explosive weight. Navy shall conduct aerial observations (D) During the activity, the Navy shall (C) Prior to the start of the activity for floating vegetation, jellyfish observe for marine mammals; if resource (e.g., during a fly-over of the mitigation aggregations, and marine mammals; if is observed, the Navy shall cease zone), the Navy shall observe for resource is observed, the Navy shall not detonations. floating vegetation and marine commence firing. (E) To allow an observed marine mammals; if resource is observed, the (B) During the activity, the Navy shall mammal to leave the mitigation zone, Navy shall not commence firing. conduct passive acoustic monitoring the Navy shall not recommence (D) During the activity, the Navy shall and visually observe for marine detonations until one of the observe for marine mammals; if resource mammals from the vessel; if resource is recommencement conditions has been is observed, the Navy shall cease firing. visually observed, the Navy shall cease met: The animal is observed exiting the (E) To allow an observed marine firing. mitigation zone; the animal is thought to mammal to leave the mitigation zone, (C) Immediately after any planned or have exited the mitigation zone based the Navy shall not recommence firing unplanned breaks in weapons firing of on a determination of its course, speed, until one of the recommencement longer than 2 hrs, the Navy shall and movement relative to detonation conditions has been met: The animal is observe for marine mammals from the site; or the mitigation zone has been observed exiting the mitigation zone; aircraft and vessel; if resource is clear from any additional sightings for the animal is thought to have exited the observed, the Navy shall not commence 10 min when the activity involves mitigation zone based on a firing. aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 determination of its course, speed, and (D) To allow an observed marine min when the activity involves aircraft movement relative to the intended mammal to leave the mitigation zone, that are not typically fuel constrained. impact location; or the mitigation zone the Navy shall not recommence firing (F) After completion of the activity, has been clear from any additional until one of the recommencement the Navy shall observe for marine sightings for 10 min when the activity conditions has been met: The animal is mammals and sea turtles (typically 10 involves aircraft that have fuel observed exiting the mitigation zone; min when the activity involves aircraft constraints, or 30 min when the activity the animal is thought to have exited the that have fuel constraints, or 30 min. involves aircraft that are not typically mitigation zone based on a when the activity involves aircraft that fuel constrained. determination of its course, speed, and are not typically fuel constrained); if (10) Explosive Bombs. (i) Number of movement relative to the target ship any injured or dead resources are Lookouts and Observation Platform— hulk; or the mitigation zone has been observed, the Navy shall follow One lookout positioned in an aircraft clear from any additional sightings for established incident reporting conducting the activity. 30 min. procedures. (ii) Mitigation Zone and (E) For 2 hrs after sinking the vessel (13) Explosive Mine Neutralization Requirements—2,500 yd around the (or until sunset, whichever comes first), Activities Involving Navy Divers. intended target. the Navy shall observe for marine (i) Number of Lookouts and (A) Prior to the start of the activity mammals; if any injured or dead Observation Platform—(A) Two (e.g., when arriving on station), the resources are observed, the Navy shall lookouts (two small boats with one Navy shall observe for floating follow established incident reporting Lookout each, or one Lookout on a small vegetation and marine mammals; if procedures. boat and one in a rotary-wing aircraft) resource is observed, the Navy shall not (12) Explosive Mine Countermeasure when implementing the smaller commence bomb deployment. and Neutralization Activities. (B) During target approach, the Navy (i) Number of Lookouts and mitigation zone. shall observe for marine mammals; if Observation Platform—(A) One lookout (B) Four lookouts (two small boats resource is observed, the Navy shall positioned on a vessel or in an aircraft with two Lookouts each), and a pilot or cease bomb deployment. when using up to 0.1–5 lb net explosive member of an aircrew shall serve as an (C) To allow an observed marine weight charges. additional Lookout if aircraft are used mammal to leave the mitigation zone, (B) Two lookouts (one in an aircraft during the activity, when implementing the Navy shall not recommence bomb and one on a small boat) when using up the larger mitigation zone. deployment until one of the to 6–650 lb net explosive weight (ii) Mitigation Zone and recommencement conditions has been charges. Requirements—(A) The Navy shall not met: The animal is observed exiting the (ii) Mitigation Zone and set time-delay firing devices (0.1–29 lb mitigation zone; the animal is thought to Requirements—(A) 600 yd around the net explosive weight) to exceed 10 min.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30025

