Vol. 80 Wednesday, No. 106 June 3, 2015

Part IV

Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 218 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the Northwest Training and Testing Study Area; Proposed Rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31738 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Conservation Division, Office of Background Protected Resources, National Marine Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct Administration Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910– the Secretary of Commerce to allow, 3225. upon request, the incidental, but not • 50 CFR Part 218 Fax: (301) 713–0376; Attn: Jolie intentional, taking of small numbers of [Docket No. 140109018–5464–01] Harrison. marine mammals by U.S. citizens who Instructions: Comments sent by any engage in a specified activity (other than RIN 0648–BD89 other method, to any other address or commercial fishing) within a specified individual, or received after the end of geographical region if certain findings Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to the comment period, may not be Specified Activities; U.S. Navy Training are made and either regulations are considered by NMFS. All comments issued or, if the taking is limited to and Testing Activities in the Northwest received are a part of the public record Training and Testing Study Area harassment, a notice of a proposed and will generally be posted for public authorization is provided to the public AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries viewing on www.regulations.gov for review. Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and without change. All personal identifying Authorization for incidental takings Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), information (e.g., name, address, etc.), shall be granted if NMFS finds that the Commerce. confidential business information, or taking will have a negligible impact on ACTION: Proposed rule; request for otherwise sensitive information the species or stock(s), will not have an comments and information. submitted voluntarily by the sender will unmitigable adverse impact on the be publicly accessible. NMFS will availability of the species or stock(s) for SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ subsistence uses (where relevant), and if from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for A’’ in the required fields if you wish to the permissible methods of taking and authorization to take marine mammals remain anonymous). Attachments to requirements pertaining to the incidental to the training and testing electronic comments will be accepted in mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of activities conducted in the Northwest Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF such takings are set forth. NMFS has Training and Testing (NWTT) study area file formats only. defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR from November 2015 through November FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 216.103 as ‘‘an impact resulting from 2020. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Fiorentino, Office of Protected the specified activity that cannot be Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8477. reasonably expected to, and is not requesting comments on its proposal to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: reasonably likely to, adversely affect the issue regulations and subsequent Letters species or stock through effects on of Authorization (LOAs) to the Navy to Availability annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’ incidentally harass marine mammals. A copy of the Navy’s LOA The National Defense Authorization The Navy has also requested that NMFS application, which contains a list of the Act of 2004 (NDAA) (Public Law 108– authorize modifications to watchstander references used in this document, may 136) removed the ‘‘small numbers’’ and requirements for observed behavior of be obtained by visiting the internet at: ‘‘specified geographical region’’ marine mammals during Major Training http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ limitations indicated above and Events (MTEs) in the Hawaii-Southern incidental/military.htm. The Navy also amended the definition of ‘‘harassment’’ California Training and Testing (HSTT), prepared a Draft Environmental Impact as it applies to a ‘‘military readiness Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Statement (DEIS)/Overseas activity’’ to read as follows (section (AFTT), Mariana Islands Training and Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS) 3(18)(B) of the MMPA): ‘‘(i) Any act that Testing (MITT), and Gulf of Alaska to assess the environmental impacts injures or has the significant potential to Training (GOA) study areas. associated with ongoing and proposed injure a marine mammal or marine Modifications to the Navy watchstander training and testing activities in the mammal stock in the wild [Level A requirements would require a revision NWTT Study Area. The NWTT DEIS/ Harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs to regulatory text in current regulations OEIS was released to the public on or is likely to disturb a marine mammal governing the taking and importing of January 24, 2014 (79 FR 4158) for or marine mammal stock in the wild by marine mammals during testing and/or review until April 15, 2014. On October causing disruption of natural behavioral training activities in these study areas. 24, 2014 (79 FR 63610), the Navy patterns, including, but not limited to, There are no MTEs associated with published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, Navy training and testing activities in prepare a Supplement to the January feeding, or sheltering, to a point where the NWTT study area. 2014 NWTT DEIS/OEIS. The such behavioral patterns are abandoned DATES: Comments and information must Supplement was released to the public or significantly altered [Level B be received no later than July 17, 2015. on December 19, 2014 (79 FR 75800) for Harassment].’’ ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, review until February 2, 2015. The Navy Summary of Request identified by NOAA–NMFS–2015–0031, is the lead agency for the NWTT EIS/ by any of the following methods: OEIS, and NMFS and the U.S. Coast NWTT Proposed Rule • Electronic submissions: submit all Guard are cooperating agencies On December 18, 2013, NMFS electronic public comments via the pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.6 and 1508.5. received an application from the Navy Federal eRulemaking Portal, Go to The January 2014 NWTT DEIS/OEIS requesting two LOAs for the take of 26 www.regulations.gov/ and the December 2014 Supplement, species of marine mammals incidental #!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015- which contain a list of the references to Navy training and testing activities to 0031, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, used in this document, may be viewed be conducted in the NWTT Study Area complete the required fields, and enter at: http://www.nwtteis.com. Documents over 5 years. On September 26, 2014, or attach your comments. cited in this notice may also be viewed, the Navy submitted a revised LOA • Mail: Submit comments to Jolie by appointment, during regular business application to reflect updates to Harrison, Chief, Permits and hours, at the aforementioned address. exposure estimates based on emergent

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31739

changes to specific types of training authorizations only after providing the provided in the regulatory text at the activities. The revised application also public with an opportunity for review end of this proposed rule. Proposed provided an update to the effects and comment. NMFS is requesting revisions to MITT regulatory text will be analysis for Guadalupe fur seals comments on all aspects of the proposed made in the MITT final rule, which is (summarized in the Analysis of rule. currently being prepared concurrent Guadalupe Fur Seal Exposures section with the NWTT proposed rule and is Modifications to HSTT, AFTT, MITT, of this proposed rule) to more expected to publish in the Federal and GOA Final Rules realistically reflect potential impacts Register prior to the NWTT final rule. from offshore Navy training and testing The Navy is also requesting that There are no MTEs or marine mammal events. On November 7, 2014, the Navy NMFS authorize modifications to sighting reporting requirements submitted a revised LOA application to watchstander requirements, unrelated to associated with Navy training and address: (a) An inadvertent error in the implementation of mitigation measures, testing activities in the NWTT study recommended mitigation zone for mine for observed behavior of marine area. countermeasure and neutralization mammals during MTEs in the HSTT, Background of Request training events; (b) removal of the time AFTT, MITT, and GOA study areas. delay firing underwater explosive With these proposed modifications the The Navy’s mission is to maintain, training activity; and (c) correction or Navy would no longer be required to train, and equip combat-ready naval clarification of certain mitigation report individual marine mammal forces capable of winning wars, measures applied to testing. On April 2, sighting information during MTEs when deterring aggression, and maintaining 2015, the Navy submitted a final mitigation is not occurring in the study freedom of the seas. Section 5062 of revision to the LOA application area. After 5 years of collecting marine Title 10 of the United States Code (hereinafter referred to as the LOA mammal sighting data for all animals directs the Chief of Naval Operations to application) to incorporate and update sighted during MTEs, NMFS and Navy train all military forces for combat. The population density estimates for the have determined that without the ability Chief of Naval Operations meets that Hood Canal stock of harbor seals. to obtain species information this data direction, in part, by conducting at-sea The Navy is requesting separate 5- set does not provide for any meaningful training exercises and ensuring naval year LOAs for training and testing analysis beyond that which may be forces have access to ranges, operating activities to be conducted from 2015 possible using mitigation-related areas (OPAREAs) and airspace where through 2020. The Study Area includes observations alone. The Navy and they can develop and maintain skills for the existing Northwest Training Range NMFS have thoroughly investigated wartime missions and conduct research, Complex, the Keyport Range Complex, several potential uses for the data prior development, testing, and evaluation Carr Inlet Operations Area, Southeast to reaching this conclusion. (RDT&E) of naval systems. Alaska Acoustic Measurement Facility Additionally, this reporting requirement The Navy proposes to continue (SEAFAC), and Navy pierside locations places an undue administrative burden conducting training and testing where sonar maintenance or testing may on ships watch teams. The Navy will activities within the NWTT Study Area, occur (see Figure 1–1 of the LOA continue to collect marine mammal which have been ongoing for decades application for a map of the NWTT sighting data during MTEs for every with some activities dating back to at Study Area). The activities conducted instance when any form of mitigation is least the early 1900s. The tempo and within the NWTT Study Area are employed such as powering down or types of training and testing activities classified as military readiness securing sonar, maneuvering the ship, have fluctuated because of the activities. The Navy states that these or delaying an event—in other words, in introduction of new technologies, the activities may expose some of the instances where animals are closer to evolving nature of international events, marine mammals present within the the sound source around which advances in war fighting doctrine and NWTT Study Area to sound from mitigation measures are implemented. procedures, and force structure underwater acoustic sources and This data is useful in supporting (organization of ships, submarines, explosives. The Navy is requesting mitigation effectiveness analyses and aircraft, weapons, and personnel) authorization to take 26 marine mammal also may be helpful in supporting an changes. Such developments influence species by Level B (behavioral) understanding of the frequency with the frequency, duration, intensity, and harassment; 4 of those marine mammal which marine mammals (generally, not location of required training and testing species may be taken by injury (Level A by species) may be encountered or activities. The Navy analyzed many harassment). detected in close proximity to a training and testing activities in the The LOA application and the January particular source (e.g., where the Study Area in the Tactical Training 2014 NWTT DEIS/OEIS contain likelihood of auditory or other injury is Theater Assessment and Planning proposed acoustic thresholds that were higher). Additionally, the Navy will Program Phase I and earlier documents, used to evaluate the Navy’s AFTT and continue to implement their separate specifically the following environmental HSTT activities. The thresholds are Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring planning documents: Northwest based on evaluation of recent scientific Program, which includes studies that Training Range Complex Final EIS/OEIS studies; a detailed explanation of how are specifically designed to contribute to (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2010a), they were derived is provided in the our understanding of the animals NAVSEA NUWC Keyport Range Criteria and Thresholds for Navy affected and how Navy training and Complex Extension Final EIS/OEIS Acoustic Effects Analysis Technical testing impacts them. (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2010b), Report (Finneran and Jenkins, 2012). These modifications would be and the Final EIS for the Southeast NMFS is currently updating and implemented through the revision of Alaska Acoustic Measurement Facility revising all of its acoustic thresholds. regulatory text for existing regulations (SEAFAC) (U.S. Department of the Until that process is complete, NMFS governing the taking of marine Navy, 1988). The Navy’s LOA request will continue its long-standing practice mammals incidental to testing and/or covers training and testing activities that of considering specific modifications to training activities in HSTT, AFTT, would occur for a 5-year period the acoustic thresholds currently MITT, and GOA study areas. Proposed following the expiration of the first of employed for incidental take revisions to the regulatory text are the two current MMPA authorizations

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31740 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

(Northwest Training Range Complex; The result of these changes in the best Overview of Training Activities Keyport Range Complex). The Navy has available science is that the Navy has The Navy routinely trains in the also prepared and released to the public estimated additional Level A and Level NWTT Study Area in preparation for a January 2014 DEIS/OEIS analyzing the B takes for training and testing activities national defense missions. Training effects on the human environment of per year. These changes to the estimates activities and exercises covered in the implementing their preferred alternative presented in the January 2014 NWTT Navy’s LOA request are briefly (among others). The January 2014 DEIS/OEIS do not reflect a change in the described below, and in more detail NWTT DEIS/OEIS (which is part of Navy’s proposed action nor a significant within Chapter 2 of the January 2014 Phase II of the program) accounts for change to Navy’s methodology. The vast NWTT DEIS/OEIS. Training activities planned adjustments to tempo and types majority of the increased exposure are categorized into eight functional of activities dictated by military estimates are Level B harassment warfare areas (anti-air warfare; readiness requirements. A NOI to exposures that derive from the Navy’s amphibious warfare; strike warfare; anti- prepare a Supplement to the January already conservative acoustic effects surface warfare; anti-submarine warfare; 2014 NWTT DEIS/OEIS was published model. The Navy has determined that electronic warfare; mine warfare; and on October 24, 2014 and the draft these Level A and Level B harassment naval special warfare). The Navy Supplement was released to the public exposures are not biologically determined that the following stressors on December 19, 2014. The Supplement significant to the population because (1) used in these warfare areas are most focused on changes to the Proposed none of the estimated exposures result likely to result in impacts on marine Action due to updated training in mortality; (2) the monitoring and mammals: requirements and significant new mitigations employed would likely • Anti-surface warfare (impulsive information relevant to environmental reduce the severity of Level A sources [underwater detonations]) concerns per 40 CFR 1502.9. exposures; (3) there are no indications • Anti-submarine warfare (non- The Navy’s LOA application differs that the historically occurring activities impulsive sources [active sonar], from the January 2014 NWTT DEIS/ resulting in these behavioral harassment impulsive underwater detonations) OEIS in that it contains updated exposures are having any effect on this • Mine warfare (non-impulsive sources, information on the Washington Inland population’s survival by altering impulsive underwater detonations) Waters stocks of harbor seals (Carretta et behavior patterns such as breeding, The Navy’s activities in anti-air al., 2014) and their abundance in Hood nursing, feeding, or sheltering; (4) the warfare, electronic warfare, and naval Canal based on a new application of population has been stable and likely at special warfare do not involve stressors London et al. (2012). The January 2014 carrying capacity (Jeffries et al., 2003); that could result in harassment of NWTT DEIS/OEIS analysis relied on (5) the population continues to use marine mammals. Therefore, these NMFS’ Stock Assessment Reports known large haulouts in Hood Canal activities are not discussed further. The (SARs) through 2013 (Carretta et al., and Dabob Bay that are adjacent to Navy analysis and rationale for excluding 2014), which did not incorporate the testing and training activities; (6) the these warfare areas is contained in the London et al. findings. London et al. population continues to use known January 2014 DEIS/OEIS. (2012) reported the variability of harbor haulouts for pupping; and (7) the Anti-Surface Warfare seal haulout behavior in a sub-portion of population continues to use the waters Hood Canal, covering 5 months of the in and around Dabob Bay and Hood The mission of anti-surface warfare year (July-November). The paper Canal. As such, the Navy has (ASUW) is to defend against enemy provided a range of haulout determined, and NMFS concurs, that it ships or boats. When conducting anti- probabilities in Hood Canal that differed is not necessary to supplement the surface warfare, aircraft use cannons, from the single value (65 percent— January 2014 NWTT DEIS/OEIS analysis air-launched cruise missiles, or other Huber et al., 2001) previously used by as this information is not new precision-guided munitions; ships use NMFS and Navy to calculate harbor seal significant information to the torpedoes, naval guns, and surface-to- abundance. Recently, in discussions environmental impacts. However, the surface missiles; and submarines use between the Navy and NMFS it was Navy has advised NMFS that all torpedoes or submarine-launched, anti- determined that it is now appropriate to comments received on the proposed ship cruise missiles. Anti-surface incorporate London et al. (2012) for the rule that address the changes in take warfare training includes surface-to- Hood Canal stock only. This resulted in estimates for the Hood Canal stock of surface gunnery and missile exercises, increasing the population estimate of harbor seals will be addressed by the air-to-surface gunnery and missile the Hood Canal stock of harbor seals by Navy in its Final EIS/OEIS for NWTT. exercises, and submarine missile or a factor of approximately 3.26, resulting exercise torpedo launch events. in a new abundance estimate of 3,555. Description of the Specified Activity In addition, in calculating its exposure Anti-Submarine Warfare estimates, the Navy also applied the The Navy is requesting authorization The mission of anti-submarine haulout probability of 20 percent to take marine mammals incidental to warfare (ASW) is to locate, neutralize, derived from London et al. (2012) which conducting training and testing and defeat hostile submarine threats to changed the percentage of harbor seals activities. The Navy has determined that surface forces. Anti-submarine warfare in the water from 35 percent (Huber et sonar use and underwater detonations is based on the principle of a layered al., 2001) to 80 percent. These changes are the stressors most likely to result in defense of surveillance and attack in assumptions result in a impacts on marine mammals that could aircraft, ships, and submarines all corresponding increase in estimated rise to the level of harassment. Detailed searching for hostile submarines. These exposures because the Navy is assuming descriptions of these activities are forces operate together or independently that there are more harbor seals present provided in the January 2014 NWTT to gain early warning and detection, and in Hood Canal and more of the animals DEIS/OEIS and in the LOA application to localize, track, target, and attack will be in the water at any given time (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ hostile submarine threats. Anti- compared to the analysis presented in incidental/military.htm) and are submarine warfare training addresses the January 2014 NWTT DEIS/OEIS. summarized here. basic skills such as detection and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31741

classification of submarines, community, which includes the Navy’s simplify review due to the diversity of distinguishing between sounds made by Systems Commands and the Navy’s activity types and locations they work enemy submarines and those of friendly scientific research organizations, the in. Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and submarines, ships, and marine life. testing activities described in the LOA Intermediate Facility activities are More advanced, integrated anti- application are organized first by that grouped with the general activities submarine warfare training exercises are particular organization as described conducted by NAVSEA. Numerous test conducted in coordinated, at-sea below and in the order as presented. activities and technical evaluations, in training events involving submarines, The Navy describes and analyzes the support of NAVSEA’s systems ships, and aircraft. This training effects of its testing activities within the development mission, often occur in integrates the full spectrum of anti- 2014 NWTT DEIS/OEIS. In its conjunction with fleet activities within submarine warfare from detecting and assessment, the Navy concluded that the Study Area. tracking a submarine to attacking a acoustic stressors from the use of target using either exercise torpedoes or underwater acoustic sources and Naval Undersea Warfare Center simulated weapons. underwater detonations resulted in Division, Keyport Testing Activities impacts on marine mammals that rose to Mine Warfare NUWC Division Keyport’s mission is the level of harassment as defined under to provide test and evaluation services The mission of mine warfare is to the MMPA. Therefore, the LOA and expertise to support the Navy’s detect, and avoid or neutralize mines to application for NWTT provides the evolving manned and unmanned protect Navy ships and submarines and Navy’s assessment of potential effects vehicle program activities. NUWC to maintain free access to ports and from these stressors in terms of the Keyport has historically provided shipping lanes. Mine warfare also various activities in which they would facilities and capabilities to support includes offensive mine laying to gain be used. testing of torpedoes, other unmanned control or deny the enemy access to sea The individual commands within the vehicles, submarine readiness, diver space. Naval mines can be laid by ships, research and acquisition community training, and similar activities that are submarines, or aircraft. Mine warfare included in the NWTT DEIS/OEIS and critical to the success of undersea training includes exercises in which in the LOA application are: ships, aircraft, submarines, underwater • warfare. Range support requirements for Naval Sea Systems Command such activities include testing, training, vehicles, or marine mammal detection (NAVSEA). Within NAVSEA are the systems search for mines. Certain and evaluation of system capabilities following field activities: such as guidance, control, and sensor personnel train to destroy or disable Æ Naval Undersea Warfare Center accuracy in multiple marine mines by attaching and detonating (NUWC) Division, Keyport underwater explosives to simulated Æ Naval Surface Warfare Center, environments (e.g., differing depths, mines. Other neutralization techniques Carderock Division (NSWCCD), salinity levels, sea states) and in involve impacting the mine with a Detachment Puget Sound surrogate and simulated war-fighting bullet-like projectile or intentionally Æ NSWCCD Southeast Alaska Acoustic environments. Technological triggering the mine to detonate. Measurement Facility (SEAFAC) advancements in the materials, Æ Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and instrumentation, guidance systems, and Other Activities Intermediate Maintenance Facility tactical capabilities of manned and Other activities include pierside and Æ Various NAVSEA program offices unmanned vehicles continue to evolve at-sea maintenance of submarine and • Naval Air Systems Command in parallel with emerging national surface ship sonar systems. (NAVAIR) security priorities and threat assessments. However, NUWC Keyport Overview of Testing Activities Naval Sea Systems Command Testing does not utilize explosives in any Testing activities covered in the Events testing scenarios. Navy’s LOA request are briefly NAVSEA is responsible for described below, and in more detail engineering, building, buying, and Naval Surface Warfare Center, within Chapter 2 of the January 2014 maintaining the Navy’s ships and Carderock Division NWTT DEIS/OEIS. The Navy submarines and associated combat NSWCCD includes two organizations researches, develops, tests, and systems. NAVSEA is broken up into two that conduct testing activities: evaluates new platforms, systems and types of warfare centers: NUWC and the NSWCCD, Detachment Puget Sound and technologies. Many tests are conducted Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC). NSWCCD SEAFAC. Detachment Puget in realistic conditions at sea, and can NUWC provides Fleet readiness Sound testing activities are aligned with range in scale from testing new software support for submarines, surface ships, its mission to provide research, to operating portable devices to torpedoes, mines, land attack systems, development, test, and evaluation conducting tests of live weapons (such and Fleet training systems. NAVSEA (RDT&E), analysis, acquisition support, as the Service Weapon Test of a has several field activities operating out in-service engineering, logistics and torpedo) to ensure they function as of Naval Base (NAVBASE) Kitsap, integration of surface and undersea intended. Testing activities may occur including NUWC Division Keyport, vehicles and associated systems; independently of or in conjunction with NSWCCD Detachment Puget Sound, and develop and apply science and training activities. Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and technology associated with naval Many testing activities are conducted Intermediate Maintenance Facility. architecture and marine engineering; similarly to Navy training activities and NSWCCD Detachment Puget Sound also and provide support to the maritime are also categorized under one of the operates the SEAFAC facility in Alaska. industry. Activities and support include primary mission areas described above. Each major category of NAVSEA engineering, technical, operations, Other testing activities are unique and activities in the Study Area is diving, and logistics required for the are described within their specific represented below. NUWC Division, RDT&E associated with: testing categories. Because each test is Keyport and NSWCCD Detachment conducted by a specific component of Puget Sound activities are grouped • Advanced Technology Concepts, the Navy’s research and acquisition together in the discussion below to Engineering and Proofing

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31742 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

• Experimental Underwater Vehicles, impulsive sources, and high duty cycle Ordnance and Munitions Systems, Subsystems and sonobuoys. Most ordnance and munitions used Components Description of Sonar, Ordnance, during training and testing events fall • Specialized Underwater Systems, Targets, and Other Systems into three basic categories: projectiles Equipment, Tools and Hardware (such as gun rounds), missiles • The Navy uses a variety of sensors, Acoustic Data Acquisition, Analysis (including rockets), and bombs. platforms, weapons, and other devices and Measurement Systems (required Ordnance can be further defined by to meet its mission. Training and testing to measure U.S. Navy Acoustic their net explosive weight, which with these systems may introduce Signatures). considers the type and quantity of the acoustic (sound) energy into the explosive substance without the These activities can be broken down environment. This section describes and packaging, casings, bullets, etc. Net into four major testing categories to organizes sonar systems, ordnance, explosive weight (NEW) is the include: System, Subsystem and munitions, targets, and other systems to trinitrotoluene (TNT) equivalent of Component Acoustic Testing Pierside; facilitate understanding of the activities energetic material, which is the Performance Testing at Sea; in which these systems are used. standard measure of strength of bombs Development Testing and Training; and Underwater sound is described as one of and other explosives. For example, a Proof of Concept Testing. two types for the purposes of the LOA 12.7-centimeter (cm) shell fired from a NSWCCD SEAFAC makes high application: impulsive and non- Navy gun is analyzed at about 9.5 fidelity directive volumetric and line impulsive. Underwater detonations of pounds (lb) (4.3 kilograms (kg)) of NEW. arrays passive acoustic signature explosives and other percussive events The Navy also uses non-explosive measurements. The SEAFAC site are impulsive sounds. Sonar and similar ordnance in place of high explosive includes directive line arrays and data sound producing systems are ordnance in many training and testing collection and processing systems for categorized as non-impulsive sound events. Non-explosive ordnance real-time data analysis and signature sources. evaluation. munitions look and perform similarly to SEAFAC provides the capability to Sonar and Other Active Acoustic high explosive ordnance, but lack the perform RDT&E analyses to determine Sources main explosive charge. the sources of radiated acoustic noise, to Modern sonar technology includes a Defense Countermeasures assess vulnerability, and to develop variety of sonar sensor and processing Naval forces depend on effective quieting measures. Unforeseen emergent systems. The simplest active sonar emits defensive countermeasures to protect Navy requirements may influence actual sound waves, or ‘‘pings,’’ sent out in themselves against missile and torpedo multiple directions and the sound testing activities during the time period attack. Defensive countermeasures are waves then reflect off of the target object under consideration. Testing activities devices designed to confuse, distract, in multiple directions. The sonar source that would occur at SEAFAC are and confound precision guided calculates the time it takes for the identified to the extent practicable munitions. Defensive countermeasures reflected sound waves to return; this throughout this application. analyzed in the LOA application calculation determines the distance to include acoustic countermeasures, Naval Sea Systems Command Program the target object. More sophisticated which are used by surface ships and Office Sponsored Testing Activities active sonar systems emit a ping and submarines to defend against torpedo NAVSEA also conducts tests that are then rapidly scan or listen to the sound attack. Acoustic countermeasures are not associated with NUWC Keyport or waves in a specific area. This provides either released from ships and both distance to the target and NSWCCD. Activities are conducted at submarines, or towed at a distance directional information. Even more Navy piers at NAVBASE Kitsap, behind the ship. Bremerton; NAVBASE Kitsap, Bangor; advanced sonar systems use multiple and Naval Station Everett; and in receivers to listen to echoes from several Mine Warfare Systems conjunction with fleet activities off the directions simultaneously and provide The Navy divides mine warfare coast of Washington, Oregon, and efficient detection of both direction and systems into two categories: Mine northern California. Tests within this distance. The Navy rarely uses active detection and mine neutralization. Mine category include, but are not limited to, sonar continuously throughout detection systems are used to locate, Life Cycle Activities, Shipboard activities. When sonar is in use, the classify, and map suspected mines, on Protection Systems and Swimmer pings occur at intervals, referred to as a the surface, in the water column, or on Defense Testing, Unmanned Vehicle duty cycle, and the signals themselves the sea floor. The Navy analyzed the Testing, ASUW/ASW Testing, and New are very short in duration. For example, following mine detection systems for Ship Construction. sonar that emits a 1-second ping every potential impacts to marine mammals: 10 seconds has a 10-percent duty cycle. • Towed or hull-mounted mine Naval Air Systems Command Testing The Navy utilizes sonar systems and Events detection systems. These detection other acoustic sensors in support of a systems use acoustic and laser or video NAVAIR testing events generally fall variety of mission requirements. sensors to locate and classify suspect into the primary mission areas used by Primary uses include the detection of mines. Fixed and rotary wing platforms, the fleets. NAVAIR events include, but and defense against submarines (anti- ships, and unmanned vehicles are used are not limited to, the testing of new submarine warfare) and mines (mine for towed systems, which can rapidly aircraft platforms, weapons, and warfare); safe navigation and effective assess large areas. systems before those platforms, communications; use of unmanned • Airborne Laser Mine Detection weapons and systems are integrated into undersea vehicles; and oceanographic Systems. Airborne laser detection the fleet. In this application, NAVAIR surveys. Sources of sonar and other systems work in concert with testing activities are limited to ASW active acoustic sources include surface neutralization systems. The detection testing of sonobuoys. The sonobuoys ship sonar, sonobuoys, torpedoes, range system initially locates mines and a tested include both passive and active pingers, and unmanned underwater neutralization system is then used to non-impulsive, sonobuoys using vehicles. relocate and neutralize the mine.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31743

• Unmanned/remotely operated Explosive charges are used during following factors further describe how vehicles. These vehicles use acoustic mine neutralization system training non-impulsive sources are divided: and video or lasers to locate and classify activities; however, only non-explosive • Frequency of the non-impulsive mines and provide unique capabilities mines or mine shapes would be used. source: in nearshore littoral areas, surf zones, Classification of Non-Impulsive and Æ Low-frequency sources operate below ports, and channels. Impulsive Sources Analyzed 1 kilohertz (kHz) Mine neutralization systems disrupt, Æ Mid-frequency sources operate at or In order to better organize and disable, or detonate mines to clear ports above 1 kHz, up to and including 10 facilitate the analysis of about 300 and shipping lanes, as well as littoral, kHz sources of underwater non-impulsive surf, and beach areas in support of naval Æ High-frequency sources operate above amphibious operations. Mine sound or impulsive energy, the Navy developed a series of source 10 kHz, up to and including 100 kHz neutralization systems can clear Æ classifications, or source bins. This Very high-frequency sources operate individual mines or a large number of method of analysis provides the above 100 kHz, but below 200 kHz mines quickly. The Navy analyzed the following benefits: • Source level of the non-impulsive following mine neutralization systems • Allows for new sources to be source: for potential impacts to marine covered under existing authorizations, Æ Greater than 160 decibels (dB), but mammals: as long as those sources fall within the • less than 180 dB Towed influence mine sweep parameters of a ‘‘bin;’’ Æ Equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB • systems. These systems use towed Simplifies the data collection and Æ Greater than 200 dB equipment that mimic a particular reporting requirements anticipated How a sensor is used determines how ship’s magnetic and acoustic signature under the MMPA; • the sensor’s acoustic emissions are triggering the mine and causing it to Ensures a conservative approach to analyzed. Factors to consider include explode. all impact analysis because all sources pulse length (time source is on); beam • Towed mechanical mine sweeping in a single bin are modeled as the pattern (whether sound is emitted as a systems.These systems tow a sweep loudest source (e.g., lowest frequency, narrow, focused beam, or, as with most wire to snag the line that attaches a highest source level, longest duty cycle, explosives, in all directions); and duty moored mine to its anchor and then or largest net explosive weight within cycle (how often a transmission occurs uses a series of cables and cutters to that bin); in a given time period during an event). • Allows analysis to be conducted sever those lines. Once these lines are There are also non-impulsive sources more efficiently, without compromising cut, the mines float to the surface where with characteristics that are not the results; Navy personnel can neutralize the • anticipated to result in takes of marine mines. Provides a framework to support the reallocation of source usage (hours/ mammals. These sources have low • Unmanned/remotely operated mine explosives) between different source source levels, narrow beam widths, neutralization systems. Surface ships bins, as long as the total number and downward directed transmission, short and helicopters operate these systems, severity of marine mammal takes remain pulse lengths, frequencies beyond which place explosive charges near or within the overall analyzed and known hearing ranges of marine directly against mines to destroy the authorized limits. This flexibility is mammals, or some combination of these mine. required to support evolving Navy factors. These sources were not modeled • Projectiles. Small- and medium- training and testing requirements, by the Navy, but are qualitatively caliber projectiles, fired from surface which are linked to real world events. analyzed in Table 1–4 of the LOA ships or hovering helicopters, are used A description of each source application and in the January 2014 to neutralize floating and near-surface classification is provided in Tables 1–3. NWTT DEIS/OEIS. These sources mines. Non-impulsive sources are grouped into generally meet the following criteria: • Diver emplaced explosive charges. bins based on the frequency, source • Acoustic sources with frequencies Operating from small craft, divers put level when warranted, and how the greater than 200 kHz (based on known explosive charges near or on mines to source would be used. Impulsive bins marine mammal hearing ranges) destroy the mine or disrupt its ability to are based on the net explosive weight of • Sources with source levels less than function. the munitions or explosive devices. The 160 dB

TABLE 1—IMPULSIVE TRAINING AND TESTING SOURCE CLASSES ANALYZED

Source class Representative munitions Net explosive weight (lbs)

E1 ...... Medium-caliber projectiles ...... 0.1–0.25 (45.4–113.4 g). E3 ...... Large-caliber projectiles ...... >0.5–2.5 (>226.8 g–1.1 kg). E4 ...... Improved Extended Echo Ranging Sonobuoy ...... >2.5–5.0 (1.1–2.3 kg). E5 ...... 5 in. (12.7 cm) projectiles ...... >5–10 (>2.3–4.5 kg). E8 ...... 250 lb. (113.4 kg) bomb ...... >60–100 (>27.2–45.4 kg). E10 ...... 1,000 lb. (453.6 kg) bomb ...... >250–500 (>113.4–226.8 kg). E11 ...... 650 lb. (294.8 kg) mine ...... >500–650 (>226.8–294.8 kg). E12 ...... 2,000 lb. (907.2 kg) bomb ...... >650–1,000 (>294.8–453.6 kg).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31744 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 2—NON-IMPULSIVE TRAINING SOURCE CLASSES ANALYZED

Source Source class category class Description

Mid-Frequency (MF): Tactical and non-tactical sources that MF1 ..... Active hull-mounted surface ship sonar (e.g., AN/SQS–53C and produce mid-frequency (1 to 10 kHz) signals. AN/SQS–60). MF3 ..... Active hull-mounted submarine sonar (e.g., AN/BQQ–10). MF4 ..... Active helicopter-deployed dipping sonar (e.g., AN/AQS–22 and AN/AQS–13). MF5 ..... Active acoustic sonobuoys (e.g., AN/SSQ–62 DICASS2). MF11 ... Hull-mounted surface ship sonar with an active duty cycle greater than 80%. High-Frequency (HF) and Very High-Frequency (VHF): Tactical HF1 ..... Active hull-mounted submarine sonar (e.g., AN/BQQ–15). and non-tactical sources that produce high-frequency (greater HF4 ..... Active mine detection, classification, and neutralization sonar than 10 kHz but less than 200 kHz) signals. (e.g., AN/SQS–20). HF6 ..... Active sources (equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB). Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW): Tactical sources such as active ASW2 .. MF active Multistatic Active Coherent (MAC) sonobuoy (e.g., AN/ sonobuoys and acoustic countermeasures systems used during ASW3 .. SSQ–125). ASW training activities. MF active towed active acoustic countermeasure systems (e.g., AN/SLQ–25 NIXIE).

TABLE 3—NON-IMPULSIVE TESTING SOURCE CLASSES ANALYZED

Source Source class category class Description

Low-Frequency (LF): Sources that produce low-frequency (less LF4 ...... Low-frequency sources equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB. than 1 kilohertz [kHz]) signals. LF5 ...... Low-frequency sources less than 180 dB. Mid-Frequency (MF): Tactical and non-tactical sources that MF3 ..... Hull-mounted submarine sonar (e.g., AN/BQQ–10). produce mid-frequency (1 to 10 kHz) signals. MF4 ..... Helicopter-deployed dipping sonar (e.g., AN/AQS–22 and AN/ AQS–13). MF5 ..... Active acoustic sonobuoys (e.g., DICASS). MF6 ..... Active underwater sound signal devices (e.g., MK–84). MF8 ..... Active sources (greater than 200 dB). MF9 ..... Active sources (equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB). MF10 ... Active sources (greater than 160 dB, but less than 180 dB) not otherwise binned. MF11 ... Hull-mounted surface ship sonar with an active duty cycle greater than 80%. MF12 ... High duty cycle—variable depth sonar. High-Frequency (HF) and Very High-Frequency (VHF): Tactical HF1 ..... Hull-mounted submarine sonar (e.g., AN/BQQ–10). and non-tactical sources that produce high-frequency (greater HF3 ..... Hull-mounted submarine sonar (classified). than 10 kHz but less than 200 kHz) signals. HF5 1 ... Active sources (greater than 200 dB). HF6 ..... Active sources (equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB). VHF2 ... Active sources with a frequency greater than 100 kHz, up to 200 kHz with a source level less than 200 dB. Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW): Tactical sources such as active ASW1 .. Mid-frequency Deep Water Active Distributed System (DWADS). sonobuoys and acoustic countermeasures systems used during ASW2 .. Mid-frequency Multistatic Active Coherent sonobuoy (e.g., AN/ the conduct of ASW testing activities. SSQ–125)—sources analyzed by number of items (sonobuoys). ASW2 .. Mid-frequency sonobuoy (e.g., high duty cycle)—Sources that are analyzed by hours. ASW3 .. Mid-frequency towed active acoustic countermeasure systems (e.g., AN/SLQ–25). ASW4 .. Mid-frequency expendable active acoustic device counter- measures (e.g., MK–3). Torpedoes (TORP): Source classes associated with the active TORP1 Lightweight torpedo (e.g., MK–46, MK–54). acoustic signals produced by torpedoes. TORP2 Heavyweight torpedo (e.g., MK–48, electric vehicles). Acoustic Modems (M): Systems used to transmit data acoustically M3 ...... Mid-frequency acoustic modems (greater than 190 dB) (e.g., Un- through water. derwater Emergency Warning System, Aid to Navigation). Swimmer Detection Sonar (SD): Systems used to detect divers SD1 ..... High-frequency 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 Sonar (SAS): Sonar in which active acoustic SAS2 ... High frequency unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV) (e.g., UUV signals are post-processed to form high-resolution images of payloads). the seafloor. Notes: 1 For this analysis, HF5 consists of only one source; the modeling was conducted specifically for that source. 2 DICASS = Directional Command Activated Sonobuoy System Proposed Action.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31745

Training and Testing be found in the LOA application and in anticipated to meet training and testing Appendix A of the January 2014 NWTT needs in the years 2015–2020. The training and testing activities that DEIS/OEIS. NMFS used the detailed Summary of Impulsive and Non- the Navy proposes to conduct in the information in the LOA application and Impulsive Sources NWTT Study Area are listed in Tables in Appendix A of the January 2014 4–6. Detailed information about each NWTT DEIS/OEIS to analyze the Table 4 provides a quantitative annual proposed activity (stressor, training or potential impacts from training and summary of training activities by sonar testing event, description, sound source, testing activities on marine mammals. and other active acoustic source class duration, and geographic location) can The Navy’s proposed activities are analyzed in the Navy’s LOA request.

TABLE 4—ANNUAL HOURS OF SONAR AND OTHER ACTIVE ACOUSTIC SOURCES USED DURING TRAINING WITHIN THE NWTT STUDY AREA

Source class Source category class Annual use

Mid-Frequency (MF) Active sources from 1 to 10 kHz ...... MF1 ..... 166 hours. MF3 ..... 70 hours. MF4 ..... 4 hours. MF5 ..... 896 items. MF11 ... 16 hours. High-Frequency (HF) Tactical and non-tactical sources that produce signals greater than 10 kHz but less than 100 HF1 ..... 48 hours. kHz. HF4 ..... 384 hours. HF6 ..... 192 hours. Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) ...... ASW2 .. 720 items. ASW3 .. 78 hours.

Table 5 provides a quantitative annual and other active sources analyzed in the summary of testing activities by sonar Navy’s LOA request.

TABLE 5—ANNUAL HOURS OF SONAR AND OTHER ACTIVE ACOUSTIC SOURCES USED DURING TESTING WITHIN THE NWTT STUDY AREA

Source Source class category class Annual use

Low-Frequency (LF): Sources that produce signals less than 1 kHz ...... LF4 ...... 110 hours. LF5 ...... 71 hours. Mid-Frequency (MF): Tactical and non-tactical sources that produce signals from 1 to MF3 ..... 161 hours. 10 kHz. MF4 ..... 10 hours. MF5 ..... 273 items. MF6 ..... 12 items. MF8 ..... 40 hours. MF9 ..... 1,183 hours. MF10 ... 1,156 hours. MF11 ... 34 hours. MF12 ... 24 hours. High-Frequency (HF) and Very High-Frequency (VHF): Tactical and non-tactical sources HF1 ..... 161 hours. that produce signals greater than 10 kHz but less than 200 kHz. HF3 ..... 145 hours. HF5 1 ... 360 hours. HF6 ..... 2,099 hours. Very High-Frequency (VHF): Tactical and non-tactical sources that produce signals VHF2 ... 35 hours. greater than 100 kHz but less than 200 kHz. Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW): Tactical sources used during ASW training and testing ASW1 .. 16 hours. activities. ASW2 2 64 hours. ASW2 2 170 items. ASW3 .. 444 hours. ASW4 .. 1,182 hours. Torpedoes (TORP): Source classes associated with active acoustic signals produced by TORP1 315 items. torpedoes. TORP2 299 items. Acoustic Modems (M): Transmit data acoustically through the water ...... M3 ...... 1,519 hours. Swimmer Detection Sonar (SD): Used to detect divers and submerged swimmers ...... SD1 ..... 757 hours. Synthetic Aperture Sonar (SAS): Sonar in which active acoustic signals are post-proc- SAS2 ... 798 hours. essed to form high-resolution images of the seafloor. 1 For this analysis, HF5 consists of only one source; the modeling was conducted specifically for that source. 2 The ASW2 bin contains sources that are analyzed by hours and some that are analyzed by count of items. There is no overlap of the num- bers in the two rows.

Table 6 provides a quantitative annual classes analyzed in the Navy’s LOA summary of training explosive source request.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31746 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 6—PROPOSED ANNUAL NUMBER OF IMPULSIVE SOURCE DETONATIONS DURING TRAINING IN THE NWTT STUDY AREA

Annual in-water Explosive class Net explosive weight detonations (NEW) (training)

E1 ...... (0.1 lb.–0.25 lb.) ...... 48 E3 ...... (>0.5 lb.–2.5 lb.) ...... 6 E5 ...... (>5 lb.–10 lb.) ...... 80 E10 ...... (>250 lb.–500 lb.) ...... 4 E12 ...... (>650 lb.–1000 lb.) ...... 10

Table 7 provides a quantitative annual classes analyzed in the Navy’s LOA summary of testing explosive source request.

TABLE 7—PROPOSED ANNUAL NUMBER OF IMPULSIVE SOURCE DETONATIONS DURING TESTING IN THE NWTT STUDY AREA

Annual In-Water Explosive class Net explosive weight Detonations (NEW) (testing)

E3 ...... (>0.5 lb.–2.5 lb.) ...... 72 E4 ...... (>2.5 lb.–5 lb.) ...... 70 E8 ...... (>60 lb.–100 lb.) ...... 3 E11 ...... (>500 lb.–650 lb.) ...... 3

Other Stressors—Vessel Strikes in a take and require authorization action) include ships, submarines and In addition to potential impacts to under the MMPA. boats ranging in size from small, 16-foot marine mammals from activities using Vessel strikes may occur from surface (ft.) (5-meter [m]) rigid hull inflatable explosives or sonar and other active operations and sub-surface operations boats to aircraft carriers with lengths up acoustic sources, the Navy also (excluding bottom crawling, unmanned to 1,092 ft. (333 m). Representative Navy considered ship strike impacts to underwater vehicles). Vessels used as vessel types, lengths, and speeds used marine mammals. The Navy assessed part of the Navy’s proposed NWTT in both training and testing activities are that no additional stressors would result training and testing activities (proposed shown in Table 8.

TABLE 8—REPRESENTATIVE NAVY VESSEL TYPES, LENGTHS, AND SPEEDS USED WITHIN THE NWTT STUDY AREA

Typical Vessel type Example(s) Length operating Max speed speed

Aircraft Carrier ...... Aircraft Carrier ...... >900 ft (>300 m) ...... 10–15 knots ... 30+ knots Surface Combatants...... Cruisers, Destroyers, Frigates, Littoral 330–660 ft (100–200 m) ... 10–15 knots ... 30+ knots Combat Ships. Support Craft/Other ...... Range Support Craft, Combat Rubber 16–250 ft (5–80 m) ...... Variable ...... 20 knots Raiding Craft, Landing Craft, Utility; Submarine Tenders, Yard Patrol Craft, Protection Vessels, Barge. Support Craft/Other—Specialized High Patrol Coastal Ships, Patrol Boats, Rigid 33–130 ft (10–40 m) ...... Variable ...... 50+ knots Speed. Hull Inflatable Boat, High Speed Pro- tection Vessels. Submarines ...... Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarines, Attack 330–660 ft (100–200 m) ... 8–13 knots ..... 20+ knots Submarines, Guided Missile Sub- marines.

Large Navy ships greater than 65 ft. While these speeds are representative, maneuvers, target launch or retrievals, (20 m) generally operate at speeds in the some vessels operate outside of these etc. range of 10–15 knots for fuel speeds due to unique training or safety The number of Navy vessels in the conservation when cruising. requirements for a given event. Study Area varies based on training and Submarines generally operate at speeds Examples include increased speeds testing schedules. Most activities in the range of 8–13 knots during transit needed for flight operations, full speed include either one or two vessels, with and slower for certain tactical runs to test engineering equipment, time an average of one vessel per activity, maneuvers. Small craft (for purposes of critical positioning needs, etc. Examples and last from a few hours up to 2 weeks. this discussion less than 65 ft. [20 m] in of decreased speeds include speeds less Vessel movement and the use of in- length) have much more variable than 5 knots or completely stopped for water devices as part of the proposed speeds, dependent on the mission. launching small boats, certain tactical action would be concentrated in certain

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31747

portions of the Study Area (such as includes air and water space within and way to the coastline only along the Western Behm Canal [Alaska] or Hood outside Washington state waters, and Washington coast beneath the airspace Canal in the inland waters portion of the outside state waters of Oregon and of W–237 and the Olympic Military Study Area) but may occur anywhere Northern California. The Study Area Operations Area (MOA) and the within the Study Area. includes four existing range complexes Washington coastline north of the The Navy is analyzing the potential and facilities: The Northwest Training Olympic MOA. The components of the environmental impacts of Range Complex (NWTRC), the Keyport Offshore Area are described below. approximately 226 ongoing annual Range Complex, Carr Inlet Operations Maritime Security Operations events in Area, and SEAFAC. In addition to these Airspace Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de range complexes, the Study Area also The SUA in the Offshore Area is Fuca. These critical events have been includes Navy pierside locations where comprised of Warning Area 237 (W– occurring since 2006 and exercise the sonar maintenance and testing occurs as 237), which extends westward off the Navy’s Transit Protection System, where part of overhaul, modernization, coast of Northern Washington State and up to nine escort vessels provide maintenance and repair activities at is divided into nine sub-areas (A–H, and protection during all nuclear ballistic NAVBASE Kitsap, Bremerton; J). The eastern boundary of W–237 lies missile submarine (SSBN) transits NAVBASE Kitsap, Bangor; and Naval 3 nm off the coast of Washington. The between the vessel’s homeport and the Station Everett. floor of W–237 extends to the ocean dive/surface point in the Strait of Juan A range complex is a designated set surface and the ceiling of the airspace de Fuca or Dabob Bay. During a Transit of specifically bounded geographic areas varies between 27,000 ft. (8,200 m) in Protection System event, the security and encompasses a water component areas E, H, and J; 50,000 ft. (15,200 m) escorts enforce a moving 1,000 yard (above and below the surface), and may in areas A and B; and unlimited in areas security zone around the SSBN to encompass airspace and a land C, D, F, and G, with a total area of prevent other vessels from approaching component where training and testing of 25,331 square nautical miles (nm2). while the SSBN is in transit on the military platforms, tactics, munitions, The Olympic MOA overlays both land surface. These events include security explosives, and EW systems occurs. (the Olympic Peninsula) and sea escort vessels, U.S. Coast Guard Range complexes include established (extending to 3 nm off the coast of personnel and their ancillary equipment OPAREAs, Restricted Areas, and special Washington into the Pacific Ocean). The and weapons systems. The Transit use airspace (SUA), which may be MOA lower limit is 6,000 ft. (1,800 m) Protection System involves the further divided to provide better control above mean sea level but not below movement of security vessels and also of the area and events for safety reasons. 1,200 ft. above ground level, and the includes periodic exercises and firearms These designations are further described upper limit is up to, but not including, training (with blank rounds). Given the in Chapter 2 of the LOA application. 18,000 ft. (5,500 m), with a total area relative slow speed of the escorted and The Study Area includes only the at- coverage of 1,614 nm2. blocking vessels and multiple lookouts, sea components of the training and Above the Olympic MOA is the no marine mammal vessel strikes are testing areas and facilities. The Navy is Olympic Air Traffic Controlled expected as a result of these events. using ‘‘at-sea’’ to cover activity in, on, Assigned Airspace (ATCAA), which has Navy policy (Chief of Naval and over the water, but not activity on a floor coinciding with the Olympic Operations Instruction 3100.6H) or over the land, which may include MOA ceiling. The ATCAA has an upper requires Navy vessels to report all whale activities in the surf zone or supported limit of 35,000 ft. (10,700 m). strikes. That information is collected by from shore-side locations. the Office of the Chief of Naval Military activities in the Study Area For the LOA application, the Olympic Operations Energy and Environmental occur (1) on the ocean surface, (2) MOA and the Olympic ATCAA Are Readiness Division (OPNAV N45) and beneath the ocean surface, and (3) in the components of the Offshore Area air. To aid in the description of the cumulatively provided to NMFS on an Inland Waters annual basis. In addition, the Navy and ranges covered in the January 2014 NMFS also have standardized regional NWTT DEIS/OEIS, the ranges are The Inland Waters includes air, sea, reporting protocols for communicating divided into three distinct geographic and undersea space inland of the to regional NMFS stranding and functional subdivisions. All of the coastline, from buoy ‘‘J’’ at 48° 29.6′ N, coordinators information on any Navy training and testing activities proposed 125° W, eastward to include all waters vessel strikes as soon as possible. These in this application would occur in one of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the communication procedures will remain or more of these three range Puget Sound. None of this area extends in place for the duration of the LOAs. subdivisions: into Oregon or California. Within the There are no records of any Navy vessel • The Offshore Area Inland Waters are specific geographic strikes to marine mammals during • The Inland Waters components in which training and training or testing activities in the • Western Behm Canal, Alaska testing occur. The Inland Waters and its component areas are described below. NWTT Study Area. Offshore Area Duration and Location The Offshore Area of the Study Area Airspace Training and testing activities would includes air, surface, and subsurface Restricted Area 6701 (R–6701, be conducted in the Study Area OPAREAs extending generally west Admiralty Bay) is a Restricted Area over throughout the year from November from the coastline of Washington, Admiralty Bay, Washington with a 2015 through November 2020. Oregon, and Northern California for a lower limit at the ocean surface and an The Study Area is composed of distance of approximately 250 nm into upper limit of 5,000 ft. This airspace established maritime operating and international waters. The eastern covers a total area of 56 nm2. warning areas in the eastern North boundary of the Offshore Area is 12 nm Chinook A and B MOAs are 56 nm2 Pacific Ocean region, including areas of off the coastline for most of the Study of airspace south and west of Admiralty the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, Area, including southern Washington, Bay. The Chinook MOAs extend from and Western Behm Canal in Oregon, and Northern California. The 300 ft. to 5,000 ft. above the ocean southeastern Alaska. The Study Area Offshore Area includes the ocean all the surface.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31748 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Sea and Undersea Space The Carr Inlet OPAREA is a quiet in five restricted areas. The underway Explosive Ordnance Disposal deep-water inland range approximately site arrays are in Area 1. The static site 2 Underwater Ranges—Two active EOD 12 nm in size. It is located in an arm is in Area 2. All associated underwater ranges are located in the Inland Waters of water between Key Peninsula and Gig cabling and other devices associated at the following locations: Harbor Peninsula. Its southern end is with the underway site are located in • Hood Canal EOD Training Range connected to the southern basin of Puget Area 3. Area 4 provides a corridor for • Crescent Harbor EOD Training Sound. Northward, it separates McNeil utility power and a phone cable. Area 5 Range Island and Fox Island as well as the is an operational area to allow for safe Surface and Subsurface Testing peninsulas of Key and Gig Harbor. The passage of local vessel traffic. Sites—There are three geographically acoustic tracking space within the range Notifications of invoking restriction of distinct range sites in the Inland Waters is approximately 6 nm by 2 nm with a Area 5 occur at least 72 hours prior to where the Navy conducts surface and maximum depth of 545 ft. (166 m). The SEAFAC operations in accordance with subsurface testing and some limited Navy performed underwater acoustic 33 CFR 34.1275. During test periods, all training. The Keyport Range Site is testing at Carr Inlet from the 1950s vessels entering Area 5 are requested to located in Kitsap County and includes through 2009, when activities were contact SEAFAC to coordinate safe portions of Liberty Bay and Port relocated to NAVBASE Kitsap, Bangor. passage through the area. Area 5 defines Orchard Reach (also known as Port While no permanently installed the SEAFAC Study Area boundary, Orchard Narrows). The Dabob Bay structures are present in the Carr Inlet which is comprised only of the in-water Range Complex (DBRC) Site is located OPAREA, the waterway remains a Navy- area and excludes the land-based in Hood Canal and Dabob Bay, in restricted area. supporting facilities and operations. Jefferson, Kitsap, and Mason counties. Pierside Testing Facilities—In The SEAFAC at-sea areas are: • The Carr Inlet OPAREA is located in addition to the training and testing Restricted Areas 1 through 5. The southern Puget Sound. ranges, at which most of the training five restricted areas are located within The Keyport Range Site is located and testing assessed in this document Western Behm Canal. The main adjacent to NAVBASE Kitsap, Keyport, occurs, the Navy conducts some testing purposes of the restricted areas are to providing approximately 3.2 nm2 for at or near Navy piers. Most of this provide for vessel and public safety, testing, including in-shore shallow testing is sonar maintenance and testing lessen acoustic encroachment from non- water sites and a shallow lagoon to while ships are in port for maintenance participating vessels, and prohibit support integrated undersea warfare or system re-fitting. These piers within certain activities that could damage systems and vehicle maintenance and the Study Area are all within Puget SEAFAC’s sensitive in-water acoustic engineering activities. Water depth at Sound and include the NAVBASE instruments and associated cables. Area the Keyport Range Site is less than 100 Kitsap, Bremerton in Sinclair Inlet; 5 encompasses the entire SEAFAC ft. (30.5 m). Underwater tracking of test NAVBASE Kitsap, Bangor Waterfront in operations area. • activities can be accomplished by using Hood Canal, and Naval Station Everett. Underway Measurement Site. The temporary or portable range equipment. Navy Surface Operations Areas—In underway measurement site is in the The Navy has conducted testing at the addition to the areas mentioned above, center of Western Behm Canal and is Keyport Range Site since 1914. there are two surface and subsurface 5,000 yards (yd.) (4,572 m) wide and The DBRC Site includes the Dabob operations areas used for Navy training 12,000 yd. (10,973 m) long. The acoustic Bay and the Hood Canal from 1 mi. (1.6 and testing within the Inland Waters. arrays are located at the center of this km) south of the Hood Canal Bridge to Navy 3 OPAREA is a surface and area (Area 1). the Hamma Hamma River, a total area subsurface area off the west coast of • Static Site. The static site is of approximately 45.7 nm2. The Navy northern Whidbey Island. Navy 7 approximately 2 nm northwest of Back has conducted underwater testing at the OPAREA is the surface and subsurface Island. During testing, a vessel is DBRC Site since 1956, beginning with a area that lies beneath R–6701. This area tethered between two surface barges. In control center at Whitney Point. The covers a total area of 61 nm2. most scenarios, the vessel submerges to conduct acoustic measurements. The control center was subsequently moved Western Behm Canal, Alaska to Zelatched Point. static site is located at the center of Area Dabob Bay is a deep-water area in The Western Behm Canal is located in 2. Jefferson County approximately 14.5 Southeast Alaska, near the city of • Area 3 and Area 4. These restricted nm2 in size and contains an acoustic Ketchikan, Alaska. SEAFAC is located areas provide protection to underwater tracking range. The acoustic tracking in the Western Behm Canal and covers cables and bottom-mounted equipment space within the range is approximately an area of 48 nm2. The Navy has been they encompass. 7.3 nm by 1.3 nm (9 nm2) with a conducting testing activities at SEAFAC Bottom-moored acoustic measurement maximum depth of 600 ft. (182.9 m). since 1992. The facility replaced the arrays are located in the middle of the The Dabob Bay tracking range, the only Santa Cruz Acoustic Range Facility in site. These instrumented arrays are component of the DBRC Site with Southern California and is now the established for measuring vessel extensive acoustic monitoring location for some acoustic testing signatures when a vessel is underway instrumentation installed on the previously conducted at the NSWC Carr (underway site) and is at rest and seafloor, provides for object tracking, Inlet Acoustic Range in Washington moored (static site). The instruments are communications, passive sensing, and State. passive arrays of hydrophones sensing target simulation. Many activities SEAFAC is comprised of land-based the acoustic signature of the vessels (i.e., conducted within Dabob Bay are facilities and in-water assets. The land- the sounds emitted when sonar units are supported by land-based facilities at based facilities are located within 5.5 not in operation). Hydrophones on the Zelatched Point. acres (2 hectares) on Back Island and are arrays pick up noise in the water and Hood Canal averages a depth of 200 not included in the scope of this transmit it to shore facilities, where the ft. (61 m) and is used for vessel sensor analysis. The in-water assets include data are processed. SEAFAC’s sensitive accuracy tests and launch and recovery two sites: the underway site and the and well-positioned acoustic of test systems where tracking is static site. These assets and the measurement equipment provides the optional. operational area of SEAFAC are located ability to listen to and record the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31749

radiated signature of submarines, as to provide position information for units Service (USFWS) in the U.S. Exclusive well as other submerged manned and operating submerged on the range. Economic Zone (EEZ). These species unmanned vehicles, selected NOAA Description of Marine Mammals in the and their numbers are presented in surface vessels, and cruise ships. Area of the Specified Activities Table 9. Consistent with NMFS most The sensors at SEAFAC are passive recent Pacific Stock Assessment Report, Twenty-nine marine mammal species a single species may include multiple and measure radiated noise in the water, are known to occur in the Study Area, stocks recognized for management such as machinery on submarines and including seven mysticetes (baleen purposes (e.g., killer whale), while other other underwater vessels. Vessels do not whales), 16 odontocetes (dolphins and use tactical mid-frequency active sonar toothed whales), and six pinnipeds species are grouped into a single stock while undergoing testing at SEAFAC. (seals and sea lions). Among these due to limited species-specific Active acoustic sources are used for species, there are 50 stocks managed by information (e.g., beaked whales communications, range calibration, and NMFS or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife belonging to the genus Mesoplodon).

