46302 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Purpose of Regulatory Action regarding the Navy’s activities. Major These regulations, issued under the provisions include, but are not limited National Oceanic and Atmospheric authority of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 to: Administration • The use of defined powerdown and et seq.), provide the framework for shutdown zones (based on activity); authorizing the take of marine mammals 50 CFR Part 218 • Measures to eliminate the incidental to the Navy’s training and likelihood of ship strikes; testing activities (which qualify as • [Docket No. 200713–0188] Activity limitations in certain areas military readiness activities) from the and times that are biologically use of sonar and other transducers and RIN 0648–BJ00 important (i.e., for foraging, migration, in-water detonations throughout the reproduction) for marine mammals; and MITT Study Area. The MITT Study Taking and Importing Marine • Implementation of a Notification Area includes the seas off the coasts of Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals and Reporting Plan (for dead or live Guam and the Commonwealth of the Incidental to the U.S. Navy Training stranded marine mammals); and Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), the • and Testing Activities in the Mariana Implementation of a robust in-water areas around the Mariana Islands Training and Testing (MITT) monitoring plan to improve our Islands Range Complex (MIRC), the Study Area understanding of the environmental transit corridor between the MIRC and effects resulting from the Navy training AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries the Hawaii Range Complex (HRC), and and testing activities. Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and select pierside and harbor locations. The Additionally, the rule includes an Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), transit corridor is outside the geographic adaptive management component that Commerce. boundaries of the MIRC and represents allows for timely modification of ACTION: Final rule; notification of a great circle route across the high seas mitigation or monitoring measures issuance of Letter of Authorization. for Navy vessels transiting between the based on new information, when MIRC and the HRC. The planned appropriate. SUMMARY: NMFS, upon request from the activities also include various activities U.S. Navy (Navy), issues these in Apra Harbor such as sonar Background regulations pursuant to the Marine maintenance alongside Navy piers The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to located in Inner Apra Harbor. marine mammals, with certain govern the taking of marine mammals NMFS received an application from exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and incidental to the training and testing the Navy requesting seven-year (D) of the MMPA direct the Secretary of activities conducted in the Mariana regulations and an authorization to Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to Islands Training and Testing (MITT) incidentally take individuals of multiple allow, upon request, the incidental, but Study Area. The Navy’s activities species of marine mammals (‘‘Navy’s not intentional, taking of small numbers qualify as military readiness activities rulemaking/LOA application’’ or of marine mammals by U.S. citizens pursuant to the MMPA, as amended by ‘‘Navy’s application’’). Take is who engage in a specified activity (other the National Defense Authorization Act anticipated to occur by Level A and than commercial fishing) within a for Fiscal Year 2004 (2004 NDAA). Level B harassment incidental to the specified geographical region if certain These regulations, which allow for the Navy’s training and testing activities, findings are made and either regulations issuance of a Letter of Authorization with no serious injury or mortality are issued or, if the taking is limited to (LOA) for the incidental take of marine expected or authorized. harassment, a notice of a proposed mammals during the described activities Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 authorization is provided to the public and timeframes, prescribe the U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) directs the for review and the opportunity to permissible methods of taking and other Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to submit comments. means of effecting the least practicable NMFS) to allow, upon request, the An authorization for incidental adverse impact on marine mammal incidental, but not intentional taking of takings shall be granted if NMFS finds species and their habitat, and establish small numbers of marine mammals by that the taking will have a negligible requirements pertaining to the U.S. citizens who engage in a specified impact on the species or stocks and will monitoring and reporting of such taking. activity (other than commercial fishing) not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or DATES: Effective from July 31, 2020, to within a specified geographical region July 30, 2027. if, after notice and public comment, the stocks for taking for subsistence uses agency makes certain findings and (where relevant). Further, NMFS must ADDRESSES: A copy of the Navy’s issues regulations that set forth prescribe the permissible methods of application, NMFS’ proposed and final permissible methods of taking pursuant taking and other means of effecting the rules and subsequent LOA for the to that activity, as well as monitoring least practicable adverse impact on the existing regulations, and other and reporting requirements. Section affected species or stocks and their supporting documents and documents 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and the habitat, paying particular attention to cited herein may be obtained online at: implementing regulations at 50 CFR part rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 216, subpart I, provide the legal basis for similar significance, and on the marine-mammal-protection/incidental- issuing this final rule and the availability of such species or stocks for take-authorizations-military-readiness- subsequent LOAs. As directed by this taking for certain subsistence uses activities. In case of problems accessing legal authority, this final rule contains (referred to in this rule as ‘‘mitigation these documents, please use the contact mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures’’); and requirements listed here (see FOR FURTHER requirements. pertaining to the monitoring and INFORMATION CONTACT). reporting of such takings. The MMPA FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Summary of Major Provisions Within defines ‘‘take’’ to mean to harass, hunt, Stephanie Egger, Office of Protected the Final Rule capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. The following is a summary of the hunt, capture, or kill any marine SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: major provisions of this final rule mammal. The Analysis and Negligible

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46303

Impact Determination section below proposed rulemaking comment periods influence the frequency, duration, discusses the definition of ‘‘negligible were considered in this final rule. intensity, and location of required impact.’’ Comments received on the proposed training and testing activities, but the The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2004 (2004 rule are addressed in this final rule in basic nature of sonar and explosive NDAA) (Pub. L. 108–136) amended the Comments and Responses section. events conducted in the MITT Study section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA to The following types of training and Area has remained the same. remove the ‘‘small numbers’’ and testing, which are classified as military The Navy’s rulemaking/LOA ‘‘specified geographical region’’ readiness activities pursuant to the application reflects the most up-to-date provisions indicated above and MMPA, as amended by the 2004 NDAA, compilation of training and testing amended the definition of ‘‘harassment’’ will be covered under the regulations activities deemed necessary to as applied to a ‘‘military readiness and LOA: Amphibious warfare (in-water accomplish military readiness activity.’’ The definition of harassment detonations), anti-submarine warfare requirements. The types and numbers of for military readiness activities (section (sonar and other transducers, in-water activities included in the rule account 3(18)(B) of the MMPA) is (i) Any act that detonations), surface warfare (in-water for fluctuations in training and testing injures or has the significant potential to detonations), and other testing and in order to meet evolving or emergent injure a marine mammal or marine training (sonar and other transducers). military readiness requirements. These mammal stock in the wild (Level A The activities will not include any pile regulations will cover training and Harassment); or (ii) Any act that driving/removal or use of air guns. testing activities that will occur for a disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine This will be the third time NMFS has seven-year period following the mammal or marine mammal stock in the promulgated incidental take regulations expiration of the current MMPA wild by causing disruption of natural pursuant to the MMPA relating to authorization for the MITT Study Area, behavioral patterns, including, but not similar military readiness activities in which expires on August 3, 2020. limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, the MITT Study Area, following those Description of the Specified Activity breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a effective from August 3, 2010, through point where such behavioral patterns August 3, 2015 (75 FR 45527; August 3, Additional detail regarding the are abandoned or significantly altered 2010) and from August 3, 2015 through specified activity was provided in our (Level B harassment). In addition, the August 3, 2020 (80 FR 46112; August 3, Federal Register notice of proposed 2004 NDAA amended the MMPA as it 2015). For this third rulemaking, the rulemaking (85 FR 5782; January 31, relates to military readiness activities Navy is proposing to conduct similar 2020); please see that notice of proposed such that the least practicable adverse activities as they have conducted over rulemaking or the Navy’s application for impact analysis shall include the past nine years under the previous more information. In addition, since consideration of personnel safety, rulemakings. publication of the proposed rule, practicality of implementation, and The Navy’s mission is to organize, additional mitigation measures have impact on the effectiveness of the train, equip, and maintain combat-ready been added, which are discussed in military readiness activity. naval forces capable of winning wars, detail in the Mitigation Measures More recently, section 316 of the deterring aggression, and maintaining section of this rule. The Navy requested NDAA for Fiscal Year 2019 (2019 freedom of the seas. This mission is authorization to take marine mammals NDAA) (Pub. L. 115–232), signed on mandated by Federal law (10 U.S.C. incidental to conducting training and August 13, 2018, amended the MMPA to 8062), which requires the readiness of testing activities. The Navy has allow incidental take rules for military the naval forces of the United States. determined that acoustic and explosive readiness activities under section The Navy executes this responsibility by stressors are most likely to result in 101(a)(5)(A) to be issued for up to seven training and testing at sea, often in impacts on marine mammals that could years. Prior to this amendment, all designated operating areas (OPAREA) rise to the level of harassment, and incidental take rules under section and testing and training ranges. The NMFS concurs with this determination. 101(a)(5)(A) were limited to five years. Navy must be able to access and utilize Descriptions of these activities are these areas and associated sea space and provided in section 2 of the 2020 MITT Summary and Background of Request air space in order to develop and Final Supplemental Environmental On February 11, 2019, NMFS received maintain skills for conducting naval Impact Statement (FSEIS)/Overseas EIS an application from the Navy for operations. The Navy’s testing activities (OEIS) (2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS) (U.S. authorization to take marine mammals ensure naval forces are equipped with Department of the Navy, 2020) and in by Level A and Level B harassment well-maintained systems that take the Navy’s rule making/LOA application incidental to training and testing advantage of the latest technological (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ activities (categorized as military advances. The Navy’s research and national/marine-mammal-protection/ readiness activities) from the use of acquisition community conducts incidental-take-authorizations-military- sonar and other transducers and in- military readiness activities that involve readiness-activities) and are water detonations in the MITT Study testing. The Navy tests ships, aircraft, summarized here. Area over a seven-year period beginning weapons, combat systems, sensors, and when the current authorization expires. related equipment, and conducts Dates and Duration On March 15, 2019, we published a scientific research activities to achieve The specified activities can occur at notice of receipt of application (NOR) in and maintain military readiness. any time during the seven-year period of the Federal Register (84 FR 9495), The tempo and types of training and validity of the regulations, with the requesting comments and information testing activities fluctuate because of the exception of the activity types and time related to the Navy’s request for 30 days. introduction of new technologies, the periods for which limitations have On January 31, 2020, we published a evolving nature of international events, explicitly been identified (see Mitigation notice of the proposed rulemaking (85 advances in warfighting doctrine and Measures section). The planned number FR 5782) and requested comments and procedures, and changes in force of training and testing activities are information related to the Navy’s structure (e.g., organization of ships, described in the Detailed Description of request for 45 days. All comments submarines, aircraft, weapons, and the Specified Activities section (Table received during the NOR and the personnel). Such developments 3).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46304 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Geographical Region targets, systems, and other material used identical in nature to the activities The MITT Study Area is comprised of during training and testing activities conducted during individual, crew, and three components: (1) The MIRC, (2) within these primary mission areas is smaller unit-level training events. In an additional areas on the high seas, and provided in the 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS MTE, however, these disparate training (3) a transit corridor between the MIRC Appendix A (Training and Testing tasks are conducted in concert, rather and the HRC. The MIRC includes the Activities Descriptions). than in isolation. Exercises may also be categorized as waters south of Guam to north of Pagan The Navy describes and analyzes the integrated or coordinated ASW (CNMI), and from the Pacific Ocean east effects of its activities within the 2020 exercises. The distinction between of the Mariana Islands to the Philippine MITT FSEIS/OEIS. In its assessment, the integrated and coordinated ASW Sea to the west, encompassing 501,873 Navy concluded that sonar and other exercises is how the units are being square nautical miles (nmi2) of open transducers and in-water detonations were the stressors that would result in controlled. Integrated ASW exercises are ocean. The additional areas of the high controlled by an existing command seas include the area to the north of the impacts on marine mammals that could rise to the level of harassment as structure, and generally occur during MIRC that is within the U.S. Exclusive the Integrated Phase of the training Economic Zone (EEZ) of the CNMI and defined under the MMPA. Therefore, the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application cycle. Coordinated exercises may have a the areas to the west of the MIRC. The command structure stood up solely for transit corridor is outside the geographic provides the Navy’s assessment of potential effects from these stressors in the event; for example, the commanding boundaries of the MIRC and represents officer of a ship may be placed in a great circle route (i.e., the shortest terms of the various warfare mission areas in which they will be conducted. tactical command of other ships for the distance) across the high seas for Navy duration of the exercise. Not all ships transiting between the MIRC and Those mission areas include the following: integrated ASW exercises are the HRC. Although not part of any considered MTEs, due to their scale, D Amphibious warfare (underwater defined range complex, the transit number of participants, duration, and detonations) corridor is important to the Navy in that amount of active sonar. The distinction D ASW (sonar and other transducers, it provides available air, sea, and between large, medium, and small underwater detonations) undersea space where vessels and integrated or coordinated exercises is D MIW (sonar and other transducers, aircraft conduct training and testing based on the scale of the exercise (i.e., underwater detonations) while in transit. While in transit and number of ASW units participating), the D SUW (underwater detonations) along the corridor, vessels and aircraft length of the exercise, and the total D Other training and testing activities will, at times, conduct basic and routine number of active sonar hours. NMFS (sonar and other transducers) unit-level activities such as gunnery and considered the effects of all training sonar training. Ships also conduct sonar The Navy’s training and testing exercises, not just these major, maintenance, which includes active activities in air warfare, electronic integrated, and coordinated training sonar transmissions. warfare, and expeditionary warfare do exercises in this rule. Additionally, the MITT Study Area not involve sonar and other transducers, includes pierside locations in the Apra underwater detonations, or any other Overview of Testing Activities Within Harbor Naval Complex where surface stressors that could result in the MITT Study Area ship and submarine sonar maintenance harassment, serious injury, or mortality The Navy’s research and acquisition occur. Activities in Apra Harbor include of marine mammals. Therefore, the community engages in a broad spectrum channels and routes to and from the activities in air, electronic, and of testing activities in support of the Navy port in the Apra Harbor Naval expeditionary warfare areas are not Fleet. These activities include, but are Complex, and associated wharves and discussed further in this rule, but are not limited to, basic and applied facilities within the Navy port. analyzed fully in the 2020 MITT FSEIS/ scientific research and technology OEIS. Additional detail regarding the Primary Mission Areas development; testing, evaluation, and primary mission areas was provided in maintenance of systems (missiles, radar, The Navy categorizes its at-sea our Federal Register notice of proposed and sonar) and platforms (surface ships, activities into functional warfare areas rulemaking (85 FR 5782; January 31, submarines, and aircraft); and called primary mission areas. These 2020); please see that notice of proposed acquisition of systems and platforms. activities generally fall into the rulemaking or the Navy’s application for The individual commands within the following eight primary mission areas: more information. research and acquisition community Air warfare; amphibious warfare; anti- include Naval Air Systems Command, submarine warfare (ASW); electronic Overview of Major Training Activities and Exercises Within the MITT Study Naval Sea Systems Command, and warfare; expeditionary warfare; mine Office of Naval Research. warfare (MIW); strike warfare; and Area surface warfare (SUW). Most activities A major training exercise (MTE) for Description of Stressors addressed in the MITT Study Area are purposes of this rulemaking is The Navy uses a variety of sensors, categorized under one of the primary comprised of several unit-level activities platforms, weapons, and other devices, mission areas. Activities that do not fall conducted by several units operating including ones used to ensure the safety within one of these areas are listed as together, commanded and controlled by of Sailors and Marines, to meet its ‘‘other activities.’’ Each warfare a single Commander, and typically mission. Training and testing with these community (surface, subsurface, generating more than 100 hours of systems may introduce acoustic (sound) aviation, and expeditionary warfare) active sonar. These exercises typically energy or shock waves from explosives may train in some or all of these employ an exercise scenario developed into the environment. The following primary mission areas. The testing to train and evaluate the exercise subsections describe the acoustic and community also categorizes most, but participants in tactical and operational explosive stressors for marine mammals not all, of its testing activities under tasks. In an MTE, most of the activities and their habitat (including prey these primary mission areas. A being directed and coordinated by the species) within the MITT Study Area. description of the sonar, munitions, Commander in charge of the exercise are Because of the complexity of analyzing

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46305

sound propagation in the ocean D Ensures a conservative approach to rapidly, so may detect objects over a environment, the Navy relied on all impact estimates, as all sources longer distance, but with less detail. acoustic models in its environmental within a given class are modeled as the Additional detail regarding sound analyses and rulemaking/LOA most impactful source (highest source sources and platforms and categories of application that considered sound level, longest duty cycle, or largest net acoustic stressors was provided in our source characteristics and varying ocean explosive weight) within that bin; Federal Register notice of proposed conditions across the MITT Study Area. D Allows analyses to be conducted in rulemaking (85 FR 5782; January 31, Stressor/resource interactions that were a more efficient manner, without any 2020); please see that notice of proposed determined to have de minimis or no compromise of analytical results; and rulemaking or the Navy’s application for impacts (i.e., vessel, aircraft, or weapons D Provides a framework to support the more information. noise, and explosions in air) were not reallocation of source usage (hours/ Sonars and other transducers are carried forward for analysis in the explosives) between different source grouped into classes that share an Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application. bins, as long as the total numbers of attribute, such as frequency range or NMFS reviewed the Navy’s analysis and takes remain within the overall purpose of use. As detailed below, conclusions on de minimis sources and analyzed and authorized limits. This classes are further sorted by bins based finds them complete and supportable. flexibility is required to support on the frequency or bandwidth; source Acoustic stressors include acoustic evolving Navy training and testing level; and, when warranted, the signals emitted into the water for a requirements, which are linked to real application in which the source would specific purpose, such as sonar and world events. be used. Unless stated otherwise, a other transducers (devices that convert Sonar and Other Transducers reference distance of 1 meter (m) is used energy from one form to another—in for sonar and other transducers. Active sonar and other transducers this case, into sound waves), as well as • Frequency of the non-impulsive emit non-impulsive sound waves into incidental sources of broadband sound acoustic source; the water to detect objects, navigate produced as a byproduct of vessel Æ Low-frequency sources operate safely, and communicate. Passive sonars movement and use of weapons or other below 1 kHz; deployed objects. Explosives also differ from active sound sources in that Æ they do not emit acoustic signals; rather, Mid-frequency sources operate at produce broadband sound but are and above 1 kHz, up to and including characterized separately from other they only receive acoustic information about the environment, or listen. In this 10 kHz; acoustic sources due to their unique Æ High-frequency sources operate hazardous characteristics. rule, the terms sonar and other transducers will be used to indicate above 10 kHz, up to and including 100 Characteristics of each of these sound kHz; sources are described in the following active sound sources unless otherwise Æ specified. Very high-frequency sources sections. operate above 100 kHz but below 200 In order to better organize and The Navy employs a variety of sonars kHz; facilitate the analysis of approximately and other transducers to obtain and • Sound pressure level of the non- 300 sources of underwater sound used transmit information about the undersea environment. Some examples are mid- impulsive source; for training and testing by the Navy, Æ including sonar and other transducers frequency hull-mounted sonars used to Greater than 160 decibels (dB) re 1 and explosives, a series of source find and track enemy submarines; high- micro Pascal (mPa), but less than 180 dB frequency small object detection sonars re 1 mPa; classifications, or source bins, was Æ developed. The source classification used to detect mines; high-frequency Equal to 180 dB re 1 mPa and up to underwater modems used to transfer 200 dB re 1 mPa; bins do not include the broadband Æ sounds produced incidental to vessel or data over short ranges; and extremely Greater than 200 dB re 1 mPa; • aircraft transits, weapons firing, and high-frequency (greater than 200 Application in which the source bow shocks. kilohertz (kHz)) doppler sonars used for would be used; The use of source classification bins navigation, like those used on Æ Sources with similar functions that provides the following benefits: commercial and private vessels. The have similar characteristics, such as D Provides the ability for new sensors characteristics of these sonars and other pulse length (duration of each pulse), or munitions to be covered under transducers, such as source level, beam beam pattern, and duty cycle. existing authorizations, as long as those width, directivity, and frequency, The bins used for classifying active sources fall within the parameters of a depend on the purpose of the source. sonars and transducers that are ‘‘bin;’’ Higher frequencies can carry more quantitatively analyzed in the MITT D Improves efficiency of source information or provide more Study Area are shown in Table 1 below. utilization data collection and reporting information about objects off which they While general parameters or source requirements anticipated under the reflect, but attenuate more rapidly. characteristics are shown in the table, MMPA authorizations; Lower frequencies attenuate less actual source parameters are classified.

TABLE 1—SONAR AND TRANSDUCERS QUANTITATIVELY ANALYZED IN THE MITT STUDY AREA

Source class category Bin Description

Low-Frequency (LF): Sources that produce signals less than 1 LF4 ...... LF sources equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB. kHz. LF5 ...... LF sources less than 180 dB. Mid-Frequency (MF): Tactical and non-tactical sources that MF1 ...... Hull-mounted surface ship sonars (e.g., AN/SQS–53C and AN/ produce signals between 1 and 10 kHz. SQS–60). MF1K ...... Kingfisher mode associated with MF1 sonars. MF3 ...... Hull-mounted submarine sonars (e.g., AN/BQQ–10). MF4 ...... Helicopter-deployed dipping sonars (e.g., AN/AQS–22). MF5 ...... Active acoustic sonobuoys (e.g., DICASS). MF6 ...... Underwater sound signal devices (e.g., MK 84 SUS).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46306 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1—SONAR AND TRANSDUCERS QUANTITATIVELY ANALYZED IN THE MITT STUDY AREA—Continued

Source class category Bin Description

MF9 ...... Sources (equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB) not otherwise binned. MF11 ...... Hull-mounted surface ship sonars with an active duty cycle greater than 80 percent. MF12 ...... Towed array surface ship sonars with an active duty cycle greater than 80 percent. High-Frequency (HF): Tactical and non-tactical sources that HF1 ...... Hull-mounted submarine sonars (e.g., AN/BQQ–10). produce signals between 10 and 100 kHz. HF3 ...... Other hull-mounted submarine sonars (classified). HF4 ...... Mine detection, classification, and neutralization sonar (e.g., AN/SQS–20). HF6 ...... Sources (equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB) not otherwise binned. Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW): Tactical sources (e.g., active ASW1 ...... MF systems operating above 200 dB. sonobuoys and acoustic countermeasures systems) used dur- ASW2 ...... MF Multistatic Active Coherent sonobuoy (e.g., AN/SSQ–125). ing ASW training and testing activities. ASW3 ...... MF towed active acoustic countermeasure systems (e.g., AN/ SLQ–25). ASW4 ...... MF expendable active acoustic device countermeasures (e.g., MK 3). ASW5 ...... MF sonobuoys with high duty cycles. Torpedoes (TORP): Active acoustic signals produced by tor- TORP1 ..... Lightweight torpedo (e.g., MK 46, MK 54, or Anti-Torpedo Tor- pedoes. pedo). TORP2 ..... Heavyweight torpedo (e.g., MK 48). TORP3 ..... Heavyweight torpedo (e.g., MK 48). Forward Looking Sonar (FLS): Forward or upward looking object FLS2 ...... HF sources with short pulse lengths, narrow beam widths, and avoidance sonars used for ship navigation and safety. focused beam patterns. Acoustic Modems (M): Sources used to transmit data ...... M3 ...... MF acoustic modems (greater than 190 dB). Synthetic Aperture Sonars (SAS): Sonars used to form high-res- SAS2 ...... HF SAS systems. olution images of the seafloor. SAS4 ...... MF to HF broadband mine countermeasure sonar.

Explosives propagation medium, and, in water, the bottom. Most detonations will occur in detonation depth and the depth of the waters greater than 200 ft in depth, and This section describes the receiver (i.e., marine mammal). The net greater than 3 nmi from shore, with the characteristics of explosions during explosive weight, which is the explosive exception of three existing mine warfare naval training and testing. The activities power of a charge expressed as the areas (Outer Apra Harbor, Piti, and Agat analyzed in the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA equivalent weight of trinitrotoluene application that use explosives are Bay). Nearshore small explosive charges (TNT), accounts for the first two only occur at the three mine warfare described in Appendix A (Training and parameters. The effects of these factors Testing Activities Descriptions) of the areas. Piti and Agat Bay, while are explained in Appendix H (Acoustic nearshore, are in very deep water and 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS. Explanations of and Explosive Concepts) of the 2020 the terminology and metrics used when used for floating mine neutralization MITT FSEIS/OEIS. activities. In order to better organize and describing explosives in the Navy’s rule Explosive detonations during training making/LOA application are also in facilitate the analysis of explosives used and testing activities are associated with by the Navy during training and testing Appendix H (Acoustic and Explosive high-explosive munitions, including, Concepts) of the 2020 MITT FSEIS/ that could detonate in water or at the but not limited to, bombs, missiles, water surface, explosive classification OEIS. rockets, naval gun shells, torpedoes, bins were developed. The use of The near-instantaneous rise from mines, demolition charges, and explosive classification bins provides ambient to an extremely high peak explosive sonobuoys. Explosive the same benefits as described for pressure is what makes an explosive detonations during training and testing acoustic source classification bins shock wave potentially damaging. involving the use of high-explosive discussed above and in Section 1.4.1 Farther from an explosive, the peak munitions (including bombs, missiles, pressures decay and the explosive and naval gun shells) could occur in the (Acoustic Stressors) of the Navy’s waves propagate as an impulsive, air or at the water’s surface. Explosive rulemaking/LOA application. broadband sound. Several parameters detonations associated with torpedoes Explosives detonated in water are influence the effect of an explosive: The and explosive sonobuoys could occur in binned by net explosive weight. The weight of the explosive in the warhead, the water column; mines and bins of explosives that are planned for the type of explosive material, the demolition charges could be detonated use in the MITT Study Area are shown boundaries and characteristics of the in the water column or on the ocean in Table 2 below.

TABLE 2—EXPLOSIVES ANALYZED IN THE MITT STUDY AREA

Net explosive Bin weight Example explosive source (lb)

E1 ...... 0.1–0.25 Medium-caliber projectiles.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46307

TABLE 2—EXPLOSIVES ANALYZED IN THE MITT STUDY AREA—Continued

Net explosive Bin weight Example explosive source (lb)

E2 ...... >0.25–0.5 Anti-swimmer grenade. E3 ...... >0.5–2.5 57 mm projectile. E4 ...... >2.5–5 Mine neutralization charge. E5 ...... >5–10 5 in projectiles. E6 ...... >10–20 Hellfire missile. E8 ...... >60–100 250 lb bomb; Lightweight torpedo. E9 ...... >100–250 500 lb bomb. E10 ...... >250–500 1,000 lb bomb. E11 ...... >500–650 Heavyweight torpedo. E12 ...... >650–1,000 2,000 lb bomb. Notes: (1) Net Explosive Weight refers to the equivalent amount of TNT. The actual weight of a munition may be larger due to other compo- nents; (2) in = inch(es), lb = pound(s), ft = feet.

Propagation of explosive pressure with distance as the fragment density is and technology followed by concept waves in water is highly dependent on reduced. Fragments underwater tend to testing relevant to future Navy needs. environmental characteristics such as be larger than fragments produced by in- Unlike other Navy range complexes, bathymetry, bottom type, water depth, air explosions (Swisdak and Montaro, training and testing in the MITT Study temperature, and salinity, which affect 1992). Underwater, the friction of the Area is more episodic as transiting how the pressure waves are reflected, water would quickly slow these strike groups or individual units travel refracted, or scattered; the potential for fragments to a point where they no through on the way to and from the reverberation; and interference due to longer pose a threat. Opposingly, the Western Pacific, or forward deployed multi-path propagation. In addition, blast wave from an explosive detonation assets temporarily travel to the MITT absorption greatly affects the distance moves efficiently through the seawater. Study Area for individual or group over which higher-frequency Because the ranges to mortality and activities. This section analyzes a components of explosive broadband injury due to exposure to the blast wave maximum number of activities that noise can propagate. Appendix H are likely to far exceed the zone where could occur each year and then a (Acoustic and Explosive Concepts) of fragments could injure or kill an animal, maximum total of activities that could the thresholds for assessing the the 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS explains the occur over seven years. One activity, likelihood of harassment from a blast, characteristics of explosive detonations Torpedo (Explosive) Testing, does not which are also used to inform mitigation and how the above factors affect the occur every year, but the maximum propagation of explosive energy in the zones, are assumed to encompass risk due to fragmentation. times it could occur over one year and water. seven years was analyzed. Marine mammals could be exposed to Detailed Description of the Specified The training and testing activities that fragments from underwater explosions Activities associated with the specified activities. the Navy proposes to conduct in the When explosive ordnance (e.g., bomb or Planned Training and Testing Activities MITT Study Area are summarized in missile) detonates, fragments of the The Navy’s Operational Commands Table 3. The table is organized weapon are thrown at high-velocity and various System Commands have according to primary mission areas and from the detonation point, which can identified activity levels that are needed includes the activity name, associated injure or kill marine mammals if they in the MITT Study Area to ensure naval stressors, description of the activity, are struck. These fragments may be of forces have sufficient training, sound source bin, the locations of those variable size and are ejected at maintenance, and new technology to activities in the MITT Study Area, and supersonic speed from the detonation. meet Navy missions in the Pacific. the number of activities. For further The casing fragments will be ejected at Training prepares Navy personnel to be information regarding the primary velocities much greater than debris from proficient in safely operating and platform used (e.g., ship or aircraft type) any target due to the proximity of the maintaining equipment, weapons, and see Appendix A (Training and Testing casing to the explosive material. Risk of systems to conduct assigned missions. Activities Descriptions) of the 2020 fragment injury reduces exponentially Navy research develops new science MITT FSEIS/OEIS. TABLE 3—TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED ANNUALLY AND FOR A SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE MITT STUDY AREA

Typical duration of Annual 7-Year Stressor category Activity Description Source bin 1 Location number number event of events of events

Major Training Event—Large Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare Training (ASW)

Acoustic ...... Joint Multi-Strike Typically a 10-day Joint exercise, in 10 days ...... ASW2, ASW3, Study Area; MIRC 1 7 Group Exercise. which up to three carrier strike ASW4, ASW5, groups would conduct training ex- HF1, MF1, ercises simultaneously. MF11, MF3, MF4, MF5, MF12, TORP1.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46308 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 3—TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED ANNUALLY AND FOR A SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE MITT STUDY AREA—Continued

Annual 7-Year Typical duration of Stressor category Activity Description Source bin 1 Location number number event of events of events

Major Training Event—Medium Integrated ASW

Acoustic ...... Joint Expedi- Typically a 10-day exercise that 10 days ...... ASW2, ASW3, Study Area; Apra 1 7 tionary Exercise. could include a Carrier Strike MF1, MF4, Harbor. Group and Expeditionary Strike MF5, MF12. Group, Marine Expeditionary Units, Army Infantry Units, and Air Force aircraft together in a joint environment that includes planning and execution efforts as well as military training activities at sea, in the air, and ashore.

Medium Coordinated ASW

Acoustic ...... Marine Air Ground Typically a 10-day exercise that con- 10 days ...... ASW3, MF1, MF4, Study Area to 4 28 Task Force Ex- ducts over the horizon, ship to ob- MF12. nearshore; ercise (Amphib- jective maneuver for the elements MIRC; Tinian; ious)—Battalion. of the Expeditionary Strike Group Guam; Rota; and the Amphibious Marine Air Saipan; Farallon Ground Task Force. The exercise De Medinilla. utilizes all elements of the Marine Air Ground Task Force (Amphib- ious), conducting training activities ashore with logistic support of the Expeditionary Strike Group and conducting amphibious landings.

ASW

Acoustic ...... Tracking Exer- Helicopter crews search for, detect, 2–4 hours ...... MF4, MF5 ...... Study Area >3 NM 10 70 cise—Helicopter and track submarines. from land; Tran- (TRACKEX— sit Corridor. Helo). Acoustic ...... Torpedo Exer- Helicopter crews search for, detect, 2–5 hours ...... MF4, MF5, Study Area >3 NM 6 42 cise—Helicopter and track submarines. Recover- TORP1. from land. (TORPEX— able air launched torpedoes are Helo). employed against submarine tar- gets. Acoustic ...... Tracking Exer- Maritime patrol aircraft crews search 2–8 hours ...... MF5 ...... Study Area >3 NM 36 252 cise—Maritime for, detect, and track submarines. from land. Patrol Aircraft (TRACKEX— Maritime Patrol Aircraft). Acoustic ...... Torpedo Exer- Maritime patrol aircraft crews search 2–8 hours ...... MF5, TORP1 ...... Study Area >3 NM 6 42 cise—Maritime for, detect, and track submarines. from land. Patrol Aircraft Recoverable air launched tor- (TORPEX— pedoes are employed against sub- Maritime Patrol marine targets. Aircraft). Acoustic ...... Tracking Exercise Surface ship crews search for, de- 2–4 hours ...... ASW1, ASW3, Study Area >3 NM 91 637 –Surface tect, and track submarines. MF1, MF11, from land*. (TRACKEX— MF12. Surface). Acoustic ...... Torpedo Exer- Surface ship crews search for, de- 2–5 hours ...... ASW3, MF1, MF5, Study Area >3 NM 6 42 cise—Surface tect, and track submarines. Exer- TORP1. from land. (TORPEX—Sur- cise torpedoes are used during face). this event. Acoustic ...... Tracking Exer- Submarine crews search for, detect, 8 hours ...... ASW4, HF1, HF3, Study Area >3 NM 4 28 cise—Sub- and track submarines. MF3. from land; Tran- marine sit Corridor. (TRACKEX— Sub). Acoustic ...... Torpedo Exer- Submarine crews search for, detect, 8 hours ...... ASW4, HF1, MF3, Study Area >3 NM 9 63 cise—Sub- and track submarines. Recover- TORP2. from land. marine able exercise torpedoes are used (TORPEX— during this event. Sub). Acoustic ...... Small Combined Typically, a 5-day exercise with mul- 5 days ...... ASW2, ASW3, Study Area >3 NM 38 56 Coordinated tiple ships, aircraft and sub- ASW4, HF1, from land*. ASW exercise marines integrating the use of MF1, MF3, (Multi-Sail/ their sensors, including MF4, MF5, GUAMEX). sonobuoys, to search, detect, and MF11, MF12. track threat submarines.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46309

TABLE 3—TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED ANNUALLY AND FOR A SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE MITT STUDY AREA—Continued

Annual 7-Year Typical duration of Stressor category Activity Description Source bin 1 Location number number event of events of events

Mine Warfare

Acoustic ...... Civilian Port De- Maritime security personnel train to Multiple days ...... HF4, SAS2 ...... MIRC, Mariana 1 7 fense. protect civilian ports and harbors littorals, Inner against enemy efforts to interfere and Outer Apra with access to those ports. Harbor. Explosive ...... Mine Neutraliza- Ship, small boat, and helicopter 1–4 hours ...... E4 ...... Study Area, Mar- 4 28 tion—Remotely crews locate and disable mines iana littorals, Operated Vehi- using remotely operated under- and Outer Apra cle Sonar water vehicles. Harbor. (ASQ–235 [AQS–20], SLQ–48). Acoustic ...... Mine Counter- Ship crews detect, locate, identify, 1–4 hours ...... HF4 ...... Study Area, Apra 4 28 measure Exer- and avoid mines while navigating Harbor. cise—Surface restricted areas or channels, such Ship Sonar as while entering or leaving port. (SQQ–32, MCM). Acoustic ...... Mine Counter- Surface ship crews detect and avoid 1–4 hours ...... HF4 ...... Study Area, Apra 4 28 measure Exer- mines while navigating restricted Harbor. cise—Towed areas or channels using towed ac- Sonar (AQS– tive sonar systems. 20). Explosive ...... Mine Neutraliza- Personnel disable threat mines using Up to 4 hours ...... E5, E6 ...... Agat Bay site, Piti, 20 140 tion—Explosive explosive charges. and Outer Apra Ordnance Dis- Harbor. posal. Acoustic ...... Submarine Mine Submarine crews practice detecting Varies ...... HF1 ...... Study Area, Mar- 1 7 Exercise. mines in a designated area. iana Littorals, Inner/Outer Apra Harbor. Acoustic ...... Surface Ship Ob- Ship crews detect and avoid mines 1–4 hours ...... MF1K ...... Study Area ...... 6 42 ject Detection. while navigating restricted areas or channels using active sonar. Explosive ...... Underwater Dem- Navy divers conduct various levels Varies ...... E5, E6 ...... Agat Bay site, Piti, 45 315 olition Qualifica- of training and certification in plac- and Outer Apra tion/Certification. ing underwater demolition charges. Harbor.

Surface Warfare (SUW)

Explosive ...... Bombing Exercise Fixed-wing aircrews deliver bombs 1 hour ...... E9, E10, E12 ...... Study Area, Spe- 37 259 (Air-to-Surface). against stationary surface targets. cial Use Air- space. Explosive ...... Gunnery Exercise Fixed-wing and helicopter aircrews 1 hour ...... E1, E2 ...... Study Area >12 120 840 (GUNEX) (Air- fire medium-caliber guns at sur- NM from land, to-Surface)— face targets. Special Use Air- Medium-caliber. space. Explosive ...... GUNEX (Surface- Small boat crews fire medium-caliber 1 hour ...... E2 ...... Study Area >12 20 140 to-Surface) guns at surface targets. NM from land, Boat—Medium- Special Use Air- caliber. space. Explosive ...... GUNEX (Surface- Surface ship crews fire large-caliber Up to 3 hours ...... E5 ...... Study Area >12 255 1,785 to-Surface) guns at surface targets. NM from land, Ship—Large- Special Use Air- caliber. space. Explosive ...... GUNEX (Surface- Surface ship crews fire medium and 2–3 hours ...... E1 ...... Study Area >12 234 1,638 to-Surface) small-caliber guns at surface tar- NM from land, Ship—Small- gets. Special Use Air- and Medium- space. caliber. Explosive ...... Maritime Security Helicopter, surface ship, and small Up to 3 hours ...... E2 ...... Study Area; MIRC 40 280 Operations. boat crews conduct a suite of mar- itime security operations at sea, to include visit, board, search and seizure, maritime interdiction oper- ations, force protection, and anti- piracy operations. Explosive ...... Missile Exercise Fixed-wing and helicopter aircrews 2 hours ...... E6, E8, E10 ...... Study Area >12 10 70 (Air-to-Surface) fire air-to-surface missiles at sur- NM from land, (MISSILEX [A– face targets. Special Use Air- S]). space. Explosive ...... Missile Exercise Helicopter aircrews fire both preci- 1 hour ...... E3 ...... Study Area >12 110 770 (Air-to-Sur- sion-guided and unguided rockets NM from land, face)—Rocket at surface targets. Special Use Air- (MISSILEX [A– space. S]—Rocket).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46310 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 3—TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED ANNUALLY AND FOR A SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE MITT STUDY AREA—Continued

Annual 7-Year Typical duration of Stressor category Activity Description Source bin 1 Location number number event of events of events

Explosive ...... Missile Exercise Surface ship crews defend against 2–5 hours ...... E6, E10 ...... Study Area >50 28 196 (Surface-to-Sur- surface threats (ships or small NM from land, face). boats) and engage them with mis- Special Use Air- (MISSILEX [S–S]) siles. space. Explosive ...... Sinking Exercise .. Aircraft, ship, and submarine crews 4–8 hours, pos- E5, E8, E10, E11, Study Area >50 1 7 deliberately sink a seaborne tar- sibly over 1–2 E12, TORP2. NM from land get, usually a decommissioned days. and >1,000 ship made environmentally safe fathoms depth. for sinking according to U.S. Envi- ronmental Protection Agency standards, with a variety of ord- nance.

Other Training Activities

Acoustic ...... Submarine Navi- Submarine crews operate sonar for Up to 2 hours ...... HF1, MF3 ...... Study Area, Apra 8 56 gation. navigation and detection while Harbor, and transiting into and out of port dur- Mariana littorals. ing reduced visibility. Acoustic ...... Submarine Sonar Maintenance of submarine sonar Up to 1 hour ...... MF3 ...... Study Area; Apra 86 602 Maintenance. and other system checks are con- Harbor and ducted pierside or at sea. Mariana littorals. Acoustic ...... Surface Ship Maintenance of surface ship sonar Up to 4 hours ...... MF1 ...... Study Area; Apra 44 308 Sonar Mainte- and other system checks are con- Harbor and nance. ducted pierside or at sea. Mariana littorals. Acoustic ...... Unmanned Under- Units conduct training with un- Up to 24 hours .... FLS2, M3, SAS2, MIRC; Apra Har- 64 448 water Vehicle manned underwater vehicles from SAS4. bor and Mar- Training. a variety of platforms, including iana littorals. surface ships, small boats, and submarines.

Testing Activities

ASW Acoustic; Explo- Anti-Submarine The test evaluates the sensors and 8 hours ...... ASW2, ASW5, Study Area >3 NM 26 182 sive. Warfare Track- systems used by maritime patrol E1, E3, MF5, from land. ing Test—Mari- aircraft to detect and track sub- MF6. time Patrol Air- marines and to ensure that aircraft craft systems used to deploy the track- (Sonobuoys). ing systems perform to specifica- tions and meet operational re- quirements.

Acoustic ...... Anti-Submarine This event is similar to the training 2–6 flight hours ... MF5, TORP1 ...... Study Area >3 NM 20 140 Warfare Tor- event torpedo exercise. Test eval- from land. pedo Test. uates anti-submarine warfare sys- tems onboard rotary-wing and fixed-wing aircraft and the ability to search for, detect, classify, lo- calize, track, and attack a sub- marine or similar target. Acoustic ...... Anti-Submarine Ships and their supporting platforms 1–2 weeks, with ASW1, ASW2, Mariana Island 100 700 Warfare Mission (e.g., helicopters and unmanned 4–8 hours of ASW3, ASW5, Range Complex. Package Test- aerial systems) detect, localize, active sonar MF12, MF4, ing. and prosecute submarines. use with inter- MF5, TORP1. vals of non-ac- tivity in between. Acoustic ...... At-Sea Sonar At-sea testing to ensure systems are From 4 hours to HF1, HF6, M3, Study Area ...... 7 49 Testing. fully functional in an open ocean 11 days. MF3, MF9. environment. Acoustic; Explo- Torpedo (Explo- Air, surface, or submarine crews em- 1–2 days during ASW3, HF1, HF6, Mariana Island 3 9 sive. sive) Testing. ploy explosive and non-explosive daylight hours. MF1, MF3, Range Complex. torpedoes against artificial targets. MF4, MF5, MF6, TORP1, TORP2, E8, E11. Acoustic ...... Torpedo (Non-ex- Air, surface, or submarine crews em- Up to 2 weeks ..... ASW3, ASW4, Mariana Island 7 49 plosive) Testing. ploy non-explosive torpedoes HF1, HF6, LF4, Range Complex. against submarines or surface MF1, MF3, vessels. MF4, MF5, MF6, TORP1, TORP2, TORP3.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46311

TABLE 3—TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES ANALYZED ANNUALLY AND FOR A SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IN THE MITT STUDY AREA—Continued

Typical duration of Annual 7-Year Stressor category Activity Description Source bin 1 Location number number event of events of events

Mine Warfare

Acoustic; Explo- Mine Counter- Air, surface, and subsurface vessels 1–10 days, with HF4, E4 ...... MIRC; nearshore 3 21 sive. measure and neutralize threat mines and mine- intermittent use and littorals. Neutralization like objects. of counter- Testing. measure/neu- tralization sys- tems during this period.

Surface Warfare

Explosive ...... Air to Surface Fixed-wing and helicopter aircrews 2 hours ...... E10 ...... Study Area >50 4 28 Missile Test. fire air-to-surface missiles at sur- NM from land. face targets.

Vessel Evaluation

Acoustic ...... Undersea Warfare Ships demonstrate capability of Up to 10 days ...... HF4, MF1, MF4, MIRC ...... 1 7 Testing. countermeasure systems and un- MF5, TORP1. derwater surveillance, weapons engagement, and communications systems. This tests ships’ ability to detect, track, and engage under- sea targets. 1 Additional activities utilizing sources not listed in the Major Training Event and coordinated exercise bins above may occur during these exercises. All acoustic sources which may be used during training and testing activities have been accounted for in the modeling and analysis presented in this application and in the 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS. * Includes limited occurrence within the Marpi Reef Geographic Mitigation Area and a portion of Chalan Kanoa Reef Geographic Mitigation Area outside of 3 nmi from land (see Figures 1 and 2).

Summary of Acoustic and Explosive testing activities over a seven-year could occur over seven years under the Sources Analyzed for Training and period in the MITT Study Area that planned training and testing activities. Testing were analyzed in the Navy’s Acoustic source bin use in the planned Tables 4 and 5 show the acoustic and rulemaking/LOA application. Table 4 activities will vary annually. The seven- explosive source classes, bins, and describes the acoustic source classes year totals for the planned training and quantities used in either hours or counts (i.e., low-frequency (LF), mid-frequency testing activities take into account that associated with the Navy’s training and (MF), and high-frequency (HF)) that annual variability.

TABLE 4—ACOUSTIC SOURCE CLASSES ANALYZED AND NUMBER USED FOR A SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD FOR TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES IN THE MITT STUDY AREA

7-year Source class category Bin Description Unit Annual total

Low-Frequency (LF): Sources that produce LF4 ...... LF sources equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB H ...... 1 7 signals less than 1 kHz. LF5 ...... LF sources less than 180 dB ...... H ...... 10 65 Mid-Frequency (MF): Tactical and non-tactical MF1 ...... Hull-mounted surface ship sonars (e.g., AN/ H ...... 1,818 12,725 sources that produce signals between 1 and SQS–53C and AN/SQS–60). 10 kHz. MF1K ...... Kingfisher mode associated with MF1 sonars H ...... 3 21 MF3 ...... Hull-mounted submarine sonars (e.g., AN/ H ...... 227 1,586 BQQ–10). MF4 ...... Helicopter-deployed dipping sonars (e.g., AN/ H ...... 185 1,289 AQS–22). MF5 ...... Active acoustic sonobuoys (e.g., DICASS) ...... C ...... 2,094 14,623 MF6 ...... Active underwater sound signal devices (e.g., C ...... 74 458 MK 84 SUS). MF9 ...... Active sources (equal to 180 dB and up to ...... H ...... 29 202 200 dB) not otherwise binned ...... MF11 ...... Hull-mounted surface ship sonars with an ac- H ...... 304 2.128 tive duty cycle greater than 80%. MF12 ...... Towed array surface ship sonars with an ac- H ...... 616 4,320 tive duty cycle greater than 80%. High-Frequency (HF): Tactical and non-tactical HF1 ...... Hull-mounted submarine sonars (e.g., AN/ H ...... 73 497 sources that produce signals between 10 BQQ–10). and 100 kHz. HF3 ...... Other hull-mounted submarine sonars (classi- H ...... 4 28 fied).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46312 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 4—ACOUSTIC SOURCE CLASSES ANALYZED AND NUMBER USED FOR A SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD FOR TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES IN THE MITT STUDY AREA—Continued

7-year Source class category Bin Description Unit Annual total

HF4 ...... Mine detection, classification, and neutraliza- H ...... 1,472 10,304 tion sonar (e.g., AN/SQS–20). HF6 ...... Active sources (equal to 180 dB and up to 200 H ...... 309 2,128 dB) not otherwise binned. Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW): Tactical ASW1 ...... MF systems operating above 200 dB ...... H ...... 192 1,360 sources (e.g., active sonobuoys and acous- tic countermeasures systems) used during ASW training and testing activities. ASW2 ...... MF Multistatic Active Coherent sonobuoy (e.g., C ...... 554 3,878 AN/SSQ–125). ASW3 ...... MF towed active acoustic countermeasure H ...... 3,124 21,863 systems (e.g., AN/SLQ–25). ASW4 ...... MF expendable active acoustic device coun- C ...... 332 2,324 termeasures (e.g., MK 3). ASW5 ...... MF sonobuoys with high duty cycles ...... H ...... 50 350 Torpedoes (TORP): Source classes associ- TORP1 ..... Lightweight torpedo (e.g., MK 46, MK 54, or C ...... 71 485 ated with the active acoustic signals pro- Anti-Torpedo Torpedo). duced by torpedoes. TORP2 ..... Heavyweight torpedo (e.g., MK 48) ...... C ...... 62 398 TORP3 ..... Heavyweight torpedo test (e.g., MK 48) ...... C ...... 6 42 Forward Looking Sonar (FLS): Forward or up- FLS2 ...... HF sources with short pulse lengths, narrow H ...... 4 28 ward looking object avoidance sonars used beam widths, and focused beam patterns. for ship navigation and safety. Acoustic Modems (M): Systems used to trans- M3 ...... MF acoustic modems (greater than 190 dB) ... H ...... 31 216 mit data through the water. Synthetic Aperture Sonars (SAS): Sonars in SAS2 ...... HF SAS systems ...... H ...... 449 3,140 which active acoustic signals are post-proc- essed to form high-resolution images of the seafloor. SAS4 ...... MF to HF broadband mine countermeasure H ...... 6 42 sonar. Notes: H= hours; C = count.

Table 5 describes the number of in- testing activities. Under the planned planned training and testing activities water explosives that could be used in activities, bin use will vary annually, take into account that annual variability. any year under the planned training and and the seven-year totals for the

TABLE 5—EXPLOSIVE SOURCE BINS ANALYZED AND NUMBER USED ANNUALLY AND FOR A SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD FOR TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE MITT STUDY AREA

Net explosive 7-year Bin weight Example Explosive Source Annual total (lb)

E1 ...... 0.1–0.25 Medium-caliber projectiles...... 768 5,376 E2 ...... >0.25–0.5 Anti-swimmer grenade...... 400 2,800 E3 ...... >0.5–2.5 57 mm projectile ...... 683 4,591 E4 ...... >2.5–5 Mine neutralization charge ...... 44 308 E5 ...... >5–10 5 in projectiles ...... 1,221 8,547 E6 ...... >10–20 15 lb shaped charge ...... 29 203 E8 ...... >60–100 250 lb bomb; Light weight torpedo ...... 134 932 E9 ...... >100–250 500 lb bomb ...... 110 770 E10 ...... >250–500 1,000 lb bomb ...... 78 546 E11 ...... >500–650 Heavy weight torpedo ...... 5 17 E12 ...... >650–1,000 2,000 lb bomb ...... 48 336 Notes: (1) net explosive weight refers to the equivalent amount of TNT. The actual weight of a munition may be larger due to other compo- nents. (2) in = inch(es), lb = pound(s), ft = feet.

Vessel Movement training events use Tinian as a landing separation between activities. The only areas with projected high area so amphibious ships could occur in Additional detail on vessel movement concentrations of Navy vessel the offshore waters off that island. Most was provided in our Federal Register movement will be within Apra Harbor other activities are spread throughout notice of proposed rulemaking (85 FR Guam and the coastal approaches to and the greater MITT Study Area with a high 5782; January 31, 2020); please see that from Apra Harbor. Some amphibious degree of spatial and temporal notice of proposed rulemaking or the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46313

Navy’s application for more testing activities in the MITT Study (Table 6). In comparison to the Hawaii- information. Area (Table 6). Amphibious Warfare Southern California Training and The Navy tabulated annual at-sea activities account for 48 percent of total Testing (HSTT) Study Area, the vessel steaming days for training and surface ship days, MTEs account for 38 estimated number of at-sea annual days testing activities projected for the MITT percent, ASW activities account for 8 for training and testing activities in the Study Area. Across all warfare areas and percent, and Air Warfare, ASW, and MITT Study Area is approximately ten activities, 493 days of Navy at-sea time Other activities (sonar maintenance, times less than in the HSTT Study Area will occur annually for training and anchoring) account for 2 percent each over the same time period.

TABLE 6—ANNUAL NAVY SURFACE SHIP DAYS WITHIN THE MITT STUDY AREA

Annual days MITT events Annual days Percent by warfare Percent by by event area warfare area

Air Warfare ...... 9 1.9 GUNNEX (Lg) ...... 2 0.3 GUNNEX (Sm) ...... 3 0.6 MISSILEX ...... 5 0.9 Amphibious Warfare ...... 299 60.7 Fire Support (Land Target) ...... 5 1.0 Amphibious Rehearsal ...... 144 29.2 Amphibious Assault ...... 14 2.8 Amphibious Raid ...... 3 0.6 Marine Air Ground Task Force Exercise ...... 40 8.1 Non-Combatant Evacuation Op ...... 67 13.5 Humanitarian Assist/Disaster Relief Op ...... 7 1.4 Special Purpose ...... Marine Air Ground Task Force Exercise ...... 20 4.1 Surface Warfare ...... 41 8.4 MISSILEX ...... 2 0.4 GUNNEX (Lg) ...... 14 2.8 GUNNEX (Med) ...... 10 2.0 GUNNEX (Sm) ...... 6 1.3 SINKEX ...... 7 1.4 Maritime Security Op ...... 3 0.5 Anti–Submarine Warfare ...... 8 1.6 Tracking Exercise ...... 8 1.5 Torpedo Exercise ...... 1 0.1 Major Training Exercises ...... 125 24.5 Joint Expeditionary Exercise ...... 63 12.9 Joint Multi-Strike Group Exercise ...... 62 12.5 Other ...... 10 2.1 Surface Ship Sonar Maintenance ...... 7 1.5% Precision Anchoring ...... 3 0.6%

Total ...... 493

Additional details on Navy at-sea them to be part of the planned Specified one submission was from another vessel movement are provided in the Activities, and has included them in the Federal agency, one was from the 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS. environmental analysis. Additional Marine Mammal Commission, three details on standard operating letters were from organizations or Standard Operating Procedures procedures were provided in our individuals acting in an official capacity For training and testing to be Federal Register notice of proposed (e.g., non-governmental organizations effective, personnel must be able to rulemaking (85 FR 5782; January 31, (NGOs), and 11 submissions were from safely use their sensors and weapon 2020); please see that notice of proposed private citizens. NMFS has reviewed systems as they are intended to be used rulemaking or the Navy’s application for and considered all public comments in military missions and combat more information. received on the proposed rule and operations and to their optimum issuance of the LOA. General comments Comments and Responses capabilities. While standard operating that did not provide information procedures are designed for the safety of We published the proposed rule in pertinent to NMFS’ decisions have been personnel and equipment and to ensure the Federal Register on January 31, noted, but are not addressed further. All the success of training and testing 2020 (85 FR 5782), with a 45-day substantive comments and our activities, their implementation often comment period. With that proposed responses are described below. We yields additional benefits on rule, we requested public input on our provide no response to specific environmental, socioeconomic, public analyses, our preliminary findings, and comments that addressed species or health and safety, and cultural the proposed regulations, and requested statutes not relevant to the rulemaking resources. that interested persons submit relevant under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA Because standard operating information and comments. During the (e.g., comments related to sea turtles). procedures are essential to safety and 45-day comment period, we received 16 We organize our comment responses by mission success, the Navy considers comment letters in total. Of this total, major categories.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46314 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

General Comments reflect certain new data and modeling the Navy model, and other inputs into Comment 1: The Navy must be approaches. The Commenter suggested the take calculation are considered, the required to submit a Habitat they have previously advised that the authorized incidental takes represent Conservation Plan that will ensure the criteria that NMFS produced to estimate the maximum number of instances in well being of those mammals to the best temporary and permanent threshold which marine mammals are reasonably extent possible. shift in marine mammals are erroneous expected to be taken, which is Response: A Habitat Conservation and non-conservative. According to the appropriate under the statute and there Plan (HCP) is a planning document for Commenter, Wright (2015) has is no need or requirement for NMFS to authorize a larger number. non-Federal agencies and persons to identified several statistical and Multiple studies from humans, obtain an ESA incidental take permit numerical faults in NMFS’ approach, such as pseudo-replication and terrestrial mammals, and marine under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the mammals have demonstrated less Endangered Species Act (ESA). The inconsistent treatment of data, that tend to bias the criteria towards an temporary threshold shift (TTS) from Navy is a Federal agency that consulted intermittent exposures compared to with NMFS under section 7 of the ESA, underestimation of effects. The Commenter stated that similar and continuous exposures with the same and therefore obtaining a separate ESA total energy because hearing is known to incidental take permit is not required. additional issues were raised by a dozen scientists during the public comment experience some recovery in between The Navy will comply with the noise exposures, which means that the Reasonable and Prudent Measures and period on the draft criteria held by NMFS. The Commenter asserts that the effects of intermittent noise sources Terms and Conditions that are part of such as tactical sonars are likely their Incidental Take Statement, which issue is NMFS’ broad extrapolation from a small number of individual animals, overestimated. Marine mammal TTS was issued as part of the consultation data have also shown that, for two process under section 7 of the ESA. mostly bottlenose dolphins, without taking account of what Racca et al. exposures with equal energy, the longer Impact Analysis and Thresholds (2015b) have succinctly characterized as duration exposure tends to produce a larger amount of TTS. Most marine Comment 2: A commenter a ‘‘non-linear accumulation of uncertainty.’’ The Commenter asserts mammal TTS data have been obtained recommended that NMFS clarify using exposure durations of tens of whether and how the Navy incorporated that NMFS failed to address the basic errors identified by these and other seconds up to an hour, much longer uncertainty in its density estimates for than the durations of many tactical its animat modeling specific to MITT experts, nor did it perform a sensitivity analysis to understand the potential sources (much less the continuous time and if uncertainty was not incorporated, that a marine mammal in the field re-estimate the numbers of marine magnitude of those errors. The Commenter suggests that NMFS should would be exposed consecutively to mammal takes based on the uncertainty those levels), further suggesting that the inherent in the density estimates not rely exclusively on its auditory guidance in determining ‘‘Level A’’ take, use of these TTS data are likely to provided in Department of the Navy overestimate the effects of sonars with (2018b). but should, at minimum, produce a conservative upper bound such as by shorter duration signals. Response: Uncertainty was Regarding the suggestion of retaining the 180 dB threshold, or by incorporated into the density estimates pseudoreplication and erroneous performing a sensitivity analysis. used for modeling and estimating take models, since marine mammal hearing for NMFS’ rule. The commenter is Response: The Acoustic Technical and noise-induced hearing loss data are referred to the technical report titled Guidance updates the historical 180 dB limited, both in the number of species ‘‘Quantifying Acoustic Impacts on rms injury threshold, which was based and in the number of individuals Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles: on professional judgement (i.e., no data available, attempts to minimize Methods and Analytical Approach for were available on the effects of noise on pseudoreplication would further reduce Phase III Training and Testing’’ (U.S. marine mammal hearing at the time this these already limited data sets. Department of the Navy, 2018) for original threshold was derived). NMFS Specifically, with marine mammal clarification on the consideration of disagrees with any suggestion that the behaviorally derived temporary uncertainty in density estimates. See use of the Acoustic Technical Guidance threshold shift studies, behaviorally specifically Section 4.2 (Marine Species provides erroneous results. The 180 dB derived data are only available for two Distribution Builder) of the 2020 MITT rms threshold is plainly outdated, as the mid-frequency cetacean species FSEIS/OEIS where details are provided best available science indicates that rms (bottlenose dolphin, beluga) and two on how statistical uncertainty SPL is not even an appropriate metric phocids (in-water) pinniped species surrounding density estimates was by which to gauge potential auditory (harbor seal and northern elephant seal), incorporated into the modeling for the injury. Further, NMFS disagrees with with otariid (in-water) pinnipeds and MITT Study Area, as has been done for the suggestion that NMFS should not high-frequency cetaceans only having all other recent NMFS and Navy rely exclusively on its Technical behaviorally-derived data from one analyses of training and testing at sea. Guidance in determining take by Level species. Arguments from Wright (2015) To the Commenters more specific A harassment and should instead also regarding pseudoreplication within the question, as with the 2018 HSTT final produce an upper bound (either by TTS data are therefore largely irrelevant rule, a lognormal distribution was used retaining the 180-dB threshold or in a practical sense because there are so in the density regression model. performing a sensitivity analysis). The few data. Multiple data points were not Uncertainty was incorporated into the Acoustic Technical Guidance represents included for the same individual at a take estimation through the density the best available science and provides single frequency. If multiple data estimates and it is not necessary to re- thresholds and weighting functions that existed at one frequency, the lowest TTS estimate the take numbers for marine allow us to predict when marine onset was always used. There is only a mammals. mammals are likely to incur permanent single frequency where TTS onset data Comment 3: A Commenter stated that threshold shift (PTS). As described in exist for two individuals of the same NMFS has largely followed the Navy in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals species: 3 kHz for bottlenose dolphins. revising its hearing loss thresholds to section, when the acoustic thresholds, Their TTS (unweighted) onset values

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46315

were 193 and 194 dB re 1 mPa2s. Thus, synthesized the best available scientific OEIS and included in these regulations. NMFS believes that the current information for noise-induced hearing NMFS has independently assessed the approach makes the best use of the effects for marine mammals to derive Navy’s behavioral harassment given data. Appropriate means of updated thresholds for assessing the thresholds (i.e., their BRFs) and finds reducing pseudoreplication may be impacts of noise on marine mammal that they appropriately apply the best considered in the future, if more data hearing, including the articles that the available science and it is not necessary become available. Many other Commenter referenced that were to recalculate take estimates. comments from Wright (2015) and the published subsequent to the publication The Commenters also specifically comments from Racca et al. (2015b) of the first version of the Acoustic expressed concern that distance ‘‘cut- appear to be erroneously based on the Technical Guidance in 2016. The new offs’’ alleviate some of the exposures idea that the shapes of the auditory data included in those articles are that would otherwise have been counted weighting functions and TTS/PTS consistent with the thresholds and if the received level alone were exposure thresholds are directly related weighting functions included in the considered. It is unclear why the to the audiograms; i.e., that changes to current version of the Acoustic Commenters find this inherently the composite audiograms would Technical Guidance (NMFS, 2018). inappropriate, as this is what the data directly influence the TTS/PTS NMFS will continue to review and show. As noted previously, there are exposure functions (e.g., Wright (2015) evaluate new relevant data as it becomes multiple studies illustrating that in describes weighting functions as available and consider the impacts of situations where one would expect ‘‘effectively the mirror image of an those studies on the Acoustic Technical behavioral disturbance of a certain audiogram’’ (p. 2) and states, ‘‘The Guidance to determine what revisions/ degree because of the received levels at underlying goal was to estimate how updates may be appropriate. which previous responses were much a sound level needs to be above Comment 5: Commenters observed, it has not occurred when the hearing threshold to induce TTS.’’ (p. recommended that NMFS refrain from distance from the source was larger than 3)). Both statements are incorrect and using cut-off distances in conjunction the distance of the first observed suggest a fundamental with the Bayesian Behavioral Response response. misunderstanding of the criteria/ Functions (BRFs) and re-estimate the Comment 6: Regarding the behavioral threshold derivation. This would numbers of marine mammal takes based harassment thresholds for explosives, require a constant (frequency- solely on the Bayesian BRFs as the use Commenters recommended that NMFS independent) relationship between of cut-off distances could be perceived estimate and ultimately authorize takes hearing threshold and TTS onset that is as an attempt to reduce the numbers of of marine mammals by Level B not reflected in the actual marine takes. harassment in the form of behavioral mammal TTS data. Attempts to create a Response: The consideration of disturbance, as well as TTS, during all ‘‘cautionary’’ outcome by artificially proximity (cut-off distances) was part of explosive activities, including those that lowering the composite audiogram the criteria developed in consultation involve single detonations. thresholds would not necessarily result between the Navy and NMFS, and is Response: The derivation of the in lower TTS/PTS exposure levels, since appropriate based on the best available explosive injury criteria is provided in the exposure functions are to a large science which shows that marine the 2017 technical report titled ‘‘Criteria extent based on applying mathematical mammal responses to sound vary based and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic functions to fit the existing TTS data. on both sound level and distance. and Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase Comment 4: A Commenter Therefore these cut-off distances were III),’’ and NMFS has applied the general recommended that NMFS specify in the applied within the Navy’s acoustic rule a commenter referenced to single preamble to the final rule whether the effects model. The derivation of the explosives for years, i.e., that marine data regarding behavioral audiograms behavioral response functions and mammals are unlikely to respond to a (Branstetter et al. 2017, Kastelein et al. associated cut-off distances is provided single instantaneous detonation at 2017b) and TTS (Kastelein et al. 2017a in the 2017 technical report titled received levels below the TTS threshold and c, Popov et al. 2017, Kastelein et al. ‘‘Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy in a manner that would rise to the level 2018a and 2019a and b) support the Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis of a take. Neither NMFS nor the Navy continued use of the current weighting (Phase III)’’. To account for non- are aware of evidence to support the functions and PTS and TTS thresholds. applicable contextual factors, all assertion that animals will have Response: Thus far, no new available data on marine mammal significant behavioral reactions (i.e., information has been published or reactions to actual Navy activities and those that would rise to the level of a otherwise conveyed that would other sound sources (or other large scale take) to temporally and spatially fundamentally change the assessment of activities such as seismic surveys when isolated explosions at received levels impacts or conclusions of this rule information on proximity to sonar below the TTS threshold. regarding current weighting functions sources was not available for a given Marine mammals may be exposed to and PTS and TTS thresholds. species group) were reviewed to find the isolated impulses in their natural Furthermore, the recent peer-reviewed farthest distance to which significant environment (e.g., lightning). There is updated marine mammal noise behavioral reactions were observed. no evidence to support that animals exposure criteria by Southall et al. These distances were rounded up to the have significant behavioral responses to (2019a) provide identical PTS and TTS nearest 5 or 10 km interval, and for temporally and spatially isolated thresholds to those provided in NMFS’ moderate to large scale activities using impulses (such as military explosions) Acoustic Technical Guidance. NMFS’ multiple or louder sonar sources, these that may rise to the level of Revised Technical Guidance for distances were greatly increased— ‘‘harassment’’ under the MMPA for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic doubled in most cases. The Navy’s BRFs military readiness activities. Still, the Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing applied within these distances provide analysis conservatively assumes that (NMFS 2018) (Acoustic Technical technically sound methods reflective of any modeled instance of temporally or Guidance), which was used in the the best available science to estimate the spatially separated detonations assessment of effects for this impact and potential take for the actions occurring in a single 24-hour period rulemaking, compiled, interpreted, and analyzed within the 2020 MITT FSEIS/ would result in harassment under the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46316 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

MMPA for military readiness activities. and cited within the technical report, the received level at the blue whale The Navy has been monitoring and NMFS disagrees that it is necessary individuals/group are unknown. detonations since the 1990s and has not to re-open public comment on this Comment 8: A Commenter observed these types of reactions. To be issue. commented that dipping sonar, like clear, this monitoring has occurred The Navy uses the best available hull-mounted sonar, appears to be a under the monitoring plans developed science in the analysis, which has been significant predictor of deep-dive rates specifically for shock trials, the reviewed by external scientists and in beaked whales, with the dive rate detonations with the largest net approved by NMFS. The Navy falling significantly (e.g., to 35 percent explosive weight conducted by the considered all data available at the time of that individual’s control rate) during Navy, and no shock trials are proposed for the development of updated criteria sonar exposure, and likewise appears in this study area. and thresholds, and limiting the data to associated with habitat abandonment. Further, to clarify, the current take the small number of field studies would According to the Commenter, the data estimate framework does not preclude not provide enough data with which to sources used to produce the Navy’s the consideration of animals being develop the new risk functions. In behavioral response functions (BRF) behaviorally disturbed during single addition, the Navy accounts for the fact concern hull-mounted sonar, an R/V- explosions as they are counted as ‘‘taken that captive animals may be less deployed sonar playback, or an in-pool by Level B harassment’’ if they are sensitive, and the scale at which a source. The Navy’s generic behavioral exposed above the TTS threshold, moderate-to-severe response was response function for beaked whales which is only 5 dB higher than the considered to have occurred is different does not incorporate their heightened behavioral harassment threshold. We for captive animals than for wild response to these sources, although such acknowledge in our analysis that animals, as the Navy understands those a response would be presumed to shift individuals exposed above the TTS responses will be different. The new its risk function ‘‘leftward.’’ Nor do the threshold may also be behaviorally risk functions were developed in 2016, response functions for other species disturbed and those potential impacts before several recent papers were account for this difference, although are considered in the negligible impact published or the data were available. unpredictability is known to exacerbate determination. The Navy and NMFS continue to stress response in a diversity of Comment 7: A Commenter stated that evaluate the information as new science mammalian species and should the behavioral response functions rely is made available. The criteria have conservatively be assumed, in this case, on captive animal studies and the risk been rigorously vetted within the Navy to lead to a heightened response in functions do not incorporate a number community, among scientists during marine mammal species other than of relevant studies on wild marine expert elicitation, and then reviewed by beaked whales. mammals (specifically referencing a the public before being applied. It is Response: In consultation with passive acoustic study on blue whales). unreasonable to revise and update the NMFS, the Navy relied upon the best The Commenter asserts it is not clear criteria and risk functions every time a science that was available to develop from the proposed rule, or from the new paper is published. NMFS concurs the behavioral response functions. The Navy’s recent technical report on with the Navy’s evaluation and current beaked whale BRF acoustic ‘‘criteria and thresholds,’’ on conclusion that there is no new acknowledges and incorporates the which NMFS’ approach here is based, information that necessitates changing increased sensitivity observed in beaked exactly how each of the studies that the acoustic thresholds at this time. whales during both behavioral response NMFS employed was applied in the These new papers provide additional studies and during actual Navy training analysis, or how the functions were information, and the Navy is events, as well as the fact that dipping fitted to the data, but the available considering them for updates to the sonar can have greater effects than some evidence on behavioral response raises criteria in the future, when the next other sources with the same source serious concerns that the functions are round of updated criteria will be level. Specifically, the distance cut-off not conservative for some species. For developed. Regarding consideration of for beaked whales is 50 km, larger than this reason and others, and given the research findings involving a passive any other group. Moreover, although obvious importance of this analysis for acoustic study on blue whale dipping sonar has a significantly lower future acoustic impact analyses, the vocalizations and behavior, the Navy source level than hull-mounted sonar, it Commenter requests that NMFS make considered multiple recent references, is included in the category of sources additional technical information including but not limited to: Paniagua- with larger distance cut-offs, specifically available, including from any expert Mendoza, 2017; Lesage, 2017; DeRuiter, in acknowledgement of its elicitation and peer review, and to re- 2017; Mate, 2016; Lomac-MacNair, unpredictability and association with open public comment on this issue. 2016; Friedlaender, 2016; Mate, 2015. observed effects. This means that Response: We refer the Commenter to Thus far, no new information has been ‘‘takes’’ are reflected at lower received the Criteria and Thresholds for the U.S. published or otherwise conveyed that levels that would have been excluded Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects would fundamentally change the because of the distance for other source Analysis (Phase III) Technical Report assessment of impacts or conclusions of types. (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017) for this Supplemental EIS/OEIS. To be An article referenced by the details on how the Navy accounted for included in the BRF, data sets needed Commenter (Associating patterns in the differences in captive and wild to relate known or estimable received movement and diving behavior with animals in the development of the levels to observations of individual or sonar use during military training behavioral response risk functions, group behavior. Melcon et al. (2012) exercises: A case study using satellite which NMFS has evaluated and deemed does not relate observations of tag data from Cuvier’s beaked whales at appropriate to incorporate into the individual/group behavior to known or the Southern California Anti-submarine analysis in the rule. The appendices to estimable received levels at that Warfare Range (Falcone et al., 2017)) this report detail the specific data points individual/group. In Melcon et al. was not available at the time the BRFs used to generate the behavioral response (2012), received levels at the HARP were developed. However, NMFS and functions. Data points come from buoy averaged over many hours are the Navy have reviewed the article and published data that is readily available related to probabilities of D-calls, but concur that neither this article nor any