(B) 500 yd around the detonation site resources are observed, the Navy follow the Navy shall not recommence during activities under positive control established incident reporting detonations until one of the using 0.1–20 lb net explosive weight, or procedures. recommencement conditions has been (C) 1,000 yd around the detonation (14) Maritime Security Operations— met: The animal is observed exiting the site during all activities using time- Anti-Swimmer Grenades. (i) Number of mitigation zone; the animal is thought to delay fuses (0.1–29 lb net explosive Lookouts and Observation Platform— have exited the mitigation zone based weight) and during activities under One lookout positioned on the small on a determination of its course, speed, positive control using 21–60 lb net boat conducting the activity. and movement relative to the detonation explosive weight charges. (ii) Mitigation Zone and site; or the mitigation zone has been (D) Prior to the start of the activity Requirements—200 yd around the clear from any additional sightings for (e.g., when maneuvering on station for intended detonation location. 10 min (as determined by the shore activities under positive control; 30 min (A) Prior to the start of the activity observer). for activities using time-delay firing (e.g., when maneuvering on station), the (E) After completion of the activity, devices), the Navy shall observe for Navy shall observe for floating the Lookout positioned on a small boat floating vegetation and marine vegetation and marine mammals; if shall observe for marine mammals for mammals; if resource is observed, the resource is observed, the Navy shall not 30 min; if any injured or dead resources Navy shall not commence detonations commence detonations. are observed, the Navy shall follow or fuse initiation. (B) During the activity, the Navy shall established incident reporting (E) During the activity, the Navy shall observe for marine mammals; if resource procedures. observe for marine mammals; if resource is observed, the Navy shall cease (16) Vessel Movement. The mitigation is observed, the Navy shall cease detonations. shall not be applied if: The vessel’s detonations or fuse initiation. All divers (C) To allow an observed marine safety is threatened; the vessel is placing the charges on mines shall mammal to leave the mitigation zone, restricted in its ability to maneuver (e.g., support the Lookouts while performing the Navy shall not recommence during launching and recovery of their regular duties and shall report all detonations until one of the aircraft or landing craft, during towing marine mammal sightings to their recommencement conditions has been activities, when mooring, etc.); the supporting small boat or Range Safety met: The animal is observed exiting the vessel is operated autonomously; or Officer. To the maximum extent mitigation zone; the animal is thought to when impracticable based on mission practicable depending on mission have exited the mitigation zone based requirements (e.g., during Amphibious requirements, safety, and environmental on a determination of its course, speed, Assault—Battalion Landing exercise). conditions, boats shall position and movement relative to the intended (i) Number of Lookouts and themselves near the mid-point of the detonation location; the mitigation zone Observation Platform—One lookout on mitigation zone radius (but outside of has been clear from any additional the vessel that is underway. the detonation plume and human safety sightings for 30 min; or the intended (ii) Mitigation Zone and zone), shall position themselves on detonation location has transited a Requirements—(A) 500 yd around opposite sides of the detonation location distance equal to double that of the whales—When underway, the Navy (when two boats are used), and shall mitigation zone size beyond the location shall observe for marine mammals; if a travel in a circular pattern around the of the last sighting. detonation location with one Lookout (15) Under Demolition Multiple whale is observed, the Navy shall observing inward toward the detonation Charge—Mat Weave and Obstacle maneuver to maintain distance. site and the other observing outward Loading. (i) Number of Lookouts and (B) 200 yd around all other marine toward the perimeter of the mitigation Observation Platform—Two Lookouts mammals (except bow-riding dolphins zone. If used, aircraft shall travel in a (one positioned on a small boat and one and pinnipeds hauled out on man-made circular pattern around the detonation positioned on shore from an elevated navigational structures, port structures, location to the maximum extent platform). and vessels)—When underway, the practicable. (ii) Mitigation Zone and Navy shall observe for marine (F) To allow an observed marine Requirements—700 yd around the mammals; if a marine mammal other mammal to leave the mitigation zone, intended detonation site. than