TABLE 9—MARINE MAMMALS WITH POSSIBLE OR CONFIRMED PRESENCE WITHIN THE NWTT STUDY AREA

Common name Scientific name Stock Stock abundance ESA/MMPA

North Pacific right whale ..... Eubalaena japonica ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... 31 ...... Endangered/Depleted. Humpback whale ...... Megaptera novaeangliae .... Central North Pacific ...... 10,103 ...... Endangered/Depleted. California, Oregon, & Wash- 1,918 ...... Endangered/Depleted. ington. Blue whale ...... Balaenoptera musculus ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... 1,647 ...... Endangered/Depleted. Fin whale ...... Balaenoptera physalus ...... Northeast Pacific ...... 1,214 (minimum estimate) .. Endangered/Depleted. California, Oregon, & Wash- 3,051 ...... Endangered/Depleted. ington. Sei whale ...... Balaenoptera borealis ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... 126 ...... Endangered/Depleted. Minke whale ...... Balaenoptera acutorostrata Alaska ...... Not available. California, Oregon, & Wash- 478. ington. Gray whale ...... Eschrichtius robustus ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... 19,126. Western North Pacific ...... 155 ...... Endangered/Depleted. Sperm whale ...... Physeter macrocephalus .... North Pacific ...... Not available ...... Endangered/Depleted. California, Oregon, & Wash- 971 ...... Endangered/Depleted. ington. Pygmy sperm whale ...... Kogia breviceps ...... California, Oregon, & Wash- 579. ington. Dwarf sperm whale ...... Kogia sima ...... California, Oregon, & Wash- Not available. ington. Killer whale ...... Orcinus orca ...... Alaskan Resident ...... 2,347. Northern Resident ...... 261. West Coast Transient ...... 243. Eastern North Pacific Off- 240. shore. Eastern North Pacific 85 (direct count) ...... Endangered/Depleted. Southern Resident. Short-finned pilot whale ...... Globicephala California, Oregon, & Wash- 760. macrorhynchus. ington. Short-beaked common dol- Delphinus delphis ...... California, Oregon, & Wash- 411,211. phin. ington. Bottlenose dolphin ...... Tursiops truncatus ...... California, Oregon, & Wash- 1,006. ington Offshore. Striped dolphin ...... Stenella coeruleoalba ...... California, Oregon, & Wash- 10,908. ington. Pacific white-sided dolphin Lagenorhynchus North Pacific ...... 26,880. obliquidens. California, Oregon, & Wash- 26,930. ington. Northern right whale dolphin Lissodelphis borealis ...... California, Oregon, & Wash- 8,334. ington. Risso’s dolphin ...... Grampus griseus ...... California, Oregon, & Wash- 6,272. ington. Harbor porpoise ...... Phocoena phocoena ...... Southeast Alaska ...... 11,146. Northern Oregon/WA Coast 21,487. Northern CA/southern OR .. 35,769. WA Inland Waters ...... 10,682. Alaska ...... 83,400. Dall’s porpoise ...... Phocoenoides dalli ...... California, Oregon, & Wash- 42,000. ington. Cuvier’s beaked whale ...... Ziphius cavirostris ...... Alaska ...... Not available. California, Oregon, & Wash- 6,590. ington. Baird’s beaked whale ...... Berardius bairdii ...... Alaska ...... Not available. California, Oregon, & Wash- 847. ington.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31750 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 9—MARINE MAMMALS WITH POSSIBLE OR CONFIRMED PRESENCE WITHIN THE NWTT STUDY AREA—Continued

Common name Scientific name Stock Stock abundance ESA/MMPA

Mesoplodont beaked Mesoplodon spp...... California, Oregon, & Wash- 694. whales 1. ington. Steller sea lion ...... Eumetopias jubatus ...... Eastern U.S...... 63,160–78,198. California sea lion ...... Zalophus californianus ...... U.S...... 296,750. Northern fur seal ...... Callorhinus ursinus ...... Eastern Pacific ...... 639,545 ...... Depleted. California Breeding ...... 12,844. Guadalupe fur seal ...... Arctocephalus townsendi .... Mexico ...... 14,000–15,000 ...... Threatened/Depleted. Northern elephant seal ...... Mirounga angustirostris ...... California Breeding ...... 124,000. Harbor seal ...... Phoca vitulina ...... Southeast Alaska (Clarence 152,602. Strait). OR/WA Coast ...... 24,732. California ...... 30,196. WA Northern Inland Waters 11,036. Southern Puget Sound ...... 1,568. Hood Canal ...... 3,555. 2 1 In waters off the U.S. west coast, the Mesoplodon species M. carlhubbsi, M. ginkgodens, M. perrini, M. peruvianus, M. stejnegeri and M. densirostris have been grouped by NMFS into a single management unit (Mesoplodon spp.) in the 2014 Pacific Stock Assessment report (Carretta et al., 2014). 2 The most recent SAR (2014) divided the harbor seals within the Inland Waters into three stocks: The Washington Northern Inland Waters stock; the Southern Puget Sound stock, and the Hood Canal stock.

Based on recent discussion with Marine Mammal Hearing and odontocetes have been determined in regional NMFS subject matter experts Vocalizations captivity. It is generally believed that and subsequent to the publication of the Cetaceans have an auditory anatomy cetaceans should at least be sensitive to 2014 SAR, the Navy and NMFS applied that follows the basic mammalian the frequencies of their own research presented in London et al. pattern, with some changes to adapt to vocalizations. Comparisons of the (2012) to reevaluate the Hood Canal the demands of hearing underwater. The anatomy of cetacean inner ears and stock abundance. Using updated tag typical mammalian ear is divided into models of the structural properties and data from London et al. 2012, the count an outer ear, middle ear, and inner ear. the response to vibrations of the ear’s of harbor seals collected in 1999 (n=711) The outer ear is separated from the components in different species provide from aerial surveys (Jeffries et al., 2003) inner ear by a tympanic membrane, or an indication of likely sensitivity to was corrected to account for harbor seal eardrum. In terrestrial mammals, the various sound frequencies. The ears of haulout behavior that most closely outer ear, eardrum, and middle ear small toothed whales are optimized for aligned with the season and time of day transmit airborne sound to the inner ear, receiving high-frequency sound, while in which the original survey was where the sound waves are propagated baleen whale inner ears are best in low conducted. The tag data showed that through the cochlear fluid. Since the to infrasonic frequencies (Ketten, 1992; during this month and time of day, impedance of water is close to that of 1997; 1998). approximately 80 percent of the animals the tissues of a cetacean, the outer ear Baleen whale vocalizations are would be in the water. Therefore, the is not required to transduce sound composed primarily of frequencies corrected Hood Canal stock abundance energy as it does when sound waves below 1 kHz, and some contain (based on the 1999 aerial survey) is travel from air to fluid (inner ear). fundamental frequencies as low as 16 calculated as 711/0.20 or 711*5 = 3,555. Sound waves traveling through the Hz (Watkins et al., 1987; Richardson et While this aerial survey data is inner ear cause the basilar membrane to al., 1995; Rivers, 1997; Moore et al., considered out of date based on the vibrate. Specialized cells, called hair 1998; Stafford et al., 1999; Wartzok and standards of NOAA stock assessment cells, respond to the vibration and Ketten, 1999) but can be as high as 24 reports, this revised Hood Canal harbor produce nerve pulses that are kHz (humpback whale; Au et al., 2006). seal abundance represents the best transmitted to the central nervous Clark and Ellison (2004) suggested that available science based on publically system. Acoustic energy causes the baleen whales use low-frequency available data. basilar membrane in the cochlea to sounds not only for long-range Information on the status, vibrate. Sensory cells at different communication, but also as a simple distribution, abundance, and positions along the basilar membrane form of echo ranging, using echoes to vocalizations of marine mammal species are excited by different frequencies of navigate and orient relative to physical in the Study Area may be viewed in sound (Pickles, 1998). features of the ocean. Information on Chapter 4 of the LOA application Marine mammal vocalizations often auditory function in baleen whales is (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ extend both above and below the range extremely lacking. Sensitivity to low- incidental/military.htm). Further of human hearing; vocalizations with frequency sound by baleen whales has information on the general biology and frequencies lower than 20 Hz are been inferred from observed ecology of marine mammals is included labeled as infrasonic and those higher vocalization frequencies, observed in the NWTT DEIS/OEIS. In addition, than 20 kHz as ultrasonic (National reactions to playback of sounds, and NMFS publishes annual SARs for Research Council (NRC), 2003; Figure anatomical analyses of the auditory marine mammals, including stocks that 4–1). Measured data on the hearing system. Although there is apparently occur within the Study Area (http:// abilities of cetaceans are sparse, much variation, the source levels of www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ particularly for the larger cetaceans such most baleen whale vocalizations lie in mammals; Carretta et al., 2014; Allen as the baleen whales. The auditory the range of 150–190 dB re 1 and Angliss, 2014). thresholds of some of the smaller microPascal (mPa) at 1 m. Low-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31751

frequency vocalizations made by baleen medium. Sound measurements can be ultrasonic (typically above 20,000 Hz) whales and their corresponding expressed in two forms: intensity and sounds, respectively. A single sound auditory anatomy suggest that they have pressure. Acoustic intensity is the may be made up of many different good low-frequency hearing (Ketten, average rate of energy transmitted frequencies together. Sounds made up 2000), although specific data on through a unit area in a specified of only a small range of frequencies are sensitivity, frequency or intensity direction and is expressed in watts per called ‘‘narrowband’’, and sounds with discrimination, or localization abilities square meter (W/m2). Acoustic intensity a broad range of frequencies are called are lacking. Marine mammals, like all is rarely measured directly, but rather ‘‘broadband’’; explosives are an example mammals, have typical U-shaped from ratios of pressures; the standard of a broadband sound source and active audiograms that begin with relatively reference pressure for underwater sound tactical sonars are an example of a low sensitivity (high threshold) at some is 1 mPa; for airborne sound, the narrowband sound source. specified low frequency with increased standard reference pressure is 20 mPa When considering the influence of sensitivity (low threshold) to a species (Richardson et al., 1995). various kinds of sound on the marine specific optimum followed by a Acousticians have adopted a environment, it is necessary to generally steep rise at higher logarithmic scale for sound intensities, understand that different kinds of frequencies (high threshold) (Fay, 1988). which is denoted in decibels (dB). marine life are sensitive to different The toothed whales produce a wide Decibel measurements represent the frequencies of sound. Current data variety of sounds, which include ratio between a measured pressure value indicate that not all marine mammal species-specific broadband ‘‘clicks’’ and a reference pressure value (in this species have equal hearing capabilities with peak energy between 10 and 200 case 1 mPa or, for airborne sound, 20 (Richardson et al., 1995; Southall et al., kHz, individually variable ‘‘burst pulse’’ mPa). The logarithmic nature of the scale 1997; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and click trains, and constant frequency or means that each 10-dB increase is a ten- Hastings, 2008). frequency-modulated (FM) whistles fold increase in acoustic power (and a Southall et al. (2007) designated ranging from 4 to 16 kHz (Wartzok and 20-dB increase is then a 100-fold ‘‘functional hearing groups’’ for marine Ketten, 1999). The general consensus is increase in power; and a 30-dB increase mammals based on available behavioral that the tonal vocalizations (whistles) is a 1,000-fold increase in power). A ten- data; audiograms derived from auditory produced by toothed whales play an fold increase in acoustic power does not evoked potentials; anatomical modeling; important role in maintaining contact mean that the sound is perceived as and other data. Southall et al. (2007) between dispersed individuals, while being ten times louder, however. also estimated the lower and upper broadband clicks are used during Humans perceive a 10-dB increase in frequencies of functional hearing for echolocation (Wartzok and Ketten, sound level as a doubling of loudness, each group. However, animals are less 1999). Burst pulses have also been and a 10-dB decrease in sound level as sensitive to sounds at the outer edges of strongly implicated in communication, a halving of loudness. The term ‘‘sound their functional hearing range and are with some scientists suggesting that pressure level’’ implies a decibel more sensitive to a range of frequencies they play an important role in agonistic measure and a reference pressure that is within the middle of their functional encounters (McCowan and Reiss, 1995), used as the denominator of the ratio. hearing range. Note that no direct while others have proposed that they Throughout this document, NMFS uses measurements of hearing ability have represent ‘‘emotive’’ signals in a broader 1 mPa (denoted re: 1mPa) as a standard been successfully completed for low- sense, possibly representing graded reference pressure unless noted frequency cetaceans. The functional communication signals (Herzing, 1996). otherwise. groups and the associated frequencies Sperm whales, however, are known to It is important to note that decibel are indicated below (note that these produce only clicks, which are used for values underwater and decibel values in frequency ranges correspond to the both communication and echolocation air are not the same (different reference range for the composite group, with the (Whitehead, 2003). Most of the energy of pressures and densities/sound speeds entire range not necessarily reflecting toothed whale social vocalizations is between media) and should not be the capabilities of every species within concentrated near 10 kHz, with source directly compared. Because of the that group): levels for whistles as high as 100 to 180 different densities of air and water and • Low frequency cetaceans (13 dB re 1 mPa at 1 m (Richardson et al., the different decibel standards (i.e., species of mysticetes): Functional 1995). No odontocete has been shown reference pressures) in air and water, a hearing estimates occur between audiometrically to have acute hearing sound with the same level in air and in approximately 7 Hz and 30 kilohertz (<80 dB re 1 mPa) below 500 Hz (DoN, water would be approximately 62 dB (kHz) (extended from 22 kHz based on 2001). Sperm whales produce clicks, lower in air. Thus, a sound that data indicating that some mysticetes can which may be used to echolocate measures 160 dB (re 1 mPa) underwater hear above 22 kHz; Watkins, 1986; (Mullins et al., 1988), with a frequency would have the same approximate Ketten, 1998; Houser et al., 2001; Au et range from less than 100 Hz to 30 kHz effective level as a sound that is 98 dB al., 2006; Lucifredi and Stein, 2007; and source levels up to 230 dB re 1 mPa (re 20 mPa) in air. Ketten et al., 2007; Parks et al., 2007a; 1 m or greater (Mohl et al., 2000). Sound frequency is measured in Ketten and Mountain, 2009; Tubelli et cycles per second, or Hertz (abbreviated al., 2012); Brief Background on Sound Hz), and is analogous to musical pitch; • Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger An understanding of the basic high-pitched sounds contain high toothed whales, beaked whales, and properties of underwater sound is frequencies and low-pitched sounds most delphinids): Functional hearing is necessary to comprehend many of the contain low frequencies. Natural sounds estimated to occur between concepts and analyses presented in this in the ocean span a huge range of approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz, document. A summary is included frequencies: from earthquake noise at 5 with best hearing from 10 to less than below. Hz to harbor porpoise clicks at 150,000 100 kHz (Johnson, 1967; White, 1977; Sound is a wave of pressure variations Hz (150 kHz). These sounds are so low Richardson et al., 1995; Szymanski et propagating through a medium (e.g., or so high in pitch that humans cannot al., 1999; Kastelein et al., 2003; water). Pressure variations are created even hear them; acousticians call these Finneran et al., 2005a, 2009; Nachtigall by compressing and relaxing the infrasonic (typically below 20 Hz) and et al., 2005, 2008; Yuen et al., 2005;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31752 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Popov et al., 2007; Au and Hastings, a device that has a source level of 230 the root mean square (rms). Root mean 2008; Houser et al., 2008; Pacini et al., dB may only be exposed to sound that square pressure, which is the square 2010, 2011; Schlundt et al., 2011); is 160 dB loud, depending on how the root of the arithmetic average of the • High-frequency cetaceans sound travels through water (e.g., squared instantaneous pressure values, (porpoises, river dolphins, and members spherical spreading [3 dB reduction is typically used in discussions of the of the genera Kogia and with doubling of distance] was used in effects of sounds on vertebrates and all Cephalorhynchus; including two this example). As a result, it is references to SPL in this document refer members of the genus Lagenorhynchus, important to understand the difference to the root mean square. SPL does not including the hourglass dolphin, on the between source levels and received take the duration of exposure into basis of recent echolocation data and levels when discussing the loudness of account. SPL is the applicable metric genetic data [May-Collado and sound in the ocean or its impacts on the used in the risk continuum, which is Agnarsson, 2006; Kyhn et al., 2009, marine environment. used to estimate behavioral harassment 2010; Tougaard et al., 2010]): Functional As sound travels from a source, its takes (see Level B Harassment Risk hearing is estimated to occur between propagation in water is influenced by Function (Behavioral Harassment) approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz various physical characteristics, Section). (Popov and Supin, 1990a,b; Kastelein et including water temperature, depth, Sound exposure level (SEL)—SEL is al., 2002; Popov et al., 2005); and salinity, and surface and bottom an energy metric that integrates the • Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true properties that cause refraction, squared instantaneous sound pressure seals): Functional hearing is estimated reflection, absorption, and scattering of over a stated time interval. The units for to occur between approximately 75 Hz sound waves. Oceans are not SEL are dB re: 1 mPa2-s. Below is a to 100 kHz, with best hearing between homogeneous and the contribution of simplified formula for SEL. < 1–50 kHz (M hl, 1968; Terhune and each of these individual factors is SEL = SPL + 10 log (duration in Ronald, 1971, 1972; Richardson et al., extremely complex and interrelated. seconds) 1995; Kastak and Schusterman, 1999; The physical characteristics that As applied to active sonar, the SEL Reichmuth, 2008; Kastelein et al., 2009); determine the sound’s speed through • Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared includes both the SPL of a sonar ping the water will change with depth, and the total duration. Longer duration seals): Functional hearing is estimated season, geographic location, and with to occur between 100 Hz and 40 kHz for pings and/or pings with higher SPLs time of day (as a result, in actual active Otariidae, with best hearing between 2– will have a higher SEL. If an animal is sonar operations, crews will measure 48 kHz (Schusterman et al., 1972; Moore exposed to multiple pings, the SEL in oceanic conditions, such as sea water and Schusterman, 1987; Babushina et each individual ping is summed to temperature and depth, to calibrate al., 1991; Richardson et al., 1995; Kastak calculate the cumulative SEL. The models that determine the path the and Schusterman, 1998; Kastelein et al., cumulative SEL depends on the SPL, sonar signal will take as it travels 2005a; Mulsow and Reichmuth, 2007; duration, and number of pings received. through the ocean and how strong the Mulsow et al., 2011a, b). The thresholds that NMFS uses to The pinniped functional hearing sound signal will be at a given range indicate at what received level the onset group was modified from Southall et al. along a particular transmission path). As of temporary threshold shift (TTS) and (2007) on the basis of data indicating sound travels through the ocean, the permanent threshold shift (PTS) in that phocid species have consistently intensity associated with the wavefront hearing are likely to occur are expressed demonstrated an extended frequency diminishes, or attenuates. This decrease as cumulative SEL. range of hearing compared to otariids, in intensity is referred to as propagation especially in the higher frequency range loss, also commonly called transmission Potential Effects of Specified Activities (Hemila¨ et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., loss. on Marine Mammals 2009; Reichmuth et al., 2013). Metrics Used in This Document The Navy has requested authorization Concurrent with the development of for the take of marine mammals that NOAA’s Ocean Noise Strategy and draft This section includes a brief may occur incidental to training and ‘‘Guidance for Assessing the Effects of explanation of the two sound testing activities in the Study Area. The Anthropogenic Sound on Marine measurements (sound pressure level Navy has analyzed potential impacts to Mammals,’’ NMFS is currently (SPL) and sound exposure level (SEL)) marine mammals from impulsive and considering additional modifications to frequently used to describe sound levels non-impulsive sound sources and vessel some of the functional hearing ranges in the discussions of acoustic effects in strike. proposed by Southall et al. (2007). As this document. Other potential impacts to marine more data from more species and/or Sound pressure level (SPL)—Sound mammals from training activities in the individuals become available, these pressure is the sound force per unit Study Area were analyzed in the Navy’s estimated hearing ranges may require area, and is usually measured in January 2014 NWTT DEIS/OEIS, in m additional modifications. micropascals ( Pa), where 1 Pa is the consultation with NMFS as a When sound travels (propagates) from pressure resulting from a force of one cooperating agency, and determined to its source, its loudness decreases as the newton exerted over an area of one be unlikely to result in marine mammal distance traveled by the sound square meter. SPL is expressed as the harassment. Therefore, the Navy has not increases. Thus, the loudness of a sound ratio of a measured sound pressure and requested authorization for take of at its source is higher than the loudness a reference level. marine mammals that might occur of that same sound a kilometer away. SPL (in dB) = 20 log (pressure/reference incidental to other components of their Acousticians often refer to the loudness pressure) proposed activities. In this document, of a sound at its source (typically The commonly used reference NMFS analyzes the potential effects on referenced to one meter from the source) pressure level in underwater acoustics marine mammals from exposure to non- as the source level and the loudness of is 1 mPa, and the units for SPLs are dB impulsive sound sources (sonar and sound elsewhere as the received level re: 1 mPa. SPL is an instantaneous other active acoustic sources), impulsive (i.e., typically the receiver). For pressure measurement and can be sound sources (underwater example, a humpback whale 3 km from expressed as the peak, the peak-peak, or detonations), and vessel strikes.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31753

For the purpose of MMPA lead to physiological effects that might mid- and high-frequency active sonar authorizations, NMFS’ effects ultimately lead to injury or death, which (MFAS/HFAS), animals are not assessments serve four primary is discussed later in the Stranding expected to be exposed to levels high purposes: (1) To prescribe the section. enough or durations long enough to permissible methods of taking (i.e., Threshold Shift (noise-induced loss of result in PTS. Level B harassment (behavioral hearing)—When animals exhibit PTS is considered auditory injury harassment), Level A harassment reduced hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds (Southall et al., 2007). Irreparable (injury), or mortality, including an must be louder for an animal to detect damage to the inner or outer cochlear identification of the number and types them) following exposure to an intense hair cells may cause PTS; however, of take that could occur by harassment sound or sound for long duration, it is other mechanisms are also involved, or mortality) and to prescribe other referred to as a noise-induced threshold such as exceeding the elastic limits of means of effecting the least practicable shift (TS). An animal can experience certain tissues and membranes in the adverse impact on such species or stock temporary threshold shift (TTS) or middle and inner ears and resultant and its habitat (i.e., mitigation); (2) to permanent threshold shift (PTS). TTS changes in the chemical composition of determine whether the specified activity can last from minutes or hours to days the inner ear fluids (Southall et al., would have a negligible impact on the (i.e., there is complete recovery), can 2007). affected species or stocks of marine occur in specific frequency ranges (i.e., Although the published body of mammals (based on the likelihood that an animal might only have a temporary scientific literature contains numerous the activity would adversely affect the loss of hearing sensitivity between the theoretical studies and discussion species or stock through effects on frequencies of 1 and 10 kHz), and can papers on hearing impairments that can annual rates of recruitment or survival); be of varying amounts (for example, an occur with exposure to a loud sound, (3) to determine whether the specified animal’s hearing sensitivity might be only a few studies provide empirical activity would have an unmitigable reduced initially by only 6 dB or information on the levels at which adverse impact on the availability of the reduced by 30 dB). PTS is permanent, noise-induced loss in hearing sensitivity species or stock(s) for subsistence uses; but some recovery is possible. PTS can occurs in nonhuman animals. For and (4) to prescribe requirements also occur in a specific frequency range marine mammals, published data are pertaining to monitoring and reporting. and amount as mentioned above for limited to the captive bottlenose More specifically, for activities TTS. dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and involving non-impulsive or impulsive The following physiological Yangtze finless porpoise (Finneran et sources, NMFS’ analysis will identify mechanisms are thought to play a role al., 2000, 2002b, 2003, 2005a, 2007, the probability of lethal responses, in inducing auditory TS: Effects to 2010a, 2010b; Finneran and Schlundt, physical trauma, sensory impairment sensory hair cells in the inner ear that 2010; Lucke et al., 2009; Mooney et al., (permanent and temporary threshold reduce their sensitivity, modification of 2009a, 2009b; Popov et al., 2011a, shifts and acoustic masking), the chemical environment within the 2011b; Kastelein et al., 2012a; Schlundt physiological responses (particular sensory cells, residual muscular activity et al., 2000; Nachtigall et al., 2003, stress responses), behavioral in the middle ear, displacement of 2004). For pinnipeds in water, data are disturbance (that rises to the level of certain inner ear membranes, increased limited to measurements of TTS in harassment), and social responses blood flow, and post-stimulatory harbor seals, an elephant seal, and (effects to social relationships) that reduction in both efferent and sensory California sea lions (Kastak et al., 1999, neural output (Southall et al., 2007). 2005; Kastelein et al., 2012b). would be classified as a take and The amplitude, duration, frequency, Marine mammal hearing plays a whether such take would have a temporal pattern, and energy critical role in communication with negligible impact on such species or distribution of sound exposure all can conspecifics, and interpretation of stocks. This section focuses affect the amount of associated TS and environmental cues for purposes such qualitatively on the different ways that the frequency range in which it occurs. as predator avoidance and prey capture. non-impulsive and impulsive sources As amplitude and duration of sound Depending on the degree (elevation of may affect marine mammals (some of exposure increase, so, generally, does threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery which NMFS would not classify as the amount of TS, along with the time), and frequency range of TTS, and harassment). Then, in the Estimated recovery time. For intermittent sounds, the context in which it is experienced, Take of Marine Mammals section, the less TS could occur than compared to a TTS can have effects on marine potential effects to marine mammals continuous exposure with the same mammals ranging from discountable to from non-impulsive and impulsive energy (some recovery could occur serious (similar to those discussed in sources will be related to the MMPA between intermittent exposures auditory masking, below). For example, definitions of Level A and Level B depending on the duty cycle between a marine mammal may be able to readily harassment, along with the potential sounds) (Kryter et al., 1966; Ward, compensate for a brief, relatively small effects from vessel strikes, and we will 1997). For example, one short but loud amount of TTS in a non-critical attempt to quantify those effects. (higher SPL) sound exposure may frequency range that occurs during a Non-Impulsive Sources induce the same impairment as one time where ambient noise is lower and longer but softer sound, which in turn there are not as many competing sounds Direct Physiological Effects may cause more impairment than a present. Alternatively, a larger amount Based on the literature, there are two series of several intermittent softer and longer duration of TTS sustained basic ways that non-impulsive sources sounds with the same total energy during time when communication is might directly result in physical trauma (Ward, 1997). Additionally, though TTS critical for successful mother/calf or damage: Noise-induced loss of is temporary, prolonged exposure to interactions could have more serious hearing sensitivity (more commonly- sounds strong enough to elicit TTS, or impacts. Also, depending on the degree called ‘‘threshold shift’’) and shorter-term exposure to sound levels and frequency range, the effects of PTS acoustically mediated bubble growth. well above the TTS threshold, can cause on an animal could range in severity, Separately, an animal’s behavioral PTS, at least in terrestrial mammals although it is considered generally more reaction to an acoustic exposure could (Kryter, 1985). Although in the case of serious because it is a permanent

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31754 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

condition. Of note, reduced hearing the equilibration of gases with the Fernandez et al. (2004, 2005, 2012) sensitivity as a simple function of aging tissues occurred when the tissues were concluded that in vivo bubble has been observed in marine mammals, exposed to the high pressures, levels of formation, which may be exacerbated by as well as humans and other taxa supersaturation in the tissues could deep, long-duration, repetitive dives (Southall et al., 2007), so one can infer have been as high as 400–700 percent. may explain why beaked whales appear that strategies exist for coping with this These levels of tissue supersaturation to be particularly vulnerable to sonar condition to some degree, though likely are substantially higher than model exposures. Further investigation is not without cost. predictions for marine mammals needed to further assess the potential Acoustically Mediated Bubble (Houser et al., 2001; Saunders et al., validity of these hypotheses. More Growth—One theoretical cause of injury 2008). It is improbable that this information regarding hypotheses that to marine mammals is rectified mechanism is responsible for stranding attempt to explain how behavioral diffusion (Crum and Mao, 1996), the events or traumas associated with responses to non-impulsive sources can process of increasing the size of a beaked whale strandings. Both the lead to strandings is included in the bubble by exposing it to a sound field. degree of supersaturation and exposure Stranding and Mortality section. This process could be facilitated if the levels observed to cause microbubble Acoustic Masking environment in which the ensonified destabilization are unlikely to occur, bubbles exist is supersaturated with gas. either alone or in concert. Marine mammals use acoustic signals Repetitive diving by marine mammals Yet another hypothesis for a variety of purposes, which differ can cause the blood and some tissues to (decompression sickness) has among species, but include accumulate gas to a greater degree than speculated that rapid ascent to the communication between individuals, is supported by the surrounding surface following exposure to a startling navigation, foraging, reproduction, and environmental pressure (Ridgway and sound might produce tissue gas learning about their environment (Erbe Howard, 1979). The deeper and longer saturation sufficient for the evolution of and Farmer, 2000; Tyack, 2000). dives of some marine mammals (for nitrogen bubbles (Jepson et al., 2003; Masking, or auditory interference, example, beaked whales) are Fernandez et al., 2005; Ferna´ndez et al., generally occurs when sounds in the theoretically predicted to induce greater 2012). In this scenario, the rate of ascent environment are louder than and of a supersaturation (Houser et al., 2001b). If would need to be sufficiently rapid to similar frequency to, auditory signals an rectified diffusion were possible in compromise behavioral or physiological animal is trying to receive. Masking is marine mammals exposed to high-level protections against nitrogen bubble a phenomenon that affects animals that sound, conditions of tissue formation. Alternatively, Tyack et al. are trying to receive acoustic supersaturation could theoretically (2006) studied the deep diving behavior information about their environment, speed the rate and increase the size of of beaked whales and concluded that: including sounds from other members bubble growth. Subsequent effects due ‘‘Using current models of breath-hold of their species, predators, prey, and to tissue trauma and emboli would diving, we infer that their natural diving sounds that allow them to orient in their presumably mirror those observed in behavior is inconsistent with known environment. Masking these acoustic humans suffering from decompression problems of acute nitrogen signals can disturb the behavior of sickness. supersaturation and embolism.’’ individual animals, groups of animals, It is unlikely that the short duration Collectively, these hypotheses can be or entire populations. of sonar pings or explosion sounds referred to as ‘‘hypotheses of The extent of the masking interference would be long enough to drive bubble acoustically mediated bubble growth.’’ depends on the spectral, temporal, and growth to any substantial size, if such a Although theoretical predictions spatial relationships between the signals phenomenon occurs. However, an suggest the possibility for acoustically an animal is trying to receive and the alternative but related hypothesis has mediated bubble growth, there is masking noise, in addition to other also been suggested: Stable bubbles considerable disagreement among factors. In humans, significant masking could be destabilized by high-level scientists as to its likelihood (Piantadosi of tonal signals occurs as a result of sound exposures such that bubble and Thalmann, 2004; Evans and Miller, exposure to noise in a narrow band of growth then occurs through static 2003). Crum and Mao (1996) similar frequencies. As the sound level diffusion of gas out of the tissues. In hypothesized that received levels would increases, though, the detection of such a scenario the marine mammal have to exceed 190 dB in order for there frequencies above those of the masking would need to be in a gas- to be the possibility of significant stimulus decreases also. This principle supersaturated state for a long enough bubble growth due to supersaturation of is expected to apply to marine mammals period of time for bubbles to become of gases in the blood (i.e., rectified as well because of common a problematic size. Recent research with diffusion). More recent work conducted biomechanical cochlear properties ex vivo supersaturated bovine tissues by Crum et al. (2005) demonstrated the across taxa. suggested that, for a 37 kHz signal, a possibility of rectified diffusion for Richardson et al. (1995b) argued that sound exposure of approximately 215 short duration signals, but at SELs and the maximum radius of influence of an dB referenced to (re) 1 mPa would be tissue saturation levels that are highly industrial noise (including broadband required before microbubbles became improbable to occur in diving marine low frequency sound transmission) on a destabilized and grew (Crum et al., mammals. To date, energy levels (ELs) marine mammal is the distance from the 2005). Assuming spherical spreading predicted to cause in vivo bubble source to the point at which the noise loss and a nominal sonar source level of formation within diving cetaceans have can barely be heard. This range is 235 dB re 1 mPa at 1 m, a whale would not been evaluated (NOAA, 2002b). determined by either the hearing need to be within 10 m (33 ft.) of the Although it has been argued that sensitivity of the animal or the sonar dome to be exposed to such sound traumas from some recent beaked whale background noise level present. levels. Furthermore, tissues in the study strandings are consistent with gas Industrial masking is most likely to were supersaturated by exposing them emboli and bubble-induced tissue affect some species’ ability to detect to pressures of 400–700 kilopascals for separations (Jepson et al., 2003), there is communication calls and natural periods of hours and then releasing no conclusive evidence of this. sounds (i.e., surf noise, prey noise, etc.; them to ambient pressures. Assuming However, Jepson et al. (2003, 2005) and Richardson et al., 1995).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31755

The echolocation calls of toothed to increase the signal-to-noise ratio, the classical ‘‘fight or flight’’ response whales are subject to masking by high active space, and recognizability/ which includes the cardiovascular frequency sound. Human data indicate distinguishability of their vocalizations system, the gastrointestinal system, the low-frequency sound can mask high- in the face of temporary changes in exocrine glands, and the adrenal frequency sounds (i.e., upward background noise (Brumm et al., 2004; medulla to produce changes in heart masking). Studies on captive Patricelli et al., 2006). Vocalizing rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal odontocetes by Au et al. (1974, 1985, animals can make adjustments to activity that humans commonly 1993) indicate that some species may vocalization characteristics such as the associate with ‘‘stress.’’ These responses use various processes to reduce masking frequency structure, amplitude, have a relatively short duration and may effects (e.g., adjustments in echolocation temporal structure, and temporal or may not have significant long-term call intensity or frequency as a function delivery. effect on an animal’s welfare. of background noise conditions). There Many animals will combine several of An animal’s third line of defense to is also evidence that the directional these strategies to compensate for high stressors involves its neuroendocrine hearing abilities of odontocetes are levels of background noise. systems; the system that has received useful in reducing masking at the high- Anthropogenic sounds that reduce the the most study has been the frequencies these cetaceans use to signal-to-noise ratio of animal hypothalmus-pituitary-adrenal system echolocate, but not at the low-to- vocalizations, increase the masked (also known as the HPA axis in moderate frequencies they use to auditory thresholds of animals listening mammals or the hypothalamus- communicate (Zaitseva et al., 1980). A for such vocalizations, or reduce the pituitary-interrenal axis in fish and recent study by Nachtigall and Supin active space of an animal’s vocalizations some reptiles). Unlike stress responses (2008) showed that false killer whales impair communication between associated with the autonomic nervous adjust their hearing to compensate for animals. Most animals that vocalize system, virtually all neuro-endocrine ambient sounds and the intensity of have evolved strategies to compensate functions that are affected by stress— returning echolocation signals. for the effects of short-term or temporary including immune competence, As mentioned previously, the increases in background or ambient reproduction, metabolism, and functional hearing ranges of mysticetes, noise on their songs or calls. Although behavior—are regulated by pituitary odontocetes, and pinnipeds underwater the fitness consequences of these vocal hormones. Stress-induced changes in all encompass the frequencies of the adjustments remain unknown, like most the secretion of pituitary hormones have sonar sources used in the Navy’s MFAS/ other trade-offs animals must make, been implicated in failed reproduction HFAS training exercises. Additionally, some of these strategies probably come (Moberg, 1987; Rivier, 1995), altered almost all species’ vocal repertoires at a cost (Patricelli et al., 2006). For metabolism (Elasser et al., 2000), span across the frequencies of these example, vocalizing more loudly in reduced immune competence (Blecha, sonar sources used by the Navy. The noisy environments may have energetic 2000), and behavioral disturbance. closer the characteristics of the masking costs that decrease the net benefits of Increases in the circulation of signal to the signal of interest, the more vocal adjustment and alter a bird’s glucocorticosteroids (cortisol, likely masking is to occur. For hull- energy budget (Brumm, 2004; Wood and corticosterone, and aldosterone in mounted sonar, which accounts for the Yezerinac, 2006). Shifting songs and marine mammals; see Romano et al., largest takes of marine mammals calls to higher frequencies may also 2004) have been equated with stress for (because of the source strength and impose energetic costs (Lambrechts, many years. number of hours it’s conducted), the 1996). The primary distinction between pulse length and low duty cycle of the stress (which is adaptive and does not Stress Responses MFAS/HFAS signal makes it less likely normally place an animal at risk) and that masking would occur as a result. Classic stress responses begin when distress is the biotic cost of the an animal’s central nervous system response. During a stress response, an Impaired Communication perceives a potential threat to its animal uses glycogen stores that can be In addition to making it more difficult homeostasis. That perception triggers quickly replenished once the stress is for animals to perceive acoustic cues in stress responses regardless of whether a alleviated. In such circumstances, the their environment, anthropogenic sound stimulus actually threatens the animal; cost of the stress response would not presents separate challenges for animals the mere perception of a threat is pose a risk to the animal’s welfare. that are vocalizing. When they vocalize, sufficient to trigger a stress response However, when an animal does not have animals are aware of environmental (Moberg, 2000; Sapolsky et al., 2005; sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the conditions that affect the ‘‘active space’’ Seyle, 1950). Once an animal’s central energetic costs of a stress response, of their vocalizations, which is the nervous system perceives a threat, it energy resources must be diverted from maximum area within which their mounts a biological response or defense other biotic function, which impairs vocalizations can be detected before it that consists of a combination of the those functions that experience the drops to the level of ambient noise four general biological defense diversion. For example, when mounting (Brenowitz, 2004; Brumm et al., 2004; responses: behavioral responses, a stress response diverts energy away Lohr et al., 2003). Animals are also autonomic nervous system responses, from growth in young animals, those aware of environmental conditions that neuroendocrine responses, or immune animals may experience stunted growth. affect whether listeners can discriminate responses. When mounting a stress response and recognize their vocalizations from In the case of many stressors, an diverts energy from a fetus, an animal’s other sounds, which is more important animal’s first and sometimes most reproductive success and its fitness will than simply detecting that a economical (in terms of biotic costs) suffer. In these cases, the animals will vocalization is occurring (Brenowitz, response is behavioral avoidance of the have entered a pre-pathological or 1982; Brumm et al., 2004; Dooling, potential stressor or avoidance of pathological state which is called 2004, Marten and Marler, 1977; continued exposure to a stressor. An ‘‘distress’’ (Seyle, 1950) or ‘‘allostatic Patricelli et al., 2006). Most animals that animal’s second line of defense to loading’’ (McEwen and Wingfield, vocalize have evolved with an ability to stressors involves the sympathetic part 2003). This pathological state will last make adjustments to their vocalizations of the autonomic nervous system and until the animal replenishes its biotic

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31756 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

reserves sufficient to restore normal accompanied short- and long-term behavioral sensitivities to sounds that function. Note that these examples hearing losses. Welch and Welch (1970) will be affected by prior conditioning, involved a long-term (days or weeks) reported physiological and behavioral experience, and current activities of stress response exposure to stimuli. stress responses that accompanied those individuals. Often, specific Relationships between these damage to the inner ears of fish and acoustic features of the sound and physiological mechanisms, animal several mammals. contextual variables (i.e., proximity, behavior, and the costs of stress Hearing is one of the primary senses duration, or recurrence of the sound or responses have also been documented marine mammals use to gather the current behavior that the marine fairly well through controlled information about their environment mammal is engaged in or its prior experiments; because this physiology and to communicate with conspecifics. experience), as well as entirely separate exists in every vertebrate that has been Although empirical information on the factors such as the physical presence of studied, it is not surprising that stress relationship between sensory a nearby vessel, may be more relevant responses and their costs have been impairment (TTS, PTS, and acoustic to the animal’s response than the documented in both laboratory and free- masking) on marine mammals remains received level alone. living animals (for examples see, limited, it seems reasonable to assume Exposure of marine mammals to Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; that reducing an animal’s ability to sound sources can result in no response Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et al., gather information about its or responses including, but not limited 2004; Lankford et al., 2005; Reneerkens environment and to communicate with to: increased alertness; orientation or et al., 2002; Thompson and Hamer, other members of its species would be attraction to a sound source; vocal 2000). Information has also been stressful for animals that use hearing as modifications; cessation of feeding; collected on the physiological responses their primary sensory mechanism. cessation of social interaction; alteration of marine mammals to exposure to Therefore, we assume that acoustic of movement or diving behavior; habitat anthropogenic sounds (Fair and Becker, exposures sufficient to trigger onset PTS abandonment (temporary or permanent); 2000; Romano et al., 2002; Wright et al., or TTS would be accompanied by and, in severe cases, panic, flight, 2008). For example, Rolland et al. physiological stress responses because stampede, or stranding, potentially (2012) found that noise reduction from terrestrial animals exhibit those resulting in death (Southall et al., 2007). reduced ship traffic in the Bay of Fundy responses under similar conditions A review of marine mammal responses was associated with decreased stress in (NRC, 2003). More importantly, marine to anthropogenic sound was first North Atlantic right whales. In a mammals might experience stress conducted by Richardson and others in conceptual model developed by the responses at received levels lower than 1995. A more recent review (Nowacek et Population Consequences of Acoustic those necessary to trigger onset TTS. al., 2007) addresses studies conducted Disturbance (PCAD) working group, Based on empirical studies of the time since 1995 and focuses on observations serum hormones were identified as required to recover from stress where the received sound level of the possible indicators of behavioral effects responses (Moberg, 2000), we also exposed marine mammal(s) was known that are translated into altered rates of assume that stress responses are likely or could be estimated. The following reproduction and mortality. The Office to persist beyond the time interval sub-sections provide examples of of Naval Research hosted a workshop required for animals to recover from behavioral responses that provide an (Effects of Stress on Marine Mammals TTS and might result in pathological idea of the variability in behavioral Exposed to Sound) in 2009 that focused and pre-pathological states that would responses that would be expected given on this very topic (ONR, 2009). be as significant as behavioral responses the differential sensitivities of marine Studies of other marine animals and to TTS. mammal species to sound and the wide terrestrial animals would also lead us to range of potential acoustic sources to Behavioral Disturbance expect some marine mammals to which a marine mammal may be experience physiological stress Behavioral responses to sound are exposed. Estimates of the types of responses and, perhaps, physiological highly variable and context-specific. behavioral responses that could occur responses that would be classified as Many different variables can influence for a given sound exposure should be ‘‘distress’’ upon exposure to high an animal’s perception of and response determined from the literature that is frequency, mid-frequency and low- to (nature and magnitude) an acoustic available for each species, or frequency sounds. For example, Jansen event. An animal’s prior experience extrapolated from closely related (1998) reported on the relationship with a sound or sound source effects species when no information exists. between acoustic exposures and whether it is less likely (habituation) or Flight Response—A flight response is physiological responses that are more likely (sensitization) to respond to a dramatic change in normal movement indicative of stress responses in humans certain sounds in the future (animals to a directed and rapid movement away (for example, elevated respiration and can also be innately pre-disposed to from the perceived location of a sound increased heart rates). Jones (1998) respond to certain sounds in certain source. Relatively little information on reported on reductions in human ways) (Southall et al., 2007). Related to flight responses of marine mammals to performance when faced with acute, the sound itself, the perceived nearness anthropogenic signals exist, although repetitive exposures to acoustic of the sound, bearing of the sound observations of flight responses to the disturbance. Trimper et al. (1998) (approaching vs. retreating), similarity presence of predators have occurred reported on the physiological stress of a sound to biologically relevant (Connor and Heithaus, 1996). Flight responses of osprey to low-level aircraft sounds in the animal’s environment responses have been speculated as being noise while Krausman et al. (2004) (i.e., calls of predators, prey, or a component of marine mammal reported on the auditory and physiology conspecifics), and familiarity of the strandings associated with sonar stress responses of endangered Sonoran sound may affect the way an animal activities (Evans and England, 2001). pronghorn to military overflights. Smith responds to the sound (Southall et al., Response to Predator—Evidence et al. (2004a, 2004b), for example, 2007). Individuals (of different age, suggests that at least some marine identified noise-induced physiological gender, reproductive status, etc.) among mammals have the ability to transient stress responses in hearing- most populations will have variable acoustically identify potential predators. specialist fish (i.e., goldfish) that hearing capabilities, and differing For example, harbor seals that reside in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31757

the coastal waters off British Columbia Ocean Climate (ATOC) sound source of calling actually indicated a reduction are frequently targeted by certain groups were not found to affect dive times of in feeding behavior or social contact of killer whales, but not others. The humpback whales in Hawaiian waters since the study used data from remotely seals discriminate between the calls of (Frankel and Clark, 2000) or to overtly deployed, passive acoustic monitoring threatening and non-threatening killer affect elephant seal dives (Costa et al., buoys. In contrast, blue whales whales (Deecke et al., 2002), a capability 2003). They did, however, produce increased their likelihood of calling that should increase survivorship while subtle effects that varied in direction when ship noise was present, and reducing the energy required for and degree among the individual seals, decreased their likelihood of calling in attending to and responding to all killer illustrating the equivocal nature of the presence of explosive noise, whale calls. The occurrence of masking behavioral effects and consequent although this result was not statistically or hearing impairment provides a means difficulty in defining and predicting significant (Melco´n et al., 2012). by which marine mammals may be them. Additionally, the likelihood of an prevented from responding to the Due to past incidents of beaked whale animal calling decreased with the acoustic cues produced by their strandings associated with sonar increased received level of mid- predators. Whether or not this is a operations, feedback paths are provided frequency sonar, beginning at a SPL of possibility depends on the duration of between avoidance and diving and approximately 110–120 dB re 1 mPa the masking/hearing impairment and indirect tissue effects. This feedback (Melco´n et al., 2012). Preliminary the likelihood of encountering a accounts for the hypothesis that results from the 2010–2011 field season predator during the time that predator variations in diving behavior and/or of an ongoing behavioral response study cues are impeded. avoidance responses can possibly result in Southern California waters indicated Diving—Changes in dive behavior can in nitrogen tissue supersaturation and that, in some cases and at low received vary widely. They may consist of nitrogen off-gassing, possibly to the levels, tagged blue whales responded to increased or decreased dive times and point of deleterious vascular bubble mid-frequency sonar but that those surface intervals as well as changes in formation (Jepson et al., 2003). responses were mild and there was a the rates of ascent and descent during a Although hypothetical, discussions quick return to their baseline activity dive. Variations in dive behavior may surrounding this potential process are (Southall et al., 2011). A determination reflect interruptions in biologically controversial. of whether foraging disruptions incur significant activities (e.g., foraging) or Foraging—Disruption of feeding fitness consequences will require they may be of little biological behavior can be difficult to correlate information on or estimates of the significance. Variations in dive behavior with anthropogenic sound exposure, so energetic requirements of the may also expose an animal to it is usually inferred by observed individuals and the relationship potentially harmful conditions (e.g., displacement from known foraging between prey availability, foraging effort areas, the appearance of secondary increasing the chance of ship-strike) or and success, and the life history stage of indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment may serve as an avoidance response that the animal. Goldbogen et al., (2013) plumes), or changes in dive behavior. enhances survivorship. The impact of a monitored behavioral responses of Noise from seismic surveys was not variation in diving resulting from an tagged blue whales located in feeding found to impact the feeding behavior in acoustic exposure depends on what the areas when exposed simulated MFA western grey whales off the coast of animal is doing at the time of the sonar. Responses varied depending on Russia (Yazvenko et al., 2007) and exposure and the type and magnitude of behavioral context, with deep feeding the response. sperm whales engaged in foraging dives whales being more significantly affected Nowacek et al. (2004) reported did not abandon dives when exposed to (i.e., generalized avoidance; cessation of disruptions of dive behaviors in foraging distant signatures of seismic airguns North Atlantic right whales when (Madsen et al., 2006). However, Miller feeding; increased swimming speeds; or exposed to an alerting stimulus, an et al. (2009) reported buzz rates (a proxy directed travel away from the source) action, they noted, that could lead to an for feeding) 19 percent lower during compared to surface feeding individuals increased likelihood of ship strike. exposure to distant signatures of seismic that typically showed no change in However, the whales did not respond to airguns. Balaenopterid whales exposed behavior. Non-feeding whales also playbacks of either right whale social to moderate low-frequency signals seemed to be affected by exposure. The sounds or vessel noise, highlighting the similar to the ATOC sound source authors indicate that disruption of importance of the sound characteristics demonstrated no variation in foraging feeding and displacement could impact in producing a behavioral reaction. activity (Croll et al., 2001), whereas five individual fitness and health. Conversely, Indo-Pacific humpback out of six North Atlantic right whales Breathing—Variations in respiration dolphins have been observed to dive for exposed to an acoustic alarm naturally vary with different behaviors longer periods of time in areas where interrupted their foraging dives and variations in respiration rate as a vessels were present and/or (Nowacek et al., 2004). Although the function of acoustic exposure can be approaching (Ng and Leung, 2003). In received sound pressure levels were expected to co-occur with other both of these studies, the influence of similar in the latter two studies, the behavioral reactions, such as a flight the sound exposure cannot be frequency, duration, and temporal response or an alteration in diving. decoupled from the physical presence of pattern of signal presentation were However, respiration rates in and of a surface vessel, thus complicating different. These factors, as well as themselves may be representative of interpretations of the relative differences in species sensitivity, are annoyance or an acute stress response. contribution of each stimulus to the likely contributing factors to the Mean exhalation rates of gray whales at response. Indeed, the presence of differential response. Blue whales rest and while diving were found to be surface vessels, their approach, and exposed to simulated mid-frequency unaffected by seismic surveys speed of approach, seemed to be sonar in the Southern California Bight conducted adjacent to the whale feeding significant factors in the response of the were less likely to produce low grounds (Gailey et al., 2007). Studies Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Ng frequency calls usually associated with with captive harbor porpoises showed and Leung, 2003). Low frequency feeding behavior (Melco´n et al., 2012). increased respiration rates upon signals of the Acoustic Thermometry of It is not known whether the lower rates introduction of acoustic alarms

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31758 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