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46317

other new information that has been independently reviewed and concurred predicated on at least 50 percent rather published or otherwise conveyed since with this approach. than 1 percent of the animals dying. the proposed rule was published The impulse mortality/injury Response: As appropriate, NMFS and changes the assessment of impacts or equations are depth dependent, with the Navy have used a combination of conclusions in the 2020 MITT FSEIS/ thresholds increasing with depth due to exposure thresholds and consideration OEIS or in this rulemaking. increasing hydrostatic pressure in the of mitigation to inform the take Additionally, the Navy’s current beaked model for both the previous 2015–2020 estimates. The Navy used the range to whale BRF covers the responses phase of rulemaking (Phase II) and one percent risk of mortality and injury observed in this study since the beaked Phase III. The underlying experimental (referred to as ‘‘onset’’ in the 2020 MITT whale risk function is more sensitive data used in Phase II and Phase III FSEIS/OEIS) to inform the development than the other risk functions at lower remain the same, and two aspects of the of mitigation zones for explosives. received levels. The researchers Phase III revisions explain the Ranges to effect based on one percent involved with the study are still refining relationships the Commenter notes: risk criteria were examined to ensure their analytical approach and (1) The numeric coefficients in the that explosive mitigation zones would integrating additional statistical equations are computed by inserting the encompass the range to any potential parameters for future reporting. Richmond et al. (1973) experimental mortality or non-auditory injury, Nonetheless, the new information and data into the model equations. Because affording actual protection against these data presented in the article were the Phase III model equation accounts effects. In all cases, the mitigation zones thoroughly reviewed by the Navy and for lung compression, the plugging of for explosives extend beyond the range will be quantitatively incorporated into experimental exposure values into a to one percent risk of non-auditory future behavioral response functions, as different model results in different injury, even for a small animal appropriate, when and if other new data coefficients. The numeric coefficients (representative mass = 5 kg). that would meaningfully change the are slightly larger in Phase III versus Given the implementation and expected effectiveness of this functions would necessitate their Phase II, resulting in a slightly greater mitigation, the application of the revision. threshold near the surface. indicated threshold is appropriate for Furthermore, ongoing Navy funded (2) The rate of increase for the Phase the purposes of estimating take. Using beaked whale monitoring at the same II thresholds with depth is greater than site where the dipping sonar tests were the 1 percent non-auditory injury risk the rate of increase for Phase III conducted has not documented habitat criteria to estimate take would result in thresholds with depth because the abandonment by beaked whales. Passive an over-estimate of take, and would not Phase III equations take into account the acoustic detections of beaked whales afford extra protection to any animal. corresponding reduction in lung size have not significantly changed over ten Specifically, calculating take based on with depth (making an animal more years of monitoring (DiMarzio et al., marine mammal density within the area vulnerable to injury per the Goertner 2018, updated in 2020). From visual that an animal might be exposed above model), as the Commenter notes. surveys in the area since 2006 there the 1 percent risk criteria would over- have been repeated sightings of: The Ranges to effect are based on these predict effects because many of those same individual beaked whales, beaked injury thresholds, in addition to exposures will not happen because of whale mother-calf pairs, and beaked geometry of exposure (location of an the effective mitigation. The Navy, in whale mother-calf pairs with mothers animal relative to the explosive charge, coordination with NMFS, has on their second calf (Schorr et al., 2018, horizontally and vertically), propagation determined that the 50 percent 2020). Satellite tracking studies of environment, and the impulse incidence of occurrence is a reasonable beaked whales documented high site integration duration. representation of a potential effect and fidelity to this area (Schorr et al., 2018, Comment 10: A Commenter appropriate for take estimation, given updated in 2020). recommends that NMFS use onset the mitigation requirements at the 1 Comment 9: A Commenter mortality, onset slight lung injury, and percent threshold, and the area recommends that NMFS (1) explain onset GI tract injury thresholds rather ensonified above this threshold would why, if the constants and exponents for than the 50-percent thresholds to capture the appropriate reduced number onset mortality and onset slight lung estimate both the numbers of marine of likely injuries. injury thresholds for the current phase mammal takes and the respective ranges Although the commenter implies that of incidental take rulemaking for the to effect. If NMFS does not implement the Navy did not use extensive lung Navy (Phase III) have been amended to the recommendation, the Commenter hemorrhage as indicative of mortality, account for lung compression with further recommends that NMFS (1) that statement is incorrect. Extensive depth, they result in lower rather than specify why it is inconsistently basing lung hemorrhage is assumed to result in higher absolute thresholds when its explosive thresholds for Level A mortality, and the explosive mortality animals occur at depths greater than 8 harassment on onset of PTS and Level criteria are based on extensive lung m and (2) specify what additional B harassment on onset of TTS and onset injury data. See the 2017 technical assumptions were made to explain this of behavioral response, while the report titled ‘‘Criteria and Thresholds counterintuitive result. explosive thresholds for mortality and for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Response: The derivation of the Level A harassment are based on the 50- Effects Analysis (Phase III).’’ explosive injury equations, including percent criteria for mortality, slight lung Comment 11: A Commenter stated any assumptions, is provided in the injury, and GI tract injury, (2) provide that NMFS, following the Navy, has 2017 technical report titled ‘‘Criteria scientific justification supporting that applied a post-modeling adjustment to and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic slight lung and GI tract injuries are less its estimate of lethal take that and Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase severe than PTS and thus the 50-percent substantially reduces the total number. III).’’ Specifically, the equations were rather than onset criteria are more That adjustment, in the case of serious modified in Phase III to fully appropriate for estimating Level A injury and mortality, purports to incorporate the injury model in harassment for those types of injuries, account for the effectiveness of visual Goertner (1982), specifically to include and (3) justify why the number of observers in detecting marine mammals lung compression with depth. NMFS estimated mortalities should be within the blast zone of an underwater

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46318 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

explosion (or within the radius of modeled mortalities to any marine number or consider a higher number in permanent acoustic injury), but NMFS’ mammals. the negligible impact analysis. borrowed methods here are non- Sound levels diminish quickly below The Navy assumes that Lookouts will transparent and misconceived. The levels that could cause PTS. not be 100 percent effective at detecting Navy’s DSEIS/OEIS for the MITT Study Specifically, behavioral response all individual marine mammals within Area starts with the species-specific g(0) literature, including the recent 3S and the mitigation zones for each activity. factors applied in professional marine SOCAL BRS studies, indicate that This is due to the inherent limitations mammal abundance surveys (the multiple species from different cetacean of observing marine species and because probability that an object that is on the suborders do in fact avoid approaching the likelihood of sighting individual line is detected using standard line- sound sources by a few hundred meters animals is largely dependent on transect methods), then multiplies them or more, which would reduce received observation conditions (e.g., time of day, by simple factors to reflect the relative sound levels for individual marine sea state, mitigation zone size, effectiveness of its Lookouts in routine mammals to levels below those that observation platform) and animal operating conditions. Yet the Navy’s could cause PTS (see Appendix B of the behavior (e.g., the amount of time an sighting effectiveness is likely to be ‘‘Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy animal spends at the surface of the much poorer than that of experienced Acoustic and Explosive Impacts to water). The Navy quantitatively biologists dedicated exclusively to Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles assessed the effectiveness of its marine mammal detection, operating Technical Report’’ (U.S. Department of mitigation measures on a per-scenario under conditions that maximize the Navy, 2017) and Southall et al. basis for four factors: (1) Species sightings. In any case, the public has no (2019a)). The ranges to PTS for most sightability, (2) a Lookout’s ability to meaningful way to further evaluate the marine mammal groups are within a few observe the range to permanent agencies’ adjustment since the proposed tens of meters and the ranges for the threshold shift (for sonar and other rule does not provide the scores used to most sensitive group, the HF cetaceans, transducers) and range to mortality (for generate the effectiveness factor or the average about 200 m, to a maximum of explosives), (3) the portion of time when agencies’ pre-adjustment take numbers, 270 m in limited cases. For blue whales mitigation could potentially be nor does the Navy in the ancillary report and other LF cetaceans, the range to PTS conducted during periods of reduced NMFS references. The Commenter is 65 m for MF1 30 sec duration daytime visibility (to include inclement suggests that ‘‘[s]ince the Navy has yet exposure, which is well within the weather and high sea-state) and the to determine the effectiveness of its mitigation zones for hull-mounted portion of time when mitigation could mitigation measures, it is premature to MFAS. Therefore, the anticipated potentially be conducted at night, and include any related assumptions to avoidance to the distances discussed (4) the ability for sound sources to be reduce the numbers of marine mammal would greatly reduce the likelihood of positively controlled (e.g., powered takes.’’ Another Commenter impacts to hearing such as TTS and down). The Navy’s report clearly recommends that NMFS (1) specify the PTS. As discussed in the Navy’s report, describes how these factors were total numbers of model estimated Level animats in the Navy’s acoustic effects considered, and it is not necessary to A harassment (PTS) and mortality takes model do not move horizontally or view the many tables of numbers rather than reduce the estimated ‘‘react’’ to sound in any way. generated in the assessment to evaluate numbers of takes based on the Navy’s Accordingly, NMFS and the Navy’s the method. analysis appropriately applies a The g(0) values used by the Navy for post-model analyses and (2) include the quantitative adjustment to the exposure their mitigation effectiveness model-estimated Level A harassment results calculated by the model (which adjustments take into account the and mortality takes in its negligible does not consider avoidance or differences in sightability with sea state, impact determination analyses. mitigation). and utilize averaged g(0) values for sea Response: The consideration of As discussed in the Navy’s report, the states of 1–4 and weighted as suggested marine mammal avoidance and Navy’s acoustic effects model does not by Barlow (2015). Using g(0) values is mitigation effectiveness is integral to consider procedural mitigations (i.e., an appropriate and conservative NMFS’ and the Navy’s overall analysis power-down or shut-down of sonars, or approach (i.e., underestimates the of impacts from sonar and explosive pausing explosive activities when protection afforded by the Navy’s sources. NMFS has independently animals are detected in specific zones mitigation measures) for the reasons evaluated the method and agrees that it adjacent to the source), which detailed in the technical report. For is appropriately applied to augment the necessitates consideration of these example, during line-transect surveys, model in the prediction and factors in the Navy’s overall acoustic there are typically two primary authorization of injury and mortality as analysis. Credit taken for mitigation observers searching for animals. Each described in the rule. Details of this effectiveness is extremely conservative. primary observer looks for marine analysis are provided in the Navy’s 2018 For example, if Lookouts can see the species in the forward 90-degree technical report titled ‘‘Quantifying whole area, they get credit for it in the quadrant on their side of the survey Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals calculation; if they can see more than platform and scans the water from the and Sea Turtles: Methods and half the area, they get half credit; if they vessel out to the limit of the available Analytical Approach for Phase III can see less than half the area, they get optics (i.e., the horizon). Because Navy Training and Testing.’’ Additional no credit. Not considering animal Lookouts focus their observations on information on the mitigation analysis avoidance and mitigation effectiveness established mitigation zones, their area also was included in the proposed rule would lead to a great overestimate of of observation is typically much smaller and NMFS disagrees with the injurious impacts. NMFS concurs with than that observed during line-transect Commenter’s suggestion that there was the analytical approach used, i.e., we surveys. The mitigation zone size and not enough information by which to believe the estimated take by Level A distance to the observation platform evaluate the Navy’s post-modeling harassment numbers represent the varies by Navy activity. For example, calculations. Also, it should be noted maximum number of these takes that are during hull-mounted mid-frequency that even before consideration of likely to occur and it would not be active sonar activities, the mitigation mitigation effectiveness, there were no appropriate to authorize a higher zone extends 1,000 yd from the ship

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46319

hull. During the conduct of training and expressed concern that this method operating sonar are typically traveling testing activities, there is typically at underestimates the number of PTS takes relative to the speed and direction of least one, if not numerous, support and that NMFS should not create an marine mammals, the likelihood of personnel involved in the activity (e.g., under-supported, nonconservative individuals remaining in close enough range support personnel aboard a adjustment for avoidance. The proximity to the source for a duration torpedo retrieval boat or support Commenter further suggested that the that would result in TTS or PTS is aircraft). In addition to the Lookout Navy could query the dosimeters on the lessened. posted for the purpose of mitigation, animats in its model to test its Querying the dosimeters of the these additional personnel observe for assumption. animats would not produce useful and disseminate marine species sighting Response: The consideration of information since, as discussed information amongst the units marine mammals avoiding the area previously, the animats do not move in participating in the activity whenever immediately around the sound source is the horizontal and are not programmed possible as they conduct their primary provided in the Navy’s 2018 technical to ‘‘react’’ to sound or any other mission responsibilities. However, as a report titled ‘‘Quantitative Analysis for stimulus. Estimating Acoustic and Explosive conservative approach to assigning Humpback Whales mitigation effectiveness factors, the Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea Navy elected to account only for the Turtles.’’ As the Commenter correctly Comment 13: Commenters assert that minimum number of required Lookouts articulates: ‘‘For avoidance, the Navy the proposed reporting requirement for used for each activity; therefore, the assumed that animals present beyond MF1 MFAS (with the lack of any mitigation effectiveness factors may the range to onset PTS for the first three restriction on actual sonar use) in the underestimate the likelihood that some to four pings are assumed to avoid any Chalan Kanoa Reef and Marpi Reef marine mammals may be detected additional exposures at levels that could Geographic Mitigation Areas would not during activities that are supported by cause PTS. That equated to protect humpback whales, and additional personnel who may also be approximately 5 percent of the total particularly calves during this sensitive observing the mitigation zone. pings or 5 percent of the overall time life stage. Further, the Commenters note Although NAEMO predicted PTS, no active; therefore, 95 percent of marine that because these areas have not been mortality or non-auditory injury were mammals predicted to experience PTS a high-use area for the Navy and ASW predicted by NAEMO. Of these two non- due to sonar and other transducers were training events and are ‘‘considered auditory effects (mortality and non- instead assumed to experience TTS.’’ generally unsuitable for training needs,’’ auditory injury), only mortality would In regard to the comment about (85 FR 48388), there is no justification have been subject to mitigation vessels moving faster than animals’ for failing to prohibit sonar use in this consideration in the quantitative ability to get out of the way, as sensitive humpback whale habitat off analysis, if there had been any. Also, as discussed in the Navy’s 2018 technical Saipan. One Commenter recommended discussed in Comment 43, the Navy will report titled ‘‘Quantitative Analysis for that NMFS prohibit use of MF1 sonar in be providing NMFS with a report Estimating Acoustic and Explosive the Marpi Reef and Chalan Kanoa Reef summarizing the status of and/or Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea Geographic Mitigation Areas during the providing its final assessment on the Turtles,’’ animats in the Navy’s acoustic months that humpbacks are present in Navy’s Lookout Effectiveness Study effects model do not move horizontally the Marianas while another suggested a following the end of CY 2021. or ‘‘react’’ to sound in any way, year-round prohibition. Comment 12: One Commenter necessitating the additional step of Response: Following extensive asserted that NMFS and the Navy make considering animal avoidance of close- discussions with the Navy during which certain post-modeling adjustments to in PTS zones. NMFS independently more specific granular information their estimates of non-lethal injury, on reviewed these assumptions and this about the Navy’s likely activity was flawed assumptions about animal approach and concurs that they are fully provided and the practicability of avoidance and mitigation effectiveness. supported by the best available science. additional restrictions were considered, A Commenter stated in regards to the Based on a growing body of behavioral new information about humpback whale method by which the Navy’s post-model response research, animals do in fact occurrence in the mitigation areas calculation considers avoidance avoid the immediate area around sound emerged, and new analyses were specifically (i.e., assuming animals sources to a distance of a few hundred conducted (see the Estimated Take of present beyond the range of PTS for the meters or more depending upon the Marine Mammals section), NMFS first few pings will be able to avoid it species. Avoidance to this distance established a 20-hr annual cap from and incur only TTS, which results in a greatly reduces the likelihood of December 1–April 30 on the use of hull- 95 percent reduction in the number of impacts to hearing such as TTS and mounted MF1 MFAS for these two estimated PTS takes predicted by the PTS, respectively. Specifically, the Geographic Mitigation Areas (20 hrs model), given that sound sources are ranges to PTS for most marine mammal total for both areas combined) to moving, it may not be until later in an groups are within a few tens of meters minimize sonar exposure and reduce exercise that the animal is close enough and the ranges for the most sensitive the amount and/or severity of take by to experience PTS, and it is those few group, the HF cetaceans, average about Level B harassment (behavioral close pings that contribute to the 200 m, to a maximum of 270 m in disturbance and/or TTS) of humpback potential to experience PTS. Marine limited cases. The Commenter’s point whales in these important reproductive mammals may remain in important about speed is not applicable to the areas. It is important to note that in the habitat, and the most vulnerable initially distant animals that are Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application and individuals may linger in an area, discounted by this method, most of NMFS’ associated analysis for the notwithstanding the risk of harm; which would be able to avoid the source proposed rule, while high amounts of marine mammals cannot necessarily as there is more time (because they are sonar training may not have been predict where an exercise will travel. In farther from the source) to do so. expected, the amount of sonar use in addition, Navy vessels may move faster Further, the Commenter ignores the these areas had not been limited. than the ability of the animals to corollary to their point, which is that Our evaluation of potential mitigation evacuate the area. The Commenter given the speed the Navy vessels measures includes consideration of both

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46320 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

(1) the manner in which, and the degree their annual reports. This will allow particularly in calving areas where low- to which, implementation of the NMFS to evaluate the sonar use in the amplitude communication calls potential measure(s) is expected to two Geographic Mitigation Areas over between mothers and calves can be reduce adverse impacts to marine the seven-year period and to determine easily masked. mammal species or stocks and their if further mitigation is warranted. Response: Low-frequency sonar use in habitat and (2) the practicability of the Comment 14: A Commenter this rule has been significantly scaled measures for applicant implementation, recommended a prohibition on mid- down from previous authorizations. The which in this case includes the impact frequency air deployed dipping sonar, Navy is only seeking authorization for on the Navy’s military readiness year-round in the Geographic Mitigation 11 hrs or less per year of low-frequency activities. While we did consider Areas. The Commenter also commented sonar use in the MITT Study Area, with completely restricting MF1 MFAS in the that dipping sonar has been shown to most of these systems used further two Geographic Mitigation Areas, we have disproportionate impacts on offshore. Furthermore, the most used also considered the Navy’s broader need beaked whales and may impact other source at approximately 10 hrs (LF5) for flexibility as well as the specific species such as humpback whales in a has source levels less than 180 dB and need not to restrict these shallow-water similar manner, due to the one hour of LF4 with source levels training areas entirely in the MITT unpredictability of the signal. greater than 180 dB and less than or Response: Regarding the applicability Study Area given the proximity to equal to 200 dB, with the associated of the data the Commenter cites to forward deployed operations and the harassment zones significantly smaller humpback whale responses, the higher likelihood of a need to have the than for MF1. Based on historical sonar research was focused exclusively on use in the MITT Study Area, it is highly option to conduct training quickly to beaked whales and, further, in regard to unlikely that the few planned low- respond to emergent national security the data cited, certain limitations are frequency sonar hours would occur in threats. The Navy expects current and still under investigation such as the the Geographic Mitigation Areas from future use of the two Geographic proximity of the source and other December through April. Given that, Mitigation Areas to remain low, but the factors. Behavioral responses of beaked and the smaller impact zones, a 20-hr cap will allow the Navy flexibility whales from dipping and other sonars prohibition would have very limited or to engage in a small amount of cannot be universally applied to other no potential benefit to humpback necessary training, most likely such as marine mammal species, especially whales and other baleen whales and a Small Coordinated ASW Exercise or since beaked whales are known to be would unnecessarily impose a TRACKEX event(s), which could occur more sensitive to lower level sounds, restriction on training and testing in the up to five days, but no more than four which is reflected in our analysis MITT Study Area. hours per day (or similar configuration through a lower behavioral harassment Comment 16: A Commenter totalling no more than 20 hrs). Areas of threshold. For example, Navy-funded recommended extending the Marpi Reef shallow depths are limited in the behavioral response studies of blue Geographic Mitigation Area boundaries Mariana Archipelago, and NMFS whales to simulated surface ship sonar to include a buffer that encompasses the determined (with the Navy’s input) that have demonstrated there are distinct humpback whale sightings data beyond it would be impracticable to completely individual variations as well as strong the 400-m depth contour and the limit the use of sonar at the Chalan behavioral state considerations that southernmost point of the proposed Kanoa Reef and Marpi Reef due to the influence any response or lack of Marpi Reef Geographic Mitigation Area. requirement to have access to such response. The majority of take by Level Response: NMFS extended the bathymetry for training purposes in B harassment results from MF1 sonar, boundary out to the 400-m isobath for order to support mission requirements which is practicable to limit in the both Marpi Reef and Chalan Kanoa Reef as established by operational Chalan Kanoa Reef and Marpi Reef Geographic Mitigation Areas prior to the Commanders. The reduction in Geographic Mitigation Areas. Sonar publication of the proposed rule. NMFS potential exposure of humpback whales activities in this area have been limited and the Navy considered using to sonar in these areas and at this time historically, there is insufficient bathymetry to define the Marpi Reef (i.e., the short overall and daily evidence to suggest that MF4 sonar Geographic Mitigation Area when exposure) would reduce the likelihood would have disproportionately adverse initially evaluating potential mitigation of impacts that could affect effects, and further limitation of MF4 areas, but instead relied on confirmed reproduction or survival, by minimizing dipping sonar use in these areas would sightings of humpback whales to define impacts on calves during this sensitive not be expected to meaningfully reduce the area. After reviewing the detailed life stage, avoiding the additional impacts to humpback whales. bathymetry of the reef coupled with energetic costs to mothers of avoiding With regards to beaked whales, water marine mammal sightings, NMFS and the area and minimizing the chances depths in the Chalan Kanoa Reef and the Navy reevaluated how the Marpi that important behaviors (e.g., cow-calf Marpi Reef Geographic Mitigation Areas Reef Geographic Mitigation Area was communication, breeding behaviors) are are not suitable habitats for beaked bounded and redefined the area based interrupted to the point that whales. There is no evidence to suggest on the extent of the 400-m isobath. survivorship or reproduction are that prohibiting the use of mid- Given most sightings of humpback impacted. Therefore, we have frequency dipping sonar in the whales were in waters less than 200 m determined that the 20-hr cap on MF1 Geographic Mitigation Areas would in depth, this provides an additional MFAS sonar in the two Geographic have any benefit to beaked whales. buffer between most sighting locations Mitigation Areas will meaningfully Comment 15: A Commenter and the boundary for the area. Seafloor reduce impacts on the affected recommended prohibiting use of low- areas extending beyond the reef are not humpback whales and, further, be frequency active sonar from December necessarily areas of potential biological practicable for Navy implementation. As through April in the Marpi Reef and importance (i.e., whales may have been an additional measure, the Navy will Chalan Kanoa Reef Geographic transiting to or from the reef when also now report all active sonar use (all Mitigation Areas, because they assert sighted). Scientists from NMFS’ Pacific bins, by bin) in these areas between that baleen whales are vulnerable to the Islands Fisheries Science Center, who December 1 and April 30 to NMFS in impacts of low-frequency active sonar, have conducted numerous humpback

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46321

whale surveys in Hawaii and the demonstrated that median speeds near maladaptive alteration of the dive Mariana Islands, have observed that the coasts are already low, varying from 5 pattern in response to Navy sonar majority of humpback whale breeding to 12 knots. Furthermore, given that exposure—impacts that occur at sea, activity (mother-calf pairs, competitive there have been no vessel strikes independent of a whale’s stranding. The behavior) happens in water depths of involving humpback whales or other Commenter argues that in light of the 200 m or less, with more mother-calf marine mammals while Navy vessels available scientific evidence, this pairs in water depths 50 m or less (Hill conducted training and testing activities position is both arbitrary and et al., 2020). In addition, during a in the MITT Study Area, implementing irresponsible. They state that NMFS’ review of the Marpi Reef sightings and vessel speed restrictions in the method in the proposed rule is to cast bathymetry, the Navy found that the Geographic Mitigation Areas or other doubt on an undefined subset of mitigation graphics in Appendix I locations in the Study Area would not previous stranding events on the (Geographic Mitigation Assessment) of be an effective mitigation measure grounds that the precise mechanism of the 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS had errors because it would not result in harm could not be established, even where bathymetric lines plotted were discernible avoidance or reduction of while describing in detail the incorrectly shifted. This issue was fixed impacts. Given the lack of meaningful abundance of pathological and forensic using a more accurate small-scale reduction in impacts combined with the evidence. bathymetric dataset. Revised figures for impracticability of ship speed In a related comment, another the 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS show that restrictions, NMFS has found that this Commenter asserted that although all humpback whale sightings near measure is not warranted and it is not NMFS does not expect injury or Marpi Reef where suspected required in this rule. mortality of any of beaked whales to reproductive behaviors were observed occur as a result of the Navy’s active Serious Injury and Mortality, Beaked (mother-calf pairs, competitive sonar training exercises, NMFS’s Whales behavior) were shallower than the 200- justification for authorizing beaked m isobath. Comment 18: Commenters stated that whale mortalities under Phase I and the Comment 17: A Commenter NMFS underestimated serious injury previous Phase II regulations is still recommends implementing vessel speed and mortality for beaked whales around valid. The Commenter argues that restrictions from December through the Mariana Islands, ignored the best NMFS cannot ignore that there remains April in the Marpi Reef and Chalan available scientific information, and the potential for the operation of MFAS Kanoa Reef Geographic Mitigation Areas failed to make any meaningful to contribute to the mortality of beaked as they argue that ship strike and vessel assessment and negligible impact whales. Given that the potential for noise pose a serious risk to humpback determination of the likelihood that beaked whale mortalities cannot be whales, particularly in calving and Navy training and testing activities obviated, the Commenter recommends breeding areas. They say it is important triggered strandings in the MITT Study that NMFS authorize at least 10 that NMFS prescribe vessel speed limits Area. A Commenter stated that NMFS mortality takes of beaked whales in this important breeding habitat and has failed to demonstrate a rational associated with MFA sonar use in the that mandatory speed limits, such as basis for its assumption that ‘‘[n]o MITT Study Area in the final rule. those that NMFS has put in place to mortality or Level A harassment [of Response: In the final rule, NMFS has protect North Atlantic right whales, beaked whales] is expected’’ from MITT included additional information and have proven effective. NMFS has no activities, rendering NMFS’s analysis and expanded the explanation basis on which to determine that its preliminary determination of negligible of why the best available science does ‘‘notification message’’ measure—which impact arbitrary and capricious. not indicate that the Navy’s activities would depend on non-specialist, non- Another Commenter noted that in the are likely to result in mortality of dedicated Navy observers operating Guam press, at least six beaked whale beaked whales through stranding. Please effectively in unfavorable sea states— stranding events, each involving as see the Stranding subsection of the would be as effective, or effective at all. many as three animals, have been Potential Effects of Specified Activities The Commenter states there is no reason reported in the archipelago since 2006, on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat why NMFS cannot reasonably as compared with only a single section, which addresses the issues accommodate national security needs to stranding in the previous 35 years. That raised by the Commenters; comments create exceptions to the rule if needed. number of recent stranding events was not addressed in that section are Response: To avoid physical subsequently corrected to eight, in a addressed below. To specifically correct disturbance and strike from vessel paper that appeared earlier this year in an inaccuracy in the Comment, it movements, the Navy maneuvers to a major, peer-reviewed journal. The should be noted, that of the eight events maintain a 500 yd mitigation zone from Simonis et al. (2020) paper, whose co- the Commenter refers to, only three had whales and other marine mammals authors include several NMFS Navy sonar use before. Four events cited (except bow-riding dolphins). As further biologists, correlated four of these in the paper was an error the authors described in Section 5.3.4.1 (Vessel events with Navy operations, a acknowledged. Movement) of the 2020 MITT FSEIS/ correlation that it describes as ‘‘highly In regard to the authorization of OEIS implementing mitigation to limit significant.’’ The Commenter argued mortality in MMPA regulations for vessel speeds in the MITT Study Area that the best available science shows Phase I and II of MITT training and would be incompatible with the Navy’s that serious injuries and mortalities are testing activities, the Commenter is in criteria for safety, sustainability, and likely to far exceed the number of error. Mortality was authorized in the mission requirements. For example, reported strandings. Numerous studies Phase I MITT final rule, in an Navy vessel operators need to train to along multiple lines of evidence, abundance of caution given the events, proficiently operate vessels as they including post-stranding pathology, worldwide, in which there was a causal would during military missions and laboratory study of organ tissue, and link between naval sonar and combat operations, including being able theoretical work on dive physiology, in strandings, and noting that there could to react to changing tactical situations addition to expert reviews, indicate that be a stranding that co-occurred with and evaluate system capabilities. Navy behaviorally-mediated injury and Navy sonar that was not caused by it. studies from other range complexes mortality is occurring through However, the rule explicitly stated that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46322 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

‘‘Neither NMFS nor the Navy that beaked whales were present a large infrequent exposure to active sonar in anticipates that marine mammal portion of the time at each recording the MITT Study Area, more strandings or mortality will result from site. Specifically, they note that the conservative behavioral response curves the use of mid- or high-frequency sonar presence of beaked whale signals in a be used to predict behavioral during Navy exercises within the MIRC recording can be indicative of relative disturbance. The Commenter also Study Area.’’ However, no mortality was occurrence and seasonal fluctuations, challenged NMFS’ assertion that authorized in the Phase II final rule for however, given there are only two suitable alternative foraging habitat is the MITT Study Area. The Navy recorders, the relative occurrence may available for beaked whales in the MITT initially requested mortality takes of only be compared between the two Study Area. Noting the scarcity of beaked whales, however, after further locations, and the authors do not beaked whale data, the Commenter discussion of the lack of incidents in compare the recordings to any other recommended that acoustic monitoring which strandings were causally locations, making it impossible to draw be implemented as the preferred method associated with sonar in the Marianas, conclusions regarding how any inferred for estimating density of beaked whales, or a perceived reasonable likelihood occurrence rates might compare to other instead of using Hawaii data and, that they would be at the time, NMFS parts of the MITT Study Area or the further, recommended more broadly and the Navy determined that species’ range. The information that acoustic monitoring of beaked authorization of mortality was not presented in Simonis et al. (2020), while whales be conducted to better appropriate. NMFS does not argue that informative, does not provide sufficient understand the impacts of Navy there is no possibility for mortality to information to warrant the addition of activities on beaked whales. The occur as a result of Navy activities, geographic mitigation measures beyond Commenter recommended that the Navy rather, we reason that consideration of the procedural mitigation measures put be more transparent in their monitoring all applicable information (the best in place through this final rule to reduce in sharing data indicating the timing of available science) does not indicate that the number and severity of takes for all Navy activities in relation to strandings. such mortality is reasonably likely to marine mammals. The Commenter noted that additional result from the Navy’s activities within Without sufficient scientific data on personnel and support for local the seven-year span of the rule. beaked whale habitat use, bathymetry, stranding response and records is Comment 19: A Commenter stated and seasonality, NMFS is unable to needed in order to better investigate that in addition to documenting the develop mitigation measures that will causes of strandings that coincide with substantial risk of injury and mortality meaningfully further reduce impacts to Navy activities in the MITT Study Area. to beaked whales from MITT activities, beaked whales and not be impracticable Last, the Commenter notes that in order Simonis et al. (2020) confirmed the for the Navy. That said, NMFS and the to detect any trend in the population, existence of biologically important areas Navy are committed to further actions there is a strong need to conduct for beaked whales near Saipan and (see the Changes from the Proposed consistent surveys, with adequate Tinian. The study found that at least Rule to the Final Rule section) to methods for the species under three species of beaked whales— expand the science and inform future consideration, over multiple years. Cuvier’s, Blainville’s, and a third management actions related to beaked Response: Regarding the unidentified species that may be the whales in the MITT Study Area. For recommendation to modify the ginkgo-toothed beaked whale—occur in example, the Navy will co-fund the behavioral harassment thresholds the Mariana Archipelago throughout the Pacific Marine Assessment Program for (specifically, lower the received levels year, similar to other island-associated Protected Species (PACMAPPS) survey at which they would be considered populations around the world. The in spring-summer 2021 to help taken) based on the infrequent Commenter argues that before finalizing document beaked whale occurrence, exposures of beaked whales to sonar in its MMPA take regulations and issuing abundance, and distribution in the the Marianas, we first note that although an LOA, NMFS must fully evaluate this Mariana Islands. This effort will include the amount of activities in the MITT new scientific information, which deployments of a towed array as well as Study Area is below the amount in the supports the establishment of a floating passive acoustic buoys. The AFTT or HSTT study areas, active sonar geographic mitigation area in the waters Navy will monitor future beaked whale has been in regular use in the MITT around Saipan and Tinian to protect occurrence within select portions of the Study Area since the 1960s, and it is vulnerable beaked whales from Navy MITT Study Area starting in 2022. unlikely that marine mammals in the sonar. Additionally, the Navy will include area are naive to sonar exposure. Response: NMFS has evaluated the Cuvier’s beaked whales as a priority Further, while NMFS acknowledges the new scientific information from Simonis species for analysis under a 2020–2023 importance of context and considers it et al. (2020) as well as years of field Navy-funded research program entitled in evaluating behavioral responses, surveys conducted under interagency Marine Species Monitoring for Potential there is not sufficient data upon which agreements between the Navy and Consequences of Disturbance to base a quantitative modification of NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science (MSM4PCOD). Finally, the Navy will the behavioral harassment thresholds. Center and Navy-funded beaked whale fund and co-organize with NMFS an Further, the behavioral thresholds for monitoring, and there remains a lack of expert panel to provide beaked whales are already lower than scientific information available on recommendations on scientific data for other taxa to address their sensitivity beaked whale distribution in the gaps and uncertainties for further and, as with other taxa, take the form of Marianas Islands. Simonis et al. (2020) protective measure consideration to a dose response curve, allowing for confirm that the acoustic record from minimize the impact of Navy training variation in individual responses given their HARPs indicates that the habitats and testing activities on beaked whales different contexts. near the recording locations are used by in the Mariana Islands. Regarding the comment that NMFS Blainville’s, Cuvier’s and an Comment 20: One Commenter made claims that suitable alternative habitat unidentified beaked whale, however, several recommendations related to options exist if beaked whales are they only suggest that the locations NMFS’ assessment and mitigation of disturbed during feeding is not credible, ‘‘may be considered as potentially beaked whale impacts. The Commenter we first direct the Commenter to the important beaked whale habitat,’’ given recommended that given beaked whales discussion of the impacts of noise

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46323

exposure during feeding behaviors needed in order to better investigate support has been programmed and is described in the Odontocete subsection causes of strandings that coincide with pending issuance in FY20. of the Analysis and Negligible Impact Navy activities in the MITT Study Area, Comment 22: A Commenter Determination section, which discusses as discussed in the rule the Navy has recommends that NMFS consider the the energetic impacts that interruption committed to continuing to fund full range of options in determining the of feeding bouts can have on feeding additional stranding response/necropsy mitigation measures needed to meet its odontocetes if interruptions occur over analyses for the Pacific Islands region. responsibility under both the repeated sequential days. However, in Further, the Navy is submitting a ‘‘negligible impact’’ and ‘‘least the context of the MITT Study Area, as proposal through the annual Federally practicable adverse impact’’ provisions predicted and discussed, the magnitude Funded Research and Development of the MMPA for beaked whales. Given and severity of takes is such that Center (FFRDC) call to fund the Center the expertise needed to produce an disturbance of low-moderate levels is for Naval Analysis (CNA) to develop a optimal mitigation plan, the Commenter expected to occur on no more than a few framework to improve the analysis of strongly advises NMFS to assemble a non-sequential days for any individual single and mass stranding events, group of subject-matter experts, beaked whales, which would not result including the development of more including experts on beaked whale in the sort of energetic concerns that the advanced statistical methods to better distribution, monitoring, and Commenter is raising. Further, the characterize the uncertainty associated conservation from the Southwest Commenter repeatedly references with data parameters. Fisheries Science Center, researchers concerns for small resident populations Last, the Commenter notes that in from the Pacific Islands Fisheries of beaked whales with high site fidelity, order to detect any trend in the Science Center who have led the work but there are no data to confirm the population, there is a strong need to on beaked whales in the archipelago, population structure of beaked whales conduct consistent surveys, with and outside experts on the conservation in this area and, again, the magnitude adequate methods for the species under biology of beaked whales. and severity is low such that, regardless, consideration, over multiple years. Response: The procedural mitigation adverse energetic impacts would be NMFS and the Navy do not disagree measures required by the final rule unlikely to result from Navy activities. with this recommendation and, as provide protection for all species of Regarding the recommendation that noted, the Navy and NMFS are co- marine mammals by reducing the acoustic monitoring be implemented in funding the PACMAPPS survey and the probability and severity of impacts from order to provide better density Navy has committed to additional active sonar and explosives. As noted, information for beaked whales, and to beaked whale surveys. However, the there is limited data available better understand behavioral responses, ability to conduct consistent surveys is addressing the distribution of marine as noted in the Changes from the dependent upon the availability of mammals in the Marianas, and there is Proposed Rule section, the Navy will be resources at both NMFS and the Navy, no information supporting the existence co-funding the Pacific Marine and surveys may not always be of any known biologically important Assessment Program for Protected conducted with the ideal regularity. areas that would warrant the Species (PACMAPPS) survey in spring- Comment 21: A Commenter development of a geographic mitigation summer 2021 to help document beaked recommends that the Navy conduct area for beaked whales. NMFS had whale occurrence, abundance, and more visual monitoring efforts, at sea thorough discussions with the Navy distribution in the Mariana Islands. This and along coastlines, for stranded about the possibility of crafting a effort will include deployments of a cetaceans before, during, and after naval mitigation measure to minimize any towed acoustic array as well as floating exercises. potential risk that Navy activities could passive acoustic buoys. The Navy has Response: It is not practicable for the contribute in any way to the potential further committed to monitoring future Navy to conduct additional visual stranding of beaked whales. These beaked whale occurrence within select monitoring at sea and along the discussions included consideration of portions of the MITT Study Area coastlines for stranded cetaceans before, all public comments that recommended starting in 2022 (so as to not duplicate during, and after training and testing beaked whale mitigation measures. PACMAPPS efforts). activities beyond what will occur However, despite years of field surveys Regarding the recommendation that through the procedural mitigation conducted under interagency the Navy be more transparent in their requirements under this rule. Pursuant agreements between the Navy and monitoring and sharing data indicating to the mitigation, the Navy will be NMFS’ PIFSC along with Navy funded the timing of Navy activities in relation required to conduct monitoring for beaked whale monitoring, there remains to strandings, there is certain marine mammals before, during, and a lack of scientific information available information that the Navy is unable to after in-water explosive exercises as on beaked whale distribution and other share freely because it is classified. described in the Mitigation Measures essential species information in the Specific classified information is shared section of this rule. During operations of Mariana Islands. Without sufficient in the Navy’s classified monitoring hull-mounted mid-frequency sonar and scientific data on beaked whale habitat reports, and the Navy has always low frequency sonar above 200 dB, use, bathymetry, and seasonality, and cooperated to provide additional detail monitoring will be conducted in from that a better understanding of the in an unclassified format when needed. support of mitigation requirements, and circumstances that could affect the Further, though, the Navy has during all operations of any sort the likelihood of a stranding in the MITT specifically targeted, for monitoring Navy will be required to report if any Study Area, NMFS is unable to develop pursuant to this rule, increased analysis injured or dead marine mammals are mitigation measures that would for any future beaked whale stranding in observed and follow established meaningfully reduce the likelihood of the Mariana Islands to include detailed incident reporting procedures. In stranding and/or will not result in Navy review of available records of addition, the Navy has been providing unreasonable operational/practicability sonar use. funding to augment stranding response concerns. Regarding the comment that and necropsy examinations in Hawaii Consequently, NMFS recommended additional personnel and support for and the Mariana Islands since 2018. to the Navy that the two agencies local stranding response and records is Additional funding to continue this convene a panel of experts, both from

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46324 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

the region, as well as beaked whale and increase the slope of their ascent supporting the assertion that the behavioral response experts from other glide to bring them further from the populations around the Marianas are geographic areas, and Navy experts on source (Falcone et al. 2017). resident populations, much less biology, operations, and mitigation to Comment 24: A Commenter stated identifying what the size or shape of review the status of the science, identify that similar to beaked whales, NMFS those resident populations might be data gaps, and identify information has failed to analyze seriously whether within the Mariana Islands (i.e., applicable for consideration for future melon-headed whales and other marine abundance and range size). The mitigation through the Adaptive mammal species known to be Commenter points to data Management process. The Navy has vulnerable to harm from Navy sonar and differentiating vocalizations of agreed to fund and co-organize this explosives are likely to suffer injury Blainville’s beaked whales in the effort. Additional measures that the and/or death from MITT activities. Mariana Islands versus other parts of the Navy has agreed to conduct to increase Response: There have not been Pacific, and to the presence of known understanding and decrease uncertainty significant instances of stranding of resident populations of beaked whales around beaked whales in the MITT melon-headed whales or other blackfish in Hawaii and other islands of the Study Area are discussed in the species in the Mariana Islands. Effects world. These points support the Monitoring section. analyses concluding that strandings of potential for resident populations to Comment 23: A Commenter these species are unlikely to result from exist in the Marianas, but do not recommends that the impact assessment the Navy’s activities are contained in provide any information that would consider whether beaked whales would the 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS. In review of support analyzing impacts in a manner be startled by explosions or active sonar NMFS’ and Guam Department of differently than was done by the Navy causing them to rush from great depths Agriculture’s Division of Aquatic and and NMFS. Specifically, for example, to the surface at dangerous speed Wildlife Resources stranding data from even if the beaked whales within the causing injury from gas expansion in 1962 through February 2019, only two Marianas comprise a separate their blood and whether repeated instances of melon-headed whale population from those elsewhere in the impacts causing TTS could lead to PTS. strandings were reported (1980 and Pacific, it would not suggest that beaked Response: The proposed rule 2015). Stranding data for other species whales should be analyzed differently addressed the impacts the commenter over the same time period include: false than they were within the MITT Study raises in the Potential Effects of killer whale 3 (2000, 2003, 2007), dwarf Area. Specified activities on Marine Mammals sperm whale 4 (1970, 1974, 1993, 2002), and Their Habitat section (Acoustically pygmy killer whale 1 (1974), pygmy While NMFS cannot explicitly define Mediated Bubble Growth and other sperm whale 3 (1989 (2), 1997), sperm the beaked whale population structure Pressure-related Injury). Further, NMFS whale 6 (1962, 1993 (2), 2011, 2012, at this time, the magnitude and severity has expanded the discussion and 2013), and short-finned pilot whale 1 of the estimated take and the negligible rationale describing why the Navy’s (1980). Given the low numbers of impact analyses remain valid and activities are not expected to result in strandings of these species in the applicable based on the best available the mortality of beaked whales in the Marianas and the absence of any science regardless of whether the Stranding section of this final rule. evidence of association with active beaked whales in the MITT Study Area As described in the proposed rule, sonar operation, the likelihood that are from a larger global population or a very prolonged or repeated exposure to Navy activities would result in serious Marianas Islands associated population. sound strong enough to elicit TTS, or injury or mortality of these species is NMFS and the Navy are committed to shorter-term exposure to sound levels considered discountable. actions that will expand our well above the TTS threshold, can cause Comment 25: A Commenter stated understanding of beaked whales, PTS, however, circumstances that that NMFS assumes, counter to the including their distribution in the MITT would be expected to lead to this are not available evidence, that beaked whales Study Area (see the Monitoring and present for Navy activities in the MITT around the Mariana Archipelago have Adaptive Management sections below Study Area. For this rulemaking, the no population structure and are part of for detailed descriptions). For example, Navy’s modeling has considered the large, cosmopolitan populations. While the Navy will co-fund the Pacific proximity of marine mammals to Navy limited information on population Marine Assessment Program for activities and the likelihood of exposure structure is available, the best available Protected Species (PACMAPPS) survey to levels above which TTS or PTS might science shows differences in the in spring-summer 2021 to help be incurred, throughout a full day (i.e., echolocation signal frequency of document beaked whale occurrence, considering potential repeated Blainville’s beaked whales between the abundance, and distribution in the exposures within a day), and very few Northern Marianas Islands and other Mariana Islands. This effort will include PTS takes are expected (see the locations in the Pacific, Western deployments of a towed array as well as Estimated Take of Marine Mammals Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico, indicative floating passive acoustic buoys. The section). Further, as discussed in the of a population specific to the Northern Navy will monitor future beaked whale Analysis and Negligible Impact Marianas Islands. This finding is occurrence within select portions of the Determination section, there is no consistent with studies in other parts of MITT Study Area starting in 2022. information suggesting that any marine the world, which have demonstrated Additionally, the Navy will include mammals will be exposed to levels remarkable site-fidelity in beaked whale Cuvier’s beaked whales as a priority resulting in TTS across more than a few populations. Range-limited populations species for analysis under a 2020–2023 non-sequential days, much less at a have been found on the shelf break Navy research-funded program entitled level or duration that is expected to approximately 50 km east of Cape Marine Species Monitoring for Potential accrue to PTS across those days. Hatteras, as well as off Canada, in the Consequences of Disturbance Also of note, ongoing research on Mediterranean, off Southern California, (MSM4PCOD). Finally, the Navy will beaked whale response to sonar does in the Bahamas, and around the fund and co-organize with NMFS an not indicate a panic response and rush Hawaiian Islands. expert panel to provide to the surface. Instead, beaked whales Response: There is no satellite tag or recommendations on scientific data move away from the source underwater photographic identification data gaps and uncertainties.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46325

Mitigation and Monitoring a mitigation assessment and (2) the observations of specific important Navy’s agreement to restrictions on its behaviors of marine mammals Least Practicable Adverse Impact activities as part of a relatively short- themselves, but also that clearly reflect Determination term settlement (which did not extend preferred habitat (e.g., reproductive Comment 26: A Commenter cited two beyond the expiration of the 2013 areas of Marpi and Chalan Kanoa Reefs, judicial decisions and commented that regulations) did not mean that those resting habitat for spinner dolphins in the ‘‘least practicable adverse impact’’ restrictions were practicable to Agat Bay). In addition to being standard has not been met. The implement over the longer term. delineated based on physical features Commenter stated that contrary to the Regarding the remainder of the that drive habitat function (e.g., Pritzker Court decision, NMFS, while comment, NMFS disagrees with much bathymetric features), the high densities clarifying that population-level impacts of what the Commenter asserts. First, we and concentration of certain important are mitigated ‘‘through the application have carefully explained our behaviors (e.g., breeding, resting) in of mitigation measures that limit interpretation of the least practicable these particular areas clearly indicate impacts to individual animals,’’ has adverse impact standard and how it the presence of preferred habitat. The again set population-level impact as the applies to both stocks and individuals, Commenter seems to suggest that NMFS basis for mitigation in the proposed including in the context of the Pritzker must always consider separate measures rule. Because NMFS’ mitigation analysis decision, in the Mitigation Measures aimed at marine mammal habitat; is opaque, it is not clear what practical section. Further, we have applied the however, the MMPA does not specify effect this position may have on its standard correctly in this rule in that effects to habitat must be mitigated rulemaking. The Commenter stated that requiring measures that reduce impacts in separate measures, and NMFS has the proposed rule is also unclear in its to individual marine mammals in a clearly identified measures that provide application of the ‘‘habitat’’ emphasis in manner that reduces the probability significant reduction of impacts to both the MMPA’s mitigation standard, and and/or severity of population-level ‘‘marine mammal species and stocks that while NMFS’ analysis is opaque, its impacts. and their habitat,’’ as required by the failure to incorporate or even, When a suggested or recommended statute. apparently, to consider viable time-area mitigation measure that would reduce NMFS agrees, however, that the measures suggests that the agency has impacts is not practicable, NMFS has agency must conduct its own analysis, not addressed this aspect of the Pritzker explored variations of that mitigation to which it has done here, and not just decision. The Commenter argued that determine if a practicable form of accept what is provided by the Navy. the MMPA sets forth a ‘‘stringent related mitigation exists. This is clearly That does not mean, however, that standard’’ for mitigation that requires illustrated in NMFS’ independent NMFS cannot review the Navy’s the agency to minimize impacts to the mitigation analysis process explained in analysis of effectiveness and lowest practicable level, and that the the Mitigation Measures section of the practicability of its proposed mitigation agency must conduct its own analysis final rule. First, some types of measures, which by regulation the Navy and clearly articulate it and not just mitigation required under this rule are was required to submit with its parrot what the Navy says. The area-specific and vary by mitigation application, and concur with those baselessness of this approach can be area, demonstrating that NMFS has aspects of the Navy’s analysis with seen from the outcome of the engaged in a site-specific analysis to which NMFS agrees. The Commenter Conservation Council decision, where ensure mitigation is tailored when seems to suggest that NMFS must the parties were able to reach a practicability demands, i.e., some forms describe in the rule in detail the settlement agreement establishing time- of mitigation were practicable in some rationale for not adopting every area management measures, among areas but not others. For instance, while conceivable permutation of mitigation, other things, on the Navy’s Southern it was not practicable for the Navy to which is neither reasonable nor required California and Hawaii Range Complexes restrict all use of the Chalan Kanoa Reef by the MMPA. NMFS has described our notwithstanding NMFS’ finding, and Marpi Reef Geographic Mitigation well-reasoned process for identifying following the Navy, that all such Areas, NMFS did expand the seaward the measures needed to meet the least management measures would extent of the areas out to the 400-m practicable adverse impact standard in substantially affect military readiness isobath. Additionally, while it was not the Mitigation Measures section in this and were not practicable. Unfortunately, practicable for the Navy to eliminate all rule, and we have followed the there is no indication in the proposed training in those two Geographic approach described there when rule that NMFS has, as yet, done Mitigation Areas, restrictions in those analyzing potential mitigation for the anything different here. areas have been expanded such that the Navy’s activities in the MITT Study Response: First, the Commenter’s Navy will not use explosives year-round Area. Responses to specific reference to mitigation measures and MF1 MFAS will be limited to 20 recommendations for mitigation implemented pursuant to a prior hours between December 1 and April 30 measures provided by the Commenter settlement agreement is entirely annually to minimize impacts from on the proposed rule are discussed inapplicable to a discussion of NMFS’ sonar on humpback whales during the separately. responsibility to ensure the least time when they are engaged in Comment 27: A Commenter noted practicable adverse impact under the important reproductive behaviors. that they have previously indicated that, MMPA. Specifically, for those areas that Regarding the comment about under the least practicable adverse were previously covered under the 2015 mitigation of habitat impacts, marine impact requirement, and more generally settlement agreement for the HSTT mammal habitat value is informed by under the purposes and policies of the Study Area, it is essential to understand marine mammal presence and use and, MMPA, Congress embraced a policy that that: (1) The measures were developed in some cases, there may be overlap in minimizes, whenever it is practicable, pursuant to negotiations with the measures for the species or stock the risk of killing or seriously injuring plaintiffs and were specifically not directly and for use of habitat. In this a marine mammal incidental to an selected and never evaluated based on rule, we have required time-area activity subject to section 101(a)(5)(A), an examination of the best available mitigations based on a combination of including taking measures in an science that NMFS otherwise applies to factors that include higher densities and authorization to eliminate or reduce the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46326 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

likelihood of lethal taking. Accordingly, nevertheless have adverse impacts on and (2) always consider whether there the Commenter had recommended that marine mammal species and stocks and are potentially adverse impacts on NMFS address this point explicitly in their habitat. If so, NMFS must marine mammal habitat and whether it its least practicable adverse impact condition the authorization to eliminate is practicable to minimize them. The analysis and clarify whether it agrees or reduce those impacts whenever, and MMPA requires that NMFS address both that the incidental serious injury or to the greatest extent, practicable. As the types of impacts, not that there be no death of a marine mammal always statute is written, it is inappropriate to overlap between the mitigation should be considered an adverse impact conflate the two standards, as NMFS measures designed to reduce those for purposes of applying the least seems to be doing. impacts. practicable adverse impact standard. In Response: NMFS has made clear in Response: NMFS’ decision-making the preamble to the Atlantic Fleet this and other rules that the agency framework for applying the least Training and Testing (AFTT) final rule, separates its application of the least practicable adverse impact standard NMFS indicated that it was unnecessary practicable adverse impact requirement clearly recognizes the habitat or unhelpful to address explicitly the in the Mitigation Measures section from component of the provision (see point made by the Commenter that an its negligible impact analyses and Mitigation Measures section of the rule). incidental death or serious injury of a determinations for each species or stock NMFS does always consider whether marine mammal should always be in a separate section. Further, NMFS has there are adverse impacts on habitat and considered an adverse impact on the made this separation clear in practice how they can be mitigated. Marine species or stock (83 FR 57117). The for years by requiring mitigation mammal habitat value is informed by Commenter disagrees. The Commenter measures to reduce impacts to marine marine mammal presence and use and, does not see how NMFS can meet the mammal species and stocks and their in some cases, there may be overlap in mandate of the MMPA to reduce habitat for all projects, even those for measures for the species or stock adverse impacts to the lowest level which the anticipated take would directly and for use of habitat. In this practicable if it does not first identify clearly not approach the negligible rule, we have required time-area clearly which impacts are adverse and impact threshold, even in the absence of mitigation measures based on a may require mitigation under section mitigation. combination of factors that include 101(a)(5)(A)(i)(II)(aa). The Commenter Comment 29: A Commenter higher densities and observations of appreciates NMFS’ statement that it has recommended that NMFS follow an specific important behaviors of marine adopted a practice to mitigate mortality analysis consisting of three elements to mammal species themselves, but also to the greatest degree possible, but (1) determine whether the impacts of that clearly reflect preferred habitat disagrees with the agency’s conclusions the proposed activities are negligible at (e.g., reproductive habitat off Marpi and that one mortality does not affect the the species/stock level, (2) if so, Chalan Kanoa Reefs and resting habitat population in a quantifiable or determine whether some of those in Agat Bay). In addition to being meaningful way. However, the MMPA impacts nevertheless are adverse either delineated based on physical features requires NMFS to go beyond that and to marine mammal species or stocks or that drive habitat function (e.g., reduce any adverse impacts to the key marine mammal habitat, and (3) if bathymetric features), the high densities greatest extent practicable, even though so, whether it is practicable for the and concentration of certain important population-level impacts are not applicant to reduce or eliminate those behaviors (e.g., reproduction, feeding, significant. impacts through modifying those resting) in these particular areas clearly Response: NMFS continues to activities or by other means (e.g., indicate the presence of preferred disagree that it is necessary or helpful requiring additional mitigation habitat. The Commenter seems to to explicitly address the point the measures to be implemented). suggest that NMFS must include Commenter raises specifically in the Response: In the Mitigation Measures mitigation measures aimed at marine discussion on the least practicable section of the rule, NMFS has explained mammal habitat that are wholly adverse impact standard. It is always in detail our interpretation of the least separate from addressing adverse NMFS’ practice to mitigate serious practicable adverse impact standard, the impacts directly on the species or injury and mortality to the greatest rationale for our interpretation, and then stocks. However, the MMPA does not degree possible, as death is the impact how we implement the standard. The specify that effects to habitat must be that is most easily linked to reducing method the agency is using addresses all mitigated in separate measures, and the probability of adverse impacts to of the necessary components of the NMFS has clearly included measures populations. However, we cannot agree standard and produces effective that provide significant reduction of that one mortality will always decrease mitigation measures that result in the impacts to both marine mammal species any population in a quantifiable or least practicable adverse impact on both or stocks and their habitat, as required meaningful way. For example, for very the species or stocks and their habitat. by the statute. large populations, one mortality may The Commenter has failed to illustrate Comment 31: A Commenter fall well within typical known annual why NMFS’ approach is inadequate or recommended that NMFS rework its variation and not have any effect on why the Commenter’s proposed evaluation criteria for applying the least population rates. Mortality is not approach would be better, and we practicable adverse impact standard to anticipated or authorized in this rule. therefore decline to accept the separate the factors used to determine Comment 28: A Commenter continues recommendation. whether a potential impact on marine to recommend that NMFS clearly Comment 30: Regarding the habitat mammals or their habitat is adverse and separate its application of the least component of the least practicable whether possible mitigation measures practicable adverse impact requirement adverse impact standard, a Commenter would be effective. from its negligible impact recommends that NMFS (1) adopt a Response: In the Mitigation Measures determination. Once NMFS determines clear decision-making framework that section, NMFS has explained in detail that an applicant’s proposed activities recognizes the species and stock our interpretation and application of the would have a negligible impact, it still component and the marine mammal least practicable adverse impact has a responsibility to determine habitat component of the least standard. The Commenter has whether the activities would practicable adverse impact provision recommended an alternate way of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46327

interpreting and implementing the least Comment 33: A Commenter stated Response: To support its argument practicable adverse impact standard, in that since NMFS has expounded on the that NMFS must not dismiss the which NMFS would consider the least practicable adverse impact existence of persistent areas of primary effectiveness of a measure in our standard at some length in a series of productivity, the Commenter cites to the evaluation of its practicability. The proposed authorizations, it has been an 2019 MITT DSEIS/OEIS and its general Commenter erroneously asserts that evolutionary process that varies discussion of the West Marianas Ridge NMFS currently considers the depending on each specific situation. area and areas of productivity, and effectiveness of a measure in a The Commenter continues to references some general information determination of whether the potential recommend that NMFS adopt general about how certain features may be tied effects of an activity are adverse, but the regulations to govern the process and set to biodiversity hotspots. The West Commenter has misunderstood NMFS’ forth the basic steps and criteria that Marianas Trench is a huge area practice—rather, NMFS appropriately apply across least practicable adverse hundreds of miles long. The commenter considers the effectiveness of a measure impact determinations. Those standards does not provide any information about in the evaluation of the degree to which should not be shifting on a case by-case particular features or areas that are a measure will reduce adverse impacts basis, as now appears to be the case. specifically known to be important to on marine mammal species or stocks Rather, the analytical framework and marine mammals in the West Marianas and their habitat, as a less effective decision-making standards should be Trench, much less provide any specific measure will less successfully reduce consistent across authorizations. recommendations about how geographic these impacts on marine mammals. Variations between authorizations mitigation might potentially provide a Further, the Commenter has not should be based on the facts underlying reduction in impacts that the Navy’s provided information that shows that each application, not the criteria that activities might be having on marine their proposed approach would more underpin the least practicable adverse mammal species or stocks and their successfully evaluate mitigation against impact standard. habitat. As described in section I.4.1 of the LAPI standard, and we decline to Response: The commenter the 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS, which accept it. misunderstands the agency’s process. NMFS reviewed and concurs with, the Comment 32: A Commenter stated Neither the least practicable adverse available data do not indicate that the that although NMFS has written impact standard nor NMFS’ process for West Mariana Ridge or surrounding area extensively on the least practicable evaluating it shifts on a case-by-case is an area of key biological importance adverse impact standard, it remains basis. Rather, as the Commenter for marine mammals or other marine unclear exactly how each suggests should be the case, the species, nor is it clear that limiting the authorization’s proposed ‘‘mitigation evaluation itself is case-specific to the use of sonar and explosives in the area measures are sufficient to meet the proposed activity, the predicted would result in an avoidance or statutory legal standard,’’ or even what impacts, and the mitigation under reduction of impacts. Therefore, the standard NMFS is using. As such, the consideration. West Mariana Ridge area does not Regarding the recommendation to Commenter again recommends that warrant geographic mitigation. NMFS adopt general regulations, we appreciate NMFS address these shortcomings by does not dismiss the existence of the recommendation and may consider adopting a simple, two-step analysis persistent areas of primary productivity, the recommended approach in the that more closely tracks the statutory however, NMFS is unaware of, and the future. However, providing directly provisions being implemented. As the Commenter has failed to demonstrate Commenter has stated previously, the relevant explanations of programmatic the existence of, data supporting areas first step should be to identify impacts approaches or interpretations related to or habitat of specific importance to on marine mammal species or stocks or the incidental take provisions of the marine mammals, nor has the their habitat that, although negligible, MMPA in a proposed incidental take Commenter recommended any are nevertheless adverse. If such authorization is an effective and particular geographic mitigation impacts are identified, then NMFS must efficient way to provide information to measure. Additional discussion of areas identify and require the applicant to and solicit focused input from the of primary productivity is included adopt measures to reduce those impacts public. Further, this approach affords below in the response to Comment 35. to the lowest level practicable. If NMFS the same opportunities for public is using some other legal standard to comment as a stand-alone rulemaking Second, the commenter asserts that implement the least practicable adverse would. NMFS must not conflate the lack of impact requirements, the Commenter Geographic Mitigation Measures survey effort with an absence of further recommends that NMFS provide Comment 34: A Commenter cites the biologically important habitat. NMFS a clear and concise description of that judicial decision in Pritzker, and has not done this. In the final rule, we standard and explain why it believes it suggests that NMFS should adjust its have clarified that there are no known to be ‘‘sufficient’’ to meet the statutory approach to geographic mitigation as biologically important areas for most of legal requirements. follows: First, NMFS must not dismiss the species in the MITT Study Area. In Response: NMFS disagrees with the the existence of persistent areas of addition, while both the Navy and Commenter’s assertion that analysis of primary productivity. Second, NMFS NMFS have discussed the paucity of the rule’s mitigation measures under the must not conflate the lack of survey survey data and habitat information in least practicable adverse impact effort with an absence of biologically and around the Marianas, and the standard remains unclear or that the important habitat. Third, NMFS, in limited amount of information suggested shortcomings exist. Further, following the Navy, overlooks evidence indicating specific important habitat for the Commenter provides no rationale as of island-associated small or resident marine mammals, we have not to why the two-step process they populations, and relative risk to those suggested that this lack of data indicates describe is better than the process that populations. It is entirely remiss for that no biologically important areas NMFS uses to evaluate the least NMFS to ignore evidence of small and exist. However, in the absence of data practicable adverse impact and, resident populations within the MITT supporting a specific area in which therefore, we decline to accept the Study Area and afford them no biologically important behaviors are recommendation. additional protections. known to be concentrated, or important

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46328 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

habitat is otherwise located, and in ecosystems above as biologically other regions where more granular which a reasonable argument can be important. survey data is available generally made that limitation of Navy activities Response: In discussing OBIAs, the indicate that while some species may would meaningfully reduce impacts to commenter references a process and set typically be more concentrated in shelf marine mammal species or stocks and of recommendations that were and slope waters, certain mysticete their habitat, it is not reasonable to specifically developed in the context of species and sperm whales often have require geographic mitigation beyond the Navy’s SURTASS LFA sonar higher densities outside of the the procedural mitigation that is already activities, in which five vessels operated mitigation area the Commenter suggests in place to reduce impacts to all marine primarily in the Pacific Ocean use low (100 km beyond the Continental Slope), mammals in all locations. frequency active sonar only in deep and focusing activities in those areas Third, the Commenter asserts that offshore waters to train and search for would shift impacts from more coastal NMFS overlooks evidence of island- enemy submarines. The geographic area species to more pelagic species, making associated small or resident of the SURTASS LFA regulations any overall reduction in impacts populations, and relative risk to those includes the western and central North uncertain. Regarding seamounts, while populations. NMFS and the Navy Pacific Ocean and eastern Indian Ocean data have shown higher species acknowledge the potential for island- outside of the territorial seas of foreign diversity or aggregations of some species associated odontocete populations in nations (generally 12 nmi (22 km) from at some seamounts during certain the Marianas and, in fact, the species most foreign nations). By referencing periods of time (Morato et al., 2008), that the Commenter focuses on in their designation as OBIAs, we assume the they also suggest that these aggregations comment (spinner dolphins) is the Commenter is suggesting restricting are often specific to a seamount or time driver for the Agat Bay Mitigation Area, active sonar (at a minimum) in the areas period (i.e., not all seamounts exhibit which will minimize impacts to spinner identified. Below we discuss the these aggregations at all times) and, dolphins resting in a Bay on the west consideration of these areas for further, that marine mammal species are side of Guam where they are known to mitigation in the MITT Study Area. more loosely associated with seamounts concentrate. However, as discussed in Regarding recommendations (1) and than other taxa (Pitcher et al., 2007). more detail in section I.4.2 of the 2020 (2), restricting the Navy’s MITT When this information is considered in MITT FSEIS/OEIS, which NMFS activities in these areas is impracticable, combination with the fact that no more reviewed and concurs with, while some as many of the Navy’s activities than a few takes of any individual of the species that have been identified specifically necessitate use of the varied marine mammal are expected as island-associated residents in Hawaii bathymetry that occurs between the throughout the MITT Study Area have been detected from nearshore continental slope and 100 km seaward annually, any potential reduction in small boat surveys in the Marianas, or around seamounts, and many can impacts would be limited. For occur only within designated training or these same species have been detected additional information regarding marine testing areas that fall within this area. using offshore areas beyond the 3,500- mammal use of seamounts, see the The Navy has communicated to m isobath in offshore surveys or by White Paper Specific Recommendations satellite tags. There is no satellite tag or NMFS that the MITT Study Area includes dedicated range assets, special section of NMFS’ Final Rule for photographic identification data SURTASS LFA Sonar (84 FR 40132, supporting the assertion that the use airspace, and other infrastructure to support training and testing activities 40192, August 13, 2019). Given the lack populations around the Marianas are of evidence supporting the likelihood resident populations, much less that that would not be available to the Navy that this approach would provide their ranges are spatially limited in a should it have to conduct activities meaningful reduction of impacts to manner that would support the beyond the continental shelf waters marine mammal species and their consideration of geographic mitigation (including a 100 km buffer). Mid- habitat in the MITT Study Area, measures. frequency and high-frequency sonar Comment 35: A Commenter sources, which are the primary sources combined with the impracticability for recommended that NMFS should used in the MITT training and testing Navy implementation, NMFS finds that consider the guidelines for capturing activities, have a much smaller these measures are not warranted biologically important marine mammal propagation range than LF sources. beyond the procedural mitigation habitat in data-poor areas, provided by Therefore, moving further and further measures that reduce the likelihood of NMFS’ subject-matter experts and offshore, from seamounts, from islands, injury or more severe behavioral addressed by the Ninth Circuit Court of etc. would result in completely impacts for all species in all areas. Appeals in NRDC v. Pritzker 828 F.3d ineffective training/testing because the Regarding restricting Navy activities 1125 (9th Cir. 2016), as those guidelines sonar system would not be able to in areas of high productivity, we first are relevant to the broader MITT Study perform in locations of the bathymetries refer the reader to our response Area, much of which is comprised of required to meet proficiency with immediately above, which addresses the data-poor, offshore areas. These ‘‘White standoff/buffer distances proposed. West Marianas Trench, and further note Paper’’ guidelines call for: (1) Shelf, slope, sea mount, and shallow that the Commenter does not identify, Designation as Offshore Biologically island associated waters are the type of and nor is NMFS aware of, any other Important Areas (OBIAs) of all complex training environments required known areas of high productivity within continental shelf waters and waters 100 by the Navy since those are the types of the MITT Study Area. More generally, km seaward of the continental slope as bathymetric conditions that deployed areas of the highest productivity tend to biologically important for marine units to the Navy’s 7th Fleet will be be found in areas of high latitude (not mammals; (2) establishment of OBIAs most presented with when operating in found in the MITT Study Area) or near within 100 km of all islands and the Philippine Sea, South China Sea, river mouths (small boat surveys in the seamounts that rise within 500 m of the etc. Therefore, it is impracticable to MITT Study Area have already allowed surface; and (3) nomination as OBIAs of limit activities in the locations for the identification of specifically high-productivity regions that are not recommended by the white paper. important nearshore areas for marine included in the continental shelf, Also, regarding the 100 km offshore of mammals, which have been designated continental slope, seamount, and island the slope limitation, density data from as geographic mitigation areas)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46329