a whale, bow-riding dolphin, or the Navy shall not recommence (A) For 30 min prior to the first hauled-out pinniped is observed, the detonations or fuse initiation until one detonation, the Lookout positioned on a Navy shall maneuver to maintain of the recommencement conditions has small boat shall observe for floating distance. been met: The animal is observed vegetation and marine mammals; if (17) Towed In-water Devices. exiting the mitigation zone; the animal resource is observed, the Navy shall not Mitigation applies to devices that are is thought to have exited the mitigation commence the initial detonation. towed from a manned surface platform zone based on a determination of its (B) For 10 min prior to the first or manned aircraft. The mitigation shall course, speed, and movement relative to detonation, the Lookout positioned on not be applied if the safety of the towing the detonation site; or the mitigation shore shall use binoculars to observe for platform or in-water device is zone has been clear from any additional marine mammals; if resource is threatened. sightings for 10 min during activities observed, the Navy shall not commence (i) Number of Lookouts and under positive control with aircraft that the initial detonation until the Observation Platform—One lookout have fuel constraints, or 30 min during mitigation zone has been clear of any positioned on a manned towing activities under positive control with additional sightings for a minimum of platform. aircraft that are not typically fuel 10 min. (ii) Mitigation Zone and constrained and during activities using (C) During the activity, the Navy shall Requirements—250 yd around marine time-delay firing devices. observe for marine mammals; if resource mammals. When towing an in-water (G) After completion of an activity is observed, the Navy shall cease device, the Navy shall observe for using time-delay firing devices, the detonations. marine mammals; if resource is Navy shall observe for marine mammals (D) To allow an observed marine observed, the Navy shall maneuver to for 30 min; if any injured or dead mammal to leave the mitigation zone, maintain distance.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 30026 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

(18) Small-, Medium-, and Large- mitigation zone based on a the appropriate designated Command Caliber Non-Explosive Practice determination of its course, speed, and authority prior to commencement of the Munitions. Mitigation applies to movement relative to the intended activity. The Navy will provide NMFS activities using a surface target. impact location; or the mitigation zone with advance notification and include (i) Number of Lookouts and has been clear from any additional the information (e.g., hours of sonar Observation Platform—One Lookout sightings for 10 min when the activity usage) in its annual activity reports. positioned on the platform conducting involves aircraft that have fuel (3) The Navy shall not use explosives the activity. Depending on the activity, constraints, or 30 min when the activity during training or testing activities. the Lookout could be the same as the involves aircraft that are not typically Explosive restrictions within the Hawaii one described for Weapons Firing Noise fuel constrained. Island Mitigation Area apply only to in paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this section. (20) Non-Explosive Bombs and Mine those activities for which the Navy (ii) Mitigation Zone and Shapes. Non-explosive bombs and non- seeks MMPA authorization (e.g., Requirements—200 yd around the explosive mine shapes during mine surface-to-surface or air-to-surface intended impact location. laying activities. missile and gunnery events, BOMBEX, (A) Prior to the start of the activity (i) Number of Lookouts and and mine neutralization). (e.g., when maneuvering on station), the Observation Platform—One Lookout (4) Should national security present a Navy shall observe for floating positioned in an aircraft. requirement for the use of explosives in vegetation and marine mammals; if (ii) Mitigation Zone and the area, naval units will obtain resource is observed, the Navy shall not Requirements—1,000 yd around the permission from the appropriate commence firing. intended target. designated Command authority prior to (B) During the activity, the Navy shall (A) Prior to the start of the activity commencement of the activity. The observe for marine mammals; if resource (e.g., when arriving on station), the Navy will provide NMFS with advance is observed, the Navy shall cease firing. Navy shall observe for floating notification and include the information (C) To allow an observed marine vegetation and marine mammals; if (e.g., explosives usage) in its annual mammal to leave the mitigation zone, resource is observed, the Navy shall not activity reports. the Navy shall not recommence firing commence bomb deployment or mine (B) 4-Islands Region Mitigation Area until one of the recommencement laying. (November 15–April 15): (B) During approach of the target