(Kastelein et al., 2001; Kastelein et al., al., 1994), although it cannot be Kvadsheim et al., (2007) conducted a 2006a) and emissions for underwater absolutely determined whether the controlled exposure experiment in data transmission (Kastelein et al., inability to acoustically detect the which killer whales fitted with D-tags 2005). However, exposure of the same animals was due to the cessation of were exposed to mid-frequency active acoustic alarm to a striped dolphin sound production or the displacement sonar (Source A: a 1.0 second upsweep under the same conditions did not elicit of animals from the area. 209 dB @ 1–2 kHz every 10 seconds for a response (Kastelein et al., 2006a), Avoidance—Avoidance is the 10 minutes; Source B: with a 1.0 second again highlighting the importance in displacement of an individual from an upsweep 197 dB @ 6–7 kHz every 10 understanding species differences in the area as a result of the presence of a seconds for 10 minutes). When exposed tolerance of underwater noise when sound. Richardson et al., (1995) noted to Source A, a tagged whale and the determining the potential for impacts that avoidance reactions are the most group it was traveling with did not resulting from anthropogenic sound obvious manifestations of disturbance in appear to avoid the source. When exposure (Southall et al., 2007; marine mammals. It is qualitatively exposed to Source B, the tagged whales Henderson et al., 2014). different from the flight response, but along with other whales that had been Social Relationships—Social also differs in the magnitude of the carousel feeding, ceased feeding during interactions between mammals can be response (i.e., directed movement, rate the approach of the sonar and moved affected by noise via the disruption of of travel, etc.). Oftentimes avoidance is rapidly away from the source. When communication signals or by the temporary, and animals return to the exposed to Source B, Kvadsheim and displacement of individuals. Disruption area once the noise has ceased. Longer his co-workers reported that a tagged of social relationships therefore depends term displacement is possible, however, killer whale seemed to try to avoid on the disruption of other behaviors which can lead to changes in abundance further exposure to the sound field by (e.g., caused avoidance, masking, etc.) or distribution patterns of the species in the following behaviors: Immediately and no specific overview is provided the affected region if they do not swimming away (horizontally) from the here. However, social disruptions must become acclimated to the presence of source of the sound; engaging in a series be considered in context of the the sound (Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder of erratic and frequently deep dives that relationships that are affected. Long- et al., 2006; Teilmann et al., 2006). seemed to take it below the sound field; term disruptions of mother/calf pairs or Acute avoidance responses have been or swimming away while engaged in a mating displays have the potential to observed in captive porpoises and series of erratic and frequently deep affect the growth and survival or pinnipeds exposed to a number of dives. Although the sample sizes in this reproductive effort/success of different sound sources (Kastelein et al., study are too small to support statistical individuals, respectively. 2001; Finneran et al., 2003; Kastelein et analysis, the behavioral responses of the Vocalizations (also see Masking al., 2006a; Kastelein et al., 2006b). orcas were consistent with the results of Section)—Vocal changes in response to Short-term avoidance of seismic other studies. anthropogenic noise can occur across surveys, low frequency emissions, and In 2007, the first in a series of the repertoire of sound production acoustic deterrents have also been noted behavioral response studies, a modes used by marine mammals, such in wild populations of odontocetes collaboration by the Navy, NMFS, and as whistling, echolocation click (Bowles et al., 1994; Goold, 1996; 1998; other scientists showed one beaked production, calling, and singing. Stone et al., 2000; Morton and whale (Mesoplodon densirostris) Changes may result in response to a Symonds, 2002) and to some extent in responding to an MFAS playback. Tyack need to compete with an increase in mysticetes (Gailey et al., 2007), while et al. (2011) indicates that the playback background noise or may reflect an longer term or repetitive/chronic began when the tagged beaked whale increased vigilance or startle response. displacement for some dolphin groups was vocalizing at depth (at the deepest For example, in the presence of low- and for manatees has been suggested to part of a typical feeding dive), following frequency active sonar, humpback be due to the presence of chronic vessel a previous control with no sound whales have been observed to increase noise (Haviland-Howell et al., 2007; exposure. The whale appeared to stop the length of their ’’songs’’ (Miller et al., Miksis-Olds et al., 2007). clicking significantly earlier than usual, 2000; Fristrup et al., 2003), possibly due Maybaum (1993) conducted sound when exposed to mid-frequency signals to the overlap in frequencies between playback experiments to assess the in the 130–140 dB (rms) received level the whale song and the low-frequency effects of MFAS on humpback whales in range. After a few more minutes of the active sonar. A similar compensatory Hawaiian waters. Specifically, she playback, when the received level effect for the presence of low-frequency exposed focal pods to sounds of a 3.3- reached a maximum of 140–150 dB, the vessel noise has been suggested for right kHz sonar pulse, a sonar frequency whale ascended on the slow side of whales; right whales have been sweep from 3.1 to 3.6 kHz, and a control normal ascent rates with a longer than observed to shift the frequency content (blank) tape while monitoring behavior, normal ascent, at which point the of their calls upward while reducing the movement, and underwater exposure was terminated. The results rate of calling in areas of increased vocalizations. The two types of sonar are from a single experiment and a anthropogenic noise (Parks et al., 2007). signals (which both contained mid- and greater sample size is needed before Killer whales off the northwestern coast low-frequency components) differed in robust and definitive conclusions can be of the U.S. have been observed to their effects on the humpback whales, drawn. increase the duration of primary calls but both resulted in avoidance behavior. Tyack et al. (2011) also indicates that once a threshold in observing vessel The whales responded to the pulse by Blainville’s beaked whales appear to be density (e.g., whale watching) was increasing their distance from the sound sensitive to noise at levels well below reached, which has been suggested as a source and responded to the frequency expected TTS (∼160 dB re1mPa). This response to increased masking noise sweep by increasing their swimming sensitivity is manifest by an adaptive produced by the vessels (Foote et al., speeds and track linearity. In the movement away from a sound source. 2004; NOAA, 2014b). In contrast, both Caribbean, sperm whales avoided This response was observed irrespective sperm and pilot whales potentially exposure to mid-frequency submarine of whether the signal transmitted was ceased sound production during the sonar pulses, in the range of 1000 Hz to within the band width of MFAS, which Heard Island feasibility test (Bowles et 10,000 Hz (IWC 2005). suggests that beaked whales may not

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31759

respond to the specific sound In the 2007–2008 Bahamas study, context of other reactions that may signatures. Instead, they may be playback sounds of a potential occur. sensitive to any pulsed sound from a predator—a killer whale—resulted in a There are few empirical studies of point source in this frequency range. similar but more pronounced reaction, avoidance responses of free-living The response to such stimuli appears to which included longer inter-dive cetaceans to MFAS. Much more involve maximizing the distance from intervals and a sustained straight-line information is available on the the sound source. departure of more than 20 km from the avoidance responses of free-living Stimpert et al. (2014) tagged a Baird’s area. The authors noted, however, that cetaceans to other acoustic sources, beaked whale, which was subsequently the magnified reaction to the predator such as seismic airguns and low- exposed to simulated mid-frequency sounds could represent a cumulative frequency tactical sonar, than MFAS. sonar. Changes in the animal’s dive effect of exposure to the two sound Behavioral Responses behavior and locomotion were observed types since killer whale playback began Southall et al. (2007) reports the when received level reached 127 dB approximately 2 hours after mid- results of the efforts of a panel of experts re1mPa. frequency source playback. Pilot whales in acoustic research from behavioral, Results from a 2007–2008 study and killer whales off Norway also exhibited horizontal avoidance of a physiological, and physical disciplines conducted near the Bahamas showed a that convened and reviewed the change in diving behavior of an adult transducer with outputs in the mid- frequency range (signals in the 1–2 kHz available literature on marine mammal Blainville’s beaked whale to playback of hearing and physiological and mid-frequency source and predator and 6–7 kHz ranges) (Miller et al., 2011). Additionally, separation of a calf from behavioral responses to human-made sounds (Boyd et al., 2008; Southall et al. sound with the goal of proposing 2009; Tyack et al., 2011). Reaction to its group during exposure to mid- frequency sonar playback was observed exposure criteria for certain effects. This mid-frequency sounds included peer-reviewed compilation of literature premature cessation of clicking and on one occasion (Miller et al., 2011). In contrast, preliminary analyses suggest is very valuable, though Southall et al. termination of a foraging dive, and a (2007) note that not all data are equal, slower ascent rate to the surface. Results that none of the pilot whales or false killer whales in the Bahamas showed an some have poor statistical power, from a similar behavioral response avoidance response to controlled insufficient controls, and/or limited study in southern California waters have exposure playbacks (Southall et al., information on received levels, been presented for the 2010–2011 field 2009). background noise, and other potentially season (Southall et al. 2011; DeRuiter et Through analysis of the behavioral important contextual variables—such al., 2013b). DeRuiter et al. (2013b) response studies, a preliminary data were reviewed and sometimes used presented results from two Cuvier’s overarching effect of greater sensitivity for qualitative illustration but were not beaked whales that were tagged and to all anthropogenic exposures was seen included in the quantitative analysis for exposed to simulated mid-frequency in beaked whales compared to the other the criteria recommendations. All of the active sonar during the 2010 and 2011 odontocetes studied (Southall et al., studies considered, however, contain an field seasons of the southern California 2009). Therefore, recent studies have estimate of the received sound level behavioral response study. The 2011 focused specifically on beaked whale when the animal exhibited the indicated whale was also incidentally exposed to responses to active sonar transmissions response. mid-frequency active sonar from a or controlled exposure playback of In the Southall et al. (2007) distant naval exercise. Received levels simulated sonar on various military publication, for the purposes of from the mid-frequency active sonar ranges (Defence Science and analyzing responses of marine mammals signals from the controlled and Technology Laboratory, 2007; Claridge to anthropogenic sound and developing incidental exposures were calculated as and Durban, 2009; Moretti et al., 2009; criteria, the authors differentiate 84–144 and 78–106 dB re 1 mPa root McCarthy et al., 2011; Tyack et al., between single pulse sounds, multiple mean square (rms), respectively. Both 2011). In the Bahamas, Blainville’s pulse sounds, and non-pulse sounds. whales showed responses to the beaked whales located on the range will MFAS/HFAS sonar is considered a non- controlled exposures, ranging from move off-range during sonar use and pulse sound. Southall et al. (2007) initial orientation changes to avoidance return only after the sonar transmissions summarize the studies associated with responses characterized by energetic have stopped, sometimes taking several low-frequency, mid-frequency, and fluking and swimming away from the days to do so (Claridge and Durban high-frequency cetacean and pinniped source. However, the authors did not 2009; Moretti et al., 2009; McCarthy et responses to non-pulse sounds, based detect similar responses to incidental al., 2011; Tyack et al., 2011). Moretti et strictly on received level, in Appendix exposure to distant naval sonar al. (2014) used recordings from seafloor- C of their article (incorporated by exercises at comparable received levels, mounted hydrophones at the Atlantic reference and summarized in the three indicating that context of the exposures Undersea Test and Evaluation Center paragraphs below). (e.g., source proximity, controlled (AUTEC) to analyze the probability of The studies that address responses of source ramp-up) may have been a Blainsville’s beaked whale dives before, low-frequency cetaceans to non-pulse significant factor. Cuvier’s beaked whale during, and after Navy sonar exercises. sounds include data gathered in the responses suggested particular Orientation—A shift in an animal’s field and related to several types of sensitivity to sound exposure as resting state or an attentional change via sound sources (of varying similarity to consistent with results for Blainville’s an orienting response represent MFAS/HFAS) including: Vessel noise, beaked whale. Similarly, beaked whales behaviors that would be considered drilling and machinery playback, low- exposed to sonar during British training mild disruptions if occurring alone. As frequency M-sequences (sine wave with exercises stopped foraging (DSTL, previously mentioned, the responses multiple phase reversals) playback, 2007), and preliminary results of may co-occur with other behaviors; for tactical low-frequency active sonar controlled playback of sonar may instance, an animal may initially orient playback, drill ships, Acoustic indicate feeding/foraging disruption of toward a sound source, and then move Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC) killer whales and sperm whales (Miller away from it. Thus, any orienting source, and non-pulse playbacks. These et al., 2011). response should be considered in studies generally indicate no (or very

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31760 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

limited) responses to received levels in pulse sounds used in underwater data rates (Saino, 1994; Beauchamp and the 90 to 120 dB re: 1 mPa range and an communication; underwater drilling, Livoreil, 1997; Fritz et al., 2002). increasing likelihood of avoidance and and construction noise. Few studies Animals will spend more time being other behavioral effects in the 120 to exist with enough information to vigilant, which may translate to less 160 dB range. As mentioned earlier, include them in the analysis. The time foraging or resting, when though, contextual variables play a very limited data suggested that exposures to disturbance stimuli approach them important role in the reported responses non-pulse sounds between 90 and 140 more directly, remain at closer and the severity of effects are not linear dB generally do not result in strong distances, have a greater group size (for when compared to received level. Also, behavioral responses in pinnipeds in example, multiple surface vessels), or few of the laboratory or field datasets water, but no data exist at higher when they co-occur with times that an had common conditions, behavioral received levels. animal perceives increased risk (for contexts or sound sources, so it is not example, when they are giving birth or Potential Effects of Behavioral surprising that responses differ. accompanied by a calf). Most of the Disturbance The studies that address responses of published literature, however, suggests mid-frequency cetaceans to non-pulse The different ways that marine that direct approaches will increase the sounds include data gathered both in mammals respond to sound are amount of time animals will dedicate to the field and the laboratory and related sometimes indicators of the ultimate being vigilant. For example, bighorn to several different sound sources (of effect that exposure to a given stimulus sheep and Dall’s sheep dedicated more varying similarity to MFAS/HFAS) will have on the well-being (survival, time being vigilant, and less time resting including: Pingers, drilling playbacks, reproduction, etc.) of an animal. There or foraging, when aircraft made direct ship and ice-breaking noise, vessel is limited marine mammal data approaches over them (Frid, 2001; noise, Acoustic Harassment Devices quantitatively relating the exposure of Stockwell et al., 1991). (AHDs), Acoustic Deterrent Devices marine mammals to sound to effects on Several authors have established that (ADDs), MFAS, and non-pulse bands reproduction or survival, though data long-term and intense disturbance and tones. Southall et al. (2007) were exists for terrestrial species to which we stimuli can cause population declines unable to come to a clear conclusion can draw comparisons for marine by reducing the body condition of regarding the results of these studies. In mammals. individuals that have been disturbed, some cases, animals in the field showed Attention is the cognitive process of followed by reduced reproductive significant responses to received levels selectively concentrating on one aspect success, reduced survival, or both (Daan between 90 and 120 dB, while in other of an animal’s environment while et al., 1996; Madsen, 1994; White, cases these responses were not seen in ignoring other things (Posner, 1994). 1983). For example, Madsen (1994) the 120 to 150 dB range. The disparity Because animals (including humans) reported that pink-footed geese in in results was likely due to contextual have limited cognitive resources, there undisturbed habitat gained body mass variation and the differences between is a limit to how much sensory and had about a 46-percent reproductive the results in the field and laboratory information they can process at any success rate compared with geese in data (animals typically responded at time. The phenomenon called disturbed habitat (being consistently lower levels in the field). ‘‘attentional capture’’ occurs when a scared off the fields on which they were The studies that address responses of stimulus (usually a stimulus that an foraging) which did not gain mass and high frequency cetaceans to non-pulse animal is not concentrating on or had a 17-percent reproductive success sounds include data gathered both in attending to) ‘‘captures’’ an animal’s rate. Similar reductions in reproductive the field and the laboratory and related attention. This shift in attention can success have been reported for mule to several different sound sources (of occur consciously or subconsciously deer disturbed by all-terrain vehicles varying similarity to MFAS/HFAS) (for example, when an animal hears (Yarmoloy et al., 1988), caribou including: pingers, AHDs, and various sounds that it associates with the disturbed by seismic exploration blasts laboratory non-pulse sounds. All of approach of a predator) and the shift in (Bradshaw et al., 1998), caribou these data were collected from harbor attention can be sudden (Dukas, 2002; disturbed by low-elevation military jet- porpoises. Southall et al. (2007) van Rij, 2007). Once a stimulus has fights (Luick et al., 1996), and caribou concluded that the existing data captured an animal’s attention, the disturbed by low-elevation jet flights indicate that harbor porpoises are likely animal can respond by ignoring the (Harrington and Veitch, 1992). sensitive to a wide range of stimulus, assuming a ‘‘watch and wait’’ Similarly, a study of elk that were anthropogenic sounds at low received posture, or treat the stimulus as a disturbed experimentally by pedestrians levels (∼ 90 to 120 dB), at least for initial disturbance and respond accordingly, concluded that the ratio of young to exposures. All recorded exposures which includes scanning for the source mothers was inversely related to above 140 dB induced profound and of the stimulus or ‘‘vigilance’’ disturbance rate (Phillips and sustained avoidance behavior in wild (Cowlishaw et al., 2004). Alldredge, 2000). harbor porpoises (Southall et al., 2007). Vigilance is normally an adaptive The primary mechanism by which Rapid habituation was noted in some behavior that helps animals determine increased vigilance and disturbance but not all studies. There is no data to the presence or absence of predators, appear to affect the fitness of individual indicate whether other high frequency assess their distance from conspecifics, animals is by disrupting an animal’s cetaceans are as sensitive to or to attend cues from prey (Bednekoff time budget and, as a result, reducing anthropogenic sound as harbor and Lima, 1998; Treves, 2000). Despite the time they might spend foraging and porpoises are. those benefits, however, vigilance has a resting (which increases an animal’s The studies that address the responses cost of time; when animals focus their activity rate and energy demand). For of pinnipeds in water to non-pulse attention on specific environmental example, a study of grizzly bears sounds include data gathered both in cues, they are not attending to other reported that bears disturbed by hikers the field and the laboratory and related activities such as foraging. These costs reduced their energy intake by an to several different sound sources (of have been documented best in foraging average of 12 kcal/minute (50.2 x 103kJ/ varying similarity to MFAS/HFAS) animals, where vigilance has been minute), and spent energy fleeing or including: AHDs, ATOC, various non- shown to substantially reduce feeding acting aggressively toward hikers (White

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31761

et al., 1999). Alternately, Ridgway et al. functions, displacement, or avoidance of applied broadly to project-specific risk (2006) reported that increased vigilance important habitat) are more likely to be assessments, they are a critical first step. in bottlenose dolphins exposed to sound significant if they last more than one Stranding and Mortality over a 5-day period did not cause any diel cycle or recur on subsequent days sleep deprivation or stress effects such (Southall et al., 2007). Consequently, a When a live or dead marine mammal as changes in cortisol or epinephrine behavioral response lasting less than 1 swims or floats onto shore and becomes levels. day and not recurring on subsequent ‘‘beached’’ or incapable of returning to Lusseau and Bejder (2007) present days is not considered particularly sea, the event is termed a ‘‘stranding’’ data from three long-term studies severe unless it could directly affect (Geraci et al., 1999; Perrin and Geraci, illustrating the connections between reproduction or survival (Southall et al., 2002; Geraci and Lounsbury, 2005; disturbance from whale-watching boats 2007). Note that there is a difference NMFS, 2007). The legal definition for a and population-level effects in between multiple-day substantive stranding within the U.S. is that (A) ‘‘a cetaceans. In Sharks Bay Australia, the behavioral reactions and multiple-day marine mammal is dead and is (i) on a abundance of bottlenose dolphins was anthropogenic activities. For example, beach or shore of the United States; or compared within adjacent control and just because an at-sea exercise lasts for (ii) in waters under the jurisdiction of tourism sites over three consecutive 4.5- multiple days does not necessarily mean the United States (including any year periods of increasing tourism that individual animals are either navigable waters); or (B) a marine levels. Between the second and third exposed to that exercise for multiple mammal is alive and is (i) on a beach time periods, in which tourism doubled, days or, further, exposed in a manner or shore of the United States and unable dolphin abundance decreased by 15 resulting in a sustained multiple day to return to the water; (ii) on a beach or percent in the tourism area and did not substantive behavioral responses. shore of the United States and, although able to return to the water, is in need of change significantly in the control area. In order to understand how the effects apparent medical attention; or (iii) in In Fiordland, New Zealand, two of activities may or may not impact the waters under the jurisdiction of the populations (Milford and Doubtful stocks and populations of marine United States (including any navigable Sounds) of bottlenose dolphins with mammals, it is necessary to understand waters), but is unable to return to its tourism levels that differed by a factor not only what the likely disturbances natural habitat under its own power or of seven were observed and significant are going to be, but how those increases in travelling time and without assistance.’’ (16 U.S.C. 1421h). disturbances may affect the Marine mammals are known to strand decreases in resting time were reproductive success and survivorship documented for both. Consistent short- for a variety of reasons, such as of individuals, and then how those term avoidance strategies were observed infectious agents, biotoxicosis, impacts to individuals translate to in response to tour boats until a starvation, fishery interaction, ship population changes. Following on the threshold of disturbance was reached strike, unusual oceanographic or earlier work of a committee of the U.S. (average 68 minutes between weather events, sound exposure, or National Research Council (NRC, 2005), interactions), after which the response combinations of these stressors New et al. (2014), in an effort termed the switched to a longer term habitat sustained concurrently or in series. Potential Consequences of Disturbance displacement strategy. For one However, the cause or causes of most (PCoD), outline an updated conceptual population tourism only occurred in a strandings are unknown (Geraci et al., model of the relationships linking part of the home range, however, 1976; Eaton, 1979, Odell et al., 1980; tourism occurred throughout the home disturbance to changes in behavior and Best, 1982). Numerous studies suggest range of the Doubtful Sound population physiology, health, vital rates, and that the physiology, behavior, habitat and once boat traffic increased beyond population dynamics (below). As relationships, age, or condition of the 68-minute threshold (resulting in depicted, behavioral and physiological cetaceans may cause them to strand or abandonment of their home range/ changes can either have direct (acute) might pre-dispose them to strand when preferred habitat), reproductive success effects on vital rates, such as when exposed to another phenomenon. These drastically decreased (increased changes in habitat use or increased suggestions are consistent with the stillbirths) and abundance decreased stress levels raise the probability of conclusions of numerous other studies significantly (from 67 to 56 individuals mother-calf separation or predation, or that have demonstrated that in short period). Last, in a study of they can have indirect and long-term combinations of dissimilar stressors northern resident killer whales off (chronic) effects on vital rates, such as commonly combine to kill an animal or Vancouver Island, exposure to boat when changes in time/energy budgets or dramatically reduce its fitness, even traffic was shown to reduce foraging increased disease susceptibility affect though one exposure without the other opportunities and increase traveling health, which then affects vital rates does not produce the same result time. A simple bioenergetics model was (New et al., 2014). (Chroussos, 2000; Creel, 2005; DeVries applied to show that the reduced In addition to outlining this general et al., 2003; Fair and Becker, 2000; Foley foraging opportunities equated to a framework and compiling the relevant et al., 2001; Moberg, 2000; Relyea, decreased energy intake of 18 percent, literature that supports it, New et al. 2005a; 2005b, Romero, 2004; Sih et al., while the increased traveling incurred (2014) have chosen four example 2004). For reference, between 2001 and an increased energy output of 3–4 species for which extensive long-term 2009, there was an annual average of percent, which suggests that a monitoring data exist (southern 1,400 cetacean strandings and 4,300 management action based on avoiding elephant seals, North Atlantic right pinniped strandings along the coasts of interference with foraging might be whales, Ziphidae beaked whales, and the continental U.S. and Alaska (NMFS, particularly effective. bottlenose dolphins) and developed 2011). On a related note, many animals state-space energetic models that can be Several sources have published lists perform vital functions, such as feeding, used to effectively forecast longer-term, of mass stranding events of cetaceans in resting, traveling, and socializing, on a population-level impacts from an attempt to identify relationships diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Substantive behavioral changes. While these are between those stranding events and behavioral reactions to noise exposure very specific models with very specific military sonar (Hildebrand, 2004; IWC, (such as disruption of critical life data requirements that cannot yet be 2005; Taylor et al., 2004). For example,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31762 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

based on a review of stranding records (640.1-m) exclusion zone around the sperm whales, pilot whales), have been between 1960 and 1995, the explosive charge, monitored by reported; however, the majority have International Whaling Commission personnel in a safety boat and not been investigated to the degree (2005) identified ten mass stranding participants in a dive boat. necessary to determine the cause of the events of Cuvier’s beaked whales had Approximately 5 minutes remained on stranding and only one of these been reported and one mass stranding of a time-delay fuse connected to a single stranding events, the Bahamas (2000), four Baird’s beaked whale. The IWC 8.76 lb (3.97 kg) explosive charge (C–4 was associated with exercises concluded that, out of eight stranding and detonation cord). Although the dive conducted by the U.S. Navy. Most events reported from the mid-1980s to boat was placed between the pod and recently, the Independent Scientific the summer of 2003, seven had been the explosive in an effort to guide the Review Panel investigating potential coincident with the use of tactical mid- dolphins away from the area, that effort contributing factors to a 2008 mass frequency sonar, one of those seven had was unsuccessful and three long-beaked stranding of melon-headed whales in been associated with the use of tactical common dolphins near the explosion Antsohihy, Madagascar released its final low-frequency sonar, and the remaining died. In addition to the three dolphins report suggesting that the stranding was stranding event had been associated found dead on March 4, the remains of likely initially triggered by an industry with the use of seismic airguns. a fourth dolphin were discovered on seismic survey. This report suggests that Most of the stranding events reviewed March 7, 2011 near Ocean Beach, the operation of a commercial high- by the International Whaling California (3 days later and powered 12 kHz multi-beam Commission involved beaked whales. A approximately 11.8 mi. [19 km] from echosounder during an industry seismic mass stranding of Cuvier’s beaked Silver Strand where the training event survey was a plausible and likely initial whales in the eastern Mediterranean Sea occurred), which might also have been trigger that caused a large group of occurred in 1996 (Frantzis, 1998) and related to this event. Association of the melon-headed whales to leave their mass stranding events involving fourth stranding with the training event typical habitat and then ultimately Gervais’ beaked whales, Blainville’s is uncertain because dolphins strand on strand as a result of secondary factors beaked whales, and Cuvier’s beaked a regular basis in the San Diego area. such as malnourishment and whales occurred off the coast of the Details such as the dolphins’ depth and dehydration. The report indicates that Canary Islands in the late 1980s distance from the explosive at the time the risk of this particular convergence of (Simmonds and Lopez-Jurado, 1991). of the detonation could not be estimated factors and ultimate outcome is likely The stranding events that occurred in from the 250 yd (228.6 m) standoff point very low, but recommends that the the Canary Islands and Kyparissiakos of the observers in the dive boat or the potential be considered in Gulf in the late 1990s and the Bahamas safety boat. environmental planning. Because of the in 2000 have been the most intensively- These dolphin mortalities are the only association between tactical mid- studied mass stranding events and have known occurrence of a U.S. Navy frequency active sonar use and a small been associated with naval maneuvers training or testing event involving number of marine mammal strandings, involving the use of tactical sonar. impulse energy (underwater detonation) the Navy and NMFS have been Between 1960 and 2006, 48 strandings that caused mortality or injury to a considering and addressing the (68 percent) involved beaked whales, marine mammal. Despite this being a potential for strandings in association three (4 percent) involved dolphins, and rare occurrence, the Navy has reviewed with Navy activities for years. In 14 (20 percent) involved whale species. training requirements, safety addition to a suite of mitigation Cuvier’s beaked whales were involved procedures, and possible mitigation intended to more broadly minimize in the greatest number of these events measures and implemented changes to impacts to marine mammals, the Navy (48 or 68 percent), followed by sperm reduce the potential for this to occur in and NMFS have a detailed Stranding whales (seven or 10 percent), and the future. Discussions of procedures Response Plan that outlines reporting, Blainville’s and Gervais’ beaked whales associated with these and other training communication, and response protocols (four each or 6 percent). Naval activities and testing events are presented in the intended both to minimize the impacts (not just activities conducted by the U.S. Mitigation section. of, and enhance the analysis of, any Navy) that might have involved active Strandings Associated With MFAS potential stranding in areas where the sonar are reported to have coincided Navy operates. with nine or 10 (13 to 14 percent) of Over the past 16 years, there have Greece (1996)—Twelve Cuvier’s those stranding events. Between the been five stranding events coincident beaked whales stranded atypically (in mid-1980s and 2003 (the period with military mid-frequency sonar use both time and space) along a 38.2-km reported by the International Whaling in which exposure to sonar is believed strand of the Kyparissiakos Gulf coast Commission), NMFS identified reports to have been a contributing factor: on May 12 and 13, 1996 (Frantzis, of 44 mass cetacean stranding events of Greece (1996); the Bahamas (2000); 1998). From May 11 through May 15, which at least seven were coincident Madeira (2000); Canary Islands (2002); the North Atlantic Treaty Organization with naval exercises that were using and Spain (2006). Additionally, in 2004, (NATO) research vessel Alliance was MFAS. during the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) conducting sonar tests with signals of exercises, between 150 and 200 usually 600 Hz and 3 kHz and source levels of Strandings Associated With Impulse pelagic melon-headed whales occupied 228 and 226 dB re: 1mPa, respectively Sound the shallow waters of Hanalei Bay, (D’Amico and Verboom, 1998; D’Spain During a Navy training event on Kauai, Hawaii for over 28 hours. NMFS et al., 2006). The timing and location of March 4, 2011, at the Silver Strand determined that MFAS was a plausible, the testing encompassed the time and Training Complex in San Diego, if not likely, contributing factor in what location of the strandings (Frantzis, California, three or possibly four may have been a confluence of events 1998). dolphins were killed in an explosion. that led to the stranding. A number of Necropsies of eight of the animals During an underwater detonation other stranding events coincident with were performed but were limited to training event, a pod of 100 to 150 long- the operation of mid-frequency sonar, basic external examination and beaked common dolphins were including the death of beaked whales or sampling of stomach contents, blood, observed moving towards the 700-yd other species (minke whales, dwarf and skin. No ears or organs were

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31763

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31764 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

similar pressure event may have tissues in the jaw, ears, brain, and Only one animal, a calf, was known precipitated or contributed to the kidneys, displaying marked to have died following this event. The strandings at both sites (Woods Hole disseminated microvascular animal was noted alive and alone in the Oceanographic Institution, 2005). hemorrhages associated with Bay on the afternoon of July 4, 2004, Even though no definitive causal link widespread fat emboli (Jepson et al., and was found dead in the Bay the can be made between the stranding 2003; International Council for morning of July 5, 2004. A full event and naval exercises, certain Exploration of the Sea, 2005a). Several necropsy, magnetic resonance imaging, conditions may have existed in the organs contained intravascular bubbles, and computerized tomography exercise area that, in their aggregate, although definitive evidence of gas examination were performed on the calf may have contributed to the marine embolism in vivo is difficult to to determine the manner and cause of mammal strandings (Freitas, 2004): determine after death (Jepson et al., death. The combination of imaging, exercises were conducted in areas of at 2003). The livers of the necropsied necropsy and histological analyses least 547 fathoms (1,000 m) depth near animals were the most consistently found no evidence of infectious, a shoreline where there is a rapid affected organ, which contained internal traumatic, congenital, or toxic change in bathymetry on the order of macroscopic gas-filled cavities and had factors. Cause of death could not be 547 to 3,281 fathoms (1,000 to 6,000 m) variable degrees of fibrotic definitively determined, but it is likely occurring across a relatively short encapsulation. In some animals, that maternal separation, poor horizontal distance (Freitas, 2004); cavitary lesions had extensively nutritional condition, and dehydration multiple ships were operating around replaced the normal tissue (Jepson et al., contributed to the final demise of the Madeira, though it is not known if 2003). Stomachs contained a large animal. Although it is not known when MFAS was used, and the specifics of the amount of fresh and undigested the calf was separated from its mother, sound sources used are unknown (Cox contents, suggesting a rapid onset of the animals’ movement into the Bay and et al., 2006, Freitas, 2004); and exercises disease and death (Fernandez et al., subsequent milling and re-grouping may took place in an area surrounded by 2005). Head and neck lymph nodes have contributed to the separation or landmasses separated by less than 35 were enlarged and congested, and lack of nursing, especially if the nm (65 km) and at least 10 nm (19 km) parasites were found in the kidneys of maternal bond was weak or this was an in length, or in an embayment. Exercises all animals (Fernandez et al., 2005). inexperienced mother with her first calf. involving multiple ships employing The association of NATO MFAS use Environmental factors, abiotic and biotic, were analyzed for any anomalous MFAS near land may produce sound close in space and time to the beaked directed towards a channel or occurrences that would have whale strandings, and the similarity embayment that may cut off the lines of contributed to the animals entering and between this stranding event and egress for marine mammals (Freitas, remaining in Hanalei Bay. The Bay’s previous beaked whale mass strandings 2004). bathymetry is similar to many other coincident with sonar use, suggests that Canary Islands, Spain (2002)—The sites within the Hawaiian Island chain a similar scenario and causative southeastern area within the Canary and dissimilar to sites that have been mechanism of stranding may be shared Islands is well known for aggregations associated with mass strandings in other between the events. Beaked whales of beaked whales due to its ocean parts of the U.S. The weather conditions stranded in this event demonstrated depths of greater than 547 fathoms appeared to be normal for that time of (1,000 m) within a few hundred meters brain and auditory system injuries, year with no fronts or other significant of the coastline (Fernandez et al., 2005). hemorrhages, and congestion in features noted. There was no evidence On September 24, 2002, 14 beaked multiple organs, similar to the of unusual distribution, occurrence of whales were found stranded on pathological findings of the Bahamas predator or prey species, or unusual Fuerteventura and Lanzarote Islands in and Madeira stranding events. In harmful algal blooms, although Mobley the Canary Islands (International addition, the necropsy results of Canary et al., 2007 suggested that the full moon Council for Exploration of the Sea, Islands stranding event lead to the cycle that occurred at that time may 2005a). Seven whales died, while the hypothesis that the presence of have influenced a run of squid into the remaining seven live whales were disseminated and widespread gas Bay. Weather patterns and bathymetry returned to deeper waters (Fernandez et bubbles and fat emboli were indicative that have been associated with mass al., 2005). Four beaked whales were of nitrogen bubble formation, similar to strandings elsewhere were not found to found stranded dead over the next three what might be expected in occur in this instance. days either on the coast or floating decompression sickness (Jepson et al., The Hanalei event was spatially and offshore. These strandings occurred 2003; Ferna´ndez et al., 2005; Ferna´ndez temporally correlated with RIMPAC. within near proximity of an et al., 2012). Official sonar training and tracking international naval exercise that utilized Hanalei Bay (2004)—On July 3 and 4, exercises in the Pacific Missile Range MFAS and involved numerous surface 2004, approximately 150 to 200 melon- Facility (PMRF) warning area did not warships and several submarines. headed whales occupied the shallow commence until approximately 8 a.m. Strandings began about 4 hours after the waters of the Hanalei Bay, Kaua’i, on July 3 and were thus ruled out as a onset of MFAS activity (International Hawaii for over 28 hrs. Attendees of a possible trigger for the initial movement Council for Exploration of the Sea, canoe blessing observed the animals into the Bay. However, six naval surface 2005a; Fernandez et al., 2005). entering the Bay in a single wave vessels transiting to the operational area Eight Cuvier’s beaked whales, one formation at 7 a.m. on July 3, 2004. The on July 2 intermittently transmitted Blainville’s beaked whale, and one animals were observed moving back active sonar (for approximately 9 hours Gervais’ beaked whale were necropsied, into the shore from the mouth of the Bay total from 1:15 p.m. to 12:30 a.m.) as six of them within 12 hours of stranding at 9 a.m. The usually pelagic animals they approached from the south. The (Fernandez et al., 2005). No pathogenic milled in the shallow bay and were potential for these transmissions to have bacteria were isolated from the carcasses returned to deeper water with human triggered the whales’ movement into (Jepson et al., 2003). The animals assistance beginning at 9:30 a.m. on July Hanalei Bay was investigated. Analyses displayed severe vascular congestion 4, 2004, and were out of sight by 10:30 with the information available indicated and hemorrhage especially around the a.m. that animals to the south and east of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31765

Kaua’i could have detected active sonar period of time in the Northern Mariana Mediterranean Sea. According to the transmissions on July 2, and reached Islands (Jefferson et al., 2006), which is report, two of the whales were Hanalei Bay on or before 7 a.m. on July several thousand miles from Hawaii. discovered the evening of January 26 3. However, data limitations regarding Some 500 to 700 melon-headed whales and were found to be still alive (these the position of the whales prior to their came into Sasanhaya Bay on July 4, later died). Two other whales were arrival in the Bay, the magnitude of 2004, near the island of Rota and then discovered during the day on January sonar exposure, behavioral responses of left of their own accord after 5.5 hours; 27, but had already died. The first three melon-headed whales to acoustic no known active sonar transmissions animals were located near the town of stimuli, and other possible relevant occurred in the vicinity of that event. Mojacar and the fourth animal was factors preclude a conclusive finding The Rota incident led to scientific found dead, a few kilometers north of regarding the role of sonar in triggering debate regarding what, if any, the first three animals. From January this event. Propagation modeling relationship the event had to the 25–26, 2006, Standing NATO Response suggests that transmissions from sonar simultaneous events in Hawaii and Force Maritime Group Two (five of use during the July 3 exercise in the whether they might be related by some seven ships including one U.S. ship PMRF warning area may have been common factor (e.g., there was a full under NATO Operational Control) had detectable at the mouth of the Bay. If the moon on July 2, 2004, as well as during conducted active sonar training against animals responded negatively to these other melon-headed whale strandings a Spanish submarine within 50 nm (93 signals, it may have contributed to their and nearshore aggregations (Brownell et km) of the stranding site. continued presence in the Bay. The U.S. al., 2009; Lignon et al., 2007; Mobley et Veterinary pathologists necropsied Navy ceased all active sonar al., 2007). Brownell et al. (2009) the two male and two female Cuvier’s transmissions during exercises in this compared the two incidents, along with beaked whales. According to the range on the afternoon of July 3. one other stranding incident at Nuka pathologists, the most likely primary Subsequent to the cessation of sonar Hiva in French Polynesia and normal cause of this type of beaked whale mass use, the animals were herded out of the resting behaviors observed at Palmyra stranding event was anthropogenic Bay. Island, in regard to physical features in acoustic activities, most probably anti- While causation of this stranding the areas, melon-headed whale submarine MFAS used during the event may never be unequivocally behavior, and lunar cycles. Brownell et military naval exercises. However, no determined, NMFS consider the active al., (2009) concluded that the rapid positive acoustic link was established as sonar transmissions of July 2–3, 2004, a entry of the whales into Hanalei Bay, a direct cause of the stranding. Even plausible, if not likely, contributing their movement into very shallow water though no causal link can be made factor in what may have been a far from the 100-m contour, their between the stranding event and naval confluence of events. This conclusion is milling behavior (typical pre-stranding exercises, certain conditions may have based on the following: (1) The behavior), and their reluctance to leave existed in the exercise area that, in their evidently anomalous nature of the the bay constituted an unusual event aggregate, may have contributed to the stranding; (2) its close spatiotemporal that was not similar to the events that marine mammal strandings (Freitas, correlation with wide-scale, sustained occurred at Rota (but was similar to the 2004): exercises were conducted in use of sonar systems previously events at Palmyra), which appear to be areas of at least 547 fathoms (1,000 m) associated with stranding of deep-diving similar to observations of melon-headed depth near a shoreline where there is a rapid change in bathymetry on the order marine mammals; (3) the directed whales resting normally at Palmyra movement of two groups of transmitting of 547 to 3,281 fathoms (1,000 to 6,000 Island. Additionally, there was no vessels toward the southeast and m) occurring across a relatively short correlation between lunar cycle and the southwest coast of Kauai; (4) the results horizontal distance (Freitas, 2004); types of behaviors observed in the of acoustic propagation modeling and multiple ships (in this instance, five) Brownell et al. (2009) examples. Since an analysis of possible animal transit were operating MFAS in the same area that time there have been two ‘‘out of times to the Bay; and (5) the absence of over extended periods of time (in this habitat’’ or ‘‘near mass strandings’’ of any other compelling causative case, 20 hours) in close proximity; and melon-headed whales in the Philippines explanation. The initiation and exercises took place in an area (Aragones et al., 2010). Pictures of one persistence of this event may have surrounded by landmasses, or in an of these events depict grouping behavior resulted from an interaction of embayment. Exercises involving biological and physical factors. The like that displayed at Hanalei Bay in multiple ships employing MFAS near biological factors may have included the July 2004. No naval sonar activity was land may have produced sound directed presence of an apparently uncommon, noted it the area, although it was towards a channel or embayment that deep-diving cetacean species (and suspected by the authors, based on may have cut off the lines of egress for possibly an offshore, non-resident personal communication with a the affected marine mammals (Freitas, group), social interactions among the government fisheries representative, 2004). animals before or after they entered the that dynamite blasting in the area may Association Between Mass Stranding Bay, and/or unknown predator or prey have occurred within the days prior to Events and Exposure to MFAS conditions. The physical factors may one of the events (Aragones et al., 2010). have included the presence of nearby Although melon-headed whales Several authors have noted deep water, multiple vessels transiting entering embayments may be infrequent similarities between some of these in a directed manner while transmitting and rare, there is precedent for this type stranding incidents: They occurred in active sonar over a sustained period, the of occurrence on other occasions in the islands or archipelagoes with deep presence of surface sound ducting absence of naval activity. water nearby, several appeared to have conditions, and/or intermittent and Spain (2006)—The Spanish Cetacean been associated with acoustic random human interactions while the Society reported an atypical mass waveguides like surface ducting, and animals were in the Bay. stranding of four beaked whales that the sound fields created by ships A separate event involving melon- occurred January 26, 2006, on the transmitting MFAS (Cox et al., 2006, headed whales and rough-toothed southeast coast of Spain, near Mojacar D’Spain et al., 2006). Although Cuvier’s dolphins took place over the same (Gulf of Vera) in the Western beaked whales have been the most

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31766 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

common species involved in these bubble formation caused by excessively Howard, 1979), Ridgway and Howard stranding events (81 percent of the total fast surfacing; remaining at the surface (1979) reported that bottlenose dolphins number of stranded animals), other too long when tissues are supersaturated that were trained to dive repeatedly had beaked whales (including Mesoplodon with nitrogen; or diving prematurely muscle tissues that were substantially europeaus, M. densirostris, and when extended time at the surface is supersaturated with nitrogen gas. Hyperoodon ampullatus) comprise 14 necessary to eliminate excess nitrogen. Houser et al. (2001) used these data to percent of the total. Other species More specifically, beaked whales that model the accumulation of nitrogen gas (Stenella coeruleoalba, Kogia breviceps occur in deep waters that are in close within the muscle tissue of other marine and Balaenoptera acutorostrata) have proximity to shallow waters (for mammal species and concluded that stranded, but in much lower numbers example, the ‘‘canyon areas’’ that are cetaceans that dive deep and have slow and less consistently than beaked cited in the Bahamas stranding event; ascent or descent speeds would have whales. see D’Spain and D’Amico, 2006), may tissues that are more supersaturated Based on the evidence available, respond to active sonar by swimming with nitrogen gas than other marine however, NMFS cannot determine into shallow waters to avoid further mammals. Based on these data, Cox et whether (a) Cuvier’s beaked whale is exposures and strand if they were not al. (2006) hypothesized that a critical more prone to injury from high-intensity able to swim back to deeper waters. dive sequence might make beaked sound than other species; (b) their Second, beaked whales exposed to whales more prone to stranding in behavioral responses to sound makes active sonar might alter their dive response to acoustic exposures. The them more likely to strand; or (c) they behavior. Changes in their dive behavior sequence began with (1) very deep (to are more likely to be exposed to MFAS might cause them to remain at the depths as deep as 2 kilometers) and long than other cetaceans (for reasons that surface or at depth for extended periods (as long as 90 minutes) foraging dives; remain unknown). Because the of time which could lead to hypoxia (2) relatively slow, controlled ascents; association between active sonar directly by increasing their oxygen and (3) a series of ‘‘bounce’’ dives exposures and marine mammals mass demands or indirectly by increasing between 100 and 400 m in depth (also stranding events is not consistent— their energy expenditures (to remain at see Zimmer and Tyack, 2007). They some marine mammals strand without depth) and increase their oxygen concluded that acoustic exposures that being exposed to sonar and some sonar demands as a result. If beaked whales disrupted any part of this dive sequence transmissions are not associated with are at depth when they detect a ping (for example, causing beaked whales to marine mammal stranding events from an active sonar transmission and spend more time at surface without the despite their co-occurrence—other risk change their dive profile, this could lead bounce dives that are necessary to factors or a grouping of risk factors to the formation of significant gas recover from the deep dive) could probably contribute to these stranding bubbles, which could damage multiple produce excessive levels of nitrogen events. organs or interfere with normal supersaturation in their tissues, leading Behaviorally Mediated Responses to physiological function (Cox et al., 2006; to gas bubble and emboli formation that MFAS That May Lead to Stranding Rommel et al., 2006; Zimmer and produces pathologies similar to Although the confluence of Navy Tyack, 2007). Baird et al. (2005) found decompression sickness. MFAS with the other contributory that slow ascent rates from deep dives Zimmer and Tyack (2007) modeled factors noted in the report was and long periods of time spent within nitrogen tension and bubble growth in identified as the cause of the 2000 50 m of the surface were typical for both several tissue compartments for several Bahamas stranding event, the specific Cuvier’s and Blainville’s beaked whales, hypothetical dive profiles and mechanisms that led to that stranding the two species involved in mass concluded that repetitive shallow dives (or the others) are not understood, and strandings related to naval sonar. These (defined as a dive where depth does not there is uncertainty regarding the two behavioral mechanisms may be exceed the depth of alveolar collapse, ordering of effects that led to the necessary to purge excessive dissolved approximately 72 m for Ziphius), stranding. It is unclear whether beaked nitrogen concentrated in their tissues perhaps as a consequence of an whales were directly injured by sound during their frequent long dives (Baird extended avoidance reaction to sonar (e.g., acoustically mediated bubble et al., 2005). Baird et al. (2005) further sound, could pose a risk for growth, as addressed above) prior to suggests that abnormally rapid ascents decompression sickness and that this stranding or whether a behavioral or premature dives in response to high- risk should increase with the duration response to sound occurred that intensity sonar could indirectly result in of the response. Their models also ultimately caused the beaked whales to physical harm to the beaked whales, suggested that unrealistically rapid be injured and strand. through the mechanisms described ascent rates of ascent from normal dive Although causal relationships above (gas bubble formation or non- behaviors are unlikely to result in between beaked whale stranding events elimination of excess nitrogen). supersaturation to the extent that bubble and active sonar remain unknown, Because many species of marine formation would be expected. Tyack et several authors have hypothesized that mammals make repetitive and al. (2006) suggested that emboli stranding events involving these species prolonged dives to great depths, it has observed in animals exposed to mid- in the Bahamas and Canary Islands may long been assumed that marine frequency range sonar (Jepson et al., have been triggered when the whales mammals have evolved physiological 2003; Fernandez et al., 2005; Ferna´ndez changed their dive behavior in a startled mechanisms to protect against the et al., 2012) could stem from a response to exposure to active sonar or effects of rapid and repeated behavioral response that involves to further avoid exposure (Cox et al., decompressions. Although several repeated dives shallower than the depth 2006, Rommel et al., 2006). These investigators have identified of lung collapse. Given that nitrogen gas authors proposed three mechanisms by physiological adaptations that may accumulation is a passive process (i.e. which the behavioral responses of protect marine mammals against nitrogen is metabolically inert), a beaked whales upon being exposed to nitrogen gas supersaturation (alveolar bottlenose dolphin was trained to active sonar might result in a stranding collapse and elective circulation; repetitively dive a profile predicted to event. These include the following: Gas Kooyman et al., 1972; Ridgway and elevate nitrogen saturation to the point