(Wolverton, 2009). More moderate areas dolphin resting habitat at Bile Bay, Nearshore Geographic Mitigation Area of productivity tend to occupy large, Tumon Bay, and Double Reef, Guam, essentially follows the 100-m isobath and often ephemeral, offshore areas that and Tanapaq Bay, Saipan. except at the southern extent of the area. are difficult to consistently define Response: NMFS has considered the At its northern extent, the area includes because of interannual spatial and best available information for these deeper waters beyond the 100-m isobath temporal variability. Regions of high suggested mitigation areas. Previously to include an area with a cluster of sea productivity have the potential to reported spinner dolphin high-use areas turtle sightings. The greater number of provide good foraging habitat for some nearshore at Guam include Bile Bay, spinner dolphin sightings may indicate species of marine mammals, however, Tumon Bay, Double Reef, as well as that the northern or middle portion of there is not sufficient data to support north Agat Bay, and off Merizo (Cocos the Agat Bay Nearshore Mitigation Area the designation of any specific area. Lagoon area), where these animals may be of greater importance than the Further, the fact that no more than a few congregate during the day to rest southern portion due to some physical takes of any individual marine mammal (Amesbury et al., 2001; Eldredge, 1991). or biological features. The point of land are expected throughout the MITT More recently, high-use areas have at the southern end of the Agat Bay Study Area annually suggests that any included Agat Bay; the Merizo channel, Nearshore Mitigation Area is a potential reduction in impacts would be tucked into the several small remote convenient physical feature for defining limited. When this limited benefit is bays between Merizo and Facpi Point; the area, and as with other sightings balanced against the general Piti Bay; Hagatna; Tumon Bay; and data, it is reasonable to assume that impracticability of restricting Navy Pugua Point (Ligon et al., 2011). During animals just outside of the boundary of training and testing in large portions of the 2010–2018 small boat surveys in the the area may be transiting to (or from) the MITT Study Area, and given the Mariana Islands, there were 157 the northern portion of the area and that lack of information to identify an encounters with pods of spinner areas beyond the boundary do not appropriate area, NMFS finds that this dolphins (Hill et al., 2019). The constitute areas of any particular measure is not warranted beyond the approximate distance from shore for biological significance. The expansion procedural mitigation measures that these encounters was 1 km, indicative of of the area to include a buffer at the reduce the likelihood of injury or more their preference for nearshore habitat southern end would not be likely to severe behavioral impacts for all species and prevalence in the MITT Study Area meaningfully further reduce impacts to in all areas. (Hill et al., 2017a; Hill et al., 2018b; Hill spinner dolphins and is, therefore, not Comment 36: A Commenter et al., 2019). As described in Section warranted. Dipping sonar, as described recommends that NMFS determine I.3.3 (Agat Bay Nearshore Geographic in the Detailed Description of the whether the Navy’s implementation of Mitigation Area) of the 2020 MITT Specified Activities section, is used geographic mitigation measures at the FSEIS/OEIS, the nearshore area of Agat during ASW exercises, which occur North Guam, Ritidian Point, and Tumon Bay represents an area of biological primarily more than 3 nmi from shore, Bay Offshore Areas would be importance and is practicable for and would especially not occur in areas practicable and if so, include them as implementation, and has been included as shallow as Agat Bay and with a high mitigation areas in the final rule. In in the final rule as a geographic number of small tour boats. As also either case, all of the relevant mitigation area for spinner dolphin indicated previously, the vast majority information for North Guam, Ritidian resting behavior. The data suggesting of the takes from sonar exposure are Point, and Tumon Bay Offshore Areas numerous other locations around Guam related to MF1 sonar, and dipping sonar must be included in the preamble to the and other islands where resting has a significantly lower source level final rule. behavior has been observed or has the and has not been associated with any Response: NMFS has considered the potential to occur (i.e., the habitat is particular impacts of concern to best available information (which for suitable) indicates that no single area is dolphins. Given this, there is no mitigation measures discussed here and of particular concentration or biological additional protective value to be gained below includes both best available importance. See Section 3.4.1.32.2 by adding a restriction on dipping sonar science and information on (Geographic Range and Distribution) of in this area and it is, therefore, not practicability) for these suggested the 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS for more warranted. mitigation areas. The areas of North information. Accordingly, specific Comment 39: A Commenter Guam, Ritidian Point, and Tumon Bay geographic mitigation for these areas, recommends that NMFS should Offshore Areas were reviewed as beyond the procedural mitigation establish a mitigation area for offshore potential mitigation areas. While measures that reduce the likelihood of Agat Bay encompassing the continental sightings and transits of the area by injury or more severe behavioral shelf break and slope and extending out some species were noted in review of impacts for spinner dolphins and all to the 2,000 m depth contour to protect available scientific research, there is other species during all activities, is not this potentially important calving and currently no information on specific warranted. nursing area for endangered sperm uses for biologically important life Comment 38: A Commenter whales. Additionally the Commenter processes beyond normal species broad- recommends extending the southern also recommends the NMFS should area occurrence (e.g., the areas are not boundary of the Agat Bay Nearshore establish a second mitigation area for exclusive feeding areas, migration Geographic Mitigation Area seaward to sperm whale calving and nursery routes, or breeding locations). Given the 100 m depth contour and including habitat offshore of Apra Harbor, this, there is no evidence that limiting a buffer area sufficient to accomplish encompassing the continental shelf operations in these areas would reduce the goal of avoiding mass disruption of break and slope and extending out to impacts on marine mammals, and spinner dolphins, and expanding the the 2,000 m depth contour. accordingly, no geographic mitigation is same restriction, at minimum, to Response: NMFS has considered the warranted, regardless of whether it dipping sonar. best available information for these would be practicable. Response: NMFS has considered the suggested mitigation areas. While there Comment 37: A Commenter best available information for this were multiple sightings of sperm whale recommends that NMFS should suggested mitigation area. The current calves (not in Agat Bay or concentrated establish mitigation areas for spinner western boundary of the Agat Bay in a particular area) during the course of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46330 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

the large boat surveys conducted around south of Guam, where the bottom depth individuals between 2013 and 2018 the Marianas in 2007, the was over 4,413 m. This is consistent suggest multiple areas are used recommendation that NMFS should with the known habitat preference of frequently by short-finned pilot whales consider an area off Agat Bay as a this species for deep, oceanic waters. in the Marianas, including but not breeding and nursery area for sperm However, in the Mariana Islands, pygmy limited to areas west of Guam and Rota whales seems to be largely based on two killer whale sightings close to shore are (Hill et al., 2018d; Hill et al., 2019). Associated Press File photographs, not unexpected due to deep bathymetry Satellite tags on short-finned pilot taken opportunistically by a local surrounding most islands. There is no whales lasting from approximately 9– photographer, showing a group of three information on population range of 128 days showed that individuals adult sperm whales and a calf during an pygmy killer whales off Guam (Hill et ranged from south at Tumon Bay off encounter from a commercial dive boat al., 2019), or any information suggesting Guam to as far north as the waters west on June 15, 2001, ‘‘. . . about four miles that the area recommended by the of Anatahan (Hill et al., 2019). The off the coast of the Agat Marina in Commenter is of specific biological Commenter uses tag data from the Guam’’ (Bangs, 2001). During the 2010– importance such that mitigation movement of eleven individuals to 2018 small boat surveys in the Mariana measures would result in a reduction of suggest probability density contours Islands, a total of seven sperm whales impacts. Therefore, consideration of centered northwest of Guam, however, were detected over four encounters (in geographic mitigation, beyond the multiple locations of eleven animals are 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2018) in a median procedural mitigation measures that not necessarily representative of the depth of approximately 1,200 m and reduce the likelihood of injury or more distribution of all of the animals in the median distance from shore of severe behavioral impacts for pygmy population. Altogether, tag locations approximately 12 km (Hill et al., 2017a; killer whales and all other species and visual detections suggest multiple Hill et al., 2018c; Hill et al., 2018d; Hill during all activities, is not warranted. areas of frequent use by short-finned et al., 2019). Sightings and acoustic See Section 3.4.1.26.1 (Geographic pilot whales in the Mariana Islands and monitoring detections recorded both Range and Distribution) of the 2020 do not support that the areas west of before and since 2007 indicate that MITT FSEIS/OEIS for more information. Guam and Rota are key areas of sperm whales range widely in the MITT For spinner dolphin habitat, there are biological importance for short-finned Study Area with no known areas of numerous other locations around Guam pilot whales. Accordingly, specific concentration in the Mariana Islands. and other islands where resting geographic mitigation measures, beyond Sperm whales are highly nomadic, behavior has been observed or has the the procedural measures that reduce the mobile predators, and the available data potential to occur (i.e., the habitat is likelihood of injury or more severe do not support areas offshore of Agat suitable), however, the data suggest that behavioral impacts for short-finned pilot Bay or Apra Harbor as important no single area, including the area whales during all activities, is not reproductive areas for sperm whales in recommended by the Commenter, is of warranted. the MITT Study Area. For instance, a particular biological importance (i.e., Comment 42: A Commenter sperm whale with a satellite tracking tag with the predictable regular recurrence recommended that NMFS should attached traveled in deep offshore of larger pods of resting dolphins seen establish a mitigation area to protect waters from west of Guam to west of at Agat Bay). See Section 3.4.1.32.2 important habitat for multiple species of Saipan in less than 10 days (Hill et al. (Geographic Range and Distribution) of marine mammals at Rota Bank, 2019). Accordingly, specific geographic the 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS for more particularly as important habitat for mitigation in these areas, beyond the information. As such, a mitigation area spinner and bottlenose dolphins and procedural mitigation measures that here is not likely to meaningfully reduce potential feeding habitat for Bryde’s reduce the likelihood of injury or more impacts to spinner dolphins and, whales. severe behavioral impacts for sperm therefore, consideration of geographic Response: NMFS has considered the whales and all other species during all mitigation, beyond the procedural best available information for this activities, is not warranted. mitigation measures that reduce the suggested mitigation area. As discussed Comment 40: A Commenter likelihood of injury or more severe in Appendix I (Geographic Mitigation recommended that NMFS should behavioral impacts for spinner dolphins Assessment) of the 2020 MITT FSEIS/ protect Cocos Lagoon and the and all other species during all OEIS, there is insufficient evidence to continental shelf and slope waters west activities, is not warranted. identify Rota Bank as an important area of Cocos Island seaward to the 2,000 m Comment 41: A Commenter for spinner dolphins or bottlenose depth contour as an important habitat recommended that NMFS should dolphins and therefore additional area for multiple species, particularly designate a mitigation area to protect, at mitigation beyond the procedural breeding habitat for a possibly resident minimum, the ten percent ‘‘highest use measures that reduce impacts for all pygmy killer whale population and area’’ for short-finned pilot whales in species is not warranted. The resting habitat for spinner dolphin at core use areas, west of Guam and Rota. Commenter notes the potentially higher Cocos Island and Lagoon, Guam. Response: NMFS has considered the relative abundance of spinner dolphins Response: NMFS has considered the best available information for this in the area, as well as the potential for best available information for this suggested mitigation area. During the a genetically distinct population of suggested mitigation area. Like similar 2010–2018 small boat surveys in the bottlenose dolphins. However, spinner deep-water and deep-diving species, Mariana Islands, short-finned pilot dolphins have also been sighted at pygmy killer whales are likely highly whale groups were encountered on 23 multiple other locations around the mobile in the marine environment with occasions in a median depth of Marianas, including important resting no known concentration areas in the approximately 720 m and median habitat in Agat Bay where NMFS has Mariana Islands. There was only one distance from shore of approximately 5 developed a geographic mitigation area, pygmy killer whale sighting of a group km, including one pod of 35 individuals and the Commenter includes no of six animals during the 2007 off Marpi Reef north of Saipan (Hill et information to support why the systematic survey of the MITT Study al., 2014; Hill et al., 2017a; Hill et al., identification of a genetically distinct Area (Fulling et al., 2011). The sighting 2018b; Hill et al., 2018d; Hill et al., population of bottlenose dolphins in the occurred near the Mariana Trench, 2019). Satellite tags deployed on 17 Marianas would support the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46331

identification of a mitigation area at effectiveness of Navy Lookouts relative capabilities on its Ranges for use in Rota Bank. Further, the single sighting to trained marine mammal observers for marine mammal monitoring, which can of a Bryde’s whale feeding the purposes of implementing the be effectively compared to operational approximately five years ago does not mitigation measures. information after the fact to gain indicate the presence of an established Comment 44: A Commenter information regarding marine mammal feeding area for the species. recommends that NMFS require the response. There is no instrumented During nine years of surveys from Navy to use passive and active acoustic range in the MITT Study Area to use. 2010–2018, spinner dolphins were only monitoring (such as instrumented Further, the Navy’s instrumented ranges sighted at Rota Bank on two years, 2011 ranges), whenever practicable, to were not developed for the purpose of and 2012 (Hill et al., 2019). More supplement visual monitoring during mitigation. The manpower and logistical sightings across all years occurred in the implementation of its mitigation complexity involved in detecting and shallow water less than 100 m and measures for all activities that could localizing marine mammals in relation within 1 km of land. Bottlenose cause injury or mortality beyond those to multiple fast-moving sound source dolphins, similar to spinner dolphins, explosive activities for which passive platforms in order to implement real- were only sighted at Rota Bank in 2011 acoustic monitoring already was time mitigation is significant. Although and 2012. Tracking of six bottlenose proposed. At the very least, the the Navy is continuing to improve its dolphins with attached satellite tags sonobuoys, active sources, and capabilities to use range showed wide variations in tag locations hydrophones used during an activity instrumentation to aid in the passive between northern Guam and Rota (tag should be monitored for marine acoustic detection of marine mammals, duration only 3.7–20.5 days). Only four mammals. at this time it would not be effective or Bryde’s whale sightings in 2015 near Response: The Navy does employ practicable for the Navy to monitor Guam or Rota were reported based on passive acoustic monitoring to instrumented ranges for the purpose of small boat surveys from 2010–2018. supplement visual monitoring when real-time mitigation for the reasons Only one of these four sightings was practicable to do so (i.e., when assets discussed in Section 5.6.3 (Active and near, although not on, Rota Bank. There that have passive acoustic monitoring Passive Acoustic Monitoring Devices) of were no other Bryde’s whale sightings capabilities are already participating in the 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS. near Rota Bank in any other year. the activity). We note, however, that Regarding the use of active sonar for Accordingly, specific geographic sonobuoys have a narrow band that does mitigation, we note that during mitigation, beyond the procedural not overlap with the vocalizations of all measures that reduce the likelihood of marine mammals, and there is no Surveillance Towed Array Sensor injury or more severe behavioral bearing or distance on detections based System low-frequency active sonar impacts for dolphins and all species on the number and type of devices (which is not part of this rulemaking, during all activities, is not warranted. typically used; therefore it is not and uses a high-powered low frequency possible to use these to implement source), the Navy uses a specially Other Mitigation and Monitoring mitigation shutdown procedures. For designed adjunct high-frequency marine Comment 43: Based on the fact that explosive events in which there are no mammal monitoring active sonar known the Commenter did not see reference to platforms participating that have as ‘‘HF/M3’’ to mitigate potential the Navy’s ongoing Lookout passive acoustic monitoring capabilities, impacts. HF/M3 can only be towed at effectiveness study in the 2020 MITT adding passive acoustic monitoring slow speeds (significantly slower than FSEIS/OEIS and was concerned that the capability, either by adding a passive those used for ASW and the other results of this 10-year study would not acoustic monitoring device (e.g., training and testing uses contemplated be made available, they recommended hydrophone) to a platform already for the MITT activities) and operates that NMFS require the Navy to (1) participating in the activity or by adding like a fish finder used by commercial allocate additional resources to the a platform with integrated passive and recreational fishermen. Installing Lookout effectiveness study, (2) consult acoustic monitoring capabilities to the the HF/M3 adjunct system on the with the University of St. Andrews to activity (such as a sonobuoy), for tactical sonar ships used during determine how much additional data is mitigation is not practicable. As activities in this rule would have necessary to analyze the data in a discussed in Section 5.6.3 (Active and implications for safety and mission statistically significant manner, and (3) Passive Acoustic Monitoring Devices) of requirements due to impacts on speed plan future Lookout effectiveness the 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS, which and maneuverability. Furthermore, cruises to maximize the potential NMFS reviewed and concurs accurately installing the system would number of sightings so that the study assesses the practicability of utilizing significantly increase costs associated can be completed by the end of 2022. additional passive or active acoustic with designing, building, installing, Response: NMFS has ensured that the systems for mitigation monitoring, there maintaining, and manning the results of the Lookout effectiveness are significant manpower and logistical equipment. For these reasons, study will be made available by constraints that make constructing and installation of the HF/M3 system or including a Term and Condition in the maintaining additional passive acoustic other adjunct marine mammal ESA Incidental Take Statement monitoring systems or platforms for monitoring devices as mitigation under associated with this rule that requires each training and testing activity the rule would be wholly impracticable. the Navy to provide a report impracticable. Additionally, diverting Further, NMFS does not generally summarizing the status of and/or platforms that have passive acoustic recommend the use of active sonar for providing a final assessment on the monitoring capability would impact mitigation, except in certain cases Navy’s Lookout Effectiveness Study their ability to meet their Title 10 where there is a high likelihood of following the end of Calendar Year (CY) requirements and reduce the service life injury or mortality (e.g., gear 2021. The report must be submitted no of those systems. entanglement) and other mitigations are later than 90 days after the end of Regarding the use of instrumented expected to be less effective in CY2021. The report will provide a ranges for real-time mitigation, the mitigating those effects. Active sonar statistical assessment of the data Commenter is correct that the Navy generates additional noise with the available to date characterizing the continues to develop the technology and potential to disrupt marine mammal

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46332 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

behavior, and is operated continuously Response: As described in Section monitoring capabilities. Adding a during the activity that it is intended to 5.6.2 (Explosives) of the 2020 MITT passive acoustic monitoring capability mitigate. On the whole, adding this FSEIS/OEIS, when assessing and (either by adding a passive acoustic additional stressor is not beneficial developing mitigation, NMFS and the monitoring device (e.g., hydrophone) to unless it is expected to offset, in Navy considered reducing the number a platform already participating in the consideration of other mitigations and size of explosives and limiting the activity, or by adding a platform with already being implemented, a high locations and time of day of explosive integrated passive acoustic monitoring likelihood or amount of injury or training and testing in the MITT Study capabilities to the activity, such as a mortality. For the Navy’s MITT Area. The locations and timing of the sonobuoy) for mitigation is not activities, mortality is not anticipated, training and testing activities that use practicable. As discussed in Section injury is of a small amount of low-level explosives vary throughout the MITT 5.6.3 (Active and Passive Acoustic PTS, and the mitigation is expected to Study Area based on range scheduling, Monitoring Devices) of the 2020 MITT be effective at minimizing impacts. mission requirements, testing program FSEIS/OEIS, there are significant Further, the species most likely to incur requirements, and standard operating manpower and logistical constraints a small degree of PTS from the Navy’s procedures for safety and mission that make constructing and maintaining activities are also the species with high success. Although activities using additional passive acoustic monitoring frequency sensitivity that would be explosives typically occur during systems or platforms for each training more likely to be behaviorally disturbed daytime for safety reasons, it is and testing activity impracticable. The by the operation of the high frequency impractical for the Navy to prohibit Navy is required to implement pre-event active source. For all of these reasons, every type of explosive activity at night observation mitigation, as well as post- NMFS does not recommend the use of or during low visibility conditions or event observation when practical, for all active sonar to mitigate the Navy’s during different Beaufort sea states. in-water explosive events. If there are training and testing activities in the Doing so would diminish activity other platforms participating in these MITT Study Area. realism, which would impede the events and in the vicinity of the Comment 45: A Commenter asserted ability for Navy Sailors to train and detonation area, they will also visually that given the apparent effect of the become proficient in using explosive observe this area as part of the post-model analysis on the agency’s weapons systems (which would result mitigation team. mortality estimates—accounting in a significant risk to personnel safety The Mitigation Section (Section 5) of perhaps for the drop in expected deaths during military missions and combat the 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS includes a from 150 (during the previous five-year operations), and would impede the full analysis discussion of the mitigation period) to virtually zero—NMFS should Navy’s ability to certify forces to deploy measures that the Navy will implement, as well as those that have been have made the Navy’s approach to meet national security needs. Passive acoustic devices, whether considered but eliminated, including transparent and explained the rationale vessel-deployed or using research potential measures that have been raised for its acceptance of that approach. sensors on gliders or other devices, can by NMFS or the public in the past. The NMFS’ failure to do so has prevented serve as queuing information that Navy has explained that training and the public from effectively commenting vocalizing marine mammals could be in testing in both good visibility (e.g., on NMFS’ approach to this issue, in the vicinity. Passive acoustic detection daylight, favorable weather conditions) contravention of the Administrative does not account for individuals not and low visibility (e.g., nighttime, Procedure Act, on a matter of obvious vocalizing. Navy surface ships train to inclement weather conditions) is vital significance to the agency’s core localize submarines, not marine because environmental differences negligible impact findings. mammals. Some aviation assets between day and night and varying Response: The Commenter is deploying ordnance do not have weather conditions affect sound mistaken, there were no mortalities concurrent passive acoustic sensors. propagation and the detection modeled or authorized in the Phase II Furthermore, Navy funded civilian capabilities of sonar. Temperature layers rulemaking (2015–2020) for the MITT passive acoustic sensors do not report in that move up and down in the water Study Area. Please see 80 FR 46112 real-time. Instead, a glider is set on a column and ambient noise levels can (Aug. 3, 2015). certain path or floating/bottom-mounted vary significantly between night and Comment 46: A Commenter sensor deployed. The sensor has to then day. This affects sound propagation and recommended that NMFS consider be retrieved often many months after could affect how sonar systems function additional measures to address deployment (1–8 months), data is sent and are operated. While some small mitigation for explosive events at night back to the laboratory, and then reduction in the probability or severity and during periods of low-visibility, subsequently analyzed. Combined with of impacts could result from the either by enhancing the observation lack of localization, gliders with passive implementation of this measure, it platforms to include aerial and/or acoustic sensors are therefore not would not be practicable for the Navy to passive acoustic monitoring (such as suitable for mitigation. Further, a restrict operations in low visibility and glider use), as has been done here with SINKEX is a highly scripted event that the measure is not, therefore, warranted. sinking exercises, or by restricting due to its complexity has additional Regarding the safety zones for high events to particular Beaufort sea states assets involved that are not practicable frequency specialists, as the Commenter (depending on likely species presence to bring to bear in all the smaller types notes, for some sources the zone in and practicability). Another Commenter of training and testing scenarios. which PTS could be accrued is larger complains that NMFS has not required The Navy does employ passive than the mitigation zones. Because of aerial or passive acoustic monitoring as acoustic monitoring when practicable to the lower injury thresholds for high mandatory mitigation, appears do so (i.e., when assets that have passive frequency specialists, the zones within unwilling to restrict operations in low- acoustic monitoring capabilities are which these species may incur PTS are visibility conditions, and has set safety- already participating in the activity) and significantly larger than other groups, zone bounds that are inadequate to several of the procedural mitigation and for some of the louder or more protect high-frequency cetaceans even measures reflect this, but many powerful sources, the injury zones are from PTS. platforms do not have passive acoustic larger than can be effectively monitored

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46333

or practicably mitigated at distances signals cited here were also played to hardware, is designed to allow observers beyond the established shutdown zones. harbor seals, and their responses were and eventually automated software to In all cases, the required exclusion different from the harbor porpoises. detect the difference in temperature zones will prevent injury in the area Furthermore, harmonics in a signal between a surfaced marine mammal closer to the source, thus alleviating result from a high-intensity signal being (i.e., the body or blow of a whale) and some Level A harassment and detected in close proximity; they could the environment (i.e., the water and air). preventing more intense or longer be artificially removed for a captive Although thermal detection may be duration exposures that would be likely study, but cannot be whitened in the reliable in some applications and to have more severe impacts, and the open ocean. Active sonar signals are environments, the current technologies small number remaining of anticipated designed explicitly to provide optimum are limited by their: (1) Low sensor PTS has been evaluated in the negligible performance at detecting underwater resolution and a narrow fields of view, impact analysis and appropriately objects (e.g., submarines) in a variety of (2) reduced performance in certain authorized. In addition to the fact that acoustic environments. If future studies environmental conditions, (3) inability observance and implementation of indicate that modifying active sonar to detect certain animal characteristics larger mitigation zones is impracticable, signals could be an effective mitigation and behaviors, and (4) high cost and we also note that Navy Lookouts do not approach, then NMFS with the Navy uncertain long-term reliability. differentiate species and therefore it will investigate if and how the Thermal detection systems for would not be possible to effectively mitigation would affect the sonar’s military applications are deployed on implement a larger shutdown zone that performance and how that mitigation various Department of Defense (DoD) only applied to the two high frequency may be applied in future authorizations, platforms. These systems were initially specialists (dwarf and pygmy sperm but currently NMFS does not have a set developed for night time targeting and whales), especially at the distances at timeline for this research and how it object detection (e.g., a boat, vehicle, or which this differential mitigation would may be applied to future rulemakings. people). Existing specialized DoD need to apply (beyond the standard Comment 48: A Commenter infrared/thermal capabilities on Navy zones). recommends that NMFS should aircraft and surface ships are designed Comment 47: A Commenter consider requiring the Navy to employ for fine-scale targeting. Viewing arcs of recommended that sonar signals might thermal detection in optimal conditions, these thermal systems are narrow and be modified to reduce the level of or, alternatively, require the focused on a target area. Furthermore, impact at the source. Mitigating active establishment of a pilot program for sensors are typically used only in select sonar impacts might be achieved by thermal detection, with annual review training events, not optimized for employing down-sweeps with under the adaptive management system. marine mammal detection, and have a harmonics or by reducing the level of According to the 2019 MITT DSEIS/ limited lifespan before requiring side bands (or harmonics). The OEIS, the Navy ‘‘plans to continue expensive replacement. Some sensor Commenter strongly recommended that researching thermal detection elements can cost upward of $300,000 NMFS require and set a timeline for this technology to determine their to $500,000 per device, so their use is research within the context of the effectiveness and compatibility with predicated on a distinct military need. present rulemaking. Navy applications.’’ Response: The Commenter notes that Response: Thermal detection systems One example of trying to use existing NOAA’s Ocean Noise Strategy Roadmap are more useful for detecting marine DoD thermal systems is being proposed puts an emphasis on source mammals in some marine environments by the U.S. Air Force. The Air Force modification and habitat modification than others. Current technologies have agreed to attempt to use specialized U.S. as an important means for reducing limitations regarding water temperature Air Force aircraft with military thermal impacts, however, where the and survey conditions (e.g., rain, fog, detection systems for marine mammal modification of sources is discussed, the sea state, glare, ambient brightness), for detection and mitigation during a focus of the Roadmap is on modifying which further effectiveness studies are limited at-sea testing event. It should be technologies for activities in which low required. Thermal detection systems are noted, however, these systems are frequency, broadband sound (which generally thought to be most effective in specifically designed for and integrated contribute far more significantly to cold environments, which have a large into a small number of U.S. Air Force increased chronic noise levels) is temperature differential between an aircraft and cannot be added or incidental to the activity (e.g., maritime animal’s temperature and the effectively transferred universally to traffic). As described in the 2020 MITT environment. Current thermal detection Navy aircraft. The effectiveness remains FSEIS/OEIS, at this time, the science on systems have proven more effective at unknown in using a standard DoD the differences in potential impacts of detecting large whale blows than the thermal system for the detection of up or down sweeps of the sonar signal bodies of small animals, particularly at marine mammals without the addition (e.g., different behavioral reactions) is a distance. The effectiveness of current of customized system-specific computer extremely limited and requires further technologies has not been demonstrated software to provide critical reliability development before a determination of for small marine mammals. Research to (enhanced detection, cueing for an potential mitigation effectiveness can be better understand, and improve, thermal operator, reduced false positive, etc.) made. There is data on behavioral technology continues, as described Current DoD thermal sensors are not responses of a few captive harbor below. always optimized for marine mammal porpoises to varying signals. Although The Navy has been investigating the detections versus object detection, nor this very limited data set suggests up or use of thermal detection systems with do these systems have the automated down sweeps of the sonar signal may automated marine mammal detection marine mammal detection algorithms result in different reactions by harbor algorithms for future mitigation during the Navy is testing via its ongoing porpoises in certain circumstances, the training and testing, including on research program. The combination of author of those studies highlights the autonomous platforms. Thermal thermal technology and automated fact that different species respond to detection technology being researched algorithms are still undergoing signals with varying characteristics in a by the Navy, which is largely based on demonstration and validation under number of ways. In fact, the same existing foreign military grade Navy funding.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46334 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Thermal detection systems available (still in the development interference with existing shipboard specifically for marine mammal stage). systems); manpower and resource detection have not been sufficiently The Office of Naval Research Marine considerations for training personnel to studied both in terms of their Mammals and Biology program also effectively operate the equipment; and effectiveness within the environmental funded a project (2013–2019) to test the considerations of potential security and conditions found in the MITT Study thermal limits of infrared-based classification issues. New system Area and their compatibility with Navy automatic whale detection technology. integration on Navy assets can entail up training and testing (i.e., polar waters vs. That project focused on capturing whale to 5 to 10 years of effort to account for temperate waters). The effectiveness of spouts at two different locations acquisition, engineering studies, and even the most advanced thermal featuring subtropical and tropical water development and execution of systems detection systems with technological temperatures, optimizing detector/ training. The Navy will provide designs specific to marine mammal classifier performance on the collected information to NMFS about the status surveys is highly dependent on data, and testing system performance by and findings of Navy-funded thermal comparing system detections with environmental conditions, animal detection studies and any associated concurrent visual observations. Results characteristics, and animal behaviors. practicability assessments at the annual indicated that thermal detection systems adaptive management meetings. At this time, thermal detection systems in subtropical and tropical waters can Evidence regarding the current state have not been proven to be more be a valuable addition to marine of this technology does not support the effective than, or equally effective as, mammal surveys within a certain assertion that the addition of these traditional techniques currently distance from the observation platform devices would meaningfully increase employed by the Navy to observe for (e.g., during seismic surveys, vessel detection of marine mammals beyond marine mammals (i.e., naked-eye movements), but have challenges the current rate (especially given the scanning, hand-held binoculars, high- associated with false positive detections narrow field of view of this equipment powered binoculars mounted on a ship of waves and birds (Boebel, 2017). and the fact that a Lookout cannot use deck). The use of thermal detection While Zitterbart et al. (2020) reported standard equipment when using the systems instead of traditional on the results of land-based thermal thermal detection equipment) and, techniques would compromise the imaging of passing whales, their further, modification of standard Navy Navy’s ability to observe for marine conclusion was that thermal technology equipment, training, and protocols mammals within its mitigation zones in under the right conditions and from would be required to integrate the use the range of environmental conditions land can detect a whale within 3 km of any such new equipment, which found throughout the MITT Study Area. although there could also be lots of false would incur significant cost. At this Furthermore, thermal detection systems positives, especially if there are birds, time, requiring thermal equipment is are designed to detect marine mammals boats, and breaking waves at sea. not warranted given the prohibitive cost and do not have the capability to detect Thermal detection systems exhibit and the uncertain benefit (i.e., reduction other resources for which the Navy is varying degrees of false positive of impacts) to marine mammals. required to implement mitigation, detections (i.e., incorrect notifications) Likewise requiring the establishment of including sea turtles. Focusing on due in part to their low sensor a pilot program is not appropriate. thermal detection systems could also resolution and reduced performance in However, as noted above, the Navy provide a distraction from and certain environmental conditions. False continues to support research and compromise the Navy’s ability to positive detections may incorrectly technology development to improve this implement its established observation identify other features (e.g., birds, technology for potential future use. and mitigation requirements. The waves, boats) as marine mammals. In Comment 49: A Commenter stated mitigation measures discussed in the one study, a false positive rate that the proposed rule does not contain Mitigation Measures section include the approaching one incorrect notification any indication that a practicability maximum number of Lookouts the Navy per 4 min of observation was noted. analysis was conducted, nor does it can assign to each activity based on The Navy plans to continue prescribe any speed reduction measure. available manpower and resources; researching thermal detection systems They ask that NMFS conduct a therefore, it would be impractical to add for marine mammal detection to practicability analysis and implement personnel to serve as additional determine their effectiveness and vessel speed reduction in (at minimum) Lookouts. For example, the Navy does compatibility with Navy applications. If the Marpi Reef and Chalan Kanoa Reef not have available manpower to add the technology matures to the state Mitigation Areas and other areas of Lookouts to use thermal detection where thermal detection is determined importance to humpback whales, as was systems in tandem with existing to be an effective mitigation tool during done for the North Atlantic right whale Lookouts who are using traditional training and testing, NMFS and the in the AFTT Study Area. They further observation techniques. Navy will assess the practicability of recommended that the agency require using the technology during training the Navy to collect and report data on The Defense Advanced Research and testing events and retrofitting the ship speed to allow for objective Projects Agency funded six initial Navy’s observation platforms with evaluation by NMFS of ship-strike risk, studies to test and evaluate infrared- thermal detection devices. The of harassment resulting from vessel based thermal detection technologies assessment will include an evaluation of activity, and of the potential benefit of and algorithms to automatically detect the budget and acquisition process additional speed-focused mitigation marine mammals on an unmanned (including costs associated with measures. surface vehicle. Based on the outcome designing, building, installing, Response: NMFS discussed its of these initial studies, the Navy is maintaining, and manning the evaluation of requiring vessel speed pursuing additional follow-on research equipment); logistical and physical restrictions in Marpi Reef and Chalan efforts. Additional studies are currently considerations for device installment, Kanoa Reef Geographic Mitigation Areas being planned for 2020+ but additional repair, and replacement (e.g., in Comment 17 above. NMFS and the information on the exact timing and conducting engineering studies to Navy conducted an operational analysis scope of these studies is not currently ensure there is no electronic or power of potential mitigation areas throughout

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46335

the entire MITT Study Area to consider anticipated harassment caused by vessel response), and potentially population- a wide range of mitigation options, activity and therefore no need to collect level consequences of sound exposure including but not limited to vessel and report data on ship speed for this on marine life. Importantly, the speed restrictions. Navy ships transit at purpose. Commenter did not recommend any speeds that are optimal for fuel Comment 50: A Commenter specific measures, rendering it conservation or to meet operational recommended that NMFS should impossible to consider its requirements. In our assessment of consider a compensatory mitigation recommendation at a broader level. potential mitigation, NMFS and the scheme to help improve the Comment 51: A Commenter Navy have considered implementing conservation status or habitat of affected recommends that NMFS require that the vessel speed restrictions. However, as populations. NMFS should consider Navy continue to conduct long-term described in Section 5 (Mitigation), requiring compensatory mitigation for monitoring and prioritize Navy research Section 5.3.4.1 (Vessel Movement) of the adverse impacts of the Navy’s projects that aim to quantify the impact the 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS, including activity on marine mammals and their of training and testing activities at the vessel speed restrictions would be habitat that cannot be prevented or individual, and ultimately, population- impracticable due to implications for mitigated. level. The Commenter recommended safety (the ability to avoid potential Response: Compensatory mitigation is individual-level behavioral-response hazards), sustainability (maintain not required under the MMPA. Instead, studies, such as focal follows and readiness), and the Navy’s ability to authorizations include means of tagging using DTAGs, carried out before, continue meeting its Title 10 effecting the least practicable adverse during, and after Navy operations, that requirements to successfully accomplish impact from the activities on the can provide important insights for these military readiness objectives. Any vessel affected species or stocks and their species and stocks. The Commenter speed restrictions would prevent vessel habitat, which this rule has done recommended studies be prioritized that operators from gaining skill proficiency, through the required procedural and further characterize the suite of would prevent the Navy from properly geographic area mitigation measures. vocalizations related to social testing vessel capabilities, and/or would For years, the Navy has implemented interaction, such as studies using increase the time on station during a broad and comprehensive range of DTAGs that further characterize social training or testing activities as required measures in the MITT Study Area to communications between individuals of to achieve skill proficiency or properly mitigate potential impacts to marine a species or stock, including between test vessel capabilities, which would mammals from its training and testing mothers and calves. The Commenter significantly increase fuel consumption. activities. In addition, from 2010 and recommends the use of unmanned aerial NMFS thoroughly reviewed and ongoing, the Navy has funded extensive vehicles for surveying marine species considered the information and analysis marine mammal occurrence studies and to provide a less invasive approach in the 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS, and within the Mariana Islands. As to undertaking focal follows. Imagery concurred with the Navy’s described in this rule, NMFS and the from unmanned aerial vehicles can also determination that vessel speed Navy have expanded these measures be used to assess body condition and, in restrictions are impracticable. As further where practicable. In addition to some cases, health of individuals. The discussed in the Mitigation Measures the mitigation and monitoring measures Commenter recommended that NMFS section of this rule, the Navy will required under this rule and past require the Navy to use these implement mitigation to avoid vessel MMPA incidental take authorizations, technologies for assessing marine strikes throughout the Study Area. the Navy engages in an extensive mammal behavior (e.g., swim speed and Given the impracticability of vessel spectrum of other activities that greatly direction, group cohesion) before, speed restrictions combined with the benefit marine species in a more general during, and after Navy training and fact that vessel strike is not anticipated manner that is not necessarily tied to testing. Additionally, the Commenter in the MITT Study Area and that the just military readiness activities. As recommended that the Navy support required mitigation for vessel movement noted in Section 3, Section 3.0.1.1 studies to explore how these will already minimize any potential for (Marine Species Monitoring and technologies can be used to assess body ship strike, NMFS finds vessel speed Research Programs) of the 2020 MITT condition, as this can provide an reductions are not warranted. FSEIS/OEIS, the Navy provides important indication of energy budget As required through the Navy’s extensive investment for research and health, which can inform the Notification and Reporting Plan (Vessel programs in basic and applied research. assessment of population-level impacts. Strike section), Navy vessels are The Navy is one of the largest sources Response: First, the Navy is pursuing required to report extensive of funding for marine mammal research many of the topics that the Commenter information, including ship speed, in the world, which has greatly identifies, either through the monitoring pursuant to any marine mammal vessel enhanced the scientific community’s required under the MMPA or strikes. Therefore, the data required for understanding of marine species more monitoring under the ESA, or through ship strike analysis discussed in the generally. The Navy’s support of marine other Navy-funded research programs comment is already being collected. mammal research includes: Marine (ONR and LMR). We are confident that Any additional data collection mammal detection, including the the monitoring conducted by the Navy requirement would create an development and testing of new satisfies the requirements of the MMPA. unnecessary burden on the Navy. autonomous hardware platforms and A list of the monitoring studies that the Regarding vessel noise from Navy signal processing algorithms for Navy will be conducting under this rule ships, Navy vessels are intentionally detection, classification, and is at the end of the Monitoring section designed to be quieter than civilian localization of marine mammals; of this final rule. vessels, and given that adverse impacts improvements in density information Broadly speaking, in order to ensure from vessel noise are not anticipated to and development of abundance models that the monitoring the Navy conducts result from Navy activities (see the of marine mammals; and advancements satisfies the requirements of the MMPA, Potential Effects of Specified Activities in the understanding and NMFS works closely with the Navy in on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat characterization of the behavioral, the identification of monitoring section in the proposed rule), there is no physiological (hearing and stress priorities and the selection of projects to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46336 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

conduct, continue, modify, and/or stop NMFS to target and prioritize data needs • High Fidelity Acoustic and Fine-scale through the Adaptive Management that are more appropriately addressed Movement Tags 2016–2020 process, which includes annual review through Navy research programs, such (Organization: University of and debriefs by all scientists conducting as the Office of Naval Research and Michigan) studies pursuant to the MMPA Living Marine Resources programs. The • Improved Tag Attachment System for authorization. The process NMFS and Navy has indicated that it will continue Remotely-deployed Medium-term the Navy have developed allows for to be a leader in funding of research to Cetacean Tags 2019–2023 comprehensive and timely input from better understand the potential impacts (Organization: Marine Ecology and NMFS, the Navy, the Marine Mammal of Navy training and testing activities Telemetry Research) Commission, and researchers and to operate with the least possible • Next generation sound and movement conducting monitoring under the Navy impacts while meeting training and tags for behavioral studies on whales rule, which is based on rigorous testing requirements. Some of the efforts 2016–2020 (Organization: University reporting out from the Navy and the the Navy is leading or has recently of St. Andrews) researchers doing the work. completed are described below. • On-board calculation and telemetry of With extensive input from NMFS, the (1) Individual-level behavioral- the body condition of individual Navy established the Strategic Planning response studies—There are no ONR or marine mammals 2017–2021 Process for Marine Species Monitoring LMR behavioral response studies in the (Organization: University of St. to help structure the evaluation and MITT Study Area. The Mariana Islands Andrews, Sea Mammal Research prioritization of projects for funding. are too remote for many of the mainland Unit) The Monitoring section of this rule U.S. and international researchers. • The wide-band detection and provides an overview of this Strategic There is also insufficient background classification system 2018–2020 Planning Process. More detail, including information or infrastructure to support (Organization: Woods Hole the current intermediate scientific something as specific as a behavioral Oceanographic Institution) objectives, is available in section 5 response study. For example, Navy (3) Unmanned Aerial Vehicles to (Mitigation), Section 5.1.2.2.1.3 instrumented ranges in the HSTT Study assess marine mammal behavior (e.g., (Strategic Planning Process) of the 2020 Area and the Bahamas are critical in swim speed and direction, group MITT FSEIS/OEIS and on the providing consistent beaked whale cohesion) before, during, and after Navy monitoring portal as well as in the detections which allow researchers in training and testing activities—Studies Strategic Planning Process report. The small boats to more efficiently locate Navy’s evaluation and prioritization detected whales to apply satellite that use unmanned aerial vehicles to process is driven largely by a standard tracking tags. However, many of the assess marine mammal behaviors and set of criteria that help the internal studies on species-specific reactions are body condition are being funded by the steering committee evaluate how well a likely to be applicable across geographic Office of Naval Research Marine potential project would address the boundaries (e.g., Cuvier’s beaked whale Mammals and Biology program. primary objectives of the monitoring studies in the HSTT Study Area). Although the technology shows promise program. Given that the Navy’s (2) Tags and other detection (as reviewed by Verfuss et al., 2019), the Monitoring Program applies to all of the technologies to characterize social field limitations associated with the use Navy’s major Training and Testing communication between individuals of of this technology have hindered its activities and, thereby, spans multiple a species or stock, including mothers useful application in behavioral regions and Study Areas to encompass and calves—DTAGs are just one response studies in association with consideration of the entire U.S. EEZ and example of animal movement and Navy training and testing events. For beyond, one of the key components of acoustics tag. From the Navy’s Office of safety, research vessels cannot remain in the prioritization process is to focus Naval Research and Living Marine close proximity to Navy vessels during monitoring in a manner that fills Resource programs, Navy funding is Navy training or testing events, so regionally-specific data gaps, where being used to improve a suite of marine battery life of the unmanned aerial possible (e.g., more limited basic marine mammal tags to increase attachment vehicles has been an issue. However, as mammal distribution data in the MITT times, improve data being collected, and the technology improves, the Navy will Study Area), and also takes advantage of improve data satellite transmission. The continue to assess the applicability of regionally-available assets (e.g., Navy has funded a variety of projects this technology for the Navy’s research instrumented ranges in the HSTT Study that are collecting data that can be used and monitoring programs. An example Area). NMFS has opportunities to to study social interactions amongst project that the Navy already addressed provide input regarding the Navy’s individuals. For example, as of July is integrating remote sensing methods to intermediate scientific objectives as well 2020 the following studies are currently measure baseline behavior and as to provide feedback on individual being funded: responses of social delphinids to Navy projects through the annual program • Assessing performance and effects of sonar 2016–2019 (Organization: review meeting and annual report. For new integrated transdermal large Southall Environmental Associates additional information, please visit: whale satellite tags 2018–2021 Inc.). https:// (Organization: Marine Ecology and (4) Modeling methods that could www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/ Telemetry Research) provide indicators of population-level about/strategic-planning-process/. • Autonomous Floating Acoustic Array effects—NMFS asked the Navy to Details on the Navy’s involvement and Tags for Cue Rate Estimation expand funding to explore the utility of with future research will continue to be 2019–2020 (Organization: Texas A&M other, simpler modeling methods that developed and refined by the Navy and University Galveston) could provide at least an indicator of NMFS through the consultation and • Development of the next generation population-level effects, even if each of adaptive management processes, which automatic surface whale detection the behavioral and physiological regularly consider and evaluate the system for marine mammal mitigation mechanisms are not fully characterized. development and use of new science and distribution estimation 2019– The Office of Naval Research Marine and technologies for Navy applications. 2021 (Organization: Woods Hole Mammals and Biology program has Further, the Navy also works with Oceanographic Institution) invested in the Population

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46337

Consequences of Disturbance (PCoD) will consider it, as appropriate, in the mortalities of any marine mammals are model, which provides a theoretical context of our adaptive management predicted. Asan is not identified as an framework and the types of data that process, but is not recommending any underwater detonation area. Further, would be needed to assess population changes at this time. although called Agat Bay Mine level impacts. Although the process is Comment 52: A Commenter Neutralization Site, the actual complicated and many species are data recommended that the Navy conduct detonation site is in waters deeper than poor, this work has provided a research and documentation of the 1,000 m and over 8 km west of the foundation for the type of data that is residency of populations of spinner shallow water Agat Bay Nearshore needed. Therefore, in the future, the dolphins on Guam and impacts of the Geographic Mitigation Area (see Figure relevant data pieces that are needed for training to them. The Commenter states 3 of this rule) and therefore there is not improving the analytical approaches for that these populations may particularly a potential for overlap of explosive population level consequences resulting be impacted by the mine explosion activities at the Agat Bay Mine from disturbances will be collected training in areas at Agat and Asan. The Neutralization Site with spinner during projects funded by the Navy’s Commenter recommends that the Navy dolphin resting. Additionally, the Navy marine species monitoring program. provide better information on the uses the Agat Bay Mine Neutralization However, currently, PCoD models are impacts of the explosions on these Site for smaller charge weight mine dependent on too many unknown populations before implementing the neutralization activities that are factors to produce a reliable answer for training at those sites. The Commenter episodic with large temporal variation most species and activity types, and recognizes and supports that an area between successive events. In further work is needed (and underway) frequented by the Agat spinner dolphins consideration of the mine neutralization to develop a more broadly applicable is identified as a mitigation area (mostly mitigations established for all marine generalized construct that can be used in National Park Service managed mammals (see the Procedural Mitigation in an impact assessment. waters) because of their presence. subsection in the Mitigation Measures As discussed in the Monitoring Response: The Navy has been funding section of the rule) and the distance section of the final rule, the Navy’s the majority of marine species research between the actual detonation site and marine species monitoring program and surveys in the Mariana Islands. the shallow water spinner dolphin typically supports 10–15 projects in the Over a nine year period from 2010–2018 habitat in Agat Bay, the effects to Pacific at any given time. Current during the Navy-funded small boat spinner dolphins will be minimal. projects cover a range of species and surveys in the Mariana Islands, 22,488 topics from collecting baseline data on km of on-effort surveys were conducted Negligible Impact Determination occurrence and distribution, to tracking with 157 encounters with pods of Comment 53: A Commenter asserts whales, to conducting behavioral spinner dolphins (Hill et al., 2019). The that most of NMFS’ discussion consists, response studies on beaked whales and approximate distance from shore for once again, of generalized statements pilot whales. The Navy’s marine species these encounters was 1 km, indicative of meant to suggest why the estimated monitoring web portal provides details their preference for nearshore habitat levels of take will not result in greater on past and current monitoring projects, and prevalence in the MITT Study Area than negligible impacts on marine including technical reports, (Hill et al., 2017a; Hill et al., 2018b; Hill mammals. For example, NMFS publications, presentations, and access et al., 2019). In addition to visual discounts the potential for population- to available data and can be found at: sightings, a photo-identification catalog level impacts by asserting that based on https:// for spinner dolphins was developed as the nature of the Navy activities and the www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/ well as biopsies taken for genetic movement patterns of marine mammals, regions/pacific/current-projects/. analysis (Hill et al., 2019). The Navy has it is unlikely any particular subset In summary, NMFS and the Navy also contributed significant funding for would be taken over more than a few work closely together to prioritize, NMFS’ Pacific Marine Assessment sequential days 85 FR 5875. Yet NMFS review, and adaptively manage the Program for Protected Species presents no details of the Navy’s extensive suite of monitoring that the (PACMAPPS) program. PACMAPPS is a operations in support of this position. Navy conducts in order to ensure that it partnership among Federal agencies to Further a Commenter says that the satisfies the MMPA requirements. conduct surveys to assess the proposed rule makes no attempt to NMFS has laid out a broad set of goals abundance of multiple species and their apply any of the methods used by the that are appropriate for any entity ecosystems (NOAA Fisheries, U.S. marine mammal research community to authorized under the MMPA to pursue, Navy, Bureau of Ocean Energy assess population-level harm. Such and then we have worked with the Navy Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife methods, involving quantitative or to manage their projects to best target Service). With Navy funding, NMFS detailed qualitative assessment, include the most appropriate goals given their will conduct a 60-day marine mammal but are not limited to the use of activities, impacts, and assets in the survey within the Mariana Island EEZ in reasonable proxies for population-level MITT Study Area. Given the scale of the the spring and summer of 2021. Future impact; models of masking effects; MITT Study Area and the variety of Mariana Islands marine mammal energetic models, such as on foraging activities conducted, there are many surveys after PACMAPPs will be funded success; or quantitative assessments of possible combinations of projects that by NMFS’ Pacific Islands Fisheries chronic noise or stress. The Commenter could satisfy the MMPA standard for the Science Center. For an extensive asserts that the agency does not consider rule. The Commenter has recommended discussion of spinner dolphin sightings the effects of these more frequent more and/or different monitoring than near Agat Bay, see Section I.3.3.1.1.1 of exposures on individual and population NMFS is requiring and the Navy is the 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS. fitness, nor, again, does NMFS provide conducting or currently plans to Regarding the impacts of explosives, more than general statements conduct, but has in no way activities, including mine discounting the significance of the demonstrated that the monitoring countermeasure activities at the Agat expected take. currently being conducted does not Bay and Apra Harbor sites, were Response: NMFS fully considered the satisfy the MMPA standard. NMFS modeled to estimate impacts on marine potential for aggregate effects from all appreciates the Commenter’s input, and mammals from explosives. No Navy activities and the Commenter

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46338 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

offers no evidence to support the come within a certain distance of a effects of an activity on the different assertion that any individual marine sound source (behavioral disturbance, stock populations’’ are identical. mammals, of any species, would be PTS, and TTS). The effects of these Conservation Council, 97 F.Supp.3d at subject to ‘‘frequent exposures.’’ NMFS takes were fully evaluated in the 1223. That is particularly true where has explained in detail in the proposed Analysis and Negligible Impact small, resident populations are rule and again in this final rule how the Determination section. concerned, and differences in estimated takes were calculated for Comment 54: A Commenter asserted population abundance, habitat use, and marine mammals, and then how the that counter to NMFS’ assertion that no distribution relative to Navy activities large size of the Study Area across evidence of population-level can be profoundly significant. which activities may be distributed (and consequences exists, an apparent Response: The Commenter the ASW activities utilizing MF1 sonar, beaked whale population sink is erroneously suggests that NMFS makes which account for the majority of the observed on the AUTEC range (in the findings specific only to the level of takes may occur anywhere in the Study Bahamas), attributed to the high levels Odontocetes and Mysticetes or other Area and predominantly more than 3 of cumulative noise exposure at the site. general taxonomic groups, which is nmi from shore) combined with the They further assert that similar concerns clearly inaccurate. NMFS first provides comparatively small number of takes as have focused attention on resident information regarding broader groups compared to the abundance of any beaked whale populations on the Navy’s (such as Mysticetes or Odontocetes) in species in the area does not support that SOCAL range, which exhibit strenuous order to avoid repeating information any individuals would likely be taken responses to mid-frequency sonar that is applicable across multiple over more than a few non-sequential notwithstanding their repeated species (or stocks if applicable), but days. We also consider UMEs (where exposure. analyses have been conducted and applicable) and previous environmental Response: It is incorrect to conclude determinations made specific to each impacts, where appropriate, to inform that there is a ‘‘population sink’’ on the species. Thus we avoid repeating the baseline levels of both individual Navy’s AUTEC range. In the citation information applicable to a broader health and susceptibility to additional provided (Claridge, 2013), that taxonomic group or number of species stressors, as well as stock status. statement is merely a hypothesis, yet to (or stocks where applicable), while also Further, the species-specific be demonstrated. When considering the presenting and integrating all assessments in the Analysis and portion of the beaked whale population information needed to support the Negligible Impact Determination section within the SOCAL portion of the HSTT negligible impact determination for a pull together and address the combined Study Area and as presented in the 2018 particular species (where no stock injury, behavioral disturbance, and HSTT final rule and the 2018 HSTT information is available). We note that FEIS/OEIS, multiple studies have other effects of the aggregate MITT in the MITT Study Area, species have documented continued high abundance activities (and in consideration of not been assigned to stocks and there is of beaked whales and the long-term applicable mitigation) as well as other little or no information at the stock residency of documented individual information that supports our level. Please refer to the Analysis and beaked whales, specifically where the determinations that the Navy activities Negligible Impact Determination section Navy has been training and testing for will not adversely affect any species via of this final rule. decades (see for example Debich et al., Comment 56: A Commenter asserted impacts on rates of recruitment or 2015a, 2015b; Dimarzio et al., 2018, that NMFS assumes that all of the survival. We refer the reader to the 2020; Falcone and Schorr, 2012, 2014, Navy’s estimated impacts would not Analysis and Negligible Impact 2018, 2020; Hildebrand et al., 2009; affect individuals or populations Determination section for this analysis. Moretti, 2016; Sˇ irovic´ et al., 2016; through repeated activity—even though NMFS has described and applied a Smultea and Jefferson, 2014). There is the takes anticipated each year would reasoned and comprehensive approach no evidence that there have been any affect the same populations and, indeed, to evaluating the effects of the Navy population-level impacts to beaked would admittedly involve extensive use activities on marine mammal species whales resulting from Navy training and of some of the same biogeographic areas. and their habitat. The Commenter cites testing in the SOCAL portion of the And, the Commenter asserts, while various articles in which one analytical HSTT Study Area. Importantly, no NMFS states that behavioral harassment approach or another was used to resident beaked whale populations have (aside from that caused by masking evaluate particular scenarios or impacts, been identified in the MITT Study Area, effects) involves a stress response that with no explanation of why those and both the level of activities and the may contribute to an animal’s allostatic methods are more appropriate or magnitude and severity of associated load, it assumes without further analysis applicable. impacts on beaked whales are lower that any such impacts would be Regarding the assertion that NMFS than in the HSTT Study Area. insignificant. The Commenter further does not adequately consider stress Comment 55: A Commenter stated asserts that both statements are factually responses in its analysis, NMFS does that NMFS has not apparently insupportable given the lack of any not assume that the impacts are considered the impact of Navy activities substantial population analysis or insignificant. However, there is on a population basis for many of the quantitative assessment of long-term currently neither adequate data nor a marine mammal populations within the effects in the proposed rule, in addition mechanism by which the impacts of MITT Study Area. Instead, it has lodged to the numerous deficiencies in the stress from acoustic exposure can be discussion for many populations within thresholds and modeling that NMFS has reliably and independently quantified. broader categories, most prominently adopted from the Navy. Stress effects that result from noise mysticetes and odontocetes, that in Response: As previously discussed, exposure likely often occur concurrently some cases correspond to general Navy activities are spread out in the with Level B harassment (behavioral taxonomic groups. Such grouping of offshore waters around these islands, disturbance) and many are likely stocks elides important differences in most activities are unit level events captured and considered in the abundance, demography, distribution, which have relatively small footprints of quantification of other takes by and other population-specific factors, tens of kilometers resulting in small harassment that occur when individuals making it difficult to assume ‘‘that the percentages of overall habitat affected at

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46339

any one time, activities that use sonar or events, it is unlikely for several unit stress from acoustic exposure can be explosives are not conducted every day level activities to be conducted in the reliably and independently quantified. of the year (active sonar use has same day in the same location/time to However, stress effects that result from traditionally been used on 20 percent of produce aggregate effects on an noise exposure likely often occur days or less, as reported through the individual. Further, we have explicitly concurrently with behavioral CNA analysis of beaked whale discussed the potential interaction of an disturbance and many are likely strandings), and even within a day sonar individual being impacted by TTS and captured and considered in the use during an activity is intermittent (1 behavioral disturbance simultaneously. quantification of other takes by ping every 50 seconds) and often for We refer the reader to the Analysis and harassment that occur when individuals short duration periods (minutes to up to Negligible Impact Determination section come within a certain distance of a a few hours at a time). The impacts of of the final rule for the discussion on sound source (behavioral disturbance, stress have been considered in NMFS’ the potential for aggregate effects of the PTS, and TTS). Further, the Commenter assessment (see the Potential Effects of Navy’s activities on individuals as well provides no support for the speculative Specified Activities on Marine as how these effects on individuals assertion that animals that are harassed Mammals and Their Habitat section of relate to potential effects on annual rates would have greater susceptibility to the proposed rule) and are also of recruitment and survival for each vessel strike, but regardless, the addressed in the response to Comment species. agency’s analysis of the likelihood of 53 above. Regarding the take of marine In addition, NMFS fully considers the vessel strikes considers all available and mammals across the multiple years of potential for aggregate/synergistic applicable information (see the Potential the rule, NMFS has found that in each effects from all Navy activities. We also Effects of Vessel Strike subsection of the of the seven years of the rule (in which consider UMEs (when applicable) and Potential Effects of Specified Activities no individuals of any species are previous environmental impacts, where on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat expected to be taken on more than a few appropriate, to inform the baseline section of the proposed rule). non-sequential days), the authorized levels of both individual health and NEPA take is not expected to affect the susceptibility to additional stressors, as reproductive success or survivorship of well as species/stock status. Further, the Comment 58: A Commenter stated any individual marine mammal. Given species assessments in the Analysis and that the Navy (and thereby NMFS, since the lack of any impacts on the Negligible Impact Determination section the agency has adopted the 2020 MITT reproduction or survival of any affected (which have been updated and FSEIS/OEIS to satisfy its NEPA individuals, there will be no effects on expanded for some species, i.e., obligations for the MMPA rulemaking any species’ annual rates of recruitment humpback whales and beaked whales) and subsequent issuance of the Letter of or survival in any year, and therefore no pull together and address the combined Authorization) failed its NEPA basis to suggest that impacts would potential mortality, injury, behavioral requirements: (1) To inform the public accrue over the seven years of the rule disturbance, and other effects of the as to its intentions and the potential in a manner that would have a non- aggregate MITT activities (and in impacts of those intentions in relation to negligible impact on an affected species. consideration of applicable mitigation their continued weapons testing in the Comment 57: A Commenter stated measures) as well as additional MITT Study Area and (2) To consider that NMFS does not consider the information from the Potential Effects of all available scientific evidence that potential for acute synergistic effects Specified Activities on Marine their activities are resulting in wider from multiple activities taking place at Mammals and Their Habitat and take of marine mammals than one time, as happens during major Estimated Take of Marine Mammals previously known. exercises or from Navy activities in sections to support our determinations Response: NMFS disagrees that the combination with other actions. For that the Navy activities will not Navy and NMFS failed to satisfy any example, the agency does not consider adversely affect any species via impacts NEPA requirements. The Navy the greater susceptibility to vessel strike on rates of recruitment or survival. We prepared, with NMFS participating as a of animals that have been temporarily refer the reader to the Analysis and cooperating agency, and made available harassed or disoriented, nor does NMFS Negligible Impact Determination section for public review and comment the 2019 consider (for example) the synergistic for this analysis. MITT DSEIS/OEIS, which fully effects of noise with other stressors in Widespread, extensive monitoring analyzed the Navy’s and NMFS’ producing or magnifying a stress since 2006 on Navy ranges that have proposed actions. To better response. This lack of analysis is not been used for training and testing for accommodate stakeholders and the supportable under the MMPA. Without decades has demonstrated no evidence public, the Navy provided 75 days to an accurate assessment of existing of population-level impacts. Based on review and comment on the 2019 MITT threats to marine mammals, NMFS lacks the best available science, including DSEIS/OEIS. The comment period for a sufficient environmental baseline to research by NMFS and the Navy’s the DSEIS/OEIS was from February 1, determine whether the Navy’s action marine mammal studies, there is no 2019 to April 17, 2019, which is 30 days will have more than a negligible impact evidence that ‘‘population-level harm’’ longer than the minimum required time on marine mammal species and stocks. to marine mammals is occurring in the for review (40 CFR 6.203(c)(3)(v)). Response: NMFS did analyze the MITT Study Area. Through the process The Navy held four open house potential for aggregate effects from described in the rule and regulations, public meetings, one each on Tinian mortality, injury, masking, habitat NMFS will work with the Navy to (March 14, 2019), Rota (March 15, effects, energetic costs, stress, hearing assure that the aggregate or cumulative 2019), Saipan (March 18, 2019), and loss, and behavioral disturbance from impacts remain at the negligible impact Guam (March 19, 2019). The public the Navy’s activities in reaching the level. meetings were an ideal opportunity for negligible impact determinations. The Regarding the consideration of stress the public to ask questions of Navy team modeling for MTEs and all activities responses, NMFS does not assume that members (and specific subject matter includes the accumulated energy of all the impacts are insignificant. There is experts on Saipan and Guam) about the sonar sources and stressors. Outside of currently neither adequate data nor a analysis documented in the 2020 MITT MTEs or some or the larger coordinated mechanism by which the impacts of FSEIS/OEIS. The Navy encouraged the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46340 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

public to attend these meetings and the negligible impact standard, sources may be underestimated due to broadly notified the public through the primarily revolves around the incomplete information from other media, including paid newspaper appropriate mitigation to prescribe. This sectors (shipping, etc.), NMFS is advertisements and news releases, and approach to evaluating a reasonable confident that any whales struck by direct mail, including letters, postcards, range of alternatives is consistent with Navy vessels are detected and reported and emails. NMFS policy and practice for issuing (as has occurred in other Navy study Further, the 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS MMPA incidental take authorizations. areas), and therefore relying on the includes the best available information NOAA has independently reviewed and history of Navy vessel strikes is regarding the impacts of the Navy’s evaluated the 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS, appropriate and supported. Navy ships activities on the human environment, including the range of alternatives, and have multiple Lookouts, including on including marine mammals. determined that the 2020 MITT FSEIS/ the forward part of the ship that can Comment 59: A Commenter says that OEIS fully satisfies NMFS’ NEPA visually detect a struck whale (which NMFS cannot rely on the EIS to fulfill obligations related to its decision to has occasionally occurred elsewhere), in its obligations under NEPA. Without issue the MMPA final rule and the unlikely event ship personnel do not significant revision, the 2019 MITT associated LOA, and we have adopted feel the strike. The Navy’s strict internal DSEIS/OEIS cannot meet NMFS’ NEPA it. procedures and mitigation requirements obligations. The Commenter urges Comment 60: To satisfy NEPA’s in this and previous rules include NMFS to recognize that the alternatives mandate to take a hard look at reporting of any vessel strikes of marine and mitigation set forth in the 2019 environmental impacts, NMFS and the mammals, and the Navy’s discipline, MITT DSEIS/OEIS are inadequate and to Navy must incorporate new information extensive training (not only for supplement the document accordingly. (Simonis et al., 2020) into their analysis detecting marine mammals, but for Response: Consistent with the of the impacts of MITT activities on detecting and reporting any potential regulations published by the Council on marine mammals. Moreover, the navigational obstruction), and strict Environmental Quality (CEQ), it is agencies must evaluate alternatives that chain of command give NMFS a high common and sound NEPA practice for prohibit the use of harmful sonar in the level of confidence that all strikes NOAA to participate as a cooperating biologically important areas for beaked actually get reported. For more agency and adopt a lead agency’s NEPA whales around Saipan and Tinian discussion of the specific circumstances analysis when, after independent identified in Simonis et al. (2020). that make it less likely that Navy vessels review, NOAA determines the Response: NMFS has considered will strike a marine mammal, see the document to be sufficient in accordance Simonis et al. (2020) in the Potential Effects of Specified Activities with 40 CFR 1506.3. Specifically here, development of this final rule and on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat NOAA is satisfied that the 2020 MITT directs the reader to the Stranding section in the proposed rule. FEIS/OEIS adequately addresses the section of the rule, as well as the Accordingly, NMFS is confident that the impacts of issuing the MMPA incidental response to Comment 19, in which we information used to support the vessel- take authorization and that NOAA’s address the areas around Saipan and strike analysis is accurate and complete, comments and concerns have been Tinian referenced in Simonis et al. and there is no need to include offsets adequately addressed. NMFS’ early (2020). Likewise the Navy has to account for potentially undetected participation in the NEPA process and considered this new information from and unreported collisions allegedly role in shaping and informing analyses Simonis et al. (2020) in the 2020 MITT associated with the Navy’s training and using its special expertise ensured that FSEIS/OEIS. testing activities. the analysis in the 2020 MITT FSEIS/ Other Comments Separately, there is no evidence that OEIS is sufficient for purposes of NMFS’ Navy training and testing activities own NEPA obligations related to its Comment 61: The Commenter argued (including acoustic activities) increase issuance of incidental take authorization that an analysis based on reported the risk of nearby non-Navy vessels (or under the MMPA. strikes by Navy vessels alone does not other nearby Navy vessels not involved Regarding the alternatives and account for the additional risk of in the training or testing activities) mitigation, NMFS’ early involvement in undetected under-reported whale striking marine mammals. development of the 2020 MITT FSEIS/ strikes. In assessing ship-strike risk, OEIS and role in evaluating the effects NMFS and the Navy should include Changes From the Proposed Rule to the of incidental take under the MMPA offsets to account for potentially Final Rule ensured that the 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS undetected and unreported collisions. Between the proposed rule and the would include adequate analysis of a Response: First, it is important to note final rule, mitigation, monitoring, reasonable range of alternatives. The that NMFS’ assessment of whether ship reporting, and adaptive management 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS includes a No strike is likely does not rely wholly on measures have been added, augmented, Action Alternative specifically to whether or not there have been reported and clarified, and the negligible impact address what could happen if NMFS did strikes by the Navy in the past, but also analysis for humpback whales around not issue an MMPA authorization. The considers the seasonal occurrence and Saipan has been modified. other two Alternatives address two density of large whales, the stranding Specifically regarding the humpback action options that the Navy could record (which could note strikes by whale assessment, since publication of potentially pursue while also meeting other entities), and the relative the proposed rule, additional their mandated Title 10 training and percentage of Navy vessel traffic. information and analysis have been testing responsibilities. More Regarding the likelihood of undetected used to refine the assessment for the importantly, these alternatives fully Navy strikes, under Navy-wide policy impacts of sonar training and testing on analyze a comprehensive variety of Navy ships are mandated to report any humpback whales around Saipan, mitigation measures. This mitigation Navy ship strike to marine mammals. To resulting in an increase in the total take analysis supported NMFS’ evaluation of date, there have been none in the MITT numbers for humpback whales. A our mitigation options in potentially Study Area from Navy ships. While subsection describing this additional issuing an MMPA authorization, which, NMFS agrees that broadly speaking the analysis and how it changes the take if the authorization can be issued under number of total ship strikes from all numbers (Humpback Whales Around

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46341

Saipan) has been added to the 4. Increasing analysis for any future in this rule, all of which remains valid Estimated Take of Marine Mammals beaked whale stranding in the Mariana and applicable but has not been section and the total take numbers for Islands to include detailed Navy review reprinted in this final rule, including a humpback whales have been changed in of available records of sonar use. subsection entitled Marine Mammal Table 28 and Table 47. 5. Monitoring future beaked whale Hearing that described the importance Regarding the changes to mitigation occurrence within select portions of the of sound to marine mammals and measures, in the Marpi Reef and Chalan MITT Study Area starting in 2022 (so as characterized the different groups of Kanoa Reef Geographic Mitigation to not duplicate efforts from item marine mammals based on their hearing Areas, where there was previously a number 1 above). sensitivity. Therefore, we refer the limitation on the use of explosives but 6. Including Cuvier’s beaked whales reader to our Federal Register notice of no limitation on the use of active sonar, as a priority species for analysis under proposed rulemaking (85 FR 5782; there is now a 20-hr annual cap between a 2020–2023 Navy research-funded January 31, 2020) for more information. December 1 and April 30 on the use of program entitled Marine Species Information on the status, hull-mounted MF1 mid-frequency Monitoring for Potential Consequences distribution, abundance, population active sonar for these areas (20 hrs total of Disturbance (MSM4PCOD). trends, habitat, and ecology of marine for both areas combined), as well as a 7. Funding and co-organizing with mammals in the MITT Study Area also requirement that the Navy report all NMFS an expert panel to provide may be found in Section 4 of the Navy’s active sonar use (all bins, by bin) in recommendations on scientific data these areas between December 1 and gaps and uncertainties for further rulemaking/LOA application. NMFS April 30. These changes are discussed protective measure consideration to reviewed this information and found it in greater detail in the Mitigation minimize the impact of Navy training to be accurate and complete. Additional Measures section of this rule. and testing activities on beaked whales information on the general biology and In addition, the Navy has committed in the Mariana Islands. ecology of marine mammals is included to the following actions, which will These changes are discussed in in the 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS. The expand the science and inform future greater detail in the Monitoring and marine mammal populations in the adaptive management actions related to Adaptive Management sections of this MITT Study Area have not been beaked whales, specifically, as well as rule. assigned to stocks and there are no other species in the MITT Study Area: associated SARs. There is only one Description of Marine Mammals and 1. Co-funding the Pacific Marine species, humpback whales for which Their Habitat in the Area of the Assessment Program for Protected stock information exists for species that Specified Activities Species (PACMAPPS) survey in spring- occur in the MITT Study Area. Table 7 summer 2021 to help document beaked Marine mammal species that have the incorporates the best available science, whale occurrence, abundance, and potential to occur in the MITT Study including data from the U.S. Pacific and distribution in the Mariana Islands. This Area are presented in Table 7. The Navy the Alaska Marine Mammal Stock effort will include deployments of a anticipates the take of individuals of 26 Assessments Reports (SARs) (Carretta et towed array as well as floating passive marine mammal species by Level A and al., 2019, Muto et al., 2019), as well as acoustic buoys. Level B harassment incidental to monitoring data from the Navy’s marine 2. Continuing to fund additional training and testing activities from the mammal research efforts. NMFS also stranding response/necropsy analyses use of sonar and other transducers, and has reviewed the most recent 2019 draft for the Pacific Islands region. in-water detonations. There are no areas SARs (which can be found at: https:// 3. Submitting a proposal through the of critical habitat designated under the www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ annual Federally Funded Research and Endangered Species Act (ESA), National marine-mammal-protection/draft- Development Center (FFRDC) call to Marine Sanctuaries, or unusual marine-mammal-stock-assessment- fund Center for Naval Analysis (CNA) to mortality events (UMEs) for marine reports) and new scientific literature, develop a framework to improve the mammals in the MITT Study Area. and determined that none of these nor analysis of single and mass stranding However, there are areas known to be any other new information changes our events, including the development of important for humpback whale breeding determination of which species have the more advanced statistical methods to and calving which are described below. potential to be affected by the Navy’s better characterize the uncertainty The proposed rule included activities or the pertinent information in associated with data parameters. additional information about the species this final rulemaking.