or conditions has been met: The animal is (1) The Navy shall not use MFAS intended minefield location, the Navy observed exiting the mitigation zone; sensor MF1 during training or testing shall observe for marine mammals; if the animal is thought to have exited the activities from November 15–April 15. mitigation zone based on a resource is observed, the Navy shall (2) Should national security present a determination of its course, speed, and cease bomb deployment or mine laying. requirement for the use of MF1 in the movement relative to the intended (C) To allow an observed marine area from November 15–April 15, naval impact location; the mitigation zone has mammal to leave the mitigation zone, units will obtain permission from the been clear from any additional sightings the Navy shall not recommence bomb appropriate designated Command for 10 min for aircraft-based firing or 30 deployment or mine laying until one of authority prior to commencement of the min for vessel-based firing; or for the recommencement conditions has activity. The Navy will provide NMFS activities using a mobile target, the been met: the animal is observed exiting with advance notification and include intended impact location has transited a the mitigation zone; the animal is the information (e.g., hours of sonar distance equal to double that of the thought to have exited the mitigation usage) in its annual activity reports. mitigation zone size beyond the location zone based on a determination of its (ii) [Reserved] of the last sighting. course, speed, and movement relative to (19) Non-Explosive Missiles and the intended target or minefield (2) Mitigation Areas Marine Mammals Rockets. Aircraft-deployed non- location; the mitigation zone has been in the Southern California Portion of the explosive missiles and rockets. clear from any additional sightings for Study Area for sonar, explosives, and Mitigation applies to activities using a 10 min; or for activities using mobile strikes. surface target. targets, the intended target has transited (i) Mitigation Area Requirements—(A) (i) Number of Lookouts and a distance equal to double that of the San Diego Arc Mitigation Area (June 1– Observation Platform—One Lookout mitigation zone size beyond the location October 31): positioned in an aircraft. of the last sighting. (1) The Navy shall not exceed 200 (ii) Mitigation Zone and (b) Mitigation Areas. In addition to hours of MFAS sensor MF1 (with the Requirements—900 yd around the procedural mitigation, the Navy shall exception of active sonar maintenance intended impact location. implement mitigation measures within and systems checks) per season (A) Prior to the start of the activity mitigation areas to avoid or reduce annually. (e.g., during a fly-over of the mitigation potential impacts on marine mammals. (2) Should national security present a zone), the Navy shall observe for (1) Mitigation Areas Marine Mammals requirement to conduct more than 200 floating vegetation and marine in the Hawaii Range Complex for sonar, hrs of MF1 (with the exception of active mammals; if resource is observed, the explosives, and strikes. sonar maintenance and systems checks) Navy shall not commence firing. (i) Mitigation Area Requirements—(A) per year from June 1–October 31, naval (B) During the activity, the Navy shall Hawaii Island Mitigation Area (year- units will obtain permission from the observe for marine mammals; if resource round): appropriate designated Command is observed, the Navy shall cease firing. (1) The Navy shall not exceed 300 authority prior to commencement of the (C) To allow an observed marine hours of MFAS sensor MF1 (MF1) and activity. The Navy will provide NMFS mammal to leave the mitigation zone, 20 hours of MFAS sensor MF4 (MF4) with advance notification and include the Navy shall not recommence firing annually. the information (e.g., hours of sonar until one of the recommencement (2) Should national security present a usage) in its annual activity reports. conditions has been met: The animal is requirement to conduct more than 300 (3) The Navy shall not use explosives observed exiting the mitigation zone; hrs of MF1 or 20 hrs of MF4 per year, during large-caliber gunnery, torpedo, the animal is thought to have exited the naval units will obtain permission from bombing, and missile (including 2.75

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00156 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30027