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31767

that nitrogen bubble formation was the extent the post mortem artifacts source and are not, technically, pure predicted to occur. However, inspection introduced by decomposition before acoustic trauma (Ketten, 1995). of the vascular system of the dolphin via sampling, handling, freezing, or Sublethal impacts include hearing loss, ultrasound did not demonstrate the necropsy procedures affect which is caused by exposures to formation of asymptomatic nitrogen gas interpretation of observed lesions. perceptible sounds. Severe damage bubbles (Houser et al., 2007). Baird et al. (from the shock wave) to the ears Impulsive Sources (2008), in a beaked whale tagging study includes tympanic membrane rupture, off Hawaii, showed that deep dives are Underwater explosive detonations fracture of the ossicles, damage to the equally common during day or night, send a shock wave and sound energy cochlea, hemorrhage, and cerebrospinal but ‘‘bounce dives’’ are typically a through the water and can release fluid leakage into the middle ear. daytime behavior, possibly associated gaseous by-products, create an Moderate injury implies partial hearing with visual predator avoidance. This oscillating bubble, or cause a plume of loss due to tympanic membrane rupture may indicate that ‘‘bounce dives’’ are water to shoot up from the water and blood in the middle ear. Permanent associated with something other than surface. The shock wave and hearing loss also can occur when the behavioral regulation of dissolved accompanying noise are of most concern hair cells are damaged by one very loud nitrogen levels, which would be to marine animals. Depending on the event, as well as by prolonged exposure necessary day and night. intensity of the shock wave and size, to a loud noise or chronic exposure to If marine mammals respond to a Navy location, and depth of the animal, an noise. The level of impact from blasts vessel that is transmitting active sonar animal can be injured, killed, suffer depends on both an animal’s location in the same way that they might non-lethal physical effects, experience and, at outer zones, on its sensitivity to respond to a predator, their probability hearing related effects with or without the residual noise (Ketten, 1995). of flight responses should increase behavioral responses, or exhibit There have been fewer studies when they perceive that Navy vessels temporary behavioral responses or addressing the behavioral effects of are approaching them directly, because tolerance from hearing the blast sound. explosives on marine mammals a direct approach may convey detection Generally, exposures to higher levels of compared to MFAS/HFAS. However, and intent to capture (Burger and impulse and pressure levels would though the nature of the sound waves Gochfeld, 1981, 1990; Cooper, 1997, result in greater impacts to an emitted from an explosion are different 1998). The probability of flight individual animal. (in shape and rise time) from MFAS/ responses should also increase as Injuries resulting from a shock wave HFAS, NMFS still anticipates the same received levels of active sonar increase take place at boundaries between tissues sorts of behavioral responses to result (and the ship is, therefore, closer) and of different densities. Different from repeated explosive detonations (a as ship speeds increase (that is, as velocities are imparted to tissues of smaller range of likely less severe approach speeds increase). For example, different densities, and this can lead to responses (i.e., not rising to the level of the probability of flight responses in their physical disruption. Blast effects MMPA harassment)) would be expected Dall’s sheep (Ovis dalli dalli) (Frid are greatest at the gas-liquid interface to occur as a result of exposure to a 2001a, b), ringed seals (Phoca hispida) (Landsberg, 2000). Gas-containing single explosive detonation that was not (Born et al., 1999), Pacific brant (Branta organs, particularly the lungs and powerful enough or close enough to the bernic nigricans) and Canada geese (B. gastrointestinal tract, are especially animal to cause TTS or injury. Canadensis) increased as a helicopter or susceptible (Goertner, 1982; Hill, 1978; Baleen whales have shown a variety fixed-wing aircraft approached groups Yelverton et al., 1973). In addition, gas- of responses to impulse sound sources, of these animals more directly (Ward et containing organs including the nasal including avoidance, reduced surface al., 1999). Bald eagles (Haliaeetus sacs, larynx, pharynx, trachea, and intervals, altered swimming behavior, leucocephalus) perched on trees lungs may be damaged by compression/ and changes in vocalization rates alongside a river were also more likely expansion caused by the oscillations of (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et al., to flee from a paddle raft when their the blast gas bubble (Reidenberg and 2003; Southall, 2007). While most perches were closer to the river or were Laitman, 2003). Intestinal walls can bowhead whales did not show active closer to the ground (Steidl and bruise or rupture, with subsequent avoidance until within 8 km of seismic Anthony, 1996). hemorrhage and escape of gut contents vessels (Richardson et al., 1995), some Despite the many theories involving into the body cavity. Less severe whales avoided vessels by more than 20 bubble formation (both as a direct cause gastrointestinal tract injuries include km at received levels as low as 120 dB of injury (see Acoustically Mediated contusions, petechiae (small red or re 1 mPa rms. Additionally, Malme et al. Bubble Growth Section) and an indirect purple spots caused by bleeding in the (1988) observed clear changes in diving cause of stranding (See Behaviorally skin), and slight hemorrhaging and respiration patterns in bowheads at Mediated Bubble Growth Section), (Yelverton et al., 1973). ranges up to 73 km from seismic vessels, Southall et al., (2007) summarizes that Because the ears are the most with received levels as low as 125 dB re there is either scientific disagreement or sensitive to pressure, they are the organs 1 mPa. a lack of information regarding each of most susceptible to injury (Ketten, Gray whales migrating along the U.S. the following important points: (1) 2000). Sound-related damage associated west coast showed avoidance responses Received acoustical exposure conditions with sound energy from detonations can to seismic vessels by 10 percent of for animals involved in stranding be theoretically distinct from injury animals at 164 dB re 1 mPa, and by 90 events; (2) pathological interpretation of from the shock wave, particularly percent of animals at 190 dB re 1 mPa, observed lesions in stranded marine farther from the explosion. If a noise is with similar results for whales in the mammals; (3) acoustic exposure audible to an animal, it has the potential Bering Sea (Malme 1986, 1988). In conditions required to induce such to damage the animal’s hearing by contrast, noise from seismic surveys was physical trauma directly; (4) whether causing decreased sensitivity (Ketten, not found to impact feeding behavior or noise exposure may cause behavioral 1995). Sound-related trauma can be exhalation rates while resting or diving reactions (such as atypical diving lethal or sublethal. Lethal impacts are in western gray whales off the coast of behavior) that secondarily cause bubble those that result in immediate death or Russia (Yazvenko et al., 2007; Gailey et formation and tissue damage; and (5) serious debilitation in or near an intense al., 2007).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31768 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Humpback whales showed avoidance (Finneran et al., 2003b). Experimentally, strikes of all large whale species from behavior at ranges of 5–8 km from a Go¨tz and Janik (2011) tested 1975 to 2002. Of these, vessel speed at seismic array during observational underwater, startle responses to a the time of collision was reported for 58 studies and controlled exposure startling sound (sound with a rapid rise cases. Of these cases, 39 (or 67 percent) experiments in western Australia time and a 93 dB sensation level [the resulted in serious injury or death (19 of (McCauley, 1998; Todd et al., 1996) level above the animal’s threshold at those resulted in serious injury as found no clear short-term behavioral that frequency]) and a non-startling determined by blood in the water, responses by foraging humpbacks to sound (sound with the same level, but propeller gashes or severed tailstock, explosions associated with construction with a slower rise time) in wild- and fractured skull, jaw, vertebrae, operations in Newfoundland, but did captured gray seals. The animals hemorrhaging, massive bruising or other see a trend of increased rates of net exposed to the startling treatment injuries noted during necropsy and 20 entanglement and a shift to a higher avoided a known food source, whereas resulted in death). Operating speeds of incidence of net entanglement closer to animals exposed to the non-startling vessels that struck various species of the noise source. treatment did not react or habituated large whales ranged from 2 to 51 knots. Seismic pulses at average received during the exposure period. The results The majority (79 percent) of these levels of 131 dB re 1 micropascal of this study highlight the importance of strikes occurred at speeds of 13 knots or squared second (mPa2-s) caused blue the characteristics of the acoustic signal greater. The average speed that resulted whales to increase call production (Di in an animal’s response of habituation. in serious injury or death was 18.6 Iorio and Clark, 2010). In contrast, knots. Pace and Silber (2005) found that Vessels McDonald et al. (1995) tracked a blue the probability of death or serious injury whale with seafloor seismometers and Commercial and Navy ship strikes of increased rapidly with increasing vessel reported that it stopped vocalizing and cetaceans can cause major wounds, speed. Specifically, the predicted changed its travel direction at a range of which may lead to the death of the probability of serious injury or death 10 km from the seismic vessel animal. An animal at the surface could increased from 45 to 75 percent as (estimated received level 143 dB re 1 be struck directly by a vessel, a vessel speed increased from 10 to 14 mPa peak-to-peak). These studies surfacing animal could hit the bottom of knots, and exceeded 90 percent at 17 demonstrate that even low levels of a vessel, or an animal just below the knots. Higher speeds during collisions noise received far from the noise source surface could be cut by a vessel’s result in greater force of impact and also can induce behavioral responses. propeller. The severity of injuries appear to increase the chance of severe Madsen et al. (2006) and Miller et al. typically depends on the size and speed injuries or death. While modeling (2009) tagged and monitored eight of the vessel (Knowlton and Kraus, studies have suggested that sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico 2001; Laist et al., 2001; Vanderlaan and hydrodynamic forces pulling whales exposed to seismic airgun surveys. Taggart, 2007). The most vulnerable toward the vessel hull increase with Sound sources were from approximately marine mammals are those that spend increasing speed (Clyne, 1999; 2 to 7 nm away from the whales and extended periods of time at the surface Knowlton et al., 1995), this is based on multipath propagation in order to restore oxygen levels within inconsistent with Silber et al. (2010), received levels were as high as 162 dB their tissues after deep dives (e.g., the which demonstrated that there is no SPL re 1 mPa with energy content sperm whale). In addition, some baleen such relationship (i.e., hydrodynamic greatest between 0.3 and 3.0 kHz whales, such as the North Atlantic right forces are independent of speed). (Madsen, 2006). The whales showed no whale, seem generally unresponsive to The Jensen and Silber (2003) report horizontal avoidance, although the vessel sound, making them more notes that the database represents a whale that was approached most closely susceptible to vessel collisions minimum number of collisions, because had an extended resting period and did (Nowacek et al., 2004). These species the vast majority probably goes not resume foraging until the airguns are primarily large, slow moving undetected or unreported. In contrast, had ceased firing (Miller et al., 2009). whales. Smaller marine mammals (e.g., Navy vessels are likely to detect any The remaining whales continued to bottlenose dolphin) move quickly strike that does occur, and they are execute foraging dives throughout through the water column and are often required to report all ship strikes exposure; however, swimming seen riding the bow wave of large ships. involving marine mammals. Overall, the movements during foraging dives were Marine mammal responses to vessels percentages of Navy traffic relative to 6 percent lower during exposure than may include avoidance and changes in overall large shipping traffic are very control periods, suggesting subtle effects dive pattern (NRC, 2003). small (on the order of 2 percent). of noise on foraging behavior (Miller et An examination of all known ship There are no records of any Navy al., 2009). Captive bottlenose dolphins strikes from all shipping sources vessel strikes to marine mammals sometimes vocalized after an exposure (civilian and military) indicates vessel during training or testing activities in to impulse sound from a seismic speed is a principal factor in whether a the NWTT Study Area. There has been watergun (Finneran et al., 2010a). vessel strike results in death (Knowlton only one whale strike in the Pacific A review of behavioral reactions by and Kraus, 2001; Laist et al., 2001; Northwest by the Navy since such pinnipeds to impulse noise can be Jensen and Silber, 2003; Vanderlaan and records have been kept (June 1994– found in Richardson et al. (1995) and Taggart, 2007). In assessing records in present). In August 2012, a San Diego Southall et al. (2007). Blackwell et al. which vessel speed was known, Laist et homeported DDG (destroyer) at-sea (2004) observed that ringed seals al. (2001) found a direct relationship about 35 nm west of Coos Bay, Oregon exhibited little or no reaction to pipe- between the occurrence of a whale struck a whale (believed to be a minke) driving noise with mean underwater strike and the speed of the vessel while transiting to San Diego from levels of 157 dB re 1 mPa rms and in air involved in the collision. The authors Seattle. There have been Navy strikes of levels of 112 dB re 20 mPa, suggesting concluded that most deaths occurred large whales in areas outside the Study that the seals had habituated to the when a vessel was traveling in excess of Area, such as Hawaii and Southern noise. In contrast, captive California sea 13 knots. California. However, these areas differ lions avoided sounds from an impulse Jensen and Silber (2003) detailed 292 significantly from the Study Area given source at levels of 165–170 dB re 1 mPa records of known or probable ship that both Hawaii and Southern

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31769

California have a much higher number training and testing activities are not forests, soft sediments, canyons, and the of Navy vessel activities. expected to impact the identified continental shelf. Salt marsh Other efforts have been undertaken to primary constituent elements of that invertebrates include oysters, crabs, and investigate the impact from vessels habitat and therefore would have no worms that are important prey for birds (both whale-watching and general vessel effect on that critical habitat. Effects to and small mammals. Mudflats provide traffic noise) and demonstrated impacts designated critical habitat will be fully habitat for substantial amounts of do occur (Bain, 2002; Erbe, 2002; analyzed in the Navy’s and NMFS’ crustaceans, bivalves, and worms. The Lusseau, 2009; Williams et al., 2006, internal ESA Section 7 consultations for sandy intertidal area is dominated by 2009, 2011b, 2013, 2014a, 2014b; Noren NWTT. species that are highly mobile and can et al., 2009; Read et al., 2014; Rolland burrow. One of the most abundant Expected Effects on Habitat et al., 2012; Pirotta et al., 2015). This invertebrates found in the near shore body of research for the most part has Unless the sound source or explosive areas of the Study Area on soft investigated impacts associated with the detonation is stationary and/or sediments are geoduck clams (Panopea presence of chronic stressors, which continuous over a long duration in one generosa). differ significantly from generally area, the effects of the introduction of All marine invertebrate taxonomic intermittent Navy training and testing sound into the environment are groups are represented in the NWTT activities. For example, in an analysis of generally considered to have a less Study Area. Major invertebrate phyla energy costs to killer whales, Williams severe impact on marine mammal (taxonomic range)—those with greater et al. (2009) suggested that whale- habitat than the physical alteration of than 1,000 species and the general zones watching in the Johnstone Strait the habitat. Acoustic exposures are not they inhabit in the Study Area are resulted in lost feeding opportunities expected to result in long-term physical described in Chapter 3 of the January due to vessel disturbance, which could alteration of the water column or bottom 2014 NWTT DEIS/OEIS. carry higher costs than other measures topography, as the occurrences are of Very little is known about sound of behavioral change might suggest. limited duration and are intermittent in detection and use of sound by aquatic Ayres et al. (2012) recently reported on time. Surface vessels associated with the invertebrates (Budelmann 2010; research in the Salish Sea involving the activities are present in limited duration Montgomery et al., 2006; Popper et al., measurement of southern resident killer and are intermittent as they move 2001). Organisms may detect sound by whale fecal hormones to assess two relatively rapidly through any given sensing either the particle motion or potential threats to the species recovery: area. Most of the high-explosive military pressure component of sound, or both. Lack of prey (salmon) and impacts to expended materials would detonate at Aquatic invertebrates probably do not behavior from vessel traffic. Ayres et al. or near the water surface. Only bottom- detect pressure since many are generally (2012) suggested that the lack of prey laid explosives are likely to affect the same density as water and few, if overshadowed any population-level bottom substrate; habitat used for any, have air cavities that would physiological impacts on southern underwater detonations and seafloor function like the fish swim bladder in resident killer whales from vessel device placement would primarily be responding to pressure (Budelmann, traffic. soft-bottom sediment. Once on the 2010; Popper et al., 2001). Many marine seafloor, military expended material invertebrates, however, have ciliated Marine Mammal Habitat would likely be colonized by benthic ‘‘hair’’ cells that may be sensitive to The Navy’s proposed training and organisms because the materials would water movements, such as those caused testing activities could potentially affect serve as anchor points in the shifting by currents or water particle motion marine mammal habitat through the bottom substrates, similar to a reef. The very close to a sound source introduction of sound into the water surface area of bottom substrate affected (Budelmann, 2010; Mackie and Singla, column, impacts to the prey species of would make up a very small percentage 2003). These cilia may allow marine mammals, bottom disturbance, of the total training area available in the invertebrates to sense nearby prey or or changes in water quality. Each of NWTT Study Area. predators or help with local navigation. these components was considered in the Marine invertebrates may produce and January 2014 NWTT DEIS/OEIS and Effects on Marine Mammal Prey use sound in territorial behavior, to was determined by the Navy to have no Invertebrates—Marine invertebrate deter predators, to find a mate, and to effect on marine mammal habitat. Based distribution in the NWTT Study Area is pursue courtship (Popper et al., 2001). on the information below and the influenced by habitat, ocean currents, Both behavioral and auditory supporting information included in the and water quality factors such as brainstem response studies suggest that January 2014 NWTT DEIS/OEIS, NMFS temperature, salinity, and nutrient crustaceans may sense sounds up to has preliminarily determined that the content (Levinton, 2009). The three kilohertz (kHz), but best proposed training and testing activities distribution of invertebrates is also sensitivity is likely below 200 Hz would not have adverse or long-term influenced by their distance from the (Lovell et al., 2005; Lovell et al., 2006; impacts on marine mammal habitat. equator (latitude); in general, the Goodall et al., 1990). Most cephalopods number of marine invertebrate species (e.g., octopus and squid) likely sense Critical Habitat increases toward the equator low-frequency sound below 1,000 Hz, The southern resident killer whale (in (Macpherson, 2002). The higher number with best sensitivities at lower the inshore area) is the only ESA-listed of species (diversity) and abundance of frequencies (Budelmann, 2010; Mooney marine mammal species with marine invertebrates in coastal habitats, et al., 2010; Packard et al., 1990). A few designated critical habitat located in the compared with the open ocean, is a cephalopods may sense higher Study Area. The majority of the Navy’s result of more nutrient availability from frequencies up to 1,500 Hz (Hu et al., proposed training and testing activities terrestrial environments and the variety 2009). Squid did not respond to toothed would, however, not occur in the of habitats and substrates found in whale ultrasonic echolocation clicks at southern resident killer whale’s coastal waters (Levinton, 2009). sound pressure levels ranging from 199 designated critical habitat (NMFS, Marine invertebrates in the Study to 226 dB re 1 mPa peak-to-peak, likely 2006). For all substressors that would Area inhabit coastal waters and benthic because these clicks were outside of occur within the critical habitat, those habitats, including salt marshes, kelp squid hearing range (Wilson et al.,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31770 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

2007). However, squid exhibited alarm Fish—Fish are not distributed 400 Hz (Popper, 2003b). Additionally, responses when exposed to broadband uniformly throughout the NWTT Study some clupeids (shad in the subfamily sound from an approaching seismic Area, but are closely associated with a Alosinae) possess ultrasonic hearing airgun with received levels exceeding variety of habitats. Some species range (i.e., able to detect sounds above 145 to 150 dB re 1 mPa root mean square across thousands of square miles while 100,000 Hz) (Astrup, 1999). Permanent (McCauley et al., 2000b). others have small home ranges and hearing loss, or permanent threshold Little information is available on the restricted distributions (Helfman et al., shift has not been documented in fish. potential impacts on marine 2009). The movements of some open- The sensory hair cells of the inner ear invertebrates of exposure to sonar, ocean species may never overlap with in fish can regenerate after they are explosions, and other sound-producing coastal fishes that spend their lives damaged, unlike in mammals where activities. It is expected that most within several hundred feet (a few sensory hair cells loss is permanent marine invertebrates would not sense hundred meters) of the shore. Even (Lombarte et al., 1993; Smith et al., mid- or high-frequency sounds, distant within a single fish species, the 2006). As a consequence, any hearing sounds, or aircraft noise transmitted distribution and specific habitats in loss in fish may be as temporary as the through the air-water interface. Most which individuals occur may be timeframe required to repair or replace marine invertebrates would not be close influenced by its developmental stage, the sensory cells that were damaged or enough to intense sound sources, such size, sex, reproductive condition, and destroyed (e.g., Smith et al., 2006). as some sonars, to potentially other factors. Potential direct injuries from non- experience impacts to sensory The distribution and abundance of impulsive sound sources, such as sonar, structures. Any marine invertebrate fishes depends greatly on the physical are unlikely because of the relatively capable of sensing sound may alter its and biological factors of the marine lower peak pressures and slower rise behavior if exposed to non-impulsive ecosystem, such as salinity, times than potentially injurious sources sound, although it is unknown if temperature, dissolved oxygen, such as explosives. Non-impulsive responses to non-impulsive sounds population dynamics, predator and prey sources also lack the strong shock waves occur. Continuous noise, such as from interaction oscillations, seasonal associated with an explosion. Therefore, vessels, may contribute to masking of movements, reproduction and life direct injury is not likely to occur from relevant environmental sounds, such as cycles, and recruitment success exposure to non-impulsive sources such reef noise. Because the distance over (Helfman et al., 1997). A single factor is as sonar, vessel noise, or subsonic which most marine invertebrates are rarely responsible for the distribution of aircraft noise. Only a few fish species expected to detect any sounds is limited fish species; more often, a combination are able to detect high-frequency sonar and vessels would be in transit, any of factors is accountable. For example, and could have behavioral reactions or sound exposures with the potential to open ocean species optimize their experience auditory masking during cause masking or behavioral responses growth, reproduction, and survival by these activities. These effects are would be brief and long-term impacts tracking gradients of temperature, expected to be transient and long-term are not expected. Although non- oxygen, or salinity (Helfman et al., consequences for the population are not impulsive underwater sounds produced 1997). Another major component in expected. MFAS is unlikely to impact during training and testing activities understanding species distribution is fish species because most species are may briefly impact individuals, the location of highly productive unable to detect sounds in this intermittent exposures to non-impulsive regions, such as frontal zones. These frequency range and vessels operating sounds are not expected to impact areas concentrate various prey species MFAS would be transiting an area (not survival, growth, recruitment, or and their predators, such as tuna, and stationary). While a large number of fish reproduction of widespread marine provide visual cues for the location of species may be able to detect low- invertebrate populations. target species for commercial fisheries frequency sonar and other active Most detonations would occur greater (NMFS, 2001). acoustic sources, low-frequency active than 3 nm from shore. As water depth There are 17 major taxonomic groups usage is rare and mostly conducted in increases away from shore, benthic of marine fishes within the NWTT deeper waters. Overall effects to fish invertebrates would be less likely to be Study Area. Detailed information on from would be localized and infrequent. impacted by detonations at or near the taxa presence, distribution, and Physical effects from pressure waves surface. In addition, detonations near characteristics are provided in Chapter generated by underwater sounds (e.g. the surface would release a portion of 3 of the January 2014 NWTT DEIS/OEIS. underwater explosions) could their explosive energy into the air, All fish have two sensory systems to potentially affect fish within proximity reducing the explosive impacts in the detect sound in the water: The inner ear, of training or testing activities. In water. Some marine invertebrates may which functions very much like the particular, the rapid oscillation between be sensitive to the low-frequency inner ear in other vertebrates, and the high- and low-pressure peaks has the component of impulsive sound, and lateral line, which consists of a series of potential to burst the swim bladders and they may exhibit startle reactions or receptors along the fish’s body (Popper, other gas-containing organs of fish temporary changes in swim speed in 2008). The inner ear generally detects (Keevin and Hemen, 1997). Sublethal response to an impulsive exposure. relatively higher-frequency sounds, effects, such as changes in behavior of Because exposures are brief, limited in while the lateral line detects water fish, have been observed in several number, and spread over a large area, no motion at low frequencies (below a few occasions as a result of noise produced long-term impacts due to startle hundred Hz) (Hastings and Popper, by explosives (National Research reactions or short-term behavioral 2005a). Although hearing capability Council of the National Academies, changes are expected. Although data only exist for fewer than 100 of the 2003; Wright, 1982). If an individual individual marine invertebrates may be 32,000 fish species, current data suggest fish were repeatedly exposed to sounds injured or killed during an explosion or that most species of fish detect sounds from underwater explosions that caused pile driving, no long-term impacts on from 50 to 1,000 Hz, with few fish alterations in natural behavioral the survival, growth, recruitment, or hearing sounds above 4 kHz (Popper, patterns or physiological stress, these reproduction of marine invertebrate 2008). It is believed that most fish have impacts could lead to long-term populations are expected. their best hearing sensitivity from 100 to consequences for the individual such as

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31771

reduced survival, growth, or water column is possible, it is unlikely effect on marine mammals, which reproductive capacity. However, the because (1) objects sink slowly, (2) most includes a careful balancing of the likely time scale of individual explosions is projectiles are fired at targets (and hit benefit of any particular measure to the very limited, and training exercises those targets), and (3) animals are marine mammals with the likely effect involving explosions are dispersed in generally widely dispersed throughout of that measure on personnel safety, space and time. Consequently, repeated the water column and over the NWTT practicality of implementation, and exposure of individual fish to sounds Study Area. Chemical, physical, or impact on the effectiveness of the from underwater explosions is not likely biological changes in sediment or water ‘‘military-readiness activity.’’ Included and most acoustic effects are expected quality would not be detectable. In the below are the mitigation measures the to be short-term and localized. Long- event of an ordnance failure, the Navy proposed in their LOA term consequences for populations energetic materials it contained would application. NMFS worked with the would not be expected. A limited remain mostly intact. The explosive Navy to develop these proposed number of fish may be killed in the materials in failed ordnance items and measures, and they are informed by immediate proximity of pile driving metal components from training and years of experience and monitoring. In locations and additional fish may be testing would leach slowly and would addition, the adaptive management injured. Short-term effects such as quickly disperse in the water column. process (see Adaptive management) and masking, stress, behavioral change, and Chemicals from other explosives would annual meetings between NMFS and the hearing threshold shifts are also not be introduced into the water column Navy allows NMFS to consider new expected during pile driving operations. in large amounts and all torpedoes information from different sources to However, given the relatively small area would be recovered following training determine (with input from the Navy that would be affected, and the and testing activities, reducing the regarding practicability) on an annual or abundance and distribution of the potential for chemical concentrations to biennial basis if mitigation measures species concerned, no population-level reach levels that can affect sediment should be refined or modified. effects are expected. The abundances of quality, water quality, or benthic The Navy’s proposed mitigation various fish and invertebrates near the habitats. measures are modifications to the detonation point of an explosion or proposed activities that are Proposed Mitigation around a pile driving location could be implemented for the sole purpose of altered for a few hours before animals In order to issue an incidental take reducing a specific potential from surrounding areas repopulate the authorization under section 101(a)(5)(A) environmental impact on a particular area; however these populations would of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the resource. These do not include standard be replenished as waters near the sound ‘‘permissible methods of taking operating procedures, which are source are mixed with adjacent waters. pursuant to such activity, and other established for reasons other than means of effecting the least practicable environmental benefit. Most of the Marine Mammal Avoidance adverse impact on such species or stock following proposed mitigation measures Marine mammals may be temporarily and its habitat, paying particular are currently, or were previously, displaced from areas where Navy attention to rookeries, mating grounds, implemented as a result of past training and testing is occurring, but the and areas of similar significance.’’ environmental compliance documents. area should be utilized again after the NMFS’ duty under this ‘‘least The Navy’s overall approach to activities have ceased. Avoidance of an practicable adverse impact’’ standard is assessing potential mitigation measures area can help the animal avoid further to prescribe mitigation reasonably is based on two principles: (1) acoustic effects by avoiding or reducing designed to minimize, to the extent Mitigation measures will be effective at further exposure. The intermittent or practicable, any adverse population- reducing potential impacts on the short duration of many activities should level impacts, as well as habitat resource, and (2) from a military prevent animals from being exposed to impacts. While population-level perspective, the mitigation measures are stressors on a continuous basis. In areas impacts can be minimized by reducing practicable, executable, and safety and of repeated and frequent acoustic impacts on individual marine mammals, readiness will not be impacted. disturbance, some animals may not all takes translate to population- habituate or learn to tolerate the new level impacts. NMFS’ primary objective Lookouts baseline or fluctuations in noise level. under the ‘‘least practicable adverse The use of Lookouts is a critical While some animals may not return to impact’’ standard is to design mitigation component of Navy procedural an area, or may begin using an area targeting those impacts on individual measures and implementation of differently due to training and testing marine mammals that are most likely to mitigation zones. Navy Lookouts are activities, most animals are expected to lead to adverse population-level effects. highly qualified and experienced return to their usual locations and The NDAA of 2004 amended the observers of the marine environment. behavior. MMPA as it relates to military-readiness Their duties require that they report all activities and the ITA process such that objects sighted in the water to the Other Expected Effects ‘‘least practicable adverse impact’’ shall Officer of the Deck (OOD) (e.g., trash, a Other sources that may affect marine include consideration of personnel periscope, marine mammals, sea turtles) mammal habitat were considered in the safety, practicality of implementation, and all disturbances (e.g., surface January 2014 NWTT DEIS/OEIS and and impact on the effectiveness of the disturbance, discoloration) that may be potentially include the introduction of ‘‘military readiness activity.’’ The indicative of a threat to the vessel and fuel, debris, ordnance, and chemical training and testing activities described its crew. There are personnel standing residues into the water column. The in the LOA application are considered watch on station at all times (day and majority of high-order explosions would military readiness activities. night) when a ship or surfaced occur at or above the surface of the NMFS reviewed the proposed submarine is moving through the water. ocean, and would have no impacts on activities and the proposed mitigation The Navy would have two types of sediments and minimal impacts on measures as described in the LOA Lookouts for the purposes of conducting water quality. While disturbance or application to determine if they would visual observations: (1) Those strike from an item falling through the result in the least practicable adverse positioned on surface ships, and (2)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31772 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

those positioned ashore, in aircraft or on positioned in minimally manned aircrews, anti-submarine warfare boats. Lookouts positioned on surface platforms may be responsible for tasks helicopter crews, civilian equivalents, ships would be dedicated solely to in addition to observing the air or and Lookouts will successfully diligent observation of the air and surface of the water (e.g., navigation of complete the United States Navy Marine surface of the water. They would have a helicopter or small boat). However, all Species Awareness Training prior to multiple observation objectives, which Lookouts will (considering personnel standing watch or serving as a Lookout. include but are not limited to detecting safety, practicality of implementation, Additional details on the Navy’s Marine the presence of biological resources and and impact on the effectiveness of the Species Awareness Training can be recreational or fishing boats, observing activity) comply with the observation found in the NWTT Draft EIS/OEIS. objectives described above for Lookouts mitigation zones, and monitoring for The Navy proposes to use one or more vessel and personnel safety concerns. positioned on ships. The procedural measures described Lookouts during the training and testing Due to manning and space restrictions below primarily consist of having activities provided in Table 10. on aircraft, small boats, and some Navy Lookouts during specific training and Additional details on Lookout ships, Lookouts for these platforms may testing activities. procedures and implementation are be supplemented by the aircraft crew or All personnel standing watch on the provided in Chapter 11 of the LOA pilot, boat crew, range site personnel, or bridge, Commanding Officers, Executive application (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ shore-side personnel. Lookouts Officers, maritime patrol aircraft pr/permits/incidental/military.htm).

TABLE 10—LOOKOUT MITIGATION MEASURES FOR TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE NWTT STUDY AREA

Number of lookouts Training and testing activities

1–2 ...... Low-Frequency and Non-Hull Mounted Mid-Frequency Active Sonar. 1 ...... High-Frequency and Hull Mounted Mid-Frequency Active Sonar. 1 ...... Improved Extended Echo Ranging Sonobuoys (testing only). 1 ...... Explosive Signal Underwater Sound Buoys Using >0.5–2.5 Pound Net Explosive Weight. 2 ...... Mine Countermeasures and Neutralization Activities Using Positive Control Firing Devices (training only). 1–2 ...... Gunnery Exercises Using Surface Target (training only). 1 ...... Missile Exercises Using Surface Target (training only). 1 (minimum) ..... Bombing Exercises—Explosive (training only). 1 ...... Torpedo—Explosive (testing only).1 1 ...... Weapons Firing Noise During Gunnery Exercises (training only). 1 (minimum) ..... Vessel Movement. 1 ...... Towed In-Water Strike. 1 ...... Gunnery Exercises—Non-Explosive (training only). 1 ...... Bombing Exercises—Non-Explosive (training only). 1 For explosive torpedo tests from aircraft, the Navy will have one Lookout positioned in an aircraft; for explosive torpedoes tested from a sur- face ship, the Navy is proposing to use the Lookout procedures currently implemented for hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar activities.

Mitigation Zones frequency limits), new marine mammal cases where the ranges to effects are density data, and factors such as an smaller than previous models estimated, The Navy proposes to use mitigation animal’s likely presence at various the mitigation zones were adjusted zones to reduce the potential impacts to depths. An explanation of the acoustic accordingly to provide consistency marine mammals from training and testing activities. Mitigation zones are propagation modeling process can be across the measures. Mitigating to the measured as the radius from a source found in previous authorizations for the predicted maximum range to PTS and represent a distance that the Navy Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing consequently also mitigates to the would monitor. Mitigation zones are Study Area; the Hawaii-Southern predicted maximum range to onset applied to acoustic stressors (i.e., non- California Training and Testing Study mortality (1 percent mortality), onset impulsive and impulsive sound) and Area; and the Determination of Acoustic slight lung injury, and onset slight physical strike and disturbance (e.g., Effects on Marine Mammals and Sea gastrointestinal tract injury, since the vessel movement and bombing Turtles for the Northwest Training and maximum range to effects for these exercises). In each instance, visual Testing EIS/OEIS technical report criteria are shorter than for PTS. detections of marine mammals would be (Marine Species Modeling Team, 2013). Furthermore, in most cases, the communicated immediately to a watch As a result of the updates to the predicted maximum range to PTS also station for information dissemination acoustic propagation modeling, in some consequently covers the predicted and appropriate action. Acoustic cases the ranges to onset of TTS effects average range to TTS. Table 11 detections would be communicated to are much larger than previous model summarizes the predicted average range Lookouts posted in aircraft and on outputs. Due to the ineffectiveness and to TTS, average range to PTS, maximum surface vessels. unacceptable operational impacts range to PTS, and recommended Most of the current mitigation zones associated with mitigating these large mitigation zone for each activity for activities that involve the use of areas, the Navy is unable to mitigate for category, based on the Navy’s acoustic impulsive and non-impulsive sources onset of TTS for every activity. For the propagation modeling results. The were originally designed to reduce the NWTT analysis, the Navy developed predicted ranges are based on local potential for onset of TTS. The Navy each recommended mitigation zone to environmental conditions and are updated their acoustic propagation avoid or reduce the potential for onset unique to the NWTT Study Area. modeling to incorporate new hearing of the lowest level of injury, PTS, out to The Navy’s proposed mitigation zones threshold metrics (i.e., upper and lower the predicted maximum range. In some are based on the longest range for all the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31773

marine mammal and sea turtle for the remaining functional hearing range to effects for each acoustic stressor functional hearing groups. Most groups (low-frequency and mid- is detailed in Chapter 11 of the LOA mitigation zones were driven by the frequency cetaceans, and pinnipeds), application (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ high-frequency cetacean or sea turtle and likely cover a larger portion of the pr/permits/incidental/military.htm). functional hearing group. Therefore, the potential range to onset of TTS. mitigation zones are more conservative Additional information on the estimated

TABLE 11—PREDICTED RANGES TO TTS, PTS, AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION ZONES FOR EACH ACTIVITY CATEGORY

Bin Predicted Predicted Predicted Activity category (representative average range to average range to maximum range Recommended mitigation zone source) 1 TTS PTS to PTS

Non-Impulsive Sound

Low-Frequency and SQS–53 ASW hull- 4,251 yd. (3,887 281 yd. (257 m) <292 yd. (<267 Training: 1,000 yd. (920 m) and Hull-Mounted Mid- mounted sonar m). m). 500 yd. (460 m) power downs Frequency Active (MF1). and 200 yd. (180 m) shutdown Sonar.2 for cetaceans, 100 yd. (90 m) mitigation zone for pinnipeds. Testing: 1,000 yd. (920 m) and 500 yd. (460 m) power downs for sources that can be powered down and 200 yd. (180 m) shut- down for cetaceans, 100 yd. (90 m) for pinnipeds (excludes haulouts). High-Frequency and AQS–22 ASW dip- 226 yd. (207 m) <55 yd. (<50 m) <55 yd. (<50 m) Training: 200 yd. (180 m). Non-Hull-Mounted ping sonar (MF4). Testing: 200 yd. (180 m) for Mid-Frequency Ac- cetaceans, 100 yd. (90 m) for tive Sonar.2 pinnipeds (excludes haulouts).

Explosive and Impulsive Sound

Improved Extended Explosive sonobuoy 237 yd. (217 m) 133 yd. (122 m) 235 yd. (215 m) Training: n/a Echo Ranging (E4). Testing: 600 yd. (550 m) for ma- Sonobuoys. rine mammals, sea turtles, and concentrations of floating vege- tation. Signal Underwater Explosive sonobuoy 178 yd. (163 m) 92 yd. (84 m) ..... 214 yd. (196 m) Training: 350 yd. (320 m) for ma- Sound (SUS) buoys (E3). rine mammals, sea turtles, and using >0.5–2.5 lb. concentrations of floating vege- NEW. tation. Testing: 350 yd. (320 m) for ma- rine mammals, sea turtles, and concentrations of floating vege- tation. Mine Countermeasure >0.5 to 2.5 lb NEW 495 yd. (453 m) 145 yd. (133 m) 373 yd. (341 m) Training: 400 yd. (336 m). and Neutralization (E3). Testing: n/a. Activities (positive control). Gunnery Exercises— 25 mm projectile (E1) 72 yd. (66 m) ..... 48 yd. (44 m) ..... 73 yd. (67 m) ..... Training: 200 yd. (180 m). Small- and Medium- Testing: n/a. Caliber (Surface Target). Gunnery Exercises— 5 in. projectiles (E5 at 210 yd. (192 m) 110 yd. (101 m) 177 yd. (162 m) Training: 600 yd. (550 m). Large-Caliber (Sur- the surface).3 Testing: 600 yd. (550 m). face Target). Missile Exercises up to Harpoon missile 1,164 yd. (1,065 502 yd. (459 m) 955 yd. (873 m) Training: 2,000 yd. (1.8 km). 500 lb. NEW (Sur- (E10). m). Testing: n/a. face Target). Bombing Exercises .... MK–84 2,000 lb. 1,374 yd. (1,256 591 yd. (540 m) 1,368 yd. (1,251 Training: 2,500 yd. (2.3 km). bomb (E12). m). m). Testing: n/a. Lightweight Torpedo MK–46 torpedo (E8) 497 yd. (454 m) 245 yd. (224 m) 465 yd. (425 m) Training: n/a. (Explosive) Testing. Testing: 2,100 yd. (1.9 km). Heavyweight Torpedo MK–48 torpedo (E11) 1,012 yd. (926 472 yd. (432 m) 885 yd. (809 m) Training: n/a. (Explosive) Testing. m). Testing: 2,100 yd. (1.9 km). 1 This table does not provide an inclusive list of source bins; bins presented here represent the source bin with the largest range to effects within the given activity category. 2 High-frequency and non-hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar category includes unmanned underwater vehicle and torpedo testing activi- ties. 3 The representative source Bin E5 has different range to effects depending on the depth of activity occurrence (at the surface or at various depths). Notes: ASW = anti-submarine warfare, in. = inch, km = kilometer, m = meter, mm = millimeter, n/a = Not Applicable, NEW = net explosive weight, PTS = permanent threshold shift, TTS = temporary threshold shift, yd. = yard.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31774 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Low-Frequency and Hull-Mounted Mid- Testing deployment of active dipping sonar. Frequency Active Sonar Training There are no current hull-mounted Helicopter dipping and sonobuoy There are no low-frequency active mid-frequency active sonar testing deployment will not begin if sonar training activities proposed in the activities in the Study Area, and no concentrations of floating vegetation Study Area. The Navy is proposing to mitigation procedures. However, the (kelp paddies), are observed in the (1) continue implementing the current Navy’s Proposed Action includes newly mitigation zone. If the source can be measures for mid-frequency active assessed hull-mounted mid-frequency turned off during the activity, active sonar, (2) clarify the conditions needed active sonar testing activities. For transmission will cease if a marine to recommence an activity after a testing activities, the recommended mammal is sighted within the sighting, and (3) implement mitigation measures are provided below. mitigation zone. Active transmission measures for pinnipeds and for pierside Activities that involve the use of low- will recommence if any one of the sonar testing in the vicinity of hauled frequency active sonar (including following conditions is met: (1) The out pinnipeds. pierside) will use Lookouts for visual animal is observed exiting the Activities that involve the use of hull- observation immediately before and mitigation zone, (2) the animal is mounted mid-frequency active sonar during the event. If a marine mammal is thought to have exited the mitigation (including pierside) will use Lookouts sighted within 200 yd. (180 m) of the zone based on its course and speed, (3) for visual observation from a ship sound source, active transmissions will the mitigation zone has been clear from immediately before and during the cease. Active transmission will any additional sightings for a period of activity. Mitigation zones for these recommence if any one of the following 10 minutes for an aircraft-deployed activities involve powering down the conditions is met: (1) The animal is source, (4) the mitigation zone has been sonar by 6 dB when a marine mammal observed exiting the mitigation zone, (2) clear from any additional sightings for a is sighted within 1,000 yd. (920 m) of the animal is thought to have exited the period of 30 minutes for a vessel- the sonar dome, and by an additional 4 mitigation zone based on its course and deployed source, (5) the vessel or dB when sighted within 500 yd. (460 m) speed, (3) the mitigation zone has been aircraft has repositioned itself more than from the source, for a total reduction of clear from any additional sightings for a 400 yd. (370 m) away from the location 10 dB. Active transmissions will cease period of 30 minutes, or (4) the sound of the last sighting, or (6) the vessel if a marine mammal is sighted within source has transited more than 2,000 yd. concludes that dolphins are deliberately 200 yd. (180 m). Active transmission (1.8 km) beyond the location of the last closing in to ride the vessel’s bow wave will recommence if any one of the sighting. (and there are no other marine mammal following conditions is met: (1) The Activities that involve the use of hull- sightings within the mitigation zone). animal is observed exiting the mounted mid-frequency active sonar Testing mitigation zone, (2) the animal is (including pierside and shore-based thought to have exited the mitigation testing) will follow the mitigation Mitigation measures for high- zone based on its course and speed, (3) measures described above for Low- frequency active sonar sources currently the mitigation zone has been clear from Frequency and Hull-Mounted Mid- exist only for testing activities any additional sightings for a period of Frequency Active Sonar Training. conducted in the Inland Waters of Puget 30 minutes, (4) the ship has transited For pinnipeds, the Navy proposes a Sound and in the Western Behm Canal, more than 2,000 yd. (1.8 km) beyond the 100 yd. mitigation zone. The pinniped Alaska. These activities include the use location of the last sighting, or (5) the mitigation zone does not apply for of unmanned vehicles, non-explosive Lookout concludes that dolphins are pierside testing in the vicinity of torpedoes, and similar systems. deliberately closing in on the ship to pinnipeds hauled out on man-made Currently, the mitigation measures for ride the ship’s bow wave (and there are structures and vessels. testing activities using high frequency no other marine mammal sightings and non-hull-mounted mid-frequency within the mitigation zone). Active High-Frequency and Non-Hull-Mounted sources are the same as those currently transmission may resume when Mid-Frequency Active Sonar Training in place for testing activities with low dolphins are bow riding because they Non-hull-mounted mid-frequency frequency sources. are out of the main transmission axis of active sonar training activities include For the proposed action, the Navy is the active sonar while in the shallow- the use of aircraft deployed sonobuoys proposing that testing activities with wave area of the ship bow. and helicopter dipping sonar. The Navy high frequency and non-hull-mounted For pinnipeds, the Navy proposes a is proposing to: (1) Continue mid-frequency sources employ the 100 yd. (90 m) mitigation zone for implementing the current mitigation proposed mitigation measures described activities that involve the use of hull- measures for activities currently being above for training. mounted mid-frequency active sonar. executed, such as dipping sonar For pinnipeds, the Navy proposes a The pinniped mitigation zone does not activities; (2) extend the implementation 100 yd. (90 m) mitigation zone during apply for pierside testing in the vicinity of its current mitigation to all other testing. The pinniped mitigation zone of pinnipeds hauled out on man-made activities in this category; and (3) clarify does not apply for pierside or shore- structures and vessels. Within Puget the conditions needed to recommence based testing in the vicinity of Sound there are several locations where an activity after a sighting. pinnipeds hauled out on man-made pinnipeds use Navy structures (e.g., Mitigation will include visual structures and vessels. Within Puget submarines, security barriers) for observation from a vessel or aircraft Sound there are several locations where haulouts in spite of the degree of (with the exception of platforms pinnipeds use Navy structures (e.g., activity surrounding these sites. Given operating at high altitudes) immediately submarines, security barriers) for that animals continue to choose these before and during active transmission haulouts in spite of the degree of areas for their resting behavior, it would within a mitigation zone of 200 yd. (180 activity surrounding these sites. Given appear there are no long-term effects or m) from the active sonar source. For that animals continue to choose these consequences to those animals as a activities involving helicopter deployed areas for their resting behavior, it would result of ongoing and routine Navy dipping sonar, visual observation will appear there are no long-term effects or activities. commence 10 minutes before the first consequences to those animals as a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31775

result of ongoing and routine Navy Explosive Signal Underwater Sound in a 700 yd. (640 m) arc radius around activities. Buoys Using >0.5–2.5 Pound Net the detonation site for charges >0.5–2.5 Explosive Weight lb. NEW. Improved Extended Echo Ranging • Sonobuoys Training Pre-Exercise Surveys—For Demolition and Mine Countermeasures Training The Navy is proposing to add the Operations, pre-exercise surveys shall following recommended measures. be conducted within 30 minutes prior to Mitigation will include pre-exercise The Navy’s proposed action does not the commencement of the scheduled aerial monitoring during deployment include Improved Extended Echo explosive event. The survey may be within a mitigation zone of 350 yd. (320 Ranging sonobuoy training activities. conducted from the surface, by divers, m) around an explosive SUS buoy. or from the air, and personnel shall be Testing Explosive SUS buoys will not be alert to the presence of any marine deployed if concentrations of floating The Navy is proposing to (1) modify mammal. Should such an animal be vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed the mitigation measures currently present within the survey area, the in the mitigation zone (around the explosive event shall not be started until implemented for this activity by intended deployment location). SUS the animal voluntarily leaves the area. reducing the marine mammal mitigation deployment will cease if a marine zone from 1,000 yd. (920 m) to 600 yd. mammal or sea turtle is sighted within The Navy will ensure the mitigation (550 m), (2) clarify the conditions the mitigation zone. Deployment will zone is clear of marine mammals for a needed to recommence an activity after recommence if any one of the following full 30 minutes prior to initiating the a sighting, and (3) adopt the marine conditions is met: (1) The animal is explosive event. Personnel will record mammal mitigation zone size for observed exiting the mitigation zone, (2) any marine mammal observations floating vegetation for ease of the animal is thought to have exited the during the exercise as well as measures implementation. The recommended mitigation zone based on its course and taken if species are detected within the measures are provided below. speed, or (3) the mitigation zone has exclusion zone. Mitigation will include pre-testing been clear from any additional sightings • Post-Exercise Surveys—Surveys aerial observation and passive acoustic for a period of 10 minutes. within the same radius shall also be monitoring, which will begin 30 Passive acoustic monitoring will also conducted within 30 minutes after the minutes before the first source/receiver be conducted with Navy assets, such as completion of the explosive event. pair detonation and continue sonobuoys, already participating in the For activities involving positive throughout the duration of the test. The activity. These assets would only detect control diver-placed charges, the Navy pre-testing aerial observation will vocalizing marine mammals within the is proposing to (1) modify the currently include the time it takes to deploy the frequency bands monitored by Navy implemented mitigation measures for sonobuoy pattern (deployment is personnel. Passive acoustic detections this activity involving >0.5–2.5 lb. NEW conducted by aircraft dropping would not provide range or bearing to detonation by changing the mitigation sonobuoys in the water). Improved detected animals, and therefore cannot zone from 700 yd. (640 m) to 400 yd. Extended Echo Ranging sonobuoys will provide locations of these animals. (366 m), (2) clarify the conditions not be deployed if concentrations of Passive acoustic detections would be needed to recommence an activity after floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are reported to Lookouts posted in aircraft a sighting, and (3) add a requirement to observed in the mitigation zone around in order to increase vigilance of their observe for floating vegetation. The the intended deployment location. visual surveillance. recommended measures for activities Explosive detonations will cease if a Testing involving positive control diver-placed activities are provided below. marine mammal or sea turtle is sighted The Navy’s proposed mitigation within the mitigation zone. Detonations measures for testing activities are The Navy is proposing to use the 400 will recommence if any one of the consistent with Navy training mitigation yd. (366 m) mitigation zones for marine following conditions is met: (1) The measures described above. mammals described above during animal is observed exiting the activities involving positive control mitigation zone, (2) the animal is Mine Countermeasures and diver-placed charges involving >0.5–2.5 thought to have exited the mitigation Neutralization Activities Using Positive lb. NEW. Visual observation will be zone based on its course and speed, or Control Firing Devices conducted by two small boats, each (3) the mitigation zone has been clear Training with a minimum of one surveyor. from any additional sightings for a Mine countermeasure and Explosive detonations will cease if a period of 30 minutes. neutralization activities in the Study marine mammal is sighted in the water Passive acoustic monitoring would be Area involve the use of diver-placed portion of the mitigation zone (i.e., not conducted with Navy assets, such as charges that typically occur close to on shore). Detonations will recommence sonobuoys, already participating in the shore. When these activities are if any one of the following conditions is activity. These assets would only detect conducted using a positive control firing met: (1) The animal is observed exiting vocalizing marine mammals within the device, the detonation is controlled by the mitigation zone, (2) the animal is frequency bands monitored by Navy the personnel conducting the activity thought to have exited the mitigation personnel. Passive acoustic detections and is not authorized until the area is zone based on its course and speed, or would provide only limited range and clear at the time of detonation. (3) the mitigation zone has been clear bearing to detected animals, and Currently, the Navy employs the from any additional sightings for a therefore cannot provide locations of following mitigation zone procedures period of 30 minutes. these animals. Passive acoustic during mine countermeasure and Testing detections would be reported to neutralization activities using positive Lookouts posted in aircraft and on control firing devices: The Navy’s proposed action does not vessels in order to increase vigilance of • Mitigation Zone—The exclusion include mine countermeasure and their visual surveillance. zone for marine mammals shall extend neutralization testing activities.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31776 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Gunnery Exercises—Small and Medium- (kelp paddies) are observed in the Testing Caliber Using a Surface Target mitigation zone. Firing will cease if a The Navy’s proposed action does not marine mammal is sighted within the Training include missile testing activities. mitigation zone. Firing will The Navy is proposing to (1) continue recommence if any one of the following Missile Exercises 251–500 Pound Net implementing the current mitigation conditions is met: (1) The animal is Explosive Weight (Surface Target) measures for this activity, (2) clarify the observed exiting the mitigation zone, (2) Training conditions needed to recommence an the animal is thought to have exited the Current mitigation measures apply to activity after a sighting, and (3) add a mitigation zone based on its course and requirement to visually observe for kelp all missile exercises, regardless of the speed, (3) the mitigation zone has been warhead size. The Navy proposes to add paddies. clear from any additional sightings for a Mitigation will include visual a mitigation zone that applies only to period of 30 minutes, or (4) the vessel missiles with a NEW of 251–500 lb. The observation from a vessel or aircraft has repositioned itself more than 140 immediately before and during the recommended measures are provided yd. (128 m) away from the location of below. exercise within a mitigation zone of 200 the last sighting. yd. (180 m) around the intended impact When aircraft are involved in the location. Vessels will observe the Testing missile firing, mitigation will include mitigation zone from the firing position. visual observation by the aircrew prior When aircraft are firing, the aircrew will The Navy is proposing to (1) to commencement of the activity within maintain visual watch of the mitigation implement new mitigation zone a mitigation zone of 2,000 yd. (1.8 km) zone during the activity. The exercise measures for this activity, (2) describe around the intended impact location. will not commence if concentrations of conditions needed to recommence an The exercise will not commence if floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are activity after a sighting, and (3) concentrations of floating vegetation observed in the mitigation zone. Firing implement a requirement to visually (kelp paddies) are observed in the will cease if a marine mammal is observe for kelp paddies. The mitigation zone. Firing will cease if a sighted within the mitigation zone. recommended measures are provided marine mammal is sighted within the Firing will recommence if any one of below. mitigation zone. Firing will recommence if any one of the following the following conditions is met: (1) The Mitigation will include visual conditions is met: (1) The animal is animal is observed exiting the observation from a ship immediately observed exiting the mitigation zone, (2) mitigation zone, (2) the animal is before and during the exercise within a the animal is thought to have exited the thought to have exited the mitigation mitigation zone of 600 yd. (550 m) mitigation zone based on its course and zone based on its course and speed, (3) around the intended impact location. speed, or (3) the mitigation zone has the mitigation zone has been clear from Ships will observe the mitigation zone been clear from any additional sightings any additional sightings for a period of from the firing position. The exercise for a period of 10 minutes or 30 minutes 10 minutes for a firing aircraft, (4) the will not commence if concentrations of (depending on aircraft type). mitigation zone has been clear from any floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are additional sightings for a period of 30 observed in the mitigation zone. Firing Testing minutes for a firing ship, or (5) the will cease if a marine mammal is The Navy’s proposed action does not intended target location has been sighted within the mitigation zone. include missile testing activities. repositioned more than 400 yd. (370 m) Firing will recommence if any one of away from the location of the last the following conditions is met: (1) The Bombing Exercises sighting. animal is observed exiting the Training mitigation zone, (2) the animal is Testing Currently, the Navy employs the thought to have exited the mitigation following mitigation zone procedures The Navy’s proposed action does not zone based on its course and speed, or include gunnery testing activities. during bombing exercises: (3) the mitigation zone has been clear • Ordnance shall not be targeted to Gunnery Exercises—Large-Caliber from any additional sightings for a impact within 1,000 yd. (920 m) of Explosive Rounds Using a Surface period of 30 minutes. known or observed floating kelp or Target Missile Exercises up to 250 Pound Net marine mammals. • Training Explosive Weight Using a Surface Target A 1,000 yd. (920 m) radius mitigation zone shall be established There are currently no existing Training around the intended target. mitigation measures unique to large- • The exercise will be conducted only caliber explosive gunnery exercises in Currently, the Navy employs a if marine mammals are not visible the Study Area. The Navy is proposing mitigation zone of 1,800 yd. (1.6 km) for within the mitigation zone. to adopt mitigation measures in place at all missile exercises. Because the Navy The Navy is proposing to (1) maintain other Navy training ranges outside of is not proposing to use missiles with the existing mitigation zone to be used the Study Area. less than a 251 lb. NEW warhead in the for non-explosive bombing activities, (2) For all explosive and non-explosive Study Area, separate mitigation revise the mitigation zone procedures to large-caliber gunnery exercises procedures for this exercise have not account for predicted ranges to impacts conducted from a ship, mitigation will been developed. Should the need arise to marine species when high explosive include visual observation immediately to conduct training using missiles in bombs are used, (3) clarify the before and during the exercise within a this category, the Navy proposes that conditions needed to recommence an mitigation zone of 70 yd. (46 m) within mitigation procedures be followed as activity after a sighting, and (4) add a 30 degrees on either side of the gun described below for the larger category requirement to visually observe for kelp target line on the firing side. The of missiles (Missile Exercises 251–500 paddies. exercise will not commence if Pound Net Explosive Weight [Surface Mitigation will include visual concentrations of floating vegetation Target]). observation from the aircraft