TABLE 7—MARINE MAMMAL OCCURRENCE WITHIN THE MITT STUDY AREA

Status Occurrence * Common Scientific name name Mariana Transit MMPA ESA Islands Corridor

Mysticetes:

Blue whale ...... Balaenoptera musculus ...... D ...... E ...... Seasonal ...... Seasonal. Bryde’s whale ...... Balaenoptera edeni ...... n/a ...... Regular ...... Regular. Fin whale ...... Balaenoptera physalus ...... D ...... E ...... Rare ...... Rare. Humpback whale ...... Megaptera novaeangliae ...... (1) ...... E ...... Seasonal ...... Seasonal. Minke whale ...... Balaenoptera acutorostrata ...... n/a ...... Seasonal ...... Seasonal. Omura’s whale ...... Balaenoptera omurai ...... n/a ...... Rare ...... Rare. Sei whale ...... Balaenoptera borealis ...... D ...... E ...... Seasonal ...... Seasonal.

Odontocetes:

Blainville’s beaked whale ...... Mesoplodon densirostris ...... n/a ...... Regular ...... Regular.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46342 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 7—MARINE MAMMAL OCCURRENCE WITHIN THE MITT STUDY AREA—Continued

Status Occurrence * Common Scientific name name Mariana Transit MMPA ESA Islands Corridor

Common bottlenose dolphin ...... Tursiops truncatus ...... n/a ...... Regular ...... Regular. Cuvier’s beaked whale ...... Ziphius cavirostris ...... n/a ...... Regular ...... Regular. Dwarf sperm whale ...... Kogia sima ...... n/a ...... Regular ...... Regular. False killer whale ...... Pseudorca crassidens ...... n/a ...... Regular ...... Regular. Fraser’s dolphin ...... Lagenodelphis hosei ...... n/a ...... Regular ...... Regular. Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale ...... Mesoplodon ginkgodens ...... n/a ...... Regular ...... Regular. Killer whale ...... Orcinus orca ...... n/a ...... Regular ...... Regular. Longman’s beaked whale ...... Indopacetus pacificus ...... n/a ...... Regular ...... Regular. Melon-headed whale ...... Peponocephala electra ...... n/a ...... Regular ...... Regular. Pantropical spotted dolphin ...... Stenella attenuata ...... n/a ...... Regular ...... Regular. Pygmy killer whale ...... Feresa attenuata ...... n/a ...... Regular ...... Regular. Pygmy sperm whale ...... Kogia breviceps ...... n/a ...... Regular ...... Regular. Risso’s dolphin ...... Grampus griseus ...... n/a ...... Regular ...... Regular. Rough-toothed dolphin ...... Steno bredanensis ...... n/a ...... Regular ...... Regular. Short-finned pilot whale ...... Globicephala macrorhynchus ...... n/a ...... Regular ...... Regular. Sperm whale ...... Physeter macrocephalus ...... D ...... E ...... Regular ...... Regular. Spinner dolphin ...... Stenella longirostris ...... n/a ...... Regular ...... Regular. Striped dolphin ...... Stenella coeruleoalba ...... n/a ...... Regular ...... Regular. 1 Humpback whales in the Mariana Islands have not been assigned a stock by NMFS in the Alaska or Pacific Stock Assessment Reports given they are not recognized in those reports as being present in U.S. territorial waters (Carretta et al., 2017c; Carretta et al., 2018; Caretta et al., 2019; Muto et al., 2017b; Muto et al., 2018, Muto et al., 2019), but because individuals from the Western North Pacific Distinct Population Seg- ment have been photographically identified in the MITT Study Area, humpback whales in the Mariana Islands are assumed to be part of the Western North Pacific Stock. Note: Status MMPA, D = depleted; ESA, E = endangered. * Species occur in both the Mariana Islands and in the Transit Corridor, both of which are included in the overall MITT Study Area. The transit corridor is outside the geographic boundaries of the MIRC, but is a route across the high seas for Navy ships transiting between the MIRC and the HRC. Although not part of a defined range complex, vessels and aircraft would at times conduct basic and routine unit-level activities such as gunnery and sonar training while in transit in the corridor as long as the training would not interfere with the primary objective of reaching their in- tended destination. Ships also conduct sonar maintenance, which includes active sonar transmissions.

Humpback Reproductive Areas Specifically, comparisons with existing m isobath) offshore of Saipan at Marpi WNP humpback whale photo- Reef and Chalan Kanoa Reef. Based on The humpback whales in the MITT identification catalogs showed that 11 of surveys conducted by NMFS’ Pacific Study Area are indirectly addressed in 41 (27 percent) whales within the Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) the Alaska SAR, given that the historic Mariana Archipelago humpback whale during the winter months (January to range of humpbacks in the ‘‘Asia catalog were previously sighted in March) 2015–2019, there were 22 wintering area’’ includes the Mariana Western North Pacific humpback whale encounters with mother/calf pairs with Islands. The observed presence of breeding areas (Japan and Philippines) a total of 14 mother/calf pairs and all humpback whales in the Mariana and/or in a Western North Pacific calves were considered born within the Islands (Hill et al., 2016a; Hill et al., humpback whale feeding area off Russia current season and one neotate (Hill et 2017a; Hill et al., 2018; Hill et al., al., 2020a). Additionally, competitive 2020a; Klinck et al., 2016a; Munger et (Hill et al., 2020a). Hill et al. (2020a) completed DNA profiling of 28 biopsy groups were observed in 2017 and 2018 al., 2014; NMFS, 2018; Oleson et al., (Hill et al., 2020a). Surveys and passive 2015; Uyeyama, 2014) is consistent with samples that identified 24 individuals (14 females, 10 males) representing acoustic hydrophone recordings in the the MITT Study Area as a plausible Mariana Islands has confirmed the migratory destination for humpback seven mitochondrial DNA haplotypes. The haplotype frequencies from the presence of mother-calf pairs, non-calf whales from Alaska (Muto et al., 2017a). whales, and singing males in the MITT It was considered likely that humpback Mariana Archipelago showed the greatest identity with the Ogasawara Study Area (Fulling et al., 2011; Hill et whales in the Mariana Islands are part al., 2016a; Hill et al., 2018; Munger et of the endangered Western North Pacific breeding ground and Commander Islands feeding ground in the Western al., 2014; Munger et al., 2015; Norris et (WNP) Distinct Population Segment al., 2012; Oleson and Hill, 2010a; (DPS) based on the best available North Pacific. This study establishes the Mariana Archipelago as a breeding area Oleson et al., 2015; U.S. Department of science (Bettridge et al., 2015; the Navy, 2007; Uyeyama et al., 2012). Calambokidis et al., 2008; Calambokidis for the endangered WNP DPS of humpback whales (Hill et al., 2020a). Future surveys are needed to determine et al., 2010; Carretta et al., 2017b; Hill the full extent of the humpback whale No ESA critical habitat has been et al., 2017b; Hill et al., 2020a; Muto et breeding habitat throughout the Mariana proposed for the WNP DPS of al., 2017a; NMFS, 2016a; NOAA, 2015b; Archipelago; however, the available humpback whales in the MITT Study Wade et al., 2016) although the breeding data confirms the shallow waters Area, although critical habitat has been range of the humpback whale WNP DPS surrounding Marpi Reef and Chalan proposed in Alaska (84 FR 54534; is not fully resolved. Individual photo- Kanoa Reef are important to breeding October 9, 2019). identification data for whales sampled and calving humpback whales. off Saipan within the Mariana Humpback whale breeding and Archipelago in February–March 2015 to calving have been documented in the Species Not Included in the Analysis 2018, suggest that these whales belong MITT Study Area and particularly in the Consistent with the analysis provided to the WNP DPS (Hill et al., 2020a). shallow waters (mostly within the 200- in the 2015 MITT FEIS/OEIS and the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46343

previous Phase II rulemaking for the the dolphins resulted in frequency- The authors note that these results MITT Study Area, the species carried dependent increases in hearing support the hypothesis that sound forward for analysis and in the Navy’s thresholds of up to 18.5 dB when energy (SEL) is the main cause of rulemaking/LOA application are those compared to sounds projected from in behavioral responses rather than sound likely to be found in the MITT Study front of the dolphins. Sounds projected amplitude (SPL), and that exposure Area based on the most recent sighting, directly above the dolphins resulted in context and measurements of survey, and habitat modeling data thresholds that were approximately 8 cumulative sound energy are important available. The analysis does not include dB higher than those obtained when considerations for future research and species that may have once inhabited or sounds were projected below the noise impact assessments. transited the area, but have not been dolphins. These findings suggest that Frankel and Stein (2020) used sighted in recent years (e.g., species that dolphins may receive lower source shoreline theodolite tracking to examine no longer occur in the area due to levels when they are oriented 180 potential behavioral responses of factors such as 19th-century commercial degrees away from the sound source, southbound migrating eastern gray exploitation). These species include the and dolphins are less sensitive to sound whales to a high-frequency active sonar North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena projected from above (leading to some system transmitted by a vessel located japonica), the western subpopulation of spatial release from masking). off the coast of California. The sonar gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), Directional or spatial hearing also transducer deployed from the vessel short-beaked common dolphin allows animals to locate sound sources. transmitted 21–25 kHz sweeps for half (Delphinus delphis), Indo-Pacific This study indicates dolphins can detect of each day (experimental period), and bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops aduncus), source direction at lower frequencies no sound the other half of the day northern elephant seal (Mirounga than previously thought, allowing them (control period). In contrast to low- angustirostris), and dugong (Dugong to successfully avoid or approach frequency active sonar tests conducted dugon). The reasons for not including biologically significant or anthropogenic in the same area (Clark et al., 1999; each of these species was explained in sound sources at these frequencies. Tyack and Clark, 1998), no overt detail in the proposed rulemaking (85 Houser et al. (2020) measured behavioral responses or deflections were FR 5782; January 31, 2020) and NMFS cortisol, aldosterone, and epinephrine observed in field or visual data. agrees these species are unlikely to levels in the blood samples of 30 However, statistical analysis of the occur in the MITT Study Area. bottlenose dolphins before and after tracking data indicated that during exposure to simulated U.S. Navy mid- experimental periods at received levels Potential Effects of Specified Activities frequency sonar from 115–185 dB re: 1 of approximately 148 dB re: 1 mPa2 (134 on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat mPa. They collected blood samples dB re: 1 mPa2s) and less than 2 km from We provided a detailed discussion of approximately one week prior to, the transmitting vessel, gray whales the potential effects of the specified immediately following, and deflected their migration paths inshore activity on marine mammals and their approximately one week after exposures from the vessel. The authors indicate habitat in our Federal Register notice of and analyzed for hormones via that these data suggest the functional proposed rulemaking (85 FR 5782; radioimmunoassay. Aldosterone levels hearing sensitivity of gray whales January 31, 2020). In the Potential were below the detection limits in all extends to at least 21 kHz. These Effects of Specified Activities on Marine samples. While the observed severity of findings agree with the predicted Mammals and Their Habitat section of behavioral responses scaled (increased) mysticete hearing curve and behavioral the proposed rule, NMFS provided a with SPL, levels of cortisol and response functions used in the analysis description of the ways marine epinephrine did not show consistent to estimate take by Level A harassment mammals may be affected by these relationships with received SPL. The (PTS) and Level B harassment activities in the form of, among other authors note that it is still unclear (behavioral response) for this rule (see things, serious injury or mortality, whether intermittent, high-level the Technical Report ‘‘Criteria and physical trauma, sensory impairment acoustic stimuli elicit endocrine Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and (permanent and temporary threshold responses consistent with a stress Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III)’’). shift and acoustic masking), response, and that additional research is Having considered the new physiological responses (particularly needed to determine the relationship information, along with information stress responses), behavioral between behavioral responses and provided in public comments on the disturbance, or habitat effects. All of physiological responses. proposed rule, we have determined that this information remains valid and In an effort to compare behavioral there is no new information that applicable. Therefore, we do not reprint responses to continuous active sonar substantively affects our analysis of the information here but refer the reader (CAS) and pulsed (intermittent) active potential impacts on marine mammals to that document. sonar (PAS), Isojunno et al. (2020) and their habitat that appeared in the NMFS has also reviewed new relevant conducted at-sea experiments on 16 proposed rule, all of which remains information from the scientific literature sperm whales equipped with animal- applicable and valid for our assessment since publication of the proposed rule. attached sound- and movement- of the effects of the Navy’s activities Summaries of the new key scientific recording tags in Norway. They during the seven-year period of this literature since publication of the examined changes in foraging effort and rule. proposed rule are presented below. proxies for foraging success and cost Accomando et al. (2020) examined during sonar and control exposures after Vessel Strike the directional dependence of hearing accounting for baseline variation. They NMFS also considered the chance that thresholds for 2, 10, 20, and 30 kHz in observed no reduction in time spent a vessel utilized in training or testing two adult bottlenose dolphins. They foraging during exposures to medium- activities could strike a marine observed that source direction (i.e., the level PAS transmitted at the same peak mammal. Vessel strikes have the relative angle between the sound source amplitude as CAS, however they potential to result in incidental take location and the dolphin) impacted observed similar reductions in foraging from serious injury and/or mortality. hearing thresholds for these frequencies. during CAS and PAS when they were Vessel strikes are not specific to any Sounds projected from directly behind received at similar energy levels (SELs). particular training or testing activity,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46344 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

but rather are a limited, sporadic, and beaked whales, from four of eight evaluate strandings in the context of incidental result of Navy vessel events, stranded during or within six major training events (MTE), although of movement within a study area. NMFS’ days of a naval ASW exercise using note none of the Marianas stranding detailed analysis of the likelihood of sonar. In a Note to the article, the events occurred during an MTE. All vessel strike was provided in the authors acknowledged additional strandings reported to have been Potential Effects of Vessel Strike section information provided by the Navy while coincident with sonar use in Simonis et of our Federal Register notice of the article was in press that one of the al., as well as the additional stranding proposed rulemaking (85 FR 5782; strandings occurred a day prior to sonar that occurred while Simonis et al. was January 31, 2020); please see that notice transmissions and so should not be in press, were confirmed to be of proposed rulemaking or the Navy’s considered coincident with sonar. The coincident by the CNA analysis (i.e., application for more information. No authors’ analysis examined the within 80 nmi) and, for the first additional information has been probability that the now three of eight analysis, CNA examined the four received since publication of the random days would fall during, or strandings in relation to the total sonar proposed rule that substantively within six days after, a naval event days (throughout the MITT Study Area) changes the agency’s analysis or (utilizing the Navy training events and recorded in the classified data set. Based conclusions. Therefore the information sonar detections of which the authors on the calculations conducted by CNA, and analysis included in the proposed were aware). Their test results indicated when the analysis is conducted rule supports NMFS’ concurrence with that the probability that three of eight consistent with the Simonis et al. (2020) the Navy’s conclusion and our final stranding events were randomly assumptions (i.e., without considering determination that vessel strikes of associated with naval sonar was one proximity of sonar to strandings in marine mammals, and associated percent. counting ‘‘sonar days’’), but with serious injury or mortality, are not likely The authors did not have access to the consideration of the accurate number of to result from the Navy’s activities Navy’s classified data (in the Note sonar days from the classified record included in this seven-year rule, and added to the article, Simonis et al. noted and the additional stranding at Rota, the vessel strikes are not discussed further. that the Navy was working with NMFS analysis suggests that the probability to make the broader classified dataset that four of nine stranding events were Stranding available for further statistical analysis). randomly associated with naval events In the proposed rule, NMFS discussed Later reporting by the Navy indicated is 10 percent, which the Navy the potential mechanisms that could there were more than three times as interpreted as insufficient evidence, at lead from acoustic exposure to marine many sonar days in the Marianas during P<0.10 threshold level, to claim a mammal strandings and described the the designated time period than Simonis relationship between sonar use and small number of global events in which et al. (2020) reported. Primarily for this stranding in the Mariana Islands. strandings (predominantly of beaked reason, the Navy tasked the Center for For the second CNA analysis, the whales) have been causally associated Naval Analysis (CNA) with repeating same four coincident strandings were with exposure to active sonar in certain the statistical examination of Simonis et considered, but only sonar use within a circumstances. Given the available al. using the full classified sonar record, maximum distance of 80 nmi from a information, NMFS did not anticipate or including ship movement information stranding location would be considered propose to authorize mortality of beaked to document the precise times and as possibly influencing a potential whales resulting from the Navy locations of Navy sonar use throughout stranding event and, therefore, included activities covered under the rule. Public the time period of consideration (2007– in the ‘‘sonar days’’ for this analysis. commenters questioned this preliminary 2019). This analysis resulted in the determination and additional CNA re-evaluated the relationship calculations being performed separately information has become available since between the strandings and sonar for Guam, Rota, and Saipan. the proposed rule was published. activities using the entire classified data When the analysis was conducted Therefore an updated and expanded set in two ways. First, from their sonar specifically for Guam including only rationale, in addition to what was database, CNA tabulated the number of those sonar days within 80 nmi, the included in the proposed rule, ‘‘sonar days’’ for use in their analysis. results suggested that the probability describing why NMFS continues to The total number of sonar days from the that the strandings are randomly conclude that mortality is not classified database was 923 days (or associated with sonar was notably reasonably likely to result from these approximately 19.5 percent of all days higher, at 26 percent (p=0.26). This is activities following careful and in the study timeframe). In comparison, notable because this location had the thorough review of all available the Simonis et al. (2020) analysis highest number of overall stranding information is included here. assumed only 293 days of sonar (or events (n=7), coincident stranding In February 2020, a study (Simonis et approximately 6.1 percent of all days in events (n=2), and sonar days (n=681) of al., 2020) was published titled ‘‘Co- the study timeframe). CNA conducted all the locations within the Mariana occurrence of beaked whale strandings re-constructions for each stranding Islands. The calculations for Saipan and and naval sonar in the Mariana Islands, event to determine/confirm if Navy Rota (p=0.06 and 0.14, respectively) Western Pacific.’’ In summary, the sonar use coincided in time and space should be viewed with caution given authors compiled the publicly available with each stranding location. The Navy that statistical analyses considering information regarding Navy training extended the analysis through the entire single data points (i.e., one stranding exercises from 2006–2019 (from press year of 2019 to capture both sonar use each) have low power and high releases, etc.), as well as the passive and stranding events. As a result, the uncertainty and, similarly, the Navy acoustic monitoring data indicating CNA analysis included consideration of reported insufficient evidence to claim sonar use that they collected at two the November 2019 stranding of a single a relationship (at P<0. 05 and 0.10 specific locations on HARP recorders beaked whale on Rota, which was not levels, respectively) between sonar use over a shorter amount of time, and addressed in the Simonis et al. (2020) and strandings. NMFS has evaluated the compared it to the dates of beaked paper. Navy’s analysis and results along with whale strandings. Using this data, they A distance of 80 nmi is used in the analysis and results of Simonis et al. reported that six of the 10 Cuvier’s NMFS’ incidental take regulations to (2020), and has determined that both

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46345

analyses are appropriate to consider in events were coincident with the use of the 7 diagnostic features. Overall, the NMFS’ assessment of whether beaked Navy sonar. results of these necropsies appear to whale mortality is reasonably likely to None of the three beaked whales from align with evidence from single beaked occur as a result of the Navy’s activities the Mariana Islands had evidence of gas whale strandings in the Canary Islands described in this seven-year rule. bubble formation in the organs between 2002 and 2015 (n=45) which Standard statistical significance examined grossly and histologically. stranded with no known correlation in thresholds of 0.05 and 0.1 are often used Stranding response staff from the space or time with active sonar. These in the interpretation of the results of University of Hawaii conducted the individuals had one or more diagnostic statistical tests, and the Navy stated that examinations and compared the results features of gas and fat embolic their results show that the data showing to the diagnostic features of gas and fat syndrome for beaked whales stranded in the relationship between sonar and embolic syndrome described by association with MFAS exercises, but stranding is not statistically significant, Bernaldo de Quiros et al. (2019). not all seven (Bernaldo de Quiros et al. and does not allow one to rule out a null Bernaldo de Quiros et al. (2019) 2019). NMFS acknowledges that hypothesis that there is no relationship. established that to date, strandings situations could potentially occur in NMFS consulted guidance from the which have a confirmed association which beaked whales might strand as a American Statistical Association, which with naval exercise have exhibited all result of sonar exposure and not exhibit cautions against strict interpretations of seven of the following diagnostic all seven of the features of gas and fat p-values and notes that ‘‘researchers features: embolic syndrome described above, should bring many contextual factors 1. Individual or multiple animals however, taken as a whole, these into play to derive scientific inferences, stranded within hours or a few days of necropsy and histopathology results do including the design of a study, the an exercise in good body condition; not support a conclusion that the 2011 quality of the measurements, the 2. Food remnants in the first gastric and 2015 strandings resulted from external evidence for the phenomenon compartment ranging from undigested exposure to naval sonar. Furthermore, under study, and the validity of food to squid beaks; the role of natural stressors or other assumptions that underlie the data 3. Abundant gas bubbles widely non-Navy factors as they affect beaked analysis. Pragmatic considerations often distributed in veins (subcutaneous, whale strandings is not understood. The require binary, ‘‘yes-no’’ decisions, but mesenteric, portal, coronary, majority of strandings in the MITT this does not mean that p-values alone subarachnoid veins, etc.) composed Study Area occurred without the can ensure that a decision is correct or primarily of N2 in fresh carcasses; presence of Navy sonar. incorrect.’’ Separately, we also note that 4. Gross subarachnoid and/or acoustic As noted previously, NMFS has the Navy strove to use identical fat hemorrhages; acknowledged that it is possible for methods as the Simonis et al. (2020) 5. Microscopic multi-organ gas and fat naval activities using hull-mounted paper to conduct their analysis. A emboli associated with tactical sonar to contribute to the death miscommunication resulted in the Navy bronchopulmonary shock; of marine mammals in certain initially using a Poisson distribution, 6. Diffuse, mild to moderate, acute, circumstances via strandings resulting while Simonis et al. used a permutation monophasic myonecrosis (hyaline from behaviorally mediated test, however, additional tests were run degeneration) with ‘‘disintegration’’ of physiological impacts or other gas- to ensure an apples-to-apples the interstitial connective tissue and related injuries. In the proposed rule, comparison. The tests were consistent related structures, including fat NMFS discussed these potential causes and the results are reflected in the deposits, and their replacement by and outlined the few cases where active discussion above. Last, and importantly, amorphous hyaline material (degraded naval sonar (in the United States or, we note that correlation does not equate material) in fresh and well preserved largely, elsewhere) had either to causation. carcasses; and potentially contributed to or (as with the In addition to examining the 7. Multi-organ microscopic Bahamas example) been more correlation (or lack thereof) of activities hemorrhages of varying severity in definitively causally linked with marine with strandings, necropsies of stranded lipid-rich tissues such as the central mammal mass strandings (more than animals can provide insight into the nervous system, spinal cord, and the two animals). There have been no potential cause of death. The number of coronary and kidney fat when present. documented mass strandings of beaked strandings that can be thoroughly Results from the necropsies for the whales in the Marianas since stranding investigated through necropsy, sample 2011 and 2015 stranded animals data was collected, and the first beaked collection, and advanced diagnostics is indicate that they only exhibited one to whale stranding was documented in limited to animals that are not returned three of the diagnostic features, but not 2007, while the Navy has been using to the sea and those that are found and all seven. Additionally, the necropsy sonar in the Marianas since the 1960s. accessible prior to extensive results from both animals indicated As also noted previously, there are a decomposition. In the case of beaked severe parasite infestations. The 2015 suite of factors that have been associated whale strandings that occurred in the specimen also had indication of with the specific cases of strandings MITT Study Area during this time myocardial fibrosis which could have directly causally associated with sonar period, necropsy examinations were impacted cardiac function. Results for (steep bathymetry, multiple hull- performed and high quality tissue the 2019 animal, which was a stranding mounted platforms using sonar samples were collected from three live that was not coincident with sonar, simultaneously, constricted channels, stranded or fresh dead individuals: one indicated that it exhibited up to 31 of strong surface ducts, etc.) that are not of the whales from the August 2011 present together in the MITT Study Area Saipan stranding, the single whale from 1 One of the diagnostic features is ‘‘individual or the March 2015 Guam stranding, and multiple animals stranded within hours or a few in time to the outset of a Navy training event, the single whale from the January 2019 days of an exercise in good body condition,’’ however, sonar use did not occur until the day after Guam stranding. For the stranding however, Bernaldo de Quiros et al. (2019) does not the stranding. Therefore, this event is not specify if the stranding had to occur after an considered coincident, but due to the ambiguity in events for which necropsies and exercise in which sonar use occurred. One would the description of this diagnostic factor, the 2019 histopathology analyses were presume it does since it investigated sonar’s ability stranding is conservatively assumed to be positive conducted, only the 2011 and 2015 to cause strandings. The 2019 animal stranded close for this factor.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46346 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

and during the specified activities (and activities on beaked whales in the case, as defined in the military which the Navy takes care across the Mariana Islands. readiness definition of Level B world not to operate under without harassment included above) or incur Estimated Take of Marine Mammals additional monitoring). Further none of some degree of temporary or permanent the documented strandings in the MITT This section indicates the number of hearing impairment; (2) the area or Study Area have coincided with MTEs. takes that NMFS is authorizing, which volume of water that will be ensonified While the results of the Simonis et al. are based on the maximum amount of above these levels in a day or event; (3) (2020) paper and the fuller CNA take that NMFS anticipates is likely to the density or occurrence of marine analysis both suggest (the latter to a occur. NMFS coordinated closely with mammals within these ensonified areas; notably lesser degree) that it is more the Navy in the development of their and (4) the number of days of activities probable than not that there was some incidental take application, and agrees or events. Below, we describe these form of non-random relationship that the methods the Navy put forth to components in more detail and present between sonar days and strandings in estimate take (including the model, the take estimates. thresholds, and density estimates), and the Marianas during this period of time, Acoustic Thresholds the results of the Navy analysis (using the resulting numbers are based on the the full dataset) allow, statistically, that best available science and appropriate Using the best available science, the strandings and sonar use may not be for authorization. Nonetheless, since NMFS, in coordination with the Navy, related. Given the uncertainties and publication of the proposed rule, has established acoustic thresholds that additional information and analysis identify the most appropriate received assumptions inherent in these have been used to refine the assessment level of underwater sound above which correlation analyses, the small sample for the impacts of sonar training and marine mammals exposed to these size (in terms of the strandings), and the testing on humpback whales around sound sources could be reasonably fact that correlation does not equate to Saipan, resulting in a change in the total expected to experience a disruption in causation—these results, alone, do not take numbers for humpback whales. A behavior patterns to a point where they indicate a reasonable likelihood that the subsection describing this additional are abandoned or significantly altered, Navy’s activities under this rule will analysis and how it changes the take or to incur TTS (equated to Level B result in serious injury or mortality of numbers (Humpback Whales Around harassment) or PTS of some degree beaked whales. Further, the necropsies Saipan) is included below and the total (equated to Level A harassment). of the two animals stranded in the MITT take numbers for humpback whales has Thresholds have also been developed to Study Area in 2011 and 2015 do not increased in Table 28 and 47. identify the pressure levels above which support a conclusion that the 2011 and Takes are in the form of harassment animals may incur non-auditory injury 2015 strandings resulted from exposure only. For military readiness activities, from exposure to pressure waves from to naval sonar. When this information is the MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as (i) explosive detonation. considered in combination with the Any act that injures or has the Despite the quickly evolving science, absence of mass beaked whale significant potential to injure a marine there are still challenges in quantifying strandings in the MITT Study Area and mammal or marine mammal stock in the expected behavioral responses that the absence of beaked whale strandings wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) Any qualify as take by Level B harassment, coinciding with any MTEs, despite act that disturbs or is likely to disturb especially where the goal is to use one Navy sonar training activity in the area a marine mammal or marine mammal or two predictable indicators (e.g., since the 1960s, NMFS has concluded stock in the wild by causing disruption received level and distance) to predict that serious injury or mortality of of natural behavioral patterns, responses that are also driven by beaked whales is unlikely to result from including, but not limited to, migration, additional factors that cannot be easily the Navy activities covered under this surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or incorporated into the thresholds (e.g., seven-year rule. sheltering, to a point where such context). So, while the behavioral While we have found that serious behavioral patterns are abandoned or harassment thresholds have been injury or mortality are not likely to significantly altered (Level B refined here to better consider the best result from the activities covered by this harassment). available science (e.g., incorporating rule, we note the number of beaked Authorized takes will primarily be in both received level and distance), they whale strandings in the MITT Study the form of Level B harassment, as use also still have some built-in Area (acknowledging the comparatively of the acoustic and explosive sources conservative factors to address the lower carcass recovery rate for offshore (i.e., sonar and explosives) is more challenge noted. For example, while species), the paucity of beaked whale likely to result in behavioral disruption duration of observed responses in the data in the region, and the Simonis et (rising to the level of a take as described data are now considered in the al. and Navy analysis results, all of above) or temporary threshold shift thresholds, some of the responses that which highlight the need for additional (TTS) for marine mammals than other are informing take thresholds are of a data-gathering and future analysis. forms of take. There is also the potential very short duration, such that it is Accordingly, as part of the monitoring for Level A harassment, however, in the possible some of these responses might and adaptive management requirements form of auditory injury and/or tissue not always rise to the level of disrupting of the final rule (as described damage (the latter from explosives only) behavior patterns to a point where they elsewhere), in addition to continuing to to result from exposure to the sound are abandoned or significantly altered. fund stranding investigations in the sources utilized in training and testing We describe the application of this Marianas and other monitoring activities. behavioral harassment threshold as measures, the Navy will fund and co- Generally speaking, for acoustic identifying the maximum number of organize with NMFS an expert panel to impacts NMFS estimates the amount instances in which marine mammals provide recommendations addressing and type of harassment by considering: could be reasonably expected to scientific data gaps and uncertainties to (1) Acoustic thresholds above which experience a disruption in behavior further inform consideration of future NMFS believes the best available patterns to a point where they are protective measures to minimize the science indicates marine mammals will abandoned or significantly altered. In impact of Navy training and testing be taken by Level B harassment (in this summary, we believe these behavioral

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46347

harassment thresholds are the most mammal groups (based on hearing compiling and synthesizing the best appropriate method for predicting Level sensitivity) as a result of exposure to available science and soliciting input B harassment by behavioral disturbance noise from two different types of multiple times from both the public and given the best available science and the sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). peer reviewers. The references, analysis, associated uncertainty. The Acoustic Technical Guidance also and methodology used in the identifies criteria to predict TTS, which development of the thresholds are Hearing Impairment (TTS/PTS), Tissues is not considered injury and falls into described in Acoustic Technical Damage, and Mortality the Level B harassment category. The Guidance, which may be accessed at: NMFS’ Acoustic Technical Guidance Navy’s planned activity includes the use https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ (NMFS, 2018) identifies dual criteria to of non-impulsive (sonar) and impulsive national/marine-mammal-protection/ assess auditory injury (Level A (explosives) sources. These thresholds marine-mammal-acoustic-technical- harassment) to five different marine (Tables 8 and 9) were developed by guidance.

TABLE 8—ACOUSTIC THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF TTS AND PTS FOR NON-IMPULSIVE SOUND SOURCES BY FUNCTIONAL HEARING GROUPS

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

Low-Frequency Cetaceans ...... 179 199 Mid-Frequency Cetaceans ...... 178 198 High-Frequency Cetaceans ...... 153 173 Note: SEL thresholds in dB re 1 μPa2s.

Based on the best available science, thresholds indicated in Table 9 to (impulsive) and other impulsive sound the Navy (in coordination with NMFS) predict the onset of TTS, PTS, tissue sources. used the acoustic and pressure damage, and mortality for explosives

TABLE 9—ONSET OF TTS, PTS, TISSUE DAMAGE, AND MORTALITY THRESHOLDS FOR MARINE MAMMALS FOR EXPLOSIVES AND OTHER IMPULSIVE SOURCES

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

Low-frequency All mysticetes ...... 168 dB SEL 183 dB SEL 237 dB Peak SPL Equation 1 ...... Equation 2. cetaceans. (weighted) or (weighted). or 213 dB Peak 219 dB Peak SPL. SPL. Mid-frequency Most delphinids, 170 dB SEL 185 dB SEL 237 dB Peak SPL. cetaceans. medium and (weighted) or (weighted) or large toothed 224 dB Peak 230 dB Peak whales. SPL. SPL. High-frequency Porpoises and 140 dB SEL 155 dB SEL 237 dB Peak SPL. cetaceans. Kogia spp.. (weighted) or (weighted) or 196 dB Peak 202 dB Peak SPL. SPL. Notes: Equation 1: 47.5M1⁄3 (1+[DRm/10.1])1⁄6 Pa-sec. Equation 2: 103M1⁄3 (1+[DRm/10.1])1⁄6 Pa-sec. M = mass of the animals in kg. DRm = depth of the receiver (animal) in meters. SPL = sound pressure level.

The criteria used to assess the onset detailed information on how the criteria analysis. As noted previously, of TTS and PTS due to exposure to and thresholds were derived. Non- additional information and analysis has sonars (non-impulsive, see Table 8 auditory injury (i.e., other than PTS) been added to the Potential Effects of above) are discussed further in the and mortality from sonar and other Specified Activities on Marine Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application transducers is so unlikely as to be Mammals and Their Habitat section of (see Hearing Loss from Sonar and Other discountable under normal conditions this final rule specifically addressing Transducers in Section 6, Section for the reasons explained in the and ruling out the likelihood of 6.4.2.1, Methods for Analyzing Impacts proposed rule under the Potential mortality of beaked whales through from Sonars and Other Transducers). Effects of Specified Activities on Marine strandings associated with sonar Refer to the Criteria and Thresholds for Mammals and Their Habitat section— exposure. U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Acoustically Mediated Bubble Growth The mitigation measures associated Effects Analysis (Phase III) report (U.S. and other Pressure-related Injury, and is with explosives are expected to be Department of the Navy, 2017c) for therefore not considered further in this effective in preventing tissue damage to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46348 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

any potentially affected species, and the criteria were derived is discussed in by Level B harassment due to behavioral when considered in combination with detail in the Criteria and Thresholds for disturbance and response. Many of the the modeled exposure results, no U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive behavioral responses identified using species are anticipated to incur tissue Effects Analysis (Phase III) report (U.S. the Navy’s quantitative analysis are damage during the period of this rule. Department of the Navy, 2017c). most likely to be of moderate severity as Tables 26 indicate the range to effects Developing these behavioral harassment described in the Southall et al. (2007) for tissue damage for different explosive thresholds involved multiple steps. All behavioral response severity scale. types. The Navy will implement peer-reviewed published behavioral These ‘‘moderate’’ severity responses mitigation measures (described in the response studies conducted both in the were considered significant if they were Mitigation Measures section) during field and on captive animals were sustained for the duration of the explosive activities, including delaying examined in order to understand the exposure or longer. Within the Navy’s detonations when a marine mammal is breadth of behavioral responses of quantitative analysis, many reactions observed in the mitigation zone. Nearly marine mammals to sonar and other are predicted from exposure to sound all explosive events will occur during transducers. NMFS has carefully that may exceed an animal’s threshold daylight hours to improve the reviewed the Navy’s criteria, i.e., BRFs for Level B harassment by behavioral sightability of marine mammals and and cutoff distances for the species, and disturbance for only a single exposure (a thereby improve mitigation agrees that they are the best available few seconds) to several minutes, and it effectiveness. Observing for marine science and the appropriate method to is likely that some of the resulting mammals during the explosive activities use at this time for determining impacts estimated behavioral responses that are will include visual and passive acoustic to marine mammals from sonar and counted as Level B harassment would detection methods (when they are other transducers and for calculating not constitute significant alteration or available and part of the activity) before take and to support the determinations abandonment of the natural behavioral the activity begins, in order to cover the made in this rule. The Navy and NMFS patterns. The Navy and NMFS have mitigation zones that can range from will continue to evaluate the used the best available science to 200 yds (183 m) to 2,500 yds (2,286 m) information as new science becomes address the challenging differentiation depending on the source (e.g., explosive available. The criteria have been between significant and non-significant sonobuoy, explosive torpedo, explosive rigorously vetted within the Navy behavioral reactions (i.e., whether the bombs), and 2.5 nmi for sinking exercise community, among scientists during behavior has been abandoned or (see Tables 34–39). expert elicitation, and then reviewed by significantly altered such that it the public before being applied. It is not Level B Harassment by Behavioral qualifies as harassment), but have erred necessary or possible to revise and Disturbance on the cautious side where uncertainty update the criteria and risk functions exists (e.g., counting these lower Though significantly driven by every time a new paper is published. duration reactions as take), which likely received level, the onset of Level B The Navy is considering new results in some degree of overestimation harassment by behavioral disturbance information as it becomes available for of Level B harassment by behavioral from anthropogenic noise exposure is updates to the criteria in the future, disturbance. We consider application of also informed to varying degrees by when the next round of updated criteria these behavioral harassment thresholds, other factors related to the source (e.g., will be developed. Thus far, no new therefore, as identifying the maximum frequency, predictability, duty cycle), information has been published or number of instances in which marine the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and otherwise conveyed that would the receiving animals (hearing, mammals could be reasonably expected fundamentally change the assessment of to experience a disruption in behavior motivation, experience, demography, impacts or conclusions of the 2020 behavioral context) and can be difficult patterns to a point where they are MITT FSEIS/OEIS or this rule. abandoned or significantly altered (i.e., to predict (Ellison et al., 2011; Southall As discussed above, marine mammal Level B harassment). Because this is the et al., 2007). Based on what the responses to sound (some of which are most appropriate method for estimating available science indicates and the considered disturbances that rise to the Level B harassment given the best practical need to use thresholds based level of a take) are highly variable and available science and uncertainty on the on a factor, or factors, that are both context specific, i.e., they are affected by topic, it is these numbers of Level B predictable and measurable for most differences in acoustic conditions; activities, NMFS uses generalized differences between species and harassment by behavioral disturbance acoustic thresholds based primarily on populations; differences in gender, age, that are analyzed in the Analysis and received level (and distance in some reproductive status, or social behavior; Negligible Impact Determination section cases) to estimate the onset of Level B or other prior experience of the and are authorized. harassment by behavioral disturbance. individuals. This means that there is In the Navy’s acoustic impact Sonar—As noted above, the Navy support for considering alternative analyses during Phase II (the previous coordinated with NMFS to develop, and approaches for estimating Level B phase of Navy testing and training, propose for use in this rule, behavioral harassment by behavioral disturbance. 2015–2020; see also Navy’s Criteria and harassment thresholds specific to their Although the statutory definition of Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and military readiness activities utilizing Level B harassment for military Explosive Effects Analysis Technical active sonar. These behavioral readiness activities states that a natural Report, 2012), the likelihood of Level B harassment thresholds consist of behavior pattern of a marine mammal is harassment by behavioral disturbance in behavioral response functions (BRFs) significantly altered or abandoned, the response to sonar and other transducers and associated cutoff distances, and are current state of science for determining was based on a probabilistic function also referred to, together, as ‘‘the those thresholds is somewhat unsettled. (BRF) that related the likelihood (i.e., criteria.’’ These criteria are used to In its analysis of impacts associated probability) of a behavioral response (at estimate the number of animals that with sonar acoustic sources (which was the level of a Level B harassment) to the may exhibit a behavioral response that coordinated with NMFS), the Navy used received SPL. The BRF was used to rises to the level of a take when exposed an updated conservative approach that estimate the percentage of an exposed to sonar and other transducers. The way likely overestimates the number of takes population that is likely to exhibit Level

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46349

B harassment due to altered behaviors for the derivation of the Navy’s Phase III the distance between the sound source or behavioral disturbance at a given marine mammal behavioral response and the marine mammal. The longest received SPL. This BRF relied on the criteria. All behavioral response distance, rounded up to the nearest 5- assumption that sound poses a research that has been published since km increment, was chosen as the cutoff negligible risk to marine mammals if the derivation of the Navy’s Phase III distance for each behavioral criteria they are exposed to SPL below a certain criteria (c.a. December 2016) has been group (i.e., odontocetes, mysticetes, and ‘‘basement’’ value. Above the basement examined and is consistent with the beaked whales). For animals within the exposure SPL, the probability of a current behavioral response functions. cutoff distance, a behavioral response response increased with increasing SPL. Marine mammal species were placed function based on a received SPL as Two BRFs were used in Navy acoustic into behavioral criteria groups based on presented in Section 3, Section 3.1.0 of impact analyses: BRF1 for mysticetes their known or suspected behavioral the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application and BRF2 for other species. BRFs were sensitivities to sound. In most cases was used to predict the probability of a not used for beaked whales during these divisions were driven by potential significant behavioral Phase II analyses. Instead, a step taxonomic classifications (e.g., response. For training and testing events function at an SPL of 140 dB re 1 mPa mysticetes, pinnipeds). The data from that contain multiple platforms or was used for beaked whales as the the behavioral studies were analyzed by tactical sonar sources that exceed 215 threshold to predict Level B harassment looking for significant responses, or lack dB re 1 mPa @1 m, this cutoff distance by behavioral disturbance. thereof, for each experimental session. is substantially increased (i.e., doubled) Developing the criteria for Level B The resulting four Bayesian Biphasic from values derived from the literature. harassment by behavioral disturbance Dose Response Functions (referred to as for Phase III (the current phase of Navy the BRFs) that were developed for The use of multiple platforms and training and testing activities) involved odontocetes, pinnipeds, mysticetes, and intense sound sources (high source multiple steps: all available behavioral beaked whales predict the probability of level) are factors that probably increase response studies conducted both in the a behavioral response qualifying as responsiveness in marine mammals field and on captive animals were Level B harassment given exposure to overall (however, we note that examined to understand the breadth of certain received levels of sound. These helicopter dipping sonars were behavioral responses of marine BRFs are then used in combination with considered in the intense sound source mammals to sonar and other transducers the cutoff distances described below to group, despite lower source levels, (see also Navy’s Criteria and Thresholds estimate the number of takes by Level B because of data indicating that marine for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive harassment. mammals are sometimes more Effects Analysis (Phase III) Technical The Navy used cutoff distances responsive to the less predictable Report, 2017). Six behavioral response beyond which the potential of employment of this source). There are field studies with observations of 14 significant behavioral responses (and currently few behavioral observations different marine mammal species therefore Level B harassment) is under these circumstances; therefore, reactions to sonar or sonar-like signals considered to be unlikely (see Table 10 the Navy conservatively predicted and 6 captive animal behavioral studies below). This was determined by significant behavioral responses that with observations of 8 different species examining all available published field will rise to Level B harassment at farther reactions to sonar or sonar-like signals observations of behavioral reactions to ranges as shown in Table 10, versus less were used to provide a robust data set sonar or sonar-like signals that included intense events.

TABLE 10—CUTOFF DISTANCES FOR MODERATE SOURCE LEVEL, SINGLE PLATFORM TRAINING AND TESTING EVENTS AND FOR ALL OTHER EVENTS WITH MULTIPLE PLATFORMS OR SONAR WITH SOURCE LEVELS AT OR EXCEEDING 215 dB RE 1 μPa @1 m

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

Odontocetes ...... 10 20 Mysticetes ...... 10 20 Beaked Whales ...... 25 50 Note: dB re 1 μPa @1 m = decibels referenced to 1 micropascal at 1 meter; km = kilometer; SL = source level.

The range to received sound levels in Analyzing Impacts from Sonars and patterns to a point where they are 6-dB steps from five representative Other Transducers) of the Navy’s abandoned or significantly altered) for sonar bins and the percentage of rulemaking/LOA application for further LFAS. As noted previously, NMFS animals that may be taken by Level B details on the derivation and use of the carefully reviewed, and contributed to, harassment at the received level and behavioral response functions, the Navy’s behavioral harassment distance indicated under each thresholds, and the cutoff distances to thresholds (i.e., the BRFs and the cutoff behavioral response function are shown identify takes by Level B harassment, distances) for the species, and agrees in Table 11 through Table 15. Cells are which were coordinated with NMFS. that these methods represent the best shaded if the mean range value for the Table 11 illustrates the maximum likely available science at this time for specified received level exceeds the percentage of exposed individuals taken determining impacts to marine distance cutoff range for a particular at the indicated received level and mammals from sonar and other hearing group and therefore are not associated range (in which marine transducers. included in the estimated take. See mammals would be reasonably expected Section 6, Section 6.4.2.1.1 (Methods for to experience a disruption in behavior BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46350 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Tables 12 through 15 identify the received level and associated range for maximum likely percentage of exposed MFAS. individuals taken at the indicated

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 ER31JY20.000 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46351

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 ER31JY20.001 46352 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 ER31JY20.002 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46353

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 ER31JY20.003 46354 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 ER31JY20.004 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46355

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 ER31JY20.005 46356 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 ER31JY20.006 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46357

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C

TABLE 15—RANGES TO ESTIMATED LEVEL B HARASSMENT BY BEHAVIORAL DISTURBANCE FOR SONAR BIN HF4 OVER A REPRESENTATIVE RANGE OF ENVIRONMENTS WITHIN THE MITT STUDY AREA

Probability of level B harassment by behavioral Received level disturbance for sonar bin HF4 μ Average range (m) with minimum and maximum values in parenthesis (dB re 1 Pa) Odontocetes Mysticetes Beaked (percent) (percent) whales

196 ...... 3 (2–4) ...... 100 100 100 190 ...... 8 (6–10) ...... 100 98 100 184 ...... 16 (12–20) ...... 99 88 100 178 ...... 32 (24–40) ...... 97 59 100 172 ...... 63 (45–80) ...... 91 30 99 166 ...... 120 (75–160) ...... 78 20 97 160 ...... 225 (120–310) ...... 58 18 93 154 ...... 392 (180–550) ...... 40 17 83 148 ...... 642 (280–1,275) ...... 29 16 66 142 ...... 916 (420–1,775) ...... 25 13 45 136 ...... 1,359 (625–2,525) ...... 23 9 28 130 ...... 1,821 (950–3,275) ...... 20 5 18 124 ...... 2,567 (1,275–5,025) ...... 17 2 14 118 ...... 3,457 (1,775–6,025) ...... 12 1 12 112 ...... 4,269 (2,275–7,025) ...... 6 0 11 106 ...... 5,300 (3,025–8,025) ...... 3 0 11 100 ...... 6,254 (3,775–9,275) ...... 1 0 8 Notes: dB re 1 μPa = decibels referenced to 1 micropascal, m = meters.

Explosives—Phase III explosive the criteria and thresholds were derived. TABLE 16—THRESHOLDS FOR LEVEL B thresholds for Level B harassment by NMFS continues to concur that this HARASSMENT BY BEHAVIORAL DIS- behavioral disturbance for marine approach represents the best available TURBANCE FOR EXPLOSIVES FOR mammals is the hearing groups’ TTS science for determining impacts to MARINE MAMMALS—Continued threshold minus 5 dB (see Table 16 marine mammals from explosives. below and Table 9 for the TTS Functional TABLE 16—THRESHOLDS FOR LEVEL B SEL thresholds for explosives) for events that Medium hearing (weighted) contain multiple impulses from HARASSMENT BY BEHAVIORAL DIS- group TURBANCE FOR EXPLOSIVES FOR explosives underwater. This was the Underwater MF 165 same approach as taken in Phase II for MARINE MAMMALS Underwater HF 135 explosive analysis. See the Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Functional SEL Note: Weighted SEL thresholds in dB re 1 Medium hearing μPa2s underwater. Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III) group (weighted) report (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017c) for detailed information on how Underwater LF 163

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 ER31JY20.007 46358 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model Many explosions from ordnance such as to effects is important information in The Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model bombs and missiles actually occur upon not only predicting acoustic impacts, calculates sound energy propagation impact with above-water targets. but also in verifying the accuracy of from sonar and other transducers and However, for this analysis, sources such model results against real-world explosives during naval activities and as these were modeled as exploding situations and determining adequate the sound received by animat underwater, which overestimates the mitigation ranges to avoid higher level dosimeters. Animat dosimeters are amount of explosive and acoustic effects, especially physiological effects virtual representations of marine energy entering the water. to marine mammals. mammals distributed in the area around The model estimates the impacts Sonar the modeled naval activity and each caused by individual training and dosimeter records its individual sound testing exercises. During any individual The range to received sound levels in ‘‘dose.’’ The model bases the modeled event, impacts to individual 6-dB steps from five representative distribution of animats over the MITT animats are considered over 24-hour sonar bins and the percentage of the Study Area on the density values in the periods. The animats do not represent total number of animals that may Navy Marine Species Density Database actual animals, but rather they represent exhibit a significant behavioral response and distributes animats in the water a distribution of animals based on (and therefore Level B harassment) column proportional to the known time density and abundance data, which under each behavioral response that species spend at varying depths. allows for a statistical analysis of the function are shown in Table 11 through The model accounts for number of instances that marine Table 15 above, respectively. See environmental variability of sound mammals may be exposed to sound Section 6, Section 6.4.2.1 (Methods for propagation in both distance and depth levels resulting in an effect. Therefore, Analyzing Impacts from Sonars and when computing the received sound the model estimates the number of Other Transducers) of the Navy’s level received by the animats. The instances in which an effect threshold rulemaking/LOA application for model conducts a statistical analysis was exceeded over the course of a year, additional details on the derivation and based on multiple model runs to but does not estimate the number of use of the behavioral response compute the estimated effects on individual marine mammals that may be functions, thresholds, and the cutoff animals. The number of animats that impacted over a year (i.e., some marine distances that are used to identify Level exceed the thresholds for effects is mammals could be impacted several B harassment by behavioral disturbance. tallied to provide an estimate of the times, while others would not NMFS has reviewed the range distance number of marine mammals that could experience any impact). A detailed to effect data provided by the Navy and be affected. explanation of the Navy’s Acoustic concurs with the analysis. Assumptions in the Navy model Effects Model is provided in the The ranges to PTS for five intentionally err on the side of technical report Quantifying Acoustic representative sonar systems for an overestimation when there are Impacts on Marine Mammals and Sea exposure of 30 seconds is shown in unknowns. Naval activities are modeled Turtles: Methods and Analytical Table 17 relative to the marine as though they would occur regardless Approach for Phase III Training and mammal’s functional hearing group. of proximity to marine mammals, Testing report (U.S. Department of the This period (30 seconds) was chosen meaning that no mitigation is Navy, 2018). based on examining the maximum considered (i.e., no power down or shut amount of time a marine mammal Range to Effects down modeled) and without any would realistically be exposed to levels avoidance of the activity by the animal. The following section provides range that could cause the onset of PTS based The final step of the quantitative to effects for sonar and other active on platform (e.g., ship) speed and a analysis of acoustic effects is to consider acoustic sources, as well as explosives, nominal animal swim speed of the implementation of mitigation and to specific acoustic thresholds approximately 1.5 m per second. The the possibility that marine mammals determined using the Navy Acoustic ranges provided in the table include the would avoid continued or repeated Effects Model. Marine mammals average range to PTS, as well as the sound exposures. For more information exposed within these ranges for the range from the minimum to the on this process, see the discussion in shown duration are predicted to maximum distance at which PTS is the Take Estimation subsection below. experience the associated effect. Range possible for each hearing group.

TABLE 17—RANGE TO PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT (METERS) FOR FIVE REPRESENTATIVE SONAR SYSTEMS

Approximate range in meters for PTS from 30 second exposure 1 Hearing group Sonar bin HF4 Sonar bin LF4 Sonar bin MF1 Sonar bin MF4 Sonar bin MF5

High-frequency cetaceans ...... 29 (22–35) 0 (0–0) 181 (180–190) 30 (30–30) 9 (8–10) Low-frequency cetaceans ...... 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 65 (65–65) 15 (15–15) 0 (0–0) Mid-frequency cetaceans ...... 1 (0–1) 0 (0–0) 16 (16–16) 3 (3–3) 0 (0–0) 1 PTS ranges extend from the sonar or other active acoustic sound source to the indicated distance. The average range to PTS is provided as well as the range from the estimated minimum to the maximum range to PTS in parenthesis.

The tables below illustrate the range from five representative sonar systems to TTS for 1, 30, 60, and 120 seconds (see Table 18 through Table 22).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46359

TABLE 18—RANGES TO TEMPORARY THRESHOLD SHIFT (METERS) FOR SONAR BIN LF4 OVER A REPRESENTATIVE RANGE OF ENVIRONMENTS WITHIN THE MITT STUDY AREA

Approximate TTS ranges (meters) 1 Hearing group Sonar bin LF4 1 second 30 seconds 60 seconds 120 seconds

High-frequency cetaceans ...... 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) Low-frequency cetaceans ...... 3 (3–3) 4 (4–4) 6 (6–6) 9 (9–9) Mid-frequency cetaceans ...... 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 1 Ranges to TTS represent the model predictions in different areas and seasons within the MITT Study Area. The zone in which animals are expected to experience TTS extend from onset-PTS to the distance indicated. The average range to TTS is provided as well as the range from the estimated minimum to the maximum range to TTS in parentheses.

TABLE 19—RANGES TO TEMPORARY THRESHOLD SHIFT (METERS) FOR SONAR BIN MF1 OVER A REPRESENTATIVE RANGE OF ENVIRONMENTS WITHIN THE MITT STUDY AREA

Approximate TTS ranges (meters) 1 Hearing group Sonar Bin MF1

1 second 30 seconds 60 seconds 120 seconds

High-frequency cetaceans ...... 3,181 (2,025–5,025) 3,181 (2,025–5,025) 5,298 (2,275–7,775) 6,436 (2,525–9,775) Low-frequency cetaceans ...... 898 (850–1,025) 898 (850–1,025) 1,271 (1,025–1,525) 1,867 (1,275–3,025) Mid-frequency cetaceans ...... 210 (200–210) 210 (200–210) 302 (300–310) 377 (370–390) 1 Ranges to TTS represent the model predictions in different areas and seasons within the MITT Study Area. The zone in which animals are expected to experience TTS extend from onset-PTS to the distance indicated. The average range to TTS is provided as well as the range from the estimated minimum to the maximum range to TTS in parentheses. Note: Ranges for 1-second and 30-second periods are identical for Bin MF1 because this system nominally pings every 50 seconds; therefore, these periods encompass only a single ping.

TABLE 20—RANGES TO TEMPORARY THRESHOLD SHIFT (METERS) FOR SONAR BIN MF4 OVER A REPRESENTATIVE RANGE OF ENVIRONMENTS WITHIN THE MITT STUDY AREA

Approximate TTS ranges (meters) 1 Hearing group Sonar bin MF4 1 second 30 seconds 60 seconds 120 seconds

High-frequency cetaceans ...... 232 (220–260) 454 (420–600) 601 (575–875) 878 (800–1,525) Low-frequency cetaceans ...... 85 (85–90) 161 (160–170) 229 (220–250) 352 (330–410) Mid-frequency cetaceans ...... 22 (22–22) 35 (35–35) 50 (45–50) 70 (70–70) 1 Ranges to TTS represent the model predictions in different areas and seasons within the MITT Study Area. The zone in which animals are expected to experience TTS extend from onset-PTS to the distance indicated. The average range to TTS is provided as well as the range from the estimated minimum to the maximum range to TTS in parentheses.

TABLE 21—RANGES TO TEMPORARY THRESHOLD SHIFT (METERS) FOR SONAR BIN MF5 OVER A REPRESENTATIVE RANGE OF ENVIRONMENTS WITHIN THE MITT STUDY AREA

Approximate TTS ranges (meters) 1 Hearing group Sonar bin MF5 1 second 30 seconds 60 seconds 120 seconds

High-frequency cetaceans ...... 114 (110–130) 114 (110–130) 168 (150–200) 249 (210–290) Low-frequency cetaceans ...... 11 (10–12) 11 (10–12) 16 (16–17) 23 (23–24) Mid-frequency cetaceans ...... 5 (0–9) 5 (0–9) 12 (11–13) 18 (17–18) 1 Ranges to TTS represent the model predictions in different areas and seasons within the MITT Study Area. The zone in which animals are expected to experience TTS extend from onset-PTS to the distance indicated. The average range to TTS is provided as well as the range from the estimated minimum to the maximum range to TTS in parentheses.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46360 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 22—RANGES TO TEMPORARY THRESHOLD SHIFT (METERS) FOR SONAR BIN HF4 OVER A REPRESENTATIVE RANGE OF ENVIRONMENTS WITHIN THE MITT STUDY AREA

Approximate TTS ranges (meters) 1 Hearing group Sonar bin HF4 1 second 30 seconds 60 seconds 120 seconds

High-frequency cetaceans ...... 155 (110–210) 259 (180–350) 344 (240–480) 445 (300–600) Low-frequency cetaceans ...... 1 (0–2) 2 (1–3) 4 (3–5) 7 (5–8) Mid-frequency cetaceans ...... 10 (7–12) 17 (12–21) 24 (17–30) 33 (25–40) 1 Ranges to TTS represent the model predictions in different areas and seasons within the MITT Study Area. The zone in which animals are expected to experience TTS extend from onset-PTS to the distance indicated. The average range to TTS is provided as well as the range from the estimated minimum to the maximum range to TTS in parentheses.

Explosives from E1 (up to 0.25 lb net explosive injury and mortality are shown in The following section provides the weight) to E12 (up to 1,000 lb net Tables 26 and 27, respectively. NMFS range (distance) over which specific explosive weight) (Tables 23 through has reviewed the range distance to effect physiological or behavioral effects are 27). Ranges are determined by modeling data provided by the Navy and concurs expected to occur based on the the distance that noise from an with the analysis. For additional explosive criteria (see Section 6, Section explosion would need to propagate to information on how ranges to impacts 6.5.2.1.1 of the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA reach exposure level thresholds specific from explosions were estimated, see the application and the Criteria and to a hearing group that would cause technical report Quantifying Acoustic Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and behavioral response (to the degree of Impacts on Marine Mammals and Sea Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III) Level B harassment), TTS, PTS, and Turtles: Methods and Analytical report (U.S. Department of the Navy, non-auditory injury. Ranges are Approach for Phase III Training and 2017c)) and the explosive propagation provided for a representative source Testing (U.S. Navy, 2018). calculations from the Navy Acoustic depth and cluster size for each bin. For Table 23 shows the minimum, Effects Model (see Section 6, Section events with multiple explosions, sound average, and maximum ranges to onset 6.5.2.1.3, Navy Acoustic Effects Model from successive explosions can be of auditory and likely behavioral effects of the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA expected to accumulate and increase the that rise to the level of Level B application). The range to effects are range to the onset of an impact based on harassment for high-frequency cetaceans shown for a range of explosive bins, SEL thresholds. Ranges to non-auditory based on the developed thresholds.

TABLE 23—SEL-BASED RANGES (METERS) TO ONSET PTS, ONSET TTS, AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT BY BEHAVIORAL DISTURBANCE FOR HIGH-FREQUENCY CETACEANS

Range to effects for explosives bin: high-frequency cetaceans 1 Source Depth Bin (m) Cluster Size PTS TTS Behavioral disturbance

E1 ...... 0.1 1 353 (340–370) 1,303 (1,275–1,775) 2,139 (2,025–4,275) ...... 18 1,031 (1,025–1,275) 3,409 (2,525–8,025) 4,208 (3,025–11,525) E2 ...... 0.1 1 431 (410–700) 1,691 (1,525–2,775) 2,550 (2,025–4,525) ...... 5 819 (775–1,275) 2,896 (2,275–6,775) 3,627 (2,525–10,275) E3 ...... 0.1 1 649 (625–700) 2,439 (2,025–4,525) 3,329 (2,525–7,525) ...... 12 1,682 (1,525–2,275) 4,196 (3,025–11,525) 5,388 (4,525–16,275) 18.25 1 720 (675–775) 4,214 (2,275–6,275) 7,126 (3,525–8,775) ...... 12 1,798 (1,525–2,775) 10,872 (4,525–13,775) 14,553 (5,525–17,775) E4 ...... 10 2 1,365 (1,025–2,775) 7,097 (4,275–10,025) 9,939 (5,025–15,275) 60 2 1,056 (875–2,275) 3,746 (2,775–5,775) 5,262 (3,025–7,775) E5 ...... 0.1 20 2,926 (1,525–6,275) 6,741 (4,525–16,025) 9,161 (4,775–20,025) 30 20 4,199 (3,025–6,275) 13,783 (8,775–17,775) 17,360 (10,525–22,775) E6 ...... 0.1 1 1,031 (1,025–1,275) 3,693 (2,025–8,025) 4,659 (3,025–12,775) 30 1 1,268 (1,025–1,275) 7,277 (3,775–8,775) 10,688 (5,275–12,525) E8 ...... 0.1 1 1,790 (1,775–3,025) 4,581 (4,025–10,775) 6,028 (4,525–15,775) 45.75 1 1,842 (1,525–2,025) 9,040 (4,525–12,775) 12,729 (5,025–18,525) E9 ...... 0.1 1 2,343 (2,275–4,525) 5,212 (4,025–13,275) 7,573 (5,025–17,025) E10 ...... 0.1 1 2,758 (2,275–5,025) 6,209 (4,275–16,525) 8,578 (5,275–19,775) E11 ...... 45.75 1 3,005 (2,525–3,775) 11,648 (5,025–18,775) 14,912 (6,525–24,775) 91.4 1 3,234 (2,525–4,525) 5,772 (4,775–11,775) 7,197 (5,775–14,025) E12 ...... 0.1 1 3,172 (3,025–6,525) 7,058 (5,025–17,025) 9,262 (6,025–21,775) ...... 4 4,209 (3,775–10,025) 9,817 (6,275–22,025) 12,432 (7,525–27,775) 1 Average distance (m) to PTS, TTS, and behavioral disturbance thresholds are depicted above the minimum and maximum distances which are in parentheses. Values depict the range produced by SEL hearing threshold criteria levels.

Table 24 shows the minimum, of auditory and likely behavioral effects harassment for mid-frequency cetaceans average, and maximum ranges to onset that rise to the level of Level B based on the developed thresholds.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46361

TABLE 24—SEL-BASED RANGES (METERS) TO ONSET PTS, ONSET TTS, AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT BY BEHAVIORAL DISTURBANCE FOR MID-FREQUENCY CETACEANS

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

E1 ...... 0.1 1 25 (25–25) 116 (110–120) 199 (190–210) 18 94 (90–100) 415 (390–440) 646 (525–700) E2 ...... 0.1 1 30 (30–35) 146 (140–170) 248 (230–370) 5 63 (60–70) 301 (280–410) 481 (430–675) E3 ...... 0.1 1 50 (50–50) 233 (220–250) 381 (360–400) 12 155 (150–160) 642 (525–700) 977 (700–1,025) 18.25 1 40 (40–40) 202 (190–220) 332 (320–350) 12 126 (120–130) 729 (675–775) 1,025 (1,025–1,025) E4 ...... 10 2 76 (70–90) 464 (410–550) 783 (650–975) 60 2 60 (60–60) 347 (310–675) 575 (525–900) E5 ...... 0.1 20 290 (280–300) 1,001 (750–1,275) 1,613 (925–3,275) 30 20 297 (240–420) 1,608 (1,275–2,775) 2,307 (2,025–2,775) E6 ...... 0.1 1 98 (95–100) 430 (400–450) 669 (550–725) 30 1 78 (75–80) 389 (370–410) 619 (600–650) E8 ...... 0.1 1 162 (150–170) 665 (550–700) 982 (725–1,025) 45.75 1 127 (120–130) 611 (600–625) 985 (950–1,025) E9 ...... 0.1 1 215 (210–220) 866 (625–1,000) 1,218 (800–1,525) E10 ...... 0.1 1 270 (250–280) 985 (700–1,275) 1,506 (875–2,525) E11 ...... 45.75 1 241 (230–250) 1,059 (1,000–1,275) 1,874 (1,525–2,025) 91.4 1 237 (230–270) 1,123 (900–2,025) 1,731 (1,275–2,775) E12 ...... 0.1 1 332 (320–370) 1,196 (825–1,525) 1,766 (1,025–3,525) 4 572 (500–600) 1,932 (1,025–4,025) 2,708 (1,275–6,775) 1 Average distance (m) to PTS, TTS, and behavioral disturbance thresholds are depicted above the minimum and maximum distances which are in parentheses. Values depict the range produced by SEL hearing threshold criteria levels.

Table 25 shows the minimum, of auditory and likely behavioral effects harassment for low-frequency cetaceans average, and maximum ranges to onset that rise to the level of Level B based on the developed thresholds.