inch rockets) activities during training HSTT Study Area monitoring describing contain information on MTEs, Sinking or testing activities. the implementation and results from the Exercise (SINKEX) events, and a (4) Should national security present a previous calendar year. Data collection summary of all sound sources used, as requirement to conduct large-caliber methods shall be standardized across described in paragraph (e)(3) of this gunnery, torpedo, bombing, and missile range complexes and study areas to section. The analysis in the detailed (including 2.75 inch rockets) activities allow for comparison in different reports shall be based on the using explosives, naval units will obtain geographic locations. The report shall be accumulation of data from the current permission from the appropriate submitted either three months after the year’s report and data collected from designated Command authority prior to calendar year, or three months after the previous reports. The detailed reports commencement of the activity. The conclusion of the monitoring year to be shall contain information identified in Navy will provide NMFS with advance determined by the Adaptive paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this notification and include the information Management process to the Director, section. (e.g., explosives usage) in its annual Office of Protected Resources, NMFS. (1) MTEs—This section shall contain activity reports. Such a report would describe progress the following information for MTEs (B) Santa Barbara Island Mitigation of knowledge made with respect to conducted in the HSTT Study Area. Area (year-round): intermediate scientific objectives within (i) Exercise Information (for each (1) The Navy shall not use MFAS the HSTT Study Area associated with MTE): sensor MF1 and explosives used in the Integrated Comprehensive (A) Exercise designator; small-, medium-, and large-caliber Monitoring Program. Similar study (B) Date that exercise began and gunnery; torpedo; bombing; and missile questions shall be treated together so ended; (including 2.75 inch rockets) activities that progress on each topic shall be (C) Location; during unit-level training or MTEs. summarized across all Navy ranges. The (D) Number and types of active sonar (2) Should national security present a report need not include analyses and sources used in the exercise; requirement for the use of mid- content that does not provide direct (E) Number and types of passive frequency active anti-submarine warfare assessment of cumulative progress on acoustic sources used in exercise; sensor MF1 or explosives in small-, the monitoring plan study questions. As (F) Number and types of vessels, medium-, and large-caliber gunnery; an alternative, the Navy may submit a aircraft, etc., participating in exercise; torpedo; bombing; and missile multi-Range Complex annual (G) Total hours of observation by (including 2.75 inch rockets) activities Monitoring Plan report to fulfill this lookouts; during unit-level training or major requirement. Such a report would (H) Total hours of all active sonar training exercises for national security, describe progress of knowledge made source operation; naval units will obtain permission from with respect to monitoring study (I) Total hours of each active sonar the appropriate designated Command questions across multiple Navy ranges source bin; and authority prior to commencement of the associated with the ICMP. Similar study (J) Wave height (high, low, and activity. The Navy will provide NMFS questions shall be treated together so average during exercise). with advance notification and include that progress on each topic shall be (ii) Individual marine mammal the information in its annual activity summarized across multiple Navy sighting information for each sighting in reports. ranges. The report need not include each exercise when mitigation occurred: (ii) [Reserved] analyses and content that does not (A) Date/Time/Location of sighting; (B) Species (if not possible, indication provide direct assessment of cumulative § 218.75 Requirements for monitoring and of whale/dolphin/pinniped); progress on the monitoring study reporting. (C) Number of individuals; question. This will continue to allow (a) The Navy must notify NMFS (D) Initial Detection Sensor; immediately (or as soon as operational Navy to provide a cohesive monitoring (E) Indication of specific type of security considerations allow) if the report covering multiple ranges (as per platform observation made from specified activity identified in § 218.70 ICMP goals), rather than entirely (including, for example, what type of is thought to have resulted in the separate reports for the HSTT, Gulf of surface vessel or testing platform); mortality or injury of any marine Alaska, Mariana Islands, and the (F) Length of time observers mammals, or in any take of marine Northwest Study Areas, etc. maintained visual contact with marine mammals not identified in this subpart. (e) Annual HSTT Training Exercise mammal; (b) The Navy must conduct all Report and Testing Activity Report. (G) Sea state; monitoring and required reporting Each year, the Navy shall submit two (H) Visibility; under the LOAs, including abiding by preliminary reports (Quick Look Report) (I) Sound source in use at the time of the HSTT Study Area monitoring detailing the status of authorized sound sighting; program. Details on program goals, sources within 21 days after the (J) Indication of whether animal is objectives, project selection process, and anniversary of the date of issuance of <200 yd, 200 to 500 yd, 500 to 1,000 yd, current projects available at www.navy each LOA to the Director, Office