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31777

immediately before the exercise and activity. Passive acoustic observation any observed whale in the vessel’s path during target approach within a would be accomplished through the use and avoid approaching whales head-on. mitigation zone of 2,500 yd. (2.3 km) of remote acoustic sensors or These requirements do not apply if a around the intended impact location for expendable sonobuoys, or via passive vessel’s safety is threatened, such as explosive bombs and 1,000 yd. (920 m) acoustic sensors on submarines when when change of course will create an for non-explosive bombs. The exercise they participate in the proposed action. imminent and serious threat to a person, will not commence if concentrations of These assets would only detect vessel, or aircraft, and to the extent floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are vocalizing marine mammals within the vessels are restricted in their ability to observed in the mitigation zone. frequency bands monitored by Navy maneuver. Restricted maneuverability Bombing will cease if a marine mammal personnel. Passive acoustic detections includes, but is not limited to, situations is sighted within the mitigation zone. would not provide range or bearing to when vessels are engaged in dredging, Bombing will recommence if any one of detected animals, and therefore cannot submerged activities, launching and the following conditions is met: (1) The provide locations of these animals. recovering aircraft or landing craft, animal is observed exiting the Passive acoustic detections would be minesweeping activities, replenishment mitigation zone, (2) the animal is reported to the Lookout posted in the while underway and towing activities thought to have exited the mitigation aircraft in order to increase vigilance of that severely restrict a vessel’s ability to zone based on its course and speed, or the visual surveillance; and to the deviate course. • (3) the mitigation zone has been clear person in control of the activity for their Vessels will take reasonable steps to from any additional sightings for a consideration in determining when the alert other vessels in the vicinity of the period of 10 minutes. mitigation zone is determined free of whale. Given rapid swimming speeds visible marine mammals. and maneuverability of many dolphin Testing species, naval vessels would maintain Weapons Firing Noise During Gunnery The Navy’s proposed action does not normal course and speed on sighting Exercises—Large-Caliber include bomb testing activities. dolphins unless some condition Training indicated a need for the vessel to Torpedo (Explosive) Testing maneuver. The Navy and U.S. Coast Guard are Training The Navy is proposing to continue to proposing to adopt measures currently use the 500 yd. (460 m) mitigation zone The Navy does not include training used during Navy gunnery exercises in currently established for whales, and to with explosive torpedoes in the other ranges outside of the Study Area. implement a 200 yd. (180 m) mitigation proposed action. For all explosive and non-explosive zone for all other marine mammals. large-caliber gunnery exercises Testing Vessels will avoid approaching marine conducted from a ship, mitigation will mammals head on and will maneuver to The Navy is proposing to (1) establish include visual observation immediately maintain a mitigation zone of 500 yd. mitigation measures for this activity that before and during the exercise within a (460 m) around observed whales and include a mitigation zone of 2,100 yd. mitigation zone of 70 yd. (46 m) within 200 yd. (180 m) around all other marine (1.9 km), (2) establish the conditions 30 degrees on either side of the gun mammals (except bow-riding dolphins), needed to recommence an activity after target line on the firing side. The providing it is safe to do so. a sighting, and (3) establish a exercise will not commence if requirement to visually observe for kelp concentrations of floating vegetation Testing paddies. The recommended measures (kelp paddies) are observed in the The Navy’s current measures to are provided below. mitigation zone. Firing will cease if a mitigate potential impacts to marine Mitigation will include visual marine mammal is sighted within the mammals from vessel and in-water observation by aircraft (with the mitigation zone. Firing will device strikes during testing activities exception of platforms operating at high recommence if any one of the following are provided below: altitudes) immediately before, during, conditions is met: (1) The animal is • Range activities shall be conducted and after the event within a mitigation observed exiting the mitigation zone, (2) in such a way as to ensure marine zone of 2,100 yd. (1.9 km) around the the animal is thought to have exited the mammals are not harassed or harmed by intended impact location. The event mitigation zone based on its course and human-caused events. will not commence if concentrations of speed, (3) the mitigation zone has been • Visual surveillance shall be floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are clear from any additional sightings for a accomplished just prior to all in-water observed in the mitigation zone. Firing period of 30 minutes, or (4) the vessel exercises. This surveillance shall ensure will cease if a marine mammal or sea has repositioned itself more than 140 that no marine mammals are visible turtle is sighted within the mitigation yd. (128 m) away from the location of within the boundaries of the area within zone. Firing will recommence if any one the last sighting. which the test unit is expected to be of the following conditions is met: (1) Testing operating. Surveillance shall include, as The animal is observed exiting the a minimum, monitoring from all mitigation zone, (2) the animal is The Navy’s proposed action does not participating surface craft and, where thought to have exited the mitigation include gun testing activities. available, adjacent shore sites. • zone based on its course and speed, or Vessels The Navy shall postpone activities (3) the mitigation zone has been clear until cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and from any additional sightings for a Training porpoises) leave the activity area. When period of 10 minutes or 30 minutes The Navy’s current measures to cetaceans have been sighted in an area, (depending on aircraft type). mitigate potential impacts to marine all range participants increase vigilance In addition to visual observation, mammals from vessel and in-water and take reasonable and practicable passive acoustic monitoring will be device strikes during training activities actions to avoid collisions and activities conducted with Navy assets, such as are provided below: that may result in close interaction of passive ships sonar systems or • Naval vessels shall maneuver to naval assets and marine mammals. sonobuoys, already participating in the keep at least 500 yd. (460 m) away from Actions may include changing speed or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31778 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

direction and are dictated by The Navy is proposing to (1) continue Testing environmental and other conditions using the mitigation measures currently The Navy’s proposed action does not (e.g., safety, weather). implemented for this activity, and (2) include bomb testing activities. • Range craft shall not approach clarify the conditions needed to within 100 yd. (90 m) of marine recommence an activity after a sighting. Consideration of Time/Area Limitations mammals and shall be followed to the The recommended measures are Already incorporated into the Navy’s extent practicable considering human provided below. and NMFS’ analysis of affects to marine and vessel safety priorities. All Navy Mitigation will include visual mammals, has been consideration of vessels and aircraft, including observation from a vessel or aircraft emergent science regarding locations helicopters, are expected to comply immediately before and during the where cetaceans are known to engage in with this directive. This includes exercise within a mitigation zone of 200 specific activities (e.g., feeding, marine mammals ‘‘hauled-out’’ on yd. (180 m) around the intended impact breeding/calving, or migration) at islands, rocks, and other areas such as location. The exercise will not certain times of the year that are buoys. important to individual animals as well The Navy is proposing to incorporate commence if concentrations of floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed as populations of marine mammals (see the training mitigation measures discussion in Van Parijs, 2015). As described above during testing activities in the mitigation zone. Firing will cease if a marine mammal is sighted within explained in that paper, each such involving surface ships, and for all other location has been designated a testing activities to continue using the the mitigation zone. Firing will recommence if any one of the following Biologically Important Area (BIA). It is mitigation measures currently important to note that the BIAs were not implemented, revised to exclude conditions is met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone, (2) meant to define exclusionary zones, nor pinnipeds during test body retrieval and were they meant to be locations that to include the exception for bow-riding the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and serve as sanctuaries from human dolphins as described above under activity, or areas analogous to marine Training. During test body retrieval, the speed, (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a protected areas (see Ferguson et al. activity cannot be relocated away from (2015a) regarding the envisioned marine mammals active in the area, or period of 10 minutes for a firing aircraft, (4) the mitigation zone has been clear purpose for the BIA designations). The significantly delayed without risking delineation of BIAs does not have direct loss of the test body, so the activity must from any additional sightings for a period of 30 minutes for a firing ship, or immediate regulatory consequences. proceed even if pinnipeds are present in The intention was that the BIAs would the immediate vicinity. However, the or (5) the intended target location has been repositioned more than 400 yd. serve as resource management tools and retrieval vessel is a range craft and risks their boundaries be dynamic and to marine mammals are very low. (370 m) away from the location of the last sighting. considered along with any new Towed In-Water Devices information as well as, ‘‘existing density Testing estimates, range-wide distribution data, Training information on population trends and The Navy is proposing to adopt The Navy’s proposed action does not life history parameters, known threats to measures currently used in other ranges include gunnery testing activities. the population, and other relevant outside of the Study Area during Non-Explosive Bombing Exercises information’’ (Van Parijs, 2015). activities involving towed in-water The Navy and NMFS have supported devices. The Navy will ensure that Training and will continue to support the towed in-water devices being towed Cetacean and Sound Mapping project, from manned platforms avoid coming The Navy is proposing to continue including providing representation on within a mitigation zone of 250 yd. (230 using the mitigation measures currently the Cetacean Density and Distribution m) around any observed marine implemented for this activity. The Mapping Working Group (CetMap) mammal, providing it is safe to do so. recommended measure includes developing the BIAs. The final products, clarification of a post-sighting activity Testing including U.S. West Coast BIAs, from recommencement criterion. this mapping effort were completed and The Navy’s proposed mitigation Mitigation will include visual published in March 2015 (Aquatic measures for testing activities from observation from the aircraft Mammals, 2015; Calambokidis et al., manned platforms are consistent with immediately before the exercise and 2015; Ferguson et al., 2015a, 2015b; Van Navy training mitigation measures during target approach within a Parijs, 2015). 131 BIAs for 24 marine described above. During testing in mitigation zone of 1,000 yd. (920 m) mammal species, stocks, or populations which in-water devices are towed by around the intended impact location. in seven regions within U.S. waters unmanned platforms, a manned escort The exercise will not commence if were identified (Ferguson et al., 2015a). vessel will be included and one Lookout concentrations of floating vegetation BIAs in the West Coast of the will be employed. (kelp paddies) are observed in the continental U.S. with the potential to Non-Explosive Gunnery Exercises— mitigation zone. Bombing will cease if overlap portions of the Study Area Small, Medium, and Large-Caliber a marine mammal is sighted within the include the following feeding and Using a Surface Target mitigation zone. Bombing will migration areas: Northern Puget Sound recommence if any one of the following Feeding Area for gray whales; Training conditions is met: (1) The animal is Northbound Migration Phase A for gray Currently, the Navy employs the same observed exiting the mitigation zone, (2) whales; Northbound Migration Phase B mitigation measures for non-explosive the animal is thought to have exited the for gray whales; Potential Presence gunnery exercises as described above for mitigation zone based on its course and Migration Area for gray whales; explosive Gunnery Exercises—Small-, speed, or (3) the mitigation zone has Northern Washington Feeding Area for Medium-, and Large-Caliber Using a been clear from any additional sightings humpback whales; Stonewall and Surface Target. for a period of 10 minutes. Heceta Bank Feeding Area for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31779

humpback whales; Cape Blanco and concluded that additional mitigations impacts to marine mammal species and Orford Reef Feeding Area for gray other than those already described in stocks and their habitat; the proven or whale; and Point St. George Feeding the January 2014 NWTT DEIS/OEIS and likely efficacy of the measures; and the Area for gray whales (Calambokidis et LOA application would not be further practicability of the suite of measures al., 2015). protective nor offer addition protection for applicant implementation, including NMFS Office of Protected Resources to marine mammals beyond what is consideration of personnel safety, routinely considers available already proposed. NMFS is currently practicality of implementation, and information about marine mammal reviewing the Navy’s draft assessment, impact on the effectiveness of the habitat use to inform discussions with the outcome of which will be discussed military readiness activity. applicants regarding potential spatio- in the final rule. Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed temporal limitations on their activities As we learn more about marine by NMFS should be able to accomplish, that might help effect the least mammal density, distribution, and have a reasonable likelihood of practicable adverse impact on species or habitat use (and the BIAs are updated), accomplishing (based on current stocks and their habitat. BIAs are useful NMFS and the Navy will continue to science), or contribute to accomplishing tools for planning and impact reevaluate appropriate time-area one or more of the general goals listed assessments and are being provided to measures through the Adaptive below: the public via this Web site: Management process outlined in these a. Avoid or minimize injury or death www.cetsound.noaa.gov. While these regulations. of marine mammals wherever possible BIAs are useful tools for analysts, any (goals b, c, and d may contribute to this Stranding Response Plan decisions regarding protective measures goal). based on these areas must go through NMFS and the Navy developed a b. Reduce the number of marine the normal MMPA evaluation process Stranding Response Plan for the mammals (total number or number at (or any other statutory process that the NWTRC in 2010 and the NUWC Keyport biologically important time or location) BIAs are used to inform)—the Range Complex in 2011 as part of the exposed to received levels of MFAS/ designation of a BIA does not pre- incidental take authorization process for HFAS, underwater detonations, or other suppose any specific management those complexes. The Stranding activities expected to result in the take decision associated with those areas, Response Plan is specifically intended of marine mammals (this goal may nor does it have direct or immediate to outline the applicable requirements contribute to a, above, or to reducing regulatory consequences. in the event that a marine mammal harassment takes only). During the April 2014 annual stranding is reported in the complexes c. Reduce the number of times (total adaptive management meeting in during a major training exercise. NMFS number or number at biologically Washington, DC, NMFS and the Navy considers all plausible causes within the important time or location) individuals discussed the BIAs that might overlap course of a stranding investigation and would be exposed to received levels of with portions of the NWTT Study Area, this plan in no way presumes that any MFAS/HFAS, underwater detonations, what Navy activities take place in these strandings in a Navy range complex are or other activities expected to result in areas (in the context of what their effects related to, or caused by, Navy training the take of marine mammals (this goal on marine mammals might be or and testing activities, absent a may contribute to a, above, or to whether additional mitigation is determination made during reducing harassment takes only). necessary), and what measures could be investigation. The plan is designed to d. Reduce the intensity of exposures implemented to reduce impacts in these address mitigation, monitoring, and (either total number or number at areas (in the context of their potential to compliance. The Navy is currently biologically important time or location) reduce marine mammal impacts and working with NMFS to refine this plan to received levels of MFAS/HFAS, their practicability). Upon request by for the NWTT Study Area. The current underwater detonations, or other NMFS the Navy preparing a draft Stranding Response Plans for the activities expected to result in the take assessment of these BIAs, including the NWTRC and NUWC Keyport Range of marine mammals (this goal may degree of spatial overlap as well as an Complex are available for review here: contribute to a, above, or to reducing the assessment of potential impacts or lack http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ severity of harassment takes only). of impacts for each BIA. The Navy incidental/military.htm. e. Avoid or minimize adverse effects preliminarily determined that the to marine mammal habitat, paying Mitigation Conclusions degree of overlap between Navy special attention to the food base, activities within the Study Area and NMFS has carefully evaluated the activities that block or limit passage to regional BIAs is relatively small (10 Navy’s proposed mitigation measures— or from biologically important areas, percent) geographically. Further, a many of which were developed with permanent destruction of habitat, or review of the BIAs for humpback whales NMFS’ input during the first phase of temporary destruction/disturbance of and gray whales against areas where Navy Training and Testing habitat during a biologically important most acoustic activities are conducted authorizations—and considered a range time. in the Study Area (especially those that of other measures in the context of f. For monitoring directly related to involve ASW hull-mounted sonar, ensuring that NMFS prescribes the mitigation—increase the probability of sonobuoys, and use of explosive means of effecting the least practicable detecting marine mammals, thus munitions) identified that there is no adverse impact on the affected marine allowing for more effective spatial overlap. The Navy preliminarily mammal species and stocks and their implementation of the mitigation (shut- concluded that any potential impacts habitat. Our evaluation of potential down zone, etc.). from training and testing activities on a measures included consideration of the Based on our evaluation of the Navy’s given area are infrequent, spatially and following factors in relation to one proposed measures, as well as other temporally variable, and biologically another: The manner in which, and the measures considered by NMFS, NMFS insignificant since the activities are degree to which, the successful has determined preliminarily that the unlikely to significantly affect the implementation of the mitigation Navy’s proposed mitigation measures marine mammal activities for which the measures is expected to reduce the (especially when the adaptive BIAs were designated. The Navy also likelihood and/or magnitude of adverse management component is taken into

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31780 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

consideration (see Adaptive detailed and specific studies will be in general, to better achieve the above Management, below)) are adequate developed which support the Navy’s goals; and means of effecting the least practicable top-level monitoring goals. In essence, • A reduction in the adverse impact adverse impacts on marine mammals the ICMP directs that monitoring of activities to the least practicable species or stocks and their habitat, activities relating to the effects of Navy level, as defined in the MMPA. paying particular attention to rookeries, training and testing activities on marine Monitoring would address the ICMP mating grounds, and areas of similar species should be designed to contribute top-level goals through a collection of significance, while also considering towards one or more of the following specific regional and ocean basin personnel safety, practicality of top-level goals: studies based on scientific objectives. implementation, and impact on the • An increase in our understanding of Quantitative metrics of monitoring effort effectiveness of the military readiness the likely occurrence of marine (e.g., 20 days of aerial surveys) would activity. mammals and/or ESA-listed marine not be a specific requirement. The The proposed rule comment period species in the vicinity of the action (i.e., adaptive management process and provides the public an opportunity to presence, abundance, distribution, and/ reporting requirements would serve as submit recommendations, views, and/or or density of species); the basis for evaluating performance and concerns regarding this action and the • An increase in our understanding of compliance, primarily considering the proposed mitigation measures. While the nature, scope, or context of the quality of the work and results NMFS has determined preliminarily likely exposure of marine mammals produced, as well as peer review and that the Navy’s proposed mitigation and/or ESA-listed species to any of the publications, and public dissemination measures would effect the least potential stressor(s) associated with the of information, reports, and data. Details practicable adverse impact on the action (e.g., tonal and impulsive sound), of the ICMP are available online affected species or stocks and their through better understanding of one or (http:// habitat, NMFS will consider all public more of the following: (1) The action www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/ comments to help inform our final and the environment in which it occurs ). decision. Consequently, the proposed (e.g., sound source characterization, Strategic Planning Process for Marine mitigation measures may be refined, propagation, and ambient noise levels); Species Monitoring modified, removed, or added to prior to (2) the affected species (e.g., life history The Navy also developed the Strategic the issuance of the final rule based on or dive patterns); (3) the likely co- public comments received, and where Planning Process for Marine Species occurrence of marine mammals and/or Monitoring, which establishes the appropriate, further analysis of any ESA-listed marine species with the additional mitigation measures. guidelines and processes necessary to action (in whole or part) associated with develop, evaluate, and fund individual Monitoring specific adverse effects, and/or; (4) the projects based on objective scientific Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA likely biological or behavioral context of study questions. The process uses an states that in order to issue an ITA for exposure to the stressor for the marine underlying framework designed around an activity, NMFS must set forth mammal and/or ESA-listed marine top-level goals, a conceptual framework ‘‘requirements pertaining to the species (e.g., age class of exposed incorporating a progression of monitoring and reporting of such animals or known pupping, calving or knowledge, and in consultation with a taking.’’ The MMPA implementing feeding areas); Scientific Advisory Group and other • regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) An increase in our understanding of regional experts. The Strategic Planning indicate that requests for LOAs must how individual marine mammals or Process for Marine Species Monitoring include the suggested means of ESA-listed marine species respond would be used to set intermediate accomplishing the necessary monitoring (behaviorally or physiologically) to the scientific objectives, identify potential and reporting that will result in specific stressors associated with the species of interest at a regional scale, increased knowledge of the species and action (in specific contexts, where and evaluate and select specific of the level of taking or impacts on possible, e.g., at what distance or monitoring projects to fund or continue populations of marine mammals that are received level); supporting for a given fiscal year. This • expected to be present. An increase in our understanding of process would also address relative how anticipated individual responses to investments to different range Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring individual stressors or anticipated complexes based on goals across all Program (ICMP) combinations of stressors may impact range complexes, and monitoring would The Navy’s ICMP is intended to either: (1) The long-term fitness and leverage multiple techniques for data coordinate monitoring efforts across all survival of an individual; or (2) the acquisition and analysis whenever regions and to allocate the most population, species, or stock (e.g., possible. The Strategic Planning Process appropriate level and type of effort for through effects on annual rates of for Marine Species Monitoring is also each range complex based on a set of recruitment or survival); available online (http:// • standardized objectives, and in An increase in our understanding of www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/ acknowledgement of regional expertise the effectiveness of mitigation and ). and resource availability. The ICMP is monitoring measures; designed to be flexible, scalable, and • A better understanding and record Past Monitoring in the NWTT Study adaptable through the adaptive of the manner in which the authorized Area management and strategic planning entity complies with the ITA and NMFS has received multiple years’ processes to periodically assess progress Incidental Take Statement; worth of annual exercise and and reevaluate objectives. Although the • An increase in the probability of monitoring reports addressing active ICMP does not specify actual detecting marine mammals (through sonar use and explosive detonations monitoring field work or projects, it improved technology or methods), both within the NWTT and other Navy range does establish top-level goals that have specifically within the safety zone (thus complexes. The data and information been developed in coordination with allowing for more effective contained in these reports have been NMFS. As the ICMP is implemented, implementation of the mitigation) and considered in developing mitigation and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31781

monitoring measures for the proposed beyond) and to document the exceptions where sightings are most training and testing activities within the implementation of mitigation measures, frequent. NWTT Study Area. The Navy’s annual but does not provide useful species- 6. Passive acoustics and animal exercise and monitoring reports may be specific information or behavioral data. tagging have significant potential for 3. Data gathered by experienced viewed at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ applications addressing animal marine mammal observers can provide pr/permits/incidental/military.htm and movements and behavioral response to very valuable information at a level of http:// Navy training activities, but require a detail not possible with watchstanders. www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us. longer time horizon and heavy NMFS has reviewed these reports and 4. Though it is by no means investment in analysis to produce summarized the results, as related to conclusive, it is worth noting that no relevant results. marine mammal monitoring, below. instances of obvious behavioral 1. The Navy has shown significant disturbance have been observed by This following section includes a initiative in developing its marine Navy watchstanders or experienced summary of Navy-funded compliance species monitoring program and made marine mammal observers conducting monitoring in the NWTRC since 2010 considerable progress toward reaching visual monitoring. and in the NUWC Keyport Range goals and objectives of the ICMP. 5. Visual surveys generally provide Complex since 2011. Additional Navy- 2. Observation data from suitable data for addressing questions of funded monitoring outside of and in watchstanders aboard navy vessels is distribution and abundance of marine addition to the Navy’s commitments to generally useful to indicate the presence mammals, but are much less effective at NMFS is provided later in the section. or absence of marine mammals within providing information on movements The monitoring years are shown in the mitigation zones (and sometimes and behavior, with a few notable Table 12.

TABLE 12—NAVY MONITORING YEARS IN THE STUDY AREA

Navy monitoring years in the study area range complex Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Northwest Training Range Com- 12 November 2010–01 May 2011 02 May 2011–01 May 2012 ...... 02 May 2012–01 May 2013. plex. Keyport Range Complex ...... 12 April 2011–08 November 2011 09 November 2011–08 November 09 November 2012–08 November 2012. 2013.

Northwest Training Range Complex Stejneger’s beaked whales were the most were deployed opportunistically during consistently recorded beaked whale, field efforts associated with a 3-year Passive Acoustic Monitoring with all their detections occurring collaborative field project addressing As part of previous monitoring within between December and June. Previous marine mammal distribution and habitat the Pacific Northwest, the Navy funded research-funded results from these same use off Oregon and Washington (Schorr deployment of two passive acoustic locations from 2004 to 2010 is available et al., 2012). The species of interest were devices along the central coast of in Oleson et al. (2009) and Oleson and endangered cetaceans such as blue Washington State from 2011 to 2013. Hildebrand (2012). whales, fin whales, humpback whales, and sperm whales, but also included Results from this effort are summarized Satellite Tagging in the Navy’s annual NWTRC high-priority cetaceans such as beaked monitoring reports for 2011, 2012, and The Navy purchased 10 satellite whales, in the event they were 2013 (U.S. Department of the Navy, tracking tags in Year 1, suitable for encountered in favorable tagging 2011; Sˇ irovic´ et al., 2012a and 2012b in deployment by a suite of marine species conditions. Other species of interest for U.S. Department of the Navy, 2012a; within the offshore waters of the tagging included seasonal resident gray Kerosky et al., 2013 in U.S. Department NWTRC. The tags used were the whales and transient or offshore killer of the Navy, 2013). Total passive Andrews-style LIMPET (Low Impact whales. acoustic data recorded over the 3 years Minimally Percutaneous External Annual results from this effort are totals over 17,417 hours and includes Transmitter), in either the location-only summarized in the Navy’s NWTRC signals from four baleen whale species Spot5 configuration or the location/dive Monitoring Reports for 2011, 2012, and (blue whale, fin whale, gray whale, and data Mk10–A configuration (Wildlife 2013 (U.S. Department of the Navy, humpback whale) and seven Computers, Redmond, Washington) 2011a, 2012a, and 2013d) and odontocetes (Risso’s dolphin, Pacific (Schorr et al., 2012). Tags were collectively in Schorr et al. (2012). white-sided dolphin, killer whale, programmed to species-specific, During this reporting period (2010– sperm whale, Stejneger’s beaked whale, transmission schedule-based surfacing 2013), a collective total of 21 tags were Baird’s beaked whale, and Cuvier’s behavior and transmission data from deployed on four different species off beaked whale) (Kerosky et al. 2013 in previous deployments. Tags transmit the Washington coast (3 gray whales, 5 U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013). animal movement data via the Argos humpback whales, 11 fin whales, and 2 Kerosky et al. (2013) found that seasonal satellite system. The commercial Argos offshore killer whales). A total of patterns of all four baleen whale species system consists of data acquisition and approximately 348 days of animal were similar within the monitoring sites relay equipment attached to NOAA low- movement data was obtained (Schorr et in NWTRC, with most calls detected orbiting weather satellites and ground- al., 2013; U.S. Department of the Navy, between winter and early spring. Of the based receivers and data processing 2013d). Transmissions confirmed that odontocetes recorded, sperm whales systems. gray whales were not migrating; rather, were generally detected most The Navy purchased these satellite they stayed very close to shore and in consistently while other non-beaked tracking tags as part of the NWTRC a very localized area consistent with odontocetes occurred more sporadically. monitoring from 2010 to 2013. The tags feeding. Movement data for the tagged

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31782 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

humpback whales suggest individuals under the permits. The entire area to be counts are typically conducted weekly spent time both on and off the shelf monitored can be seen via the small and involve identifying the sea lions to edge, including some of the underwater craft vessels and as a result of the tightly species and documenting branded canyons off northern Washington. spaced transect observation pattern. Pre- animals. This information has shown Movements obtained from tagged fin event and post-event surveys were also seasonal use of the haulouts at each site, whales suggest these whales are most conducted. Harbor seals were the only as well as trends in the number of commonly using waters associated with marine mammal species seen either animals by species using the haulouts at the outer shelf edge. Overall, 75 percent before or after the training event, and no each site. In the case of Bangor, there are of the fin whale locations received were marine mammals were in the exclusion no haulout areas used by adult harbor within the NWTRC. Three fin whales zone during the detonations. seals, despite the adults being seen daily with transmission durations greater than Keyport Range Complex in the water, year-round. The only 21 days remained in the NWTRC for the exception to this would be during entire duration of tag transmission. Annual monitoring surveys were pupping season when one wave screen According to Schorr et al. (2013), undertaken in 2011, 2012, and 2013 in (floating dock) is used temporarily by localized movements for periods of this the DBRC portion of the Keyport Range adult females to give birth. In late fall duration suggest that at least some fin Complex. These surveys included both 2013, there were sightings of individual whales are not simply migrating through visual and passive acoustic monitoring harbor seal pups using opportunistic the area, but are utilizing habitat within during concurrent mid-frequency active manmade structures as temporary the NWTRC for extended periods of sonar and high-frequency active sonar haulouts. These sightings include one time, even during seasons generally tests. In addition to Navy Lookouts, harbor seal pup using a partially associated with migration and use of Navy marine mammal observers were submerged ladder rung as a haulout and lower latitude breeding areas for other positioned aboard range vessels and at place to nurse; another pup resting on baleen whales. While in the NWTRC, a high elevation observation point on a floating oil boom; a third pup resting tagged killer whales primarily spent land to monitor the events. A pre-event on a large piece of chain hanging in the their time on the continental shelf, or and post-event survey was also water; a fourth pup managing to get well offshore of the shelf edge. conducted. Species seen included aboard a submarine and haul out next In 2012, the Navy funded a multi-year harbor seals, California sea lions, and to the California sea lions; and a fifth, satellite tracking study of Pacific Coast harbor porpoise. In total over all years, older juvenile resting on the outer Feeding Group gray whales (U.S. there were 262 sightings representing pontoon of the floating security fence. 420 individuals seen during the visual Department of the Navy, 2013d). Tags Harbor seals have not been seen hauled surveys, which may include repeat were attached to 11 gray whales near out at Bremerton or at the floating dock sightings of the same individuals. No Crescent City, California, in fall 2012 near Manchester. Harbor seals do haul marine mammals were detected using (Mate, 2013). Good track histories were out on the log rafts near Naval Station the bottom-moored passive acoustic received from nine of the 11 tags which Everett. monitoring array in any year. Discussion confirmed an exclusive near shore (< 15 • km) distribution and movement along and results from these efforts are Marine Mammal Surveys in Hood the California, Oregon, and Washington summarized in the Navy’s Keyport Canal and Dabob Bay (2011–2012): The coast. Additional tag deployments on Range Complex Annual Monitoring Navy conducted an opportunistic gray whales have occurred since the Reports for 2011, 2012, and 2013 (U.S. marine mammal vessel-based line Mate (2013) report. These will be Department of the Navy, 2012c, 2012d, transect density survey in Hood Canal described in the NWTRC Year 4 Annual and 2013e). and Dabob Bay during September and October 2011 and again in October Monitoring Report in 2014. Other Regional Navy-Funded Satellite tagging efforts are also 2012. In Hood Canal, the surveys Monitoring Efforts funded for 2014–2018 along the U.S. followed a double saw-tooth pattern to west coast and include fin and blue Additional marine mammal studies achieve uniform coverage of the entire whales. Longer term tags (up to 1 year) are being funded or conducted by the NAVBASE Kitsap, Bangor waterfront. will allow for an assessment of animal Navy outside of and in addition to the Transects generally covered the area occurrence, movement patterns, and Navy’s commitments to NMFS for the from Hazel Point on the south end of the residence time at areas within and NWTRC and the NUWC Keyport Range Toandos Peninsula to Thorndyke Bay. outside of Navy at-sea ranges, including Complex. A variety of field survey Surveys in the adjacent Dabob Bay the NWTRC. methodologies are being utilized in followed a slightly different pattern and order to better determine marine generally followed more closely to the Explosive Ordnance/Underwater mammal presence, seasonality, shoreline while completing a circular Detonation Monitoring abundance, distribution, habitat use, route through the Bay. These surveys The Navy has conducted two annual and density in these areas. The had a dual purpose of collecting marine underwater detonation training events following studies either have been mammal and marbled murrelet (bird in the NWTRC at the Floral Point site in conducted or are underway during the species) data, and near-shore surveys Hood Canal. In 2012, the event was 2010–2014 period: tended to yield more marbled murrelet monitored by marine mammal and • Naval Base Pinniped Haulout sightings. During surveys, the survey seabird observers, and acoustic Surveys (2010–2014): Biologists located vessels traveled at a speed of measurements were also recorded. The at NAVBASE Kitsap, Bangor, approximately five knots when observers were positioned aboard small Bremerton, the Manchester Fuel Depot, transiting along the transect lines. Two Navy craft that followed a closely and Naval Station Everett have been observers recorded sightings of marine spaced transect pattern in nearshore conducting year-round counts of sea mammals both in the water and hauled waters. In 2013, a similar monitoring lions hauled out on site-specific out. Marine mammal sightings data effort occurred, but two beach observers structures such as the floating security included species identification, Global were added to the monitoring team in fences, submarines, or other Positioning System animal locations order to provide a training opportunity. opportunistic haulouts such as the large relative to vessel position, and detailed The beach observers are not required floating dock near Manchester. These behavioral notes. Data from the line

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31783

transect surveys can be used to improve • Tagging and Behavioral Monitoring As an early start to NWTT monitoring, estimates of marine mammal density in of Sea Lions in the Pacific Northwest in in July 2014 the Navy provided funding Hood Canal and Dabob Bay. Proximity to Navy Facilities (2013– ($209,000) to NMFS’ Northwest • Aerial Surveys of Pinniped Haulout 2015): In an Interagency Agreement Fisheries Science Center to jointly Sites in Pacific Northwest Inland Waters between the Navy and the NMFS Alaska participate in a new NWTT-specific (2013–2014): Navy-funded aerial Fisheries Science Center, the Navy has study: Modeling the distribution of surveys of pinniped haulout sites in the funded a sea lion satellite tagging study southern resident killer whales in the inland waters of Washington State were beginning in 2013 through 2015. Pacific Northwest. The goal of this new initiated in March 2013 (Jeffries, 2013b) Tagging is anticipated to occur in early study is to provide a more scientific and continued until March 2014 (1-year 2014 with monitoring and data analysis understanding of endangered southern study design). The objectives of this extending into 2015. There are resident killer whale winter distribution effort were to provide estimates of significant scientific data gaps in off the Pacific Northwest coast. While seasonal abundance, identify seasonal identifying the location of local foraging the end project will work to develop a distribution patterns, and collect data to areas and percentage of time hauled out Bayesian space-state model for determine seal and sea lion densities. for pinniped species near Puget Sound predicting the offshore winter Aerial surveys being conducted under Navy facilities. Data collected from this occurrence, the project will actually this effort represent the first pinniped project will directly tie into Navy’s consist of analysis of existing NMFS assessments to be done in the region future Phase III marine mammal density data (passive acoustic detections, over all four seasons, and will therefore modeling for training and testing satellite tag tracks) as well as new data provide much-needed information about activities at-sea, and within Puget collection from fall 2014 through spring seasonal variation of harbor seal, Sound. In particular, integration of 2015. Details of the study can be found northern elephant seal, California sea improved haulout percentages will at: http:// lion, and Steller sea lion distribution lower over-predictive modeled takes www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/ and abundance in the inland waters of which currently, due to lack of regional regions/pacific/current-projects/. The Washington. In addition, this effort will data, assume all pinniped species are eight main tasks the study supports update the Atlas of Seal and Seal Lion always in-water for purposes of model include: Haulout Sites in Washington (inland assessment of takes. Numbers of animals • Identification and classification of waters region) (Jeffries et al., 2000). observed hauled out can be corrected marine mammal detections from Finally, in a collaborative effort, the into a population estimate by applying acoustic recorders. NMFS Northwest Region provided an estimate of the proportion of • Acquisition and field deployment additional funding to support summer- satellite-tagged-animals that are hauled of satellite-linked transmitters (n=4) to only aerial surveys of the U.S. waters of out at the time of the census. Satellite- track and determine southern resident the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Cape Flattery linked dive recorders can be used to killer whales movements. to Port Angeles), as well as the San Juan assess location of foraging activity and • Deployment of autonomous Islands. This collaborative approach describe the diving behavior, as well as underwater acoustic recorders in and between the Navy and NMFS will allow record when the animal is hauled out. adjacent to the coastal and shelf/slope NMFS to update the SAR for the Pacific waters of Washington State. Navy harbor seal (Washington Inland Waters Proposed Monitoring for the NWTT Study Area funding will allow 10 additional stock). The current SAR is derived from recorders to be purchased and deployed population estimates from 1999, and Based on NMFS-Navy meetings in along with four NMFS recorders for a abundance information from current June and October 2011, future Navy total of 14 deployed recorders. surveys will provide NMFS with compliance monitoring, including • Estimation of the probability of required data to revise this outdated pending NWTT monitoring, will Southern Resident killer whale stock assessment. address ICMP top-level goals through a detection on acoustic recorders. • Aerial Surveys of Marine Mammals series of regional and ocean basin study • Development of the state-space in Pacific Northwest Inland Waters questions with a prioritization and occurrence models. (2013–2014): Navy-funded aerial line- funding focus on species of interest as • Development of predicative maps of transect density surveys in the inland identified for each range complex. The the seasonal annual occurrence of waters of Washington State were ICMP will also address relative southern resident killer whales. initiated in August 2013 (Smultea and investments to different range • Development a cost efficient Bacon, 2013). Surveys are planned to complexes based on goals across all strategy for the deployment of acoustic continue quarterly (every season) range complexes, and monitoring will recorders in and adjacent to Pacific through 2014. These surveys were leverage multiple techniques for data Northwest Navy ranges. designed in cooperation with NMFS in acquisition and analysis whenever • Reporting. order to estimate density and abundance possible. of species with sufficient sightings, Within the NWTT area, the Navy’s Ongoing Navy Research document distribution and habitat use, initial recommendation for species of The U.S. Navy is one of the world’s and describe behaviors seen. Smultea interest includes blue whale, fin whale, leading organizations in assessing the and Bacon (2013) reported a total of 779 humpback whale, Southern Resident effects of human activities the marine sightings composed of an estimated killer whale (offshore portion of their environment, including marine 1,716 individual marine mammals annual movements), and beaked whales. mammals. From 2004 through 2013, the representing four species: Harbor seal, Navy monitoring for NWTT under this Navy has funded over $240M harbor porpoise, California sea lion, and LOA authorization and concurrently in specifically for marine mammal Risso’s dolphins. Eighty-seven percent other areas of the Pacific Ocean will research. Navy scientists work of sightings were of harbor seals, while therefore be structured to address cooperatively with other government harbor porpoise were the second-most region-specific species-specific study researchers and scientists, universities, frequent sighting (9 percent), followed questions that will be outlined in the industry, and non-governmental by California sea lions; a pair of Risso’s final NWTT Monitoring Project Table in conservation organizations in collecting, dolphins were seen twice. consultation with NMFS. evaluating, and modeling information

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31784 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

on marine resources. They also develop underwater sound (as opposed to Adaptive Management approaches to ensure that these tactical applications of underwater The final regulations governing the resources are minimally impacted by sound or propagation loss modeling for take of marine mammals incidental to existing and future Navy operations. It military communications or tactical Navy training and testing activities in is imperative that the Navy’s Research applications). the NWTT Study Area would contain an and Development efforts related to • Developing technologies and adaptive management component marine mammals are conducted in an methods to monitor and, where carried over from previous open, transparent manner with possible, mitigate biologically authorizations. Although better than 5 validated study needs and requirements. significant consequences to living years ago, our understanding of the The goal of the Navy’s R&D program is marine resources resulting from naval effects of Navy training and testing to enable collection and publication of activities, emphasizing those activities (e.g., MFAS/HFAS, scientifically valid research as well as consequences that are most likely to be underwater detonations) on marine development of techniques and tools for biologically significant. mammals is still relatively limited, and Navy, academic, and commercial use. yet the science in this field is evolving Historically, R&D programs are funded Navy Research and Development fairly quickly. These circumstances and developed by the Navy’s Chief of make the inclusion of an adaptive Naval Operations Energy and Navy Funded—Both the LMR and management component both valuable Environmental Readiness and Office of ONR Research and Development (R&D) and necessary within the context of 5- Naval Research (ONR), Code 322 Marine programs periodically fund projects year regulations for activities that have Mammals and Biological Oceanography within the NWTT Study Area. Some Program. Primary focus of these data and results from these R&D projects been associated with marine mammal programs since the 1990s is on are summarized in the Navy’s annual mortality in certain circumstances and understanding the effects of sound on range complex monitoring reports, and locations. marine mammals, including available on NMFS’ Web site (http:// The reporting requirements associated physiological, behavioral and ecological www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ with this proposed rule are designed to effects. incidental/military.htm) and the Fleet’s provide NMFS with monitoring data ONR’s current Marine Mammals and new marine species monitoring Web site from the previous year to allow NMFS Biology Program thrusts include, but are (http:// to consider whether any changes are not limited to: (1) Monitoring and www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/ appropriate. NMFS and the Navy would detection research; (2) integrated regions/pacific/current-projects/). In meet to discuss the monitoring reports, ecosystem research including sensor addition, the Navy’s Range Complex Navy R&D developments, and current and tag development; (3) effects of monitoring during training and testing science and whether mitigation or sound on marine life (such as hearing, activities is coordinated with the monitoring modifications are behavioral response studies, physiology Research and Development monitoring appropriate. The use of adaptive [diving and stress], and PCAD); and (4) in a given region to leverage research management allows NMFS to consider models and databases for environmental objectives, assets, and studies where new information from different sources compliance. possible under the ICMP. to determine (with input from the Navy regarding practicability) on an annual or To manage some of the Navy’s marine The integration between the Navy’s biennial basis if mitigation or mammal research programmatic new LMR research and development monitoring measures should be elements, OPNAV N45 developed in program and related range complex modified (including additions or 2011 a new Living Marine Resources monitoring will continue and improve deletions). Mitigation measures could be (LMR) Research and Development during the applicable period of the modified if new data suggests that such Program (http://www.lmr.navy.mil/). rulemaking with results presented in modifications would have a reasonable The goal of the LMR Research and NWTT annual monitoring reports. Development Program is to identify and likelihood of reducing adverse effects to fill knowledge gaps and to demonstrate, Other National Department of Defense marine mammals and if the measures validate, and integrate new processes Funded Initiatives—Strategic are practicable. and technologies to minimize potential Environmental Research and The following are some of the effects to marine mammals and other Development Program (SERDP) and possible sources of applicable data to be marine resources. Key elements of the Environmental Security Technology considered through the adaptive LMR program include: Certification Program (ESTCP) are the management process: (1) Results from • Providing science-based DoD’s environmental research programs, monitoring and exercises reports, as information to support Navy harnessing the latest science and required by MMPA authorizations; (2) environmental effects assessments for technology to improve environmental compiled results of Navy funded R&D research, development, acquisition, performance, reduce costs, and enhance studies; (3) results from specific testing, and evaluation as well as Fleet and sustain mission capabilities. The stranding investigations; (4) results from at-sea training, exercises, maintenance, Programs respond to environmental general marine mammal and sound and support activities. technology requirements that are research; and (5) any information which • Improving knowledge of the status common to all of the military Services, reveals that marine mammals may have and trends of marine species of concern complementing the Services’ research been taken in a manner, extent, or and the ecosystems of which they are a programs. SERDP and ESTCP promote number not authorized by these part. partnerships and collaboration among regulations or subsequent LOAs. • Developing the scientific basis for academia, industry, the military Proposed Reporting the criteria and thresholds to measure Services, and other Federal agencies. the effects of Navy-generated sound. They are independent programs In order to issue an ITA for an • Improving understanding of managed from a joint office to activity, section 101(a)(5)(A) of the underwater sound and sound field coordinate the full spectrum of efforts, MMPA states that NMFS must set forth characterization unique to assessing the from basic and applied research to field ‘‘requirements pertaining to the biological consequences resulting from demonstration and validation. monitoring and reporting of such

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31785

taking.’’ Effective reporting is critical calendar year, or 90 days after the rule determinations. The report will be both to compliance as well as ensuring conclusion of the monitoring year to be submitted 3 months after the expiration that the most value is obtained from the determined by the Adaptive of the rule. NMFS will submit required monitoring. Some of the Management process. comments on the draft close-out report, reporting requirements are still in The NWTT Monitoring Plan Report if any, within 3 months of receipt. The development and the final rulemaking may be provided to NMFS within a report will be considered final after the may contain additional details not larger report that includes the required Navy has addressed NMFS’ comments, contained here. Additionally, proposed Monitoring Plan reports from multiple or 3 months after the submittal of the reporting requirements may be range complexes and study areas (the draft if NMFS does not provide modified, removed, or added based on multi-Range Complex Annual comments. information or comments received Monitoring Report). Such a report Estimated Take of Marine Mammals during the public comment period. would describe progress of knowledge Reports from individual monitoring made with respect to monitoring plan In the potential effects section, NMFS’ events, results of analyses, publications, study questions across all Navy ranges analysis identified the lethal responses, and periodic progress reports for associated with the ICMP. Similar study physical trauma, sensory impairment specific monitoring projects would be questions shall be treated together so (PTS, TTS, and acoustic masking), posted to the Navy’s Marine Species that progress on each topic shall be physiological responses (particular Monitoring web portal: http:// summarized across all Navy ranges. The stress responses), and behavioral www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us. report need not include analyses and responses that could potentially result Currently, there are several different content that does not provide direct from exposure to MFAS/HFAS or reporting requirements pursuant to assessment of cumulative progress on underwater explosive detonations. In these proposed regulations: the monitoring plan study questions. this section, the potential effects to marine mammals from MFAS/HFAS General Notification of Injured or Dead Annual Exercise and Testing Reports and underwater detonation of Marine Mammals The Navy shall submit preliminary explosives will be related to the MMPA Navy personnel would ensure that reports detailing the status of authorized regulatory definitions of Level A and NMFS (the appropriate Regional sound sources within 21 days after the Level B harassment and attempt to Stranding Coordinator) is notified anniversary of the date of issuance of quantify the effects that might occur immediately (or as soon as clearance the LOA. The Navy shall submit from the proposed training and testing procedures allow) if an injured or dead detailed reports 3 months after the activities in the Study Area. marine mammal is found during or anniversary of the date of issuance of As mentioned previously, behavioral shortly after, and in the vicinity of, any the LOA. The detailed annual reports responses are context-dependent, Navy training exercise utilizing MFAS, shall describe the level of training and complex, and influenced to varying HFAS, or underwater explosive testing conducted during the reporting degrees by a number of factors other detonations. The Navy would provide period, and a summary of sound sources than just received level. For example, an NMFS with species identification or a used (total annual hours or quantity [per animal may respond differently to a description of the animal(s), the the LOA] of each bin of sonar or other sound emanating from a ship that is condition of the animal(s) (including non-impulsive source; total annual moving towards the animal than it carcass condition if the animal is dead), number of each type of explosive would to an identical received level location, time of first discovery, exercises; total annual expended/ coming from a vessel that is moving observed behaviors (if alive), and detonated rounds [missiles, bombs, etc.] away, or to a ship traveling at a different photographs or video (if available). for each explosive bin; and improved speed or at a different distance from the In the event that an injured, stranded, Extended Echo-Ranging System (IEER)/ animal. At greater distances, though, the or dead marine mammal is found by the sonobuoy summary, including total nature of vessel movements could also Navy that is not in the vicinity of, or number of IEER events conducted in the potentially not have any effect on the during or shortly after MFAS, HFAS, or Study Area, total expended/detonated animal’s response to the sound. In any underwater explosive detonations, the rounds (buoys), and total number of case, a full description of the suite of Navy will report the same information self-scuttled IEER rounds. The analysis factors that elicited a behavioral as listed above as soon as operationally in the detailed reports will be based on response would require a mention of the feasible and clearance procedures allow. the accumulation of data from the vicinity, speed and movement of the current year’s report and data collected vessel, or other factors. So, while sound Annual Monitoring Plan Reports from previous reports. sources and the received levels are the The Navy shall submit an annual primary focus of the analysis and those 5-Year Close-Out Exercise and Testing report of the NWTT Monitoring Plan that are laid out quantitatively in the Report describing the implementation and regulatory text, it is with the results of the NWTT Monitoring Plan This report will be included as part of understanding that other factors related from the previous calendar year. Data the 2020 annual exercise or testing to the training are sometimes collection methods will be standardized report. This report will provide the contributing to the behavioral responses across range complexes and study areas annual totals for each sound source bin of marine mammals, although they to allow for comparison in different with a comparison to the annual cannot be quantified. geographic locations. Although allowance and the 5-year total for each additional information will be gathered, sound source bin with a comparison to Definition of Harassment the protected species observers the 5-year allowance. Additionally, if As mentioned previously, with collecting marine mammal data there were any changes to the sound respect to military readiness activities, pursuant to the NWTT Monitoring Plan source allowance, this report will section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA defines shall, at a minimum, provide the same include a discussion of why the change ‘‘harassment’’ as: ‘‘(i) any act that marine mammal observation data was made and include the analysis to injures or has the significant potential to required in § 218.145. The report shall support how the change did or did not injure a marine mammal or marine be submitted either 90 days after the result in a change in the SEIS and final mammal stock in the wild [Level A

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31786 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs consequences of the reactions on the increase in size. A short duration of or is likely to disturb a marine mammal affected individuals. We therefore sonar pings (such as that which an or marine mammal stock in the wild by consider the available scientific animal exposed to MFAS would be most causing disruption of natural behavioral evidence to determine the likely nature likely to encounter) would not likely be patterns, including, but not limited to, of the modeled behavioral responses long enough to drive bubble growth to migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, and the potential fitness consequences any substantial size. Alternately, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where for affected individuals bubbles could be destabilized by high- such behavioral patterns are abandoned Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)—As level sound exposures such that bubble or significantly altered [Level B discussed previously, TTS can affect growth then occurs through static Harassment].’’ It is important to note how an animal behaves in response to diffusion of gas out of the tissues. The that, as Level B harassment is the environment, including degree of supersaturation and exposure interpreted here and quantified by the conspecifics, predators, and prey. The levels observed to cause microbubble behavioral thresholds described below, following physiological mechanisms are destabilization are unlikely to occur, the fact that a single behavioral pattern thought to play a role in inducing either alone or in concert because of (of unspecified duration) is abandoned auditory fatigue: Effects to sensory hair how close an animal would need to be or significantly altered and classified as cells in the inner ear that reduce their to the sound source to be exposed to a Level B take does not mean, sensitivity, modification of the chemical high enough levels, especially necessarily, that the fitness of the environment within the sensory cells; considering the likely avoidance of the harassed individual is affected either at residual muscular activity in the middle sound source and the required all or significantly, or that, for example, ear, displacement of certain inner ear mitigation. Still, possible tissue damage a preferred habitat area is abandoned. membranes; increased blood flow; and from either of these processes would be Further analysis of context and duration post-stimulatory reduction in both considered an injury. of likely exposures and effects is efferent and sensory neural output. Tissue Damage due to Behaviorally necessary to determine the impacts of Ward (1997) suggested that when these Mediated Bubble Growth—Several the estimated effects on individuals and effects result in TTS rather than PTS, authors suggest mechanisms in which how those may translate to population they are within the normal bounds of marine mammals could behaviorally level impacts, and is included in the physiological variability and tolerance respond to exposure to MFAS/HFAS by Analysis and Negligible Impact and do not represent a physical injury. altering their dive patterns (unusually Determination. Additionally, Southall et al. (2007) rapid ascent, unusually long series of indicate that although PTS is a tissue surface dives, etc.) in a manner that Level B Harassment injury, TTS is not because the reduced might result in unusual bubble Of the potential effects that were hearing sensitivity following exposure formation or growth ultimately resulting described earlier in this document, the to intense sound results primarily from in tissue damage. In this scenario, the following are the types of effects that fatigue, not loss, of cochlear hair cells rate of ascent would need to be fall into the Level B harassment and supporting structures and is sufficiently rapid to compromise category: reversible. Accordingly, NMFS classifies behavioral or physiological protections Behavioral Harassment—Behavioral TTS (when resulting from exposure to against nitrogen bubble formation. disturbance that rises to the level sonar and other active acoustic sources There is considerable disagreement described in the definition above, when and explosives and other impulsive among scientists as to the likelihood of resulting from exposures to non- sources) as Level B harassment, not this phenomenon (Piantadosi and impulsive or impulsive sound, is Level A harassment (injury). Thalmann, 2004; Evans and Miller, considered Level B harassment. Some of 2003). Although it has been argued that the lower level physiological stress Level A Harassment traumas from recent beaked whale responses discussed earlier would also Of the potential effects that were strandings are consistent with gas likely co-occur with the predicted described earlier, following are the emboli and bubble-induced tissue harassments, although these responses types of effects that can fall into the separations (Jepson et al., 2003; are more difficult to detect and fewer Level A harassment category (unless Fernandez et al., 2005; Ferna´ndez et al., data exist relating these responses to they further rise to the level of serious 2012), nitrogen bubble formation as the specific received levels of sound. When injury or mortality): cause of the traumas has not been Level B harassment is predicted based Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)— verified. If tissue damage does occur by on estimated behavioral responses, PTS (resulting either from exposure to this phenomenon, it would be those takes may have a stress-related MFAS/HFAS or explosive detonations) considered an injury. Recent modeling physiological component as well. is irreversible and considered an injury. by Kvadsheim et al. (2012) determined As the statutory definition is currently PTS results from exposure to intense that while behavioral and physiological applied, a wide range of behavioral sounds that cause a permanent loss of responses to sonar have the potential to reactions may qualify as Level B inner or outer cochlear hair cells or result in bubble formation, the actual harassment under the MMPA, including exceed the elastic limits of certain observed behavioral responses of but not limited to avoidance of the tissues and membranes in the middle cetaceans to sonar did not imply any sound source, temporary changes in and inner ears and result in changes in significantly increased risk over what vocalizations or dive patters, temporary the chemical composition of the inner may otherwise occur normally in avoidance of an area, or temporary ear fluids. individual marine mammals. disruption of feeding, migrating, or Tissue Damage due to Acoustically Physical Disruption of Tissues reproductive behaviors. The estimates Mediated Bubble Growth—A few Resulting from Explosive Shock Wave— calculated by the Navy using the theories suggest ways in which gas Physical damage of tissues resulting acoustic thresholds do not differentiate bubbles become enlarged through from a shock wave (from an explosive between the different types of potential exposure to intense sounds (MFAS/ detonation) is classified as an injury. behavioral reactions. Nor do the HFAS) to the point where tissue damage Blast effects are greatest at the gas-liquid estimates provide information regarding results. In rectified diffusion, exposure interface (Landsberg, 2000) and gas- the potential fitness or other biological to a sound field would cause bubbles to containing organs, particularly the lungs

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31787

and gastrointestinal tract, are especially impulse or impulse sounds) Level B injury that can be measured. Therefore, susceptible (Goertner, 1982; Hill, 1978; harassment and Level A harassment of the acoustic exposure associated with Yelverton et al., 1973). Nasal sacs, marine mammals would occur. The onset-PTS is used to define the lower larynx, pharynx, trachea, and lungs may acoustic thresholds for non-impulse and limit of Level A harassment. be damaged by compression/expansion impulse sounds are discussed below. PTS data do not currently exist for caused by the oscillations of the blast Level B Harassment Threshold marine mammals and are unlikely to be gas bubble (Reidenberg and Laitman, (TTS)—Behavioral disturbance, acoustic obtained due to ethical concerns. 2003). Severe damage (from the shock masking, and TTS are all considered However, PTS levels for these animals wave) to the ears can include tympanic Level B harassment. Marine mammals may be estimated using TTS data from membrane rupture, fracture of the would usually be behaviorally disturbed marine mammals and relationships ossicles, damage to the cochlea, at lower received levels than those at between TTS and PTS that have been hemorrhage, and cerebrospinal fluid which they would likely sustain TTS, so determined through study of terrestrial leakage into the middle ear. the levels at which behavioral mammals. Vessel or Ordnance Strike—Vessel disturbance are likely to occur is We note here that behaviorally strike or ordnance strike associated with considered the onset of Level B mediated injuries (such as those that the specified activities would be harassment. The behavioral responses of have been hypothesized as the cause of considered Level A harassment, serious marine mammals to sound are variable, some beaked whale strandings) could injury, or mortality. Vessel or ordnance context specific, and, therefore, difficult potentially occur in response to strike is not anticipated with the Navy to quantify (see Risk Function section, received levels lower than those activities in the Study Area. below). believed to directly result in tissue TTS is a physiological effect that has damage. As mentioned previously, data Take Thresholds been studied and quantified in to support a quantitative estimate of For the purposes of an MMPA laboratory conditions. Because data these potential effects (for which the authorization, three types of take are exist to support an estimate of the exact mechanism is not known and in identified: Level B harassment; Level A received levels at which marine which factors other than received level harassment; and mortality (or serious mammals will incur TTS, NMFS uses an may play a significant role) do not exist. injury leading to mortality). The acoustic criteria to estimate the number However, based on the number of years categories of marine mammal responses of marine mammals that might sustain (more than 60) and number of hours of (physiological and behavioral) that fall TTS. TTS is a subset of Level B MFAS per year that the U.S. (and other into the two harassment categories were harassment (along with sub-TTS countries) has operated compared to the described in the previous section. behavioral harassment) and the Navy is reported (and verified) cases of Because the physiological and not specifically required to estimate associated marine mammal strandings, behavioral responses of the majority of those numbers; however, the more NMFS believes that the probability of the marine mammals exposed to non- specifically the affected marine mammal these types of injuries is very low. impulse and impulse sounds cannot be responses can be estimated, the better Tables 13 and 14 provide a summary of easily detected or measured, and the analysis. non-impulsive and impulsive because NMFS must authorize take Level A Harassment Threshold thresholds to TTS and PTS for marine prior to the impacts to marine (PTS)—For acoustic effects, because the mammals. A detailed explanation of mammals, a method is needed to tissues of the ear appear to be the most how these thresholds were derived is estimate the number of individuals that susceptible to the physiological effects provided in the NWTT DEIS/OEIS will be taken, pursuant to the MMPA, of sound, and because threshold shifts Criteria and Thresholds Technical based on the proposed action. To this tend to occur at lower exposures than Report (Finneran and Jenkins, 2012) and end, NMFS developed acoustic other more serious auditory effects, summarized in Chapter 6 of the LOA thresholds that estimate at what NMFS has determined that PTS is the application (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ received level (when exposed to non- best indicator for the smallest degree of pr/permits/incidental/military.htm).