TABLE 25—SEL-BASED RANGES (METERS) TO ONSET PTS, ONSET TTS, AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT BY BEHAVIORAL DISTURBANCE FOR LOW-FREQUENCY CETACEANS

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

E1 ...... 0.1 1 51 (50–55) 231 (200–250) 378 (280–410) 18 183 (170–190) 691 (450–775) 934 (575–1,275) E2 ...... 0.1 1 66 (65–70) 291 (220–320) 463 (330–500) 5 134 (110–140) 543 (370–600) 769 (490–950) E3 ...... 0.1 1 113 (110–120) 477 (330–525) 689 (440–825) 12 327 (250–370) 952 (600–1,525) 1,240 (775–4,025) 18.25 1 200 (200–200) 955 (925–1,000) 1,534 (1,275–1,775) 12 625 (600–625) 5,517 (2,275–7,775) 10,299 (3,775–13,025) E4 ...... 10 2 429 (370–600) 2,108 (1,775–2,775) 4,663 (3,025–6,025) 60 2 367 (340–470) 1,595 (1,025–2,025) 2,468 (1,525–4,275) E5 ...... 0.1 20 702 (380–1,275) 1,667 (850–11,025) 2,998 (1,025–19,775) 30 20 1,794 (1,275–2,775) 8,341 (3,775–11,525) 13,946 (4,025–22,275) E6 ...... 0.1 1 250 (190–410) 882 (480–1,775) 1,089 (625–6,525) 30 1 495 (490–500) 2,315 (2,025–2,525) 5,446 (3,275–6,025) E8 ...... 0.1 1 415 (270–725) 1,193 (625–4,275) 1,818 (825–8,525) 45.75 1 952 (900–975) 6,294 (3,025–9,525) 12,263 (4,275–20,025) E9 ...... 0.1 1 573 (320–1,025) 1,516 (725–7,275) 2,411 (950–14,275) E10 ...... 0.1 1 715 (370–1,525) 2,088 (825–28,275) 4,378 (1,025–32,275) E11 ...... 45.75 1 1,881 (1,525–2,275) 12,425 (4,275–27,275) 23,054 (7,025–65,275) 91.4 1 1,634 (1,275–2,525) 5,686 (3,775–11,275) 11,618 (5,525–64,275) E12 ...... 0.1 1 790 (420–2,775) 2,698 (925–25,275) 6,032 (1,025–31,275) 4 1,196 (575–6,025) 6,876 (1,525–31,275) 13,073 (3,775–64,275) 1 Average distance (m) to PTS, TTS, and behavioral disturbance thresholds are depicted above the minimum and maximum distances which are in parentheses. Values depict the range produced by SEL hearing threshold criteria levels.

Table 26 shows the minimum, auditory injury as a function of animal gastrointestinal tract injury typically average, and maximum ranges due to mass and explosive bin (i.e., net exceed ranges to slight lung injury; varying propagation conditions to non- explosive weight). Ranges to therefore, the maximum range to effect

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46362 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

is not mass-dependent. Animals within TABLE 26—RANGES 1 TO 50 PERCENT TABLE 26—RANGES 1 TO 50 PERCENT these water volumes would be expected NON-AUDITORY INJURY RISK FOR NON-AUDITORY INJURY RISK FOR to receive minor injuries at the outer ALL MARINE MAMMAL HEARING ALL MARINE MAMMAL HEARING ranges, increasing to more substantial GROUPS—Continued GROUPS—Continued injuries, and finally mortality as an animal approaches the detonation point. Range (m) Bin Range (m) Bin (min-max) (min-max) TABLE 26—RANGES 1 TO 50 PERCENT NON-AUDITORY INJURY RISK FOR E4 ...... 30 (30–35) E12 ...... 195 (180–675) E5 ...... 40 (40–65) ALL MARINE MAMMAL HEARING 1 Distances in meters (m). Average distance E6 ...... 52 (50–60) GROUPS is shown with the minimum and maximum dis- E8 ...... 98 (90–150) tances due to varying propagation environ- ments in parentheses. Range (m) E9 ...... 123 (120–270) Bin E10 ...... 155 (150–430) Note: All ranges to non-auditory injury with- (min-max) in this table are driven by gastrointestinal tract E11 ...... 418 (410–420) injury thresholds regardless of animal mass. 1 ...... 12 (11–13) E2 ...... 16 (15–16) Ranges to mortality, based on animal E3 ...... 25 (25–25) mass, are shown in Table 27 below.

TABLE 27—RANGES 1 TO 50 PERCENT MORTALITY RISK FOR ALL MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS AS A FUNCTION OF ANIMAL MASS

Range to mortality (meters) for various animal mass intervals (kg) 1 Bin 10 250 1,000 5,000 25,000 72,000

E1 ...... 3 (3–3) 1 (0–2) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) E2 ...... 4 (3–4) 2 (1–3) 1 (0–1) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) E3 ...... 9 (7–10) 4 (2–8) 2 (1–2) 1 (0–1) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0) E4 ...... 13 (12–15) 7 (4–12) 3 (3–4) 2 (1–3) 1 (1–1) 1 (0–1) E5 ...... 13 (12–30) 7 (4–25) 3 (2–7) 2 (1–5) 1 (1–2) 1 (0–2) E6 ...... 16 (15–25) 9 (5–23) 4 (3–8) 3 (2–6) 1 (1–2) 1 (1–2) E8 ...... 42 (25–65) 22 (9–50) 11 (6–19) 8 (4–13) 4 (2–6) 3 (1–5) E9 ...... 33 (30–35) 20 (13–30) 10 (9–12) 7 (5–9) 4 (3–4) 3 (2–3) E10 ...... 55 (40–170) 24 (16–35) 13 (11–15) 9 (7–11) 5 (4–5) 4 (3–4) E11 ...... 206 (200–210) 98 (55–170) 44 (35–50) 30 (25–35) 16 (14–18) 12 (10–15) E12 ...... 86 (50–270) 35 (20–210) 16 (13–19) 11 (9–13) 6 (5–6) 5 (4–5) 1 Average distance (m) to mortality is depicted above the minimum and maximum distances, which are in parentheses.

Marine Mammal Density For most cetacean species, abundance finer spatial scales than traditional line- is estimated using line-transect surveys transect or mark recapture analyses and A quantitative analysis of impacts on or mark-recapture studies (e.g., Barlow, for areas that have not been surveyed. a species or stock requires data on their 2010; Barlow and Forney, 2007; Within the geographic area that was abundance and distribution that may be Calambokidis et al., 2008). The result modeled, densities can be predicted affected by anthropogenic activities in provides one single density estimate wherever these habitat variables can be the potentially impacted area. The most value for each species across broad measured or estimated. appropriate metric for this type of geographic areas. This is the general Ideally, density data would be analysis is density, which is the number approach applied in estimating cetacean available for all species throughout the of animals present per unit area. Marine abundance in NMFS’ SARs. Although study area year-round, in order to best species density estimation requires a the single value provides a good average estimate the impacts of Navy activities significant amount of effort to both estimate of abundance (total number of on marine species. However, in many collect and analyze data to produce a individuals) for a specified area, it does places, ship availability, lack of funding, reasonable estimate. Unlike surveys for not provide information on the species inclement weather conditions, and high terrestrial wildlife, many marine species distribution or concentrations within sea states prevent the completion of spend much of their time submerged, that area, and it does not estimate comprehensive year-round surveys. and are not easily observed. In order to density for other timeframes or seasons Even with surveys that are completed, collect enough sighting data to make that were not surveyed. More recently, poor conditions may result in lower reasonable density estimates, multiple spatial habitat modeling developed by sighting rates for species that would observations are required, often in areas NMFS’ Southwest Fisheries Science typically be sighted with greater that are not easily accessible (e.g., far Center has been used to estimate frequency under favorable conditions. offshore). Ideally, marine mammal cetacean densities (Barlow et al., 2009; Lower sighting rates preclude having an species sighting data would be collected Becker et al., 2010, 2012a, b, c, 2014, acceptably low uncertainty in the for the specific area and time period 2016; Ferguson et al., 2006a; Forney et density estimates. A high level of (e.g., season) of interest and density al., 2012, 2015; Redfern et al., 2006). uncertainty, indicating a low level of estimates derived accordingly. However, These models estimate cetacean density confidence in the density estimate, is in many places, poor weather as a continuous function of habitat typical for species that are rare or conditions and high sea states prohibit variables (e.g., sea surface temperature, difficult to sight. In areas where survey the completion of comprehensive visual seafloor depth, etc.) and thus allow data are limited or non-existent, known surveys. predictions of cetacean densities on or inferred associations between marine

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46363

habitat features and the likely presence Bradford et al., 2017; Campbell et al., represent improvements to the estimates of specific species are sometimes used 2014; Jefferson et al., 2014). While used for Phase II. In addition, an to predict densities in the absence of geographically stratified density updated density estimate for minke actual animal sightings. Consequently, estimates provide a better indication of whale was available for Phase III based there is no single source of density data a species’ distribution within the study on line-transect analyses of acoustic for every area, species, and season area, the uncertainty is typically high data collected from a towed hydrophone because of the fiscal costs, resources, because each sub-region estimate is during the 2007 systematic survey and effort involved in providing enough based on a smaller stratified segment of (Norris et al., 2017). survey coverage to consistently estimate the overall survey effort. The Navy developed a protocol and density. 3. Design-based density estimations database to select the best available data To characterize marine species use line-transect survey data from land sources based on species, area, and time density for large oceanic regions, the and aerial surveys designed to cover a (season). The resulting Geographic Navy reviews, critically assesses, and specific geographic area (see Carretta et Information System database, used in prioritizes existing density estimates al., 2015). These estimates use the same the NMSDD, includes seasonal density from multiple sources, requiring the survey data as stratified design-based values for every marine mammal species development of a systematic method for estimates, but are not segmented into present within the MITT Study Area. selecting the most appropriate density sub-regions and instead provide one This database is described in the estimate for each combination of estimate for a large surveyed area. Density Technical Report. species, area, and season. The selection Although relative environmental The Navy describes some of the and compilation of the best available suitability (RES) models provide challenges of interpreting the results of marine species density data resulted in estimates for areas of the oceans that the quantitative analysis summarized the Navy Marine Species Density have not been surveyed using above and described in the Density Database (NMSDD). The Navy vetted all information on species occurrence and Technical Report: ‘‘It is important to cetacean densities with NMFS prior to inferred habitat associations and have consider that even the best estimate of use in the Navy’s acoustic analysis for been used in past density databases, marine species density is really a model this MITT rulemaking. these models were not used in the representation of the values of A variety of density data and density current quantitative analysis. concentration where these animals models are needed in order to develop Below we describe how densities might occur. Each model is limited to a density database that encompasses the were determined for the species in the the variables and assumptions entirety of the MITT Study Area. MITT Study Area. In the MITT Study considered by the original data source Because this data is collected using Area there is a paucity of line-transect provider. No mathematical model different methods with varying amounts survey data, and little is known about representation of any biological of accuracy and uncertainty, the Navy the stock structure of the majority of population is perfect, and with regards has developed a hierarchy to ensure the marine mammal species in the region. to marine mammal biodiversity, any most accurate data is used when The only habitat model available for the single model method will not available. The technical report titled MITT Study Area was developed for completely explain the actual U.S. Navy Marine Species Density sperm whales based on acoustic data distribution and abundance of marine Database Phase III for the Mariana collected during a 2007 line-transect mammal species. It is expected that Islands Training and Testing Study survey (Yack et al., 2016). For other there would be anomalies in the results Area (U.S. Department of the Navy, species, the Navy conducted the first that need to be evaluated, with 2018), hereafter referred to as the comprehensive marine mammal survey independent information for each case, Density Technical Report, describes of waters off Guam and the to support if we might accept or reject these models in detail and provides Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana a model or portions of the model (U.S. detailed explanations of the models Islands in 2007, and data from this Department of the Navy, 2017a).’’ applied to each species density survey were used to derive line-transect NMFS coordinated with the Navy in estimate. The list below describes abundance estimates for 12 cetacean the development of its take estimates models in order of preference. species (Fulling et al., 2011). There has and concurs that the Navy’s approach 1. Spatial density models are not been a subsequent systematic survey for density appropriately utilizes the preferred and used when available of the MITT Study Area at this scale, so best available science. Later, in the because they provide an estimate with these data still provide the best Analysis and Negligible Impact the least amount of uncertainty by available density estimates for this Determination section, we assess how deriving estimates for divided segments region for these species. the estimated take numbers compare to of the sampling area. These models (see In the absence of study-area-specific abundance in order to better understand Becker et al., 2016; Forney et al., 2015) density data, line-transect estimates the potential number of individuals predict spatial variability of animal derived for Hawaiian waters were used impacted. presence as a function of habitat to provide conservative density variables (e.g., sea surface temperature, estimates for the remaining species in Take Estimation seafloor depth, etc.). This model is the MITT Study Area. For Phase II, The 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS developed for areas, species, and, when these estimates were based on considered all training and testing available, specific timeframes (months systematic surveys conducted by NMFS’ activities planned to occur in the MITT or seasons) with sufficient survey data; Southwest Fisheries Science Center Study Area that have the potential to therefore, this model cannot be used for (SWFSC) within the EEZ of the result in the MMPA-defined take of species with low numbers of sightings. Hawaiian Islands (2010) and Palmyra marine mammals. The Navy determined 2. Stratified design-based density Atoll/Kingman Reef (2011–2012) that the two stressors below could result estimates use line-transect survey data allowed NMFS’ PIFSC to update the in the incidental taking of marine with the sampling area divided line-transect density estimates that mammals. NMFS has reviewed the (stratified) into sub-regions, and a included new sea-state-specific Navy’s data and analysis and density is predicted for each sub-region estimates of trackline detection determined that it is complete and (see Barlow, 2016; Becker et al., 2016; probability (Bradford et al., 2017) and accurate and agrees that the following

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46364 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

stressors have the potential to result in Analytical Approach for Phase III includes animal density components takes by harassment of marine mammals Training and Testing (U.S. Department that have been validated and reviewed from the Navy’s planned activities. of the Navy, 2018). The extent to which by a variety of scientists from NMFS D Acoustics (sonar and other the mitigation areas reduce impacts on Science Centers and academic transducers); the affected species is addressed institutions. Several components of the D Explosives (explosive shock wave qualitatively separately in the Analysis model, for example the Duke University and sound, assumed to encompass the and Negligible Impact Determination habitat-based density models, have been risk due to fragmentation). section. published in peer reviewed literature. The quantitative analysis process NMFS coordinated with the Navy in Others like the Atlantic Marine used for the 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS and the development of this quantitative Assessment Program for Protected the Navy’s take request in the method to address the effects of Species, which was conducted by rulemaking/LOA application to estimate procedural mitigation on acoustic and NMFS Science Centers, have undergone potential exposures to marine mammals explosive exposures and takes, and quality assurance and quality control resulting from acoustic and explosive NMFS independently reviewed and (QA/QC) processes. Finally the NAEMO stressors is detailed in the technical concurs with the Navy that it is model simulation components report titled Quantifying Acoustic appropriate to incorporate the underwent QA/QC review and Impacts on Marine Mammals and Sea quantitative assessment of mitigation validation for model parts such as the Turtles: Methods and Analytical into the take estimates based on the best scenario builder, acoustic builder, Approach for Phase III Training and available science. scenario simulator, etc., conducted by Testing (U.S. Department of the Navy, As a general matter, NMFS does not qualified statisticians and modelers to 2018). The Navy Acoustic Effects Model prescribe the methods for estimating ensure accuracy. Other models and (NAEMO) brings together scenario take for any applicant, but we review methodologies have gone through simulations of the Navy’s activities, and ensure that applicants use the best similar review processes. sound propagation modeling, and available science, and methodologies In summary, we believe the Navy’s marine mammal distribution (based on that are logical and technically sound. methods, including the underlying density and group size) by species to Applicants may use different methods NAEMO modeling and the method for model and quantify the exposure of of calculating take (especially when incorporating mitigation and avoidance, marine mammals above identified using models) and still get to a result are the most appropriate methods for thresholds for behavioral harassment, that is representative of the best predicting non-auditory injury, PTS, TTS, PTS, non-auditory injury, and available science and that allows for a TTS, and behavioral disturbance. But mortality. rigorous and accurate evaluation of the even with the consideration of NAEMO estimates acoustic and effects on the affected populations. mitigation and avoidance, given some of explosive effects without taking There are multiple pieces of the Navy the more conservative components of mitigation into account; therefore, the take estimation methods—propagation the methodology (e.g., the thresholds do model overestimates predicted impacts models, animat movement models, and not consider ear recovery between on marine mammals within mitigation behavioral thresholds, for example. pulses), we would describe the zones. To account for mitigation for NMFS evaluates the acceptability of application of these methods as marine species in the take estimates, the these pieces as they evolve and are used identifying the maximum number of Navy conducts a quantitative in different rules and impact analyses. instances in which marine mammals assessment of mitigation. The Navy Some of the pieces of the Navy’s take would be reasonably expected to be conservatively quantifies the manner in estimation process have been used in taken through non-auditory injury, PTS, which procedural mitigation is expected Navy incidental take rules since 2009 TTS, or behavioral disturbance. to reduce the risk for model-estimated and undergone multiple public PTS for exposures to sonars and for comment processes, all of them have Humpback Whales Around Saipan model-estimated mortality for exposures undergone extensive internal Navy As noted above, since publication of to explosives, based on species review, and all of them have undergone the proposed rule, additional sightability, observation area, visibility, comprehensive review by NMFS, which information and analysis have been and the ability to exercise positive has sometimes resulted in modifications used to refine the assessment for the control over the sound source. See the to methods or models. impacts of sonar training and testing on proposed rule (85 FR 5782; January 31, The Navy uses rigorous review humpback whales around Saipan, 2020) for a description of the process for processes (verification, validation, and resulting in an increase in the total take assessing the effectiveness of procedural accreditation processes, peer and public numbers for humpback whales. Below, mitigation measures, along with the review) to ensure the data and we present updated information process for assessing the potential for methodology it uses represent the best describing both the Navy’s activities and animal avoidance. Where the analysis available science. For instance, the expected humpback whale occurrence indicates mitigation would effectively NAEMO model is the result of a NMFS- in the specific area, as well as the reduce risk, the model-estimated PTS led Center for Independent Experts (CIE) additional analysis of this information takes are considered reduced to TTS review of the components used in to estimate take of humpback whales in and the model-estimated mortalities are earlier models. The acoustic this subset of the MITT Study Area. considered reduced to injury. For a propagation component of the NAEMO This information was then used to complete explanation of the process for model (CASS/GRAB) is accredited by refine the total take numbers for assessing the effects of procedural the Oceanographic and Atmospheric humpback whales and the change is mitigation, see the Navy’s rulemaking/ Master Library (OAML), and many of reflected in Table 28 and Table 47. LOA application (Section 6: Take the environmental variables used in the Given concern for impacts to Estimates for Marine Mammals, and NAEMO model come from approved humpback whales, including cow-calf Section 11: Mitigation Measures) and OAML databases and are based on in- pairs, in the Chalan Kanoa Reef and the technical report titled Quantifying situ data collection. The animal density Marpi Reef Geographic Mitigation Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals components of the NAEMO model are Areas, more specific information and Sea Turtles: Methods and base products of the NMSDD, which regarding Navy activities, and the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46365

availability of more detailed occurrence the areas around Saipan covered by the percent CI of 41–91) animals. Therefore, data for humpback whales in these surveys conducted by the PIFSC and we are conservatively estimating that 61 areas, and in coordination with NMFS’ reported in the Hill et al. (2020a) paper animals a day could be taken on 5 days Interagency Cooperation Division, and the Hill et al. (2020b) abundance in which the exercise occurs for a total NMFS has updated and refined the and density report. We believe this of 305 humpback whales taken by Level analysis of humpback whale impacts in approach more accurately estimates B harassment annually in the two these areas since publication of the potential exposures and takes of whales Geographic Mitigation Areas combined proposed rule. The analysis considers as a result of MF1 MFAS in these two (assuming 20 hrs of MF1 MFAS the new annual 20-hour cap on MF1 Geographic Mitigation Areas. More occurred). The Navy provided updated hull-mounted sonar in both mitigation extensive mark/recapture data in this NAEMO-based calculations (as areas and, specifically, estimates smaller area provide a more granular described above) that estimated 13 takes potential take of humpback whales and robust estimate of potential by Level B harassment during 20 hours should the Navy conduct the full 20 abundance and density for this specific of MF1 sonar. Subtracting these 13 takes hours of sonar training and testing in area than the density estimate used by from our estimate of 305 exposures these areas, most likely in the form of the Navy for the broader MITT Study (takes) results in 292 animals based on a Small Coordinated ASW Exercises or Area. Estimates provided by the PIFSC the new abundance information. Using TRACKEX events (or a combination of (Hill et al., 2020b) are preliminary, the proportions of these takes as these two activities). represent ‘‘snapshots’’ of abundance for presented by the Navy estimated take At the request of NMFS, subsequent that survey period based on the timing (12 percent behavioral and 88 percent to the publication of the proposed rule, of the survey, and may change—but TTS) results in an additional 35 takes by the Navy provided refined estimates of these estimates represent the best behavioral disturbance and 257 takes by the number of humpback whales available scientific data for two reasons: TTS annually. estimated to be taken as prorated from (1) Estimates are area specific; and (2) This is a greater number of takes and the NAEMO model. These new estimates are far more robust than a a more conservative approach than the estimates were based on 20 hours of non-model approach (e.g., sightings per Navy’s estimate and increases the total MF1 MFAS occurring in the Marpi Reef unit of effort approach). take by Level B harassment, but also and Chalan Kanoa Reef Geographic provides a more accurate representation We used an approach based on the Mitigation Areas (outside of 3 nmi and of how many takes by Level B annual abundance estimates from the waters deeper than 60 m) during harassment could occur during the December through April. The analysis PIFSC report (Hill et al., 2020b) to breeding season in the two Geographic assumed takes could occur in either of derive estimates of animals that may be Mitigation Areas. The maximum the two geographic mitigation areas. The exposed to MF1 MFAS within these two number of animals (61) that could be resulting take estimates provided by the Geographic Mitigation Areas. taken in a day is a very conservative, Navy were 2.12 takes by behavioral Preliminary annual (2015–2019) worst-case scenario estimate based on disturbance and 11.08 takes by TTS (a estimates of abundance, including the best available abundance data for total of 13.20 takes by Level B standard errors (SE), 95 percent humpback whales. We do not know harassment). These take estimates confidence intervals (CI), and densities how humpback whales move between represent five ASW TRACKEX events of humpback whales in the PIFSC’s the two Geographic Mitigation Areas or with each event using four hours of MF1 study area were calculated using mark- if more whales may be present in one sonar. While other configurations of the recapture analyses (Table 3 in Hill et al., Geographic Mitigation Area versus the 2 20 hours could occur, NMFS and the 2020b). Densities (whales/km ) are other when the Navy is conducting their Navy concur that five 4-hour exercises reported for the full survey area (839 activity. We also assume the Navy could 2 on five different days best represents the km ) and the truncated survey area engage in exercises that only occur in likely scenario that allows for the most where most of the effort and all of the one of two Geographic Mitigation Areas appropriate take estimate. A single 4-hr humpback whale encounters occurred or it could be split between the two TRACKEX event was expected to result (384 km2) areas off the west side of areas and involve multiple ships. We in 0.42 takes by behavioral disturbance Saipan to Chalan Kanoa Reef and north also acknowledge takes of humpback and 2.2 takes by TTS (a total of 2.62 to Marpi Reef. The error associated with whales would certainly be less if the takes by Level B harassment). However, the average non-calf and total Navy’s MF1 MFAS use occurs at the the approach used to calculate these abundance was obtained by summing beginning or toward the end of the take estimates did not adequately the variances of the annual estimates breeding season in the Geographic consider the concentration of humpback even though these estimates are not Mitigation Areas. whales found within these established independent, as using a bootstrap or There is a very low likelihood that a breeding and calving grounds from other approach to estimate uncertainty humpback whale would accumulate December through April. was beyond the scope of this enough exposure to result in PTS in the NMFS conducted its own analysis of preliminary analysis. The average non- two Geographic Mitigation Areas. the take by Level A harassment (by PTS) calf abundance from 2015–2019 was 44 However, the Navy’s approach to and Level B harassment (both TTS and animals (Table 3 in Hill et al., 2020b). accounting for avoidance does not behavioral disruption) that could occur PIFSC provided estimates of calf address possible differences in in the Chalan Kanoa Reef and Marpi abundance in their annual abundance avoidance capability based on an Reef Geographic Mitigation Areas under estimates by increasing the average animal’s life-stage or particular life the 20-hr cap, for the purposes of both annual abundance of whales (non-calf) function at the time of exposure. better understanding the impacts to by the proportion of calves seen in the Mother-calf pairs on the calving grounds adults and calves in this important area four years of surveys where calves were may be less capable of avoiding and modifying the total take numbers seen (2015–2018). The proportion of additional exposures at levels that could for humpback whales given more calves ranges from 0.5 to 0.2. This cause PTS, as compared to individual granular survey data now being increased the average number of adult males or females without calves. considered in this area. Our exposure animals (non-calf) from 44 to 61 (total The age of the calf may also be a factor analysis is focused on the whales within abundance (44) and 17 calves; with a 95 in the avoidance capability of a mother-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46366 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

calf pair (e.g., neonates may be Mitigation Areas and to determine if any for authorization are the maximum particularly vulnerable). Mother-calf changes are needed through Adaptive number of instances in which marine pairs may respond differently to MF1 Management. mammals are reasonably expected to be MFAS at close range. Other potential Summary of Estimated Take From taken. stressors (e.g., presence of breeding Training and Testing Activities For training and testing activities, males, other nearby vessel activity, or Based on the methods discussed in Table 28 summarizes the Navy’s take potential predators) may influence how estimate and request and includes the humpback whales (including cow-calf the previous sections and the Navy’s model and quantitative assessment of maximum amount of Level A pairs) respond to acoustic stressors. harassment and Level B harassment Therefore, we estimate that up to one mitigation, the Navy provided its take estimate and request for authorization of annually and for the seven-year period mother-calf pair of humpback whales takes incidental to the use of acoustic that NMFS concurs is reasonably likely could be taken by Level A harassment and explosive sources for training and to occur by species. Note that take by by PTS over the total seven-year period testing activities both annually (based Level B harassment includes both of the rule. on the maximum number of activities behavioral disturbance and TTS. Tables Additional mitigation by the Navy that could occur per 12-month period) 6.4–13 through 6.4–38 in Section 6 of will include reporting of all active sonar and over the seven-year period covered the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application use (all bins, by bin) in the Marpi Reef by the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA provide the comparative amounts of and Chalan Kanoa Geographic application. NMFS has reviewed the TTS and behavioral disturbance for each Mitigation Areas from December 1 Navy’s data, methodology, and analysis species annually, noting that if a through April 30. This will provide and determined that it is complete and modeled marine mammal was ‘‘taken’’ NMFS with more specific data in order accurate. NMFS agrees that the through exposure to both TTS and to evaluate sonar use with current estimates for incidental takes by behavioral disruption in the model, it mitigation measures in the Geographic harassment from all sources requested was recorded as a TTS.

TABLE 28—ANNUAL AND SEVEN-YEAR TOTAL SPECIES-SPECIFIC TAKE ESTIMATES AUTHORIZED FROM ACOUSTIC AND EXPLOSIVE SOUND SOURCE EFFECTS FOR ALL TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES IN THE MITT STUDY AREA

Annual 7-Year total 1 Species Level B Level A Level B Level A harassment harassment harassment harassment

Mysticetes Blue whale * ...... 24 0 169 0 Bryde’s whale ...... 298 0 2,078 0 Fin whale * ...... 25 0 173 0 Humpback whale * ...... 771 0 3,348 ** 1 Minke whale ...... 95 0 665 0 Omura’s whale ...... 29 0 199 0 Sei whale* ...... 155 0 1,083 0 Odontocetes Blainville’s beaked whale ...... 1,718 0 12,033 0 Bottlenose dolphin ...... 137 0 961 0 Cuvier’s beaked whale ...... 646 0 4,529 0 Dwarf sperm whale ...... 8,499 50 59,459 341 False killer whale ...... 762 0 5,331 0 Fraser’s dolphin ...... 13,278 1 92,931 8 Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale ...... 3,726 0 26,088 0 Killer whale ...... 44 0 309 0 Longman’s beaked whale ...... 6,066 0 42,487 0 Melon-headed whale ...... 2,815 0 19,691 0 Pantropical spotted dolphin ...... 14,896 1 104,242 7 Pygmy killer whale ...... 104 0 726 0 Pygmy sperm whale ...... 3,410 19 23,853 136 Risso’s dolphin ...... 3,170 0 22,179 0 Rough-toothed dolphin ...... 197 0 1,379 0 Short-finned pilot whale ...... 1,163 0 8,140 0 Sperm whale * ...... 203 0 1,420 0 Spinner dolphin ...... 1,414 1 9,896 4 Striped dolphin ...... 4,007 0 28,038 0 * ESA-listed species within the MITT Study Area. ** There is one mother-calf pair of humpback whales estimated to be taken by Level A harassment by PTS over the period of the rule. See the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section for further details. 1 The 7-year totals may be less than the annual totals times seven, given that not all activities occur every year, some activities occur multiple times within a year, and some activities only occur a few times over the course of a 7-year period.

Mitigation Measures to the activity, and other means of to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas effecting the least practicable adverse of similar significance, and on the Under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the impact on the species or stocks and availability of the species or stocks for MMPA, NMFS must set forth the their habitat, paying particular attention subsistence uses (‘‘least practicable permissible methods of taking pursuant

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46367

adverse impact’’). NMFS does not have annual rates of recruitment or survival groups of individuals that belong to the a regulatory definition for least (50 CFR 216.103 and 50 CFR 18.27(c)). same species and that are located in a practicable adverse impact. The 2004 Recruitment (i.e., reproduction) and manner that allows for interbreeding. In NDAA amended the MMPA as it relates survival rates are used to determine fact under MMPA section 3(11), the to military readiness activities and the population growth rates 2 and therefore term ‘‘stock’’ in the MMPA is incidental take authorization process are considered in evaluating population interchangeable with the statutory term such that a determination of ‘‘least level impacts. ‘‘population stock.’’ Both the negligible practicable adverse impact’’ shall As stated in the preamble to the impact standard and the least include consideration of personnel proposed rule for the MMPA incidental practicable adverse impact standard call safety, practicality of implementation, take implementing regulations, not for evaluation at the level of the species and impact on the effectiveness of the every population-level impact violates or stock, and the terms ‘‘species’’ and military readiness activity. the negligible impact requirement. The ‘‘stock’’ both relate to populations; In Conservation Council for Hawaii v. negligible impact standard does not therefore, it is appropriate to view both National Marine Fisheries Service, 97 F. require a finding that the anticipated the negligible impact standard and the Supp.3d 1210, 1229 (D. Haw. 2015), the take will have ‘‘no effect’’ on population least practicable adverse impact Court stated that NMFS ‘‘appear[s] to numbers or growth rates: The statutory standard as having a population-level think [it] satisf[ies] the statutory ‘least standard does not require that the same focus. practicable adverse impact’ requirement recovery rate be maintained, rather that This interpretation is consistent with with a ‘negligible impact’ finding.’’ no significant effect on annual rates of Congress’ statutory findings for enacting More recently, expressing similar recruitment or survival occurs. The key the MMPA, nearly all of which are most concerns in a challenge to a U.S. Navy factor is the significance of the level of applicable at the species or stock (i.e., Surveillance Towed Array Sensor impact on rates of recruitment or population) level. See MMPA section 2 System Low Frequency Active Sonar survival. (54 FR 40338, 40341–42; (finding that it is species and population (SURTASS LFA) incidental take rule (77 September 29, 1989). stocks that are or may be in danger of FR 50290), the Ninth Circuit Court of While some level of impact on extinction or depletion; that it is species Appeals in Natural Resources Defense population numbers or growth rates of and population stocks that should not Council (NRDC) v. Pritzker, 828 F.3d a species or stock may occur and still diminish beyond being significant 1125, 1134 (9th Cir. 2016), stated, satisfy the negligible impact functioning elements of their ‘‘[c]ompliance with the ‘negligible requirement—even without ecosystems; and that it is species and impact’ requirement does not mean consideration of mitigation—the least population stocks that should not be there [is] compliance with the ‘least practicable adverse impact provision permitted to diminish below their practicable adverse impact’ standard.’’ separately requires NMFS to prescribe optimum sustainable population level). As the Ninth Circuit noted in its means of effecting the least practicable Annual rates of recruitment (i.e., opinion, however, the Court was adverse impact on the species or stock reproduction) and survival are the key interpreting the statute without the and its habitat, paying particular biological metrics used in the evaluation benefit of NMFS’ formal interpretation. attention to rookeries, mating grounds, of population-level impacts, and We state here explicitly that NMFS is in and areas of similar significance, 50 CFR accordingly these same metrics are also full agreement that the ‘‘negligible 216.102(b), which are typically used in the evaluation of population impact’’ and ‘‘least practicable adverse identified as mitigation measures.3 level impacts for the least practicable impact’’ requirements are distinct, even The negligible impact and least adverse impact standard. though both statutory standards refer to practicable adverse impact standards in Recognizing this common focus of the species and stocks. With that in mind, the MMPA both call for evaluation at least practicable adverse impact and we provide further explanation of our the level of the ‘‘species or stock.’’ The negligible impact provisions on the interpretation of least practicable MMPA does not define the term ‘‘species or stock’’ does not mean we adverse impact, and explain what ‘‘species.’’ However, Merriam-Webster conflate the two standards; despite some distinguishes it from the negligible Dictionary defines ‘‘species’’ to include common statutory language, we impact standard. This discussion is ‘‘related organisms or populations recognize the two provisions are consistent with previous rules we have potentially capable of interbreeding.’’ different and have different functions. issued, such as the Navy’s HSTT rule See www.merriam-webster.com/ First, a negligible impact finding is (83 FR 66846; December 27, 2018), dictionary/species (emphasis added). required before NMFS can issue an Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing rule Section 3(11) of the MMPA defines incidental take authorization. Although (84 FR 70712; December 23, 2019), and ‘‘stock’’ as a group of marine mammals it is acceptable to use the mitigation the Northwest Training and Testing of the same species or smaller taxa in a measures to reach a negligible impact (NWTT) proposed rule (0648–BJ30; June common spatial arrangement that finding (see 50 CFR 216.104(c)), no 02, 2020). interbreed when mature. The definition amount of mitigation can enable NMFS Before NMFS can issue incidental of ‘‘population’’ is a group of to issue an incidental take authorization take regulations under section interbreeding organisms that represents for an activity that still would not meet 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, it must make the level of organization at which the negligible impact standard. a finding that the total taking will have speciation begins. www.merriam- Moreover, even where NMFS can reach a ‘‘negligible impact’’ on the affected webster.com/dictionary/population. The a negligible impact finding—which we ‘‘species or stocks’’ of marine mammals. definition of ‘‘population’’ is strikingly emphasize does allow for the possibility NMFS’ and U.S. Fish and Wildlife similar to the MMPA’s definition of of some ‘‘negligible’’ population-level Service’s implementing regulations for ‘‘stock,’’ with both definitions involving impact—the agency must still prescribe section 101(a)(5) both define ‘‘negligible measures that will effect the least impact’’ as an impact resulting from the 2 A growth rate can be positive, negative, or flat. practicable amount of adverse impact specified activity that cannot be 3 For purposes of this discussion, we omit upon the affected species or stock. reference to the language in the standard for least reasonably expected to, and is not practicable adverse impact that says we also must Section 101(a)(5)(A)(i)(II) requires reasonably likely to, adversely affect the mitigate for subsistence impacts because they are NMFS to issue, in conjunction with its species or stock through effects on not at issue in this rule. authorization, binding—and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46368 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

enforceable—restrictions (in the form of meaning to the least practicable adverse Accordingly, NMFS’ analysis focuses on regulations) setting forth how the impact standard apart from the measures that are designed to avoid or activity must be conducted, thus negligible impact standard, and further, minimize impacts on individual marine ensuring the activity has the ‘‘least that the Court’s use of the term ‘‘marine mammals that are likely to increase the practicable adverse impact’’ on the mammals’’ was not addressing the probability or severity of population- affected species or stocks. In situations question of whether the standard level effects. where mitigation is specifically needed applies to individual animals as While direct evidence of impacts to to reach a negligible impact opposed to the species or stock as a species or stocks from a specified determination, section 101(a)(5)(A)(i)(II) whole. We recognize that while activity is rarely available, and also provides a mechanism for ensuring consideration of mitigation can play a additional study is still needed to compliance with the ‘‘negligible role in a negligible impact understand how specific disturbance impact’’ requirement. Finally, the least determination, consideration of events affect the fitness of individuals of practicable adverse impact standard also mitigation measures extends beyond certain species, there have been requires consideration of measures for that analysis. In evaluating what improvements in understanding the marine mammal habitat, with particular mitigation measures are appropriate, process by which disturbance effects are attention to rookeries, mating grounds, NMFS considers the potential impacts translated to the population. With and other areas of similar significance, of the Specified Activities, the recent scientific advancements (both and for subsistence impacts, whereas availability of measures to minimize marine mammal energetic research and the negligible impact standard is those potential impacts, and the the development of energetic concerned solely with conclusions practicability of implementing those frameworks), the relative likelihood or about the impact of an activity on measures, as we describe below. degree of impacts on species or stocks may often be inferred given a detailed annual rates of recruitment and Implementation of Least Practicable 4 understanding of the activity, the survival. In NRDC v. Pritzker, the Court Adverse Impact Standard stated, ‘‘[t]he statute is properly read to environment, and the affected species or mean that even if population levels are Given the NRDC v. Pritzker decision, stocks—and the best available science not threatened significantly, still the we discuss here how we determine has been used here. This same agency must adopt mitigation measures whether a measure or set of measures information is used in the development aimed at protecting marine mammals to meets the ‘‘least practicable adverse of mitigation measures and helps us the greatest extent practicable in light of impact’’ standard. Our separate analysis understand how mitigation measures military readiness needs.’’ Pritzker at of whether the take anticipated to result contribute to lessening effects (or the 1134 (emphases added). This statement from the Navy’s activities meets the risk thereof) to species or stocks. We is consistent with our understanding ‘‘negligible impact’’ standard appears in also acknowledge that there is always stated above that even when the effects the Analysis and Negligible Impact the potential that new information, or a of an action satisfy the negligible impact Determination section below. new recommendation could become Our evaluation of potential mitigation standard (i.e., in the Court’s words, available in the future and necessitate measures includes consideration of two ‘‘population levels are not threatened reevaluation of mitigation measures primary factors: (which may be addressed through significantly’’), still the agency must (1) The manner in which, and the prescribe mitigation under the least adaptive management) to see if further degree to which, implementation of the reductions of population impacts are practicable adverse impact standard. potential measure(s) is expected to However, as the statute indicates, the possible and practicable. reduce adverse impacts to marine In the evaluation of specific measures, focus of both standards is ultimately the mammal species or stocks, their habitat, the details of the specified activity will impact on the affected ‘‘species or and their availability for subsistence necessarily inform each of the two stock,’’ and not solely focused on or uses (where relevant). This analysis primary factors discussed above directed at the impact on individual considers such things as the nature of (expected reduction of impacts and marine mammals. the potential adverse impact (such as We have carefully reviewed and practicability), and are carefully likelihood, scope, and range), the considered to determine the types of considered the Ninth Circuit’s opinion likelihood that the measure will be mitigation that are appropriate under in NRDC v. Pritzker in its entirety. effective if implemented, and the the least practicable adverse impact While the Court’s reference to ‘‘marine likelihood of successful standard. Analysis of how a potential mammals’’ rather than ‘‘marine mammal implementation; and mitigation measure may reduce adverse species or stocks’’ in the italicized (2) The practicability of the measures impacts on a marine mammal stock or language above might be construed as a for applicant implementation. species, consideration of personnel holding that the least practicable Practicability of implementation may safety, practicality of implementation, adverse impact standard applies at the consider such things as cost, impact on and consideration of the impact on individual ‘‘marine mammal’’ level, i.e., activities, and, in the case of a military effectiveness of military readiness that NMFS must require mitigation to readiness activity, specifically considers activities are not issues that can be minimize impacts to each individual personnel safety, practicality of meaningfully evaluated through a yes/ marine mammal unless impracticable, implementation, and impact on the no lens. The manner in which, and the we believe such an interpretation effectiveness of the military readiness degree to which, implementation of a reflects an incomplete appreciation of activity. measure is expected to reduce impacts, the Court’s holding. In our view, the While the language of the least as well as its practicability in terms of opinion as a whole turned on the practicable adverse impact standard these considerations, can vary widely. Court’s determination that NMFS had calls for minimizing impacts to affected For example, a time/area restriction not given separate and independent species or stocks, we recognize that the could be of very high value for reduction of impacts to those species or decreasing population-level impacts 4 Outside of the military readiness context, mitigation may also be appropriate to ensure stocks accrues through the application (e.g., avoiding disturbance of feeding compliance with the ‘‘small numbers’’ language in of mitigation measures that limit females in an area of established MMPA sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D). impacts to individual animals. biological importance) or it could be of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46369

lower value (e.g., decreased disturbance these types of disruptions; and limiting to accomplish its objective. If evidence in an area of high productivity but of degradation of habitat. Mitigating these shows that a measure has not typically less biological importance). Regarding types of effects is intended to reduce the been effective nor successful, then practicability, a measure might involve likelihood that the activity will result in either that measure should be modified restrictions in an area or time that energetic or other types of impacts that or the potential value of the measure to impedes the Navy’s ability to certify a are more likely to result in reduced reduce effects should be lowered. strike group (higher impact on mission reproductive success or survivorship. It 2. Practicability. Factors considered effectiveness and national security), or it is also important to consider the degree may include cost, impact on activities, could mean delaying a small in-port of impacts that are expected in the and, in the case of a military readiness training event by 30 minutes to avoid absence of mitigation in order to assess activity, will include personnel safety, exposure of a marine mammal to the added value of any potential practicality of implementation, and injurious levels of sound (lower impact). measures. Finally, because the least impact on the effectiveness of the A responsible evaluation of ‘‘least practicable adverse impact standard military readiness activity (see MMPA practicable adverse impact’’ will gives NMFS discretion to weigh a section 101(a)(5)(A)(ii)). consider the factors along these realistic variety of factors when determining Assessment of Mitigation Measures for scales. Accordingly, the greater the appropriate mitigation measures and the MITT Study Area likelihood that a measure will because the focus of the standard is on contribute to reducing the probability or reducing impacts at the species or stock Section 216.104(a)(11) of NMFS’ severity of adverse impacts to the level, the least practicable adverse implementing regulations requires an species or stock or its habitat, the greater impact standard does not compel applicant for incidental take the weight that measure is given when mitigation for every kind of take, or authorization to include in its request, considered in combination with every individual taken, if that mitigation among other things, ‘‘the availability practicability to determine the is unlikely to meaningfully contribute to and feasibility (economic and appropriateness of the mitigation the reduction of adverse impacts on the technological) of equipment, methods, measure, and vice versa. We discuss species or stock and its habitat, even and manner of conducting such activity consideration of these factors in greater when practicable for implementation by or other means of effecting the least detail below. the applicant. practicable adverse impact upon the 1. Reduction of adverse impacts to The status of the species or stock is affected species or stocks, their habitat, marine mammal species or stocks and also relevant in evaluating the and [where applicable] on their their habitat.5 The emphasis given to a appropriateness of potential mitigation availability for subsistence uses, paying measure’s ability to reduce the impacts measures in the context of least particular attention to rookeries, mating on a species or stock considers the practicable adverse impact. The grounds, and areas of similar degree, likelihood, and context of the following are examples of factors that significance.’’ Thus NMFS’ analysis of anticipated reduction of impacts to may (either alone, or in combination) the sufficiency and appropriateness of individuals (and how many individuals) result in greater emphasis on the an applicant’s measures under the least as well as the status of the species or importance of a mitigation measure in practicable adverse impact standard will stock. reducing impacts on a species or stock: always begin with evaluation of the The ultimate impact on any The stock is known to be decreasing or mitigation measures presented in the individual from a disturbance event status is unknown, but believed to be application. (which informs the likelihood of declining; the known annual mortality NMFS has fully reviewed the adverse species- or stock-level effects) is (from any source) is approaching or specified activities and the mitigation dependent on the circumstances and exceeding the potential biological measures included in the Navy’s associated contextual factors, such as removal (PBR) level (as defined in rulemaking/LOA application and the duration of exposure to stressors. MMPA section 3(20)); the affected 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS to determine if Though any proposed mitigation needs species or stock is a small, resident the mitigation measures would result in to be evaluated in the context of the population; or the stock is involved in the least practicable adverse impact on specific activity and the species or a UME or has other known marine mammals and their habitat. stocks affected, measures with the vulnerabilities, such as recovering from NMFS worked with the Navy in the following types of effects have greater an oil spill. development of the Navy’s initially value in reducing the likelihood or Habitat mitigation, particularly as it proposed measures, which were severity of adverse species- or stock- relates to rookeries, mating grounds, and informed by years of implementation level impacts: Avoiding or minimizing areas of similar significance, is also and monitoring. A complete discussion injury or mortality; limiting interruption relevant to achieving the standard and of the Navy’s evaluation process used to of known feeding, breeding, mother/ can include measures such as reducing develop, assess, and select mitigation young, or resting behaviors; minimizing impacts of the activity on known prey measures, which was informed by input the abandonment of important habitat utilized in the activity area or reducing from NMFS, can be found in Section 5 (temporally and spatially); minimizing impacts on physical habitat. As with (Mitigation) and Appendix I the number of individuals subjected to species- or stock-related mitigation, the (Geographic Mitigation Assessment) of emphasis given to a measure’s ability to the 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS. The process 5 We recognize the least practicable adverse reduce impacts on a species or stock’s described in Section 5 (Mitigation) and impact standard requires consideration of measures habitat considers the degree, likelihood, Appendix I (Geographic Mitigation that will address minimizing impacts on the and context of the anticipated reduction Assessment) of the 2020 MITT FSEIS/ availability of the species or stocks for subsistence uses where relevant. Because subsistence uses are of impacts to habitat. Because habitat OEIS robustly supported NMFS’ not implicated for this action, we do not discuss value is informed by marine mammal independent evaluation of whether the them. However, a similar framework would apply presence and use, in some cases there mitigation measures meet the least for evaluating those measures, taking into account may be overlap in measures for the practicable adverse impact standard. the MMPA’s directive that we make a finding of no unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of species or stock and for use of habitat. As a general matter, where an the species or stocks for taking for subsistence, and We consider available information applicant proposes measures that are the relevant implementing regulations. indicating the likelihood of any measure likely to reduce impacts to marine

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46370 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

mammals, the fact that they are are practicable for implementation. where the disruption of those behaviors included in the application indicates Below we describe the added measures would have a higher probability of that the measures are practicable, and it that the Navy will implement and resulting in impacts on reproduction or is not necessary for NMFS to conduct a explain the manner in which they are survival of individuals that could lead detailed analysis of the measures the expected to reduce the likelihood or to population-level impacts. applicant proposed (rather, they are severity of adverse impacts on The Navy assessed the practicability simply included). We note that in their humpback whales and their habitat. of these measures in the context of application, the Navy added three 1. Cap on MF1 mid-frequency active personnel safety, practicality of geographic mitigation areas with sonar use in the Chalan Kanoa and implementation, and their impacts on accompanying mitigation measures that Marpi Reef Geographic Mitigation the Navy’s ability to meet their Title 10 are new since the 2015–2020 MITT Areas. The Navy will implement an requirements and found that the incidental take regulations: (1) Marpi annual 20-hour cap from December 1 measures are supportable. As described Reef Geographic Mitigation Area—to through April 30 on surface ship hull- in more detail below, NMFS has avoid potential impacts from explosives mounted MF1 mid-frequency active independently evaluated the measures on marine mammals and report hours of sonar within the Chalan Kanoa Reef and the Navy proposed in the manner MFAS–MF1 within the mitigation area, Marpi Reef Geographic Mitigation Areas described earlier in this section (i.e., in which contains a seasonal presence of to reduce impacts to humpback whales consideration of their ability to reduce humpback whales (2) Chalan Kanoa while allowing the Navy to retain adverse impacts on marine mammal Reef Geographic Mitigation Area—to critical shallow water training flexibility species and their habitat and their avoid potential impacts from explosives within the MITT Study Area. This cap practicability for implementation). We on marine mammals and report hours of on activities (MF1 sonar) in these areas have determined that the measures will MFAS–MF1 within the mitigation area, with higher concentrations of humpback significantly and adequately reduce which contains a seasonal presence of whales engaged in important impacts on the affected marine mammal humpback whales, and (3) Agat Bay reproductive behaviors is expected to species and their habitat and, further, be Nearshore Geographic Mitigation Area— reduce the probability or severity of practicable for Navy implementation. to avoid potential impacts from impacts on humpback whales that Therefore, the mitigation measures explosives and MFAS–MF1 on spinner would be more likely to adversely affect assure that Navy’s activities will have dolphins. the reproduction or survival of any the least practicable adverse impact on However, it is still necessary for individual, which in turn reduces the the species and their habitat. NMFS to consider whether there are likelihood that any impacts would Measures Evaluated But Not Included additional practicable measures that translate to adverse impacts on the would meaningfully reduce the species. The Navy also evaluated numerous probability or severity of impacts that 2. Additional reporting of sonar measures in the 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS could affect reproductive success or sources in the Chalan Kanoa and Marpi that were not included in the Navy’s survivorship. In the case of this rule, we Reef Geographic Mitigation Areas. In rulemaking/LOA application, and worked with the Navy after it submitted addition to the reporting of the total NMFS independently reviewed and its 2019 rulemaking/LOA application hours of surface ship hull-mounted MF1 concurs with the Navy’s analysis that but prior to the development of the mid-frequency active sonar, the Navy their inclusion was not appropriate proposed rule to expand the mitigation will also report all sonar sources used under the least practicable adverse areas for Marpi Reef and Chalan Kanoa (all bins, by bin) within the Chalan impact standard based on our Reef Geographic Mitigation Areas to Kanoa and Marpi Reef Geographic assessment. The Navy considered these more fully encompass the 400-m Mitigation Areas from December 1 to additional potential mitigation measures isobaths based on the available data April 30 in the annual MITT classified in two groups. First, Section 5 indicating the presence of humpback Exercise Reports. This will allow NMFS (Mitigation) of the 2020 MITT FSEIS/ whale mother/calf pairs (seasonal to evaluate sonar use specifically in OEIS, in the Measures Considered but breeding area), which is expected to these areas with higher concentrations Eliminated section, includes an analysis further avoid impacts from explosives of humpback whales and determine if of an array of different types of that would be more likely to affect further mitigation is needed through mitigation that have been recommended reproduction or survival of individuals Adaptive Management. over the years by non-governmental and could adversely impact the species. Overall the Navy has agreed to organizations or the public, through The Navy will also implement the procedural mitigation measures that scoping or public comment on Marpi Reef and Chalan Kanoa Reef will reduce the probability and/or environmental compliance documents. Awareness Notification Message Area, severity of impacts expected to result Appendix I (Geographic Mitigation which require Navy personnel to from acute exposure to acoustic sources Assessment) of the 2020 MITT FSEIS/ broadcast the seasonal presence of and explosives, ship strike, and impacts OEIS includes an in-depth analysis of humpback whales, further minimizing to marine mammal habitat. Specifically, time/area restrictions that have been any potential impacts from vessel the Navy will use a combination of recommended over time. As described strikes during training and testing delayed starts, powerdowns, and in Section 5 (Mitigation) of the 2020 activities as these areas contain shutdowns to avoid mortality or serious MITT FSEIS/OEIS, commenters important seasonal breeding habitat for injury, minimize the likelihood or sometimes recommend that the Navy this species. severity of PTS or other injury, and reduce its overall amount of training In addition, since publication of the reduce instances of TTS or more severe and testing, reduce explosive use, proposed rule, and in consideration of behavioral disruption caused by modify its sound sources, completely public comments received, NMFS and acoustic sources or explosives. The replace live training and testing with the Navy have agreed to include Navy will also implement multiple computer simulation, or include time of additional mitigation requirements that time/area restrictions that will reduce day restrictions. Many of these will further reduce the likelihood and/ take of marine mammals in areas or at mitigation measures could potentially or severity of adverse impacts on marine times where they are known to engage reduce the number of marine mammals mammal species and their habitat and in important behaviors, such as calving, taken, via direct reduction of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46371

activities or amount of sound energy put (including an assessment of the specific operations (i.e., U.S. 7th fleet’s in the water. However, as described in importance of that area for training, continuous presence in the Indo-Pacific Section 5 (Mitigation) of the 2020 MITT considering proximity to training ranges region, which is a National Defense FSEIS/OEIS, the Navy needs to train and emergency landing fields and other Strategy priority theater of operations) and test in the conditions in which it issues). For most of the areas that were and the need to have the option to fights—and these types of modifications considered in the 2020 MITT FSEIS/ conduct training quickly and to respond fundamentally change the activity in a OEIS but not included as mitigation in to emergent national security threats. manner that will not support the this rule, the Navy found that the Given the reductions in potential purpose and need for the training and mitigation was not warranted because impacts already provided by the full testing (i.e., are entirely impracticable) the anticipated reduction of adverse restriction on explosive use and the 20- and therefore are not considered further. impacts on marine mammal species and hour annual cap on MF1 sonar in the NMFS finds the Navy’s explanation for their habitat was not sufficient to offset areas between December 1 and April 30, why adoption of these the impracticability of implementation. combined with the impracticability for recommendations will unacceptably In some cases, potential benefits to the Navy, NMFS found that this undermine the purpose of the testing marine mammals were non-existent, measure was not warranted. and training persuasive. After while in others the consequences on In addition, NMFS had thorough independent review, NMFS finds mission effectiveness were too great. discussions with the Navy about the Navy’s judgment on the impacts of these NMFS has reviewed the analysis in possibility of crafting a mitigation potential mitigation measures to Section 5 (Mitigation) and Appendix I measure to minimize the potential risk personnel safety, practicality of (Geographic Mitigation Assessment) of that Navy activities could contribute in implementation, and the effectiveness of the 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS, which any way to the potential stranding of training and testing within the MITT considers the same factors that NMFS beaked whales. These discussions Study Area persuasive, and for these considers under the MMPA to satisfy included consideration of all public reasons, NMFS finds that these the least practicable adverse impact comments which recommended beaked measures do not meet the least standard, and concurs with the analysis whale mitigation measures. However, practicable adverse impact standard and conclusions. Therefore, NMFS is despite years of field surveys conducted because they are not practicable. not including any of the measures that under interagency agreements between Second, in Section 5 (Mitigation) of the Navy ruled out in the 2020 MITT the Navy and NMFS’ PIFSC along with the 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS, the Navy FSEIS/OEIS. Navy-funded beaked whale monitoring, evaluated additional potential Below, we describe additional there remains a lack of scientific procedural mitigation measures, measures that were considered but information available on beaked whale including increased mitigation zones, eliminated during the development of distribution and other essential species ramp-up measures, additional passive the final rule: (1) A full restriction on information in the Mariana Islands. acoustic and visual monitoring, and MF1 sonar use in the Marpi Reef and Without sufficient scientific data on decreased vessel speeds. Some of these Chalan Kanoa Reef Geographic beaked whale habitat use, bathymetry, measures have the potential to Mitigation Areas (versus the 20-hour and seasonality, and from that a better incrementally reduce take to some annual cap between December 1 and understanding of the circumstances that degree in certain circumstances, though April 30) and (2) measures to further could affect the likelihood of a stranding the degree to which this would occur is minimize any potential risk that beaked in the MITT Study Area, NMFS is typically low or uncertain. However, as whales would strand as a result of Navy unable to develop mitigation measures described in the Navy’s analysis, the training and testing activities. that would meaningfully reduce the measures would have significant direct Regarding the consideration of a full likelihood of stranding and/or will not negative effects on mission effectiveness restriction on MF1 sonar use in the result in unreasonable operational/ and are impracticable (see Section 5 Marpi Reef and Chalan Kanoa Reef practicability concerns. Consequently, Mitigation of 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS). Geographic Mitigation Areas, areas of NMFS recommended to the Navy that NMFS independently reviewed the shallow depths, which are important for the two agencies convene a panel of Navy’s evaluation and concurs with this certain types of training, are limited in experts, both from the region, as well as assessment, which supports NMFS’ the Mariana Archipelago, and the Navy beaked whale behavioral response findings that the impracticability of this determined it would be impractical to experts from other geographic areas, and additional mitigation would greatly completely limit the use of sonar at Navy experts on biology, operations, outweigh any potential minor reduction Chalan Kanoa Reef and Marpi Reef. The and mitigation to review the status of in marine mammal impacts that might Navy provided additional analysis to the science, identify data gaps, and result; therefore, these additional NMFS that these two Geographic identify information applicable for mitigation measures are not warranted. Mitigation Areas account for up to 14.3 consideration for future mitigation Last, Appendix I (Geographic percent of all shallow water areas less through the Adaptive Management Mitigation Assessment) of the 2020 than 200 m and outside of 3 nmi in the process. The Navy has agreed to fund MITT FSEIS/OEIS describes a MITT Study Area (generally and co-organize this effort. Additional comprehensive method for analyzing surrounding land), and up to 22 percent measures that the Navy has agreed to potential geographic mitigation that of all shallow water areas less than 200 conduct to increase understanding and includes consideration of both a m and outside of 3 nmi (generally decrease uncertainty around beaked biological assessment of how the surrounding land) and south (not whales in the MITT Study Area are potential time/area limitation would inclusive) of Farallon De Medinilla in discussed in the Monitoring section. benefit the species and its habitat (e.g., the MITT Study Area. NMFS agreed The following sections describe the is a key area of biological importance or with these calculations. The Navy has mitigation measures that will be would result in avoidance or reduction stressed the broader need for flexibility implemented in association with the of impacts) in the context of the as well as the specific need not to training and testing activities analyzed stressors of concern in the specific area restrict training areas entirely in this in this document. These are the and an operational assessment of the part of the MITT Study Area given the mitigation measures that NMFS has practicability of implementation proximity to forward deployed determined will ensure the least

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46372 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

practicable adverse impact on all to the appropriate watch station for caliber non-explosive practice affected species and their habitat, information dissemination, and (3) munitions; non-explosive missiles and including the specific considerations for requirements for the watch station to rockets, non-explosive bombs and mine military readiness activities. The implement mitigation (e.g., halt an shapes). Note that the procedural mitigation measures are organized into activity) until certain recommencement mitigation measures for other incidental two categories: Procedural mitigation conditions have been met. The first take regulations in Navy study areas, and mitigation areas. procedural mitigation measures (Table such as AFTT and HSTT, require that 29) are designed to train Lookouts and Procedural Mitigation Lookouts observe for floating vegetation other applicable Navy personnel in their in addition to marine mammals because Procedural mitigation is mitigation observation, environmental compliance, floating vegetation has high ecological that the Navy will implement whenever and reporting responsibilities. The protection value (e.g., habitat for and wherever an applicable training or remainder of the procedural mitigation testing activity takes place within the measures (Tables 30 through 46) are juvenile/hatchling sea turtles, potential MITT Study Area. The Navy customizes organized by stressor type and activity foraging habitat for marine mammals). procedural mitigation for each category and includes acoustic stressors The term ‘‘floating vegetation’’ in those applicable activity category or stressor. (i.e., active sonar, weapons firing noise), regulations referred specifically to Procedural mitigation generally explosive stressors (i.e., sonobuoys, floating concentrations of detached kelp involves: (1) The use of one or more torpedoes, medium-caliber and large- paddies (off the U.S. West Coast) and trained Lookouts to diligently observe caliber projectiles, missiles and rockets, sargassum mats (off the U.S. East Coast). for specific biological resources bombs, sinking exercises, mines, anti- However, in the MITT Study Area there (including marine mammals) within a swimmer grenades), and physical are no floating vegetation concentrations mitigation zone, (2) requirements for disturbance and strike stressors (i.e., so that was not included in the Lookouts to immediately communicate vessel movement; towed in-water procedural mitigation measures in this sightings of specific biological resources devices; small-, medium-, and large- rule.

TABLE 29—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS AND EDUCATION

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity: All training and testing activities, as applicable. Mitigation Requirements: Appropriate Navy personnel (including civilian personnel) involved in mitigation and training or testing activity reporting under the specified activities will complete one or more modules of the U.S. Navy Afloat Environmental Compliance Training Series, as identified in their ca- reer path training plan. Modules include: —Introduction to the U.S. Navy Afloat Environmental Compliance Training Series. The introductory module provides information on en- vironmental laws (e.g., Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act) and the corresponding responsibilities that are rel- evant to Navy training and testing activities. The material explains why environmental compliance is important in supporting the Navy’s commitment to environmental stewardship. —Marine Species Awareness Training. All bridge watch personnel, Commanding Officers, Executive Officers, maritime patrol aircraft aircrews, anti-submarine warfare and mine warfare rotary-wing aircrews, Lookouts, and equivalent civilian personnel must success- fully complete the Marine Species Awareness Training prior to standing watch or serving as a Lookout. The Marine Species Aware- ness Training provides information on sighting cues, visual observation tools and techniques, and sighting notification procedures. Navy biologists developed Marine Species Awareness Training to improve the effectiveness of visual observations for biological re- sources, focusing on marine mammals and sea turtles, and including floating vegetation, jellyfish aggregations, and flocks of seabirds. —U.S. Navy Protective Measures Assessment Protocol. This module provides the necessary instruction for accessing mitigation re- quirements during the event planning phase using the Protective Measures Assessment Protocol software tool. —U.S. Navy Sonar Positional Reporting System and Marine Mammal Incident Reporting. This module provides instruction on the pro- cedures and activity reporting requirements for the Sonar Positional Reporting System and marine mammal incident reporting.

TABLE 30—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR ACTIVE SONAR

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity: • Low-frequency active sonar, mid-frequency active sonar, high-frequency active sonar: —For vessel-based active sonar activities, mitigation applies only to sources that are positively controlled and deployed from manned surface vessels (e.g., sonar sources towed from manned surface platforms). —For aircraft-based active sonar activities, mitigation applies only to sources that are positively controlled and deployed from manned aircraft that do not operate at high altitudes (e.g., rotary-wing aircraft). Mitigation does not apply to active sonar sources deployed from unmanned aircraft or aircraft operating at high altitudes (e.g., maritime patrol aircraft). Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • Hull-mounted sources: —1 Lookout: Platforms with space or manning restrictions while underway (at the forward part of a small boat or ship) and platforms using active sonar while moored or at anchor (including pierside). —2 Lookouts: Platforms without space or manning restrictions while underway (at the forward part of the ship). • Sources that are not hull-mounted: —1 Lookout on the ship or aircraft conducting the activity. Mitigation Requirements: • Mitigation zones: —Refer to During the activity below.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46373

TABLE 30—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR ACTIVE SONAR—Continued

Procedural Mitigation Description

• Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station): —Navy personnel will observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will relocate or delay the start of active sonar transmission. • During the activity: —Low-frequency active sonar at or above 200 dB or more, and hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar: Navy personnel must ob- serve the mitigation zone for marine mammals; Navy personnel will power down active sonar transmission by 6 dB if marine mam- mals are observed within 1,000 yd of the sonar source; Navy personnel will power down an additional 4 dB (for a total of 10 dB total) within 500 yd; Navy personnel must cease transmission within 200 yd of the sonar source. —Low-frequency active sonar below 200 dB, mid-frequency active sonar sources that are not hull-mounted, and high-frequency active sonar: Navy personnel must observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; Navy personnel will cease active sonar transmission if observed within 200 yd of the sonar source. • Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity: —Navy personnel will allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing or powering up active sonar transmission) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the sonar source; (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min. for aircraft-deployed sonar sources or 30 min for vessel-deployed sonar sources; (4) for mo- bile activities, the active sonar source has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting; or (5) for activities using hull-mounted sonar, the ship concludes that dolphins are deliberately closing in on the ship to ride the ship’s bow wave, and are therefore out of the main transmission axis of the sonar (and there are no other marine mam- mal sightings within the mitigation zone).

TABLE 31—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR WEAPONS FIRING NOISE

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity: • Weapons firing noise associated with large-caliber gunnery activities. Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • 1 Lookout positioned on the ship conducting the firing. • Depending on the activity, the Lookout could be the same as the one described in Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Medium- and Large-Caliber Projectiles (Table 34) or Procedural Mitigation for Small-, Medium-, and Large-Caliber Non-Explosive Practice Munitions (Table 43). Mitigation Requirements: • Mitigation Zone: —30° on either side of the firing line out to 70 yd from the muzzle of the weapon being fired. • Prior to the initial start of the activity: —Navy personnel will observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if observed, Navy personnel will relocate or delay the start of weapons firing. • During the activity: —Navy personnel will observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will cease weapons firing. • Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity: —Navy personnel will allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing weapons firing) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The ani- mal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the firing ship; (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min; or (4) for mobile activities, the firing ship has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting.

TABLE 32—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE SONOBUOYS

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity: • Explosive sonobuoys. Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • 1 Lookout positioned in an aircraft or on a small boat. • If additional platforms are participating in the activity, Navy personnel positioned in those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) will support observing the mitigation zone for marine mammals and other applicable biological resources while performing their regular du- ties. Mitigation Requirements: • Mitigation Zone: —600 yd around an explosive sonobuoy. • Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., during deployment of a sonobuoy pattern, which typically lasts 20–30 minutes): —Navy personnel will conduct passive acoustic monitoring for marine mammals; Navy personnel will use information from detections to assist visual observations. —Navy personnel will visually observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will relocate or delay the start of sonobuoy or source/receiver pair detonations. • During the activity:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46374 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 32—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE SONOBUOYS—Continued

Procedural Mitigation Description

—Navy personnel will observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, cease sonobuoy or source/ receiver pair detonations. • Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity: —Navy personnel will allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing detonations) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the sonobuoy; or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min when the activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained. • After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering off station): —When practical (e.g., when platforms are not constrained by fuel restrictions or mission-essential follow-on commitments), Navy per- sonnel will observe the vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will follow established incident reporting procedures. —If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), Navy personnel positioned on these assets will assist in the visual observation of the area where detonations occurred.

TABLE 33—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE TORPEDOES

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity: • Explosive Torpedoes. Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • 1 Lookout positioned in an aircraft. • If additional platforms are participating in the activity, Navy personnel positioned on those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) will support observing the mitigation zone for marine mammals and other applicable biological resources while performing their regular du- ties. Mitigation Requirements: • Mitigation Zone: —2,100 yd around the intended impact location. • Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., during deployment of the target): —Navy personnel will conduct passive acoustic monitoring for marine mammals; Navy personnel will use information from detections to assist visual observations. —Navy personnel will visually observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will relocate or delay the start of firing. • During the activity: —Navy personnel will observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will cease firing. • Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity: —Navy personnel will allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing firing) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is ob- served exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended impact location; or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min when the activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained. • After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering off station): —When practical (e.g., when platforms are not constrained by fuel restrictions or mission-essential follow-on commitments), Navy per- sonnel will observe the vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will follow established incident reporting procedures. —If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), Navy personnel positioned on these assets will assist in the visual observation of the area where detonations occurred.

TABLE 34—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE MEDIUM-CALIBER AND LARGE-CALIBER PROJECTILES

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity: • Gunnery activities using explosive medium-caliber and large-caliber projectiles. —Mitigation applies to activities using a surface target. Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • 1 Lookout on the vessel or aircraft conducting the activity. —For activities using explosive large-caliber projectiles, depending on the activity, the Lookout could be the same as the one de- scribed in Weapons Firing Noise (Table 31). • If additional platforms are participating in the activity, Navy personnel positioned on those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) will support observing the mitigation zone for marine mammals and other applicable biological resources while performing their regular du- ties. Mitigation Requirements: • Mitigation zones: —200 yd around the intended impact location for air-to-surface activities using explosive medium-caliber projectiles. —600 yd around the intended impact location for surface-to-surface activities using explosive medium-caliber projectiles.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46375

TABLE 34—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE MEDIUM-CALIBER AND LARGE-CALIBER PROJECTILES—Continued

Procedural Mitigation Description

—1,000 yd around the intended impact location for surface-to-surface activities using explosive large-caliber projectiles. • Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station): —Navy personnel will observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will relocate or delay the start of firing. • During the activity: —Navy personnel will observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will cease firing. • Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity: —Navy personnel will allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing firing) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is ob- served exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended impact location; (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min for aircraft-based firing or 30 min for vessel-based firing; or (4) for activities using mobile targets, the intended impact location has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting. • After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering off station): —When practical (e.g., when platforms are not constrained by fuel restrictions or mission-essential follow-on commitments), Navy per- sonnel will observe the vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will follow established incident reporting procedures. —If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), Navy personnel positioned on these assets will assist in the visual observation of the area where detonations occurred.