of 1,000 to 2,000 yd, or >2,000 yd from marinespeciesmonitoring.us. Protected Resources, NMFS. Each year, sonar source; (c) Notification of injured, live the Navy shall submit detailed reports (K) Mitigation implementation. stranded, or dead marine mammals. The to the Director, Office of Protected Whether operation of sonar sensor was Navy shall abide by the Notification and Resources, NMFS within 3 months after delayed, or sonar was powered or shut Reporting Plan, which sets out the anniversary of the date of issuance down, and how long the delay was; notification, reporting, and other of the LOA. The HSTT annual Training (L) If source in use is hull-mounted, requirements when dead, injured, or Exercise Report and Testing Activity true bearing of animal from ship, true live stranded marine mammals are reports can be consolidated with other direction of ship’s travel, and estimation detected. exercise reports from other range of animal’s motion relative to ship (d) Annual HSTT Study Area marine complexes in the Pacific Ocean for a (opening, closing, parallel); and species monitoring report. The Navy single Pacific Exercise Report, if (M) Observed behavior. Lookouts shall submit an annual report of the desired. The annual reports shall shall report, in plain language and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00157 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 30028 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules

without trying to categorize in any way, paralleling course/speed, floating on apply for and obtain a modification of the observed behavior of the animals surface and not swimming etc.), LOAs as described in § 218.77. (such as animal closing to bow ride, including speed and direction and if (e) Each LOA shall set forth: paralleling course/speed, floating on any calves present; (1) Permissible methods of incidental surface and not swimming, etc.) and if (K) Resulting mitigation taking; any calves present. (iii) An evaluation implementation. Indicate whether (2) Authorized geographic areas for (based on data gathered during all of the explosive detonations were delayed, incidental taking; MTEs) of the effectiveness of mitigation ceased, modified, or not modified due to (3) Means of effecting the least measures designed to minimize the marine mammal presence and for how practicable adverse impact (i.e., received level to which marine long; and mitigation) on the species of marine mammals may be exposed. This (L) If observation occurs while mammals, their habitat, and the evaluation shall identify the specific explosives are detonating in the water, availability of the species for observations that support any indicate munition type in use at time of subsistence uses; and (4) Requirements for monitoring and conclusions the Navy reaches about the marine mammal detection. (3) Summary of sources used. This reporting. effectiveness of the mitigation. (f) Issuance of the LOA(s) shall be (2) SINKEXs. This section shall section shall include the following based on a determination that the level include the following information for information summarized from the authorized sound sources used in all of taking shall be consistent with the each SINKEX completed that year. findings made for the total taking (i) Exercise information (gathered for training and testing events: allowable under these regulations in each SINKEX); (i) Total annual hours or quantity (per the LOA) of each bin of sonar or other this subpart. (A) Location; (g) Notice of issuance or denial of the acoustic sources (pile driving and air (B) Date and time exercise began and LOA(s) shall be published in the gun activities); ended; Federal Register within 30 days of a (C) Total hours of observation by (ii) Total annual expended/detonated determination. lookouts before, during, and after rounds (missiles, bombs, sonobuoys, exercise; etc.) for each explosive bin. § 218.77 Renewals and modifications of (D) Total number and types of (4) Humpback Whale Special Letters of Authorization. explosive source bins detonated; Reporting Area (December 15–April 15). (a) An LOA issued under § 216.106 of (E) Number and types of passive The Navy shall report the total hours of this subchapter and § 218.76 for the acoustic sources used in exercise; operation of surface ship hull-mounted activity identified in § 218.70(c) shall be (F) Total hours of passive acoustic mid-frequency active sonar used in the renewed or modified upon request by search time; special reporting area. the applicant, provided that: (G) Number and types of vessels, (5) HSTT Mitigation Areas. The Navy (1) The proposed specified activity aircraft, etc., participating in exercise; shall report any use that occurred as and mitigation, monitoring, and (H) Wave height in feet (high, low, specifically described in these areas. reporting measures, as well as the and average during exercise); and Information included in the classified anticipated impacts, are the same as (J) Narrative description of sensors annual reports may be used to inform those described and analyzed for these and platforms utilized for marine future adaptive management of regulations in this subpart (excluding mammal detection and timeline activities within the HSTT Study Area. changes made pursuant to the adaptive illustrating how marine mammal (6) Geographic information management provision in paragraph detection was conducted. presentation. The reports shall present (c)(1) of this section); and (ii) Individual marine mammal an annual (and seasonal, where (2) NMFS determines that the observation (by Navy lookouts) practical) depiction of training and mitigation, monitoring, and reporting information (gathered for each marine testing events and bin usage (as well as measures required by the previous mammal sighting) for each sighting pile driving activities) geographically LOA(s) under these regulations in this where mitigation was implemented. across the HSTT Study Area. subpart were implemented. (A) Date/Time/Location of sighting; (b) For LOA modification or renewal (B) Species (if not possible, indicate § 218.76 Letters of Authorization. requests by the applicant that include whale, dolphin, or pinniped); (a) To incidentally take marine changes to the activity or the mitigation, (C) Number of individuals; mammals pursuant to these regulations monitoring, or reporting measures (D) Initial detection sensor; in this subpart, the Navy must apply for (excluding changes made pursuant to (E) Length of time observers and obtain Letters of Authorization the adaptive management provision in maintained visual contact with marine (LOAs) in accordance with § 216.106 of paragraph (c)(1) of this section) that do mammal; this subpart, conducting the activity not change the findings made for the (F) Sea state; identified in § 218.70(c). regulations or result in no more than a (G) Visibility; (b) LOAs, unless suspended or minor change in the total estimated (H) Whether sighting was before, revoked, may be effective for a period of number of takes (or distribution by during, or after detonations/exercise, time not to exceed the expiration date species or years), NMFS may publish a and how many minutes before or after; of these regulations in this subpart. notice of proposed LOA in the Federal (I) Distance of marine mammal from (c) If an LOA(s) expires prior to the Register, including the associated actual detonations—200 yd, 200 to 500 expiration date of these regulations in analysis of the change, and solicit yd, 500 to 1,000 yd, 1,000 to 2,000 yd, this subpart, the Navy may apply for public comment before issuing the LOA. or >2,000 yd (or target spot if not yet and obtain a renewal of the LOA(s). (c) An LOA issued under § 216.106 of detonated); (d) In the event of projected changes this subchapter and § 218.76 for the (J) Observed behavior. Lookouts shall to the activity or to mitigation, activity identified in § 218.70(c) may be report, in plain language and without monitoring, reporting (excluding modified by NMFS under the following trying to categorize in any way, the changes made pursuant to the adaptive circumstances: observed behavior of the animal(s) (such management provision of § 218.77(c)(1)) (1) Adaptive Management—After as animal closing to bow ride, required by an LOA, the Navy must consulting with the Navy regarding the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00158 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30029

practicability of the modifications, (B) Results from other marine (2) Emergencies—If NMFS determines NMFS may modify (including adding or mammal and/or sound research or that an emergency exists that poses a removing measures) the existing studies; or significant risk to the well-being of the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting (C) Any information that reveals species or stocks of marine mammals measures if doing so creates a marine mammals may have been taken specified in LOAs issued pursuant to reasonable likelihood of more in a manner, extent or number not § 216.106 of this chapter and § 217.86, effectively accomplishing the goals of an LOA may be modified without prior authorized by these regulations in this the mitigation and monitoring set forth notice or opportunity for public subpart or subsequent LOAs. in this subpart. comment. Notice would be published in (i) Possible sources of data that could (ii) If, through adaptive management, the Federal Register within thirty days contribute to the decision to modify the the modifications to the mitigation, of the action. mitigation, monitoring, or reporting monitoring, or reporting measures are measures in an LOA: substantial, NMFS shall publish a notice §§ 218.78–218.79 [Reserved] (A) Results from the Navy’s of proposed LOA in the Federal [FR Doc. 2018–13115 Filed 6–25–18; 8:45 am] monitoring from the previous year(s); Register and solicit public comment. BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jun 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00159 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM 26JNP2 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2