TABLE 13—ONSET TTS AND PTS THRESHOLDS FOR NON-IMPULSE SOUND

Group Species Onset TTS Onset PTS

Low-Frequency Cetaceans ...... All mysticetes ...... 178 dB re 1μPa2- 198 dB re 1μPa2- sec(LFII). sec(LFII) Mid-Frequency Cetaceans ...... Most delphinids, beaked whales, medium 178 dB re 1μPa2- 198 dB re 1μPa2- and large toothed whales. sec(MFII). sec(MFII) High-Frequency Cetaceans ...... Porpoises, Kogia spp...... 152 dB re 1μPa2- 172 dB re 1μPa2- sec(HFII). secSEL (HFII) Phocidae In-water ...... Harbor, Hawaiian monk, elephant seals .... 183 dB re 1μPa2- 197 dB re 1μPa2- sec(PWI). sec(PWI) Otariidae & Obodenidae In-water ...... Sea lions and fur seals ...... 206 dB re 1μPa2- 220 dB re 1μPa2- Mustelidae In-water ...... Sea otters. sec(OWI). sec(OWI)

LFII, MFII, HFII: New compound Type II weighting functions; PWI, OWI: Original Type I (Southall et al., 2007) for pinniped and mustelid in water.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31788 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Table 14. Impulsive sound and explosive criteria and thresholds for predicting injury and mortality.

Onset Onset Slight Slight Onset Group Species Onset TTS OnsetPTS GI Tract Lung Mortality Injury Injury 172 dB re 1 11Pa2-s 187 dB re 1 11Pa2-s SEL SEL (Type II weighting) Low (Type II weighting) or Frequency All mysticetes or 230 dB re 1 11Pa Peak Cetaceans 224 dB re 1 11Pa Peak SPL SPL (unweighted) ( llllweighted) 172 dB re 1 11Pa2-s 187 dB re 1 11Pa2-s SEL Most SEL (Type II weighting) Mid- delphinids, (Type II weighting) or Frequency medium and or 230 dB re 1 11Pa Peak Cetaceans large toothed 224 dB re 1 11Pa Peak SPL whales SPL (unweighted) ( llllweighted) 146 dB re 1 11Pa2-s 161 dB re 1 11Pa2-s SEL SEL (Type II weighting) High (Type II weighting) Porpoises and or Frequency or 237 dB Kogia spp. 201 dB re 1 11Pa Peak Cetaceans 195 dB re 1 11Pa Peak re 1 11Pa Note 1 Note2 SPL SPL ( unweighted) (unweighted) ( llllweighted) 177 dB re 1 11Pa2-s 192 dB re 1 11Pa2-s Northern (Type I weighting) (Type I weighting) elephant seal or or Phocidae and harbor 212 dB re 1 11Pa Peak 218 dB re 1 11Pa Peak seal SPL SPL ( llllweighted) (unweighted) Steller and California Sea 200 dB re 1 11Pa2-s 215 dB re 1 11Pa2-s Lion, (Type I weighting) (Type I weighting) Otariidae Guadalupe or or and Northern 212 dB re 1 11Pa Peak 218 dB re 1 11Pa Peak fur seal SPL SPL ( llllweighted) (unweighted) Mustelidae Sea Otter

Note 1 =39.1MX(l+ DRm tPa-sec =91.4MY,(l+ DRm y~ Pa-sec 10.081 Note2 10.081 . . . .. 1 Impulse calculated over a dehvery t1me that 1s the lesser of the m1hal pos1t1Ve pressure duration or 20 percent of the natural period of the assumed-sphericallllllg adjusted for animal size and depth. Notes: GI =gastrointestinal, M =mass of animals in kilograms, DRrn =depth of receiver (animal) in meters, SEL =Sound Exposure Level, SPL =Sound Pressure Level (re 1 11Pa), dB= decibels, re 1 11Pa =referenced to one micropascal, dB re 1 11Pa2-s = decibels referenced to one micropascal squared second

Level B Harassment Risk Function avoidance of an area, or temporary consequences of the reactions on the (Behavioral Harassment) disruption of feeding, migrating, or affected individuals. We therefore reproductive behaviors. The estimates consider the available scientific As the statutory definition is currently calculated by the Navy using the evidence to determine the likely nature applied, a wide range of behavioral reactions may qualify as Level B acoustic thresholds do not differentiate of the modeled behavioral responses harassment under the MMPA, including between the different types of potential and the potential fitness consequences but not limited to avoidance of the behavioral reactions. Nor do the for affected individuals. sound source, temporary changes in estimates provide information regarding Behavioral Response Criteria for Non- vocalizations or dive patters, temporary the potential fitness or other biological Impulsive Sound from Sonar and other

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS EP03JN15.018 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31789

Active Sources—In 2006, NMFS issued distance from or bearing to the sound likelihood of stranding in conjunction the first MMPA authorization to allow source, context of animal at time of with mid-frequency sonar use, even in the take of marine mammals incidental exposure) can affect the way that marine areas where other species were more to MFAS (to the Navy for RIMPAC). For mammals respond; however, data to abundant (D’Amico et al., 2009), but that authorization, NMFS used 173 dB support a quantitative analysis of those there were not sufficient data to support SEL as the criterion for the onset of (and other factors) do not currently a separate treatment for beaked whales behavioral harassment (Level B exist. It is also worth specifically noting until recently. With the recent harassment). This type of single number that while context is very important in publication of results from Blainville’s criterion is referred to as a step function, marine mammal response, given beaked whale monitoring and in which (in this example) all animals otherwise equivalent context, the experimental exposure studies on the estimated to be exposed to received severity of a marine mammal behavioral instrumented AUTEC range in the levels above 173 db SEL would be response is also expected to increase Bahamas (McCarthy et al. 2011; Tyack predicted to be taken by Level B with received level (Houser and Moore, et al. 2011), there are now statistically harassment and all animals exposed to 2014). NMFS will continue to modify strong data suggesting that beaked less than 173 dB SEL would not be these criteria as new data become whales tend to avoid actual naval mid- taken by Level B harassment. As available and can be appropriately and frequency sonar in real anti-submarine mentioned previously, marine mammal effectively incorporated. training scenarios as well as playbacks behavioral responses to sound are The particular acoustic risk functions of killer whale vocalizations, and other highly variable and context specific developed by NMFS and the Navy (see anthropogenic sounds. Tyack et al. (affected by differences in acoustic Figures 1 and 2 of the LOA application) (2011) report that, in reaction to sonar conditions; differences between species estimate the probability of behavioral playbacks, most beaked whales stopped and populations; differences in gender, responses to MFAS/HFAS (interpreted echolocating, made long slow ascent, age, reproductive status, or social as the percentage of the exposed and moved away from the sound. behavior; or the prior experience of the population) that NMFS would classify During an exercise using mid-frequency individuals), which means that there is as harassment for the purposes of the sonar, beaked whales avoided the sonar support for alternate approaches for MMPA given exposure to specific acoustic footprint at a distance where estimating behavioral harassment. received levels of MFAS/HFAS. The the received level was ‘‘around 140 dB’’ Unlike step functions, acoustic risk mathematical function (below) (SPL) and once the exercise ended, continuum functions (which are also underlying this curve is a cumulative beaked whales re-inhabited the center of called ‘‘exposure-response functions’’ or probability distribution adapted from a exercise area within 2–3 days (Tyack et ‘‘dose-response functions’’ in other risk solution in Feller (1968) and was also al., 2011). The Navy has therefore assessment contexts) allow for used in predicting risk for the Navy’s adopted an unweighted 140 dB re 1 mPa probability of a response that NMFS SURTASS LFA MMPA authorization as SPL threshold for significant behavioral would classify as harassment to occur well. effects for all beaked whales (family: over a range of possible received levels Ziphiidae). (instead of one number) and assume that the probability of a response depends Since the development of the first on the ‘‘dose’’ (in this case, the criterion, analysis of the data the 2010 received level of sound) and that the and 2011 field seasons of the southern probability of a response increases as California Behavioral Responses Study the ‘‘dose’’ increases. In January 2009, have been published. The study, NMFS issued three final rules governing DeRuiter et al. (2013b), provides similar the incidental take of marine mammals ¥ evidence of Cuvier’s beaked whale Where: R = Risk (0 1.0) sensitivities to sound based on two (within Navy’s Hawaii Range, Southern L = Received level (dB re: 1 mPa) California Training and Testing Range, controlled exposures. Two whales, one B = Basement received level = 120 dB re: 1 in each season, were tagged and and Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar mPa Training complexes) that used a risk K = Received level increment above B where exposed to simulated mid-frequency continuum to estimate the percent of 50-percent risk = 45 dB re: 1 mPa active sonar at distances of 3.4–9.5 km. marine mammals exposed to various A = Risk transition sharpness parameter = 10 The 2011 whale was also incidentally levels of MFAS that would respond in (odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 8 exposed to mid-frequency active sonar a manner NMFS considers harassment. (mysticetes) from a distant naval exercise The Navy and NMFS have previously Detailed information on the above (approximately 118 km away). Received used acoustic risk functions to estimate equation and its parameters is available levels from the mid-frequency active the probable responses of marine in the January 2014 NWTT DEIS/OEIS sonar signals during the controlled and mammals to acoustic exposures for and previous Navy documents listed incidental exposures were calculated as other training and research programs. above. 84–144 and 78–106 dB re 1 mPa rms, Examples of previous application The harbor porpoise and beaked respectively. Both whales showed include the Navy EISs on the whales have unique criteria based on responses to the controlled exposures, Surveillance Towed Array Sensor specific data that show these animals to ranging from initial orientation changes System Low Frequency Active be especially sensitive to sound. Harbor to avoidance responses characterized by (SURTASS LFA) sonar (U.S. Department porpoise and beaked whale non- energetic fluking and swimming away of the Navy, 2001c); the North Pacific impulsive behavioral criteria are used from the source. However, the authors Acoustic Laboratory experiments unweighted—without weighting the did not detect similar responses to conducted off the Island of Kauai (Office received level before comparing it to the incidental exposure to distant naval of Naval Research, 2001), and the threshold (see Finneran and Jenkins, sonar exercises at comparable received Supplemental EIS for SURTASS LFA 2012). levels, indicating that context of the sonar (U.S. Department of the Navy, It has been speculated for some time exposures (e.g., source proximity, 2007d). As discussed earlier, factors that beaked whales might have unusual controlled source ramp-up) may have other than received level (such as sensitivities to sonar sound due to their been a significant factor. Because the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS EP03JN15.019 31790 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

sample size was limited (controlled taken by Level B behavioral Since impulse events can be quite exposures during a single dive in both harassment). short, it may be possible to accumulate 2010 and 2011) and baseline behavioral Behavioral Response Criteria for multiple received impulses at sound data was obtained from different stocks Impulsive Sound from Explosions—If pressure levels considerably above the and geographic areas (i.e., Hawaii and more than one explosive event occurs energy-based criterion and still not be Mediterranean Sea), and the responses within any given 24-hour period within considered a behavioral take. The Navy exhibited to controlled exposures were a training or testing event, behavioral treats all individual received impulses not exhibited by an animal exposed to criteria are applied to predict the as if they were one second long for the some of the same received levels of real number of animals that may be taken by purposes of calculating cumulative sonar exercises, the Navy relied on the Level B harassment. For multiple sound exposure level for multiple studies at the AUTEC that analyzed explosive events the behavioral impulse events. For example, five air beaked whale responses to actual naval threshold used in this analysis is 5 dB gun impulses, each 0.1 second long, exercises using mid-frequency active less than the TTS onset threshold (in received at a Type II weighted sound sound exposure level). This value is sonar to evaluate potential behavioral pressure level of 167 dB SPL would derived from observed onsets of responses by beaked whales to proposed equal a 164 dB sound exposure level, behavioral response by test subjects training and testing activities using and would not be predicted as leading sonar and other active acoustic sources. (bottlenose dolphins) during non- impulse TTS testing (Schlundt et al. to a significant behavioral response The information currently available 2000). Some multiple explosive events, (take) in MF or HF cetaceans. However, regarding harbor porpoises suggests a such as certain naval gunnery exercises, if the five 0.1 second pulses are treated very low threshold level of response for may be treated as a single impulsive as a 5 second exposure, it would yield both captive and wild animals. event because a few explosions occur an adjusted SEL of approximately 169 Threshold levels at which both captive closely spaced within a very short dB, exceeding the behavioral threshold (Kastelein et al., 2000; Kastelein et al., period of time (a few seconds). For of 167 dB SEL. For impulses associated 2005; Kastelein et al., 2006; Kastelein et single impulses at received sound levels with explosions that have durations of al., 2008) and wild harbor porpoises below hearing loss thresholds, the most a few microseconds, this assumption (Johnston, 2002) responded to sound likely behavioral response is a brief greatly overestimates effects based on (e.g., acoustic harassment devices, alerting or orienting response. Since no sound exposure level metrics such as acoustic deterrent devices, or other non- further sounds follow the initial brief TTS and PTS and behavioral responses. impulsive sound sources) are very low impulses, Level B take in the form of Appropriate weighting values will be (e.g., approximately 120 dB re 1 mPa). behavioral harassment beyond that applied to the received impulse in one- Therefore, a SPL of 120 dB re 1 mPa is associated with potential TTS would third octave bands and the energy used in this analysis as a threshold for not be expected to occur. This reasoning summed to produce a total weighted predicting behavioral responses in was applied to previous shock trials (63 sound exposure level value. For harbor porpoises instead of the risk FR 230; 66 FR 87; 73 FR 143) and is impulsive behavioral criteria, the Navy’s functions used for other species (i.e., we extended to these Phase II criteria. weighting functions (detailed in Chapter assume for the purpose of estimating Behavioral thresholds for impulsive 6 of the LOA application) are applied to take that all harbor porpoises exposed to sources are summarized in Table 15 and the received sound level before being 120 dB or higher MFAS/HFAS will be further detailed in the LOA application. compared to the threshold.

TABLE 15—BEHAVIORAL THRESHOLDS FOR IMPULSIVE SOUND

Impulsive behavioral Hearing group threshold for > 2 Onset TTS pulses/24 hours

Low-Frequency Cetaceans ...... 167 dB SEL (LFII) 172 dB SEL (MFII) or 224 dB Peak SPL. Mid-Frequency Cetaceans ...... 167 dB SEL (MFII) High-Frequency Cetaceans ...... 141 dB SEL (HFII) 146 dB SEL (HFII) or 195 dB Peak SPL. Phocid Seals (in water) ...... 172 dB SEL (PWI) 177 dB SEL (PWI) or 212 dB Peak SPL. Otariidae & Mustelidae (in water) ...... 195 dB SEL (OWI) 200 dB SEL (OWI) or 212 dB Peak SPL.

Notes: (1) LFII, MFII, HFII are New compound Type II weighting functions; PWI, OWI = Original Type I (Southall et al. 2007) for pinniped and mustelid in water (see Finneran and Jenkins 2012). (2) SEL = re 1 μPa2-s; SPL = re 1 μPa, SEL = Sound Exposure Level, dB = decibel, SPL = Sound Pressure Level.

Marine Mammal Density Estimates estimate density. Therefore, to transect analyses, and peer-reviewed A quantitative analysis of impacts on characterize the marine species density published studies) based on species, a species requires data on the for large areas such as the Study Area, area, and season (see the Navy’s Pacific abundance and distribution of the the Navy needed to compile data from Marine Species Density Database species population in the potentially multiple sources. Each data source may Technical Report; U.S. Department of impacted area. The most appropriate use different methods to estimate the Navy, 2014b). The resulting unit of metric for this type of analysis density, of which, uncertainty in the Geographic Information System (GIS) is density, which is described as the estimate can be directly related to the database includes one single spatial and number of animals present per unit area. method applied. To develop a database seasonal density value for every marine There is no single source of density of marine species density estimates, the mammal present within the Study Area. data for every area, species, and season Navy, in consultation with NMFS The Navy Marine Species Density because of the fiscal costs, resources, experts, adopted a protocol to select the Database includes a compilation of the and effort involved in NMFS providing best available data sources (including best available density data from several enough survey coverage to sufficiently habitat-based density models, line- primary sources and published works

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31791

including survey data from NMFS the California sea lion, population further analyzed and adjusted to within the U.S. EEZ. NMFS is the estimates are based on counts of pups at consider animal avoidance (i.e., primary agency responsible for the breeding sites (Carretta et al., 2014). swimming away from sonar or other estimating marine mammal and sea However, this method is not appropriate active sources and away from multiple turtle density within the U.S. EEZ. for other species such as harbor seals, explosions to avoid repeated high level NMFS publishes annual SARs for whose pups enter the water shortly after sound exposures) and implementation various regions of U.S. waters and birth. Population estimates for these of mitigation measures, resulting in final covers all stocks of marine mammals species are typically made by counting estimates of potential effects due to within those waters. The majority of the number of seals ashore and applying Navy training and testing. species that occur in the Study Area are correction factors based on the Various computer models and covered by the Pacific Region Stock proportion of animals estimated to be in mathematical equations can be used to Assessment Report (Carretta et al., the water (Carretta et al., 2014). predict how energy spreads from a 2014), with a few species (e.g., Steller Population estimates for pinniped sound source (e.g., sonar or underwater sea lions) covered by the Alaska Region species that occur in the Study Area are detonation) to a receiver (e.g., dolphin Stock Assessment Report (Allen and provided in the Pacific Region Stock or sea turtle). Basic underwater sound Angliss, 2014). Other independent Assessment Report (Carretta et al., models calculate the overlap of energy researchers often publish density data or 2014). Translating these population and marine life using assumptions that research covering a particular marine estimates to in-water densities presents account for the many, variable, and mammal species, which is integrated challenges because the percentage of often unknown factors that can into the NMFS SARs. seals or sea lions at sea compared to influence the result. Assumptions in For most cetacean species, abundance those on shore is species-specific and previous and current Navy models have is estimated using line-transect methods depends on gender, age class, time of intentionally erred on the side of that employ a standard equation to year (molt and breeding/pupping overestimation when there are derive densities based on sighting data seasons), foraging range, and for species unknowns or when the addition of other collected from systematic ship or aerial such as harbor seal, time of day and tide variables was not likely to substantively surveys. More recently, habitat-based level. These parameters were identified change the final analysis. For example, density models have been used from the literature and used to establish because the ocean environment is effectively to model cetacean density as correction factors which were then extremely dynamic and information is a function of environmental variables applied to estimate the proportion of often limited to a synthesis of data (e.g., Redfern et al., 2006; Barlow et al., pinnipeds that would be at sea within gathered over wide areas and requiring 2009; Becker et al., 2010; Becker et al., the Study Area for a given season. many years of research, known 2012a; Becker et al., 2012b; Becker, Density estimates for each species in information tends to be an average of a 2012c; Forney et al., 2012). Where the the Study Area, and the sources for seasonal or annual variation. El Nin˜ o data supports habitat based density these estimates, are provided in Chapter Southern Oscillation events of the modeling, the Navy’s database uses 6 of the LOA application and in the ocean-atmosphere system are an those density predictions. Habitat-based Navy’s Pacific Marine Species Density example of dynamic change where density models allow predictions of Database Technical Report (U.S. unusually warm or cold ocean cetacean densities on a finer spatial Department of the Navy, 2014b). temperatures are likely to redistribute scale than traditional line-transect marine life and alter the propagation of Quantitative Modeling To Estimate Take analyses because cetacean densities are underwater sound energy. Previous for Impulsive and Non-Impulsive Sound estimated as a continuous function of Navy modeling therefore made some habitat variables (e.g., sea surface The Navy performed a quantitative assumptions indicative of a maximum temperature, water depth). Within most analysis to estimate the number of theoretical propagation for sound energy of the world’s oceans, however there marine mammals that could be affected (such as a perfectly reflective ocean have not been enough systematic by acoustic sources or explosives used surface and a flat seafloor). surveys to allow for line-transect during Navy training and testing More complex computer models build density estimation or the development activities. Inputs to the quantitative upon basic modeling by factoring in of habitat models. To get an analysis include marine mammal additional variables in an effort to be approximation of the cetacean species density estimates; marine mammal more accurate by accounting for such distribution and abundance for depth occurrence distributions; things as variable bathymetry and an unsurveyed areas, in some cases it is oceanographic and environmental data; animal’s likely presence at various appropriate to extrapolate data from marine mammal hearing data; and depths. areas with similar oceanic conditions criteria and thresholds for levels of The Navy has developed new where extensive survey data exist. potential effects. The quantitative software tools, up to date marine Habitat Suitability Indexes or Relative analysis consists of computer modeled mammal density data, and other Environmental Suitability have also estimates and a post-model analysis to oceanographic data for the been used in data-limited areas to determine the number of potential quantification of estimated acoustic estimate occurrence based on existing harassments. The model calculates impacts to marine mammal impacts observations about a given species’ sound energy propagation from sonar, from Navy activities. This new approach presence and relationships between other active acoustic sources, and is the resulting evolution of the basic basic environmental conditions explosives during naval activities; the model previously used by the Navy and (Kaschner et al., 2006). sound or impulse received by animat reflects a more complex modeling Methods used to estimate pinniped at- (virtual representation of an animal) approach as described below. The new sea density are generally quite different dosimeters representing marine model, NAEMO, is the standard model than those described above for mammals distributed in the area around now used by the Navy to estimate the cetaceans. Pinniped abundance is the modeled activity; and whether the potential acoustic effects of Navy generally estimated via shore counts of sound or impulse received by a marine training and testing activities on marine animals at known rookeries and haulout mammal exceeds the thresholds for mammals. Although this more complex sites. For example, for species such as effects. The model estimates are then computer modeling approach accounts

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31792 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

for various environmental factors application. A detailed explanation of differences in at-sea distributions within affecting acoustic propagation, the the post-model acoustic effect analysis the NWTT Study Area. This would limit current software tools do not consider quantification process is also provided Guadalupe fur seal exposures as the likelihood that a marine mammal in the technical report Post-Model compared to the process described would attempt to avoid repeated Quantitative Analysis of Animal above, as well as more realistically exposures to a sound or avoid an area Avoidance Behavior and Mitigation reflect impacts from offshore Navy of intense activity where a training or Effectiveness for the Northwest Training training and testing events. The first testing event may be focused. and Testing (U.S. Department of the step in this reanalysis was an Additionally, the software tools do not Navy, 2014c). examination of the exact Navy events consider the implementation of Analysis of Guadalupe Fur Seal modeled in NAEMO that generated mitigation (e.g., stopping sonar Exposures exposures for Northern fur seals. The transmissions when a marine mammal Navy then analyzed the potential for co- While there are past and current is within a certain distance of a ship or occurrence of the activities resulting in mitigation zone clearance prior to reports of Guadalupe fur seal strandings in the Pacific Northwest, NMFS does exposures with the Guadalupe fur seal’s detonations). In both of these situations, distribution to determine if the naval activities are modeled as though not have at-sea Guadalupe fur seal sightings from which to derive a density currently predicted exposures should be an activity would occur regardless of modified. For training, the Navy proximity to marine mammals and estimate. For the NWTT DEIS/OEIS, the Navy elected to take a subset of asserted that TRACKEX events typically without any horizontal movement by conducted >50 nm from shore in the the animal away from the sound source Northern fur seal modeled exposures as a surrogate for Guadalupe fur seals. NWTT Study Area would have limited or human activities. Therefore, the final to no co-occurrence with Guadalupe fur step of the quantitative analysis of Essentially, a fraction of the northern fur seal modeled exposures from the Navy’s seals, and would not result in training acoustic effects is to consider the related MMPA exposures. TRACKEX implementation of mitigation and the acoustic effects analysis were used for Guadalupe fur seals exposures based on events account for 82 percent of possibility that marine mammals would exposures under the NWTT DEIS/OEIS avoid continued or repeated sound a comparative ratio of expected occurrence offshore in the NWTT Study preferred alternative (Table 16). The exposures. This final, post-analysis step remaining 18 percent of exposures were in the modeling process is meant to Area for northern fur seals and Guadalupe fur seals (based on NMFS from offshore submarine sonar better quantify the predicted effects by stranding records). Northern fur seal at- maintenance and offshore surface ship accounting for likely animal avoidance sea densities described in the Navy’s sonar maintenance. While these events behavior and implementation of Pacific Marine Species Density Database would also likely be further offshore, standard Navy mitigations. Technical Report (U.S. Department of the Navy cannot totally exclude such The incorporation of mitigation the Navy, 2014b) were derived as a events from at-sea co-occurring with the factors for the reduction of predicted single NWTT Study Area wide layer Guadalupe fur seal. For testing, the effects used a conservative approach (0.106 animals/km2 winter and spring, Navy asserts that countermeasure (erring on the side of overestimating the and 0.082 animals/km2 summer and testing and littoral combat ship (LCS) number of effects) since reductions as a fall). The estimated (not modeled) mission package testing-ASW typically result of implemented mitigation were results for Guadalupe fur seals were conducted >50 nm from shore in the only applied to those events having a incorporated directly into the NWTT NWTT Study Area would have limited very high likelihood of detecting marine DEIS/OEIS (and original December 2013 to no co-occurrence with Guadalupe fur mammals. It is important to note that NWTT LOA application). seals and would not result in testing there are additional protections offered This initial analysis, however, was MMPA exposures. Countermeasure by mitigation procedures which will done without consideration of the likely testing and LCS mission package further reduce effects to marine differences in biological at-sea testing-ASW events account for 92 mammals, but these are not considered distributions of both northern fur seals percent of exposures under the NWTT in the quantitative adjustment of the and Guadalupe fur seals. Northern fur EIS/OEIS preferred alternative (Table model predicted effects. seals have a documented highly pelagic 16). The remaining 8 percent of The steps of the quantitative analysis distribution through the offshore waters exposures were from various testing of acoustic effects, the values and of the Study Area where the majority of activities with the majority (5.6 percent) assumptions that went into the Navy’s Navy training would occur (Davis et al., from ASW-guided missile destroyer model, and the resulting ranges to 2008, NMFS 2007, Lee et al., 2014, (DDG)-attack submarine (SSN) testing effects are detailed in Chapter 6 (Section Pelland et al., 2014, Sterling et al., which the Navy cannot totally exclude 6.5) of the LOA application (http:// 2014). This was the justification for the www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ from at-sea co-occurrence with the NWTT Study Area wide single density Guadalupe fur seal. incidental/military.htm). Details of the values by season (U.S. Department of model’s processes and the description the Navy, 2014b). Within the Pacific Based on the results of this analysis, and derivation of the inputs are Northwest, Guadalupe fur seals are the Navy is modifying current NWTT presented in the Navy’s Determination more likely to be coastally distributed EIS/OEIS take tables and has revised the of Acoustic Effects technical Report given their extralimital at-sea LOA application to account for a (Marine Species Modeling Team, 2013). occurrence and associated stranding percentage decrease in Guadalupe fur The post-model analysis, which records (Lambourn et al., 2012). seal take requests. For this proposed considers the potential for avoidance The Navy, therefore, has proposed to rulemaking, the Guadalupe fur seal and highly effective mitigation during modify the Guadalupe fur seal take Level B behavioral take request for the use of sonar and other active number in the NWTT Final EIS/OEIS training has changed from ‘‘37’’ to ‘‘7’’ acoustic sources and explosives, is and has revised the LOA application to (Table 18) and for testing has changed described in Section 6.5 of the LOA account for species-specific biological from ‘‘27’’ to ‘‘3’’ (Table 21).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31793

TABLE 16—PHASE II NAEMO MODELED EXPOSURES TO NORTHERN FUR SEAL IN RELATIONSHIP TO NAVY TRAINING EVENTS SIMILAR TO NWTRC PHASE I EVENTS AND FOR NWTT

Dec 2013 Per- Revised Navy centage of Dec 2013 Proposed Aug recommended NWTT events applicable to the Northern fur Guadalupe fur 2014 Modifica- Guadalupe fur Rational NWTT LOA application seal modeled seal take re- tion amount seal take re- exposures quest quest

Training Activities Deemed to Not Have High Probability Of Overlap With Guadalupe Fur Seals

TRACKEX (Maritime patrol aircraft, 82 37 ¥30 7 82% of exposures from TRACKEX, submarine, surface ship). therefore 30 exposures (82% of 37) can be reduced.

Training Activities That Could Have Overlap With Guadalupe Fur Seals

Submarine sonar maintenance ...... 11 Surface ship sonar maintenance ...... 7

Testing Activities Deemed to Not Have High Probability Of Overlap With Guadalupe Fur Seals

NAVSEA countermeasure testing ..... 81 27 ¥24 3 92% of exposures from counter- NAVSEA LCS mission package test- 11. measure testing and LCS pack- ing—ASW. age testing-ASW, therefore 24 ex- posures (92% of 27) can be re- duced.

Testing Activities That Could Have Overlap With Guadalupe Fur Seals

NAVSEA ASW–DDG–SSN ...... 6 Various others ...... < 1

Analysis of Harbor Seal Exposures stock (0.88) to that of the Southern • Entanglement (fiber optic cables, Puget Sound stock (0.12) was then used guidance wires, parachutes); For harbor seals in the inland waters to prorate the total modeled exposures • Ingestion (munitions, military portion of the Study Area, there was a in order to estimate acoustic exposures expended materials other than change to the Washington Inland Waters for each of these stocks in the inland munitions); and stock in 2014 subsequent to the waters portion of the Study Area. • Secondary stressors (sediments and presentation of the January 2014 NWTT water quality). DEIS/OEIS to the public. Based on DNA As a result of the changes to the harbor seal abundance and haulout NMFS has determined that two evidence, the single Inland Waters stock stressors could potentially result in the was broken up into three new stocks, assumptions for the Hood Canal stock, for this proposed rulemaking the harbor incidental taking of marine mammals designated the Hood Canal, the from training and testing activities Washington Northern Inland Waters, seal Level B behavioral take request has increased by an additional 417 takes for within the Study Area: (1) Non- and the Southern Puget Sound stocks impulsive stressors (sonar and other training (Table 18) and an additional (Carretta et al., 2014). Evidence from active acoustic sources) and (2) 52,970 takes (Table 21) for testing. The tagging data (London et al., 2012) impulsive stressors (explosives). Non- Level A take request has increased an suggests the Hood Canal stock generally impulsive and impulsive stressors have additional 4 takes for training (Table 18) does not forage beyond Hood Canal. The the potential to result in incidental takes and an additional 61 takes for testing Navy has assumed that acoustic effects of marine mammals by harassment, (Table 21). modeling for locations in Hood Canal injury, or mortality. NMFS also and Dabob Bay can therefore be Take Request considered the potential for vessel accurately assigned to the Hood Canal strikes to impact marine mammals, and The January 2014 NWTT DEIS/OEIS stock. For the Washington Northern that assessment is presented below. Inland Waters stock and the Southern considered all training and testing Puget Sound stock and because it is activities proposed to occur in the Study Training Activities possible that these stocks overlap while Area that have the potential to result in A detailed analysis of effects due to foraging, modeled acoustic effects to the MMPA defined take of marine marine mammal exposures to impulsive harbor seals in the inland waters portion mammals. The potential stressors and non-impulsive sources in the Study of the Study Area (excluding Hood associated with these activities included Area is presented in Chapter 6 of the Canal and Dabob Bay) were therefore the following: LOA application. Based on the model • assigned to the appropriate stock using Acoustic (sonar and other active and post-model analysis described in a derived ratio based on the abundance non-impulse sources, explosives, Chapter 6 of the LOA application, Table estimates for the two stocks as reported swimmer defense airguns, weapons 17 summarizes the Navy’s final take in the 2013 Pacific Stock Assessment firing, launch and impact noise, vessel request for training activities for a year Report (Carretta et al. (2014); noise, aircraft noise); (a 12-month period) and the summation Washington Northern Inland Waters • Energy (electromagnetic devices); over a 5-year period (annual events stock: n = 11,036; Southern Puget Sound • Physical disturbance or strikes occurring five times and the non-annual stock: n = 1,568). The ratio of the (vessels, in-water devices, military event occurring three times). The Washington Northern Inland Waters expended materials, seafloor devices); Civilian Port Defense exercise is a non-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31794 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

annual event and is analyzed as considered in this analysis. Annual the proposed non-annual events occurring every other year, or three totals presented in the tables are the occurring in a 12-month period as a times during the 5-year period summation of all annual events plus all maximum year.

TABLE 17—SUMMARY OF ANNUAL AND 5-YEAR TAKE REQUESTS FOR NWTT TRAINING ACTIVITIES

Training activities MMPA category Source Annual authorization sought 5-Year authorization sought

Level A ...... Impulsive and ...... 11—Species specific data shown in Tables 16 55—Species specific data shown in Tables 16 Non-Impulsive ...... and 17. and 17. Level B ...... Impulsive and ...... 107,459—Species specific data shown in Ta- 533,543—Species specific data shown in Ta- Non-Impulsive ...... bles 16 and 17. bles 16 and 17.

Impulsive and Non-Impulsive Sources provides the contribution to the are described in more detail within maximum year total (1,876 Level B Chapter 6 of the LOA application. There Table 18 provides the Navy’s take exposures) resulting from the biennial are no mortalities predicted for any request for training activities by species Civilian Port Defense exercise. The 5- training activities resulting from the use from the acoustic effects modeling year totals presented assume the of impulsive or non-impulsive sources. estimates. The numbers provided in the biennial event would occur three times Values shown in Table 18 also include annual columns are the totals for a over the 5-year period (in the first, third, Level B values from non-annual Civilian maximum year (i.e., a year in which a and fifth years). Derivations of the Port Defense training events. Civilian Port Defense Occurs). Table 19 numbers presented in Tables 18 and 19

TABLE 18—SPECIES-SPECIFIC TAKE REQUESTS FROM MODELING AND POST-MODEL ESTIMATES OF IMPULSIVE AND NON- IMPULSIVE SOURCE EFFECTS FOR ALL TRAINING ACTIVITIES

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

North Pacific right whale ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... 0 0 0 0 Humpback whale ...... Central North Pacific ...... 0 0 0 0 California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 12 0 60 0 Blue whale ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... 5 0 25 0 Fin whale ...... Northeast Pacific ...... 0 0 0 0 California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 25 0 125 0 Sei whale ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... 0 0 0 0 Minke whale ...... Alaska ...... 0 0 0 0 California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 18 0 90 0 Gray whale ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... 6 0 30 0 Western North Pacific ...... 0 0 0 0 Sperm whale ...... North Pacific ...... 0 0 0 0 California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 81 0 405 0 Kogia (spp.) ...... California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 73 0 365 0 Killer whale ...... Alaska Resident ...... 0 0 0 0 Northern Resident ...... 0 0 0 0 West Coast Transient ...... 9 0 39 0 East N. Pacific Offshore ...... 13 0 65 0 East N. Pacific Southern Resident ...... 2 0 6 0 Short-finned pilot whale ...... California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 0 0 0 0 Short-beaked common dolphin ...... California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 734 0 3,670 0 Bottlenose dolphin ...... California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 0 0 0 0 Striped dolphin ...... California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 22 0 110 0 Pacific white-sided dolphin ...... North Pacific ...... 0 0 0 0 California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 3,482 0 17,408 0 Northern right whale dolphin ...... California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 1,332 0 6,660 0 Risso’s dolphin ...... California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 657 0 3,285 0 Harbor porpoise ...... Southeast Alaska ...... 0 0 0 0 Northern OR/WA Coast ...... 35,006 0 175,030 0 Northern CA/Southern OR ...... 52,509 0 262,545 0 WA Inland Waters ...... 1,417 1 4,409 5 Dall’s porpoise ...... Alaska ...... 0 0 0 0 California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 3,732 4 18,188 20 Cuvier’s beaked whale ...... Alaska ...... 0 0 0 0 California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 353 0 1,765 0 Baird’s beaked whale ...... Alaska ...... 0 0 0 0 California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 591 0 2,955 0 Mesoplodon beaked whales ...... California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 1,417 0 7,085 0 Steller sea lion ...... Eastern U.S...... 404 0 1,986 0 Guadalupe fur seal ...... San Miguel Island ...... 7 0 35 0 California sea lion ...... U.S. Stock ...... 814 0 4,038 0 Northern fur seal ...... Eastern Pacific ...... 2,495 0 12,475 0

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31795

TABLE 18—SPECIES-SPECIFIC TAKE REQUESTS FROM MODELING AND POST-MODEL ESTIMATES OF IMPULSIVE AND NON- IMPULSIVE SOURCE EFFECTS FOR ALL TRAINING ACTIVITIES—Continued

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

California ...... 37 0 185 0 Northern elephant seal ...... California Breeding ...... 1,271 0 6,353 0 Harbor seal ...... Southeast Alaska (Clarence Strait) ...... 0 0 0 0 OR/WA Coast ...... 0 0 0 0 California ...... 0 0 0 0 WA Northern Inland Waters ...... 427 4 1,855 20 Southern Puget Sound ...... 58 0 252 0 Hood Canal ...... 452 2 2,054 10

TABLE 19—TRAINING EXPOSURES SPECIFIC TO THE BIENNIAL CIVILIAN PORT DEFENSE EXERCISE [Values provided for informational purposes and are included in Table 18 species-specific totals]

Biennial Species Stock Level B Level A

North Pacific right whale ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... 0 0 Humpback whale ...... Central North Pacific ...... 0 0 California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 0 0 Blue whale ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... 0 0 Fin whale ...... Northeast Pacific ...... 0 0 California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 0 0 Sei whale ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... 0 0 Minke whale ...... Alaska ...... 0 0 California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 0 0 Gray whale ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... 0 0 Western North Pacific ...... 0 0 Sperm whale ...... North Pacific ...... 0 0 California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 0 0 Kogia (spp.) ...... California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 0 0 Killer whale ...... Alaska Resident ...... 0 0 Northern Resident ...... 0 0 West Coast Transient ...... 3 0 East N. Pacific Offshore ...... 0 0 East N. Pacific Southern Resident ...... 2 0 Short-finned pilot whale ...... California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 0 0 Short-beaked common dolphin ...... California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 0 0 Bottlenose dolphin ...... California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 0 0 Striped dolphin ...... California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 0 0 Pacific white-sided dolphin ...... North Pacific ...... 0 0 California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 1 0 Northern right whale dolphin ...... California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 0 0 Risso’s dolphin ...... California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 0 0 Harbor porpoise ...... Southeast Alaska ...... 0 0 Northern OR/WA Coast ...... 0 0 Northern CA/Southern OR ...... 0 0 WA Inland Waters ...... 1,338 0 Dall’s porpoise ...... Alaska ...... 0 0 California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 236 0 Cuvier’s beaked whale ...... Alaska ...... 0 0 California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 0 0 Baird’s beaked whale ...... Alaska ...... 0 0 California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 0 0 Mesoplodon beaked whales ...... California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 0 0 Steller sea lion ...... Eastern U.S...... 17 0 Guadalupe fur seal ...... San Miguel Island ...... 0 0 California sea lion ...... U.S. Stock ...... 16 0 Northern fur seal ...... Eastern Pacific ...... 0 0 California ...... 0 0 Northern elephant seal ...... California Breeding ...... 1 0 Harbor seal ...... Southeast Alaska (Clarence Strait) ...... 0 0 OR/WA Coast ...... 0 0 California ...... 0 0 WA Northern Inland Waters ...... 140 0 Southern Puget Sound ...... 19 0 Hood Canal ...... 103 0

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31796 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Vessel Strike the Navy’s analysis. Therefore, takes by and non-impulsive sources in the Study injury or mortality resulting from vessel Area is presented in Chapter 6 of the There has never been a vessel strike strikes are not authorized by NMFS in LOA application. Based on the model to marine mammals during any training this proposed rule. However, the Navy and post-model analysis described in activities in the Study Area. A detailed has proposed measures (see Proposed Chapter 6 of the LOA application, Table analysis of strike data is contained in Mitigation) to mitigate potential impacts 20 summarizes the Navy’s final take Section 6.7 (Estimated Take of Large to marine mammals from vessel strikes request for testing activities for an Whales by Navy Vessel Strike) of the during training activities in the Study annual (12-month) period and the LOA application. The Navy does not Area. anticipate vessel strikes to marine summation over a 5-year period. There mammals within the Study Area, nor Testing Activities are no non-annual testing events. were takes by injury or mortality A detailed analysis of effects due to resulting from vessel strike predicted in marine mammal exposures to impulsive

TABLE 20—SUMMARY OF ANNUAL AND 5-YEAR TAKE REQUESTS FOR NWTT TESTING ACTIVITIES

Testing activities MMPA Source category Annual authorization sought 5-Year authorization sought

Level A ...... Impulsive and Non-Im- 176—Species specific data shown in Tables 18 880—Species specific data shown in Tables 18 pulsive. and 19. and 19. Level B ...... Impulsive and Non-Im- 139,815—Species specific data shown in Ta- 699,075—Species specific data shown in Ta- pulsive. bles 18 and 19. bles 18 and 19.

Impulsive and Non-Impulsive Sources There are no non-annual testing events. mortalities predicted for any testing Derivation of these values is described activities based on the analysis of Table 21 summarizes the Navy’s take in more detail within Chapter 6 of the impulsive and non-impulsive sources. request for testing activities by species. LOA application. There are no

TABLE 21—SPECIES-SPECIFIC TAKE REQUESTS FROM MODELING AND POST-MODEL ESTIMATES OF IMPULSIVE AND NON- IMPULSIVE SOURCE EFFECTS FOR ALL TESTING ACTIVITIES

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

North Pacific right whale ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... 0 0 0 0 Humpback whale ...... Central North Pacific ...... 1 0 5 0 California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 44 0 220 0 Blue whale ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... 6 0 30 0 Fin whale ...... Northeast Pacific ...... 2 0 10 0 California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 34 0 170 0 Sei whale ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... 2 0 10 0 Minke whale ...... Alaska ...... 0 0 0 0 California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 18 0 90 0 Gray whale ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... 11 0 55 0 Western North Pacific ...... 0 0 0 0 Sperm whale ...... North Pacific ...... 0 0 0 0 California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 78 0 390 0 Kogia (spp.) ...... California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 106 1 530 5 Killer Whale ...... Alaska Resident ...... 2 0 10 0 Northern Resident ...... 0 0 0 0 West Coast Transient ...... 202 0 1,010 0 East N. Pacific Offshore ...... 22 0 110 0 East N. Pacific Southern Resident ...... 0 0 0 0 Short-finned pilot whale ...... California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 0 0 0 0 Short-beaked common dolphin ...... California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 1,628 0 8,140 0 Bottlenose dolphin ...... California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 0 0 0 0 Striped dolphin ...... California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 14 0 70 0 Pacific white-sided dolphin ...... North Pacific ...... 3 0 15 0 California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 4,869 0 24,345 0 Northern right whale dolphin ...... California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 2,038 0 10,190 0 Risso’s dolphin ...... California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 1,154 0 5,770 0 Harbor porpoise ...... Southeast Alaska ...... 926 0 4,630 0 Northern OR/WA Coast ...... 17,212 15 86,060 75 Northern CA/Southern OR ...... 25,819 23 129,095 115 WA Inland Waters ...... 5,336 6 26,680 30 Dall’s porpoise ...... Alaska ...... 1,200 0 6,000 0 California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 10,139 43 50,695 215 Cuvier’s beaked whale ...... Alaska ...... 15 0 75 0 California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 91 0 455 0 Baird’s beaked whale ...... Alaska ...... 25 0 125 0

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31797

TABLE 21—SPECIES-SPECIFIC TAKE REQUESTS FROM MODELING AND POST-MODEL ESTIMATES OF IMPULSIVE AND NON- IMPULSIVE SOURCE EFFECTS FOR ALL TESTING ACTIVITIES—Continued

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

California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 149 0 745 0 Mesoplodon beaked whales ...... California, Oregon, & Washington ...... 369 0 1,845 0 Steller sea lion ...... Eastern U.S...... 504 0 2,520 0 Guadalupe fur seal ...... San Miguel Island ...... 3 0 15 0 California sea lion ...... U.S. Stock ...... 2,073 0 10,365 0 Northern fur seal ...... Eastern Pacific ...... 1,830 0 9,150 0 California ...... 27 0 135 0 Northern elephant seal ...... California Breeding ...... 1,325 2 6625 10 Harbor seal ...... Southeast Alaska (Clarence Strait) ...... 22 0 110 0 OR/WA Coast ...... 1,655 4 8,275 20 California ...... 0 0 0 0 WA Northern Inland Waters ...... 1,448 14 7,240 70 Southern Puget Sound ...... 196 1 980 5 Hood Canal ...... 59,217 67 296,085 335

Vessel Strike annual rates of recruitment or survival’’ levels of severity or duration), due to the There has never been a vessel strike (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact inherent variability and uncertainty in to marine mammals during any testing finding is based on the lack of likely model inputs, modeled take estimates activities in the Study Area. A detailed adverse effects on annual rates of are never expected to represent the analysis of strike data is contained in recruitment or survival (i.e., population- exact number of animals that will Section 6.7 (Estimated Take of Large level effects). An estimate of the number actually be taken, but rather can provide Whales by Navy Vessel Strike) of the of takes, alone, is not enough (depending on nature of model) a decent LOA application. Testing activities information on which to base an impact relative understanding of the portion of involving vessel movement could determination, as the severity of a population that might be affected and/ mainly occur in the Inland Waters and harassment may vary greatly depending or the number of repeat takes of in Western Behm Canal with some on the context and duration of the individuals on subsequent days that additional testing activities in the behavioral response, many of which might occur. offshore region. The majority of vessels would not be expected to have The Navy’s take request is based on used in the Inland Waters and Western deleterious impacts on the fitness of any their model and post-model analysis. Behm Canal are smaller vessels, which individuals. In determining whether the Generally speaking, and especially with are less likely to be involved in a whale expected takes will have a negligible other factors being equal, the Navy and strike. The Navy’s proposed actions impact, in addition to considering NMFS anticipate more severe effects would not result in any appreciable estimates of the number of marine from takes resulting from exposure to changes in locations or frequency of mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’, NMFS higher received levels (though this is in vessel activity, and there have been no must consider other factors, such as the no way a strictly linear relationship whale strikes during any previous likely nature of any responses (their throughout species, individuals, or testing activities in the Study Area. The intensity, duration, etc.), the context of circumstances) and less severe effects manner in which the Navy has tested any responses (critical reproductive from takes resulting from exposure to would remain consistent with the range time or location, migration, etc.), as well lower received levels. The requested of variability observed over the last as the number and nature (e.g., severity) number of Level B takes does not equate decade so the Navy does not anticipate of estimated Level A harassment takes, to the number of individual animals the vessel strikes would occur within the the number of estimated mortalities, and Navy expects to harass (which is lower), Study Area during testing events. the status of the species. but rather to the instances of take (i.e., Further, takes by injury or mortality The Navy’s specified activities have exposures above the Level B harassment resulting from vessel strike were not been described based on best estimates threshold) that would occur. predicted in the Navy’s analysis. As of the maximum amount of sonar and Additionally, these instances may such, NMFS is not authorizing take by other acoustic source use or detonations represent either a very brief exposure injury or mortality resulting from vessel that the Navy would conduct. There (seconds) or, in some cases, longer strike this proposed rule. However, the may be some flexibility in that the exact durations of exposure within a day. Navy has proposed measures (see number of hours, items, or detonations Depending on the location, duration, Proposed Mitigation) to mitigate may vary from year to year, but take and frequency of activities, along with potential impacts to marine mammals totals are not authorized to exceed the the distribution and movement of from vessel strikes during testing 5-year totals indicated in Tables 17–21. marine mammals, individual animals activities in the Study Area. However, it is also worth noting here may be exposed to impulse or non- that while models that incorporate impulse sounds at or above the Level B Analysis and Negligible Impact realistic environmental, operational, harassment threshold on multiple days. Determination and biological parameters are the best However, the Navy is currently unable Negligible impact is ‘‘an impact way to satisfy our need to quantify to estimate the number of individuals resulting from the specified activity that takes, and are very useful in our that may be taken during training and cannot be reasonably expected to, and is analysis (especially where subsets of testing activities. The model results not reasonably likely to, adversely affect takes can be pared with factors estimate the total number of takes that the species or stock through effects on associated with differential expected may occur to a smaller number of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31798 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

individuals. While the model shows another. Although an animal that avoids are expected to result from exposures that an increased number of exposures the sound source will likely still be above 174 dB. may take place due to an increase in taken in some instances (such as if the Specifically, given a range of events/activities and ordnance, the avoidance results in a missed behavioral responses that may be types and severity of individual opportunity to feed, interruption of classified as Level B harassment, to the responses to training and testing reproductive behaviors, etc.), in other degree that higher received levels are activities are not expected to change. cases avoidance may result in fewer expected to result in more severe It is important to note that, while instances of take than were estimated or behavioral responses, only a small NMFS does not expect that all of the in the takes resulting from exposure to percentage of the anticipated Level B requested and authorized takes (as a lower received level than was harassment from Navy activities might shown in Tables 17–21 and based on the estimated, which could result in a less necessarily be expected to potentially acoustic analysis) will actually occur, severe response. For MFAS/HFAS, the result in more severe responses, we nevertheless base our analysis and Navy provided information (Table 22) especially when the distance from the NID on the maximum number of takes estimating the percentage of behavioral source at which the levels below are requested and authorized (i.e., not on a harassment that would occur within the received is considered (see Table 22). lower number of takes anticipated). 6-dB bins (without considering Marine mammals are able to discern the mitigation or avoidance). As mentioned distance of a given sound source, and Behavioral Harassment above, an animal’s exposure to a higher given other equal factors (including As discussed previously in this received level is more likely to result in received level), they have been reported document, marine mammals can a behavioral response that is more likely to respond more to sounds that are respond to MFAS/HFAS in many to adversely affect the health of the closer (DeRuiter et al., 2013). Further, different ways, a subset of which animal. As illustrated below, the the estimated number of responses do qualifies as harassment (see Behavioral majority (about 73 percent, at least for not reflect either the duration or context Harassment Section). One thing that the hull-mounted sonar, which is of those anticipated responses, some of Level B harassment take estimates do responsible for most of the sonar takes) which will be of very short duration, not take into account is the fact that of calculated takes from MFAS result and other factors should be considered most marine mammals will likely avoid from exposures between 156 dB and 162 when predicting how the estimated strong sound sources to one extent or dB. Less than 0.5 percent of the takes takes may affect individual fitness.