TABLE 35—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE MISSILES AND ROCKETS

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity: • Aircraft-deployed explosive missiles and rockets. —Mitigation applies to activities using a surface target. Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • 1 Lookout positioned in an aircraft. • If additional platforms are participating in the activity, Navy personnel positioned on those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) will support observing the mitigation zone for marine mammals and other applicable biological resources while performing their regular du- ties. Mitigation Requirements: • Mitigation zones: —900 yd around the intended impact location for missiles or rockets with 0.6–20 lb net explosive weight. —2,000 yd around the intended impact location for missiles with 21–500 lb net explosive weight. • Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., during a fly-over of the mitigation zone): —Navy personnel will observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will relocate or delay the start of firing. • During the activity: —Navy personnel will observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will cease firing. • Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity: —Navy personnel will allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing firing) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is ob- served exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended impact location; or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min when the activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained. • After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering off station): —When practical (e.g., when platforms are not constrained by fuel restrictions or mission-essential follow-on commitments), Navy per- sonnel will observe the vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will follow established incident reporting procedures. —If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), Navy personnel positioned on these assets will assist in the visual observation of the area where detonations occurred.

TABLE 36—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE BOMBS

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity: • Explosive bombs. Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • 1 Lookout positioned in the aircraft conducting the activity. • If additional platforms are participating in the activity, Navy personnel positioned on those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) will support observing the mitigation zone for marine mammals and other applicable biological resources while performing their regular du- ties. Mitigation Requirements: • Mitigation zone:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46376 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 36—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE BOMBS—Continued

Procedural Mitigation Description

—2,500 yd around the intended target. • Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when arriving on station): —Navy personnel will observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will relocate or delay the start of bomb deployment. • During the activity (e.g., during target approach): —Navy personnel will observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will cease bomb deployment. • Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity: —Navy personnel will allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing bomb deployment) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended target; (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min; or (4) for activities using mobile targets, the intended target has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting. • After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering off station): —When practical (e.g., when platforms are not constrained by fuel restrictions or mission-essential follow-on commitments), Navy per- sonnel will observe the vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will follow established incident reporting procedures. —If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), Navy personnel positioned on these assets will assist in the visual observation of the area where detonations occurred.

TABLE 37—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR SINKING EXERCISES

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity: • Sinking exercises. Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • 2 Lookouts (one positioned in an aircraft and one on a vessel). • If additional platforms are participating in the activity, Navy personnel positioned on those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) will support observing the mitigation zone for marine mammals and other applicable biological resources while performing their regular du- ties. Mitigation Requirements: • Mitigation Zone: —2.5 nmi around the target ship hulk. • Prior to the initial start of the activity (90 min prior to the first firing): —Navy personnel will conduct aerial observations of the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will delay the start of firing. • During the activity: —Navy personnel will conduct passive acoustic monitoring for marine mammals; Navy personnel will use information from detections to assist visual observations. —Navy personnel will visually observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals from the vessel; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must cease firing. —Immediately after any planned or unplanned breaks in weapons firing of longer than 2 hours, Navy personnel will observe the mitiga- tion zone for marine mammals from the aircraft and vessel; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must delay re- commencement of firing. • Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity: —Navy personnel will allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing firing) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is ob- served exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the target ship hulk; or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min. • After completion of the activity (for 2 hours after sinking the vessel or until sunset, whichever comes first): —Navy personnel will observe the vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will follow established incident reporting procedures. —If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), Navy personnel positioned on these assets will assist in the visual observation of the area where detonations occurred.

TABLE 38—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE MINE COUNTERMEASURE AND NEUTRALIZATION ACTIVITIES

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity: • Explosive mine countermeasure and neutralization activities. Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • 1 Lookout positioned on a vessel or in an aircraft. • If additional platforms are participating in the activity, Navy personnel positioned on those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) will support observing the mitigation zone for marine mammals and other applicable biological resources while performing their regular du- ties. Mitigation Requirements:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46377

TABLE 38—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE MINE COUNTERMEASURE AND NEUTRALIZATION ACTIVITIES— Continued

Procedural Mitigation Description

• Mitigation Zone: —600 yd around the detonation site. • Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station; typically, 10 min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min when the activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained): —Navy personnel will observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will relocate or delay the start of detonations. • During the activity: —Navy personnel will observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will cease detonations. • Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity: —Navy personnel will allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing detonations) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to detonation site; or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min. when the activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained. • After completion of the activity (typically 10 min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min when the activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained): —Navy personnel will observe the vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will follow established incident reporting procedures. —If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), Navy personnel positioned on these assets will assist in the visual observation of the area where detonations occurred.

TABLE 39—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE MINE NEUTRALIZATION ACTIVITIES INVOLVING NAVY DIVERS

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity: • Explosive mine neutralization activities involving Navy divers. Number of Lookouts and Observation Platforms: • 2 Lookouts (two small boats with one Lookout each, or one Lookout on a small boat and one in a rotary-wing aircraft) when imple- menting the smaller mitigation zone. • 4 Lookouts (two small boats with two Lookouts each), and a pilot or member of an aircrew will serve as an additional Lookout if aircraft are used during the activity, when implementing the larger mitigation zone. • All divers placing the charges on mines will support the Lookouts while performing their regular duties and will report applicable sightings to their supporting small boat or Range Safety Officer. • If additional platforms are participating in the activity, Navy personnel positioned on those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) will support observing the mitigation zone for marine mammals and other applicable biological resources while performing their regular du- ties. Mitigation Requirements: • Mitigation Zones: —For Lookouts on small boats or aircraft: 500 yd around the detonation site during activities under positive control. —For Lookouts on small boats or aircraft: 1,000 yd around the detonation site during activities using time-delay fuses. —For divers: The underwater detonation location, which is defined as the sea space within the divers’ range of visibility but no further than the mitigation zone specified for Lookouts on small boats or aircraft (500 yd or 1,000 yd depending on the charge type). • Prior to the initial start of the activity (when maneuvering on station for activities under positive control; 30 min for activities using time- delay firing devices): —Lookouts on small boats or aircraft will observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will relocate or delay the start of detonations or fuse initiation. • During the activity: —Lookouts on small boats or aircraft will observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will cease detonations or fuse initiation. —While performing their normal duties, during the activity. divers will observe the underwater detonation location for marine mammals. Divers will notify their supporting small boat or Range Safety Officer of marine mammal sightings at the underwater detonation loca- tion; if observed, Navy personnel will cease detonations or fuse initiation. —To the maximum extent practical depending on mission requirements, safety, and environmental conditions, boats will position them- selves near the mid-point of the mitigation zone radius (but outside of the detonation plume and human safety zone), will position themselves on opposite sides of the detonation location (when two boats are used), and will travel in a circular pattern around the detonation location with one Lookout observing inward toward the detonation site and the other observing outward toward the perim- eter of the mitigation zone. —If used, aircraft will travel in a circular pattern around the detonation location to the maximum extent practicable. —Navy personnel will not set time-delay firing devices to exceed 10 min. • Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal before or during the activity:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46378 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 39—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR EXPLOSIVE MINE NEUTRALIZATION ACTIVITIES INVOLVING NAVY DIVERS— Continued

Procedural Mitigation Description

—Navy personnel will allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the underwater detonation location or mitigation zone (as applicable) prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing detonations or fuse initiation) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the 500 yd or 1,000 yd mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the 500 yd or 1,000 yd mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and move- ment relative to the detonation site; or (3) the 500 yd or 1,000 yd mitigation zone ((for Lookouts on small boats or aircraft) and the underwater detonation location (for divers)) has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min during activities under positive control with aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min during activities under positive control with aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained and during activities using time-delay firing devices. • After completion of an activity (for 30 min): —Navy personnel will observe the vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will follow established incident reporting procedures. —If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), Navy personnel positioned on these assets will assist in the visual observation of the area where detonations occurred.

TABLE 40—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR MARITIME SECURITY OPERATIONS—ANTI-SWIMMER GRENADES

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity: • Maritime Security Operations—Anti-Swimmer Grenades. Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • 1 Lookout positioned on the small boat conducting the activity. • If additional platforms are participating in the activity, Navy personnel positioned on those assets (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) will support observing the mitigation zone for marine mammals and other applicable biological resources while performing their regular du- ties. Mitigation Requirements: • Mitigation zone: —200 yd around the intended detonation location. • Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station): —Navy personnel will observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will relocate or delay the start of detonations. • During the activity: —Navy personnel will observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will cease detonations. • Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity: —Navy personnel will allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing detonations) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended detonation location; (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 30 min; or (4) the intended detonation location has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting. • After completion of the activity (e.g., prior to maneuvering off station): —When practical (e.g., when platforms are not constrained by fuel restrictions or mission-essential follow-on commitments), Navy per- sonnel will observe the vicinity of where detonations occurred; if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will follow established incident reporting procedures. —If additional platforms are supporting this activity (e.g., providing range clearance), Navy personnel positioned on these assets will assist in the visual observation of the area where detonations occurred.

TABLE 41—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR VESSEL MOVEMENT

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity: • Vessel movement: —The mitigation will not be applied if (1) the vessel’s safety is threatened, (2) the vessel is restricted in its ability to maneuver (e.g., during launching and recovery of aircraft or landing craft, during towing activities, when mooring, etc.), (3) the vessel is submerged or operated autonomously, or (4) when impractical based on mission requirements (e.g., during Amphibious Assault and Amphibious Raid exercises). Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • 1 Lookout on the vessel that is underway. Mitigation Requirements: • Mitigation Zones: —500 yd around whales. —200 yd around other marine mammals (except bow-riding dolphins). • During the activity: —When underway, Navy personnel will observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy per- sonnel will maneuver to maintain distance.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46379

TABLE 41—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR VESSEL MOVEMENT—Continued

Procedural Mitigation Description

• Additional requirements: —If a marine mammal vessel strike occurs, Navy personnel will follow the established incident reporting procedures.

TABLE 42—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR TOWED IN-WATER DEVICES

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity: • Towed in-water devices: —Mitigation applies to devices that are towed from a manned surface platform or manned aircraft. —The mitigation will not be applied if the safety of the towing platform or in-water device is threatened. Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • 1 Lookout positioned on a manned towing platform. Mitigation Requirements: • Mitigation Zones: —250 yd. around marine mammals. • During the activity (i.e., when towing an in-water device): —Navy personnel will observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will maneu- ver to maintain distance.

TABLE 43—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR SMALL-, MEDIUM-, AND LARGE-CALIBER NON-EXPLOSIVE PRACTICE MUNITIONS

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity: • Gunnery activities using small-, medium-, and large-caliber non-explosive practice munitions. —Mitigation applies to activities using a surface target. Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • 1 Lookout positioned on the platform conducting the activity. • Depending on the activity, the Lookout could be the same as the one described in Procedural Mitigation for Weapons Firing Noise (Table 31). Mitigation Requirements: • Mitigation Zone: —200 yd around the intended impact location. • Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when maneuvering on station): —Navy personnel will observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will relocate or delay the start of firing. • During the activity: —Navy personnel will observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will cease firing. • Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting before or during the activity: —Navy personnel will allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing firing) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is ob- served exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended impact location; (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min for aircraft-based firing or 30 min for vessel-based firing; or (4) for activities using a mobile target, the intended impact location has transited a distance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting.

TABLE 44—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR NON-EXPLOSIVE MISSILES AND ROCKETS

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity: • Aircraft-deployed non-explosive missiles and rockets. • Mitigation applies to activities using a surface target. Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • 1 Lookout positioned in an aircraft. Mitigation Requirements: • Mitigation Zone: —900 yd around the intended impact location. • Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., during a fly-over of the mitigation zone): —Navy personnel will observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will relocate or delay the start of firing. • During the activity: —Navy personnel will observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will cease firing. • Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting prior to or during the activity:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46380 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 44—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR NON-EXPLOSIVE MISSILES AND ROCKETS—Continued

Procedural Mitigation Description

—Navy personnel will allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing firing) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is ob- served exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended impact location; or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min when the activity involves aircraft that have fuel constraints, or 30 min when the activity involves aircraft that are not typically fuel constrained.

TABLE 45—PROCEDURAL MITIGATION FOR NON-EXPLOSIVE BOMBS AND MINE SHAPES

Procedural Mitigation Description

Stressor or Activity: • Non-explosive bombs. • Non-explosive mine shapes during mine laying activities. Number of Lookouts and Observation Platform: • 1 Lookout positioned in an aircraft. Mitigation Requirements: • Mitigation Zone: —1,000 yd around the intended target. • Prior to the initial start of the activity (e.g., when arriving on station): —Navy personnel will observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will relocate or delay the start of bomb deployment or mine laying. • During the activity (e.g., during approach of the target or intended minefield location): —Navy personnel will observe the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel will cease bomb deployment or mine laying. • Commencement/recommencement conditions after a marine mammal sighting prior to or during the activity: —Navy personnel will allow a sighted marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity (by delaying the start) or during the activity (by not recommencing bomb deployment or mine laying) until one of the following conditions has been met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended target or minefield location; (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for 10 min; or (4) for activities using mobile targets, the intended target has transited a dis- tance equal to double that of the mitigation zone size beyond the location of the last sighting.

Mitigation Areas additional mitigation measures and has likelihood or severity of adverse impacts enhanced the mitigation areas and to marine mammal species or their In addition to procedural mitigation, mitigation measures, beyond the 2015– habitat in the manner described in this the Navy will implement mitigation 2020 regulations, to further reduce rule and are practicable for the Navy. measures within mitigation areas to impacts to marine mammals. NMFS is heavily reliant on the Navy’s avoid or minimize potential impacts on Information on the mitigation description of operational practicability, marine mammals. A full technical measures that the Navy will implement since the Navy is best equipped to analysis (for which the methods were within mitigation areas is provided in describe the degree to which a given discussed above) of the mitigation areas Table 46 (see below). The mitigation mitigation measure affects personnel that the Navy considered for marine applies year-round unless specified safety or mission effectiveness, and is mammals is provided in Appendix I otherwise in the table. practical to implement. The Navy (Geographic Mitigation Assessment) of NMFS conducted an independent considers the measures in this rule to be the 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS. NMFS and analysis of the mitigation areas that the practicable, and NMFS concurs. We the Navy took into account public Navy will implement and that are further discuss the manner in which the comments received on the 2019 MITT included in this rule, which are Geographic Mitigation Areas in the rule DSEIS/OEIS and the 2019 MITT described below, in Table 46. NMFS’ will reduce the likelihood or severity of proposed rule, best available science, analysis indicates that the measures in adverse impacts to marine mammal and the practicability of implementing these mitigation areas will reduce the species or their habitat below.

TABLE 46—GEOGRAPHIC MITIGATION AREAS FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE MITT STUDY AREA

Mitigation Area Description

Stressor or Activity: • Sonar. • In-water Explosives. Mitigation Requirements: • Marpi Reef and Chalan Kanoa Reef Geographic Mitigation Areas (Figures 1 and 2): —Navy personnel will conduct a maximum annual total of 20 hours of surface ship hull-mounted MF1 mid-frequency active sonar from December 1 through April 30 within the Marpi Reef and Chalan Kanoa Reef Geographic Mitigation Areas combined (20 hours total for both areas). —Navy personnel will report the total hours of active sonar (all bins, by bin) used in the Marpi Reef and Chalan Kanoa Reef Geo- graphic Mitigation Areas from December 1 through April 30 in the annual training and testing exercise report submitted to NMFS. —Navy personnel will not use in-water explosives in the Marpi Reef and Chalan Kanoa Reef Geographic Mitigation Areas year-round.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46381

TABLE 46—GEOGRAPHIC MITIGATION AREAS FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE MITT STUDY AREA—Continued

Mitigation Area Description

—Navy personnel will issue an annual seasonal awareness notification message to alert Navy ships and aircraft operating in the Marpi Reef and Chalan Kanoa Reef Geographic Mitigation Areas to the possible presence of increased concentrations of humpback whales from December 1 through April 30. To maintain safety of navigation and to avoid interactions with large whales during tran- sits, Navy personnel will instruct vessels to remain vigilant to the presence of humpback whales, that when concentrated seasonally, may become vulnerable to vessel strikes. Navy personnel will use the information from the awareness notification messages to as- sist their visual observation of applicable mitigation zones during training and testing activities and to aid in the implementation of procedural mitigation. —Should national security present a requirement to conduct training or testing prohibited by the mitigation requirements specified in this table, Navy personnel will obtain permission from the appropriate designated Command authority prior to commencement of the activity. Navy personnel will provide NMFS with advance notification and include relevant information (e.g., sonar hours, explosives use) in its annual activity reports submitted to NMFS. • Agat Bay Nearshore Geographic Mitigation Area (Figure 3): —Navy personnel will not use surface ship hull-mounted MF1 mid-frequency active sonar in the Agat Bay Nearshore Geographic Miti- gation Area year-round. —Navy personnel will not use in-water explosives in the Agat Bay Nearshore Mitigation Area year-round. —Should national security require the use of MF1 surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar or explosives prohibited by the mitigation requirements, Navy personnel will obtain permission from the appropriate designated Command authority prior to com- mencement of the activity. Navy personnel will provide NMFS with advance notification and include relevant information (e.g., sonar hours, explosives use) in the annual activity reports submitted to NMFS.

Marpi Reef and Chalan Kanoa Reef restrict training areas entirely in this isobath) and the science indicates the Geographic Mitigation Areas part of the MITT Study Area given the areas may be of biological importance to The proposed rule included a proximity to forward deployed humpback whales for biologically restriction on the use of explosives in operations (i.e., U.S. 7th fleet’s important life processes associated with these two mitigation areas, but no continuous presence in the Indo-Pacific reproduction (e.g., breeding, birthing, limitation on the use of active sonar. region, which is a National Defense and nursing) during the winter months, The final rule includes a 20-hour annual Strategy priority theater of operation) generally December through April. cap from December 1 through April 30 and the need to have the option to Calves are considered more sensitive on the use of hull-mounted MF1 mid- conduct training quickly and to respond and susceptible to adverse impacts from frequency active sonar during training to emergent national security threats. Navy stressors than adults (especially and testing activities within the Marpi Following extensive discussions with given their lesser weight and the Reef and Chalan Kanoa Reef Geographic the Navy through which more specific association between weight and Mitigation Areas (20 hours for both information about the Navy’s likely explosive impacts), as well as being areas combined). In addition to the activity in the Chalan Kanoa Reef and especially reliant upon mother-calf reporting of the total hours of surface Marpi Reef Geographic Mitigation Areas communication for protection and ship hull-mounted MF1 mid-frequency was provided, new information about guidance. Both gestation and lactation active sonar, the Navy will now also humpback whale occurrence in the two increase energy demands for mothers. report all sonar sources used (all bins, Geographic Mitigation Areas emerged, Breeding activities typically involve by bin) within the Chalan Kanoa and and new analyses were conducted (see vocalizations and complex social Marpi Reef Geographic Mitigation Areas the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals interactions that can include violent from December 1 to April 30 in the section). NMFS has included a interactions between males. Reducing annual MITT classified Exercise requirement for the Navy to implement exposure of humpback whales to Reports. This will provide NMFS with the annual 20-hr cap from December 1 explosive detonations and sonar use in more specific data in order to evaluate through April 30 on hull-mounted MF1 the Marpi Reef and Chalan Kanoa Reef sonar use with current mitigation MFAS within the two Geographic Geographic Mitigation Areas during the measures in the geographic mitigation Mitigation Areas to minimize sonar months of December through April is areas and to determine if any changes exposure and reduce take by Level B expected to reduce the likelihood of are needed through Adaptive harassment of humpback whales in this impacts that could affect reproduction Management. important reproductive area. or survival of individual animals, by While the shallower water within the To determine the extent of the Marpi minimizing impacts on calves during Chalan Kanoa Reef and Marpi Reef Reef and Chalan Kanoa Reef Geographic this sensitive life stage, avoiding or Geographic Mitigation Areas has not Mitigation Areas, the Navy obtained all minimizing the additional energetic been a high-use area for Navy MTEs and humpback whale sighting data from costs to mothers of avoiding or leaving ASW training events as the area is 2015–2019 in the Marianas from NMFS’ the area during explosives exercises and considered generally less suitable (Navy PIFSC (Figures 1 and 2). As described in sonar use, and minimizing the chances training is more typically conducted the Description of Marine Mammals and that important breeding behaviors are beyond 3 nmi from shore and in waters Their Habitat in the Area of the interrupted to the point that greater than 200-m depth, with MTEs Specified Activities section of the rule, reproduction is inhibited or abandoned typically far offshore), the Navy has humpback whales, including mother- for the year, or otherwise interfered stressed the broader need for flexibility calf pairs, have been seasonally present with. as well as the specific need not to in shallow waters (out to the 400-m BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46382 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 ER31JY20.008 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46383

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 ER31JY20.009 46384 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Agat Bay Nearshore Geographic Spinner dolphins have been the most above, indicates that Agat Bay is Mitigation Area frequently encountered species during important resting habitat for spinner small boat reconnaissance surveys dolphins. The Agat Bay Nearshore Geographic conducted in the Mariana Islands since Behavioral disruptions during resting Mitigation Area encompasses the 2010. Consistent with more intensive periods can adversely impact health and shoreline between Tipalao, Dadi Beach, studies completed for the species in the energetic budgets by not allowing and Agat on the west coast of Guam, Hawaiian Islands, island-associated with a boundary across the bay spinner dolphins are expected to occur spinner dolphins to get the needed rest enclosing an area of approximately 5 in shallow water resting areas (about 50 and/or by creating the need to travel and km2 in relatively shallow waters (less m deep or less) in the morning and expend additional energy to find other than 100 m). The boundaries of the Agat throughout the middle of the day, suitable resting areas. Avoiding sonar Bay Nearshore Geographic Mitigation moving into deep waters offshore during and explosives in this geographic Area (Figure 3) were defined by Navy the night to feed (Heenehan et al., mitigation area year-round reduces the scientists based on spinner dolphin 2016b; Heenehan et al., 2017a; Hill et likelihood of energetic impacts that sightings documented during small boat al., 2010; Norris and Dohl, 1980). The could accrue and affect reproduction or surveys from 2010 through 2014. best available science, as described survival of these individuals.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46385

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C measures considered but eliminated in which, and the degree to which, the Mitigation Conclusions the 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS, which successful implementation of the reflect many of the comments that have mitigation measures is expected to NMFS has carefully evaluated the arisen via NMFS or public input in past reduce the likelihood and/or magnitude Navy’s mitigation measures—many of years) in the context of ensuring that of adverse impacts to marine mammal which were developed with NMFS’ NMFS prescribes the means of effecting species and their habitat; the proven or input during the previous phases of the least practicable adverse impact on likely efficacy of the measures; and the Navy training and testing authorizations the affected marine mammal species practicability of the measures for but several of which are new since and their habitat. Our evaluation of applicant implementation, including implementation of the 2015 to 2020 potential measures included consideration of personnel safety, regulations—and considered a broad consideration of the following factors in practicality of implementation, and range of other measures (i.e., the relation to one another: The manner in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 ER31JY20.010 46386 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

impact on the effectiveness of the The Navy will continue collecting Planning Process, detailed and specific military readiness activity. monitoring data to inform our studies are developed which support Based on our evaluation of the Navy’s understanding of the occurrence of the Navy’s and NMFS’ top-level measures, as well as other measures marine mammals in the MITT Study monitoring goals. In essence, the ICMP considered by the Navy and NMFS, Area; the likely exposure of marine directs that monitoring activities NMFS has determined that the mammals to stressors of concern in the relating to the effects of Navy training mitigation measures included in this MITT Study Area; the response of and testing activities on marine species final rule are the appropriate means of marine mammals to exposures to should be designed to contribute effecting the least practicable adverse stressors; the consequences of a towards one or more of the following impact on the marine mammal species particular marine mammal response to top-level goals: • and their habitat, paying particular their individual fitness and, ultimately, An increase in our understanding of attention to rookeries, mating grounds, populations; and the effectiveness of the likely occurrence of marine and areas of similar significance, and implemented mitigation measures. mammals and/or ESA-listed marine considering specifically personnel Taken together, mitigation and species in the vicinity of the action (i.e., safety, practicality of implementation, monitoring comprise the Navy’s presence, abundance, distribution, and/ integrated approach for reducing or density of species); and impact on the effectiveness of the • military readiness activity. environmental impacts from the An increase in our understanding of Additionally, an adaptive management specified activities. The Navy’s overall the nature, scope, or context of the provision ensures that mitigation is monitoring approach seeks to leverage likely exposure of marine mammals regularly assessed and provides a and build on existing research efforts and/or ESA-listed species to any of the mechanism to improve the mitigation, whenever possible. potential stressor(s) associated with the action (e.g., sound, explosive based on the factors above, through As agreed upon between the Navy and detonation, or military expended modification as appropriate. Thus, NMFS, the monitoring measures materials) through better understanding NMFS concludes that the mitigation presented here, as well as the mitigation of the following: (1) The action and the measures outlined in this final rule measures described above, focus on the environment in which it occurs (e.g., satisfy the statutory standard and that protection and management of sound source characterization, any adverse impacts that remain cannot potentially affected marine mammals. A propagation, and ambient noise levels); practicably be further mitigated. well-designed monitoring program can provide important feedback for (2) the affected species (e.g., life history Monitoring validating assumptions made in or dive patterns); (3) the likely co- analyses and allow for adaptive occurrence of marine mammals and/or Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA management of marine resources. ESA-listed marine species with the states that in order to authorize Monitoring is required under the action (in whole or part); and/or (4) the incidental take for an activity, NMFS MMPA, and details of the monitoring likely biological or behavioral context of must set forth requirements pertaining program for the specified activities have exposure to the stressor for the marine to the monitoring and reporting of such been developed through coordination mammal and/or ESA-listed marine taking. The MMPA implementing between NMFS and the Navy through species (e.g., age class of exposed regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) the regulatory process for previous Navy animals or known pupping, calving or indicate that requests for incidental take at-sea training and testing activities. feeding areas); authorizations must include the • An increase in our understanding of Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring suggested means of accomplishing the how individual marine mammals or Program (ICMP) necessary monitoring and reporting that ESA-listed marine species respond will result in increased knowledge of The Navy’s ICMP is intended to (behaviorally or physiologically) to the the species and of the level of taking or coordinate marine species monitoring specific stressors associated with the impacts on populations of marine efforts across all regions and to allocate action (in specific contexts, where mammals that are expected to be the most appropriate level and type of possible, e.g., at what distance or present. effort for each range complex based on received level); Although the Navy has been a set of standardized objectives, and in • An increase in our understanding of conducting research and monitoring in acknowledgement of regional expertise how anticipated individual responses, the MITT Study Area for over 20 years, and resource availability. The ICMP is to individual stressors or anticipated it developed a formal marine species designed to be flexible, scalable, and combinations of stressors, may impact monitoring program in support of the adaptable through the adaptive either: (1) The long-term fitness and MMPA and ESA authorizations in 2009. management and strategic planning survival of an individual or (2) the This robust program has resulted in processes to periodically assess progress population, species, or stock (e.g., hundreds of technical reports and and reevaluate objectives. This process through effects on annual rates of publications on marine mammals that includes conducting an annual adaptive recruitment or survival); have informed Navy and NMFS management review meeting, at which • An increase in our understanding of analyses in environmental planning the Navy and NMFS jointly consider the the effectiveness of mitigation and documents, rules, and ESA Biological prior-year goals, monitoring results, and monitoring measures; Opinions. The reports are made related scientific advances to determine • A better understanding and record available to the public on the Navy’s if monitoring plan modifications are of the manner in which the Navy marine species monitoring website warranted to more effectively address complies with the incidental take (www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us) program goals. Although the ICMP does regulations and LOAs and the ESA and the data on the Ocean not specify actual monitoring field work Incidental Take Statement; Biogeographic Information System or individual projects, it does establish • An increase in the probability of Spatial Ecological Analysis of a matrix of goals and objectives that detecting marine mammals (through Megavertebrate Populations (OBIS– have been developed in coordination improved technology or methods), both SEAMAP) (http://seamap.env.duke with NMFS. As the ICMP is specifically within the mitigation zone .edu/). implemented through the Strategic (thus allowing for more effective

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46387

implementation of the mitigation) and Marine Species Monitoring (U.S. including beaked whales and Kogia spp. in general, to better achieve the above Department of the Navy, 2011c), ranging (Hill et al., 2015; Hill et al., 2016a; Hill goals; and from occurrence of animals, to their et al., 2016b; Hill et al., 2017a; Munger • Ensuring that adverse impact of exposure, response, and population et al., 2015; Norris et al., 2017; Oleson activities remains at the least practicable consequences. The Navy continues to et al., 2015; Yack et al., 2016). level. manage the Atlantic and Pacific D Acoustic surveys using autonomous gliders were used to characterize the Strategic Planning Process for Marine program as a whole, with monitoring in occurrence of odontocetes and Species Monitoring each range complex taking a slightly different but complementary approach. mysticetes in abyssal offshore waters The Navy also developed the Strategic The Navy has continued to use the near Guam and CNMI, including species Planning Process for Marine Species approach of layering multiple not seen in the small vessel visual Monitoring, which establishes the simultaneous components in many of survey series such as killer whales and guidelines and processes necessary to the range complexes to leverage an Risso’s dolphins. Analysis of collected develop, evaluate, and fund individual increase in return of the progress toward data also provided new information on projects based on objective scientific answering scientific monitoring the seasonality of baleen whales, study questions. The process uses an questions. This includes, in the patterns of beaked whale occurrence underlying framework designed around Marianas for example, (a) glider and potential call variability, and intermediate scientific objectives and a deployment in offshore areas, (b) identification of a new unknown marine conceptual framework incorporating a analysis of existing passive acoustic mammal call (Klinck et al., 2016b; progression of knowledge spanning monitoring datasets, (c) small boat Nieukirk et al., 2016). occurrence, exposure, response, and surveys using visual, biopsy, and D Visual surveys were conducted consequence. The Strategic Planning satellite tagging and (d) seasonal, from a shore-station at high elevation on Process for Marine Species Monitoring humpback whale specific surveys. the north shore of Guam to document is used to set overarching intermediate Specific monitoring under the 2015– the nearshore occurrence of marine scientific objectives; develop individual 2020 regulations includes: mammals in waters where small vessel monitoring project concepts; identify D Review of the available data and visual surveys are challenging due to potential species of interest at a regional analyses in the MITT Study Area 2010 regularly high sea states (Deakos & scale; evaluate, prioritize and select through February 2018 (2019a). Richlen, 2015; Deakos et al., 2016). specific monitoring projects to fund or D The continuation of annual small D Analysis of archive data that continue supporting for a given fiscal vessel nearshore surveys, sightings, included marine mammal sightings year; execute and manage selected satellite tagging, biopsy and genetic during Guam Department of Agriculture monitoring projects; and report and analysis, photo-identification, and Division of Aquatic and Wildlife evaluate progress and results. This opportunistic acoustic recording off Resources aerial surveys undertaken process addresses relative investments Guam, Saipan, Tinian, Rota, and between 1963 and 2012 (Martin et al., to different range complexes based on Aguigan in partnership with NMFS (Hill 2016). goals across all range complexes, and et al., 2015; Hill et al., 2016b; Hill et al., D Analysis of archived acoustic monitoring will leverage multiple 2017a; Hill et al., 2018, Hill et al., towed-array data for an assessment of techniques for data acquisition and 2019b). The satellite tagging and genetic the abundance and density of minke analysis whenever possible. The analyses have resulted in the first whales (Norris et al., 2017), abundance Strategic Planning Process for Marine information discovered on the and density of sperm whales (Yack et Species Monitoring is also available movement patterns, habitat preference, al., 2016), and the characterization of sei online (http://www and population structure of multiple and humpback whale vocalizations .navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/). odontocete species in the MITT Study (Norris et al., 2014). Area. Numerous publications, dissertations, Past and Current Monitoring in the D Since 2015, the addition of a series and conference presentations have MITT Study Area of small vessel surveys in the winter resulted from research conducted under The monitoring program has season dedicated to humpback whales the Navy’s marine species monitoring undergone significant changes since the has provided new information relating program (https:// first rule was issued for the MITT Study to the occurrence, calving behavior, and www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/ Area in 2009, which highlights the population identity of this species (Hill reading-room/publications/), resulting monitoring program’s evolution through et al., 2016a; Hill et al., 2017b), which in a significant contribution to the body the process of adaptive management. had not previously been sighted during of marine mammal science. Publications The monitoring program developed for the small vessel surveys in the summer on occurrence, distribution, and density the first cycle of environmental or winter. This work has included have fed the modeling input, and compliance documents (e.g., U.S. sighting data, photo ID matches of publications on exposure and response Department of the Navy, 2008) utilized individuals to other areas demonstrating have informed Navy and NMFS effort-based compliance metrics that migration as well as re-sights within the analyses of behavioral response and were somewhat limiting. Through Marianas across different years, and the consideration of mitigation measures. adaptive management discussions, the collection of biopsy samples for genetic Furthermore, collaboration between Navy designed and conducted analyses of populations. the monitoring program and the Navy’s monitoring studies according to D The continued deployment of research and development (e.g., the scientific objectives, thereby eliminating passive acoustic monitoring devices and Office of Naval Research) and basing requirements upon metrics of analysis of acoustic data obtained using demonstration-validation (e.g., Living level-of-effort. Furthermore, refinements bottom-moored acoustic recording Marine Resources) programs has been of scientific objective have continued devices deployed by NMFS has strengthened, leading to research tools through the latest authorization cycle. provided information on the presence and products that have already Progress has also been made on the and seasonal occurrence of mysticetes, transitioned to the monitoring program. conceptual framework categories from as well as the occurrence of cryptic These include Marine Mammal the Scientific Advisory Group for Navy odontocetes typically found offshore, Monitoring on Ranges (M3R), controlled

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46388 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

exposure experiment behavioral was designed to address basic 2016a; Hill et al., 2017b). Importantly, response studies (CEE BRS), acoustic occurrence-level questions in the MIRC, the compiled data were also used to sea glider surveys, and global whereas monitoring the impacts of Navy inform proposals for new mitigation positioning system-enabled satellite training such as exposure to mid- areas for this rule and associated tags. Recent progress has been made frequency active sonar was planned for consultations. with better integration of monitoring other Navy range complexes where The ongoing regional species-specific across all Navy at-sea study areas, marine mammal occurrence was already study questions and results from recent including study areas in the Pacific and better characterized. efforts are publicly available on the the Atlantic Oceans, and various testing This emphasis on studying Navy’s Monitoring Program website. ranges. Publications from the Living occurrence continued through Phase I With basic occurrence information now Marine Resources and the Office of and II monitoring in the MIRC, and well-established, the primary goal of Naval Research programs have also combined various complementary monitoring in the MITT Study Area resulted in significant contributions to methodologies. Small vessel visual under this rule will be to close out these information on hearing ranges and surveys collected occurrence studies with final analyses. As the acoustic criteria used in effects information, and began building the first collection and analysis of basic modeling, exposure, and response, as individual identification catalog for occurrence data across Navy ranges well as developing tools to assess multiple species (Hill et al., 2014). (including MITT) is completed, the biological significance (e.g., population- During these visual surveys, biopsies focus of monitoring across all Navy level consequences). were collected for genetic analysis and range complexes will progressively NMFS and the Navy also consider satellite tags were also applied, resulting move toward addressing the important data collected during procedural in a progressively improving picture of questions of exposure and response to mitigations as monitoring. Data are the habitat use and population structure mid-frequency active sonar and other collected by shipboard personnel on of various species. Deep water passive Navy training, as well as the hours spent training, hours of acoustic deployments, including consequences of those exposures, where observation, hours of sonar, and marine autonomous gliders with passive appropriate. The Navy’s hydrophone- mammals observed within the acoustic recorders, added instrumented ranges have proven to be mitigation zones when mitigations are complementary information on species a powerful tool towards this end and implemented. These data are provided groups such as baleen whales and because of the lack of such an to NMFS in both classified and beaked whales that were rarely sighted instrumented range in the MITT Study unclassified annual exercise reports, on the vessel surveys (Klinck et al., Area, monitoring investments are which will continue under this rule. 2015; Munger et al., 2014; Munger et al., expected to begin shifting to other Navy NMFS has received multiple years’ 2015; Nieukirk et al., 2016; Norris et al., range complexes as the currently worth of annual exercise and 2015). Other methodologies were also ongoing research efforts in the Mariana monitoring reports addressing active explored to fill other gaps in waters Islands are completed. Any future sonar use and explosive detonations generally inaccessible to the small boat monitoring results for the MITT Study within the MITT Study Area and other surveys including a shore-station to Area will continue to be published on Navy range complexes. The data and survey waters on the windward side of the Navy’s Monitoring Program website, information contained in these reports Guam (Deakos et al., 2016). When as well as discussed during annual have been considered in developing available, platforms of opportunity on adaptive management meetings between mitigation and monitoring measures for large vessels were utilized for visual NMFS and the Navy. the training and testing activities within survey and tagging (Oleson and Hill, the MITT Study Area. The Navy’s 2010b). The Navy’s marine species monitoring annual exercise and monitoring reports At the close of Phase II monitoring, program typically supports several may be viewed at: https:// establishing the fundamentals of marine monitoring projects in the MITT Study www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ mammal occurrence in the MITT Study Area at any given time. Additional marine-mammal-protection/incidental- Area had been significantly advanced. details on the scientific objectives for take-authorizations-military-readiness- The various visual and acoustic each project can be found at https:// activities and http:// platforms have encountered nearly all of www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/ www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us. the species that are expected to occur in regions/pacific/current-projects/. Prior to Phase I monitoring, the the MITT Study Area. The photographic Projects can be either major multi-year information on marine mammal catalogs have progressively grown to the efforts, or one to two-year special presence and occurrence in the MIRC point that abundance analyses may be studies. The monitoring projects going was largely absent and limited to attempted for the most commonly- into 2020 include: anecdotal information from incidental encountered species. Beyond • Co-fund (with NMFS’ Pacific Island sightings and stranding events (U.S. occurrence, questions related to Fisheries Science Center) the Pacific Department of the Navy, 2005). In 2007, exposure to Navy training have been Marine Assessment Program for the Navy funded the Mariana Islands addressed, such as utilizing satellite tag Protected Species (PACMAPPS) Sea Turtle and Cetacean Survey telemetry to evaluate overlap of habitat Mariana Islands large vessel visual and (MISTCS) (U.S. Department of the Navy, use with underwater detonation training acoustic survey in spring-summer 2021 2007) to proactively support the sites. Also during Phase II monitoring, to help document marine mammal baseline data feeding the MIRC EIS (U.S. a pilot study to investigate reports of (including beaked whale) occurrence, Department of the Navy, 2010b). The humpback whales occasionally abundance, and distribution in the MISTCS research effort was the first occurring off Saipan has proven fruitful, Mariana Islands. This effort will include systematic marine survey in these yielding confirmation of this species deployments of a towed array as well as waters. This survey provided the first there, photographic matches of floating passive acoustic buoy; empirically-based density estimates for individuals to other waters in the • Humpback whale visual survey at marine mammals (Fulling et al., 2011). Pacific Ocean, as well as genetics data Farallon De Medinilla; In cooperation with NMFS, the Phase I that provide clues as to the population • Continued coordination with monitoring program beginning in 2010 identity of these animals (Hill et al., NMFS’ PIFSC for small boat humpback

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46389

whale surveys at other Mariana Islands in the previous regulations, the Navy’s annual or biennial basis if mitigation or (e.g., Saipan); report would include if active monitoring measures should be • Analysis of previously deployed sonobuoys were deployed, but not modified (including additions or passive acoustic sensors for detection of information on whether any active pings deletions). Mitigation measures could be humpback whale vocalizations at other were transmitted. modified if new data suggests that such islands (e.g., Pagan); • Monitor beaked whale occurrence modifications will have a reasonable • Conduct additional occurrence within select portions of the MITT likelihood of more effectively surveys for beaked whales within the Study Area starting in 2022, so as to not accomplishing the goals of the Mariana Islands beginning in fall 2021 duplicate efforts from item number 1 mitigation and monitoring and if the or winter-spring 2022 (this allows above. measures are practicable. If the assessment of PACMAPPs beaked whale • Include Cuvier’s beaked whales as a modifications to the mitigation, analysis to inform decision on priority species for analysis under a monitoring, or reporting measures are deployment locations). This is a new 2020–2023 Navy research-funded substantial, NMFS will publish a notice monitoring project since publication of program entitled Marine Species of the planned LOA in the Federal the proposed rule; and Monitoring for Potential Consequences Register and solicit public comment. • Funding to researchers with PIFSC of Disturbance (MSM4PCOD). The following are some of the for detailed necropsy support for select MSM4PCOD will explore how Navy possible sources of applicable data to be stranded marine mammals in Hawaii funded monitoring priorities can be considered through the adaptive and the Mariana Islands. adjusted to provide the best scientific management process: (1) Results from Since publication of the proposed information supporting Population monitoring and exercises reports, as rule, the decision has been made that Consequence of Disturbance analysis. required by MMPA authorizations; (2) the Navy will not be able to fund The Navy (Living Marine Resources results from specific stranding support for long-term satellite tag Program) has already funded this investigations; (3) results from general tracking of humpback whales. program for Fiscal Years 2018–2022 and marine mammal and sound research; The Navy has also committed to a set more information is available here and (4) any information which reveals of actions under the terms of this rule https://www.navfac.navy.mil/content/ that marine mammals may have been specifically to assist in improving the dam/navfac/Specialty%20Centers/ taken in a manner, extent, or number science on beaked whales (some of Engineering%20and%2 not authorized by these regulations or which will also benefit other species) 0Expeditionary%20Warfare%20Center/ subsequent LOA. The results from and facilitate potential adaptive Environmental/lmr/LMRFactSheet_ monitoring reports and other studies management actions (e.g., modification Project43.pdf. The prioritization for may be viewed at https:// of mitigation or monitoring measures) beaked whales was the result of a virtual www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us. relative to beaked whales in the MITT conference in May 2020. Cuvier’s Study Area: beaked whales in Southern California Beaked Whale Expert Panel • Continue to fund additional and Blainville’s beaked whales in the As noted in the discussion of beaked stranding response/necropsy analyses Hawaii Range Complex have among the whale mortality in the Comments and for the Pacific Islands region. In 2018, most robust population and exposure Responses section, as well as the the Navy funded the University of studies to date in the Pacific. Given Monitoring section above, both NMFS Hawaii for two years of additional likely similarities between Cuvier’s and the Navy acknowledge the need for necropsy support in the MITT Study beaked whales across the Pacific, this more data and continuing discussion on Area and Hawaii and planned another program will help identify the best way the topic of beaked whales, mitigation, funding cycle in Fiscal Year 2020. forward for monitoring for Cuvier’s and monitoring. Accordingly, as Complementing this, the Navy provided beaked whales in the Mariana Islands. recommended by public commenters, funding for additional stranding data the Navy has agreed to fund and co- analysis for all species in the MITT Adaptive Management organize with NMFS an expert panel to Study Area and HRC. The regulations governing the take of provide recommendations on scientific • Fund research on a framework to marine mammals incidental to Navy data gaps and uncertainties for further improve the analysis of single and mass training and testing activities in the protective measure consideration to stranding events, including the MITT Study Area contain an adaptive minimize the impact of Navy training development of more advanced management component. Our and testing activities on beaked whales statistical methods to better characterize understanding of the effects of Navy in the Mariana Islands. Two years of the uncertainty associated with data training and testing activities (e.g., additional data will be collected for parameters. In addition, the Navy is acoustic and explosive stressors) on beaked whales in the MITT Study Area exploring whether additional funding is marine mammals continues to evolve, prior to the expert panel meeting. available for the Center for Naval which makes the inclusion of an Analysis to research improvements to adaptive management component both Reporting statistical analysis. As of July 2020, the valuable and necessary within the In order to issue incidental take status of this request was still pending. context of seven-year regulations. authorization for an activity, section • Increased analysis for any future The reporting requirements associated 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that beaked whale stranding in the Mariana with this rule are designed to provide NMFS must set forth requirements Islands to include detailed Navy review NMFS with monitoring data from the pertaining to the monitoring and of available records of sonar use. In the previous year to allow NMFS to reporting of such taking. Effective previous regulations (2015–2020), consider whether any changes to reporting is critical both to compliance reports included time and location of a existing mitigation and monitoring as well as ensuring that the most value stranding. For these regulations, the requirements are appropriate. The use of is obtained from the required Navy will provide detailed record adaptive management allows NMFS to monitoring. Reports from individual reviews including participating units/ consider new information from different monitoring events, results of analyses, commands to gain a better idea of what sources to determine (with input from publications, and periodic progress sonar was used and when, For example the Navy regarding practicability) on an reports for specific monitoring projects

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46390 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

will be posted to the Navy’s Marine separate reports for the MITT, HSTT, comments on the draft close-out report, Species Monitoring web portal: http:// NWTT, and GOA Study Areas. if any, within three months of receipt. www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us. The report will be considered final after Annual MITT Training and Testing Currently, there are several different the Navy has addressed NMFS’ Exercise Report reporting requirements pursuant to the comments, or three months after the 2015–2020 regulations. All of these Each year, the Navy will submit a submittal of the draft if NMFS does not reporting requirements will continue preliminary report (Quick Look Report) provide comments. under this rule for the seven-year to NMFS detailing the status of Information included in the annual period. authorized sound sources within 21 reports may be used to inform future days after the anniversary of the date of adaptive management of activities Notification of Injured, Live Stranded or issuance of the LOA. The Navy will also Dead Marine Mammals within the MITT Study Area. submit a detailed report (MITT Annual Specific sub-reporting in these annual The Navy will consult the Training and Testing Exercise Report) to reports will include: Notification and Reporting Plan, which NMFS within three months after the • Sonar Exercise Notification: The sets out notification, reporting, and one-year anniversary of the date of Navy will submit an electronic report to other requirements when injured, live issuance of the LOA. If desired, the NMFS within fifteen calendar days after stranded, or dead marine mammals are Navy may elect to consolidate the MITT the completion of any major training detected. The Notification and Annual Training and Testing Exercise exercise indicating: Location of the Reporting Plan is available at https:// Report with other exercise reports from exercise; beginning and end dates of the www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ other range complexes in the Pacific exercise; and type of exercise. marine-mammal-protection/incidental- Ocean for a single Pacific Exercise take-authorizations-military-readiness- Report. NMFS will submit comments or Other Reporting and Coordination activities. questions on the report, if any, within The Navy will continue to report and coordinate with NMFS for the Annual MITT Monitoring Report one month of receipt. The report will be considered final after the Navy has following: The Navy will submit an annual addressed NMFS’ comments, or one • Annual marine species monitoring report to NMFS of the MITT Study Area month after submittal of the draft if technical review meetings that also monitoring which will be included in a NMFS does not provide comments on include researchers and the Marine Pacific-wide monitoring report the draft report. The annual report will Mammal Commission (currently, every including results specific to the MITT contain information on MTEs, Sinking two years a joint Pacific-Atlantic Study Area describing the Exercise (SINKEX) events, and a meeting is held); and implementation and results from the summary of all sound sources used • Annual Adaptive Management previous calendar year. Data collection (total hours or quantity of each bin of meetings that also include the Marine methods will be standardized across sonar or other non-impulsive source; Mammal Commission (recently Pacific Range Complexes including the total annual number of each type of modified to occur in conjunction with MITT, HSTT, NWTT, and Gulf of Alaska explosive exercises; and total annual the annual monitoring technical review (GOA) Study Areas to the best extent expended/detonated rounds (missiles, meeting). practicable, to allow for comparison in bombs, sonobuoys, etc.) for each different geographic locations. The Analysis and Negligible Impact explosive bin). The annual report will Determination report must be submitted to the also specifically include information on Director, Office of Protected Resources, sound sources used (i.e., total hours of General Negligible Impact Analysis NMFS, either within three months after operation of all active sonar (all bins, by Introduction the end of the calendar year, or within bin)) used in the Marpi Reef and Chalan three months after the conclusion of the Kanoa Reef Geographic Mitigation Areas NMFS has defined negligible impact monitoring year, to be determined by from December 1 to April 30. The as an impact resulting from the the Adaptive Management process. annual report will also contain both specified activity that cannot be NMFS will submit comments or current year’s sonar and explosive use reasonably expected to, and is not questions on the draft monitoring data as well as cumulative sonar and reasonably likely to, adversely affect the report, if any, within three months of explosive use quantity from previous species or stock through effects on receipt. The report will be considered years’ reports Additionally, if there were annual rates of recruitment or survival final after the Navy has addressed any changes to the sound source (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact NMFS’ comments, or three months after allowance in the reporting year, or finding is based on the lack of likely the submittal of the draft if NMFS does cumulatively, the report will include a adverse effects on annual rates of not provide comments on the draft discussion of why the change was made recruitment or survival (i.e., population- report. Such a report describes progress and include analysis to support how the level effects). An estimate of the number of knowledge made with respect to change did or did not affect the analysis of takes alone is not enough information monitoring study questions across in the 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS and on which to base an impact multiple Navy ranges associated with MMPA final rule. See the regulations determination. In considering how the ICMP. Similar study questions will below for more detail on the content of Level A harassment or Level B be treated together so that progress on the annual report. harassment (as presented in Table 28) each topic is summarized across The final annual/close-out report at factor into the negligible impact multiple Navy ranges. The report need the conclusion of the authorization analysis, in addition to considering the not include analyses and content that period (year seven) will also serve as the number of estimated takes, NMFS does not provide direct assessment of comprehensive close-out report and considers other factors, such as the cumulative progress on the monitoring include both the final year annual use likely nature of any responses (e.g., study question. This will allow the compared to annual authorization as intensity, duration), the context of any Navy to provide a cohesive monitoring well as a cumulative seven-year annual responses (e.g., critical reproductive report covering multiple ranges (as per use compared to seven-year time or location, migration), as well as ICMP goals), rather than entirely authorization. NMFS must submit effects on habitat, and the likely

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46391

effectiveness of the mitigation. We also the number of takes are only a part of effects, which occurs after the modeling, assess the number, intensity, and the analysis, which includes extensive is to consider the implementation of context of estimated takes by evaluating qualitative consideration of other mitigation and the possibility that this information relative to population contextual factors that influence the marine mammals would avoid status. Consistent with the 1989 degree of impact of the takes on the continued or repeated sound exposures. preamble for NMFS’ implementing affected individuals. To avoid NMFS provided input to, independently regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, repetition, we provide some general reviewed, and concurred with the Navy 1989), the impacts from other past and analysis in this General Negligible on this process and the Navy’s analysis, ongoing anthropogenic activities are Impact Analysis section that applies to which is described in detail in Section incorporated into this analysis via their all the species listed in Table 28, given 6 of the Navy’s rulemaking/LOA impacts on the baseline (e.g., as that some of the anticipated effects of application, and was used to quantify reflected in the regulatory status of the the Navy’s training and testing activities harassment takes for this rule. species, population size and growth rate on marine mammals are expected to be Generally speaking, the Navy and where known). relatively similar in nature. Then, in the NMFS anticipate more severe effects In the Estimated Take of Marine Group and Species-Specific Analyses from takes resulting from exposure to Mammals section, we identified the section, we subdivide into discussions higher received levels (though this is in subset of potential effects that are of Mysticetes and Odontocetes, as there no way a strictly linear relationship for expected to rise to the level of takes are broad life history traits that support behavioral effects throughout species, both annually and over the seven-year an overarching discussion of some individuals, or circumstances) and less period covered by this rule, and then factors considered within the analysis severe effects from takes resulting from identified the maximum number of for those groups (e.g., high-level exposure to lower received levels. harassment takes that are reasonably differences in feeding strategies). Last, However, there is also growing evidence expected to occur based on the methods we break our analysis into species, or of the importance of distance in described. The impact that any given groups of species where relevant predicting marine mammal behavioral take will have on an individual, and similarities exist, to provide more response to sound—i.e., sounds of a ultimately the species or stock, is specific information related to the similar level emanating from a more dependent on many case-specific factors anticipated effects on individuals of that distant source have been shown to be that need to be considered in the species or where there is information less likely to evoke a response of equal negligible impact analysis (e.g., the about the status or structure of any magnitude (DeRuiter 2012, Falcone et context of behavioral exposures such as species that would lead to a differing al. 2017). The estimated number of duration or intensity of a disturbance, assessment of the effects on the species. Level A harassment and Level B the health of impacted animals, the Organizing our analysis by grouping harassment takes does not equate to the status of a species that incurs fitness- species that share common traits or that number of individual animals the Navy level impacts to individuals, etc.). For will respond similarly to effects of the expects to harass (which is lower), but this rule we evaluated the likely impacts Navy’s activities and then providing rather to the instances of take (i.e., of the enumerated maximum number of species-specific information allows us harassment takes reasonably expected to to avoid duplication while assuring that exposures above the Level A harassment occur, and also authorized, in the we have analyzed the effects of the and Level B harassment threshold) that context of the specific circumstances specified activities on each affected are anticipated to occur annually and surrounding these predicted takes. Last, species. over the seven-year period. These we collectively evaluated this instances may represent either brief information, as well as other more taxa- Harassment exposures (seconds or minutes) or, in specific information and mitigation The Navy’s harassment take request is some cases, longer durations of measure effectiveness, in group-specific based on its model, as well as the exposure within a day. Some assessments that support our negligible quantitative assessment of mitigation, individuals may experience multiple impact conclusions for each species. which NMFS reviewed and concurs instances of take (meaning over multiple Because the marine mammal appropriately predict the maximum days) over the course of the year, which populations in the MITT Study Area amount of harassment that is likely to means that the number of individuals have not been assigned to stocks, all occur. The model calculates sound taken is smaller than the total estimated negligible impact analysis and energy propagation from sonar, other takes. Generally speaking, the higher the determinations are at the species level. active acoustic sources, and explosives number of takes as compared to the As explained in the Estimated Take of during naval activities; the sound or population abundance, the more Marine Mammals section, no take by impulse received by animat dosimeters repeated takes of individuals are likely, serious injury or mortality is authorized representing marine mammals and the higher the actual percentage of or anticipated to occur. distributed in the area around the individuals in the population that are The Specified Activities reflect modeled activity; and whether the likely taken at least once in a year. We representative levels of training and sound or impulse energy received by a look at this comparative metric to give testing activities. The Description of the marine mammal exceeds the thresholds us a relative sense of where a larger Specified Activity section describes for effects. Assumptions in the Navy portion of a species is being taken by annual activities. There may be some model intentionally err on the side of Navy activities, where there is a higher flexibility in the exact number of hours, overestimation when there are likelihood that the same individuals are items, or detonations that may vary from unknowns. Naval activities are modeled being taken across multiple days, and year to year, but take totals will not as though they would occur regardless where that number of days might be exceed the seven-year totals indicated in of proximity to marine mammals, higher or more likely sequential. Where Table 28. We base our analysis and meaning that no mitigation is the number of instances of take is 100 negligible impact determination on the considered (e.g., no power down or shut percent or less of the abundance and maximum number of takes that are down) and without any avoidance of the there is no information to specifically reasonably expected to occur and are activity by the animal. The final step of suggest that a small subset of animals authorized, although, as stated before, the quantitative analysis of acoustic will be repeatedly taken over a high

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46392 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

number of sequential days, the overall Behavioral Response area that an animal would otherwise magnitude is generally considered The estimates calculated using the have chosen to move through or feed in relatively low, as it could on one behavioral response function do not for some amount of time or breaking off extreme mean that every individual differentiate between the different types one or a few feeding bouts. More severe taken will be taken on no more than one of behavioral responses that rise to the effects could occur when the animal day (a very minimal impact) or, more level of take by Level B harassment. As gets close enough to the source to likely, that some smaller portion of described in the Navy’s application, the receive a comparatively higher level, is individuals are taken on one day Navy identified (with NMFS’ input) the exposed continuously to one source for annually, some are taken on a few not types of behaviors that would be a longer time, or is exposed likely sequential days annually, and considered a take (moderate behavioral intermittently to different sources some are not taken at all. responses as characterized in Southall et throughout a day. Such effects might In the ocean, the use of sonar and al. (2007) (e.g., altered migration paths result in an animal having a more severe other active acoustic sources is often or dive profiles, interrupted nursing, flight response and leaving a larger area for a day or more or potentially losing transient and is unlikely to repeatedly breeding or feeding, or avoidance) that feeding opportunities for a day. expose the same individual animals also would be expected to continue for However, such severe behavioral effects within a short period, for example the duration of an exposure). The Navy are expected to occur infrequently. within one specific exercise. However, then compiled the available data for some individuals of some species indicating at what received levels and To help assess this, for sonar (LFAS/ repeated exposures across different distances those responses have MFAS/HFAS) used in the MITT Study activities could occur over the year, occurred, and used the indicated Area, the Navy provided information especially where events occur in literature to build biphasic behavioral estimating the percentage of animals generally the same area with more response curves and cutoff distances that may be taken by Level B resident species. In short, for some that are used to predict how many harassment under each behavioral species we expect that the total instances of Level B harassment by response function that would occur anticipated takes represent exposures of behavioral disturbance occur in a day. within 6-dB increments (percentages a smaller number of individuals of Take estimates alone do not provide discussed below in the Group and which some will be exposed multiple information regarding the potential Species-Specific Analyses section). As times, but based on the nature of the fitness or other biological consequences mentioned above, all else being equal, Navy activities and the movement of the reactions on the affected an animal’s exposure to a higher patterns of marine mammals, it is individuals. We therefore consider the received level is more likely to result in unlikely that individuals from most available activity-specific, a behavioral response that is more likely species will be taken over more than a environmental, and species-specific to lead to adverse effects, which could few non-sequential days. This means information to determine the likely more likely accumulate to impacts on reproductive success or survivorship of that even where repeated takes of nature of the modeled behavioral the animal, but other contextual factors individuals may occur, they are more responses and the potential fitness (such as distance) are important also. likely to result from non-sequential consequences for affected individuals. Use of sonar and other transducers The majority of Level B harassment exposures from different activities. As will typically be transient and takes are expected to be in the form of described elsewhere, the nature of the temporary. The majority of acoustic milder responses (i.e., lower-level majority of the exposures is expected to effects to individual animals from sonar exposures that still rise to the level of be of a less severe nature and based on and other active sound sources during take) of a generally shorter duration. We the numbers it is likely that any testing and training activities will be anticipate more severe effects from takes individual exposed multiple times is primarily from ASW events. It is when animals are exposed to higher still only taken on a small percentage of important to note that although ASW is received levels or at closer proximity to the days of the year. one of the warfare areas of focus during the source. However, depending on the Physiological Stress Response MTEs, there are significant periods context of an exposure (e.g., depth, when active ASW sonars are not in use. distance, if an animal is engaged in Some of the lower level physiological Nevertheless, behavioral reactions are important behavior such as feeding), a stress responses (e.g., orientation or assumed more likely to be significant behavioral response can vary between startle response, change in respiration, during MTEs than during other ASW species and individuals within a change in heart rate) discussed in the activities due to the duration (i.e., species. Specifically, given a range of proposed rule would likely co-occur multiple days), scale (i.e., multiple behavioral responses that may be with the predicted harassments, sonar platforms), and use of high-power classified as Level B harassment, to the although these responses are more hull-mounted sonar in the MTEs. In degree that higher received levels are difficult to detect and fewer data exist other words, in the range of potential expected to result in more severe relating these responses to specific behavioral effects that might be behavioral responses, only a smaller received levels of sound. Takes by Level expected to be part of a response that percentage of the anticipated Level B B harassment, then, may have a stress- qualifies as an instance of Level B harassment from Navy activities might related physiological component as harassment by behavioral disturbance necessarily be expected to potentially well; however, we would not expect the (which by nature of the way it is result in more severe responses (see the Navy’s generally short-term, modeled/counted, occurs within one Group and Species-Specific Analyses intermittent, and (typically in the case day), the less severe end might include section below for more detailed of sonar) transitory activities to create exposure to comparatively lower levels information). To fully understand the conditions of long-term, continuous of a sound, at a detectably greater likely impacts of the predicted/ noise leading to long-term physiological distance from the animal, for a few or authorized take on an individual (i.e., stress responses in marine mammals several minutes. A less severe exposure what is the likelihood or degree of that could affect reproduction or of this nature could result in a fitness impacts), one must look closely survival. behavioral response such as avoiding an at the available contextual information,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46393

such as the duration of likely exposures mentioned above, it is considered (1–8 hours); however, the explosive and the likely severity of the exposures unlikely for the majority of takes. component of the activity only lasts for (e.g., whether they will occur for a However, it is also worth noting that the minutes (see Table 3). Although longer duration over sequential days or Navy conducts many different types of explosive exercises may sometimes be the comparative sound level that will be noise-producing activities over the conducted in the same general areas received). Ellison et al. (2012) and course of the year and it is likely that repeatedly, because of their short Moore and Barlow (2013), among others, some marine mammals will be exposed duration and the fact that they are in the emphasize the importance of context to more than one and taken on multiple open ocean and animals can easily (e.g., behavioral state of the animals, days, even if they are not sequential. move away, it is similarly unlikely that distance from the sound source) in That said, the MITT Study Area is animals would be exposed for long, evaluating behavioral responses of different than other Navy ranges where continuous amounts of time, or marine mammals to acoustic sources. there can be a significant number of demonstrate sustained behavioral Navy surface ships with hull-mounted responses. Although SINKEXs may last Diel Cycle sonar homeported. In the MITT Study for up to 48 hrs (4–8 hrs, possibly 1–2 Many animals perform vital functions, Area, there are no homeported surface days), they are almost always completed such as feeding, resting, traveling, and ships with hull-mounted sonars in a single day and only one event is socializing on a diel cycle (24-hour permanently assigned. There is no local planned annually for the MITT training cycle). Behavioral reactions to noise unit level training in the MITT Study activities. They are stationary and exposure, when taking place in a Area for homeported ships such as the conducted in deep, open water where biologically important context, such as case for other ranges. Instead, Navy fewer marine mammals would typically disruption of critical life functions, activities from visiting and transiting be expected to be encountered. They displacement, or avoidance of important vessels are much more episodic in the also have shutdown procedures and habitat, are more likely to be significant MITT Study Area. Therefore, there rigorous monitoring, i.e., during the if they last more than one diel cycle or could be long gaps between activities activity, the Navy conducts passive recur on subsequent days (Southall et (i.e., weeks, months) in the MITT Study acoustic monitoring and visually al., 2007). Henderson et al. (2016) found Area. observes for marine mammals 90 min that ongoing smaller scale events had Durations of Navy activities utilizing prior to the first firing, during the event, little to no impact on foraging dives for tactical sonar sources and explosives and 2 hrs after sinking the vessel. All of Blainville’s beaked whale, while multi- vary and are fully described in these factors make it unlikely that day training events may decrease Appendix A (Training and Testing individuals would be exposed to the foraging behavior for Blainville’s beaked Activity Descriptions) of the 2020 MITT exercise for extended periods or on whale (Manzano-Roth et al., 2016). FSEIS/OEIS. Sonar used during ASW consecutive days. Consequently, a behavioral response will impart the greatest amount of lasting less than one day and not acoustic energy of any category of sonar Assessing the Number of Individuals recurring on subsequent days is not and other transducers analyzed in the Taken and the Likelihood of Repeated considered severe unless it could Navy’s rulemaking/LOA application and Takes directly affect reproduction or survival include hull-mounted, towed, line As described previously, Navy (Southall et al., 2007). Note that there is array, sonobuoy, helicopter dipping, modeling uses the best available science a difference between multiple-day and torpedo sonars. Most ASW sonars to predict the instances of exposure substantive behavioral reactions and are MFAS (1–10 kHz); however, some above certain acoustic thresholds, multiple-day anthropogenic activities. sources may use higher or lower which are equated, as appropriate, to For example, just because an at-sea frequencies. ASW training activities harassment takes (and, for PTS, further exercise lasts for multiple days does not using hull-mounted sonar planned for corrected to account for mitigation and necessarily mean that individual the MITT Study Area generally last for avoidance). As further noted, for active animals are exposed to those exercises only a few hours (see Table 3). Some acoustics it is more challenging to parse for multiple days or, further, exposed in ASW training and testing can generally out the number of individuals taken by a manner resulting in a sustained last for 2–10 days, or a 10-day exercise Level B harassment and the number of multiple day substantive behavioral is typical for an MTE-Large Integrated times those individuals are taken from response. Large multi-day Navy ASW (see Table 3). For these multi-day this larger number of instances. One exercises such as ASW activities, exercises there will typically be method that NMFS can use to help typically include vessels that are extended intervals of non-activity in better understand the overall scope of continuously moving at speeds typically between active sonar periods. Because the impacts is to compare these total 10–15 kn, or higher, and likely cover of the need to train in a large variety of instances of take against the abundance large areas that are relatively far from situations, the Navy does not typically of that species (or stock if applicable). shore (typically more than 3 nmi from conduct successive ASW exercises in For example, if there are 100 estimated shore) and in waters greater than 600 ft the same locations. Given the average harassment takes in a population of 100, deep. Additionally marine mammals are length of ASW exercises (times of sonar one can assume either that every moving as well, which will make it use) and typical vessel speed, combined individual will be exposed above unlikely that the same animal could with the fact that the majority of the acoustic thresholds in no more than one remain in the immediate vicinity of the cetaceans would not likely remain in day, or that some smaller number will ship for the entire duration of the proximity to the sound source, it is be exposed in one day but a few exercise. Further, the Navy does not unlikely that an animal would be individuals will be exposed multiple necessarily operate active sonar the exposed to LFAS/MFAS/HFAS at levels days within a year and a few not entire time during an exercise. While it or durations likely to result in a exposed at all. Where the number of is certainly possible that these sorts of substantive response that would then be instances of take exceed the abundance exercises could overlap with individual carried on for more than one day or on of the population (i.e., are over 100 marine mammals multiple days in a row successive days. percent), multiple takes of some at levels above those anticipated to Most planned explosive events are individuals are predicted and expected result in a take, because of the factors scheduled to occur over a short duration to occur within a year. Generally

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46394 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

speaking, the higher the number of takes stocks and there are no associated SARs. communicate or echolocate. However, as compared to the population There is also no information on trends HF systems are typically used less abundance, the more multiple takes of for any of these species. Nonetheless, frequently and for shorter time periods individuals are likely, and the higher the information used to estimate take than surface ship and aircraft MF the actual percentage of individuals in included the best available survey systems, so TTS from these sources is the population that are likely taken at abundance data to model density layers. unlikely. There are fewer LF sources least once in a year. We look at this Further, in calculating the percentage of and the majority are used in the more comparative metric to give us a relative takes versus abundance for each species readily mitigated testing environment, sense of where larger portions of the in order to assist in understanding both but TTS from LF sources would most species or stocks are being taken by the percentage of the species affected, as likely occur below 2 kHz, which is in Navy activities and where there is a well as how many days across a year the range where many mysticetes higher likelihood that the same individuals could be taken, we used the communicate and also where other non- individuals may be taken across data most appropriate for the situation. communication auditory cues are multiple days and where that number of The survey data used to calculate located (waves, snapping shrimp, fish days might be higher. It also provides a abundance in the MITT Study Area is prey). Also of note, the majority of sonar relative picture of the scale of impacts described in the report Navy Marine sources from which TTS may be to each species. Species Density Database Phase III for incurred occupy a narrow frequency In the ocean, unlike a modeling the Mariana Islands Training and band, which means that the TTS simulation with static animals, the use Testing Study Area (Navy 2018). incurred would also be across a of sonar and other active acoustic Temporary Threshold Shift narrower band (i.e., not affecting the sources is often transient, and is majority of an animal’s hearing range). unlikely to repeatedly expose the same NMFS and the Navy have estimated This frequency provides information individual animals within a short that all species of marine mammals may about the cues to which a marine period, for example within one specific sustain some level of TTS from active mammal may be temporarily less exercise. However, some repeated sonar. As discussed in the proposed rule sensitive, but not the degree or duration exposures across different activities in the Potential Effects of Specified of sensitivity loss. TTS from explosives could occur over the year with more Activities on Marine Mammals and would be broadband. resident species. Nonetheless, the Their Habitat, in general, TTS can last 2. Degree of the shift (i.e., by how episodic nature of Navy activities in the from a few minutes to days, be of MITT Study Area would mean less varying degree, and occur across various many dB the sensitivity of the hearing frequent exposures as compared to some frequency bandwidths, all of which is reduced)—Generally, both the degree other ranges. While select offshore areas determine the severity of the impacts on of TTS and the duration of TTS will be in the MITT Study Area are used more the affected individual, which can range greater if the marine mammal is exposed frequently for ASW and other activities, from minor to more severe. Tables 49– to a higher level of energy (which would these are generally further offshore than 53 indicate the number of takes by TTS occur when the peak dB level is higher where most island associated resident that may be incurred by different or the duration is longer). The threshold populations would occur and instead species from exposure to active sonar for the onset of TTS was discussed would be in areas with more transitory and explosives. The TTS sustained by previously in this rule. An animal species. In short, we expect that the an animal is primarily classified by would have to approach closer to the total anticipated takes represent three characteristics: source or remain in the vicinity of the exposures of a smaller number of 1. Frequency—Available data (of mid- sound source appreciably longer to individuals of which some could be frequency hearing specialists exposed to increase the received SEL, which would exposed multiple times, but based on mid- or high-frequency sounds; Southall be difficult considering the Lookouts the nature of the Navy’s activities and et al., 2007) suggest that most TTS and the nominal speed of an active the movement patterns of marine occurs in the frequency range of the sonar vessel (10–15 kn) and the relative mammals, it is unlikely that any source up to one octave higher than the motion between the sonar vessel and the particular subset would be taken over source (with the maximum TTS at 1⁄2 animal. In the TTS studies discussed in more than a few non-sequential days. octave above). The Navy’s MF sources, the Potential Effects of Specified In using the relationship between which are the highest power and most Activities on Marine Mammals and predicted instances of take and the numerous sources and the ones that Their Habitat section of the proposed population abundance to help estimate cause the most take, utilize the 1–10 rule, some using exposures of almost an the proportion of a population likely kHz frequency band, which suggests hour in duration or up to 217 SEL, most taken and the number of days over that if TTS were to be induced by any of the TTS induced was 15 dB or less, which some individuals may be taken, of these MF sources it would be in a though Finneran et al. (2007) induced it is important to choose an appropriate frequency band somewhere between 43 dB of TTS with a 64-second exposure population estimate against which to approximately 2 and 20 kHz, which is to a 20 kHz source. However, since any make the comparison. The SARs, where in the range of communication calls for hull-mounted sonar, such as the SQS– available, provide the official many odontocetes, but below the range 53, engaged in anti-submarine warfare population estimate for a given species of the echolocation signals used for training would be moving at between 10 or stock in U.S. waters in a given year foraging. There are fewer hours of HF and 15 knots and nominally pinging (and are typically based solely on the source use and the sounds would every 50 seconds, the vessel will have most recent survey data). When the attenuate more quickly, plus they have traveled a minimum distance of stock is known to range outside of U.S. lower source levels, but if an animal approximately 257 m during the time EEZ boundaries, population estimates were to incur TTS from these sources, between those pings and, therefore, based on surveys conducted only within it would cover a higher frequency range incurring those levels of TTS is highly the U.S. EEZ are known to be (sources are between 10 and 100 kHz, unlikely. A scenario could occur where underestimates. The marine mammal which means that TTS could range up an animal does not leave the vicinity of populations in the MITT Study Area to 200 kHz), which could overlap with a ship or travels a course parallel to the have not been assigned to specific the range in which some odontocetes ship, however, the close distances