TABLE 22—NON-IMPULSIVE RANGES IN 6-DB BINS AND PERCENTAGE OF BEHAVIORAL HARASSMENTS

Sonar Bin MF1 (e.g., SQS–53; Sonar Bin MF4 (e.g., AQS–22; Sonar Bin MF5 (e.g., SSQ–62; ASW Hull Mounted Sonar) ASW Dipping Sonar) ASW Sonobuoy) Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Received Level Distance at which behavioral Distance at which behavioral Distance at which behavioral levels occur within harassments levels occur within harassments levels occur within harassments radius of source occurring at radius of source occurring at radius of source occurring at (m) given levels (m) given levels (m) given levels

Low Frequency Cetaceans 120 ≤SPL <126 ...... 178,750–156,450 0.00 100,000–92,200 0.00 22,800–15,650 0.00 126 ≤SPL <132 ...... 156,450–147,500 0.00 92,200–55,050 0.11 15,650–11,850 0.05 132 ≤SPL <138 ...... 147,500–103,700 0.21 55,050–46,550 1.08 11,850–6,950 2.84 138 ≤SPL <144 ...... 103,700–97,950 0.33 46,550–15,150 35.69 6,950–3,600 16.04 144 ≤SPL <150 ...... 97,950–55,050 13.73 15,150–5,900 26.40 3,600–1,700 33.63 150 ≤SPL <156 ...... 55,050–49,900 5.28 5,900–2,700 17.43 1,700–250 44.12 156 ≤SPL <162 ...... 49,900–10,700 72.62 2,700–1,500 9.99 250–100 2.56 162 ≤SPL <168 ...... 10,700–4,200 6.13 1,500–200 9.07 100–<50 0.76 168 ≤SPL <174 ...... 4,200–1,850 1.32 200–100 0.18 <50 0.00 174 ≤SPL <180 ...... 1,850–850 0.30 100–<50 0.05 <50 0.00 180 ≤SPL <186 ...... 850–400 0.07 <50 0.00 <50 0.00 186 ≤SPL <192 ...... 400–200 0.01 <50 0.00 <50 0.00 192 ≤SPL <198 ...... 200–100 0.00 <50 0.00 <50 0.00 Mid Frequency Cetaceans 120 ≤SPL <126 ...... 179,400–156,450 0.00 100,000–92,200 0.00 23,413–16,125 0.00 126 ≤SPL <132 ...... 156,450–147,500 0.00 92,200–55,050 0.11 16,125–11,500 0.06 132 ≤SPL <138 ...... 147,500–103,750 0.21 55,050–46,550 1.08 11,500–6,738 2.56 138 ≤SPL <144 ...... 103,750–97,950 0.33 46,550–15,150 35.69 6,738–3,825 13.35 144 ≤SPL <150 ...... 97,950–55,900 13.36 15,150–5,900 26.40 3,825–1,713 37.37 150 ≤SPL <156 ...... 55,900–49,900 6.12 5,900–2,700 17.43 1,713–250 42.85 156 ≤SPL <162 ...... 49,900–11,450 71.18 2,700–1,500 9.99 250–150 1.87 162 ≤SPL <168 ...... 11,450–4,350 7.01 1,500–200 9.07 150–<50 1.93 168 ≤SPL <174 ...... 4,350–1,850 1.42 200–100 0.18 <50 0.00 174 ≤SPL <180 ...... 1,850–850 0.29 100–<50 0.05 <50 0.00 180 ≤SPL <186 ...... 850–400 0.07 <50 0.00 <50 0.00 186 ≤SPL <192 ...... 400–200 0.01 <50 0.00 <50 0.00 192 ≤SPL <198 ...... 200–100 0.00 <50 0.00 <50 0.00 Notes: (1) ASW = anti-submarine warfare, m = meters, SPL = sound pressure level; (2) Odontocete behavioral response function is also used for high-frequency cetaceans, phocid seals, otariid seals and sea lions, and sea otters.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31799

Although the Navy has been duration of the exercise. Additionally, sources used have center frequencies monitoring the effects of MFAS/HFAS the Navy does not necessarily operate between 3.5 and 8 kHz and the other on marine mammals since 2006, and active sonar the entire time during an unidentified MF sources are, by research on the effects of MFAS is exercise. While it is certainly possible definition, less than 10 kHz, which advancing, our understanding of exactly that these sorts of exercises could suggests that TTS induced by any of how marine mammals in the Study Area overlap with individual marine these MF sources would be in a will respond to MFAS/HFAS is still mammals multiple days in a row at frequency band somewhere between growing. The Navy has submitted levels above those anticipated to result approximately 2 and 20 kHz. There are reports from more than 60 major in a take, because of the factors fewer hours of HF source use and the exercises across Navy range complexes mentioned above, it is considered not to sounds would attenuate more quickly, that indicate no behavioral disturbance be likely for the majority of takes, does plus they have lower source levels, but was observed. One cannot conclude not mean that a behavioral response is if an animal were to incur TTS from from these results that marine mammals necessarily sustained for multiple days, these sources, it would cover a higher were not harassed from MFAS/HFAS, as and still necessitates the consideration frequency range (sources are between 20 a portion of animals within the area of of likely duration and context to assess and 100 kHz, which means that TTS concern were not seen (especially those any effects on the individual’s fitness. could range up to 200 kHz; however, HF more cryptic, deep-diving species, such Durations for non-impulsive activities systems are typically used less as beaked whales or Kogia spp.), the full utilizing tactical sonar sources vary and frequently and for shorter time periods series of behaviors that would more are fully described in Appendix A of the than surface ship and aircraft MF accurately show an important change is January 2014 DEIS/OEIS. ASW training systems, so TTS from these sources is not typically seen (i.e., only the surface and testing exercises using MFAS/HFAS even less likely). TTS from explosives behaviors are observed), and some of the generally last for 2–16 hours, and may would be broadband. Vocalization data non-biologist watchstanders might not have intervals of non-activity in for each species, which would inform be well-qualified to characterize between. Because of the need to train in how TTS might specifically interfere behaviors. However, one can say that a large variety of situations, the Navy with communications with conspecifics, the animals that were observed did not does not typically conduct successive was provided in the LOA application. respond in any of the obviously more MTEs or other ASW exercises in the 2. Degree of the shift (i.e., by how severe ways, such as panic, aggression, same locations. Given the average length many dB the sensitivity of the hearing or anti-predator response. of ASW exercises (times of continuous is reduced)—Generally, both the degree sonar use) and typical vessel speed, of TTS and the duration of TTS will be Diel Cycle combined with the fact that the majority greater if the marine mammal is exposed As noted previously, many animals of the cetaceans in the Study Area to a higher level of energy (which would perform vital functions, such as feeding, would not likely remain in an area for occur when the peak dB level is higher resting, traveling, and socializing on a successive days, it is unlikely that an or the duration is longer). The threshold diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Behavioral animal would be exposed to MFAS/ for the onset of TTS was discussed reactions to noise exposure (when HFAS at levels likely to result in a previously in this document. An animal taking place in a biologically important substantive response that would then be would have to approach closer to the context, such as disruption of critical carried on for more than one day or on source or remain in the vicinity of the life functions, displacement, or successive days. There are no MTEs sound source appreciably longer to avoidance of important habitat) are proposed for NWTT activities. increase the received SEL, which would more likely to be significant if they last Most planned explosive exercises are be difficult considering the Lookouts more than one diel cycle or recur on of a short duration (1–6 hours). and the nominal speed of an active subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007). Although explosive exercises may sonar vessel (10–15 knots). In the TTS Consequently, a behavioral response sometimes be conducted in the same studies, some using exposures of almost lasting less than one day and not general areas repeatedly, because of an hour in duration or up to 217 SEL, recurring on subsequent days is not their short duration and the fact that most of the TTS induced was 15 dB or considered severe unless it could they are in the open ocean and animals less, though Finneran et al. (2007) directly affect reproduction or survival can easily move away, it is similarly induced 43 dB of TTS with a 64-second (Southall et al., 2007). Note that there is unlikely that animals would be exposed exposure to a 20 kHz source. However, a difference between multiple-day for long, continuous amounts of time. MFAS emits a nominal ping every 50 substantive behavioral reactions and seconds, and incurring those levels of TTS multiple-day anthropogenic activities. TTS is highly unlikely. For example, just because at-sea As mentioned previously, TTS can 3. Duration of TTS (recovery time)— exercises last for multiple days does not last from a few minutes to days, be of In the TTS laboratory studies, some necessarily mean that individual varying degree, and occur across various using exposures of almost an hour in animals are either exposed to those frequency bandwidths, all of which duration or up to 217 SEL, almost all exercises for multiple days or, further, determine the severity of the impacts on individuals recovered within 1 day (or exposed in a manner resulting in a the affected individual, which can range less, often in minutes), although in one sustained multiple day substantive from minor to more severe. The TTS study (Finneran et al., 2007), recovery behavioral response. Large multi-day sustained by an animal is primarily took 4 days. Navy exercises typically include assets classified by three characteristics: Based on the range of degree and that travel at high speeds (typically 10– 1. Frequency—Available data (of mid- duration of TTS reportedly induced by 15 knots, or higher) and likely cover frequency hearing specialists exposed to exposures to non-pulse sounds of large areas that are relatively far from mid- or high-frequency sounds; Southall energy higher than that to which free- shore, in addition to the fact that marine et al., 2007) suggest that most TTS swimming marine mammals in the field mammals are moving as well, which occurs in the frequency range of the are likely to be exposed during MFAS/ would make it unlikely that the same source up to one octave higher than the HFAS training exercises in the Study animal could remain in the immediate source (with the maximum TTS at 1⁄2 Area, it is unlikely that marine vicinity of the ship for the entire octave above). The more powerful MF mammals would ever sustain a TTS

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31800 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

from MFAS that alters their sensitivity it would likely not mask the entirety of that will be conducted and the nature of by more than 20 dB for more than a few any particular vocalization, the exercises—which do not typically days (and any incident of TTS would communication series, or other critical include the use of multiple hull- likely be far less severe due to the short auditory cue, because the signal length, mounted sonar sources—we believe that duration of the majority of the exercises frequency, and duty cycle of the MFAS/ the probability is small that this will and the speed of a typical vessel). Also, HFAS signal does not perfectly mimic occur. Furthermore, given that there has for the same reasons discussed in the the characteristics of any marine never been a stranding in the Study Diel Cycle section, and because of the mammal’s vocalizations. Area associated with sonar use and short distance within which animals based on the number of occurrences PTS, Injury, or Mortality would need to approach the sound where strandings have been definitively source, it is unlikely that animals would NMFS believes that many marine associated with military sonar versus be exposed to the levels necessary to mammals would deliberately avoid the number of hours of active sonar induce TTS in subsequent time periods exposing themselves to the received training that have been conducted, we such that their recovery is impeded. levels of active sonar necessary to believe that the probability is small that Additionally, though the frequency induce injury by moving away from or this will occur as a result of the Navy’s range of TTS that marine mammals at least modifying their path to avoid a proposed training and testing activities. might sustain would overlap with some close approach. Additionally, in the Lastly, an active sonar shutdown of the frequency ranges of their unlikely event that an animal protocol for strandings involving live vocalization types, the frequency range approaches the sonar vessel at a close animals milling in the water minimizes of TTS from MFAS (the source from distance, NMFS believes that the the chances that these types of events which TTS would most likely be mitigation measures (i.e., shutdown/ turn into mortalities. sustained because the higher source powerdown zones for MFAS/HFAS) As stated previously, there have been level and slower attenuation make it would typically ensure that animals no recorded Navy vessel strikes of any more likely that an animal would be would not be exposed to injurious levels marine mammals during training or exposed to a higher received level) of sound. As discussed previously, the testing in the NWTT Study Area to date, would not usually span the entire Navy utilizes both aerial (when nor were takes by injury or mortality frequency range of one vocalization available) and passive acoustic resulting from vessel strike predicted in type, much less span all types of monitoring (during all ASW exercises) the Navy’s acoustic effects analysis. in addition to watchstanders on vessels vocalizations or other critical auditory Species/Group Specific Analysis cues. If impaired, marine mammals to detect marine mammals for would typically be aware of their mitigation implementation. In the discussions below, the impairment and are sometimes able to If a marine mammal is able to ‘‘acoustic analysis’’ refers to the Navy’s implement behaviors to compensate (see approach a surface vessel within the model results and post-model analysis. Acoustic Masking or Communication distance necessary to incur PTS, the The Navy performed a quantitative Impairment section), though these likely speed of the vessel (nominal 10– analysis to estimate the number of compensations may incur energetic 15 knots) would make it very difficult marine mammals that could be harassed costs. for the animal to remain in range long by acoustic sources or explosives used enough to accumulate enough energy to during Navy training and testing Acoustic Masking or Communication result in more than a mild case of PTS. activities. Inputs to the quantitative Impairment As mentioned previously and in relation analysis included marine mammal Masking only occurs during the time to TTS, the likely consequences to the density estimates; marine mammal of the signal (and potential secondary health of an individual that incurs PTS depth occurrence distributions; arrivals of indirect rays), versus TTS, can range from mild to more serious, oceanographic and environmental data; which continues beyond the duration of depending upon the degree of PTS and marine mammal hearing data; and the signal. Standard MFAS nominally the frequency band it is in, and many criteria and thresholds for levels of pings every 50 seconds for hull- animals are able to compensate for the potential effects. Marine mammal mounted sources. For the sources for shift, although it may include energetic densities used in the model may which we know the pulse length, most costs. overestimate actual densities when are significantly shorter than hull- As discussed previously, marine species data is limited and for species mounted active sonar, on the order of mammals (especially beaked whales) with seasonal migrations (e.g., several microseconds to tens of could potentially respond to MFAS at a humpbacks, blue whales, sei whales, microseconds. For hull-mounted active received level lower than the injury gray whales). The quantitative analysis sonar, though some of the vocalizations threshold in a manner that indirectly consists of computer modeled estimates that marine mammals make are less results in the animals stranding. The and a post-model analysis (which than one second long, there is only a 1 exact mechanism of this potential considers the potential for avoidance in 50 chance that they would occur response, behavioral or physiological, is and highly effective mitigation to exactly when the ping was received, and not known. When naval exercises have prevent Level A harassments) to when vocalizations are longer than one been associated with strandings in the determine the number of potential second, only parts of them are masked. past, it has typically been when three or harassments. The model calculates Alternately, when the pulses are only more vessels are operating sound energy propagation from sonars, several microseconds long, the majority simultaneously, in the presence of a other active acoustic sources, and of most animals’ vocalizations would strong surface duct, and in areas of explosives during naval activities; the not be masked. Masking effects from constricted channels, semi-enclosed sound or impulse received by animat MFAS/HFAS are expected to be areas, and/or steep bathymetry. A dosimeters representing marine minimal. If masking or communication combination of these environmental and mammals distributed in the area around impairment were to occur briefly, it operational parameters is not present in the modeled activity; and whether the would be in the frequency range of the NWTT action. When this is sound or impulse received by a marine MFAS, which overlaps with some combined with consideration of the mammal exceeds the thresholds for marine mammal vocalizations; however, number of hours of active sonar training effects. The model estimates are then

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31801

further analyzed and adjusted to (impulse) sources associated with These exposure estimates represent a consider animal avoidance and training and testing activities, which limited number of takes relative to implementation of mitigation measures, would exceed the current impact population estimates for all mysticete resulting in final estimates of effects due thresholds (Table 4). Only harbor stocks in the Study Area (Table 9). to Navy training and testing. porpoise, Dall’s porpoise, and Northern When the numbers of behavioral takes Although this more complex elephant seal are predicted to have are compared to the estimated stock computer modeling approach accounts exposures that would exceed the current abundance and if one assumes that each for various environmental factors impact thresholds for explosives, as take happens to a separate animal, less affecting acoustic propagation, the presented in the following subsections. than 20 percent of each of these stocks current software tools do not consider The analysis below may in some cases would be behaviorally harassed during the likelihood that a marine mammal (e.g., mysticetes, porpoises, pinnipeds) the course of a year. More likely, fewer would attempt to avoid repeated address species collectively if they individuals would be taken, but a subset exposures to a sound or avoid an area occupy the same functional hearing would be taken more than one time per of intense activity where a training or group (i.e., low, mid, and high- year. testing event may be focused. frequency cetaceans and pinnipeds in Level B harassment takes are Additionally, the software tools do not water), have similar hearing capabilities, anticipated to be in the form of TTS and consider the implementation of and/or are known to generally behavioral reactions and no injurious mitigation (e.g., stopping sonar behaviorally respond similarly to takes of humpback, blue, fin, or sei transmissions when a marine mammal acoustic stressors. Where there are whales from sonar and other active is within a certain distance of a ship or meaningful differences between species acoustic stressors or explosives are range clearance prior to detonations). In in anticipated individual responses to expected. The majority of acoustic both of these situations, naval activities activities, impact of expected take on effects to mysticetes from sonar and are modeled as though an activity the population due to differences in other active sound sources during would occur regardless of proximity to population status, or impacts on habitat, training activities would be primarily marine mammals and without any they will either be described within the from anti-submarine warfare events horizontal movement by the animal section or the species will be included involving surface ships and hull away from the sound source or human as a separate sub-section. See the Brief mounted sonar. Most Level B activities (e.g., without accounting for Background on Sound section earlier in harassments to mysticetes from sonar would result from received levels less likely animal avoidance). The initial this proposed rule for a description of model results overestimate the number than 158 dB SPL. Recovery from a marine mammal functional hearing of takes (as described previously). The threshold shift (TTS) can take a few groups as originally designated by final step of the quantitative analysis of minutes to a few days (i.e., there is Southall et al. (2007). acoustic effects is to consider the recovery), depending on the severity of implementation of mitigation and the Mysticetes—The Navy’s acoustic the initial shift; however, NMFS does possibility that marine mammals would analysis predicts that 184 instances of not anticipate TTS of a long duration or avoid continued or repeated injurious Level B harassment of mysticete whales severe degree to occur as a result of sound exposures, thus, reducing Level may occur in the Study Area each year exposure to MFAS/HFAS in the Study A takes. All adjusted effects resulting from sonar and other active acoustic Area. Threshold shifts do not from likely avoidance behaviors and stressors during training and testing necessarily affect all hearing frequencies implementation of highly effective activities. Species-specific Level B take equally, so some threshold shifts may mitigation are quantified (added) as estimates are as follows: 57 humpback not interfere with an animal’s of Level B harassment (TTS) and are part whales (Central North Pacific and biologically relevant sounds. Most low- of the requested annual effects to marine California/Oregon/Washington stocks); frequency (mysticetes) cetaceans mammals. 11 blue whales (Eastern North Pacific observed in studies usually avoided It is important to note that stock); 61 fin whales (Northeast Pacific sound sources at levels of less than or adjustments to take estimates as a result and California/Oregon/Washington equal to 160 dB re 1mPa. Mysticetes that of implemented mitigation were only stocks); 2 sei whales (Eastern North are exposed to sonar and other active applied to those events having a very Pacific stock); 36 minke whales (Alaska acoustic sources may react by alerting, high likelihood of detecting marine and California/Oregon/Washington ignoring the stimulus, changing their mammals. It is also important to note stocks); and 17 gray whales (Eastern behaviors or vocalizations, or avoiding that the Navy’s take estimates represent North Pacific and Western North Pacific the area by swimming away or diving the total number of takes and not the stocks). Based on the distribution (Richardson, 1995; Nowacek, 2007; number of individuals taken, as a single information presented in the LOA Southall et al., 2007). individual may be taken multiple times application, it is highly unlikely that Specific to U.S. Navy systems using over the course of a year. NMFS North Pacific right whales would be low frequency sound, studies were provided input to the Navy on this encountered in the Study Area during undertaken in 1997–98 pursuant to the process and the Navy’s qualitative events involving use of sonar and other Navy’s Low Frequency Sound Scientific analysis is described in detail in active acoustic sources. The acoustic Research Program. These studies found Chapter 6 of their LOA application. analysis did not predict any takes of only short-term responses to low (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ North Pacific right whales, and NMFS is frequency sound by mysticetes (fin, incidental/military.htm). not authorizing any takes of this species. blue, and humpback), including changes Predicted harassment of marine Of these species, humpback (This in vocal activity and avoidance of the mammals from sonar and other active species is being considered by NMFS for source vessel (Clark, 2001; Miller et al., acoustic sources and explosions during removal or down-listing from the U.S. 2000; Croll et al., 2001; Fristrup et al., annual training and testing activities are Endangered Species List [NMFS, 2009, 2003; Nowacek et al., 2007). Baleen shown in Tables 18–21. The acoustic 2013a; Bettridge et al. 2015; NOAA, whales exposed to moderate low- analysis predicts the majority of marine 2015b]), blue, fin, and sei whales are frequency signals demonstrated no mammal species in the Study Area listed as endangered under the ESA and variation in foraging activity (Croll et would not be exposed to explosive depleted under the MMPA. al., 2001). Low-frequency signals of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31802 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean individuals exposed to a received SPL additional biologically important areas Climate sound source were not found to of 120 dB re 1 mPa or greater, with an are identified by NMFS after finalization affect dive times of humpback whales in increasing probability of reaction with of this rule and the Navy’s NWTT EIS/ Hawaiian waters (Frankel and Clark, increased received level as OEIS, the Navy and NMFS will use the 2000). demonstrated in Melco´n et al. (2012). Adaptive Management process to assess Specific to mid-frequency sounds, High-frequency systems are not whether any additional mitigation studies by Melco´n et al. (2012) in the within mysticetes’ ideal hearing range should be considered in those areas. Southern California Bight found that the and it is unlikely that they would cause Consequently, the NWTT activities are likelihood of blue whale low-frequency a significant behavioral reaction not expected to adversely impact annual calling (usually associated with feeding resulting in takes. rates of recruitment or survival of behavior) decreased with an increased Overall, the number of predicted mysticete whales. behavioral reactions is low and level of mid-frequency sonar, beginning There has never been a vessel strike occasional behavioral reactions are at a SPL of approximately 110–120 dB to a whale during any active training or unlikely to cause long-term re 1 mPa. However, it is not known testing activities in the Study Area. A consequences for individual animals or whether the lower rates of calling detailed analysis of strike data is populations. The implementation of actually indicated a reduction in feeding contained in Chapter 6 (Section 6.7, mitigation and the sightability of behavior or social contact since the Estimated Take of Large Whales by mysticetes (due to their large size) study used data from remotely Navy Vessel Strike) of the LOA reduces the potential for a significant application. The Navy and NMFS do not deployed, passive acoustic monitoring behavioral reaction or a threshold shift anticipate vessel strikes to any marine buoys. Preliminary results from the to occur. Furthermore, there is no mammals during training or testing 2010–2011 field season of an ongoing designated critical habitat for mysticetes activities within the Study Area, nor behavioral response study in Southern in the NWTT Study Area. There are also were takes by injury or mortality California waters indicated that in some no known specific breeding or calving resulting from vessel strike predicted in cases and at low received levels, tagged areas for mysticete species within the the Navy’s analysis. Therefore, NMFS is blue whales responded to mid- Study Area. Some biologically- not authorizing mysticete takes (by frequency sonar but that those responses important mysticete feeding and injury or mortality) from vessel strikes were mild and there was a quick return migration areas (Northern Puget Sound during the 5-year period of the NWTT to their baseline activity (Southall et al., Feeding Area for gray whales; regulations. 2012b). Blue whales responded to a Northbound Migration Phase A for gray Sperm Whales—The Navy’s acoustic mid-frequency sound source, with a whales; Northbound Migration Phase B analysis predicts that 159 instances of source level between 160 and 210 dB re for gray whales; Potential Presence Level B harassment of sperm whales 1 mPa at 1 m and a received sound level Migration Area for gray whales; (California/Oregon/Washington stock) up to 160 dB re 1 mPa, by exhibiting Northern Washington Feeding Area for may occur in the Study Area each year generalized avoidance responses and humpback whales; Stonewall and from sonar or other active acoustic changes to dive behavior during Heceta Bank Feeding Area for stressors during training and testing controlled exposure experiments (CEE) humpback whales; Cape Blanco and activities. These Level B takes are (Goldbogen et al., 2013). However, Orford Reef Feeding Area for gray anticipated to be in the form of TTS and reactions were not consistent across whale; and Point St. George Feeding behavioral reactions and no injurious individuals based on received sound Area for gray whales) may overlap takes of sperm whales from sonar and levels alone, and likely were the result slightly with the Study Area. However, other active acoustic stressors or of a complex interaction between sound a review of the BIAs for humpback explosives are requested or proposed for exposure factors such as proximity to whales and gray whales against areas authorization. Sperm whales have sound source and sound type (mid- where most acoustic activities are shown resilience to acoustic and human frequency sonar simulation vs. pseudo- conducted in the Study Area (especially disturbance, although they may react to random noise), environmental those that involve ASW hull-mounted sound sources and activities within a conditions, and behavioral state. Surface sonar, sonobuoys, and use of explosive few kilometers. Sperm whales that are feeding whales did not show a change munitions) identified that there is no exposed to activities that involve the in behavior during CEEs, but deep spatial overlap. The overall risk to use of sonar and other active acoustic feeding and non-feeding whales showed species in these areas has been sources may alert, ignore the stimulus, temporary reactions that quickly abated preliminarily determined to be low or avoid the area by swimming away or after sound exposure. Distances of the biologically insignificant, in part due to diving, or display aggressive behavior sound source from the whales during the generally infrequent, temporally and (Richardson, 1995; Nowacek, 2007; CEEs were sometimes less than a mile. spatially variable, and extreme offshore Southall et al., 2007). Some (but not all) Furthermore, the more dramatic nature of sonar-related activities and sperm whale vocalizations might reactions reported by Goldbogen et al. sound propagation relative to the more overlap with the MFAS/HFAS TTS (2013) were from non-sonar like signals, coastally distributed biologically frequency range, which could a pseudorandom noise that could likely important areas; the probability that temporarily decrease an animal’s have been a novel signal to blue whales. propagated receive levels within these sensitivity to the calls of conspecifics or The preliminary findings from areas would be relatively low in terms returning echolocation signals. Goldbogen et al. (2013) and Melco´n et of behavioral criteria (Debich et al., However, as noted previously, NMFS al. (2012) are consistent with the Navy’s 2014; U.S. Department of the Navy, does not anticipate TTS of a long criteria and thresholds for predicting 2013d); the likelihood of TTS or PTS duration or severe degree to occur as a behavioral effects to mysticetes from sound levels being extremely low; and result of exposure to MFAS/HFAS. sonar and other active acoustic sources the overall application of Navy Recovery from a threshold shift (TTS) used in the quantitative acoustic effects mitigation procedures for marine can take a few minutes to a few days, analysis for NWTT. The behavioral mammals sighted within prescribed depending on the exposure duration, response function predicts a probability mitigation zones if such activities were sound exposure level, and the of a substantive behavioral reaction for to occur in or near these areas. If magnitude of the initial shift, with

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31803

larger threshold shifts and longer in the Navy’s analysis. Therefore, NMFS the initial shift, with larger threshold exposure durations requiring longer is not authorizing sperm whale takes (by shifts and longer exposure durations recovery times (Finneran et al., 2005; injury or mortality) from vessel strikes requiring longer recovery times Mooney et al., 2009a; Mooney et al., during the 5-year period of the NWTT (Finneran et al., 2005; Mooney et al., 2009b; Finneran and Schlundt, 2010). regulations. 2009a; Mooney et al., 2009b; Finneran Large threshold shifts are not Porpoises—The Navy’s acoustic and Schlundt, 2010). More severe shifts anticipated for these activities because analysis predicts that 15,071 instances may not fully recover and thus would be of the unlikelihood that animals will of Level B harassment of Dall’s considered PTS. However, large degrees remain within the ensonified area (due porpoises (Alaska and California/ of PTS are not anticipated for these to the short duration of the majority of Oregon/Washington stocks) and 138,225 activities because of the unlikelihood exercises, the speed of the vessels, and instances of Level B harassment of that animals will remain within the the short distance within which the harbor porpoises (Southeast Alaska, ensonified area (due to the short animal would need to approach the Northern Oregon/Washington Coast, duration of the majority of exercises, the sound source) at high levels for the Northern California/Southern Oregon, speed of the vessels, and the short duration necessary to induce larger and Washington Inland Waters stocks) distance within which the animal threshold shifts. Threshold shifts do not (mainly behavioral reaction) may occur would need to approach the sound necessarily affect all hearing frequencies each year from sonar and other active source) at high levels for the duration equally, so some threshold shifts may acoustic stressors and explosives necessary to induce larger threshold not interfere with an animal’s hearing of associated with training and testing shifts. Threshold shifts do not biologically relevant sounds. No sperm activities in the Study Area. These necessarily affect all hearing frequencies whales are predicted to be exposed to estimates represent the total number of equally, so some threshold shifts may MFAS/HFAS sound levels associated exposures and not necessarily the not interfere with an animal hearing with PTS or injury. number of individuals exposed, as a biologically relevant sounds. The likely The majority of Level B takes are single individual may be exposed consequences to the health of an expected to be in the form of mild multiple times over the course of a year. individual that incurs PTS can range responses. Relative to the population Behavioral responses can range from a from mild to more serious, depending size (stock abundance estimates are mild orienting response, or a shifting of upon the degree of PTS and the shown in Table 9), this activity is attention, to flight and panic frequency band it is in, and many anticipated to result only in a limited (Richardson, 1995; Nowacek, 2007; animals are able to compensate for the number of Level B harassment takes. Southall et al., 2007). shift, although it may include energetic When the number of behavioral takes is Acoustic analysis (factoring in the costs. Furthermore, likely avoidance of compared to the estimated stock post-model correction for avoidance and intense activity and sound coupled with mitigation) also predicted that 47 Dall’s abundance and if one assumes that each mitigation measures would further porpoises and 45 harbor porpoises take happens to a separate animal, less reduce the potential for severe PTS might be exposed to sound levels likely than 17 percent of the California/ exposures to occur. If a marine mammal to result in PTS or injury (Level A Oregon/Washington stock would be is able to approach a surface vessel harassment) from mainly sonar and behaviorally harassed during the course within the distance necessary to incur other active acoustic stressors, and of a year. More likely, fewer individuals PTS, the likely speed of the vessel explosives. In the case of all explosive would be taken, but a subset would be (nominal 10–15 knots) would make it taken more than one time per year. exercises, it is worth noting that the very difficult for the animal to remain Overall, the number of predicted amount of explosive and acoustic in range long enough to accumulate behavioral reactions are unlikely to energy entering the water, and therefore enough energy to result in more than a cause long-term consequences for the effects on marine mammals, may be mild case of PTS. individual animals or populations. The overestimated, as many explosions NWTT activities are not expected to actually occur upon impact with above- Harbor porpoises have been observed occur in an area/time of specific water targets. However, sources such as to be especially sensitive to human importance for reproductive, feeding, or these were modeled as exploding at 1- activity (Tyack et al., 2011; Pirotta et al., other known critical behaviors for meter depth. Furthermore, in the case of 2012). The information currently sperm whales. Consequently, the all explosive exercises, the exclusion available regarding harbor porpoises activities are not expected to adversely zones are considerably larger than the suggests a very low threshold level of impact annual rates of recruitment or estimated distance at which an animal response for both captive (Kastelein et survival of sperm whales. Sperm whales would be exposed to injurious sounds al., 2000; Kastelein et al., 2005) and are listed as depleted under the MMPA or pressure waves. wild (Johnston, 2002) animals. Southall and endangered under the ESA; Animals that do experience hearing et al. (2007) concluded that harbor however, there is no designated critical loss (TTS or PTS) may have reduced porpoises are likely sensitive to a wide habitat in the Study Area. ability to detect relevant sounds such as range of anthropogenic sounds at low There has never been a vessel strike predators, prey, or social vocalizations. received levels (∼90 to 120 dB). to a sperm whale during any active Some porpoise vocalizations might Research and observations of harbor training or testing activities in the Study overlap with the MFAS/HFAS TTS porpoises for other locations show that Area. A detailed analysis of strike data frequency range (2–20 kHz). It is worth this small species is wary of human is contained in Chapter 6 (Section 6.7, noting that TTS in the range induced by activity and will display profound Estimated Take of Large Whales by MFAS/HFAS would reduce sensitivity avoidance behavior for anthropogenic Navy Vessel Strike) of the LOA in the band that killer whales (a sound sources in many situations at application. The Navy and NMFS do not potential predator) click and echolocate levels down to 120 dB re 1 mPa anticipate vessel strikes to any marine in. Recovery from a threshold shift (Southall, 2007). Harbor porpoises mammals during training or testing (TTS; partial hearing loss) can take a routinely avoid and swim away from activities within the Study Area, nor few minutes to a few days, depending large motorized vessels (Barlow et al., were takes by injury or mortality on the exposure duration, sound 1988; Evans et al., 1994; Palka and resulting from vessel strikes predicted exposure level, and the magnitude of Hammond, 2001; Polacheck and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31804 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Thorpe, 1990). The vaquita, which is 120 dB or higher MFAS/HFAS will be continue to inhabit the waters of Hood closely related to the harbor porpoise in taken by Level B behavioral Canal (including Dabob Bay), which has the Study Area, appears to avoid large harassment), which essentially makes for decades served as the location for vessels at about 2,995 ft. (913 m) the ensonified area of effects training and testing events using sonar (Jaramillo-Legorreta et al., 1999). The significantly larger than for the other and other active acoustic sources. assumption is that the harbor porpoise species. However, the fact that the Considering the information above, would respond similarly to large Navy threshold is a step function and not a the predicted effects to Dall’s and harbor vessels, possibly prior to curve (and assuming uniform density) porpoises are unlikely to cause long- commencement of sonar or explosive means that the vast majority of the takes term consequences for individual activity (i.e., pre-activity avoidance). occur in the very lowest levels that animals or the population. The NWTT Harbor porpoises may startle and exceed the threshold (it is estimated that activities are not expected to occur in an temporarily leave the immediate area of approximately 80 percent of the takes area/time of specific importance for the training or testing until after the are from exposures to 120 dB to 126 dB), reproductive, feeding, or other known event ends. Since a large proportion of which means that anticipated critical behaviors for Dall’s and harbor training and testing activities occur behavioral effects are not expected to be porpoises. Pacific stocks of Dall’s and within harbor porpoise habitat in the severe (e.g., temporary avoidance). As harbor porpoises are not listed as Study Area and given their very low mentioned above, an animal’s exposure depleted under the MMPA. behavioral threshold, predicted effects to a higher received level is more likely Consequently, the activities are not are more likely than with most other to result in a behavioral response that is expected to adversely impact annual odontocetes, especially at closer ranges more likely to adversely affect the rates of recruitment or survival of (within a few kilometers). Since this health of an animal. ASW training and porpoises. species is typically found in nearshore testing exercises using MFAS/HFAS Pygmy and Dwarf Sperm Whales and inshore habitats, resident animals generally last for 2–16 hours, and may (Kogia spp.)—Due to the difficulty in that are present throughout the Study have intervals of non-activity in differentiating these two species at sea, Area could receive multiple exposures between. In addition, the Navy does not an estimate of the effects on the two over a short period of time year round. typically conduct successive MTEs (no species have been combined. The As mentioned earlier in the Analysis MTEs are proposed for NWTT) or other Navy’s acoustic analysis predicts that and Negligible Impact Determination ASW exercises in the same locations. 179 instances of Level B harassment section, we anticipate more severe Given the average length of ASW (TTS and behavioral reaction) of the effects from takes when animals are exercises (times of continuous sonar California/Oregon/Washington stock of Kogia spp. may occur each year from exposed to higher received levels. use) and typical vessel speed, combined sonar and other active acoustic stressors Animals that do not exhibit a significant with the fact that the majority of the associated with training and testing behavioral reaction would likely recover harbor porpoises in the Study Area activities in the Study Area. The Navy’s from any incurred costs, which reduces would not likely remain in an area for acoustics analysis (factoring in the post- the likelihood of long-term successive days, it is unlikely that an model correction for avoidance and consequences, such as reduced fitness, animal would be exposed to MFAS/ mitigation) also indicates that 1 for the individual or population. HFAS at levels likely to result in a exposure of Kogia to sound levels from substantive response (e.g., interruption Stock abundance estimates for Dall’s non-impulsive acoustic sources likely to of feeding) that would then be carried and harbor porpoises are shown in result in level A harassment (PTS) may on for more than one day or on Table 9. When the numbers of takes for occur during testing activities in the Dall’s porpoise are compared to the successive days. Thompson et al. (2013) Study Area. Stock abundance estimates estimated stock abundances and if one showed that seismic surveys conducted for California/Oregon/Washington assumes that each take happens to a over a 10-day period in the North Sea stocks of Kogia spp. are shown in Table separate animal, approximately 30 did not result in the broad-scale 9. Relative to population size these percent of the Alaska stock and less displacement of harbor porpoises away represent only a limited number of takes than 2 percent of the California/Oregon/ from preferred habitat. The harbor if one assumes that each take happens Washington stock would be harassed porpoises were observed to leave the to a separate animal. More likely, fewer (behaviorally) during the course of a area at the onset of survey, but returned individuals would be taken, but a subset year. More likely, fewer individuals are within a few hours, and the overall would be taken more than one time per harassed, but a subset are harassed more response of the porpoises decreased year. than one time during the course of the over the 10-day period. Recovery from a threshold shift (TTS; year. The number of harbor porpoises— The harbor porpoise is a common partial hearing loss) can take a few in particular, Northern Oregon/ species in the nearshore coastal waters minutes to a few days, depending on the Washington Coast and Northern of the Study Area year-round (Barlow, exposure duration, sound exposure California/Southern Oregon stocks— 1988; Green et al., 1992; Osmek et al., level, and the magnitude of the initial behaviorally harassed by exposure to 1996, 1998; Forney and Barlow, 1998; shift, with larger threshold shifts and MFAS/HFAS in the Study Area is Carretta et al., 2009). Since 1999, Puget longer exposure durations requiring higher than the other species (and, in Sound Ambient Monitoring Program longer recovery times (Finneran et al., fact, suggests that every member of the data and stranding data documented 2005; Mooney et al., 2009a; Mooney et stock could potentially be taken by increasing numbers of harbor porpoise al., 2009b; Finneran and Schlundt, Level B harassment multiple times, in Puget Sound, indicating that the 2010). PTS would not fully recover. although it is more likely that fewer species may be returning to the area However, large degrees of PTS are not individuals are harassed but a subset are (Nysewander, 2008; Washington anticipated for these activities because harassed more than one time during the Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2008; of the unlikelihood that animals will course of the year) because of the low Jeffries, 2013a). Sightings in northern remain within the ensonified area (due Level B harassment threshold (we Hood Canal (north of the Hood Canal to the short duration of the majority of assume for the purpose of estimating Bridge) have increased in recent years exercises, the speed of the vessels, and take that all harbor porpoises exposed to (Calambokidis, 2010). Harbor porpoise the short distance within which the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31805

animal would need to approach the to recover lost resources (e.g., food) or beaked whales) and not a curve (and sound source) at high levels for the opportunities (e.g., mating). assuming uniform density) means that duration necessary to induce larger The predicted effects to Kogia spp. are the vast majority of the takes occur in threshold shifts. Threshold shifts do not expected to be temporary and unlikely the very lowest levels that exceed the necessarily affect all hearing frequencies to cause long-term consequences for threshold (it is estimated that equally, so some threshold shifts may individual animals or populations. The approximately 80 percent of the takes not interfere with an animal hearing NWTT activities are not expected to are from exposures to 140 dB to 146 dB), biologically relevant sounds. The likely occur in an area/time of specific which means that the anticipated effects consequences to the health of an importance for reproductive, feeding, or for the majority of exposures are not individual that incurs PTS can range other known critical behaviors. Pacific expected to be severe (As mentioned from mild to more serious, depending stocks of Kogia are not depleted under above, an animal’s exposure to a higher upon the degree of PTS and the the MMPA. Consequently, the activities received level is more likely to result in frequency band it is in, and many are not expected to adversely impact a behavioral response that is more likely animals are able to compensate for the annual rates of recruitment or survival to adversely affect the health of an shift, although it may include energetic of pygmy and dwarf sperm whales. animal). Further, Moretti et al. (2014) costs. Furthermore, likely avoidance of Beaked Whales—The Navy’s acoustic recently derived an empirical risk intense activity and sound coupled with analysis predicts that the following function for Blainville’s beaked whale mitigation measures would further numbers of Level B harassment of that predicts there is a 0.5 probability of reduce the potential for severe PTS beaked whales may occur annually from disturbance at a received level of 150 dB exposures to occur. If a marine mammal sonar and other active acoustic stressors (CI: 144–155), suggesting that in some is able to approach a surface vessel associated with training and testing cases the current Navy step function within the distance necessary to incur activities in the Study Area: 665 Baird’s may over-estimate the effects of an PTS, the likely speed of the vessel beaked whales (California/Oregon/ activity using sonar on beaked whales. (nominal 10–15 knots) would make it Washington and Alaska stocks), 459 Irrespective of the Moretti et al. (2014) very difficult for the animal to remain Cuvier’s beaked whales (California/ risk function, NMFS’ analysis assumes in range long enough to accumulate Oregon/Washington and Alaska stocks), that all of the beaked whale Level B enough energy to result in more than a and 1,616 Mesoplodon beaked whales takes that are proposed for authorization mild case of PTS. (California/Oregon/Washington stock). will occur, and we base our negligible These estimates represent the total Some Kogia spp. vocalizations might impact determination, in part, on the number of exposures and not overlap with the MFAS/HFAS TTS fact that these exposures would mainly necessarily the number of individuals frequency range (2–20 kHz), but the occur at the very lowest end of the 140- exposed, as a single individual may be dB behavioral harassment threshold limited information for Kogia spp. exposed multiple times over the course where behavioral effects are expected to indicates that their clicks are at a much of a year. These takes are anticipated to be much less severe and generally higher frequency and that their be in the form of behavioral harassment temporary in nature. maximum hearing sensitivity is between (TTS and behavioral reaction) and no 90 and 150 kHz. It is worth noting that injurious takes of beaked whales from Behavioral responses can range from TTS in the range induced by MFAS active acoustic stressors or explosives a mild orienting response, or a shifting would reduce sensitivity in the band are requested or proposed. Stock of attention, to flight and panic that killer whales (a potential predator) abundance estimates for beaked whales (Richardson, 1995; Nowacek, 2007; click and echolocate in. However, as in the Study Area are shown in Table 9. Southall et al., 2007). Research has also noted previously, NMFS does not When the numbers of behavioral takes shown that beaked whales are especially anticipate TTS of a long duration or are compared to the estimated stock sensitive to the presence of human severe degree to occur as a result of abundances and if one assumes that activity (Tyack et al., 2011; Pirotta et al., exposure to MFA/HFAS. each take happens to a separate animal, 2012). Beaked whales have been Research and observations on Kogia less than 7 percent of the California/ documented to exhibit avoidance of spp. are limited. These species tend to Oregon/Washington stock of Cuvier’s human activity or respond to vessel avoid human activity and presumably beaked whale would be behaviorally presence (Pirotta et al., 2012). Beaked anthropogenic sounds. Pygmy and harassed during the course of a year. whales were observed to react dwarf sperm whales may startle and Virtually all of the Baird’s and negatively to survey vessels or low leave the immediate area of activity, Mesoplodon beaked whale stocks altitude aircraft by quick diving and reducing potential impacts. Pygmy and (California/Oregon/Washington) would other avoidance maneuvers, and none dwarf sperm whales have been observed potentially be behaviorally harassed were observed to approach vessels to react negatively to survey vessels or each year, although it is more likely that (Wursig et al., 1998). Some beaked low altitude aircraft by quick diving and fewer individuals would be harassed whale vocalizations may overlap with other avoidance maneuvers, and none but a subset would be harassed more the MFAS/HFAS TTS frequency range were observed to approach vessels than one time during the course of the (2–20 kHz); however, as noted above, (Wursig et al., 1998). Based on their year. As is the case with harbor NMFS does not anticipate TTS of a tendency to avoid acoustic stressors porpoises, beaked whales have been serious degree or extended duration to (e.g., quick diving and other vertical shown to be particularly sensitive to occur as a result of exposure to MFA/ avoidance maneuvers) coupled with the sound and therefore have been assigned HFAS. Recovery from a threshold shift short duration and intermittent nature a lower harassment threshold based on (TTS) can take a few minutes to a few (e.g., sonar pings during ASW activities observations of wild animals by days, depending on the exposure occur about every 50 seconds) of the McCarthy et al. (2011) and Tyack et al. duration, sound exposure level, and the majority of training and testing exercises (2011). The fact that the Level B magnitude of the initial shift, with and the speed of the Navy vessels harassment threshold is a step function larger threshold shifts and longer involved, it is unlikely that animals (The Navy has adopted an unweighted exposure durations requiring longer would receive multiple exposures over 140 dB re 1 mPa SPL threshold for recovery times (Finneran et al., 2005; a short period of time, allowing animals significant behavioral effects for all Mooney et al., 2009a; Mooney et al.,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31806 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

2009b; Finneran and Schlundt, 2010). to avoidance responses characterized by densities were higher than indicated by Large threshold shifts are not energetic fluking and swimming away the NMFS’s broad scale visual surveys anticipated for these activities because from the source (DeRuiter et al., 2013b). for the U.S. west coast (Hildebrand and of the unlikelihood that animals will However, the authors did not detect McDonald, 2009). remain within the ensonified area (due similar responses to incidental exposure Based on the findings above, it is clear to the short duration of the majority of to distant naval sonar exercises at that the Navy’s long-term ongoing use of exercises, the speed of the vessels, and comparable received levels, indicating sonar and other active acoustic sources the short distance within which the that context of the exposures (e.g., has not precluded beaked whales from animal would need to approach the source proximity, controlled source also continuing to inhabit those areas. In sound source) at high levels for the ramp-up) may have been a significant summary, based on the best available duration necessary to induce larger factor. The study itself found the results science, the Navy and NMFS believe threshold shifts. Threshold shifts do not inconclusive and meriting further that beaked whales that exhibit a necessarily affect all hearing frequencies investigation. Cuvier’s beaked whale significant TTS or behavioral reaction equally, so some threshold shifts may responses suggested particular due to sonar and other active acoustic not interfere with an animal’s hearing of sensitivity to sound exposure as testing activities would generally not biologically relevant sounds. consistent with results for Blainville’s have long-term consequences for It has been speculated for some time beaked whale. Populations of beaked individuals or populations. Claridge (2013) speculates that sonar use in a that beaked whales might have unusual whales and other odontocetes on the Bahamas range could have ‘‘a possible sensitivities to sonar sound due to their Bahamas and other Navy fixed ranges population-level effect’’ on beaked likelihood of stranding in conjunction that have been operating for decades, whales based on lower abundance in with mid-frequency sonar use. Research appear to be stable. Behavioral reactions comparison to control sites. However, and observations show that if beaked (avoidance of the area of Navy activity) the study suffers from several whales are exposed to sonar or other seem likely in most cases if beaked shortcomings and incorrectly assumes active acoustic sources they may startle, whales are exposed to anti-submarine that the Navy range and control sites break off feeding dives, and avoid the sonar within a few tens of kilometers, were identical. The author also area of the sound source to levels of 157 especially for prolonged periods (a few acknowledged that ‘‘information m hours or more) since this is one of the dB re 1 Pa, or below (McCarthy et al., currently available cannot provide a 2011). Acoustic monitoring during most sensitive marine mammal groups quantitative answer to whether frequent actual sonar exercises revealed some to anthropogenic sound of any species sonar use at [the Bahamas range] is beaked whales continuing to forage at or group studied to date and research causing stress to resident beaked levels up to 157 dB re 1 mPa (Tyack et indicates beaked whales will leave an whales,’’ and cautioned that the al. 2011). Stimpert et al. (2014) tagged area where anthropogenic sound is outcome of ongoing studies ‘‘is a critical a Baird’s beaked whale, which was present (Tyack et al., 2011; De Ruiter et component to understanding if there are subsequently exposed to simulated mid- al., 2013; Manzano-Roth et al., 2013; population-level effects.’’ Moore and frequency sonar. Changes in the Moretti et al., 2014). Research involving Barlow (2013) have noted a decline in animal’s dive behavior and locomotion tagged Cuvier’s beaked whales in the beaked whale populations in a broad were observed when received level SOCAL Range Complex reported on by area of the Pacific Ocean area out to 300 reached 127 dB re 1 mPa. Manzano-Roth Falcone and Schorr (2012, 2014) nm from the coast and extending from et al. (2013) found that for beaked whale indicates year-round prolonged use of the Canadian-U.S. border to the tip of dives that continued to occur during the Navy’s training and testing area by Baja Mexico. There are scientific caveats MFAS activity, differences from normal these beaked whales and has and limitations to the data used for that dive profiles and click rates were not documented movements in excess of analysis, as well as oceanographic and detected with estimated received levels hundreds of kilometers by some of those species assemblage changes on the U.S. up to 137 dB re 1 mPa while the animals animals. Given that some of these Pacific coast not thoroughly addressed. were at depth during their dives. In animals may routinely move hundreds Interestingly, however, in the small research done at the Navy’s fixed of kilometers as part of their normal portion of that area overlapping the tracking range in the Bahamas, animals pattern, leaving an area where sonar or Navy’s SOCAL Range Complex, long- were observed to leave the immediate other anthropogenic sound is present term residency by individual Cuvier’s area of the anti-submarine warfare may have little, if any, cost to such an beaked whales and higher densities training exercise (avoiding the sonar animal. Photo identification studies in provide indications that the proposed acoustic footprint at a distance where the SOCAL Range Complex, a Navy decline noted elsewhere is not apparent the received level was ‘‘around 140 dB’’ range that is utilized for training and where for decades the Navy has been SPL, according to Tyack et al. [2011]) testing more frequently than the NWTT intensively training and testing with but return within a few days after the Study Area, have identified sonar and other systems. event ended (Claridge and Durban, approximately 100 individual Cuvier’s NMFS also considered New et al. 2009; Moretti et al., 2009, 2010; Tyack beaked whale individuals with 40 (2013) and their mathematical model et al., 2010, 2011; McCarthy et al., percent having been seen in one or more simulating a functional link between 2011). Tyack et al. (2011) report that, in prior years, with re-sightings up to 7 foraging energetics and requirements for reaction to sonar playbacks, most years apart (Falcone and Schorr, 2014). survival and reproduction for 21 species beaked whales stopped echolocating, These results indicate long-term of beaked whales. However, NMFS made long slow ascent to the surface, residency by individuals in an concluded that New et al. (2013) model and moved away from the sound. A intensively used Navy training and lacks critical data and accurate inputs similar behavioral response study testing area, which may also suggest a necessary to form valid conclusions conducted in Southern California waters lack of long-term consequences as a specifically about impacts of during the 2010–2011 field season result of exposure to Navy training and anthropogenic sound from Navy found that Cuvier’s beaked whales testing activities. Finally, results from activities on beaked whale populations. exposed to MFAS displayed behavior passive acoustic monitoring estimated The study itself notes the need for ranging from initial orientation changes regional Cuvier’s beaked whale ‘‘future research,’’ identifies ‘‘key data

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31807

needs’’ relating to input parameters that distribution information presented in longer recovery times (Finneran et al., ‘‘particularly affected’’ the model the LOA application, it is highly 2005; Mooney et al., 2009a; Mooney et results, and states only that the use of unlikely that short-finned pilot whales al., 2009b; Finneran and Schlundt, the model ‘‘in combination with more or common bottlenose dolphins would 2010). Large threshold shifts are not detailed research’’ could help predict be encountered in the Study Area. The anticipated for these activities because the effects of management actions on acoustic analysis did not predict any of the unlikelihood that animals will beaked whale species. In short, takes of short-finned pilot whales or remain within the ensonified area (due information is not currently available to bottlenose dolphins and NMFS is not to the short duration of the majority of specifically support the use of this authorizing any takes of these species. exercises, the speed of the vessels, and model in a project-specific evaluation of Relative to delphinid population sizes the short distance within which the the effects of navy activities on the (stock abundance estimates are shown animal would need to approach the impacted beaked whale species in in Table 9), these activities are sound source) at high levels for the NWTT. anticipated to generally result only in a duration necessary to induce larger No beaked whales are predicted in the limited number of level B harassment threshold shifts. Threshold shifts do not acoustic analysis to be exposed to sound takes. When the numbers of behavioral necessarily affect all hearing frequencies levels associated with PTS, other injury, takes are compared to the estimated equally, so some threshold shifts may or mortality. After decades of the Navy stock abundance and if one assumes not interfere with an animal’s hearing of conducting similar activities in the that each take happens to a separate biologically relevant sounds. NWTT Study Area without incident, animal, less than 30 percent of the The predicted effects to delphinids NMFS does not expect strandings, California/Oregon/Washington stock of are unlikely to cause long-term injury, or mortality of beaked whales to Risso’s dolphin; less than 30 percent of consequences for individual animals or occur as a result of training and testing the California/Oregon/Washington stock populations. The NWTT activities are activities. Additionally, through the and less than 0.02 percent of the North not expected to occur in an area/time of MMPA process (which allows for Pacific stock of pacific white-sided specific importance for reproductive, adaptive management), NMFS and the dolphin; less than 28 percent of the feeding, or other known critical Navy will determine the appropriate California/Oregon/Washington stock of behaviors for delphinids. Pacific stocks way to proceed in the event that a northern right whale dolphin; less than of delphinid species found in the Study causal relationship were to be found 0.6 percent of the California/Oregon/ Area are not depleted under the MMPA. between Navy activities and a future Washington stock of short-beaked Consequently, the activities are not stranding. common dolphin; and less than 0.4 expected to adversely impact annual The NWTT training and testing percent of the California/Oregon/ rates of recruitment or survival of activities are not expected to occur in an Washington stock of striped dolphin delphinid species. area/time of specific importance for Killer Whales—The Navy’s acoustic would be behaviorally harassed during reproductive, feeding, or other known analysis predicts 250 instances of Level the course of a year. More likely, critical behaviors for beaked whales. B harassment of killer whales (Alaska slightly fewer individuals are harassed, Although no areas of specific Resident, Northern Resident, West Coast but a subset are harassed more than one importance for reproduction or feeding Transient, Eastern North Pacific time during the course of the year. of beaked whales have been identified Offshore, and Eastern North Pacific in the Study Area, beaked whales are All of these takes are anticipated to be Southern Resident stocks), including 2 generally found in deep waters over the in the form of behavioral harassment Level B takes of southern resident killer continental slope, oceanic seamounts, (TTS and behavioral reaction) and no whales, from sonar and other active and areas with submarine escarpments injurious takes of delphinids from sonar acoustic sources during annual training (very seldom over the continental shelf). and other active acoustic stressors or activities in the Study Area. Relative to None of the Pacific stocks for beaked explosives are requested or proposed for population sizes (killer whale stock whales species found in the Study Area authorization. Further, the majority of abundance estimates are shown in Table are depleted under the MMPA. takes are anticipated to be by behavioral 9), these activities are anticipated to Consequently, the activities are not harassment in the form of mild generally result only in a limited expected to adversely impact annual responses. Behavioral responses can number of level B harassment takes. rates of recruitment or survival of range from a mild orienting response, or When the numbers of behavioral takes beaked whales. a shifting of attention, to flight and are compared to the estimated stock Dolphins and Small Whales—The panic (Richardson, 1995; Nowacek, abundance and if one assumes that each Navy’s acoustic analysis predicts the 2007; Southall et al., 2007). Delphinid take happens to a separate animal, less following numbers of Level B species generally travel in large pods than 15 percent of all killer whale harassment of the associated species of and should be visible from a distance in stocks—and 2 percent of the Southern delphinids (dolphins and small whales, order to implement mitigation measures Resident stock of killer whale—would excluding killer whales) may occur each and reduce potential impacts. Many of be behaviorally harassed during the year from sonar and other active the recorded delphinid vocalizations course of a year. More likely, slightly acoustic sources during training and overlap with the MFAS/HFAS TTS fewer individuals would harassed, but a testing activities in the Study Area: frequency range (2–20 kHz); however, as subset would be harassed more than one 2,362 short-beaked common dolphins noted above, NMFS does not anticipate time during the course of the year. (California/Oregon/Washington stock); TTS of a serious degree or extended All of these takes are anticipated to be 36 striped dolphins (California/Oregon/ duration to occur as a result of exposure in the form of behavioral harassment Washington stock); 8,354 Pacific white- to MFAS/HFAS. Recovery from a (TTS and behavioral reaction) and no sided dolphins (California/Oregon/ threshold shift (TTS) can take a few injurious takes of killer whales from Washington and North Pacific stocks); minutes to a few days, depending on the sonar and other active acoustic stressors 3,370 Northern right whale dolphins exposure duration, sound exposure or explosives are requested or proposed (California/Oregon/Washington stock); level, and the magnitude of the initial for authorization. Further, the majority and 1,811 Risso’s dolphins (California/ shift, with larger threshold shifts and of takes are anticipated to be by Oregon/Washington stock). Based on the longer exposure durations requiring behavioral harassment in the form of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31808 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

mild responses. Behavioral responses which TTS would be incurred from the activities because of the unlikelihood can range from a mild orienting MFAS sources used during ASW that animals will remain within the response, or a shifting of attention, to exercises; however, the Navy is ensonified area (due to the short flight and panic (Richardson, 1995; conducting ASW exercises mainly in duration of the majority of exercises, the Nowacek, 2007; Southall et al., 2007). the Offshore Area while killer whales speed of the vessels, and the short Killer whales generally travel in pods are predominantly situated in the Inland distance within which the animal and should be visible from a distance in Waters Area. Both behavioral and would need to approach the sound order to implement mitigation measures auditory brainstem response techniques source) at high levels for the duration and reduce potential impacts. Recovery indicate killer whales can hear a necessary to induce larger threshold from a threshold shift (TTS) can take a frequency range of 1 to 100 kHz and are shifts. Threshold shifts do not few minutes to a few days, depending most sensitive at 20 kHz. This is one the necessarily affect all hearing frequencies on the exposure duration, sound lowest maximum-sensitivity frequencies equally, so threshold shifts may not exposure level, and the magnitude of known among toothed whales necessarily interfere with an animal’s the initial shift, with larger threshold (Szymanski et al., 1999). ability to hear biologically relevant shifts and longer exposure durations The NWTT training and testing sounds. The likely consequences to the requiring longer recovery times activities are generally not expected to health of an individual that incurs PTS (Finneran et al., 2005; Mooney et al., occur in an area/time of specific can range from mild to more serious, 2009a; Mooney et al., 2009b; Finneran importance for reproductive, feeding, or depending upon the degree of PTS and and Schlundt, 2010). Large threshold other known critical behaviors for killer the frequency band it is in, and many shifts are not anticipated for these whales. Consequently, the activities are animals are able to compensate for the activities because of the unlikelihood not expected to adversely impact annual shift, although it may include energetic that animals will remain within the rates of recruitment or survival of killer costs. Likely avoidance of intense ensonified area (due to the short whale species and will therefore not activity and sound coupled with duration of the majority of exercises, the result in population-level impacts. mitigation measures would further speed of the vessels, and the short Pinnipeds—The Navy’s acoustic reduce the potential for severe PTS distance within which the animal analysis predicts that the following exposures to occur. If a marine mammal would need to approach the sound numbers of Level B harassment (TTS is able to approach a surface vessel source) at high levels for the duration and behavioral reaction) may occur within the distance necessary to incur necessary to induce larger threshold annually from sonar and other active PTS, the likely speed of the vessel shifts. Threshold shifts do not acoustic stressors and sound or energy (nominal 10–15 knots) would make it necessarily affect all hearing frequencies from explosions associated with training very difficult for the animal to remain equally, so some threshold shifts may and testing activities in the Study Area: in range long enough to accumulate 908 Steller sea lions (Eastern U.S. not interfere with an animal’s hearing of enough energy to result in more than a stock); 10 Guadalupe fur seals (San biologically relevant sounds. mild case of PTS. The southern resident killer whale is Miguel Island stock); 2,887 California the only ESA-listed marine mammal sea lions (U.S. stock); 4,389 northern fur Research and observations show that species with designated critical habitat seals (Eastern Pacific and California pinnipeds in the water may be tolerant located in the NWTT Study Area stocks); 2,596 northern elephant seals of anthropogenic noise and activity (a (NMFS, 2006). The majority of the (California Breeding stock); and 63,475 review of behavioral reactions by Navy’s proposed training and testing harbor seals (Southeast Alaska [Clarence pinnipeds to impulsive and non- activities would, however, not occur in Strait], Oregon/Washington Coast, impulsive noise can be found in the southern resident killer whale’s Washington Northern Inland Waters, Richardson et al., 1995 and Southall et designated critical habitat (NMFS, Southern Puget Sound, and Hood Canal al., 2007). Available data, though 2006). For all substressors that would stocks). These estimates represents the limited, suggest that exposures between occur within the critical habitat, those total number of exposures and not approximately 90 and 140 dB SPL do training and testing activities are not necessarily the number of individuals not appear to induce strong behavioral expected to impact the identified exposed, as a single individual may be responses in pinnipeds exposed to primary constituent elements of that exposed multiple times over the course nonpulse sounds in water (Jacobs and habitat and therefore would have no of a year. Northern elephant seals are Terhune, 2002; Costa et al., 2003; effect on that critical habitat. the only pinnipeds predicted to incur Kastelein et al., 2006c). Based on the Furthermore, the majority of testing takes (one Level B take) from exposure limited data on pinnipeds in the water events would occur in Hood Canal, to explosives. The acoustic analysis exposed to multiple pulses (small where southern resident killer whales (factoring in the post-model correction explosives, impact pile driving, and are not believed to be present, while the for avoidance and mitigation) also seismic sources), exposures in the majority of training activities would indicates that 2 Northern elephant seals approximately 150 to 180 dB SPL range occur in the offshore portions of the and 92 harbor seals would be exposed generally have limited potential to Study Area where they are only present to sound levels likely to result in Level induce avoidance behavior in pinnipeds briefly during their annual migration A harassment (PTS) from sonar or other (Harris et al., 2001; Blackwell et al., period. Effects to designated critical active acoustic sources. 2004; Miller et al., 2004). If pinnipeds habitat will be fully analyzed in the Research has demonstrated that for are exposed to sonar or other active Navy’s and NMFS’ internal ESA Section pinnipeds, as for other mammals, acoustic sources they may react in a 7 consultations for NWTT. recovery from a hearing threshold shift number of ways depending on their The whale’s size and detectability (i.e., TTS; temporary partial hearing experience with the sound source and makes it unlikely that these animals loss) can take a few minutes to a few what activity they are engaged in at the would be exposed to the higher energy days depending on the severity of the time of the acoustic exposure. Pinnipeds or pressure expected to result in more initial shift. More severe shifts may not may not react at all until the sound severe effects. As stated above, the fully recover and thus would be source is approaching within a few vocalizations of killer whales fall considered PTS. However, large degrees hundred meters and then may alert, directly into the frequency range in of PTS are not anticipated for these ignore the stimulus, change their