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46395

required make TTS exposure unlikely. Tables 47–51 indicate the number of hearing sensitivity) reproduction or For a Navy vessel moving at a nominal incidental takes by TTS for each species survival. 10 knots, it is unlikely a marine that are likely to result from the Navy’s Auditory Masking or Communication mammal could maintain speed parallel activities. As a general point, the Impairment to the ship and receive adequate energy majority of these TTS takes are the over successive pings to suffer TTS. result of exposure to hull-mounted The ultimate potential impacts of In short, given the anticipated MFAS (MF narrower band sources), masking on an individual (if it were to duration and levels of sound exposure, with fewer from explosives (broad-band occur) are similar to those discussed for we would not expect marine mammals lower frequency sources), and even TTS, but an important difference is that masking only occurs during the time of to incur more than relatively low levels fewer from LFAS or HFAS sources the signal, versus TTS, which continues of TTS (i.e., single digits of sensitivity (narrower band). As described above, beyond the duration of the signal. loss). To add context to this degree of we expect the majority of these takes to TTS, individual marine mammals may Fundamentally, masking is referred to be in the form of mild (single-digit), as a chronic effect because one of the regularly experience variations of 6 dB short-term (minutes to hours), narrower differences in hearing sensitivity across key potential harmful components of band (only affecting a portion of the masking is its duration—the fact that an time (Finneran et al., 2000, 2002; animal’s hearing range) TTS. This Schlundt et al., 2000). animal would have reduced ability to means that for one to several times per hear or interpret critical cues becomes 3. Duration of TTS (recovery time)— year, for several minutes to maybe a few much more likely to cause a problem In the TTS laboratory studies (as hours (high end) each, a taken the longer it is occurring. Also inherent discussed in the Potential Effects of individual will have slightly diminished in the concept of masking is the fact that Specified Activities on Marine hearing sensitivity (slightly more than the potential for the effect is only Mammals and Their Habitat section of natural variation, but nowhere near total present during the times that the animal the proposed rule), some using deafness). More often than not, such an and the source are in close enough exposures of almost an hour in duration exposure would occur within a proximity for the effect to occur (and or up to 217 SEL, almost all individuals narrower mid- to higher frequency band further, this time period would need to recovered within 1 day (or less, often in that may overlap part (but not all) of a coincide with a time that the animal minutes), although in one study communication, echolocation, or was utilizing sounds at the masked (Finneran et al., 2007), recovery took 4 predator range, but sometimes across a frequency). As our analysis has days. lower or broader bandwidth. The indicated, because of the relative Based on the range of degree and significance of TTS is also related to the movement of vessels and the sound duration of TTS reportedly induced by auditory cues that are germane within sources primarily involved in this rule, exposures to non-pulse sounds of the time period that the animal incurs we do not expect the exposures with the energy higher than that to which free- the TTS. For example, if an odontocete potential for masking to be of a long swimming marine mammals in the field has TTS at echolocation frequencies, but duration. Masking is fundamentally are likely to be exposed during LFAS/ incurs it at night when it is resting and more of a concern at lower frequencies, MFAS/HFAS training and testing not feeding, for example, it is not because low frequency signals propagate exercises in the MITT Study Area, it is impactful. In short, the expected results significantly further than higher unlikely that marine mammals would of any one of these small number of frequencies and because they are more ever sustain a TTS from MFAS that mild TTS occurrences could be that (1) likely to overlap both the narrower LF alters their sensitivity by more than 20 calls of mysticetes, as well as many non- dB for more than a few hours—and any it does not overlap signals that are pertinent to that animal in the given communication cues such as fish and incident of TTS would likely be far less invertebrate prey, and geologic sounds severe due to the short duration of the time period, (2) it overlaps parts of signals that are important to the animal, that inform navigation. It should be majority of the events and the speed of noted that the Navy is only proposing but not in a manner that impairs a typical vessel, especially given the fact authorization for a small subset of more interpretation, or (3) it reduces that the higher power sources resulting narrow frequency LF sources and for detectability of an important signal to a in TTS are predominantly intermittent, less than 11 hours cumulatively which have been shown to result in small degree for a short amount of annually. Masking is also more of a shorter durations of TTS. Also, for the time—in which case the animal may be concern from continuous sources same reasons discussed in the Analysis aware and be able to compensate (but (versus intermittent sonar signals) and Negligible Impact Determination— there may be slight energetic cost), or where there is no quiet time between Diel Cycle section, and because of the the animal may have some reduced pulses within which auditory signals short distance within which animals opportunities (e.g., to detect prey) or can be detected and interpreted. For would need to approach the sound reduced capabilities to react with these reasons, dense aggregations of, source, it is unlikely that animals would maximum effectiveness (e.g., to detect a and long exposure to, continuous LF be exposed to the levels necessary to predator or navigate optimally). activity are much more of a concern for induce TTS in subsequent time periods However, given the small number of masking, whereas comparatively short- such that their recovery is impeded. times that any individual might incur term exposure to the predominantly Additionally, though the frequency TTS, the low degree of TTS and the intermittent pulses of often narrow range of TTS that marine mammals short anticipated duration, and the low frequency range MFAS or HFAS, or might sustain would overlap with some likelihood that one of these instances explosions are not expected to result in of the frequency ranges of their would occur in a time period in which a meaningful amount of masking. While vocalization types, the frequency range the specific TTS overlapped the entirety the Navy occasionally uses LF and more of TTS from MFAS would not usually of a critical signal, it is unlikely that continuous sources, it is not in the span the entire frequency range of one TTS of the nature expected to result contemporaneous aggregate amounts vocalization type, much less span all from the Navy activities would result in that would accrue to a masking concern. types of vocalizations or other critical behavioral changes or other impacts that Specifically, the nature of the activities auditory cues for any given species. would impact any individual’s (of any and sound sources used by the Navy do

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46396 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

not support the likelihood of a level of kn, and it is unlikely that the ship and Data suggest that many marine masking accruing that would have the the marine mammal would continue to mammals will deliberately avoid potential to affect reproductive success move in the same direction and the exposing themselves to the received or survival. Additional detail is marine mammal subjected to the same levels of active sonar necessary to provided below. exposure due to that movement. Most induce injury by moving away from or Standard hull-mounted MFAS ASW activities are geographically at least modifying their path to avoid a typically pings every 50 seconds. Some dispersed and last for only a few hours, close approach. Additionally, in the hull-mounted anti-submarine sonars can often with intermittent sonar use even unlikely event that an animal also be used in an object detection mode within this period. Most ASW sonars approaches the sonar-emitting vessel at known as ‘‘Kingfisher’’ mode (e.g., used also have a narrow frequency band a close distance, NMFS has determined on vessels when transiting to and from (typically less than one-third octave). that the mitigation measures (i.e., port) where pulse length is shorter but These factors reduce the likelihood of shutdown/powerdown zones for active pings are much closer together in both sources causing significant masking. HF sonar) would typically ensure that time and space since the vessel goes signals (above 10 kHz) attenuate more animals would not be exposed to slower when operating in this mode. rapidly in the water due to absorption injurious levels of sound. As discussed Kingfisher mode is typically operated than do lower frequency signals, thus previously, the Navy utilizes both aerial for relatively shorter durations. For the producing only a very small zone of (when available) and passive acoustic majority of other sources, the pulse potential masking. If masking or monitoring (during ASW exercises, length is significantly shorter than hull- communication impairment were to passive acoustic detections are used as mounted active sonar, on the order of occur briefly, it would more likely be in a cue for Lookouts’ visual observations several microseconds to tens of the frequency range of MFAS (the more when passive acoustic assets are already milliseconds. Some of the vocalizations powerful source), which overlaps with participating in an activity) in addition that many marine mammals make are some odontocete vocalizations (but few to Lookouts on vessels to detect marine less than one second long, so, for mysticete vocalizations); however, it mammals for mitigation example with hull-mounted sonar, there would likely not mask the entirety of implementation. As discussed would be a 1 in 50 chance (only if the any particular vocalization, previously, these Level A harassment source was in close enough proximity communication series, or other critical take numbers represent the maximum for the sound to exceed the signal that auditory cue, because the signal length, number of instances in which marine is being detected) that a single frequency, and duty cycle of the MFAS/ mammals would be reasonably expected vocalization might be masked by a ping. HFAS signal does not perfectly resemble to incur PTS, and we have analyzed However, when vocalizations (or series the characteristics of any single marine them accordingly. of vocalizations) are longer than the mammal species’ vocalizations. one-second pulse of hull-mounted Other sources used in Navy training If a marine mammal is able to sonar, or when the pulses are only and testing that are not explicitly approach a surface vessel within the several microseconds long, the majority addressed above, many of either higher distance necessary to incur PTS in spite of most animals’ vocalizations would frequencies (meaning that the sounds of the mitigation measures, the likely not be masked. generated attenuate even closer to the speed of the vessel (nominally 10–15 Most ASW sonars and source) or lower amounts of operation, kn) and relative motion of the vessel countermeasures use MF frequencies are similarly not expected to result in would make it very difficult for the and a few use LF and HF frequencies. masking. For the reasons described here, animal to remain in range long enough Most of these sonar signals are limited any limited masking that could to accumulate enough energy to result in the temporal, frequency, and spatial potentially occur would be minor and in more than a mild case of PTS. As domains. The duration of most short-term. discussed previously in relation to TTS, individual sounds is short, lasting up to In conclusion, masking is more likely the likely consequences to the health of a few seconds each. A few systems to occur in the presence of broadband, an individual that incurs PTS can range operate with higher duty cycles or relatively continuous noise sources such from mild to more serious depending nearly continuously, but they typically as from vessels, however, the duration upon the degree of PTS and the use lower power, which means that an of temporal and spatial overlap with any frequency band it is in. The majority of animal would have to be closer, or in individual animal and the spatially any PTS incurred as a result of exposure the vicinity for a longer time, to be separated sources that the Navy uses to Navy sources would be expected to masked to the same degree as by a would not be expected to result in more be in the 2–20 kHz range (resulting from higher level source. Nevertheless, than short-term, low impact masking the most powerful hull-mounted sonar) masking could occasionally occur at that would not affect reproduction or and could overlap a small portion of the closer ranges to these high-duty cycle survival. communication frequency range of and continuous active sonar systems, many odontocetes, whereas other but as described previously, it would be Injury (Permanent Threshold Shift) marine mammal groups have expected to be of a short duration when Tables 47 through 51 indicate the communication calls at lower the source and animal are in close number of individuals of each species frequencies. Regardless of the frequency proximity. While data are limited on for which Level A harassment in the band though, the more important point behavioral responses of marine form of PTS resulting from exposure to in this case is that any PTS accrued as mammals to continuously active sonars, active sonar and/or explosives is a result of exposure to Navy activities mysticete species are known to be able estimated to occur. The number of would be expected to be of a small to habituate to novel and continuous individuals to potentially incur PTS amount (single digits). Permanent loss sounds (Nowacek et al., 2004), annually (from sonar and explosives) for of some degree of hearing is a normal suggesting that they are likely to have each species ranges from 0 to 50 (50 is occurrence for older animals, and many similar responses to high-duty cycle for Dwarf sperm whale), but is more animals are able to compensate for the sonars. Furthermore, most of these typically 0 or 1. As described shift, both in old age or at younger ages systems are hull-mounted on surface previously, no species are expected to as the result of stressor exposure. While ships and ships are moving at least 10 incur tissue damage from explosives. a small loss of hearing sensitivity may

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46397

include some degree of energetic costs number of days taken for those sonar platforms) of the MTEs. On the for compensating or may mean some individuals taken is one per year; and less severe end, exposure to small loss of opportunities or detection (3) that we would not expect any comparatively lower levels of sound at capabilities, at the expected scale it individuals to be taken more than a few a detectably greater distance from the would be unlikely to impact behaviors, times in a year, or for those days to be animal, for a few or several minutes, opportunities, or detection capabilities sequential. There are no cases in this could result in a behavioral response to a degree that would interfere with rule where the percentage of takes as such as avoiding an area that an animal reproductive success or survival. compared to abundance is greater than would otherwise have moved through or 100, the highest being 93 percent (for fin fed in, or breaking off one or a few Group and Species-Specific Analyses whales) and the remaining species at 55 feeding bouts. More severe behavioral In this section, we build on the percent or less (most are 20 percent or effects could occur when an animal gets general analysis that applies to all under). close enough to the source to receive a marine mammals in the MITT Study To assist in understanding what this comparatively higher level of sound, is Area and Transit Corridor from the analysis means, we clarify a few issues exposed continuously to one source for previous section, and include first related to estimated takes and the a longer time, or is exposed information and analysis that applies to analysis here. An individual that incurs intermittently to different sources mysticetes or, separately, odontocetes, a PTS or TTS take may sometimes, for throughout a day. Such effects might and then within those two sections, example, also be subject to behavioral result in an animal having a more severe more specific information that applies disturbance at the same time. As flight response and leaving a larger area to smaller groups, where applicable, and described above in this section, the for a day or more, or potentially losing the affected species. The specific degree of PTS, and the degree and feeding opportunities for a day. authorized take numbers are also duration of TTS, expected to be However, such severe behavioral effects included in the analyses below, and so incurred from the Navy’s activities are are expected to occur infrequently. here we provide some additional not expected to impact marine Occasional, milder behavioral context and discussion regarding how mammals such that their reproduction reactions are unlikely to cause long-term we consider the authorized take or survival could be affected. Similarly, consequences for individual animals or numbers in those analyses. data do not suggest that a single populations, and even if some smaller The maximum amount and type of instance in which an animal incurs PTS subset of the takes are in the form of a incidental take of marine mammals or TTS and is also subject to behavioral longer (several hours or a day) and more reasonably likely to occur from disturbance would result in impacts to severe responses, if they are not exposures to sonar and other active reproduction or survival. Alternately, expected to be repeated over sequential acoustic sources and explosions and we recognize that if an individual is days, impacts to individual fitness are therefore authorized during the seven- subjected to behavioral disturbance not anticipated. Nearly all studies and year training and testing period are repeatedly for a longer duration and on experts agree that infrequent exposures shown in Table 28. The vast majority of consecutive days, effects could accrue to of a single day or less are unlikely to predicted exposures (greater than 99 the point that reproductive success is impact an individual’s overall energy percent) are expected to be Level B jeopardized, although those sorts of budget (Farmer et al., 2018; Harris et al., harassment (TTS and behavioral impacts are not expected to result from 2017; King et al., 2015; NAS 2017; New reactions) from acoustic and explosive these activities. Accordingly, in et al., 2014; Southall et al., 2007; sources during training and testing analyzing the number of takes and the Villegas-Amtmann et al., 2015). activities at relatively low received likelihood of repeated and sequential If impacts to individuals are of a levels. takes, we consider the total takes, not magnitude or severity such that either In the discussions below, the just the Level B harassment takes by repeated and sequential higher severity estimated takes by Level B harassment behavioral disruption, so that impacts occur (the probability of this represent instances of take, not the individuals potentially exposed to both goes up for an individual the higher number of individuals taken (the much threshold shift and behavioral total number of takes it has) or the total lower and less frequent takes by Level disruption are appropriately considered. number of moderate to more severe A harassment are far more likely to be The number of Level A harassment impacts occurs across sequential days, associated with separate individuals), takes by PTS are so low (and zero in then it becomes more likely that the and in some cases individuals may be most cases) compared to abundance aggregate effects could potentially taken more than one time. Below, we numbers that it is considered highly interfere with feeding enough to reduce compare the total take numbers unlikely that any individual would be energy budgets in a manner that could (including PTS, TTS, and behavioral taken at those levels more than once. impact reproductive success via longer disturbance) for species to their Use of sonar and other transducers cow-calf intervals, terminated associated abundance estimates to will typically be transient and pregnancies, or calf mortality. It is evaluate the magnitude of impacts temporary. The majority of acoustic important to note that if these impacts across the species and to individuals. effects to mysticetes from sonar and occurred they would only accrue to Generally, when an abundance other active sound sources during females, which only comprise a portion percentage comparison is below 100, it testing and training activities will be of the population (typically suggests the following: (1) That not all primarily from ASW events. It is approximately 50 percent). Based on of the individuals will be taken; (2) that, important to note that although ASW is energetic models, it takes energetic barring specific circumstances one of the warfare areas of focus during impacts of a significantly greater suggesting repeated takes of individuals MTEs, there are significant periods magnitude to cause the death of an adult (such as in circumstances where all when active ASW sonars are not in use. marine mammal, and females will activities resulting in take are focused in Nevertheless, behavioral reactions are always terminate a pregnancy or stop one area and time where the same assumed more likely to be significant lactating before allowing their health to individual marine mammals are known during MTEs than during other ASW deteriorate. Also, the death of an adult to congregate, such as pinnipeds at a activities due to the duration (i.e., female has significantly more impact on pupping beach), the average or expected multiple days) and scale (i.e., multiple population growth rates than reductions

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46398 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

in reproductive success, while the death described within the section or the There is no predicted tissue damage of an adult male has very little effect on discussion for those species is included from explosives for any species, and one population growth rates. However, as as a separate subsection. Specifically mother-calf pair of humpback whales will be explained further in the sections below, we first give broad descriptions could be taken by PTS by sonar below, the severity and magnitude of of the mysticete and odontocete groups exposure over the course of the seven- takes expected to result from the MITT and then differentiate into further year rule. Much of the discussion below activities are such that energetic impacts groups and species as appropriate. focuses on the behavioral effects and the of a scale that might affect reproductive mitigation measures that reduce the Mysticetes success are not expected to occur at all. probability or severity of effects. The analyses below in some cases This section builds on the broader Because there are species-specific address species collectively if they discussion above and brings together the considerations, at the end of the section occupy the same functional hearing discussion of the different types and we break out our findings on a species- group (i.e., low, mid, and high- amounts of take that different species specific basis. frequency cetaceans), share similar life are likely to incur, the applicable In Table 47 below for mysticetes, we history strategies, and/or are known to mitigation, and the status of the species indicate for each species the total behaviorally respond similarly to to support the negligible impact annual numbers of take by Level A and acoustic stressors. Because some of determinations for each species. We Level B harassment, and a number these groups or species share have described (above in the General indicating the instances of total take as characteristics that inform the impact Negligible Impact Analysis section) the a percentage of abundance in the MITT analysis similarly, it would be unlikelihood of any masking having Study Area alone, as well as the MITT duplicative to repeat the same analysis effects that would impact the Study Area plus the Transit Corridor, for each species. In addition, similar reproduction or survival of any of the which was calculated separately. While species typically have the same hearing individual marine mammals affected by the density used to calculate take is the capabilities and behaviorally respond in the Navy’s activities. We also described same for these two areas, the takes were the same manner. in the Potential Effects of Specified calculated separately for the two areas Thus, our analysis below considers Activities on Marine Mammals and for all species in this rule, not just the effects of the Navy’s activities on Their Habitat section of the proposed mysticetes, because the activity levels each affected species even where rule the unlikelihood of any habitat are higher in the MITT Study Area and discussion is organized by functional impacts having effects that would it is helpful to understand the hearing group and/or information is impact the reproduction or survival of comparative impacts in the two areas. evaluated at the group level. Where any of the individual marine mammals Note also that for mysticetes, the there are meaningful differences affected by the Navy’s activities. No new abundance within the MITT Study Area between species that would further information has been received that and Transit Corridor represents only a differentiate the analysis, they are either affects that analysis and conclusion. portion of the species abundance. TABLE 47—ANNUAL ESTIMATED TAKES BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT AND LEVEL A HARASSMENT FOR MYSTICETES AND NUMBER INDICATING THE INSTANCES OF TOTAL TAKE AS A PERCENTAGE OF ABUNDANCE WITHIN THE MITT STUDY AREA AND TRANSIT CORRIDOR

Instances of indicated types of incidental take Abundance Instances of total (not all takes represent separate individuals, especially for take as percentage disturbance) of abundance Total takes MITT Species Level A MITT study MITT Level B harassment harass- MITT study area + MITT study ment MITT study area transit study area + study area + corridor area transit Behavioral area transit corridor disturbance TTS PTS corridor

Blue whale...... 4 20 0 24 24 134 150 18 16 Bryde’s whale ...... 40 258 0 296 298 1,470 1,596 20 19 Fin whale...... 5 20 0 25 25 27 46 93 54 Humpback whale ...... 92 679 * 2 768 771 2,393 2,673 20 32 18 29 Minke whale...... 10 85 0 95 95 403 450 23 21 Omura’s whale...... 4 25 0 28 29 143 160 20 18 Sei whale...... 19 136 0 154 155 780 821 20 19 Note: Abundance was calculated using the following formulas: (1) Density from the Technical Report in animals/km2 × spatial extent of the MITT Study Area transit corridor = Abundance in the transit corridor and (2) Density from the Technical Report in animals/km2 × spatial extent of the MITT Study Area = Abundance in the MITT Study. Note that the total annual takes described here may be off by a digit due to rounding. This occurred here as the Level B harassment takes are broken down further into Behavioral Disturbance and TTS compared to the Level B harassment takes presented as one number in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section. * There is one mother-calf pair of humpback whales estimated to be taken by Level A Harassment by PTS over the period of the rule. See the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section for further details.

The majority of takes by harassment of hearing for mysticetes. They also are SPL. For the remaining active sonar bin of mysticetes in the MITT Study Area used in a large portion of exercises (see types, the percentages are as follows: will be caused by sources from the MF1 Tables 3 and 4). Most of the takes (66 LF4 = 97 percent between 124 and 136 MFAS active sonar bin (which includes percent) from the MF1 bin in the MITT dB SPL, MF4 = 99 percent between 136 hull-mounted sonar) because they are Study Area would result from received and 154 dB SPL, MF5 = 98 percent high level, narrowband sources in the levels between 154 and 172 dB SPL, between 118 and 142 dB SPL, and HF4 1–10 kHz range, which intersect what is while another 33 percent would result = 98 percent between 100 and 148 dB estimated to be the most sensitive area from exposure between 172 and 178 dB SPL. For explosives, no blue whales or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46399

fin whales will be taken by Level B mitigation measures), increasing the stimulus than groups without calves. harassment or Level A harassment potential for ship strike collisions; and Several humpback whales on breeding (PTS). For other mysticetes, exposure to even moderate increases of noise from grounds have been observed during explosives will result in small numbers vessels can decrease the communication aerial or visual surveys during Navy of take: 1–6 takes by Level B harassment range (Bejder et al., 2019). Videsen et al. training events involving sonar; no by behavioral disturbance per species, (2017) reported that vocalizations avoidance or other behavioral responses and 0–3 TTS takes per species (0 for between humpback whale mothers and were ever noted, even when the whales Omura’s whales). Based on this calves, which included very weak tonal were observed within 5 km of a vessel information, the majority of the Level B and grunting sounds, were produced with active (or possibly active) sonar harassment by behavioral disturbance is more frequently during active dives and maximum received levels were expected to be of low to sometimes than suckling dives, suggesting that estimated to be between 135 and 161 dB moderate severity and of a relatively mechanical stimuli rather than acoustic re 1 mPa (Smultea et al., 2009; Mobley shorter duration. No tissue damage from cues are used to initiate nursing. Their et al. 2009; Mobley and Milette 2010; training and testing activities is study suggests that the use of Mobley 2011; Mobley and Pacini 2012; anticipated or authorized for any mechanical cues for initiating suckling Mobley et al., 201; Smultea et al., 2012). species. and low level vocalizations with an As noted in the Potential Effects of Research and observations show that active space of less than 100 m indicate Specified Activities on Marine if mysticetes are exposed to sonar or a strong selection pressure for acoustic Mammals and Their Habitat section of other active acoustic sources they may crypsis. Furthermore, such the proposed rule, while there are react in a number of ways depending on inconspicuous behavior likely reduces multiple examples from behavioral the characteristics of the sound source, the risk of exposure to eavesdropping response studies of odontocetes ceasing their experience with the sound source, predators and male humpback whale their feeding dives when exposed to and whether they are migrating or on escorts that may disrupt the high sonar pulses at certain levels, alternately seasonal feeding or breeding grounds. proportion of time spent nursing and blue whales (mysticetes) were less likely Behavioral reactions may include resting, and hence ultimately to show a visible response to sonar alerting, breaking off feeding dives and compromise calf fitness. Parks et al. exposures at certain levels when feeding surfacing, diving or swimming away, or (2019) explored the potential for than when traveling. However, no response at all (DOD, 2017; acoustic crypsis in North Atlantic right Goldbogen et al. (2013) indicated some Nowacek, 2007; Richardson, 1995; whale mother-calf pairs. Their results horizontal displacement of deep Southall et al., 2007). Overall, show that right whale mother-calf pairs foraging blue whales in response to mysticetes have been observed to be have a strong shift in repertoire usage, simulated MFAS. Southall et al. (2019b) more reactive to acoustic disturbance significantly reducing the number of observed that after exposure to when a noise source is located directly higher amplitude, long-distance simulated and operational mid- on their migration route. Mysticetes communication signals they produced frequency active sonar, more than 50 disturbed while migrating could pause when compared with juvenile and percent of blue whales in deep-diving their migration or route around the pregnant whales in the same habitat. states responded to the sonar, while no disturbance, while males en route to Similarly, Nielsen et al. (2019) behavioral response was observed in breeding grounds have been shown to concluded that acoustic crypsis in shallow-feeding blue whales. Southall et al. (2019b) noted that the behavioral be less responsive to disturbances. southern right whales and other baleen Although some may pause temporarily, responses they observed were generally whales decreases the risk of alerting they will resume migration shortly after brief, of low to moderate severity, and potential predators and hence the exposure ends. Animals disturbed highly dependent on exposure context jeopardizing a substantial energetic while engaged in other activities such as (behavioral state, source-to-whale investment by the mother. These studies feeding or reproductive behaviors may horizontal range, and prey availability). (i.e., Videsen et al., 2017; Parks et al., be more likely to ignore or tolerate the Most Level B harassment by behavioral 2019; and Nielsen et al., 2019) suggest disturbance and continue their natural disturbance of mysticetes is likely to be that the small active space of the weak behavior patterns. short-term and of low to sometimes calls between baleen whale mothers and Alternately, adult female mysticetes moderate severity, with no anticipated with calves may be more responsive to calves is very sensitive to increases in effect on reproduction or survival. stressors. An increase in the disturbance ambient noise from human Richardson et al. (1995) noted that level from noise-generating human encroachment, thereby increasing the avoidance (temporary displacement of activities (such as, for example, sonar or risk of mother-calf separation. an individual from an area) reactions are vessel traffic) may increase the risk of Few behavioral response studies have the most obvious manifestations of mother–calf pair separation (reducing specifically looked at mother-calf pairs; disturbance in marine mammals. the time available for suckling) or most studies have targeted adult Avoidance is qualitatively different require that louder contact calls are animals. In the few behavioral response from the startle or flight response, but made which, in turn increases the studies where mothers with calves were also differs in the magnitude of the possibility of detection. In either case, targeted, their responses were not response (i.e., directed movement, rate increased ambient noise could have different from those in groups without of travel, etc.). Oftentimes avoidance is negative consequences for calf fitness calves. For example, humpback whales temporary, and animals return to the (Cartwright and Sullivan 2009; Craig et in a behavioral response experiment in area once the noise has ceased. Some al., 2014). Australia responded to a 2 kHz tone mysticetes may avoid larger activities Lactating humpback whale females stimulus by changing their course such as a MTE as they move through an mainly rest while stationary at shallow during migration to move more offshore area, although these activities do not depths within reach of the hull of and surfaced more frequently, but typically use the same training locations commercial ships (although not otherwise did not respond (Dunlop et day-after-day during multi-day expected from Navy vessels for the al., 2013; Noad et al. 2013). Mother-calf activities, except periodically in reasons discussed in the proposed rule pairs, either alone or with escorts, did instrumented ranges, which do not and due to the effectiveness of not respond any differently to the tonal occur within the MITT Study Area.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46400 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Therefore, displaced animals could summarize the information that per day (or similar configuration return quickly after a large activity or supports our determination that the totaling no more than 20 hours MTE is completed. Due to the limited Navy’s activities will not adversely annually). As described in the number and geographic scope of MTEs, affect any species through effects on Humpback Whales Around Saipan it is unlikely that most mysticetes annual rates of recruitment or survival subsection of the Estimated Take of would encounter an MTE more than for any of the affected mysticete species. Marine Mammals section, our updated once per year and additionally, total Humpback whale—As noted in the analysis indicates that given the hull-mounted sonar hours would be Description of Marine Mammals and maximum of 20 hrs of MF1 MFAS, a limited in several areas that are Their Habitat in the Area of the maximum annual total of 305 instances important to mysticetes (described Specified Activities section, humpback of Level B harassment may be incurred below). In the ocean, the use of Navy whales in the Mariana Islands are by 61 humpback whales, including 17 sonar and other active acoustic sources considered most likely part of the ESA- calves, in these areas during these is transient and is unlikely to expose the endangered WNP DPS and the Mariana months in the Geographic Mitigation same population of animals repeatedly Archipelago is an established breeding Areas. One mother-calf pair of over a short period of time, especially ground. No ESA Critical Habitat has humpback whales may be taken by given the broader-scale movements of been proposed in the MITT Study Area. Level A harassment in the form of PTS mysticetes. However, the areas of Marpi and Chalan over the course of the seven years of The implementation of procedural Kanoa Reefs (out to the 400-m isobath) activities in these areas. Because of the mitigation and the sightability of are known specifically to be used by higher density of humpback whales in mysticetes (especially given their large mother/calf pairs of humpback whales this area, these individuals could size) further reduces the potential for a (Hill et al., 2016, 2017, 2018, 2020). potentially be taken on up to five, most significant behavioral reaction or a Currently, no other areas have been likely non-sequential days. However, threshold shift to occur (i.e., shutdowns identified for mother/calf pairs of the reduction in exposure of humpback are expected to be successfully humpback whales in the Mariana whales to sonar and explosive implemented), which is reflected in the Islands. The current population trend detonations in the Geographic amount and type of incidental take that for the WPN DPS of humpback whales Mitigation Areas and at this time (i.e., is anticipated to occur and authorized. show the SPLASH abundance estimate the short overall and daily exposure) As noted previously, when an animal for Asia represents a 6.7 percent annual will reduce the likelihood of impacts incurs a threshold shift, it occurs in the rate of increase over the 1991 to 1993 that could affect reproduction or frequency from that of the source up to abundance estimate (Calambokidis et survival, by minimizing impacts on one octave above. This means that the al., 2008). However, the 1991 to 1993 calves during this sensitive life stage, vast majority of threshold shifts caused estimate was for Ogasawara and avoiding the additional energetic costs by Navy sonar sources will typically Okinawa only, whereas the SPLASH to mothers of avoiding the area during occur in the range of 2–20 kHz (from the estimate includes the Philippines, so the explosive exercises, and minimizing the 1–10 kHz MF1 bin, though in a specific annual rate of increase is unknown. The chances that important breeding narrow band within this range as the population trend for WNP DPS of behaviors are interrupted to the point sources are narrowband), and if humpback is unknown (NMFS 2019). that reproduction is inhibited or resulting from hull-mounted sonar, will Regarding the consideration of how abandoned for the year, or otherwise be in the range of 3.5–7 kHz. The Navy activities may affect humpback interfered with. Finally, the Navy will majority of mysticete vocalizations whales in these important areas with also implement the Marpi Reef and occur in frequencies below 1 kHz, calves, as described previously, this Chalan Kanoa Reef Awareness which means that TTS incurred by final rule includes the Chalan Kanoa mysticetes will not interfere with Reef and Marpi Reef Geographic Notification Message Area that will help conspecific communication. Mitigation Areas, which encompass the alert Navy vessels operating in these Additionally, many of the other critical area of observed calf detections and areas to the possible presence of sounds that serve as cues for navigation include water depths of 400 m or less, increased concentrations of humpback and prey (e.g., waves, fish, with significant parts of the mitigation whales from December 1 through April invertebrates) occur below a few kHz, areas less than 200 m, which is where 30 to avoid interactions with large which means that detection of these most humpback whale sightings have whales that may be vulnerable to vessel signals will not be inhibited by most been made. The Navy will not use strikes. threshold shift either. When we look in explosives in the Marpi Reef and Chalan To be clear about the temporal and ocean areas where the Navy has been Kanoa Reef Geographic Mitigation Areas spatial distribution of the estimated intensively training and testing with year-round. These two geographic take, all take of humpback whales is sonar and other active acoustic sources mitigation areas also will require a 20- expected to occur from December for decades, there is no data suggesting hour annual cap (for both areas through April (the months when any long-term consequences to combined) from December 1 through humpback whales are located in the reproduction or survival rates of April 30 on MF1 MFAS use to minimize MITT Study Area), with the number mysticetes from exposure to sonar and sonar exposure and reduce take by Level noted in the previous paragraph other active acoustic sources. B harassment of humpback whales in occurring in the two mitigation areas, All the mysticete species discussed in these important reproductive areas. and the remainder occurring throughout this section will benefit from the The Navy expects current and future the MITT Study Area and Transit procedural mitigation measures use of these two Geographic Mitigation Corridor. Regarding the magnitude of described earlier in the Mitigation Areas to remain low, but the 20-hour takes by Level B harassment (TTS and Measures section. Additionally, the cap allows for the Navy to engage in a behavioral disruption), the number of Navy will limit activities and employ small amount of necessary training, estimated total instances of take other measures in mitigation areas that most likely such as a Small Coordinated compared to the abundance (measured will avoid or reduce impacts to ASW Exercise or TRACKEX event(s), against both the MITT Study Area humpback whales (discussed in detail which could, for example, occur up to abundance and the MITT Study Area below). Below we compile and five days, but no more than four hours plus the transit corridor abundance

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46401

combined) is 32 and 29 percent, hearing sensitivity (PTS) may include long distances (up to 621 mi (1,000 respectively (Table 47). Regarding the some degree of energetic costs for km)), it is unknown whether the severity of those individual takes by compensating or may mean some small animals were within the MITT Study Level B harassment by behavioral loss of opportunities or detection Area. disturbance, we have explained that the capabilities for the individual. However, Regarding the magnitude of takes by duration of any exposure is expected to given the smaller degree of PTS, and Level B harassment (TTS and behavioral be between minutes and hours (i.e., higher frequency of the hearing loss disruption), the number of estimated relatively short) and the received sound anticipated to result from MF1 sonar total instances of take compared to the levels largely below 172 dB with a exposure (which is above the abundance (measured against both the portion up to 178 dB (i.e., of a moderate frequencies used to communicate with MITT Study Area abundance and the or lower level, less likely to evoke a conspecifics and, specifically, calves), MITT Study Area plus the transit severe response). While impacts to cow- the PTS incurred by one mother-calf corridor combined) is 18 and 16 calf pairs are of particular concern, we pair of humpback whales in a given year percent, respectively (Table 47). have also explained how the restrictions is unlikely to impact its behaviors, Regarding the severity of those and limitations on explosive and sonar opportunities, or detection capabilities individual takes by Level B harassment use in the geographic mitigation areas to a degree that will interfere with by behavioral disturbance, we have will minimize impacts. Regarding the reproductive success or survival of the explained that the duration of any severity of takes by TTS, they are individual, let alone affect annual rates exposure is expected to be between expected to be low-level, of short of recruitment or survival. minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) duration, and mostly not in a frequency Even considering the potential and the received sound levels largely band that would be expected to interfere impacts to cow-calf pairs, given the below 172 dB with a portion up to 178 with communication or other important historic low use in the shallow waters dB (i.e., of a moderate or lower level, low-frequency cues. Therefore the of Marpi and Chalan Kanoa Reefs for less likely to evoke a severe response). associated lost opportunities and Navy’s activities as well as the Regarding the severity of TTS takes, capabilities are not at a level that will restriction on explosive use and a 20-hr they are expected to be low-level, of impact reproduction or survival. cap on MFAS, as well as the low short duration, and mostly not in a magnitude and severity of anticipated frequency band that would be expected Altogether, the WNP DPS of harassment effects, the authorized takes to interfere with communication or humpback whales is endangered and are not expected to result in impacts on other important low-frequency cues. while there is not enough information to the reproduction or survival of any Therefore the associated lost identify a population trend, the Mariana individuals, let alone have impacts on opportunities and capabilities are not at Archipelago has been identified as a annual rates of recruitment or survival. a level that will impact reproduction or breeding area for the WNP DPS of Therefore, the total take will not survival. humpback whales. In consideration of adversely affect this species through Altogether, blue whales are listed as the MITT Study Area as a whole, only impacts on annual rates of recruitment endangered, there are no known a small portion of the total individuals or survival. No mortality is anticipated population trends, and blue whales within the MITT Study Area will be or authorized. For these reasons, we have a very large range and a low taken and disturbed at a low-moderate have determined, in consideration of all abundance in the MITT Study Area. Our level, with most of those individuals of the effects of the Navy’s activities analysis suggests that a small portion of likely not disturbed on more than a few combined, that the authorized take will the individuals in the MITT Study Area non-sequential days in a year. As have a negligible impact on humpback and Transit Corridor (which represent described above for the mitigation areas whales. only a small portion of the total specifically, if the Navy conducts the Blue whale—Blue whales are listed as abundance of the species) will be taken maximum five 4-hour exercises in these endangered under the ESA throughout and disturbed at a low-moderate level, areas, cow-calf pairs could be taken on their range, with no ESA-designated with those individuals disturbed on up to five likely non-sequential days. critical habitat or known biologically likely one day within a year. No However, takes in these mitigation areas important areas identified for this mortality or Level A harassment is would be as a result of brief exposure species in the MITT Study Area. There anticipated or authorized. This low to one shorter-duration exercise (as have been no stock(s) specified for the magnitude and severity of harassment discussed earlier, the duration of an blue whales found in the MITT Study effects is not expected to result in exercise does not indicate the duration Area and Transit Corridor, and there is impacts on the reproduction or survival of exposure to the exercises, which no associated SAR. There is also no of any individuals and, therefore, the would be significantly shorter given the information on trends for this species total take will not adversely affect this speed of Navy vessels), and the impacts within the MITT Study Area. Blue species through impacts on annual rates would not be expected to accrue to the whales are however considered stable of recruitment or survival, let alone degree that would interfere with generally throughout their range (NMFS have impacts on annual rates of important mother-calf communications 2019). Blue whales would be most likely recruitment or survival. For these in a manner leading to cow-calf to occur in the MITT Study Area during reasons, we have determined, in separation, interfere with social the winter and are expected to be few consideration of all of the effects of the communications in a manner that in number. There are no recent sighting Navy’s activities combined, that the would impede breeding, or impact records for blue whales in the MITT authorized take will have a negligible humpback cow behaviors in a manner Study Area (Fulling et al., 2011; Hill et impact on blue whales. that would have adverse impacts on al., 2017a; Uyeyama, 2014). However, Fin whale—Fin whales are listed as their energy budget and lactation some acoustic detections from passive endangered under the ESA throughout success. One mother-calf pair could be monitoring devices deployed at Saipan their range, with no ESA designated taken by a small amount of PTS over the and Tinian have recorded the presence critical habitat or known biologically course of these seven-year regulations, of blue whales over short periods of important areas identified for this of likely low severity as described time (a few days) (Oleson et al., 2015). species in the MITT Study Area. There previously. A small permanent loss of Since blue whale calls can travel very have been no stock(s) specified for fin

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46402 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

whales found in the MITT Study Area authorized take will have a negligible combined, that the authorized take will and Transit Corridor, and there is no impact on fin whales. have a negligible impact on sei whales. associated SAR. There is also no Sei whale—Sei whales are listed as Bryde’s whale, Minke whale, and information on trends for this species endangered under the ESA throughout Omura’s whale—None of these species within the MITT Study Area or in other their range, with no ESA-designated of whales are listed as endangered or parts of their range (NMFS 2019). There critical habitat or known biologically threatened under the ESA and there are are no sighting records for fin whales in important areas identified for this no known biologically important areas the MITT Study Area (Fulling et al., species in the MITT Study Area. There identified for these species in the MITT 2011; Hill et al., 2017a; Oleson et al., have been no stock(s) specified for sei Study Area. There have been no specific 2015; Uyeyama, 2014). However, based whales found in the MITT Study Area stock(s) specified for these populations on acoustic detections, fin whales are and Transit Corridor, and there are no found in the MITT Study Area and expected to be present in the MITT associated SARs. There is also no Transit Corridor, and there are no Study Area, although few in number. information on population trends for associated SARs. There is also no Regarding the magnitude of takes by this species within the MITT Study information on population trends for Level B harassment (TTS and behavioral Area or in other parts of their range these species within the MITT Study disruption), the number of estimated (NMFS 2019). Area. total instances of take compared to the Regarding the magnitude of takes by Regarding the magnitude of takes by Level B harassment (TTS and behavioral abundance (measured against both the Level B harassment (TTS and behavioral disturbance), the number of estimated MITT Study Area abundance and the disruption), the number of estimated total instances of take compared to the MITT Study Area plus the transit total instances of take compared to the abundance (measured against both the corridor combined) is 93 and 54 abundance (measured against both the MITT Study Area abundance and the percent, respectively (Table 47). MITT Study Area abundance and the MITT Study Area plus the transit Regarding the severity of those MITT Study Area plus the transit corridor combined) is 20 and 19 percent individual takes by Level B harassment corridor combined) is 20 and 19 (Bryde’s whale), 23 and 21 percent by behavioral disturbance, we have percent, respectively (Table 47). (Minke whale), and 20 and 18 (Omura’s explained that the duration of any Regarding the severity of those whale) percent, respectively (Table 47). exposure is expected to be between individual takes by Level B harassment Regarding the severity of those minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) by behavioral disturbance, we have individual takes by Level B harassment and the received sound levels largely explained that the duration of any by behavioral disturbance, we have below 172 dB with a portion up to 178 exposure is expected to be between explained that the duration of any dB (i.e., of a moderate or lower level, minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) exposure is expected to be between less likely to evoke a severe response). and the received sound levels largely minutes and hours (i.e., relatively short) Regarding the severity of TTS takes, below 172 dB with a portion up to 178 and the received sound levels largely they are expected to be low-level, of dB (i.e., of a moderate or lower level, below 172 dB with a portion up to 178 short duration, and mostly not in a less likely to evoke a severe response). dB (i.e., of a moderate or lower level, frequency band that would be expected Regarding the severity of TTS takes, less likely to evoke a severe response). to interfere with communication or they are expected to be low-level, of Regarding the severity of TTS takes, other important low-frequency cues. short duration, and mostly not in a they are expected to be low-level, of Therefore, the associated lost frequency band that would be expected short duration, and mostly not in a opportunities and capabilities are not at to interfere with communication or frequency band that would be expected a level that will impact reproduction or other important low-frequency cues. to interfere with communication or survival. Therefore the associated lost other important low-frequency cues. Altogether, fin whales are listed as opportunities and capabilities are not at Therefore, the associated lost endangered, there are no known a level that will impact reproduction or opportunities and capabilities are not at population trends, and they have a low survival. a level that will impact reproduction or abundance in the MITT Study Area. Our Altogether sei whales are listed as survival. analysis suggests that up to half or more endangered, there are no known Altogether, these three species of of the individuals in the MITT Study population trends. Our analysis suggests whales are not listed under the ESA and Area and Transit Corridor (which that a small portion of individuals there are no known population trends. represent a small portion of the species within the MITT Study Area and Transit The abundance of Bryde’s whales, abundance) will be taken and disturbed Corridor (which is a small portion of the minke whales, and Omura’s whales in at a low-moderate level, with those species abundance) will be taken and the MITT Study Area is thought to be individuals likely not disturbed on more disturbed at a low-moderate level, with low, and our analysis suggests that a than a few non-sequential days a year. those individuals disturbed on likely small portion of individuals within the No mortality or Level A harassment is one day within a year. No mortality or MITT Study Area and Transit Corridor anticipated or authorized. This low Level A harassment is anticipated or will be taken and disturbed at a low- magnitude and severity of harassment authorized. This low magnitude and moderate level, with those individuals effects is not expected to result in severity of harassment effects is not disturbed only once. No mortality or impacts on the reproduction or survival expected to result in impacts on the Level A harassment is anticipated or of any individuals, let alone have reproduction or survival of any authorized. This low magnitude and impacts on annual rates of recruitment individuals, let alone have impacts on severity of harassment effects is not or survival, and therefore the total take annual rates of recruitment or survival. expected to result in impacts on the will not adversely affect this species Therefore, the total take will not reproduction or survival of any through impacts on annual rates of adversely affect this species through individuals, let alone have impacts on recruitment or survival. For these impacts on annual rates of recruitment annual rates of recruitment or survival. reasons, we have determined, in or survival. For these reasons, we have Therefore, the total take will not consideration of all of the effects of the determined, in consideration of all of adversely affect these species through Navy’s activities combined, that the the effects of the Navy’s activities impacts on annual rates of recruitment

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46403

or survival. For these reasons, we have most of the takes (98 percent) from the threshold shift from active sonar will determined, in consideration of all of MF1 bin in the MITT Study Area would often be in a narrower band (reflecting the effects of the Navy’s activities result from received levels between 154 the narrower band source that caused combined, that the authorized take will and 172 dB SPL. For the remaining it), which means that TTS incurred by have a negligible impact on Bryde’s active sonar bin types, the percentages odontocetes would typically only whales, minke whales, and Omura’s are as follows: LF4 = 97 percent interfere with communication within a whales. between 124 and 136 dB SPL, MF4 = 99 portion of their range (if it occurred percent between 136 and 160 dB SPL, Odontocetes during a time when communication MF5 = 97 percent between 118 and 142 with conspecifics was occurring) and, as This section builds on the broader dB SPL, and HF4 = 88.6 percent discussed earlier, it would only be discussion above and brings together the between 100 and 130 dB SPL. Based on expected to be of a short duration and discussion of the different types and this information, the majority of the relatively small degree. Odontocete amounts of take that different species takes by Level B harassment by echolocation occurs predominantly at are likely to incur, the applicable behavioral disturbance are expected to frequencies significantly higher than 20 mitigation for each species, and the be low to sometimes moderate in nature, kHz, though there may be some small status of the species to support the but still of a generally shorter duration. overlap at the lower part of their negligible impact determinations for For all odontocetes, takes from echolocating range for some species, each species. We have described (above explosives (Level B harassment by which means that there is little in the General Negligible Impact behavioral disturbance or TTS, or PTS) likelihood that threshold shift, either Analysis section) the unlikelihood of comprise a very small fraction (and low temporary or permanent would interfere any masking having effects that would number) of those caused by exposure to with feeding behaviors. Many of the impact the reproduction or survival of active sonar. For the following other critical sounds that serve as cues any of the individual marine mammals odontocetes, zero takes from explosives for navigation and prey (e.g., waves, affected by the Navy’s activities. We are expected to occur: Blainville’s fish, invertebrates) occur below a few also described in the Potential Effects of beaked whales, Cuvier’s beaked whales, kHz, which means that detection of Specified Activities on Marine bottlenose dolphins, false killer whales, these signals will not be inhibited by Mammals and Their Habitat section of killer whales, sperm whales, rough- most threshold shift either. The low the proposed rule the unlikelihood of toothed dolphins, and pygmy killer number of takes by threshold shift that any habitat impacts having effects that whales. For Level B harassment by might be incurred by individuals would impact the reproduction or behavioral disturbance from explosives, exposed to explosives would likely be survival of any of the individual marine 1 to 4 takes are expected to occur for all lower frequency (5 kHz or less) and mammals affected by the Navy’s but two of the remaining odontocetes, spanning a wider frequency range, activities. No new information has been 25 and 64 takes for pygmy and dwarf which could slightly lower an received that affects the analysis and sperm whales, respectively. Similarly, individual’s sensitivity to navigational conclusion. There is no predicted PTS the instances of PTS and TTS from or prey cues, or a small portion of from sonar or explosives for most explosives are expected to be low. The communication calls, for several odontocetes, with the exception of a few instances of TTS expected to occur from minutes to hours (if temporary) or species which is discussed below. There explosives are 0 to 5 per species and the permanently. There is no reason to is no predicted tissue damage from instances of PTS expected to occur from think that any of the individual explosives for any species. Much of the explosives are 0 to 1 per species, except odontocetes taken by TTS would incur discussion below focuses on the for pygmy and dwarf sperm whales. these types of takes over more than one behavioral effects and the mitigation Because of the lower TTS and PTS day, or over a few days at most, and measures that reduce the probability or thresholds for HF odontocetes, pygmy therefore they are unlikely to incur severity of effects. Here, we include and dwarf sperm whales are expected to impacts on reproduction or survival. information that applies to all of the have 25 and 64 takes by Level B The number of PTS takes from these odontocete species, which are then harassment disturbance and 37 and 100 activities are very low (0 annually for further divided and discussed in more takes by TTS, and 8 and 21 takes by PTS most, 1 for a few species, and 19 and 50 detail in the following subsections: from explosives, respectively. Dwarf sperm whales and pygmy sperm Because the majority of harassment for pygmy and dwarf sperm whales, whales; sperm whales; beaked whales; takes of odontocetes result from the respectively), and as discussed and dolphins and small whales. These sources in the MFAS bin, the vast previously because of the low degree of subsections include more specific majority of threshold shift would occur PTS (i.e., low amount of hearing information about the groups, as well as at a single frequency within the 1–10 sensitivity loss), as well as the narrower conclusions for each species kHz range and, therefore, the vast frequency range in which the majority represented. majority of threshold shift caused by of the PTS would occur, it is unlikely The majority of takes by harassment Navy sonar sources would be at a single to affect reproduction or survival of any of odontocetes in the MITT Study Area frequency within the range of 2–20 kHz. individuals.. will be caused by sources from the The frequency range within which any The range of potential behavioral MFAS bin (which includes hull- of the anticipated narrowband threshold effects of sound exposure on marine mounted sonar) because they are high shift would occur would fall directly mammals generally, and odontocetes level, typically narrowband sources at a within the range of most odontocete specifically, has been discussed in frequency (in the 1–10 kHz range) that vocalizations (2–20 kHz). For example, detail previously. There are behavioral overlaps a more sensitive portion the most commonly used hull-mounted patterns that differentiate the likely (though not the most sensitive) of the sonar has a frequency around 3.5 kHz, impacts on odontocetes as compared to MF hearing range and they are used in and any associated threshold shift mysticetes. First, odontocetes a large portion of exercises (see Table 3). would be expected to be at around 7 echolocate to find prey, which means For odontocetes other than beaked kHz. However, individual odontocete that they actively send out sounds to whales (for which these percentages are vocalizations typically span a much detect their prey. While there are many indicated separately in that section), wider range than this, and alternately, strategies for hunting, one common

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46404 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

pattern, especially for deeper diving (i.e., invertebrates or small fish, which indicate for each species the total species, is many repeated deep dives they eat by the thousands), odontocetes annual numbers of take by Level A and within a bout, and multiple bouts forage more homogeneously on one fish Level B harassment, and a number within a day, to find and catch prey. As or squid at a time. Therefore, if indicating the instances of total take as discussed above, studies demonstrate odontocetes are interrupted while a percentage of the abundance within that odontocetes may cease their feeding, it is often possible to find more the MITT Study Area alone, as well as foraging dives in response to sound prey relatively nearby. the MITT Study Area plus the Transit exposure. If enough foraging Dwarf Sperm Whales and Pygmy Corridor, which was calculated interruptions occur over multiple Sperm Whales (Kogia species)—This separately. While the density used to section builds on the broader sequential days, and the individual calculate take is the same for these two either does not take in the necessary odontocete discussion above and brings areas, the takes were calculated food, or must exert significant effort to together the discussion of the different separately for the two areas for dwarf find necessary food elsewhere, energy types and amounts of take that these budget deficits can occur that could two species are likely to incur, the and pygmy sperm whales because the potentially result in impacts to applicable mitigation, and the status of activity levels are higher in the MITT reproductive success, such as increased the species to support the negligible Study Area and it is helpful to cow/calf intervals (the time between impact determinations for each species. understand the comparative impacts in successive calving). Second, while Some Level A harassment by PTS is the two areas. Note also that for dwarf many mysticetes rely on seasonal anticipated annually (50 and 19 takes and pygmy sperm whales (and all migratory patterns that position them in for Dwarf and pygmy whale, odontocetes), the abundance within the a geographic location at a specific time respectively, see Table 48). MITT Study Area and Transit Corridor of the year to take advantage of In Table 48 below for dwarf sperm represents only a portion of the species ephemeral large abundances of prey whales and pygmy sperm whales, we abundance. TABLE 48—ANNUAL ESTIMATED TAKES BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT AND LEVEL A HARASSMENT FOR DWARF SPERM WHALES AND PYGMY SPERM WHALES AND NUMBER INDICATING THE INSTANCES OF TOTAL TAKE AS A PERCENTAGE OF ABUNDANCE WITHIN THE MITT STUDY AREA AND TRANSIT CORRIDOR

Instances of indicated types of incidental take Abundance Instances of total (not all takes represent separate individuals, especially for take as percentage disturbance) of abundance Total takes MITT Species Level B Level A MITT study MITT harassment harass- MITT study area + MITT study ment MITT study area transit study area + study area + corridor area transit Behavioral area transit corridor disturbance TTS PTS corridor

Dwarf sperm whale ...... 1,353 7,146 50 8,502 8,549 25,594 27,395 33 31 Pygmy sperm whale ...... 533 2,877 19 3,412 3,429 10,431 11,168 33 31 Note: Abundance was calculated using the following formulas: (1) Density from the Technical Report in animals/km2 × spatial extent of the MITT Study Area transit corridor = Abundance in the transit corridor and (2) Density from the Technical Report in animals/km2 × spatial extent of the MITT Study Area = Abundance in the MITT Study. Note that the total annual takes described here may be off by a digit due to rounding. This occurred here as the Level B harassment takes are broken down further into Behavioral Disturbance and TTS compared to the Level B harassment takes presented as one number in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section.

As discussed above, the majority of PTS, and NMFS accordingly has associated SAR. There is also no takes by Level B harassment by evaluated and authorized higher information on trends for these species behavioral disturbance of odontocetes, numbers. Also, however, regarding PTS within the MITT Study Area. Both and thereby dwarf and pygmy sperm from sonar exposure, Kogia whales are pygmy and dwarf sperm whales will whales, is expected to be in the form of still likely to avoid sound levels that benefit from the procedural mitigation low to occasionally moderate severity of would cause higher levels of TTS measures described earlier in the a generally shorter duration. As (greater than 20 dB) or PTS. Therefore, Mitigation Measures section. discussed earlier in this section, we even though the number of TTS and Regarding the magnitude of Level B anticipate more severe effects from takes PTS takes are higher than for other harassment takes (TTS and behavioral when animals are exposed to higher odontocetes, any PTS is expected to be disruption), the number of estimated received levels or for longer durations. at a lower level and for all of the reasons total instances of take compared to the Occasional milder Level B harassment described above, TTS and PTS takes are abundance is 33 percent for both dwarf by behavioral disturbance, as is not expected to impact reproduction or and pygmy sperm whales in the MITT expected here, is unlikely to cause long- survival of any individual. Study Area and 31 percent in the MITT term consequences for either individual Neither pygmy sperm whales nor Study Area and the transit corridor animals or populations, even if some dwarf sperm whales are listed under the combined (Table 48). Regarding the smaller subset of the takes are in the ESA, and there are no known severity of those individual Level B form of a longer (several hours or a day) biologically important areas identified harassment takes by behavioral and more moderate response. for these species in the MITT Study disruption, we have explained that the We note that dwarf and pygmy sperm Area and Transit Corridor. There have duration of any exposure is expected to whales, as HF-sensitive species, have a been no stock(s) specified for pygmy be between minutes and hours (i.e., lower PTS threshold than all other sperm whales and dwarf sperm whales relatively short) and the received sound groups and therefore are generally likely found in the MITT Study Area and levels largely below 172 dB (i.e., of a to experience larger amounts of TTS and Transit Corridor, and there is no lower, to occasionally moderate, level

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46405

and less likely to evoke a severe Our analysis suggests that fewer than consideration of all of the effects of the response). Regarding the severity of TTS half of the individuals in the MITT Navy’s activities combined, that the takes, they are expected to be low-level, Study Area and Transit Corridor will be authorized take will have a negligible of short duration, and mostly not in a taken, and disturbed at a low-moderate impact on both dwarf and pygmy sperm frequency band that would be expected level, with those individuals likely not whales. to interfere with dwarf or pygmy sperm disturbed on more than a few non- Sperm whale—This section brings whale communication or other sequential days a year. No mortality is together the broader discussion above important low-frequency cues. anticipated or authorized. The low with the discussion of the different Therefore, the associated lost magnitude and severity of harassment types and amounts of take that sperm opportunities and capabilities are not at effects is not expected to result in whales could potentially incur, the a level that will impact reproduction or impacts on the reproduction or survival applicable mitigation, and the status of survival. Dwarf sperm whales and of any individuals, let alone have the species to support the negligible pygmy sperm whales could be taken by impacts on annual rates of recruitment impact determination. a small amount of PTS annually, of or survival, therefore, the total take will In Table 49 below for sperm whales, likely low severity as described not adversely affect this species through we indicate the total annual numbers of previously. A small permanent loss of impacts on annual rates of recruitment take by Level A and Level B harassment, hearing sensitivity (PTS) may include or survival. Some individuals are and a number indicating the instances some degree of energetic costs for estimated to be taken by PTS of likely of total take as a percentage of the compensating or may mean some small low severity. A small permanent loss of abundance within the MITT Study Area loss of opportunities or detection hearing sensitivity (PTS) may include alone, as well as the MITT Study Area capabilities, but at the expected degree some degree of energetic costs for plus the Transit Corridor, which was the estimated takes by Level A compensating or may mean some small calculated separately. While the density harassment takes by PTS for dwarf loss of opportunities or detection used to calculate take is the same for sperm whales and pygmy sperm whales capabilities, but at the expected scale these two areas, the takes were are unlikely to impact behaviors, the estimated takes by Level A calculated separately for the two areas opportunities, or detection capabilities harassment by PTS are unlikely to for sperm whales, because the activity to a degree that will interfere with impact behaviors, opportunities, or levels are higher in the MITT Study reproductive success or survival of any detection capabilities to a degree that Area and it is helpful to understand the individuals, let alone affect annual rates would interfere with reproductive comparative impacts in the two areas. of recruitment or survival. success or survival of any individuals, Note also that for sperm whales, the Altogether, dwarf and pygmy sperm let alone affect annual rates of abundance within the MITT Study Area whales are not listed under the ESA and recruitment or survival. For these and Transit Corridor represents only a there are no known population trends. reasons, we have determined, in portion of the species abundance. TABLE 49—ANNUAL ESTIMATED TAKES BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT AND LEVEL A HARASSMENT FOR SPERM WHALES AND NUMBER INDICATING THE INSTANCES OF TOTAL TAKE AS A PERCENTAGE OF ABUNDANCE WITHIN THE MITT STUDY AREA AND TRANSIT CORRIDOR

Instances of indicated types of incidental take (not all takes Abundance Instances of total represent separate individuals, especially for disturbance) take as percentage of abundance Total takes Level A MITT Species Level B harassment harass- MITT MITT study MITT ment MITT study study area + MITT study study area + area transit study area + Behavioral area transit corridor area transit disturbance TTS PTS corridor corridor

Sperm whale ...... 192 11 0 189 203 4,216 5,146 4 4 Note: Abundance was calculated using the following formulas: (1) Density from the Technical Report in animals/km2 x spatial extent of the MITT Study Area transit corridor = Abundance in the transit corridor and (2) Density from the Technical Report in animals/km2 x spatial extent of the MITT Study Area = Abundance in the MITT Study. Not that the total annual takes described here may be off by a digit due to rounding. This occurred here as the Level B harassment takes are broken down further into Behavioral Disturbance and TTS compared to the Level B harassment takes presented as one number in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section.

As discussed above, the majority of Sperm whales are listed as detected in acoustic monitoring records. takes by Level B harassment by endangered under the ESA throughout Sperm whales will benefit from the behavioral disturbance of odontocetes, their range, but there is no ESA procedural mitigation measures and thereby sperm whales, is expected designated critical habitat, or known described earlier in the Mitigation to be in the form of low to moderate biologically important areas identified Measures section. severity of a generally shorter duration. for this species within the MITT Study Regarding the magnitude of takes by As mentioned earlier in this section, we Area. There have been no stock(s) Level B harassment (TTS and behavioral anticipate more severe effects from takes specified for sperm whales found in the disruption), the number of estimated when animals are exposed to higher MITT Study Area and Transit Corridor, total instances of take compared to the received levels or for longer durations. and there is no associated SAR. There abundance is 4 percent in the MITT Occasional milder Level B harassment is also no information on trends for this Study Area and 4 percent in the MITT Study Area and transit corridor by behavioral disturbance, as is species within the MITT Study Area or in other parts of their range (NMFS combined (Table 49). Regarding the expected here, is unlikely to cause long- 2019). severity of those individual takes by term consequences for either individual Sperm whales have been routinely Level B harassment by behavioral animals or populations. sighted in the MITT Study Area and disturbance, we have explained that the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46406 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

duration of any exposure is expected to year. No mortality or Level A species to support the negligible impact be between minutes and hours (i.e., harassment is anticipated or authorized. determination for each species. For relatively short) and the received sound This low magnitude and severity of beaked whales, there is no Level A levels largely below 172 dB (i.e., of a harassment effects is not expected to harassment or mortality anticipated or lower, to occasionally moderate level result in impacts on the reproduction or authorized. and less likely to evoke a severe survival of any individuals, let alone In Table 50 below for beaked whales, response). Regarding the severity of TTS have impacts on annual rates of takes, they are expected to be low-level, recruitment or survival, and therefore we indicate the total annual numbers of of short duration, and mostly not in a the total take will not adversely affect take by Level A and Level B harassment frequency band that would be expected this species through impacts on annual for the four species, and a number to interfere with important low- rates of recruitment or survival. For indicating the instances of total take as frequency cues. While the narrowband/ these reasons, we have determined, in a percentage of the abundance in the single frequency threshold shift consideration of all of the effects of the MITT Study Area alone, as well as the incurred may overlap with parts of the Navy’s activities combined, that the MITT Study Area plus the Transit frequency range that sperm whales use authorized take will have a negligible Corridor, which was calculated for communication, any associated lost impact on sperm whales. separately. While the density used to opportunities and capabilities would Beaked Whales—This section builds calculate take is the same for these two not be at a level that will impact on the broader odontocete discussion areas, the takes were calculated reproduction or survival. above (i.e., that information applies to separately for the two areas for beaked Altogether, sperm whales are listed as beaked whales as well), except where whales, because the activity levels are endangered under the ESA and there are we offer alternative information about higher in the MITT Study Area and it is no known population trends. Our the received levels for beaked whale for helpful to understand the comparative analysis suggests that a very small Level B harassment by behavioral impacts in the two areas. Note also that portion of the individuals within the disturbance, and brings together the for beaked whales, the abundance MITT Study Area and Transit Corridor discussion of the different types and within the MITT Study Area and Transit will be taken and disturbed at a low- amounts of take that different beaked moderate level, with those individuals whale species will incur, the applicable Corridor represents only a portion of the disturbed on likely one day within a mitigation, and the status of each species abundance. TABLE 50—ANNUAL ESTIMATED TAKES BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT AND LEVEL A HARASSMENT FOR BEAKED WHALES AND NUMBER INDICATING THE INSTANCES OF TOTAL TAKE AS A PERCENTAGE OF ABUNDANCE IN THE MITT STUDY AREA AND TRANSIT CORRIDOR

Instances of indicated types of incidental take Abundance Instances of total (not all takes represent separate individuals, especially for take as percentage disturbance) of abundance Total takes MITT Species Level A MITT study MITT Level B harassment harass- MITT study area + MITT study ment MITT study area transit study area + study area + corridor area transit Behavioral area transit corridor disturbance TTS PTS corridor

Blainville’s beaked whale ...... 1,691 27 0 1,698 1,718 3,083 3,376 55 51 Cuvier’s beaked whale ...... 642 4 0 534 646 1,075 2,642 50 24 Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale ...... 3,660 66 0 3,662 3,726 6,775 7,567 54 49 Longman’s beaked whale ...... 5,959 107 0 6,056 6,066 11,148 11,253 54 54 Note: Abundance was calculated using the following formulas: (1) Density from the Technical Report in animals/km2 x spatial extent of the MITT Study Area transit corridor = Abundance in the transit corridor and (2) Density from the Technical Report in animals/km2 x spatial extent of the MITT Study Area = Abundance in the MITT Study. Note that the total annual takes described here may be off by a digit due to rounding. This occurred here as the Level B harassment takes are broken down further into Behavioral Disturbance and TTS compared to the Level B harassment takes presented as one number in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section.

As discussed above, the majority of 3). Most of the takes (96 percent) from al., 2012; Tyack et al., 2011) and takes by Level B harassment by the MF1 bin in the MITT Study Area therefore have been assigned a lower behavioral disturbance of odontocetes, would result from received levels harassment threshold, with lower and thereby beaked whales, is expected between 148 and 160 dB SPL. For the received levels resulting in a higher to be in the form of low to moderate remaining active sonar bin types, the percentage of individuals being severity of a generally shorter duration. percentages are as follows: LF4 = 99 harassed and a more distant distance The majority of takes by harassment of percent between 124 and 136 dB SPL, cutoff (50 km for high source level, 25 beaked whales in the MITT Study Area MF4 = 98 percent between 130 and 148 km for moderate source level). Beaked are caused by sources from the MFAS dB SPL, MF5 = 97 percent between 100 whales have also been found to respond active sonar bin (which includes hull- and 142 dB SPL, and HF4 = 95 percent to naval sonar, in certain circumstances, mounted sonar) because they are high between 100 and 148 dB SPL. Given the in a manner that can lead to stranding level narrowband sources that fall levels they are exposed to and their and in a few cases, globally, beaked within the 1–10 kHz range, which sensitivity, some responses would be of whale strandings have been causally overlap a more sensitive portion (though a lower severity, but many would likely associated with active sonar operation. not the most sensitive) of the MF be considered moderate. However, as discussed in the Stranding hearing range. Also, of the sources Research has shown that beaked section of the Potential Effects of expected to result in take, they are used whales are especially sensitive to the Specified Activities on Marine in a large portion of exercises (see Table presence of human activity (Pirotta et Mammals and Their Habitat section,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46407

NMFS has determined that the activities that context of the exposures (e.g., estimated that regional Cuvier’s beaked included in this 7-year rule are not source proximity, controlled source whale densities were higher than reasonably likely to result in the ramp-up) may have been a significant indicated by NMFS’ broad scale visual mortality of beaked whales. factor. The study itself found the results surveys for the U.S. West Coast Beaked whales have been inconclusive and meriting further (Hildebrand and McDonald, 2009). documented to exhibit avoidance of investigation. Cuvier’s beaked whale These beaked whale species are not human activity or respond to vessel responses suggested particular listed as endangered or threatened presence (Pirotta et al., 2012). Beaked sensitivity to sound exposure consistent species under the ESA, and there are no whales were observed to react with results for Blainville’s beaked known biologically important areas negatively to survey vessels or low whale. identified for these species in the MITT altitude aircraft by quick diving and Populations of beaked whales and Study Area. There have been no stock(s) other avoidance maneuvers, and none other odontocetes in the Bahamas and specified for beaked whales found in the were observed to approach vessels other Navy fixed ranges that have been MITT Study Area and Transit Corridor, (Wursig et al., 1998). Research and operating for decades appear to be and there are no associated SARs. There observations show that if beaked whales stable. Behavioral reactions (avoidance is also no information on trends for are exposed to sonar or other active of the area of Navy activity) seem likely these species within the MITT Study acoustic sources, they may startle, break in most cases if beaked whales are Area. All of the beaked whales species discussed in this section will benefit off feeding dives, and avoid the area of exposed to anti-submarine sonar within from the procedural mitigation the sound source to levels of 157 dB re a few tens of kilometers, especially for measures described earlier in the 1 mPa, or below (McCarthy et al., 2011). prolonged periods (a few hours or more) Mitigation Measures section. Acoustic monitoring during actual sonar since this is one of the most sensitive Regarding the magnitude of takes by exercises revealed some beaked whales marine mammal groups to Level B harassment (TTS and behavioral continuing to forage at levels up to 157 anthropogenic sound of any species or disturbance), the number of estimated dB re 1 mPa (Tyack et al., 2011). group studied to date and research instances of take compared to the Stimpert et al. (2014) tagged a Baird’s indicates beaked whales will leave an abundance is 50 to 55 percent in the beaked whale, which was subsequently area where anthropogenic sound is MITT Study Area and 24 to 54 percent exposed to simulated MFAS. Changes in present (De Ruiter et al., 2013; in the MITT Study Area and transit the animal’s dive behavior and Manzano-Roth et al., 2013; Moretti et corridor combined (Table 50). Regarding locomotion were observed when al., 2014; Tyack et al., 2011). Research the severity of those individual takes by received level reached 127 dB re 1 mPa. involving tagged Cuvier’s beaked whales Level B harassment by behavioral However, Manzano-Roth et al. (2013) in the SOCAL Range Complex reported disturbance, we have explained that the found that for beaked whale dives that on by Falcone and Schorr (2012, 2014) duration of any exposure is expected to continued to occur during MFAS indicates year-round prolonged use of be between minutes and hours (i.e., activity, differences from normal dive the Navy’s training and testing area by relatively short) and the received sound profiles and click rates were not these beaked whales and has levels largely below 160 dB, though detected with estimated received levels documented movements in excess of with beaked whales, which are up to 137 dB re 1 mPa while the animals hundreds of kilometers by some of those considered somewhat more sensitive, were at depth during their dives. In animals. Given that some of these this could mean that some individuals research done at the Navy’s fixed animals may routinely move hundreds will leave preferred habitat for a day tracking range in the Bahamas, animals of kilometers as part of their normal (i.e., moderate level takes). However, were observed to leave the immediate pattern, leaving an area where sonar or while interrupted feeding bouts are a area of the anti-submarine warfare other anthropogenic sound is present known response and concern for training exercise (avoiding the sonar may have little, if any, cost to such an odontocetes, we also know that there are acoustic footprint at a distance where animal. Photo identification studies in often viable alternative habitat options the received level was ‘‘around 140 dB the SOCAL Range Complex, a Navy nearby. Regarding the severity of takes SPL’’, according to Tyack et al. (2011)), range that is utilized for training and by TTS, they are expected to be low- but return within a few days after the testing, have identified approximately level, of short duration, and mostly not event ended (Claridge and Durban, 100 Cuvier’s beaked whale individuals in a frequency band that would be 2009; McCarthy et al., 2011; Moretti et with 40 percent having been seen in one expected to interfere with beaked whale al., 2009, 2010; Tyack et al., 2010, or more prior years, with re-sightings up communication or other important low- 2011). Tyack et al. (2011) report that, in to seven years apart (Falcone and frequency cues. Therefore, the reaction to sonar playbacks, most Schorr, 2014). These results indicate associated lost opportunities and beaked whales stopped echolocating, long-term residency by individuals in capabilities are not at a level that will made long slow ascent to the surface, an intensively used Navy training and impact reproduction or survival. As and moved away from the sound. A testing area, which may also suggest a mentioned earlier in the odontocete similar behavioral response study lack of long-term consequences as a overview, we anticipate more severe conducted in Southern California waters result of exposure to Navy training and effects from takes when animals are during the 2010–2011 field season testing activities. More than eight years exposed to higher received levels or found that Cuvier’s beaked whales of passive acoustic monitoring on the sequential days of impacts. exposed to MFAS displayed behavior Navy’s instrumented range west of San Altogether, none of the four beaked ranging from initial orientation changes Clemente Island documented no whale species are listed under the ESA to avoidance responses characterized by significant changes in annual and and there are no known population energetic fluking and swimming away monthly beaked whale echolocation trends. Our analysis suggests that fewer from the source (DeRuiter et al., 2013b). clicks, with the exception of repeated than half of the individuals of each However, the authors did not detect fall declines likely driven by natural species in the MITT Study Area and similar responses to incidental exposure beaked whale life history functions Transit Corridor will be taken and to distant naval sonar exercises at (DiMarzio et al., 2018). Finally, results disturbed at a low or moderate level, comparable received levels, indicating from passive acoustic monitoring with those individuals likely not

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46408 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

disturbed on more than a few non- have a negligible impact on these four in the MITT Study Area alone, as well sequential days a year. No mortality or beaked whale species. as the MITT Study Area plus the Transit Level A harassment is anticipated or Small Whales and Dolphins—This Corridor, which was calculated authorized. This low magnitude and section builds on the broader discussion separately. While the density used to low to moderate severity of harassment above and brings together the discussion calculate take is the same for these two effects is not expected to result in of the different types and amounts of areas, the takes were calculated impacts on individual reproduction or take that different small whale and separately for the two areas for dolphins survival, let alone have impacts on dolphin species are likely to incur, the and small whales, because the activity applicable mitigation, and the status of annual rates of recruitment or survival levels are higher in the MITT Study the species to support the negligible and, therefore, the total take will not Area and it is helpful to understand the impact determinations for each species. adversely affect this species through In Table 51 below for dolphins and comparative impacts in the two areas. impacts on annual rates of recruitment small whales, we indicate for each Note also that for dolphins and small or survival. For these reasons, we have species the total annual numbers of take whales, the abundance within the MITT determined, in consideration of all of by Level A and Level B harassment, and Study Area and Transit Corridor the effects of the Navy’s activities a number indicating the instances of represents only a portion of the species combined, that the authorized take will total take as a percentage of abundance abundance. TABLE 51—ANNUAL ESTIMATED TAKES BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT AND LEVEL A HARASSMENT FOR DOLPHINS AND SMALL WHALES AND NUMBER INDICATING THE INSTANCES OF TOTAL TAKE AS A PERCENTAGE OF ABUNDANCE IN THE MITT STUDY AREA AND TRANSIT CORRIDOR

Instances of indicated types of incidental take Abundance Instances of total (not all takes represent separate individuals, take as percentage especially for disturbance) of abundance Total takes MITT Species Level A MITT study MITT Level B harassment harass- MITT study area + MITT study ment MITT study area transit study area + study area + corridor area transit Behavioral area transit corridor disturbance TTS PTS corridor

Bottlenose dolphin ...... 116 21 0 132 137 753 1,076 17 13 False killer whale ...... 641 121 0 759 762 3,979 4,218 19 18 Fraser’s dolphin ...... 11,326 1,952 1 13,261 13,279 75,420 76,476 18 17 Killer whale...... 36 8 0 44 44 215 253 20 17 Melon-headed whale ...... 2,306 509 0 2,798 2,815 15,432 16,551 18 17 Pantropical spotted dolphin ...... 12,078 2,818 1 14,820 14,897 81,013 85,755 18 17 Pygmy killer whale ...... 87 17 0 103 104 502 527 21 20 Risso’s dolphin ...... 2,650 520 0 3,166 3,170 16,991 17,184 19 18 Rough-toothed dolphin ...... 161 36 0 185 197 1,040 1,815 18 11 Short-finned pilot whale ...... 987 176 0 1,150 1,163 5,700 6,583 20 18 Spinner dolphin...... 1,185 229 1 1,404 1,415 4,449 5,232 32 27 Striped dolphin ...... 3,256 751 0 3,956 4,007 22,081 24,528 18 16 Note: Abundance was calculated using the following formulas: (1) Density from the Technical Report in animals/km2 x spatial extent of the MITT Study Area transit corridor = Abundance in the transit corridor and (2) Density from the Technical Report in animals/km2 x spatial extent of the MITT Study Area = Abundance in the MITT Study. Note that the total annual takes described here may be off by a digit due to rounding. This occurred here as the Level B harassment takes are broken down further into Behavioral Disturbance and TTS compared to the Level B harassment takes presented as one number in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section.

As discussed above, the majority of Level A harassment is anticipated and more industrialized or busy areas, have takes by Level B harassment by authorized for three species (Fraser’s demonstrated more tolerance for behavioral disturbance of odontocetes, dolphin, pantropical spotted dolphin, disturbance and loud sounds and many and thereby dolphins and small whales, and spinner dolphin). of these species are known to approach from hull-mounted sonar (MFAS) in the Research and observations show that vessels to bow-ride. These species are MITT Study Area would result from if delphinids are exposed to sonar or often considered generally less sensitive received levels between 154 and 172 dB other active acoustic sources they may to disturbance. Dolphins and small SPL. Therefore, the majority of takes by react in a number of ways depending on whales that reside in deeper waters and their experience with the sound source Level B harassment are expected to be generally have fewer interactions with and what activity they are engaged in at human activities are more likely to in the form of low to occasionally the time of the acoustic exposure. demonstrate more typical avoidance moderate severity of a generally shorter Delphinids may not react at all until the reactions and foraging interruptions as duration. As mentioned earlier in this sound source is approaching within a described above in the odontocete section, we anticipate more severe few hundred meters to within a few overview. effects from takes when animals are kilometers depending on the All the dolphin and small whale exposed to higher received levels or for environmental conditions and species. species discussed in this section will longer durations. Occasional milder Some dolphin species (the more surface- benefit from the procedural mitigation Level B harassment by behavioral dwelling taxa—typically those with measures described earlier in the disturbance, as is expected here, is ‘‘dolphin’’ in the common name, such Mitigation Measures section. unlikely to cause long-term as bottlenose dolphins, spotted Additionally, the Agat Bay Nearshore consequences for either individual dolphins, spinner dolphins, rough- Geographic Mitigation Area will provide animals or populations that have any toothed dolphins, etc., but not Risso’s protection for spinner dolphins as the effect on reproduction or survival. One dolphin), especially those residing in Navy will not use in-water explosives or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46409

MF1 ship hull-mounted mid-frequency (PTS) may include some degree of affecting species will not have an active sonar in this area. High use areas energetic costs for compensating or may unmitigable adverse impact on the for spinner dolphins including Agat Bay mean some small loss of opportunities availability of the species for taking for are where animals congregate during the or detection capabilities, but at the subsistence purposes. day to rest (Amesbury et al., 2001; expected scale the estimated takes by Classification Eldredge, 1991). Behavioral disruptions Level A harassment by PTS for spinner during resting periods can adversely dolphin, Fraser’s dolphin, and Endangered Species Act impact health and energetic budgets by pantropical spotted dolphin are unlikely There are five marine mammal not allowing animals to get the needed to impact behaviors, opportunities, or species under NMFS jurisdiction that rest and/or by creating the need to travel detection capabilities to a degree that are listed as endangered or threatened and expend additional energy to find will interfere with reproductive success under the ESA with confirmed or other suitable resting areas. Avoiding or survival of any individuals, let alone possible occurrence in the MITT Study sonar and explosives in this area affect annual rates of recruitment or Area: Blue whale, fin whale, humpback reduces the likelihood of impacts that survival. whale, sei whale, and sperm whale. would affect reproduction and survival. Altogether, none of the small whale or None of the small whale and dolphin dolphin species are listed under the There is no ESA-designated critical species are listed as endangered or ESA and there are no known population habitat for any species in the MITT threatened species under the ESA. As trends. Our analysis suggests that only Study Area. The Navy consulted with noted above, an important resting area a small portion of the individuals of any NMFS pursuant to section 7 of the ESA has been identified for spinner of these species in the MITT Study Area for MITT activities, and NMFS also dolphins, and mitigation has been or Transit Corridor will be taken and consulted internally on the issuance of included to reduce impacts in the area. disturbed at a low-moderate level, with these regulations and LOA under There have been no stock(s) specified those individuals likely disturbed no section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. for small whales and dolphins found in more than a few non-sequential days a NMFS issued a Biological Opinion the MITT Study Area and Transit year. One take by PTS for three dolphin concluding that the issuance of the rule Corridor, and there are no associated species is anticipated and authorized, and subsequent LOA is not likely to SARs. There is also no information on but at the expected scale the estimated jeopardize the continued existence of trends for these species within the MITT take by Level A harassment by PTS is the threatened and endangered species Study Area. unlikely to impact behaviors, under NMFS’ jurisdiction and is not Regarding the magnitude of takes by opportunities, or detection capabilities likely to result in the destruction or Level B harassment (TTS and behavioral to a degree that would interfere with adverse modification of critical habitat disturbance), the number of estimated reproductive success or survival of any in the MITT Study Area. The Biological total instances of take compared to the individuals, let alone annual rates of Opinion for this action is available at abundance is 32 percent for spinner recruitment or survival. This low https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ dolphins and 17 to 21 percent for the magnitude and severity of harassment national/marine-mammal-protection/ remaining dolphins and small whales in effects is not expected to result in incidental-take-authorizations-military- the MITT Study Area. The number of impacts on the reproduction or survival readiness-activities. estimated total instances of take of any individuals, let alone have National Marine Sanctuaries Act compared to the abundance is 27 impacts on annual rates of recruitment percent for spinner dolphins and 20 or survival and, therefore, the total take There are no national marine percent or less for the remaining will not adversely affect these species sanctuaries in the MITT Study Area. dolphins and small whales in the MITT through impacts on annual rates of Therefore, no consultation under the Study and transit corridor combined recruitment or survival. For these National Marine Sanctuaries Act is (Table 51). reasons, we have determined, in required. Regarding the severity of those consideration of all of the effects of the National Environmental Policy Act individual takes by Level B harassment Navy’s activities combined, that the by behavioral disturbance, we have authorized take will have a negligible To comply with the National explained the duration of any exposure impact on all twelve of these species of Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is expected to be between minutes and small whales and dolphins. (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and hours (i.e., relatively short) and the NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) received sound levels largely below 172 Determination 216–6A, NMFS must evaluate its dB (i.e., of a lower, to occasionally Based on the analysis contained proposed actions and alternatives with moderate, level and less likely to evoke herein of the likely effects of the respect to potential impacts on the a severe response). Regarding the specified activity on marine mammals human environment. NMFS severity of takes by TTS, they are and their habitat, and taking into participated as a cooperating agency on expected to be low-level, of short consideration the implementation of the the 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS, which was duration, and mostly not in a frequency monitoring and mitigation measures, published on June 5, 2020, and is band that would be expected to interfere NMFS finds that the total marine available at http://www.MITT-eis.com. with communication or other important mammal take from the Specified In accordance with 40 CFR 1506.3, low-frequency cues. The associated lost Activities will have a negligible impact NMFS independently reviewed and opportunities and capabilities are not at on all affected marine mammal species. evaluated the 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS a level that will impact reproduction or and determined that it is adequate and survival. One individual each of three Subsistence Harvest of Marine sufficient to meet our responsibilities species (spinner dolphin, Fraser’s Mammals under NEPA for the issuance of this rule dolphin, and pantropical spotted There are no subsistence uses or and associated LOA. NOAA therefore dolphin) is estimated to be taken by one harvest of marine mammals in the adopted the 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS. PTS annually, of likely low severity as geographic area affected by the specified NMFS has prepared a separate Record of described previously. A small activities. Therefore, NMFS has Decision. NMFS’ Record of Decision for permanent loss of hearing sensitivity determined that the total taking adoption of the 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46410 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

and issuance of this final rule and cause to waive the 30-day delay in the (MITT) Study Area. The MITT Study subsequent LOA can be found at: effective date. In addition, the rule Area is comprised of three components: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ authorizes incidental take of marine The Mariana Islands Range Complex national/marine-mammal-protection/ mammals that would otherwise be (MIRC), additional areas on the high incidental-take-authorizations-military- prohibited under the statute. Therefore, seas, and a transit corridor between the readiness-activities. by granting an exception to the Navy, MIRC and the Hawaii Range Complex Executive Order 12866 the rule will relieve restrictions under (HRC). The MIRC includes the waters the MMPA, which provides a separate south of Guam to north of Pagan The Office of Management and Budget basis for waiving the 30-day effective (Commonwealth of the Northern has determined that this rule is not date for the rule. Mariana Islands (CNMI)), and from the significant for purposes of Executive Pacific Ocean east of the Mariana List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 218 Order 12866. Islands to the Philippine Sea to the Regulatory Flexibility Act Exports, Fish, Imports, Incidental west, encompassing 501,873 square take, Indians, Labeling, Marine nautical miles (nmi2) of open ocean. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility mammals, Navy, Penalties, Reporting The additional areas of the high seas Act (RFA), the Chief Counsel for and recordkeeping requirements, include the area to the north of the Regulation of the Department of Seafood, Sonar, Transportation. MIRC that is within the U.S. Exclusive Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel Economic Zone (EEZ) of the CNMI and for Advocacy of the Small Business Dated: July 15, 2020. the areas to the west of the MIRC. The Administration during the proposed Samuel D. Rauch III, transit corridor is outside the geographic rule stage that this action would not Deputy Assistant Administrator for boundaries of the MIRC and represents have a significant economic impact on Regulatory Programs, National Marine a substantial number of small entities. Fisheries Service. a great circle route (i.e., the shortest The factual basis for the certification For reasons set forth in the preamble, distance) across the high seas for Navy was published in the proposed rule and 50 CFR part 218 is amended as follows: ships transiting between the MIRC and is not repeated here. No comments were the HRC. Additionally, the MITT Study received regarding this certification. As PART 218—REGULATIONS Area includes pierside locations in the a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis GOVERNING THE TAKING AND Apra Harbor Naval Complex. was not required and none was IMPORTING OF MARINE MAMMALS (c) The taking of marine mammals by prepared. the Navy is only authorized if it occurs ■ 1. The authority citation for part 218 incidental to the Navy conducting Waiver of Delay in Effective Date continues to read as follows: training and testing activities, including: NMFS has determined that there is Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., unless (1) Training. (i) Amphibious warfare; good cause under the Administrative otherwise noted. (ii) Anti-submarine warfare; Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)) to ■ 2. Revise subpart J to read as follows: (iii) Mine warfare; waive the 30-day delay in the effective (vi) Surface warfare; and date of this final rule. No individual or Subpart J—Taking and Importing entity other than the Navy is affected by Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy’s Mariana (vii) Other training activities. the provisions of these regulations. The Islands Training and Testing (MITT) (2) Testing. (i) Naval Air Systems Navy has requested that this final rule Command Testing Activities; take effect on or before July 31, 2020, to Sec. (ii) Naval Sea Systems Command 218.90 Specified activity and geographical Testing Activities; and accommodate the Navy’s LOA expiring region. on August 3, 2020, so as to not cause a 218.91 Effective dates. (iii) Office of Naval Research Testing disruption in training and testing 218.92 Permissible methods of taking. Activities. activities. NMFS was unable to 218.93 Prohibitions. § 218.91 Effective dates. accommodate the 30-day delay of 218.94 Mitigation requirements. effectiveness period due to the need to 218.95 Requirements for monitoring and Regulations in this subpart are consider new information that became reporting. effective from July 31, 2020, to July 30, available in June 2020, as well as a 218.96 Letters of Authorization. 2027. revised humpback whale analysis that 218.97 Renewals and modifications of Letters of Authorization. § 218.92 Permissible methods of taking. arose through the ESA section 7 consultation. The waiver of the 30-day Subpart J—Taking and Importing (a) Under an LOA issued pursuant to delay of the effective date of the final Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy’s Mariana §§ 216.106 of this section and 218.96, rule will ensure that the MMPA final Islands Training and Testing (MITT) the Holder of the LOA (hereinafter rule and LOA are in place by the time ‘‘Navy’’) may incidentally, but not the previous authorizations expire. Any § 218.90 Specified activity and intentionally, take marine mammals delay in finalizing the rule would result geographical region. within the area described in § 218.90(b) in either: (1) A suspension of planned (a) Regulations in this subpart apply by Level A harassment and Level B naval training and testing, which would only to the U.S. Navy for the taking of harassment associated with the use of disrupt vital training and testing marine mammals that occurs in the area active sonar and other acoustic sources essential to national security; or (2) the described in paragraph (b) of this and explosives, provided the activity is Navy’s procedural non-compliance with section and that occurs incidental to the in compliance with all terms, the MMPA (should the Navy conduct activities listed in paragraph (c) of this conditions, and requirements of the training and testing without an LOA), section. regulations in this subpart and the thereby resulting in the potential for (b) The taking of marine mammals by applicable LOA. unauthorized takes of marine mammals. the Navy under this subpart may be (b) The incidental take of marine Moreover, the Navy is ready to authorized in a Letter of Authorization mammals by the activities listed in implement the regulations immediately. (LOA) only if it occurs within the § 218.90(c) is limited to the species For these reasons, NMFS finds good Mariana Islands Training and Testing listed in Table 1 of this section.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46411

TABLE 1 TO § 218.92(b) § 218.94 Mitigation requirements. (at the forward part of a small boat or When conducting the activities ship) and platforms using active sonar Species Scientific name identified in § 218.90(c), the mitigation while moored or at anchor (including measures contained in any LOA issued pierside); and two Lookouts must be Blue whale ...... Balaenoptera under §§ 216.106 of this section and positioned for platforms without space musculus. 218.96 must be implemented. These or manning restrictions while underway Bryde’s whale ...... Balaenoptera edeni. mitigation measures include, but are not (at the forward part of the ship). Fin whale ...... Balaenoptera (B) Sources that are not hull-mounted physalus. limited to: Humpback whale ...... Megaptera (a) Procedural mitigation. Procedural sources. One Lookout must be novaeangliae. mitigation is mitigation that the Navy positioned on the ship or aircraft Minke whale ...... Balaenoptera must implement whenever and conducting the activity. acutorostrata. wherever an applicable training or (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. Omura’s whale ...... Balaenoptera omurai. testing activity takes place within the The mitigation zones must be the zones Sei whale ...... Balaenoptera bore- MITT Study Area for each applicable as described in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(B) alis. activity category or stressor category and and (C) of this section. Blainville’s beaked Mesoplodon includes acoustic stressors (i.e., active (A) Prior to the initial start of the whale. densirostris. sonar and other transducers, weapons activity (e.g., when maneuvering on Common bottlenose Tursiops truncatus. firing noise), explosive stressors (i.e., station), Navy personnel must observe dolphin. the mitigation zone for marine Cuvier’s beaked Ziphius cavirostris. sonobuoys, torpedoes, medium-caliber whale. and large-caliber projectiles, missiles mammals; if marine mammals are Dwarf sperm whale ... Kogia sima. and rockets, bombs, sinking exercises, observed, Navy personnel must relocate False killer whale ...... Pseudorca mines, anti-swimmer grenades), and or delay the start of active sonar crassidens. physical disturbance and strike stressors transmission. Fraser’s dolphin ...... Lagenodelphis hosei. (i.e., vessel movement; towed in-water (B) During the activity for low- Ginkgo-toothed Mesoplodon devices; small-, medium-, and large- frequency active sonar at or above 200 beaked whale. ginkgodens. caliber non-explosive practice dB and hull-mounted mid-frequency Killer whale ...... Orcinus orca. munitions; non-explosive missiles and active sonar, Navy personnel must Longman’s beaked Indopacetus observe the mitigation zone for marine whale. pacificus. rockets; and non-explosive bombs and mine shapes). mammals and power down active sonar Melon-headed whale Peponocephala transmission by 6 dB if marine electra. (1) Environmental awareness and Pantropical spotted Stenella attenuata. education. Appropriate Navy personnel mammals are observed within 1,000 yd dolphin. (including civilian personnel) involved of the sonar source; power down by an Pygmy killer whale .... Feresa attenuata. in mitigation and training or testing additional 4 dB (for a total of 10 dB) if Pygmy sperm whale Kogia breviceps. reporting under the specified activities marine mammals are observed within Risso’s dolphin ...... Grampus griseus. will complete one or more modules of 500 yd of the sonar source; and cease Rough-toothed dol- Steno bredanensis. the U.S. Navy Afloat Environmental transmission if marine mammals are phin. Compliance Training Series, as observed within 200 yd of the sonar Short-finned pilot Globicephala identified in their career path training source. whale. macrorhynchus. plan. Modules include: Introduction to (C) During the activity for low- Sperm whale ...... Physeter frequency active sonar below 200 dB, macrocephalus. the U.S. Navy Afloat Environmental Spinner dolphin ...... Stenella longirostris. Compliance Training Series, Marine mid-frequency active sonar sources that Striped dolphin ...... Stenella Species Awareness Training; U.S. Navy are not hull mounted, and high- coeruleoalba. Protective Measures Assessment frequency active sonar, Navy personnel Protocol; and U.S. Navy Sonar must observe the mitigation zone for § 218.93 Prohibitions. Positional Reporting System and Marine marine mammals and cease active sonar Mammal Incident Reporting. transmission if marine mammals are Notwithstanding incidental takings (2) Active sonar. Active sonar observed within 200 yd of the sonar contemplated in § 218.92(a) and includes low-frequency active sonar, source. authorized by an LOA issued under mid-frequency active sonar, and high- (D) Commencement/recommencement §§ 216.106 of this section and 218.96, no frequency active sonar. For vessel-based conditions after a marine mammal person in connection with the activities activities, mitigation applies only to sighting before or during the activity. listed in § 218.90(c) may: sources that are positively controlled Navy personnel must allow a sighted (a) Violate, or fail to comply with, the and deployed from manned surface marine mammal to leave the mitigation terms, conditions, and requirements of vessels (e.g., sonar sources towed from zone prior to the initial start of the this subpart or an LOA issued under manned surface platforms). For aircraft- activity (by delaying the start) or during §§ 216.106 of this section and 218.96; based activities, mitigation applies only the activity (by not recommencing or powering up active sonar transmission) (b) Take any marine mammal not to sources that are positively controlled until one of the following conditions specified in § 218.92(b); and deployed from manned aircraft that do not operate at high altitudes (e.g., has been met: The animal is observed (c) Take any marine mammal rotary-wing aircraft). Mitigation does exiting the mitigation zone; the animal specified in § 218.92(b) in any manner not apply to active sonar sources is thought to have exited the mitigation other than as specified in the LOA deployed from unmanned aircraft or zone based on a determination of its issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter aircraft operating at high altitudes (e.g., course, speed, and movement relative to and 218.96; or maritime patrol aircraft). the sonar source; the mitigation zone (d) Take a marine mammal specified (i) Number of Lookouts and has been clear from any additional in § 218.92(b) if NMFS determines such observation platform—(A) Hull- sightings for 10 minutes (min) for taking results in more than a negligible mounted sources. One Lookout must be aircraft-deployed sonar sources or 30 impact on the species of such marine positioned for platforms with space or min for vessel-deployed sonar sources; mammal. manning restrictions while underway for mobile activities, the active sonar

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46412 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

source has transited a distance equal to activity, Navy personnel positioned on (5) Explosive torpedoes—(i) Number double that of the mitigation zone size those assets (e.g., safety observers, of Lookouts and observation platform. beyond the location of the last sighting; evaluators) must support observing the One Lookout must be positioned in an or for activities using hull-mounted mitigation zone for marine mammals aircraft. If additional platforms are sonar where a dolphin(s) is observed in and other applicable biological participating in the activity, Navy the mitigation zone, the Lookout resources while performing their regular personnel positioned on those assets concludes that the dolphin(s) is duties. (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must deliberately closing in on the ship to (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. support observing the mitigation zone ride the ship’s bow wave, and is (A) The mitigation zone must be 600 yd for marine mammals and other therefore out of the main transmission around an explosive sonobuoy. applicable biological resources while axis of the sonar (and there are no other (B) Prior to the initial start of the performing their regular duties. marine mammal sightings within the activity (e.g., during deployment of a (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. mitigation zone). sonobuoy pattern, which typically lasts (A) The mitigation zone must be 2,100 (3) Weapons firing noise. Weapons 20–30 min), Navy personnel must yd around the intended impact location. firing noise associated with large-caliber conduct passive acoustic monitoring for (B) Prior to the initial start of the gunnery activities. marine mammals and use information activity (e.g., during deployment of the (i) Number of Lookouts and from detections to assist visual target), Navy personnel must conduct observation platform. One Lookout must observations. Navy personnel also must passive acoustic monitoring for marine be positioned on the ship conducting visually observe the mitigation zone for mammals and use the information from the firing. Depending on the activity, the marine mammals; if marine mammals detections to assist visual observations. Lookout could be the same as the one are observed, Navy personnel must Navy personnel also must visually provided for under ‘‘Explosive medium- relocate or delay the start of sonobuoy observe the mitigation zone for marine caliber and large-caliber projectiles’’ or or source/receiver pair detonations. mammals; if marine mammals are under ‘‘Small-, medium-, and large- observed, Navy personnel must relocate (C) During the activity, Navy caliber non-explosive practice or delay the start of firing. personnel must observe the mitigation munitions’’ in paragraphs (a)(6)(i) and (C) During the activity, Navy zone for marine mammals; if marine (a)(15)(i) of this section. personnel must observe the mitigation (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. mammals are observed, Navy personnel zone for marine mammals. If marine The mitigation zone must be thirty must cease sonobuoy or source/receiver mammals are observed, Navy personnel degrees on either side of the firing line pair detonations. must cease firing. out to 70 yd from the muzzle of the (D) Commencement/recommencement (D) Commencement/recommencement weapon being fired. conditions after a marine mammal conditions after a marine mammal (A) Prior to the initial start of the sighting before or during the activity. sighting before or during the activity. activity, Navy personnel must observe Navy personnel must allow a sighted Navy personnel must allow a sighted the mitigation zone for marine marine mammal to leave the mitigation marine mammal to leave the mitigation mammals; if marine mammals are zone prior to the initial start of the zone prior to the initial start of the observed, Navy personnel must relocate activity (by delaying the start) or during activity (by delaying the start) or during or delay the start of weapons firing. the activity (by not recommencing the activity (by not recommencing (B) During the activity, Navy detonations) until one of the following firing) until one of the following personnel must observe the mitigation conditions has been met: The animal is conditions has been met: The animal is zone for marine mammals; if marine observed exiting the mitigation zone; observed exiting the mitigation zone; mammals are observed, Navy personnel the animal is thought to have exited the the animal is thought to have exited the must cease weapons firing. mitigation zone based on a mitigation zone based on a (C) Commencement/recommencement determination of its course, speed, and determination of its course, speed, and conditions after a marine mammal movement relative to the sonobuoy; or movement relative to the intended sighting before or during the activity. the mitigation zone has been clear from impact location; or the mitigation zone Navy personnel must allow a sighted any additional sightings for 10 min has been clear from any additional marine mammal to leave the mitigation when the activity involves aircraft that sightings for 10 min when the activity zone prior to the initial start of the have fuel constraints (e.g., helicopter), involves aircraft that have fuel activity (by delaying the start) or during or 30 min when the activity involves constraints, or 30 min when the activity the activity (by not recommencing aircraft that are not typically fuel involves aircraft that are not typically weapons firing) until one of the constrained. fuel constrained. following conditions has been met: The (E) After completion of the activity (E) After completion of the activity animal is observed exiting the (e.g., prior to maneuvering off station), (e.g., prior to maneuvering off station), mitigation zone; the animal is thought to when practical (e.g., when platforms are Navy personnel must when practical have exited the mitigation zone based not constrained by fuel restrictions or (e.g., when platforms are not on a determination of its course, speed, mission-essential follow-on constrained by fuel restrictions or and movement relative to the firing commitments), Navy personnel must mission-essential follow-on ship; the mitigation zone has been clear observe for marine mammals in the commitments), observe for marine from any additional sightings for 30 vicinity of where detonations occurred; mammals in the vicinity of where min; or for mobile activities, the firing if any injured or dead marine mammals detonations occurred; if any injured or ship has transited a distance equal to are observed, Navy personnel must dead marine mammals are observed, double that of the mitigation zone size follow established incident reporting Navy personnel must follow established beyond the location of the last sighting. procedures. If additional platforms are incident reporting procedures. If (4) Explosive sonobuoys—(i) Number supporting this activity (e.g., providing additional platforms are supporting this of Lookouts and observation platform. range clearance), Navy personnel on activity (e.g., providing range clearance), One Lookout must be positioned in an these assets must assist in the visual Navy personnel on these assets must aircraft or on a small boat. If additional observation of the area where assist in the visual observation of the platforms are participating in the detonations occurred. area where detonations occurred.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46413

(6) Explosive medium-caliber and distance equal to double that of the movement relative to the intended large-caliber projectiles. Gunnery mitigation zone size beyond the location impact location; or the mitigation zone activities using explosive medium- of the last sighting. has been clear from any additional caliber and large-caliber projectiles. (G) After completion of the activity sightings for 10 min when the activity Mitigation applies to activities using a (e.g., prior to maneuvering off station), involves aircraft that have fuel surface target. Navy personnel must, when practical constraints, or 30 min when the activity (i) Number of Lookouts and (e.g., when platforms are not involves aircraft that are not typically observation platform. One Lookout must constrained by fuel restrictions or fuel constrained. be on the vessel or aircraft conducting mission-essential follow-on (F) After completion of the activity the activity. For activities using commitments), observe for marine (e.g., prior to maneuvering off station), explosive large-caliber projectiles, mammals in the vicinity of where Navy personnel must, when practical depending on the activity, the Lookout detonations occurred; if any injured or (e.g., when platforms are not could be the same as the one described dead marine mammals are observed, constrained by fuel restrictions or in ‘‘Weapons firing noise’’ in paragraph Navy personnel must follow established mission-essential follow-on (a)(3)(i) of this section. If additional incident reporting procedures. If commitments), observe for marine platforms are participating in the additional platforms are supporting this mammals in the vicinity of where activity, Navy personnel positioned on activity (e.g., providing range clearance), detonations occurred; if any injured or those assets (e.g., safety observers, Navy personnel on these assets must dead marine mammals are observed, evaluators) must support observing the assist in the visual observation of the Navy personnel must follow established mitigation zone for marine mammals area where detonations occurred. incident reporting procedures. If and other applicable biological (7) Explosive missiles and rockets. additional platforms are supporting this resources while performing their regular Aircraft-deployed explosive missiles activity (e.g., providing range clearance), duties. and rockets. Mitigation applies to Navy personnel on these assets will (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. activities using a surface target. assist in the visual observation of the (A) The mitigation zone must be 200 yd (i) Number of Lookouts and area where detonations occurred. around the intended impact location for observation platform. One Lookout must (8) Explosive bombs—(i) Number of air-to-surface activities using explosive be positioned in an aircraft. If additional Lookouts and observation platform. One medium-caliber projectiles. platforms are participating in the Lookout must be positioned in an (B) The mitigation zone must be 600 activity, Navy personnel positioned on aircraft conducting the activity. If yd around the intended impact location those assets (e.g., safety observers, additional platforms are participating in for surface-to-surface activities using evaluators) must support observing the the activity, Navy personnel positioned explosive medium-caliber projectiles. mitigation zone for marine mammals on those assets (e.g., safety observers, (C) The mitigation zone must be 1,000 and other applicable biological evaluators) must support observing the yd around the intended impact location resources while performing their regular mitigation zone for marine mammals for surface-to-surface activities using duties. and other applicable biological explosive large-caliber projectiles. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. resources while performing their regular (D) Prior to the initial start of the (A) The mitigation zone must be 900 yd duties. activity (e.g., when maneuvering on around the intended impact location for (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. station), Navy personnel must observe missiles or rockets with 0.6–20 lb net (A) The mitigation zone must be 2,500 the mitigation zone for marine explosive weight. yd around the intended target. mammals; if marine mammals are (B) 2,000 yd around the intended (B) Prior to the initial start of the observed, Navy personnel must relocate impact location for missiles with 21– activity (e.g., when arriving on station), or delay the start of firing. 500 lb net explosive weight. Navy personnel must observe the (E) During the activity, Navy (C) Prior to the initial start of the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if personnel must observe the mitigation activity (e.g., during a fly-over of the marine mammals are observed, Navy zone for marine mammals; if marine mitigation zone), Navy personnel must personnel must relocate or delay the mammals are observed, Navy personnel observe the mitigation zone for marine start of bomb deployment. must cease firing. mammals; if marine mammals are (C) During the activity (e.g., during (F) Commencement/recommencement observed, Navy personnel must relocate target approach), Navy personnel must conditions after a marine mammal or delay the start of firing. observe the mitigation zone for marine sighting before or during the activity. (D) During the activity, Navy mammals; if marine mammals are Navy personnel must allow a sighted personnel must observe the mitigation observed, Navy personnel must cease marine mammal to leave the mitigation zone for marine mammals; if marine bomb deployment. zone prior to the initial start of the mammals are observed, Navy personnel (D) Commencement/recommencement activity (by delaying the start) or during must cease firing. conditions after a marine mammal the activity (by not recommencing (E) Commencement/recommencement sighting before or during the activity. firing) until one of the following conditions after a marine mammal Navy personnel must allow a sighted conditions has been met: The animal is sighting before or during the activity. marine mammal to leave the mitigation observed exiting the mitigation zone; Navy personnel must allow a sighted zone prior to the initial start of the the animal is thought to have exited the marine mammal to leave the mitigation activity (by delaying the start) or during mitigation zone based on a zone prior to the initial start of the the activity (by not recommencing bomb determination of its course, speed, and activity (by delaying the start) or during deployment) until one of the following movement relative to the intended the activity (by not recommencing conditions has been met: The animal is impact location; the mitigation zone has firing) until one of the following observed exiting the mitigation zone; been clear from any additional sightings conditions has been met: The animal is the animal is thought to have exited the for 10 min for aircraft-based firing or 30 observed exiting the mitigation zone; mitigation zone based on a min for vessel-based firing; or for the animal is thought to have exited the determination of its course, speed, and activities using mobile targets, the mitigation zone based on a movement relative to the intended intended impact location has transited a determination of its course, speed, and target; the mitigation zone has been

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46414 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

clear from any additional sightings for activity (by delaying the start) or during the animal is thought to have exited the 10 min; or for activities using mobile the activity (by not recommencing mitigation zone based on a targets, the intended target has transited firing) until one of the following determination of its course, speed, and a distance equal to double that of the conditions has been met: The animal is movement relative to detonation site; or mitigation zone size beyond the location observed exiting the mitigation zone; the mitigation zone has been clear from of the last sighting. the animal is thought to have exited the any additional sightings for 10 min (E) After completion of the activity mitigation zone based on a when the activity involves aircraft that (e.g., prior to maneuvering off station), determination of its course, speed, and have fuel constraints, or 30 min when Navy personnel must, when practical movement relative to the target ship the activity involves aircraft that are not (e.g., when platforms are not hulk; or the mitigation zone has been typically fuel constrained. constrained by fuel restrictions or clear from any additional sightings for (F) After completion of the activity mission-essential follow-on 30 min. (typically 10 min when the activity commitments), observe for marine (E) After completion of the activity involves aircraft that have fuel mammals in the vicinity of where (for two hours after sinking the vessel or constraints, or 30 min when the activity detonations occurred; if any injured or until sunset, whichever comes first), involves aircraft that are not typically dead marine mammals are observed, Navy personnel must observe for marine fuel constrained), Navy personnel must Navy personnel must follow established mammals in the vicinity of where observe for marine mammals in the incident reporting procedures. If detonations occurred; if any injured or vicinity of where detonations occurred; additional platforms are supporting this dead marine mammals are observed, if any injured or dead marine mammals activity (e.g., providing range clearance), Navy personnel must follow established are observed, Navy personnel must Navy personnel on these assets must incident reporting procedures. If follow established incident reporting assist in the visual observation of the additional platforms are supporting this procedures. If additional platforms are area where detonations occurred. activity (e.g., providing range clearance), supporting this activity (e.g., providing (9) Sinking exercises—(i) Number of Navy personnel on these assets will range clearance), Navy personnel on Lookouts and observation platform. assist in the visual observation of the these assets must assist in the visual Two Lookouts (one must be positioned area where detonations occurred. observation of the area where in an aircraft and one must be (10) Explosive mine countermeasure detonations occurred. positioned on a vessel). If additional and neutralization activities—(i) (11) Explosive mine neutralization platforms are participating in the Number of Lookouts and observation activities involving Navy divers—(i) activity, Navy personnel positioned on platform. (A) One Lookout must be Number of Lookouts and observation those assets (e.g., safety observers, positioned on a vessel or in an aircraft. platform. (A) Two Lookouts (two small evaluators) must support observing the (B) If additional platforms are boats with one Lookout each, or one mitigation zone for marine mammals participating in the activity, Navy Lookout must be on a small boat and and other applicable biological personnel positioned on those assets one must be in a rotary-wing aircraft) resources while performing their regular (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must when implementing the smaller duties. support observing the mitigation zone mitigation zone. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. for marine mammals and other (B) Four Lookouts (two small boats (A) The mitigation zone must be 2.5 nmi applicable biological resources while with two Lookouts each), and a pilot or around the target ship hulk. performing their regular duties. member of an aircrew which must serve (B) Prior to the initial start of the (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. as an additional Lookout if aircraft are activity (90 min prior to the first firing), (A) The mitigation zone must be 600 yd used during the activity, must be used Navy personnel must conduct aerial around the detonation site. when implementing the larger observations of the mitigation zone for (B) Prior to the initial start of the mitigation zone. marine mammals; if marine mammals activity (e.g., when maneuvering on (C) All divers placing the charges on are observed, Navy personnel must station; typically 10 min when the mines will support the Lookouts while delay the start of firing. activity involves aircraft that have fuel performing their regular duties and will (C) During the activity, Navy constraints, or 30 min when the activity report applicable sightings to their personnel must conduct passive involves aircraft that are not typically supporting small boat or Range Safety acoustic monitoring for marine fuel constrained), Navy personnel must Officer. mammals and use the information from observe the mitigation zone for marine (D) If additional platforms are detections to assist visual observations. mammals; if marine mammals are participating in the activity, Navy Navy personnel must visually observe observed, Navy personnel must relocate personnel positioned on those assets the mitigation zone for marine mammals or delay the start of detonations. (e.g., safety observers, evaluators) must from the vessel; if marine mammals are (C) During the activity, Navy support observing the mitigation zone observed, Navy personnel must cease personnel must observe the mitigation for marine mammals and other firing. Immediately after any planned or zone for marine mammals; if marine applicable biological resources while unplanned breaks in weapons firing of mammals are observed, Navy personnel performing their regular duties. longer than two hours, Navy personnel must cease detonations. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. must observe the mitigation zone for (D) Commencement/recommencement (A) For Lookouts on small boats or marine mammals from the aircraft and conditions after a marine mammal aircraft, the mitigation zone must be 500 vessel; if marine mammals are observed, sighting before or during the activity. yd around the detonation site under Navy personnel must delay Navy personnel must allow a sighted positive control. recommencement of firing. marine mammal to leave the mitigation (B) For Lookouts on small boats or (D) Commencement/recommencement zone prior to the initial start of the aircraft, the mitigation zone must be conditions after a marine mammal activity (by delaying the start) or during 1,000 yd around the detonation site sighting before or during the activity. the activity (by not recommencing during all activities using time-delay Navy personnel must allow a sighted detonations) until one of the following fuses. marine mammal to leave the mitigation conditions has been met: The animal is (C) For divers, the mitigation zone zone prior to the initial start of the observed exiting the mitigation zone; must be the underwater detonation

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46415

location, which is defined as the sea movement relative to the detonation determination of its course, speed, and space within the divers’ range of site; or the 500 yd or 1,000 yd mitigation movement relative to the intended visibility but no further than the zones (for Lookouts on small boats or detonation location; the mitigation zone mitigation zone specified for Lookouts aircraft) and the underwater detonation has been clear from any additional on small boats or aircraft (500 yd or location (for divers) has been clear from sightings for 30 min; or the intended 1,000 yd depending on the charge type). any additional sightings for 10 min detonation location has transited a (D) Prior to the initial start of the during activities under positive control distance equal to double that of the activity (when maneuvering on station with aircraft that have fuel constraints, mitigation zone size beyond the location for activities under positive control; 30 or 30 min during activities under of the last sighting. min for activities using time-delay firing positive control with aircraft that are not (E) After completion of the activity devices), Navy Lookouts on small boats typically fuel constrained and during (e.g., prior to maneuvering off station), or aircraft, must observe the mitigation activities using time-delay firing Navy personnel must, when practical zone for marine mammals; if marine devices. (e.g., when platforms are not mammals are observed, Navy personnel (G) After completion of an activity, constrained by fuel restrictions or must relocate or delay the start of the Navy must observe for marine mission-essential follow-on detonations or fuse initiation. mammals for 30 min. Navy personnel commitments), observe for marine (E) During the activity, Navy Lookouts must observe for marine mammals in mammals in the vicinity of where on small boats or aircraft, must observe the vicinity of where detonations detonations occurred; if any injured or the mitigation zone for marine occurred; if any injured or dead marine dead marine mammals are observed, mammals; if marine mammals are mammals are observed, Navy personnel Navy personnel must follow established observed, Navy personnel must cease must follow established incident incident reporting procedures. If detonations or fuse initiation. While reporting procedures. If additional additional platforms are supporting this performing their normal duties during platforms are supporting this activity activity (e.g., providing range clearance), the activity, divers must observe the (e.g., providing range clearance), Navy Navy personnel on these assets will underwater detonation location for personnel on these assets must assist in assist in the visual observation of the marine mammals. Divers must notify the visual observation of the area where area where detonations occurred. their supporting small boat or Range detonations occurred. (13) Vessel movement. The mitigation Safety Officer of marine mammal (12) Maritime security operations— will not be applied if: The vessel’s sightings at the underwater detonation anti-swimmer grenades—(i) Number of safety is threatened; the vessel is location; if observed, the Navy must Lookouts and observation platform. One restricted in its ability to maneuver (e.g., cease detonations or fuse initiation. To Lookout must be positioned on the during launching and recovery of the maximum extent practicable small boat conducting the activity. If aircraft or landing craft, during towing depending on mission requirements, additional platforms are participating in activities, when mooring); the vessel is safety, and environmental conditions, the activity, Navy personnel positioned submerged or operated autonomously; Navy personnel must position boats on those assets (e.g., safety observers, or if impracticable based on mission near the mid-point of the mitigation evaluators) must support observing the requirements (e.g., during Amphibious zone radius (but outside of the mitigation zone for marine mammals Assault and Amphibious Raid detonation plume and human safety and other applicable biological exercises). zone), must position themselves on resources while performing their regular opposite sides of the detonation location duties. (i) Number of Lookouts and (when two boats are used), and must (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. observation platform. One Lookout must travel in a circular pattern around the (A) The mitigation zone must be 200 yd be on the vessel that is underway. detonation location with one Lookout around the intended detonation (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. observing inward toward the detonation location. (A) The mitigation zone must be 500 yd site and the other observing outward (B) Prior to the initial start of the around whales. toward the perimeter of the mitigation activity (e.g., when maneuvering on (B) The mitigation zone must be 200 zone. If used, Navy aircraft must travel station), Navy personnel must observe yd around all other marine mammals in a circular pattern around the the mitigation zone for marine (except bow-riding dolphins). detonation location to the maximum mammals; if marine mammals are (C) During the activity. When extent practicable. Navy personnel must observed, Navy personnel must relocate underway Navy personnel must observe not set time-delay firing devices to or delay the start of detonations. the mitigation zone for marine exceed 10 min. (C) During the activity, Navy mammals; if marine mammals are (F) Commencement/recommencement personnel must observe the mitigation observed, Navy personnel must conditions after a marine mammal zone for marine mammals; if marine maneuver to maintain distance. sighting before or during the activity. mammals are observed, Navy personnel (iii) Reporting. If a marine mammal Navy personnel must allow a sighted must cease detonations. vessel strike occurs, Navy personnel marine mammal to leave the underwater (D) Commencement/recommencement must follow the established incident detonation location or mitigation zone conditions after a marine mammal reporting procedures. (as applicable) prior to the initial start sighting before or during the activity. (14) Towed in-water devices. of the activity (by delaying the start) or Navy personnel must allow a sighted Mitigation applies to devices that are during the activity (by not marine mammal to leave the mitigation towed from a manned surface platform recommencing detonations or fuse zone prior to the initial start of the or manned aircraft. The mitigation will initiation) until one of the following activity (by delaying the start) or during not be applied if the safety of the towing conditions has been met: The animal is the activity (by not recommencing platform or in-water device is observed exiting the 500 yd or 1,000 yd detonations) until one of the following threatened. mitigation zone; the animal is thought to conditions has been met: The animal is (i) Number of Lookouts and have exited the 500 yd or 1,000 yd observed exiting the mitigation zone; observation platform. One Lookout must mitigation zone based on a the animal is thought to have exited the be positioned on a manned towing determination of its course, speed, and mitigation zone based on a platform.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46416 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

(ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. activity (by delaying the start) or during (A) The mitigation zone must be 250 yd (A) The mitigation zone must be 900 yd the activity (by not recommencing bomb around marine mammals. around the intended impact location. deployment or mine laying) until one of (B) During the activity (i.e., when (B) Prior to the initial start of the the following conditions has been met: towing an in-water device), Navy activity (e.g., during a fly-over of the The animal is observed exiting the personnel must observe the mitigation mitigation zone), Navy personnel must mitigation zone; the animal is thought to zone for marine mammals; if marine observe the mitigation zone for marine have exited the mitigation zone based mammals are observed, Navy personnel mammals; if marine mammals are on a determination of its course, speed, must maneuver to maintain distance. observed, Navy personnel must relocate and movement relative to the intended (15) Small-, medium-, and large- or delay the start of firing. target or minefield location; the caliber non-explosive practice (C) During the activity, Navy mitigation zone has been clear from any munitions. Mitigation applies to personnel must observe the mitigation additional sightings for 10 min; or for activities using a surface target. zone for marine mammals; if marine activities using mobile targets, the (i) Number of Lookouts and mammals are observed, Navy personnel intended target has transited a distance observation platform. One Lookout must must cease firing. equal to double that of the mitigation be positioned on the platform (D) Commencement/recommencement zone size beyond the location of the last conducting the activity. Depending on conditions after a marine mammal sighting. the activity, the Lookout could be the sighting prior to or during the activity. (b) Mitigation areas. In addition to same as the one described for ‘‘Weapons Navy personnel must allow a sighted procedural mitigation, Navy personnel firing noise’’ in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of marine mammal to leave the mitigation must implement mitigation measures this section. zone prior to the initial start of the within mitigation areas to avoid or (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. activity (by delaying the start) or during reduce potential impacts on marine (A) The mitigation zone must be 200 yd the activity (by not recommencing mammals. (1) Mitigation areas for marine around the intended impact location. firing) until one of the following mammals off Saipan in MITT Study (B) Prior to the initial start of the conditions has been met: The animal is Area for sonar, explosives, and vessel activity (e.g., when maneuvering on observed exiting the mitigation zone; strikes—(i) Mitigation area station), Navy personnel must observe the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a requirements—(A) Marpi Reef and the mitigation zone for marine Chalan Kanoa Reef Geographic mammals; if marine mammals are determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the intended Mitigation Areas. (1) Navy personnel observed, Navy personnel must relocate will conduct a maximum combined or delay the start of firing. impact location; or the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional total of 20 hours annually from (C) During the activity, Navy sightings for 10 min when the activity December 1 through April 30 of surface personnel must observe the mitigation involves aircraft that have fuel ship hull-mounted MF1 mid-frequency zone for marine mammals; if marine constraints, or 30 min when the activity active sonar during training and testing mammals are observed, Navy personnel involves aircraft that are not typically within the Marpi Reef and Chalan must cease firing. fuel constrained. Kanoa Reef Geographic Mitigation (D) Commencement/recommencement (17) Non-explosive bombs and mine Areas. conditions after a marine mammal shapes. Non-explosive bombs and non- (2) Navy personnel will not use in- sighting before or during the activity. explosive mine shapes during mine water explosives. Navy personnel must allow a sighted laying activities. (3) Navy personnel must report the marine mammal to leave the mitigation (i) Number of Lookouts and total hours of all active sonar use (all zone prior to the initial start of the observation platform. One Lookout must bins, by bin) from December 1 through activity (by delaying the start) or during be positioned in an aircraft. April 30 in these geographic mitigation the activity (by not recommencing (ii) Mitigation zone and requirements. areas in the annual training and testing firing) until one of the following (A) The mitigation zone must be 1,000 exercise report submitted to NMFS. conditions has been met: The animal is yd around the intended target. (4) Should national security present a observed exiting the mitigation zone; (B) Prior to the initial start of the requirement to conduct training or the animal is thought to have exited the activity (e.g., when arriving on station), testing prohibited by the mitigation mitigation zone based on a Navy personnel must observe the requirements in this paragraph determination of its course, speed, and mitigation zone for marine mammals; if (b)(1)(i)(A), Navy personnel must obtain movement relative to the intended marine mammals are observed, Navy permission from the appropriate impact location; the mitigation zone has personnel must relocate or delay the designated Command authority prior to been clear from any additional sightings start of bomb deployment or mine commencement of the activity. Navy for 10 min for aircraft-based firing or 30 laying. personnel must provide NMFS with min for vessel-based firing; or for (C) During the activity (e.g., during advance notification and include activities using a mobile target, the approach of the target or intended relevant information (e.g., sonar hours, intended impact location has transited a minefield location), Navy personnel explosives use) in its annual activity distance equal to double that of the must observe the mitigation zone for reports submitted to NMFS. mitigation zone size beyond the location marine mammals and, if marine (B) Marpi Reef and Chalan Kanoa of the last sighting. mammals are observed, Navy personnel Reef Awareness Notification Message (16) Non-explosive missiles and must cease bomb deployment or mine Area. (1) Navy personnel must issue a rockets. Aircraft-deployed non- laying. seasonal awareness notification message explosive missiles and rockets. (D) Commencement/recommencement to alert Navy ships and aircraft Mitigation applies to activities using a conditions after a marine mammal operating in the Marpi Reef and Chalan surface target. sighting prior to or during the activity. Kanoa Reef Geographic Mitigation Areas (i) Number of Lookouts and Navy personnel must allow a sighted to the possible presence of increased observation platform. One Lookout must marine mammal to leave the mitigation concentrations of humpback whales be positioned in an aircraft. zone prior to the initial start of the from December 1 through April 30.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46417

(2) To maintain safety of navigation other requirements when dead, injured, Director, Office of Protected Resources, and to avoid interactions with large or live stranded marine mammals are NMFS, within three months after the whales during transits, Navy personnel detected. The Notification and one-year anniversary of the date of must instruct vessels to remain vigilant Reporting Plan is available at https:// issuance of the LOA. The MITT Annual to the presence of humpback whales www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/ Training and Testing Exercise Report that when concentrated seasonally, may incidental-take-authorization-us-navy- can be consolidated with other exercise become vulnerable to vessel strikes. mariana-islands-training-and-testing- reports from other range complexes in (3) Navy personnel must use the mitt. the Pacific Ocean for a single Pacific information from the awareness (d) Annual MITT Study Area marine Exercise Report, if desired. NMFS will notification message to assist their species monitoring report. The Navy submit comments or questions on the visual observation of applicable must submit an annual report to NMFS report, if any, within one month of geographic mitigation zones during of the MITT Study Area monitoring receipt. The report will be considered training and testing activities and to aid which will be included in a Pacific- final after the Navy has addressed in the implementation of procedural wide monitoring report including NMFS’ comments, or one month after mitigation. results specific to the MITT Study Area submittal of the draft if NMFS does not (ii) [Reserved] describing the implementation and provide comments on the draft report. (2) Mitigation areas for marine results from the previous calendar year. The annual will contain information on mammals off Guam of the MITT Study Data collection methods will be major training exercises (MTEs), Sinking Area for sonar and explosives—(i) standardized across Pacific Range Exercise (SINKEX) events, and a Mitigation area requirements—(A) Agat Complexes including the MITT, HSTT, summary of all sound sources used Bay Nearshore Geographic Mitigation NWTT, and Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Study (total hours or quantity of each bin of Area. (1) Navy personnel will not Areas to the best extent practicable, to sonar or other non-impulsive source; conduct MF1 surface ship hull-mounted allow for comparison in different total annual number of each type of mid-frequency active sonar year-round. geographic locations. The report must explosive exercises; and total annual (2) Navy personnel will not use in- be submitted to the Director, Office of expended/detonated rounds (missiles, water explosives year-round. Protected Resources, NMFS, either bombs, sonobuoys, etc.) for each (3) Should national security require within three months after the end of the explosive bin). The annual report will the use of MF1 surface ship hull- calendar year, or within three months also contain information on sound mounted mid-frequency active sonar or after the conclusion of the monitoring sources used including within specific explosives within the Agat Bay year, to be determined by the Adaptive mitigation reporting areas as described Nearshore Geographic Mitigation Area, Management process. NMFS will submit in paragraph (e)(4) of this section. The Navy personnel must obtain permission comments or questions on the draft annual report will also contain both the from the appropriate designated monitoring report, if any, within three current year’s data as well as cumulative Command authority prior to months of receipt. The report will be sonar and explosive use quantity from commencement of the activity. Navy considered final after the Navy has previous years’ reports. Additionally, if personnel must provide NMFS with addressed NMFS’ comments, or three there were any changes to the sound advance notification and include the months after the submittal of the draft source allowance in a given year, or information (e.g., sonar hours, if NMFS does not provide comments on cumulatively, the report will include a explosives usage) in its annual activity the draft report. Such a report will discussion of why the change was made reports submitted to NMFS. describe progress of knowledge made and include analysis to support how the (B) [Reserved] with respect to monitoring study change did or did not affect the analysis questions across multiple Navy ranges in the 2020 MITT FSEIS/OEIS and § 218.95 Requirements for monitoring and associated with the ICMP. Similar study MMPA final rule. The annual report reporting. questions must be treated together so will also include the details regarding (a) Unauthorized take. Navy that progress on each topic can be specific requirements associated with personnel must notify NMFS summarized across multiple Navy specific mitigation areas. The final immediately (or as soon as operational ranges. The report need not include annual/close-out report at the security considerations allow) if the analyses and content that does not conclusion of the authorization period specified activity identified in § 218.90 provide direct assessment of cumulative (year seven) will serve as the is thought to have resulted in the progress on the monitoring study comprehensive close-out report and serious injury or mortality of any marine question. This will continue to allow include both the final year annual use mammals, or in any Level A harassment the Navy to provide a cohesive compared to annual authorization as or Level B harassment of marine monitoring report covering multiple well as a cumulative seven-year annual mammals not identified in this subpart. ranges (as per ICMP goals), rather than use compared to seven-year (b) Monitoring and reporting under entirely separate reports for the MITT, authorization. The detailed reports must the LOA. The Navy must conduct all Hawaii-Southern California, Gulf of contain the information identified in monitoring and reporting required Alaska, and Northwest Training and paragraphs (e)(1) through (6) of this under the LOA, including abiding by Testing Study Areas. section. the U.S. Navy’s Marine Species (e) Annual MITT Study Area Training (1) MTEs. This section of the report Monitoring Program for the MITT Study and Testing Exercise Report. Each year, must contain the following information Area. Details on program goals, the Navy must submit a preliminary for MTEs conducted in the MITT Study objectives, project selection process, and report (Quick Look Report) detailing the Area. current projects are available at status of authorized sound sources (i) Exercise information for each MTE. www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us. within 21 days after the anniversary of (A) Exercise designator. (c) Notification of injured, live the date of issuance of the LOA to the (B) Date that exercise began and stranded, or dead marine mammals. Director, Office of Protected Resources, ended. Navy personnel must consult the NMFS. The Navy must also submit a (C) Location. Notification and Reporting Plan, which detailed report (MITT Annual Training (D) Number and types of active sonar sets out notification, reporting, and and Testing Exercise Report) to the sources used in exercise.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 46418 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

(E) Number and types of passive (C) Total hours of observation by (ii) Total annual expended/detonated acoustic sources used in exercise. Lookouts before, during, and after ordnance (missiles, bombs, sonobuoys, (F) Number and types of vessels, exercise. etc.) for each explosive bin. aircraft, and other platforms (D) Total number and types of (4) Marpi Reef and Chalan Kanoa Reef participating in exercise. explosive source bins detonated. Geographic Mitigation Areas. The Navy (G) Total hours of all active sonar (E) Number and types of passive must report any active sonar use (all source operation. acoustic sources used in exercise. bins, by bin) between December 1 and (H) Total hours of each active sonar (F) Total hours of passive acoustic April 30 that occurred as specifically source bin. search time. described in these areas. Information (I) Wave height (high, low, and (G) Number and types of vessels, included in the classified annual reports average) during exercise. aircraft, and other platforms, may be used to inform future adaptive (ii) Individual marine mammal participating in exercise. management within the MITT Study sighting information for each sighting in (H) Wave height in feet (high, low, Area. each exercise where mitigation was and average) during exercise. (5) Geographic information implemented. (I) Narrative description of sensors presentation. The reports must present (A) Date/Time/Location of sighting. an annual (and seasonal, where (B) Species (if not possible, indication and platforms utilized for marine mammal detection and timeline practical) depiction of training and of whale or dolphin). testing bin usage geographically across (C) Number of individuals. illustrating how marine mammal detection was conducted. the MITT Study Area. (D) Initial Detection Sensor (e.g., (6) Sonar exercise notification. The (ii) Individual marine mammal sonar, Lookout). Navy must submit to NMFS (contact as observation (by Navy Lookouts) (E) Indication of specific type of specified in the LOA) an electronic information for each sighting where platform observation was made from report within fifteen calendar days after mitigation was implemented. (including, for example, what type of the completion of any MTE indicating: surface vessel or testing platform). (A) Date/Time/Location of sighting. (i) Location of the exercise; (F) Length of time observers (B) Species (if not possible, indicate (ii) Beginning and end dates of the maintained visual contact with marine whale or dolphin). exercise; and mammal. (C) Number of individuals. (iii) Type of exercise. (G) Sea state. (D) Initial detection sensor (e.g., sonar (f) Final Close-Out Report. The final (H) Visibility. or Lookout). (year seven) draft annual/close-out (I) Sound source in use at the time of (E) Length of time observers report must be submitted within three sighting. maintained visual contact with marine months after the expiration of this (J) Indication of whether the animal mammal. subpart to the Director, Office of was less than 200 yd, 200 to 500 yd, 500 (F) Sea state. Protected Resources, NMFS. NMFS to 1,000 yd, 1,000 to 2,000 yd, or greater (G) Visibility. must submit comments on the draft than 2,000 yd from sonar source. (H) Whether sighting was before, close-out report, if any, within three (K) Whether operation of sonar sensor during, or after detonations/exercise, months of receipt. The report will be was delayed, or sonar was powered or and how many minutes before or after. considered final after the Navy has shut down, and how long the delay. (I) Distance of marine mammal from addressed NMFS’ comments, or three (L) If source in use was hull-mounted, actual detonations (or target spot if not months after the submittal of the draft true bearing of animal from the vessel, yet detonated): Less than 200 yd, 200 to if NMFS does not provide comments. true direction of vessel’s travel, and 500 yd, 500 to 1,000 yd, 1,000 to 2,000 estimation of animal’s motion relative to § 218.96 Letters of Authorization. yd, or greater than 2,000 yd. vessel (opening, closing, parallel). (J) Lookouts must report, in plain (a) To incidentally take marine (M) Lookouts must report, in plain mammals pursuant to the regulations in language and without trying to language and without trying to categorize in any way, the observed this subpart, the Navy must apply for categorize in any way, the observed and obtain an LOA in accordance with behavior of the animal(s) (such as behavior of the animal(s) (such as animal closing to bow ride, paralleling § 216.106 of this section. animal closing to bow ride, paralleling (b) An LOA, unless suspended or course/speed, floating on surface and course/speed, floating on surface and revoked, may be effective for a period of not swimming etc.), including speed not swimming, etc.) and if any calves time not to exceed July 30, 2027. were present. and direction and if any calves were (c) If an LOA expires prior to July 30, (iii) An evaluation (based on data present. 2027, the Navy may apply for and gathered during all of the MTEs) of the (K) The report must indicate whether obtain a renewal of the LOA. effectiveness of mitigation measures explosive detonations were delayed, (d) In the event of projected changes designed to minimize the received level ceased, modified, or not modified due to to the activity or to mitigation, to which marine mammals may be marine mammal presence and for how monitoring, or reporting (excluding exposed. This evaluation must identify long. changes made pursuant to the adaptive the specific observations that support (L) If observation occurred while management provision of § 218.97(c)(1)) any conclusions the Navy reaches about explosives were detonating in the water, required by an LOA issued under this the effectiveness of the mitigation. indicate munition type in use at time of subpart, the Navy must apply for and (2) SINKEXs. This section of the marine mammal detection. obtain a modification of the LOA as report must include the following (3) Summary of sources used. This described in § 218.97. information for each SINKEX completed section of the report must include the (e) Each LOA will set forth: that year. following information summarized from (1) Permissible methods of incidental (i) Exercise information gathered for the authorized sound sources used in all taking; each SINKEX. training and testing events: (2) Geographic areas for incidental (A) Location. (i) Total annual hours or quantity (per taking; (B) Date and time exercise began and the LOA) of each bin of sonar or other (3) Means of effecting the least ended. transducers; and practicable adverse impact (i.e.,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 148 / Friday, July 31, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46419

mitigation) on the species of marine (b) For LOA modification or renewal mitigation, monitoring, or reporting mammals and their habitat; and requests by the applicant that include measures in an LOA include: (4) Requirements for monitoring and changes to the activity or to the (A) Results from the Navy’s annual reporting. mitigation, monitoring, or reporting monitoring report and annual exercise (f) Issuance of the LOA(s) must be measures (excluding changes made report from the previous year(s); based on a determination that the level pursuant to the adaptive management (B) Results from other marine of taking is consistent with the findings provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this mammal and/or sound research or made for the total taking allowable section) that do not change the findings studies; under the regulations in this subpart. made for the regulations or result in no (C) Results from specific stranding (g) Notice of issuance or denial of the more than a minor change in the total investigations; or LOA(s) will be published in the Federal estimated number of takes (or (D) Any information that reveals Register within 30 days of a distribution by species or years), NMFS marine mammals may have been taken determination. may publish a notice of planned LOA in in a manner, extent, or number not § 218.97 Renewals and modifications of the Federal Register, including the authorized by the regulations in this Letters of Authorization. associated analysis of the change, and subpart or subsequent LOAs. solicit public comment before issuing (a) An LOA issued under §§ 216.106 (ii) If, through adaptive management, the LOA. of this section and 218.96 for the the modifications to the mitigation, activity identified in § 218.90(c) may be (c) An LOA issued under §§ 216.106 monitoring, or reporting measures are renewed or modified upon request by of this section and 218.96 may be substantial, NMFS will publish a notice the applicant, provided that: modified by NMFS under the following of planned LOA in the Federal Register (1) The planned specified activity and circumstances: and solicit public comment. mitigation, monitoring, and reporting (1) Adaptive management. After (2) Emergencies. If NMFS determines measures, as well as the anticipated consulting with the Navy regarding the that an emergency exists that poses a impacts, are the same as those described practicability of the modifications, significant risk to the well-being of the and analyzed for the regulations in this NMFS may modify (including adding or species of marine mammals specified in subpart (excluding changes made removing measures) the existing LOAs issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 of pursuant to the adaptive management mitigation, monitoring, or reporting this section and 218.96, an LOA may be provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this measures if doing so creates a modified without prior notice or section); and reasonable likelihood of more opportunity for public comment. Notice (2) NMFS determines that the effectively accomplishing the goals of will be published in the Federal mitigation, monitoring, and reporting the mitigation and monitoring. Register within thirty days of the action. measures required by the previous (i) Possible sources of data that could [FR Doc. 2020–15651 Filed 7–30–20; 8:45 am] LOA(s) were implemented. contribute to the decision to modify the BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 30, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3