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31809

behaviors, or avoid the immediate area result of ongoing and routine Navy portion of the year may be exposed to by swimming away or diving. Effects on activities. sonar and other active acoustic sources pinnipeds in the Study Area that are Generally speaking, pinniped stocks associated with training and testing taken by Level B harassment, on the in the Study Area are thought to be activities. Predicted Level B takes of basis of reports in the literature as well stable or increasing. Abundance Guadalupe fur seals in the Study Area as Navy monitoring from past activities, estimates for pinniped stocks in the represent a negligible percentage of the will likely be limited to reactions such Study Area are shown in Table 9. San Miguel Island stock. Furthermore, as increased swimming speeds, Relative to population size, training and critical habitat has not been designated increased surfacing time, or decreased testing activities are anticipated to result for Guadalupe fur seals. foraging (if such activity were only in a limited number of takes for the We believe that factors described occurring). Most likely, individuals will majority of pinniped species. When the above, as well as the available body of simply move away from the sound numbers of takes are compared to the evidence from past Navy activities in source and be temporarily displaced estimated stock abundances and if one the Study Area, demonstrate that the assumes that each take happens to a potential effects of the specified activity from those areas, or not respond at all. separate animal, less than 2 percent of will have only short-term effects on In areas of repeated and frequent each Steller sea lion, California sea lion, individuals. The NWTT training and acoustic disturbance, some animals may northern fur seal, and northern elephant testing activities are not expected to habituate or learn to tolerate the new seal stock would be harassed occur in an area/time of specific baseline or fluctuations in noise level. (behaviorally) during the course of a importance for reproductive, feeding, or Habituation can occur when an animal’s year. More likely, fewer individuals are other known critical behaviors for response to a stimulus wanes with harassed, but a subset are harassed more pinnipeds. Consequently, the activities repeated exposure, usually in the than one time during the course of the are not expected to adversely impact absence of unpleasant associated events year. Takes of depleted (as defined annual rates of recruitment or survival (Wartzok et al., 2003). While some under the MMPA) stocks of northern fur of pinniped species and will therefore animals may not return to an area, or seals (Eastern Pacific) and Guadalupe not result in population-level impacts. may begin using an area differently due fur seals (Mexoco) represent only 0.7 Long-Term Consequences to training and testing activities, most percent and 0.07 percent of their animals are expected to return to their respective stock. The best assessment of long-term usual locations and behavior. Given NMFS has determined that the Level consequences from training and testing their documented tolerance of A and Level B harassment exposures to activities will be to monitor the anthropogenic sound (Richardson et al., the Hood Canal stock of harbor seals are populations over time within a given 1995 and Southall et al., 2007), repeated not biologically significant to the Navy range complex. A U.S. workshop exposures of individuals (e.g., harbor population because (1) the vast majority on Marine Mammals and Sound (Fitch seals) to levels of sound that may cause of the exposures are within the non- et al., 2011) indicated a critical need for Level B harassment are unlikely to injurious TTS or behavioral effects baseline biological data on marine result in hearing impairment or to zones and none of the estimated mammal abundance, distribution, significantly disrupt foraging behavior. exposures result in mortality; (2) the habitat, and behavior over sufficient As stated above, pinnipeds may majority of predicted harbor seal time and space to evaluate impacts from habituate to or become tolerant of exposures result from testing activities human-generated activities on long-term repeated exposures over time, learning which are generally of an intermittent or population survival. The Navy has to ignore a stimulus that in the past has short duration and should prevent developed monitoring plans for not accompanied any overt threat. animals from being exposed to stressors protected marine mammals occurring on on a continuous basis; (3) there are no Navy ranges with the goal of assessing Thus, even repeated Level B indications that the historically the impacts of training and testing harassment of some small subset of the occurring activities resulting in these activities on marine species and the overall stock is unlikely to result in any behavioral harassment exposures are effectiveness of the Navy’s current significant realized decrease in fitness to having any effect on this population’s mitigation practices. Continued those individuals, and would not result survival by altering behavior patterns monitoring efforts over time will be in any adverse impact to the stock as a such as breeding, nursing, feeding, or necessary to completely evaluate the whole. Evidence from areas where the sheltering; (4) the population has been long-term consequences of exposure to Navy extensively trains and tests stable and likely at carrying capacity noise sources. provides some indication of the possible (Jeffries et al., 2003; Gaydos et al., 2013); Since 2006 across all Navy Range consequences resulting from those (5) the population continues to use Complexes (in the Atlantic, Gulf of proposed activities. In the confined known large haulouts in Hood Canal Mexico, and the Pacific), there have waters of Washington State’s Hood and Dabob Bay that are adjacent to Navy been more than 80 reports; Major Canal where the Navy has been training testing and training activities (London et Exercise Reports, Annual Exercise and intensively testing for decades and al., 2012); (6) the population continues Reports, and Monitoring Reports. For harbor seals are present year-round, the to use known haulouts for pupping; and the Pacific since 2011, there have been population level has remained stable (7) the population continues to use the 29 monitoring and exercise reports (as suggesting the area’s carrying capacity waters in and around Dabob Bay and shown in Table 6–1 of the LOA may have been reached (Jeffries et al., Hood Canal. application) submitted to NMFS to 2003). Within Puget Sound there are The Guadalupe fur seal is the only further research goals aimed at several locations where pinnipeds use ESA-listed pinniped species found understanding the Navy’s impact on the Navy structures (e.g., submarines, within the NWTT Study Area. environment as it carries out its mission security barriers) for haulouts. Given Guadalupe fur seals are considered to train and test. that animals continue to choose these ‘‘seasonally migrant’’ and are present In addition to this multi-year record areas for their resting behavior, it would within the offshore portion of the Study of reports from across the Navy, there appear there are no long-term effects or Area during the warm season (summer have also been ongoing Behavioral consequences to those animals as a and early autumn) and during that Response Study research efforts (in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31810 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Southern California and the Bahamas) used Navy training and testing areas. estimates of harassment, primarily by specifically focused on determining the There is no direct evidence that routine behavioral disturbance, and made potential effects from Navy mid- Navy training and testing spanning without taking into consideration all frequency sonar (Southall et al., 2011, decades has negatively impacted marine possible reductions as a result of 2012; Tyack et al., 2011; DeRuiter et al., mammal populations at any Navy Range standard operating procedures and 2013b; Goldbogen et al., 2013; Moretti et Complex. Although there have been a mitigation measures (only a subset of al., 2014). This multi-year compendium few strandings associated with use of mitigations are factored into the post- of monitoring, observation, study, and sonar in other locations (see U.S. modeling analysis). broad scientific research is informative Department of the Navy, 2013b), Ketten • Additionally, the protective with regard to assessing the effects of (2012) has recently summarized, ‘‘to measures described in the Proposed Navy training and testing in general. date, there has been no demonstrable Mitigation section above are designed to Given that this record involves many of evidence of acute, traumatic, disruptive, reduce sound exposure and explosive the same Navy training and testing or profound auditory damage in any effects on marine mammals to levels activities being considered for the Study marine mammal as the result of below those that may cause Area, and because it includes all the anthropogenic noise exposures, physiological effects (injury) and to marine mammal taxonomic families and including sonar.’’ Therefore, based on achieve the least practicable adverse many of the same species, this the best available science (Barlow et al., effect on marine mammal species or compendium of Navy reporting is 2011; Falcone et al., 2009; Falcone and stocks. directly applicable to the Study Area. Schorr, 2012, 2014; Littnan, 2011; • Range complexes where intensive Other research findings related to the Martin and Kok, 2011; McCarthy et al., training and testing have been occurring general topic of long-term impacts are 2011; McSweeney et al., 2007; for decades have populations of discussed above in the Species/Group McSweeney et al., 2009; Moore and multiple species with strong site fidelity Specific Analysis. Barlow, 2011; Tyack et al., 2011; (including highly sensitive resident Based on the findings from surveys in Southall et al., 2012; Manzano-Roth et beaked whales at some locations) and Puget Sound and research efforts and al., 2013; DeRuiter et al., 2013b; increases in the number of some monitoring before, during, and after Goldbogen et al., 2013; Moretti et al., species. training and testing events across the 2014; Smultea and Jefferson, 2014), • Years of monitoring of Navy-wide Navy since 2006, NMFS’ assessment is including data developed in the series activities (since 2006) have documented that it is unlikely there would be of reports submitted to NMFS, we hundreds of thousands of marine impacts to populations of marine believe that long-term consequences for mammals on the range complexes and mammals having any long-term individuals or populations are unlikely there are only two instances of overt consequences as a result of the proposed to result from Navy training and testing behavioral change that have been continuation of training and testing in activities in the Study Area. observed. the ocean areas historically used by the • Years of monitoring of Navy-wide Navy, including the Study Area. This Preliminary Determination activities on the range complexes have assessment of likelihood is based on Training and testing activities documented no demonstrable instances four indicators from areas in the Pacific proposed in the NWTT Study Area of injury to marine mammals as a direct where Navy training and testing has would result in Level B and Level A result of non-impulsive acoustic been ongoing for decades: (1) Evidence takes, as summarized in Tables 17–21. sources. • suggesting or documenting increases in Based on best available science, as In at least three decades of the same the numbers of marine mammals summarized in this proposed rule and type of activities, only one instance of present (Calambokidis and Barlow, in the January 2014 DEIS/OEIS (Section injury to marine mammals (March 4, 2004; Calambokidis et al., 2009a; 3.4.4.1), NMFS concludes that 2011; three long-beaked common Falcone et al., 2009; Hildebrand and exposures to marine mammal species dolphin off Southern California) has McDonald, 2009; Berman-Kowalewski and stocks due to NWTT activities occurred as a known result of training et al., 2010; Moore and Barlow, 2011; would result in only short-term or testing using an impulsive source Barlow et al. 2011; Falcone and Shorr, (temporary and short in duration) and (underwater explosion). Of note, the 2012; Kerosky et al., 2012; Smultea et relatively infrequent effects to most time-delay firing underwater explosive al., 2013), (2) examples of documented individuals exposed, and not of the type training activity implicated in the presence and site fidelity of species and or severity that would be expected to be March 4 incident is not proposed for the long-term residence by individual additive for the generally small portion training activities in the NWTT Study animals of some species (Hooker et al., of the stocks and species likely to be Area. 2002; McSweeney et al., 2007; exposed. Marine mammal takes from Based on the analysis contained McSweeney et al., 2009; McSweeney et Navy activities are not expected to herein of the likely effects of the al., 2010; Martin and Kok, 2011; impact annual rates of recruitment or specified activity on marine mammals Baumann-Pickering et al., 2012; Falcone survival and will therefore not result in and their habitat and dependent upon and Schorr, 2014), (3) use of training population-level impacts for the the implementation of the mitigation and testing areas for breeding and following reasons: and monitoring measures, NMFS nursing activities (Littnan, 2010), and • Most acoustic exposures (greater preliminarily finds that the total taking (4) 6 years of comprehensive monitoring than 99 percent) are within the non- from Navy training and testing exercises data indicating a lack of any observable injurious TTS or behavioral effects in the NWTT Study Area will have a effects to marine mammal populations zones (Level B harassment consisting of negligible impact on the affected species as a result of Navy training and testing generally temporary modifications in or stocks. NMFS has proposed activities. behavior) and none of the estimated regulations for these exercises that To summarize, while the evidence exposures result in mortality. prescribe the means of effecting the least covers most marine mammal taxonomic • Although the numbers presented in practicable adverse impact on marine suborders, it is limited to a few species Tables 17–21 represent estimated mammals and their habitat and set forth and only suggestive of the general harassment under the MMPA, as requirements pertaining to the viability of those species in intensively described above, they are conservative monitoring and reporting of that taking.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31811

Subsistence Harvest of Marine proposes new military activities or Dated: May 26, 2015. Mammals proposes to modify existing military Samuel D. Rauch III, There are no relevant subsistence uses activities that are otherwise exempted Deputy Assistant Administrator for of marine mammals implicated by this by individual sanctuary regulations at Regulatory Programs, National Marine action. Therefore, NMFS has 15 CFR part 922 in a way that the Fisheries Service. determined that the total taking of modified activities would adversely For reasons set forth in the preamble, affected species or stocks would not impact sanctuary resources and 50 CFR part 218 is proposed to be have an unmitigable adverse impact on qualities, the Navy will initiate amended as follows: the availability of such species or stocks consultation with ONMS. PART 218—REGULATIONS for taking for subsistence purposes. NMFS is currently consulting with GOVERNING THE TAKING AND ESA ONMS on the issuance of regulations IMPORTING OF MARINE MAMMALS and LOAs for NWTT activities. There are nine marine mammal Consultation will be concluded prior to ■ 1. The authority citation for part 218 species under NMFS jurisdiction that a determination on the issuance of the continues to read as follow: are listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA with confirmed or final rule and an LOA. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. possible occurrence in the NWTT Study Classification ■ 2. In § 218.75, revise introductory Area: North Pacific right whale, blue paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(F) as follows: whale, humpback whale, fin whale, sei The Office of Management and Budget whale, gray whale (Western North has determined that this proposed rule § 218.75 Requirements for monitoring and Pacific stock), sperm whale, killer whale is not significant for purposes of reporting. (Eastern North Pacific Southern Executive Order 12866. * * * * * Resident stock), and Guadalupe fur seal. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility (f) * * * (1) * * * The Navy will consult with NMFS Act (RFA), the Chief Counsel for (ii) * * * pursuant to section 7 of the ESA, and Regulation of the Department of NMFS will also consult internally on (F) Individual marine mammal Commerce has certified to the Chief sighting information for each sighting the issuance of LOAs under section Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA for NWTT when mitigation occurred during each Business Administration that this activities. Consultation will be MTE. proposed rule, if adopted, would not concluded prior to a determination on have a significant economic impact on * * * * * the issuance of the final rule and an ■ 3. In § 218.85, revise introductory a substantial number of small entities. LOA. paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(F) as follows: The RFA requires federal agencies to NEPA prepare an analysis of a rule’s impact on § 218.85 Requirements for monitoring and NMFS is a cooperating agency on the small entities whenever the agency is reporting. Navy’s NWTT DEIS/OEIS, which was required to publish a notice of proposed * * * * * prepared and released to the public in rulemaking. However, a federal agency (f) * * * January 2014. Upon completion, the may certify, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605 (1) * * * Final EIS/OEIS (FEIS/OEIS) will be (b), that the action will not have a (ii) * * * made available for public review and significant economic impact on a (F) Individual marine mammal posted on NMFS’ Web site: http:// substantial number of small entities. sighting information for each sighting www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ The Navy is the sole entity that would when mitigation occurred during each incidental/military.htm. NMFS intends be affected by this rulemaking, and the MTE. to adopt the Navy’s NWTT FEIS/OEIS, Navy is not a small governmental * * * * * if adequate and appropriate. Currently, jurisdiction, small organization, or small ■ 4. In § 218.125, revise introductory we believe that the adoption of the business, as defined by the RFA. Any paragraph (f)(1)(ii) as follows: Navy’s NWTT FEIS/OEIS will allow requirements imposed by an LOA NMFS to meet its responsibilities under issued pursuant to these regulations, § 218.125 Requirements for monitoring and reporting. NEPA for the issuance of regulations and any monitoring or reporting and LOAs for NWTT. If necessary, requirements imposed by these * * * * * however, NMFS will supplement the regulations, would be applicable only to (f) * * * existing analysis to ensure that we the Navy. NMFS does not expect the (1) * * * (ii) Individual marine mammal comply with NEPA prior to the issuance issuance of these regulations or the sighting information for each sighting in of the final rule or LOA. associated LOAs to result in any each exercise when mitigation occurred. NMSA impacts to small entities pursuant to the RFA. Because this action, if adopted, * * * * * Some Navy NWTT activities will occur within the Olympic Coast would directly affect the Navy and not Subpart M—[Removed and Reserved] National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS). a small entity, NMFS concludes the ■ Federal agency actions that are likely to action would not result in a significant 5. Remove and reserve subpart M, injure sanctuary resources are subject to economic impact on a substantial consisting of §§ 218.110 through consultation with the NOAA Office of number of small entities. 218.119. National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 218 Subpart R—[Removed and Reserved] under section 304(d) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). The Exports, Fish, Imports, Incidental ■ 6. Remove and reserve subpart R, Navy analyzed potential impacts to take, Indians, Labeling, Marine consisting of §§ 218.170 through sanctuary resources and has provided mammals, Navy, Penalties, Reporting 218.178. the analysis in the January 2014 NWTT and recordkeeping requirements, ■ 7. Subpart O is added to part 218 to DEIS/OEIS. Where the Navy either Seafood, Sonar, Transportation. read as follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31812 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Subpart O—Taking and Importing Marine (C) MF4—an average of 4 hours per (vi) Acoustic Modems (M): Mammals; U.S. Navy’s Northwest Training year. (A) M3—an average of 1,519 hours per and Testing (NWTT) Study Area (D) MF5—an average of 896 items per year. Sec. year. (vii) Torpedoes (TORP): 218.140 Specified activity and specified (E) MF11—an average of 16 hours per (A) TORP1—an average of 315 items geographical region. year. per year. 218.141 Effective dates and definitions. (ii) High-frequency (HF) Source (B) TORP2—an average of 299 items 218.142 Permissible methods of taking. Classes: 218.143 Prohibitions. per year. 218.144 Mitigation. (A) HF1—an average of 48 hours per (viii) Swimmer Detection Sonar (SD): 218.145 Requirements for monitoring and year. (A) SD1—an average of 757 hours per reporting. (B) HF4—an average of 384 hours per year. 218.146 Applications for Letters of year. (ix) Synthetic Aperture Sonar (SAS): Authorization (C) HF6—an average of 192 items per (A) SAS2—an average of 798 hours 218.147 Letters of Authorization. year. per year. 218.148 Renewal and Modifications of (iii) Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) (3) Impulsive Source Detonations Letters of Authorization and Adaptive Source Classes: During Training: Management. (A) ASW2—an average of 720 items (i) Explosive Classes: Subpart O—Taking and Importing per year per year. (A) E1 (0.1 to 0.25 pound [lb] NEW)— (B) ASW3—an average of 78 hours per Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy’s an average of 48 detonations per year. year. Northwest Training and Testing (B) E3 (>0.5 to 2.5 lb NEW)—an (2) Sonar and other Active Sources (NWTT) Study Area average of 6 detonations per year. Used During Testing: (C) E5 (>5 to 10 lb NEW)—an average § 218.140 Specified activity and specified (i) Low-frequency (LF) Source Classes: of 80 detonations per year. geographical region. (A) LF4—an average of 110 hours per (D) E10 (>250 to 500 lb NEW)—an (a) Regulations in this subpart apply year. average of 4 detonations per year. only to the U.S. Navy for the taking of (B) LF5—an average of 71 hours per (E) E12 (>650 to 1,000 lb NEW)—an marine mammals that occurs in the area year. average of 10 detonations per year. outlined in paragraph (b) of this section (ii) Mid-frequency (MF): (ii) [Reserved]. (A) MF3—an average of 161 hours per and that occurs incidental to the (4) Impulsive Source Detonations year. activities described in paragraph (c) of During Testing: (B) MF4—an average of 10 hours per this section. (i) Explosive Classes: year. (b) The taking of marine mammals by (A) E3 (>0.5 to 2.5 lb NEW)—an (C) MF5—an average of 273 items per the Navy is only authorized if it occurs average of 72 detonations per year. within the NWTT Study Area, which is year. (D) MF6—an average of 12 items per (B) E4 (>2.5 to 5 lb NEW)—an average composed of established maritime year. of 70 detonations per year. operating and warning areas in the (E) MF8—an average of 40 hours per (C) E8 (>60 to 100 lb NEW)—an eastern North Pacific Ocean region, year. average of 3 detonations per year. including areas of the Strait of Juan de (F) MF9—an average of 1,183 hours (D) E11 (>500 to 650 lb NEW)—an Fuca, Puget Sound, and Western Behm per year. average of 3 detonations per year. Canal in southeastern Alaska. The Study (G) MF10—an average of 1,156 hours (ii) [Reserved] Area includes air and water space per year. § 218.141 Effective dates. within and outside Washington state (H) MF11—an average of 34 hours per Regulations in this subpart are waters, and outside state waters of year. Oregon and Northern California. The (I) MF12—an average of 24 hours per effective June 2, 2015 through June 2, Study Area includes four existing range year. 2020. complexes and facilities: The Northwest (iii) High-frequency (HF) and Very § 218.142 Permissible methods of taking. Training Range Complex (NWTRC), the High-frequency (VHF): (a) Under Letters of Authorization Keyport Range Complex, Carr Inlet (A) HF1—an average of 161 hours per (LOAs) issued pursuant to § 218.147, the Operations Area, and SEAFAC. In year. Holder of LOA may incidentally, but not addition to these range complexes, the (B) HF3—an average of 145 hours per intentionally, take marine mammals Study Area also includes Navy pierside year. locations where sonar maintenance and (C) HF5—an average of 360 hours per within the area described in § 218.140, testing occurs as part of overhaul, year. provided the activity is in compliance modernization, maintenance and repair (D) HF6—an average of 2,099 hours with all terms, conditions, and activities at NAVBASE Kitsap, per year. requirements of these regulations and Bremerton; NAVBASE Kitsap, Bangor; (iv) VHF: the appropriate LOA. and Naval Station Everett. (A) VHF2—an average of 35 hours per (b) The activities identified in (c) The taking of marine mammals by year. § 218.140(c) must be conducted in a the Navy is only authorized if it occurs (v) ASW: manner that minimizes, to the greatest incidental to the following activities (A) ASW1—an average of 16 hours extent practicable, any adverse impacts within the designated amounts of use: per year. on marine mammals and their habitat. (1) Sonar and other Active Sources (B) ASW2—an average of 64 hours per (c) The incidental take of marine Used During Training: year. mammals under the activities identified (i) Mid-frequency (MF) Source (C) ASW2—an average of 170 items in § 218.140(c) is limited to the Classes: per year. following species, by the identified (A) MF1—an average of 166 hours per (D) ASW3—an average of 444 hours method of take and the indicated year. per year. number of times: (B) MF3—an average of 70 hours per (E) ASW4—an average of 1,182 items (1) Level B Harassment for all year. per year. Training Activities:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31813

(i) Mysticetes: (2) Level A Harassment for all (M) Striped dolphin (Stenella (A) Blue whale (Balaenoptera Training Activities: coerulealba)—70 (an average of 14 per musculus)—25 (an average of 5 per (i) Mysticetes: year). year). (A) [Reserved] (iii) Pinnipeds: (B) Fin whale (Balaenoptera (B) [Reserved] (A) California sea lion (Zalophus physalus)—125 (an average of 25 per (ii) Odontocetes: californianus)—10,365 (an average of year). (A) Dall’s porpoise (Phocoenoidea 2,073 per year). (C) Gray whale (Eschrichtius dalli)—20 (an average of 4 per year). (B) Steller sea lion (Eumetopias robustus)—30 (an average of 6 per year). (B) Harbor porpoise (Phocoena jubatus)—2,520 (an average of 504 per (D) Humpback whale (Megaptera phocoena)—5 (an average of 1 per year). year). novaeangliae)—60 (an average of 12 per (iii) Pinnipeds: (C) Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus year). (A) Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina)—30 townsendi)—15 (an average of 3 per (E) Minke whale (Balaenoptera (an average of 6 per year). year). acutorostrata)—90 (an average of 18 per (B) [Reserved] (D) Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina)— year). (3) Level B Harassment for all Testing 312,690 (an average of 62,538 per year). (ii) Odontocetes: Activities: (E) Northern elephant seal (Mirounga (A) Baird’s beaked whale (Berardius (i) Mysticetes: angustirostris)—6,625 (an average of bairdii)—2,955 (an average of 591 per (A) Blue whale (Balaenoptera 1,325 per year). year). musculus)—30 (an average of 6 per (F) Northern fur seal (Callorhinus (B) Mesoplodont beaked whale year). ursinus)—9,285 (an average of 1,857 per Mesoplodon spp.)—7,085 (an average of (B) Fin whale (Balaenoptera year). 1,417 per year). physalus)—180 (an average of 36 per (4) Level A Harassment for all Testing (C) Cuvier’s beaked whale Ziphius year). Activities: cavirostris—1,765 (an average of 353 per (C) Gray whale (Eschrichtius (i) Mysticetes: year). robustus)—55 (an average of 11 per (A) [Reserved] (D) Dall’s porpoise Phocoenoidea year). (B) [Reserved] dalli—18,188 (an average of 3,732 per (D) Humpback whale (Megaptera (ii) Odontocetes: year). novaeangliae)—225 (an average of 45 (A) Kogia spp.—5 (an average of 1 per (E) Harbor porpoise Phocoena per year). year). phocoena—441,984 (an average of (E) Minke whale (Balaenoptera (B) Dall’ porpoise (Phocoenoidea 88,932 per year). acutorostrata)—90 (an average of 18 per (F) Killer whale Orcinus orca—110 dalli)—215 (an average of 43 per year). year). (C) Harbor porpoise (Phocoena (an average of 24 per year). (F) Sei whale (Balaenoptera (G) Kogia spp.—365 (an average of 73 phocoena)—220 (an average of 44 per borealis)—10 (an average of 2 per year). year). per year). (ii) Odontocetes: (H) Northern right whale dolphin (iii) Pinnipeds: (A) Baird’s beaked whale (Berardius (A) Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina)—430 Lissodelphis borealis—6,660 (an average bairdii)—870 (an average of 174 per of 1,332 per year). (an average of 86 per year).(B) Northern year). elephant seal (Mirounga (I) Pacific white-sided dolphin (B) Mesoplodont beaked whale Lagenorhynchus obliquidens—17,408 angustirostris)—10 (an average of 2 per (Mesoplodon spp.)—1,845 (an average year). (an average of 3,482 per year). of 369 per year). (J) Risso’s dolphin Grampus griseus— (C) [Reserved] (C) Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius 3,285 (an average of 657 per year). § 218.143 Prohibitions. (K) Short-beaked common dolphin cavirostris)—530 (an average of 106 per Delphinus delphis—3,670 (an average of year). Notwithstanding takings (D) Dall’s porpoise (Phocoenoidea 734 per year). contemplated in § 218.142 and (L) Sperm whale Physeter dalli)—56,695 (an average of 11,339 per authorized by an LOA issued under macrocephalus—405 (an average of 81 year). §§ 216.106 and 218.147 of this chapter, per year). (E) Harbor porpoise (Phocoena no person in connection with the (M) Striped dolphin Stenella phocoena)—246,465 (an average of activities described in § 218.140 may: coerulealba—110 (an average of 22 per 49,293 per year). (a) Take any marine mammal not year). (F) Killer whale (Orcinus orca)—1, specified in § 218.142(c); (iii) Pinnipeds: 130 (an average of 226 per year). (b) Take any marine mammal (A) California sea lion Zalophus (G) Kogia spp.—530 (an average of specified in § 218.142(c) other than by californianus—4,038 (an average of 814 106 per year). incidental take as specified in per year). (H) Northern right whale dolphin § 218.142(c); (B) Steller sea lion Eumetopias (Lissodelphis borealis)—10 (an average (c) Take a marine mammal specified jubatus—1,986 (an average of 404 per of 2,038 per year). in § 218.142(c) if such taking results in year). (I) Pacific white-sided dolphin more than a negligible impact on the (C) Guadalupe fur seal Arctocephalus (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens)—24,360 species or stocks of such marine townsendi—35 (an average of 7 per (an average of 4,872 per year). mammal; or year). (J) Risso’s dolphin (Grampus (d) Violate, or fail to comply with, the (D) Harbor seal Phoca vitulina—4,161 griseus)—5,770 (an average of 1,154 per terms, conditions, and requirements of (an average of 832 per year). year). these regulations or an LOA issued (E) Northern elephant seal Mirounga (K) Short-beaked common dolphin under §§ 216.106 and 218.147. angustirostris—6,353 (an average of (Delphinus delphis)—8,140 (an average 1,271 per year). of 1,628 per year). § 218.144 Mitigation. (F) Northern fur seal Callorhinus (L) Sperm whale (Physeter (a) When conducting training and ursinus—12,660 (an average of 2,532 per macrocephalus)—390 (an average of 78 testing activities, as identified in year). per year). § 218.140, the mitigation measures

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31814 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

contained in the LOA issued under submarine warfare and mine warfare (D) During non-explosive bombing §§ 216.106 and 218.147 of this chapter activities at sea will have one Lookout. exercises one Lookout will be must be implemented. These mitigation (iv) Lookout measures for explosives positioned in an aircraft and trained measures include, but are not limited to: and impulsive sound: Lookouts will be positioned in any (1) Lookouts—The following are (A) Aircraft conducting improved surface vessels involved. protective measures concerning the use extended echo ranging sonobuoy (2) Mitigation zones—The following of Lookouts. activities will have one Lookout. are protective measures concerning the (i) Lookouts positioned on surface (B) Aircraft conducting explosive implementation of mitigation zones. ships will be dedicated solely to diligent sonobuoy activities using >0.5 to 2.5-lb (i) Mitigation zones will be measured observation of the air and surface of the net explosive weight (NEW) will have as the radius from a source and water. Their observation objectives will one Lookout. represent a distance to be monitored. include, but are not limited to, detecting (C) General mine countermeasure and (ii) Visual detections of marine the presence of biological resources and neutralization activities involving mammals (or sea turtles) within a recreational or fishing boats, observing positive control diver placed charges mitigation zone will be communicated mitigation zones, and monitoring for using >0.5 to 2.5 lb NEW will have a immediately to a watch station for vessel and personnel safety concerns. total of two Lookouts (one Lookout information dissemination and appropriate action. (ii) Lookouts positioned ashore, in positioned in each of the two support (iii) Mitigation zones for non- aircraft or on boats will, to the vessels). All divers placing the charges maximum extent practicable and impulsive sound: on mines will support the Lookouts (A) The Navy shall ensure that hull- consistent with aircraft and boat safety while performing their regular duties. and training and testing requirements, mounted mid-frequency active sonar The divers and Lookouts will report all transmission levels are limited to at comply with the observation objectives marine mammal sightings to their dive described in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this least 6 dB below normal operating levels support vessel. if any detected marine mammals (or sea section. (D) Surface vessels or aircraft (iii) Lookout measures for non- turtles) are within 1,000 yd. (914 m) of conducting small- and medium-caliber the sonar dome (the bow). impulsive sound: gunnery exercises will have one (A) With the exception of vessels less (B) The Navy shall ensure that hull- Lookout. Towing vessels, if applicable, than 65 ft (20 m) in length and the mounted mid-frequency active sonar will also maintain one Lookout. Littoral Combat Ship (and similar transmissions are limited to at least 10 (E) Aircraft conducting missile vessels which are minimally manned), dB below the equipment’s normal exercises against a surface target will ships using low-frequency or hull- operating level if any detected marine have one Lookout. mounted mid-frequency active sonar mammals (or sea turtles) are within 500 (F) Aircraft conducting explosive sources associated with anti-submarine yd. (457 m) of the sonar dome. bombing exercises will have one warfare and mine warfare activities at (C) The Navy shall ensure that hull- Lookout and any surface vessels sea will have two Lookouts at the mounted mid-frequency active sonar involved will have trained Lookouts. forward position of the vessel. For the transmissions are ceased if any detected (G) During explosive torpedo testing purposes of this rule, low-frequency cetaceans (or sea turtles) are within 200 from aircraft one Lookout will be used active sonar does not include surface yd. (180 m) and pinnipeds are within and positioned in an aircraft. During towed array surveillance system low- 100 yd. (90 m) of the sonar dome. explosive torpedo testing from a surface frequency active sonar. Transmissions will not resume until the (B) While using low-frequency or ship the Lookout procedures marine mammal has been observed hull-mounted mid-frequency active implemented for hull-mounted mid- exiting the mitigation zone, is thought to sonar sources associated with anti- frequency active sonar activities will be have exited the mitigation zone based submarine warfare and mine warfare used. on its course and speed, has not been activities at sea, vessels less than 65 ft (H) Ships conducting explosive and detected for 30 minutes, the vessel has (20 m) in length and the Littoral Combat non-explosive large-caliber gunnery transited more than 2,000 yd. beyond Ship (and similar vessels which are exercises will have one Lookout. This the location of the last detection, or the minimally manned) will have one may be the same Lookout used for Lookout concludes that dolphins are Lookout at the forward position of the small, medium, and large-caliber deliberately closing in on the ship to vessel due to space and manning gunnery exercises using a surface target ride the ship’s bow wave (and there are restrictions. when that activity is conducted from a no other marine mammal sightings (C) Ships conducting active sonar ship against a surface target. within the mitigation zone). Active activities while moored or at anchor (v) Lookout measures for physical transmission may resume when (including pierside or shore-based strike and disturbance: dolphins are bow riding because they testing or maintenance) will maintain (A) While underway, surface ships are out of the main transmission axis of one Lookout. will have at least one Lookout. the active sonar while in the shallow- (D) Small boats, range craft, (B) During activities using towed in- wave area of the ship bow. The minimally manned vessels, or aircraft water devices towed from a manned pinniped mitigation zone does not conducting hull-mounted mid- platform, one Lookout will be used. apply for pierside or shore-based testing frequency testing will employ one During activities in which in-water in the vicinity of pinnipeds hauled out Lookout. devices are towed by unmanned on man-made structures and vessels. (E) Ships or aircraft conducting non- platforms, a manned escort vessel will (D) The Navy shall ensure that low- hull-mounted mid-frequency active be included and one Lookout will be frequency active sonar transmission sonar, such as helicopter dipping sonar employed. levels are ceased if any detected systems, will maintain one Lookout. (C) Activities involving non-explosive cetaceans (or sea turtles) are within 200 (F) Surface ships or aircraft practice munitions (e.g., small-, yd. (180 m) and pinnipeds are within conducting high-frequency or non-hull- medium-, and large-caliber gunnery 100 yd. (90 m) of the source. mounted mid-frequency active sonar exercises) using a surface target will Transmissions will not resume until the activities associated with anti- have one Lookout. marine mammal has been observed

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31815

exiting the mitigation zone, is thought to neutralization activities using positive NEW using a surface target. Firing will have exited the mitigation zone based control firing devices. Explosive cease if a marine mammal is sighted on its course and speed, has not been detonations will cease if a marine within the mitigation zone. Firing will detected for 30 minutes, or the vessel mammal is sighted in the water portion recommence if the animal is observed has transited more than 2,000 yd. of the mitigation zone (i.e., not on exiting the mitigation zone, the animal beyond the location of the last shore). Detonations will recommence if is thought to have exited the mitigation detection. The pinniped mitigation zone the animal is observed exiting the zone based on its course and speed, or does not apply for pierside testing in the mitigation zone, the animal is thought to the mitigation zone has been clear from vicinity of pinnipeds hauled out on have exited the mitigation zone based any additional sightings for a period of man-made structures and vessels. on its course and speed, or the 10 minutes or 30 minutes (depending on (E) The Navy shall ensure that high- mitigation zone has been clear from any aircraft type). frequency and non-hull-mounted mid- additional sightings for a period of 30 (H) A mitigation zone with a radius of frequency active sonar transmission minutes. 2,500 yd. (2.3 km) around the intended levels are ceased if any detected (D) A mitigation zone with a radius of impact location for explosive bombs cetaceans are within 200 yd. (180 m) 200 yd. (180 m) shall be established for shall be established for bombing and pinnipeds are within 100 yd. (90 m) small- and medium-caliber gunnery exercises. Bombing will cease if a of the source. Transmissions will not exercises with a surface target. Firing marine mammal is sighted within the resume until the marine mammal has will cease if a marine mammal is mitigation zone. Bombing will been observed exiting the mitigation sighted within the mitigation zone. recommence if the animal is observed zone, is thought to have exited the Firing will recommence if the animal is exiting the mitigation zone, the animal mitigation zone based on its course and observed exiting the mitigation zone, is thought to have exited the mitigation speed, the mitigation zone has been the animal is thought to have exited the zone based on its course and speed, or clear from any additional sightings for a mitigation zone based on its course and the mitigation zone has been clear from period of 10 minutes for an aircraft- speed, the mitigation zone has been any additional sightings for a period of deployed source, the mitigation zone clear from any additional sightings for a 10 minutes. has been clear from any additional period of 10 minutes for a firing aircraft, (I) A mitigation zone with a radius of sightings for a period of 30 minutes for the mitigation zone has been clear from 2,100 yd. (1.9 km) shall be established a vessel-deployed source, the vessel or any additional sightings for a period of for torpedo (explosive) testing. Firing aircraft has repositioned itself more than 30 minutes for a firing ship, or the will cease if a marine mammal, sea 400 yd. (370 m) away from the location intended target location has been turtle, or concentrations of floating of the last sighting, or the vessel repositioned more than 400 yd. (370 m) vegetation are sighted within the concludes that dolphins are deliberately away from the location of the last mitigation zone. Firing will closing in to ride the vessel’s bow wave sighting. recommence if the animal is observed (and there are no other marine mammal (E) A mitigation zone with a radius of exiting the mitigation zone, the animal sightings within the mitigation zone). 600 yd. (550 m) shall be established for is thought to have exited the mitigation The pinniped mitigation zone does not large-caliber gunnery exercises with a zone based on its course and speed, or apply for pierside or shore-based testing surface target. Firing will cease if a the mitigation zone has been clear from in the vicinity of pinnipeds hauled out marine mammal is sighted within the any additional sightings for a period of on man-made structures and vessels. mitigation zone. Firing will 10 minutes or 30 minutes (depending on (iv) Mitigation zones for explosive recommence if the animal is observed aircraft type). and impulsive sound: exiting the mitigation zone, the animal (iii) Mitigation zones for vessels and (A) For activities using IEERs, is thought to have exited the mitigation in-water devices: explosive detonations will cease if a zone based on its course and speed, or (A) A mitigation zone of 500 yd. (460 marine mammal, sea turtle, or the mitigation zone has been clear from m) for observed whales and 200 yd (183 concentrations of floating vegetation are any additional sightings for a period of m) for all other marine mammals sighted within a 600-yd. (550 m) 30 minutes. (except bow riding dolphins) shall be mitigation zone. Detonations will (F) The Navy is not proposing to use established for all vessel movement recommence if the animal is observed missiles with less than a 251 lb NEW during training activities, providing it is exiting the mitigation zone, the animal warhead in the NWTT Study Area. safe to do so. During testing activities, is thought to have exited the mitigation However, should the need arise to all range craft (vessels and aircraft, zone based on its course and speed, or conduct training activities using including helicopters) shall not the mitigation zone has been clear from missiles in this category, a mitigation approach within 100 yd. (90 m) of any additional sightings for a period of zone with a radius of 2,000 yd. (1.8 km) marine mammals. 30 minutes. shall be established for missile exercises (B) A mitigation zone of 250 yd. (230 (B) A mitigation zone with a radius of with up to 250 lb net explosive weight m) shall be established for all towed in- 350 yd. (320 m) shall be established for and a surface target. Firing will cease if water devices, providing it is safe to do explosive signal underwater sonobuoys a marine mammal is sighted within the so. using >0.5 to 2.5 lb net explosive mitigation zone. Firing will (vi) Mitigation zones for non- weight. Detonations will recommence if recommence if the animal is observed explosive practice munitions: the animal is observed exiting the exiting the mitigation zone, the animal (A) A mitigation zone of 200 yd. (180 mitigation zone, the animal is thought to is thought to have exited the mitigation m) shall be established for small, have exited the mitigation zone based zone based on its course and speed, or medium, and large caliber gunnery on its course and speed, or the the mitigation zone has been clear from exercises using a surface target. Firing mitigation zone has been clear from any any additional sightings for a period of will cease if a marine mammal is additional sightings for a period of 10 10 minutes or 30 minutes (depending on sighted within the mitigation zone. minutes. aircraft type). Firing will recommence if the animal is (C) A mitigation zone with a radius of (G) A mitigation zone with a radius of observed exiting the mitigation zone, 400 yd. (366 m) shall be established for 2,000 yd. (1.8 km) shall be established the animal is thought to have exited the mine countermeasures and for missile exercises with 251 to 500 lb mitigation zone based on its course and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31816 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

speed, the mitigation zone has been alive, injured and moving, unknown, days after the anniversary of the date of clear from any additional sightings for a etc.), vessel class/type and operational issuance of the LOA. The Navy shall period of 10 minutes for a firing aircraft, status. submit detailed reports 3 months after the mitigation zone has been clear from (3) Report to NMFS the vessel length, the anniversary of the date of issuance any additional sightings for a period of speed, and heading as soon as feasible. of the LOA. The detailed annual reports 30 minutes for a firing ship, or the (4) Provide NMFS a photo or video, if shall describe the level of training and intended target location has been equipment is available testing conducted during the reporting repositioned more than 400 yd. (370 m) (d) Event Communication Plan—The period, and a summary of sound sources away from the location of the last Navy shall develop a communication used (total annual hours or quantity [per sighting. plan that will include all of the the LOA] of each bin of sonar or other (B) A mitigation zone of 1,000 yd. communication protocols (phone trees, non-impulsive source; total annual (920 m) shall be established for bombing etc.) and associated contact information number of each type of explosive exercises. Bombing will cease if a required for NMFS and the Navy to exercises; total annual expended/ marine mammal is sighted within the carry out the necessary expeditious detonated rounds [missiles, bombs, etc.] mitigation zone. Bombing will communication required in the event of for each explosive bin; and improved recommence if the animal is observed a stranding or ship strike, including as Extended Echo-Ranging System (IEER)/ exiting the mitigation zone, the animal described in the proposed notification sonobuoy summary, including total is thought to have exited the mitigation measures above. number of IEER events conducted in the (e) The Navy must conduct all zone based on its course and speed, or Study Area, total expended/detonated monitoring and/or research required the mitigation zone has been clear from rounds (buoys), and total number of under the Letter of Authorization any additional sightings for a period of self-scuttled IEER rounds. The analysis including abiding by the NWTT 10 minutes. in the detailed reports will be based on Monitoring Plan (http:// the accumulation of data from the § 218.145 Requirements for monitoring www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ current year’s report and data collected and reporting. incidental/military.htm). from previous reports. (a) The Navy is required to cooperate (f) Annual NWTT Monitoring Plan with the NMFS, and any other Federal, Report—The Navy shall submit an (h) 5-year Close-out Exercise and state or local agency monitoring the annual report of the NWTT Monitoring Testing Report—This report will be impacts of the activity on marine Plan describing the implementation and included as part of the 2020 annual mammals. results of the NWTT Monitoring Plan exercise or testing report. This report (b) General Notification of Injured or from the previous calendar year. Data will provide the annual totals for each Dead Marine Mammals—Navy collection methods will be standardized sound source bin with a comparison to personnel shall ensure that NMFS is across range complexes and study areas the annual allowance and the 5-year notified immediately (or as soon as to allow for comparison in different total for each sound source bin with a clearance procedures allow) if an geographic locations. Although comparison to the 5-year allowance. injured, stranded, or dead marine additional information will be gathered, Additionally, if there were any changes mammal is found during or shortly the protected species observers to the sound source allowance, this after, and in the vicinity of, any Navy collecting marine mammal data report will include a discussion of why training exercise utilizing MFAS, HFAS, pursuant to the NWTT Monitoring Plan the change was made and include the or underwater explosive detonations. shall, at a minimum, provide the same analysis to support how the change did The Navy will provide NMFS with marine mammal observation data or did not result in a change in the SEIS species or description of the animal(s), required in § 218.145. The report shall and final rule determinations. The the condition of the animal(s) (including be submitted either 90 days after the report will be submitted 3 months after carcass condition if the animal is dead), calendar year, or 90 days after the the expiration of the rule. NMFS will location, time of first discovery, conclusion of the monitoring year to be submit comments on the draft close-out observed behaviors (if alive), and photo determined by the Adaptive report, if any, within 3 months of or video (if available). In the event that Management process. receipt. The report will be considered an injured, stranded, or dead marine The NWTT Monitoring Plan may be final after the Navy has addressed mammal is found by the Navy that is provided to NMFS within a larger report NMFS’ comments, or 3 months after the not in the vicinity of, or during or that includes the required Monitoring submittal of the draft if NMFS does not shortly after, MFAS, HFAS, or Plan reports from multiple range provide comments. complexes and study areas (the multi- underwater explosive detonations, the § 218.146 Applications for Letters of Navy will report the same information Range Complex Annual Monitoring Authorization. as listed above as soon as operationally Report). Such a report would describe feasible and clearance procedures allow. progress of knowledge made with To incidentally take marine mammals (c) General Notification of Ship respect to monitoring plan study pursuant to the regulations in this Strike—In the event of a ship strike by questions across all Navy ranges subpart, the U.S. citizen (as defined by any Navy vessel, at any time or place, associated with the ICMP. Similar study § 216.106) conducting the activity the Navy shall do the following: questions shall be treated together so identified in § 218.140(c) (the U.S. (1) Immediately report to NMFS the that progress on each topic shall be Navy) must apply for and obtain either species identification (if known), summarized across all Navy ranges. The an initial LOA in accordance with location (lat/long) of the animal (or the report need not include analyses and § 218.147 or a renewal under § 218.148. strike if the animal has disappeared), content that does not provide direct § 218.147 Letters of Authorization. and whether the animal is alive or dead assessment of cumulative progress on (or unknown) the monitoring plan study questions. (a) An LOA, unless suspended or (2) Report to NMFS as soon as (g) Annual NWTT Exercise and revoked, will be valid for a period of operationally feasible the size and Testing Reports—The Navy shall submit time not to exceed the period of validity length of animal, an estimate of the preliminary reports detailing the status of this subpart. injury status (ex., dead, injured but of authorized sound sources within 21 (b) Each LOA will set forth:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31817

(1) Permissible methods of incidental (2) NMFS determines that the set forth in the preamble for these taking; mitigation, monitoring, and reporting regulations. (2) Means of effecting the least measures required by the previous LOA (i) Possible sources of data that could practicable adverse impact on the under these regulations were contribute to the decision to modify the species, its habitat, and on the implemented. mitigation, monitoring, and reporting availability of the species for (b) For LOA modification or renewal measures in an LOA: subsistence uses (i.e., mitigation); and requests by the applicant that include (A) Results from Navy’s monitoring changes to the activity or the mitigation, (3) Requirements for mitigation, from the previous year(s); monitoring, or reporting (excluding monitoring and reporting. (B) Results from other marine changes made pursuant to the adaptive mammal and/or sound research or (c) Issuance and renewal of the LOA management provision of this chapter) studies; or will be based on a determination that that do not change the findings made for the total number of marine mammals (C) Any information that reveals the regulations or result in no more than marine mammals may have been taken taken by the activity as a whole will a minor change in the total estimated have no more than a negligible impact in a manner, extent, or number not number of takes (or distribution by authorized by these regulations or on the affected species or stock of species or years), NMFS may publish a marine mammal(s). subsequent LOAs. notice of proposed LOA in the Federal (ii) If, through adaptive management, § 218.148 Renewals and Modifications of Register, including the associated the modifications to the mitigation, Letters of Authorization and Adaptive analysis illustrating the change, and monitoring, or reporting measures are solicit public comment before issuing Management. substantial, NMFS would publish a the LOA. notice of proposed LOA in the Federal (a) A Letter of Authorization issued (c) An LOA issued under § 216.106 under §§ 216.106 and 218.147 of this and § 218.147 of this chapter for the Register and solicit public comment. chapter for the activity identified in activity identified in § 218.144 of this (2) Emergencies—If NMFS determines § 218.140(c) will be renewed or chapter may be modified by NMFS that an emergency exists that poses a modified upon request of the applicant, under the following circumstances: significant risk to the well-being of the provided that: (1) Adaptive Management—NMFS species or stocks of marine mammals (1) The proposed specified activity may modify (including augment) the specified in § 218.142(c), an LOA may and mitigation, monitoring, and existing mitigation, monitoring, or be modified without prior notification reporting measures, as well as the reporting measures (after consulting and an opportunity for public comment. anticipated impacts, are the same as with the Navy regarding the Notification would be published in the those described and analyzed for these practicability of the modifications) if Federal Register within 30 days of the regulations (excluding changes made doing so creates a reasonable likelihood action. pursuant to the adaptive management of more effectively accomplishing the [FR Doc. 2015–13038 Filed 6–2–15; 8:45 am] provision of this chapter), and; goals of the mitigation and monitoring BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:39 Jun 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\03JNP3.SGM 03JNP3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS