Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area

Federal RegisterDec 4, 2013

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 216 and 218

[Docket No. 130109022-3936-02]

RIN 0648-BC53

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

Upon application from the U.S. Navy (Navy), we (the National Marine Fisheries Service) are issuing regulations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act to govern the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to training and testing activities conducted in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) Study Area from November 2013 through November 2018. These regulations allow us to issue Letters of Authorization (LOA) for the incidental take of marine mammals during the Navy's specified activities and timeframes, set forth the permissible methods of taking, set forth other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, and set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of the incidental take.

DATES:

Effective date:

December 3, 2013.

Applicability date:

November 14, 2013 through November 13, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

To obtain an electronic copy of the Navy's application, our Record of Decision, or other referenced documents, visit the internet at:

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications.

Documents cited in this notice may also be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian D. Hopper, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability

A copy of the Navy's application may be obtained by visiting the internet at:

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications.

The Navy's Final Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS/OEIS) for AFTT may be viewed at

http://www.aftteis.com

. Documents cited in this notice may also be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned address.

Background

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) directs the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and regulations are issued. We are required to grant authorization for the incidental taking of marine mammals if we find that the total taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant). We must also set forth the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of such takings. NMFS has defined negligible impact in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2004 (NDAA) (Pub. L. 108-136) amended section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA by removing the small numbers and specified geographical region provisions; and amended the definition of “harassment” as it applies to a “military readiness activity” to read as follows (section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA): “(i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A Harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level B Harassment].”

Summary of Request

On April 13, 2012, NMFS received an application from the Navy requesting two LOAs for the take of 42 species of marine mammals incidental to Navy training and testing activities to be conducted in the AFTT Study Area over 5 years. The Navy submitted addendums on September 24, 2012 and December 21, 2012, and NMFS considered the application complete. The Navy requests authorization to take marine mammals by Level A and Level B harassment and mortality during training and testing activities. The Study Area includes several existing study areas, range complexes, and testing ranges (Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training (AFAST), Northeast, Virginia Capes (VACAPES), Cherry Point (CHPT), Jacksonville (JAX), Gulf of Mexico (GOMEX), Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City, Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport, South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility (SFOMF), and Key West) plus pierside locations and areas on the high seas where maintenance, training, or testing may occur. These activities are considered military readiness activities. Marine mammals present in the Study Area may be exposed to sound from active sonar and underwater detonations. In addition, incidental takes of marine mammals may occur from ship strikes. The Navy requests authorization to take 42 marine mammal species by Level B harassment and 32 marine mammal species by Level A harassment. In addition, the Navy requests authorization for take by serious injury or mortality individuals of 16 marine mammal species due to the use of explosives, and 11 total marine mammals (any species except North Atlantic right whale) over the course of the 5-year rule due to vessel strike.

The Navy's application and the AFTT FEIS/OEIS contain acoustic thresholds that, in some instances, represent changes from what NMFS has used to evaluate the Navy's activities for previous authorizations. The revised thresholds, which the Navy developed in coordination with NMFS, are based on the evaluation and inclusion of new information from recent scientific studies; a detailed explanation of how they were derived is provided in the AFTT FEIS/OEIS Criteria and Thresholds Technical Report. The revised thresholds are adopted for this rulemaking after providing the public with an opportunity for review and comment via the proposed rule for this action published on January 31, 2013 (78 FR 7050).

Further, more generally, NMFS is committed to the use of the best available science. NMFS uses an adaptive transparent process that allows for both timely scientific updates and public input into agency decisions regarding the use of acoustic research and thresholds. NMFS is currently in the process of re-evaluating acoustic

thresholds based on the best available science, as well as how these thresholds are applied under the MMPA to all activity types (not just for Navy activities). This re-evaluation could potentially result in changes to the acoustic thresholds or their application as they apply to future Navy activities. However, it is important to note that while changes in acoustic criteria may affect the enumeration of “takes,” they do not necessarily change the evaluation of population level effects or the outcome of the negligible impact analysis. In addition, while acoustic criteria may also inform mitigation and monitoring decisions, the Navy has a robust adaptive management program that regularly addresses new information and allows for modification of mitigation and/or monitoring measures as appropriate.

Description of Specified Activities

The proposed rule (78 FR 7050, January 31, 2013) and AFTT FEIS/OEIS include a complete description of the Navy's specified activities that are being authorized in this final rule. Sonar use, underwater detonations, and ship strike are the stressors most likely to result in impacts on marine mammals that could rise to the level of harassment, thus necessitating MMPA authorization. Below we summarize the description of the specified activities.

Overview of Training Activities

Training activities are categorized into eight functional warfare areas (anti-air warfare; amphibious warfare; strike warfare; anti-surface warfare; anti-submarine warfare; electronic warfare; mine warfare; and naval special warfare). The Navy determined that the following stressors used in these warfare areas are most likely to result in impacts on marine mammals:

• Amphibious warfare (underwater detonations)

• Anti-surface warfare (underwater detonations)

• Anti-submarine warfare (active sonar, underwater detonations)

• Mine warfare (active sonar, underwater detonations)

• Naval special warfare (underwater detonations)

Overview of Testing Activities

Testing activities may occur independently of or in conjunction with training activities. Many testing activities are conducted similarly to Navy training activities and are also categorized under one of the primary mission areas. Other testing activities are unique and are described within their specific testing categories. The Navy determined that stressors used during the following testing activities are most likely to result in impacts on marine mammals:

• Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) Testing

○ Anti-surface warfare testing (underwater detonations)

○ Anti-submarine warfare testing (active sonar, underwater detonations)

○ Mine warfare testing (active sonar, underwater detonations)

• Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Testing

○ New ship construction (active sonar, underwater detonations)

○ Shock trials (underwater detonations)

○ Life cycle activities (active sonar, underwater detonations)

○ Range activities (active sonar, underwater detonations)

○ Anti-surface warfare/anti-submarine warfare testing (active sonar, underwater detonations)

○ Mine warfare testing (active sonar, underwater detonations)

○ Ship protection systems and swimmer defense testing (active sonar)

○ Unmanned vehicle testing (active sonar)

○ Other testing (active sonar)

• Office of Naval Research (ONR) and Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) Testing

○ ONR/NRL research, development, test, and evaluation (active sonar)

Classification of Non-Impulsive and Impulsive Sources Analyzed

In order to better organize and facilitate the analysis of about 300 sources of underwater non-impulsive sound or impulsive energy, the Navy developed a series of source classifications, or source bins. This method of analysis provides the following benefits:

• Allows for new sources to be covered under existing authorizations, as long as those sources fall within the parameters of a “bin;”

• Simplifies the data collection and reporting requirements anticipated under the MMPA;

• Ensures a conservative approach to all impact analysis because all sources in a single bin are modeled as the loudest source (e.g., lowest frequency, highest source level, longest duty cycle, or largest net explosive weight within that bin);

• Allows analysis to be conducted more efficiently, without compromising the results;

• Provides a framework to support the reallocation of source usage (hours/explosives) between different source bins, as long as the total number and severity of marine mammal takes remain within the overall analyzed and authorized limits. This flexibility is required to support evolving Navy training and testing requirements, which are linked to real world events.

A description of each source classification is provided in Tables 1, 2, and 3. Non-impulsive sources are grouped into bins based on the frequency, source level when warranted, and how the source would be used. Impulsive bins are based on the net explosive weight of the munitions or explosive devices. The following factors further describe how non-impulsive sources are divided:

• Frequency of the non-impulsive source:

○ Low-frequency sources operate below 1 kilohertz (kHz)

○ Mid-frequency sources operate at or above 1 kHz, up to and including 10 kHz

○ High-frequency sources operate above 10 kHz, up to and including 100 kHz

○ Very high-frequency sources operate above 100 kHz, but below 200 kHz

• Source level of the non-impulsive source:

○ Greater than 160 decibels (dB), but less than 180 dB

○ Equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB

○ Greater than 200 dB

How a sensor is used determines how the sensor's acoustic emissions are analyzed. Factors to consider include pulse length (time source is on); beam pattern (whether sound is emitted as a narrow, focused beam, or whether sound is emitted in all directions); and duty cycle (how often a transmission occurs in a given time period during an event).

There are also non-impulsive sources with characteristics that are not anticipated to result in takes of marine mammals. These sources have low source levels, narrow beam widths, downward directed transmissions, short pulse lengths, frequencies beyond known hearing ranges of marine mammals, or some combination of these factors. These sources were not modeled by the Navy, but are qualitatively analyzed in Table 1-5 of the LOA application and the AFTT FEIS/OEIS.

Table 1—Impulsive Training and Testing Source Classes Analyzed for Annual Activities

Source class

Representative munitions

Net explosive weight

(lbs)

Medium-caliber projectiles

0.1-0.25 (45.4-113.4 g).

Medium-caliber projectiles

0.26-0.5 (117.9-226.8 g).

Large-caliber projectiles

>0.5-2.5 (>226.8 g-1.1 kg).

Improved Extended Echo Ranging Sonobuoy

>2.5-5.0 (1.1-2.3 kg).

5 in. (12.7 cm) projectiles

>5-10 (>2.3-4.5 kg).

15 lb. (6.8 kg) shaped charge

>10-20 (>4.5-9.1 kg).

40 lb. (18.1 kg) demo block/shaped charge

>20-60 (>9.1-27.2 kg).

250 lb. (113.4 kg) bomb

>60-100 (>27.2-45.4 kg).

500 lb. (226.8 kg) bomb

>100-250 (>45.4-113.4 kg).

E10

1,000 lb. (453.6 kg) bomb

>250-500 (>113.4-226.8 kg).

E11

650 lb. (294.8 kg) mine

>500-650 (>226.8-294.8 kg).

E12

2,000 lb. (907.2 kg) bomb

>650-1,000 (>294.8-453.6 kg).

E13

1,200 lb. (544.3 kg) HBX charge

>1,000-1,740 (>453.6-789.3 kg).

E14

2,500 lb HBX charge

>1,740-3,625.

E15

5,000 lb HBX charge

>3,625-7,250.

Table 2—Active Acoustic (Non-Impulsive) Source Classes Analyzed for Annual Activities

Source class category

Source class

Description

Low-Frequency (LF): Sources that produce low-frequency (less than 1 kHz) signals

LF3

LF4

Low-frequency sources greater than 200 dB.

Low-frequency sources equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB.

LF5

Low-frequency sources greater than 160 dB, but less than 180 dB.

Mid-Frequency (MF): Tactical and non-tactical sources that produce mid-frequency (1 to 10 kHz) signals

MF1

MF1K

Hull-mounted surface ship sonar (e.g., AN/SQS-53C and AN/SQS-60).

Kingfisher mode associated with MF1 sonar.

MF2

Hull-mounted surface ship sonar (e.g., AN/SQS-56).

MF2K

Kingfisher mode associated with MF2 sonar.

MF3

Hull-mounted submarine sonar (e.g., AN/BQQ-10).

MF4

Helicopter-deployed dipping sonar (e.g., AN/AQS-22 and AN/AQS-13).

MF5

Active acoustic sonobuoys (e.g., DICASS).

MF6

Active sound underwater signal devices (e.g., MK-84).

MF8

Active sources (greater than 200 dB) not otherwise binned.

MF9

Active sources (equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB) not otherwise binned.

MF10

Active sources (greater than 160 dB, but less than 180 dB) not otherwise binned.

MF11

Hull-mounted surface ship sonar with an active duty cycle greater than 80%.

MF12

Towed array surface ship sonar with an active duty cycle greater than 80%.

High-Frequency (HF): Tactical and non-tactical sources that produce high-frequency (greater than 10 kHz but less than 200 kHz) signals

HF1

HF2

Hull-mounted submarine sonar (e.g., AN/BQQ-10).

High-Frequency Marine Mammal Monitoring System.

HF3

Other hull-mounted submarine sonar (classified).

HF4

Mine detection and classification sonar (e.g., Airborne Towed Minehunting Sonar System).

HF5

Active sources (greater than 200 dB) not otherwise binned.

HF6

Active sources (equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB) not otherwise binned.

HF7

Active sources (greater than 160 dB, but less than 180 dB) not otherwise binned.

HF8

Hull-mounted surface ship sonar (e.g., AN/SQS-61).

Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW): Tactical sources such as active sonobuoys and acoustic countermeasures systems used during the conduct of anti-submarine warfare training and testing activities

ASW1

ASW2

Mid-frequency Deep Water Active Distributed System (DWADS).

Mid-frequency Multistatic Active Coherent sonobuoy (e.g., AN/SSQ-125)—Sources that are analyzed by item.

ASW2

Mid-frequency Multistatic Active Coherent sonobuoy (e.g., AN/SSQ-125)—Sources that are analyzed by hours.

ASW3

Mid-frequency towed active acoustic countermeasure systems (e.g., AN/SLQ-25).

ASW4

Mid-frequency expendable active acoustic device countermeasures (e.g., MK-3).

Torpedoes (TORP): Source classes associated with the active acoustic signals produced by torpedoes

TORP1

TORP2

Lightweight torpedo (e.g., MK-46, MK-54, or Anti-Torpedo Torpedo).

Heavyweight torpedo (e.g., MK-48).

Doppler Sonars (DS): Sonars that use the Doppler effect to aid in navigation or collect oceanographic information

DS1

Low-frequency Doppler sonar (e.g., Webb Tomography Source).

Forward Looking Sonar (FLS): Forward or upward looking object avoidance sonars

FLS2-FLS3

High-frequency sources with short pulse lengths, narrow beam widths, and focused beam patterns used for navigation and safety of ships.

Acoustic Modems (M): Systems used to transmit data acoustically through the water

Mid-frequency acoustic modems (greater than 190 dB).

Swimmer Detection Sonars (SD): Systems used to detect divers and submerged swimmers

SD1-SD2

High-frequency sources with short pulse lengths, used for detection of swimmers and other objects for the purposes of port security.

Synthetic Aperture Sonars (SAS): Sonars in which active acoustic signals are post-processed to form high-resolution images of the seafloor

SAS1

SAS2

SAS3

MF SAS systems.

HF SAS systems.

VHF SAS systems.

Table 3—Explosive Source Classes Analyzed for Non-Annual Training and Testing Activities

Source class

Representative munitions

Net explosive weight

(lbs)

Medium-caliber projectiles

0.1-0.25

Medium-caliber projectiles

0.26-0.5

Improved Extended Echo Ranging Sonobuoy

2.6-5

E16

10,000 lb. HBX charge

7,251-14,500

E17

40,000 lb. HBX charge

14,501-58,000

Table 4—Active Acoustic (Non-Impulsive) Sources Analyzed for Non-Annual Training and Testing

Source class category

Source class

Description

Low-Frequency (LF): Sources that produce low-frequency (less than 1 kHz) signals

LF5

Low-frequency sources greater than 160 dB, but less than 180 dB.

Mid-Frequency (MF): Tactical and non-tactical sources that produce mid-frequency (1 to 10 kHz) signals

MF9

Active sources (equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB) not otherwise binned.

High-Frequency (HF): Tactical and non-tactical sources that produce high-frequency (greater than 10 kHz but less than 180 kHz) signals

HF4

HF5

HF6

Mine detection and classification sonar (e.g., AN/AQS-20).

Active sources (greater than 200 dB) not otherwise binned.

Active sources (equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB) not otherwise binned.

HF7

Active sources (greater than 160 dB, but less than 180 dB) not otherwise binned.

Forward Looking Sonar (FLS): Forward or upward looking object avoidance sonars

FLS2-FLS3

High-frequency sources with short pulse lengths, narrow beam widths, and focused beam patterns used for navigation and safety of ships.

Sonars (SAS): Sonars in which active acoustic signals are post-processed to form high-resolution images of the seafloor

SAS2

HF SAS systems.

Authorized Action

Training

The Navy's training activities in the AFTT Study Area are described in Table 5. Detailed information about each activity (stressor, training event, description, sound source, duration, and geographic location) can be found in Appendix A of the AFTT FEIS/OEIS.

Table 5—Training Activities Within the Study Area

Stressor

Training event

Description

Source class

Number of events per year

Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)

Non-Impulsive

Tracking Exercise/Torpedo Exercise—Submarine (TRACKEX/TORPEX—Sub)

Submarine crews search, track, and detect submarines. Exercise torpedoes may be used during this event

ASW4; MF3; HF1; TORP2

102.

Non-Impulsive

Tracking Exercise/Torpedo Exercise—Surface (TRACKEX/TORPEX—Surface)

Surface ship crews search, track and detect submarines. Exercise torpedoes may be used during this event

ASW1,3,4; MF1,2,3,4,5,11,12; HF1; TORP1

764.

Non-Impulsive

Tracking Exercise/Torpedo Exercise—Helicopter (TRACKEX/TORPEX—Helo)

Helicopter crews search, detect and track submarines. Recoverable air launched torpedoes may be employed against submarine targets

ASW4; MF4,5; TORP1

432.

Non-Impulsive

Tracking Exercise/Torpedo Exercise—Maritime Patrol Aircraft (TRACKEX/TORPEX—MPA)

Maritime patrol aircraft crews search, detect, and track submarines. Recoverable air launched torpedoes may be employed against submarine targets

MF5; TORP1

752.

Non-Impulsive

Tracking Exercise—Maritime Patrol Aircraft Extended Echo Ranging Sonobuoy (TRACKEX—MPA sonobuoy)

Maritime patrol aircraft crews search, detect, and track submarines with extended echo ranging sonobuoys. Recoverable air launched torpedoes may be employed against submarine targets

ASW2

160.

Non-Impulsive

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tactical Development Exercise

Multiple ships, aircraft and submarines coordinate their efforts to search, detect and track submarines with the use of all sensors. Anti-Submarine Warfare Tactical Development Exercise is a dedicated ASW event

ASW3,4; HF1; MF1,2,3,4,5

Non-Impulsive

Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare Course (IAC)

Multiple ships, aircraft, and submarines coordinate the use of their sensors, including sonobuoys, to search, detect and track threat submarines. IAC is an intermediate level training event and can occur in conjunction with other major exercises

ASW 2,3,4; HF1; MF1,2,3,4,5,6

Non-Impulsive

Group Sail

Multiple ships and helicopters integrate the use of sensors, including sonobuoys, to search, detect and track a threat submarine. Group sails are not dedicated ASW events and involve multiple warfare areas

ASW 2,3; HF1; MF1,2,3,4,5,6

20.

Non-Impulsive

ASW for Composite Training Unit Exercise (COMPTUEX)

Anti-Submarine Warfare activities conducted during a COMPTUEX

ASW 2,3,4; HF1; MF1,2,3,4,5,6,12

Non-Impulsive

ASW for Joint Task Force Exercise (JTFEX)/Sustainment Exercise (SUSTAINEX)

Anti-Submarine Warfare activities conducted during a JTFEX/SUSTAINEX

ASW2,3,4; HF1; MF1,2,3,4,5,6,12

Mine Warfare (MIW)

Non-Impulsive

Mine Countermeasures Exercise (MCM)—Ship Sonar

Littoral combat ship crews detect and avoid mines while navigating restricted areas or channels using active sonar

HF4

116.

Non-Impulsive

Mine Countermeasures—Mine Detection

Ship crews and helicopter aircrews detect mines using towed and laser mine detection systems (e.g., AN/AQS-20, ALMDS)

HF4

2,538.

Non-Impulsive

Coordinated Unit Level Helicopter Airborne Mine Countermeasure Exercises

Helicopters aircrew members train as a squadron in the use of airborne mine countermeasures, such as towed mine detection and neutralization systems

HF4

Non-Impulsive

Civilian Port Defense

Maritime security operations for military and civilian ports and harbors. Marine mammal systems may be used during the exercise

HF4

1 event every other year.

Other Training Activities

Non-Impulsive

Submarine Navigational (SUB NAV)

Submarine crews locate underwater objects and ships while transiting in and out of port

HF1; MF3

282.

Non-Impulsive

Submarine Navigation Under Ice Certification

Submarine crews train to operate under ice. During training and certification other submarines and ships simulate ice

HF1

24.

Non-Impulsive

Surface Ship Object Detection

Surface ship crews locate underwater objects that may impede transit in and out of port

MF1K; MF2K

144.

Non-Impulsive

Surface Ship Sonar Maintenance

Pierside and at-sea maintenance of sonar systems

MF1,2

824.

Non-Impulsive

Submarine Sonar Maintenance

Pierside and at-sea maintenance of sonar systems

MF3

220.

Amphibious Warfare (AMW)

Impulsive

Naval Surface Fire Support Exercise—At Sea (FIREX [At Sea])

Surface ship crews use large-caliber guns to support forces ashore; however, the land target is simulated at sea. Rounds impact the water and are scored by passive acoustic hydrophones located at or near the target area

50.

Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW)

Impulsive

Maritime Security Operations (MSO)—Anti-swimmer Grenades

Boat crews engage in force protection activities by using anti-swimmer grenades to defend against hostile divers (e.g., Visit, Board, Search, and Seizure; Maritime Interdiction Operations; Force Protection; and Anti-Piracy Operation)

12.

Impulsive

Gunnery Exercise (Surface-to-Surface) (Ship)—Medium-Caliber (GUNEX [S-S]—Ship)

Ship crews engage surface targets with ship's medium-caliber guns

E1; E2

827.

Impulsive

Gunnery Exercise (Surface-to-Surface) (Ship)—Large-Caliber (GUNEX [S-S]—Ship)

Ship crews engage surface targets with ship's large-caliber guns

E3; E5

294.

Impulsive

Gunnery Exercise (Surface-to-Surface) (Boat) (GUNEX [S-S]—Boat Medium-Caliber)

Small boat crews engage surface targets with medium-caliber guns

E1; E2

434.

Impulsive

Missile Exercise (Surface-to-Surface) (MISSILEX [S-S])

Surface ship crews defend against threat missiles and other surface ships with missiles

E10

20.

Impulsive

Gunnery Exercise (Air-to-Surface) (GUNEX [A-S] Medium-Caliber)

Fixed-wing and helicopter aircrews, including embarked personnel, use medium-caliber guns to engage surface targets

E1; E2

715.

Impulsive

Missile Exercise (Air-to-Surface)—Rocket (MISSILEX [A-S])

Fixed-wing and helicopter aircrews fire both precision-guided missiles and unguided rockets against surface targets

210.

Impulsive

Missile Exercise (Air-to-Surface) (MISSILEX [A-S])

Fixed-wing and helicopter aircrews fire both precision-guided missiles and unguided rockets against surface targets

E6; E8

248.

Impulsive

Bombing Exercise (Air-to-Surface) (BOMBEX [A-S])

Fixed-wing aircrews deliver bombs against surface targets

E8; E9; E10; E12

930.

Impulsive

Sinking Exercise (SINKEX)

Aircraft, ship, and submarine crews deliver ordnance on a seaborne target, usually a deactivated ship, which is deliberately sunk using multiple weapon systems

E3; E5; E8; E9; E10; E11; E12

Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)

Impulsive

Tracking Exercise—Maritime Patrol Aircraft Extended Echo Ranging Sonobuoy (TRACKEX—MPA sonobuoy)

Maritime patrol aircraft crews search, detect, and track submarines with extended echo ranging sonobuoys. Recoverable air launched torpedoes may be employed against submarine targets

160.

Impulsive

Group Sail

20.

Impulsive

ASW for Composite Training Unit Exercise (COMPTUEX)

Anti-Submarine Warfare activities conducted during a COMPTUEX

Impulsive

ASW for Joint Task Force Exercise (JTFEX)/Sustainment Exercise (SUSTAINEX)

Anti-Submarine Warfare activities conducted during a JTFEX/SUSTAINEX

Mine Warfare (MIW)

Impulsive

Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD)/Mine Neutralization

Personnel disable threat mines. Explosive charges may be used

E1; E4; E5; E6; E7; E8

618.

Impulsive

Mine Countermeasures—Mine Neutralization—Remotely Operated Vehicles

Ship crews and helicopter aircrews disable mines using remotely operated underwater vehicles

762.

Impulsive

Civilian Port Defense

Maritime security operations for military and civilian ports and harbors. Marine mammal systems may be used during the exercise

E2; E4

1 event every other year.

Testing

The Navy's testing activities are described in Tables 6 and 7.

Table 6—Naval Air Systems Command Testing Activities Within the Study Area

Stressor

Testing event

Description

Source class

Number of events per year

Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)

Non-Impulsive

Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo Test

This event is similar to the training event Torpedo Exercise. The test evaluates anti-submarine warfare systems onboard rotary wing and fixed wing aircraft and the ability to search for, detect, classify, localize, and track a submarine or similar target

TORP1

242.

Non-Impulsive

Kilo Dip

A kilo dip is the operational term used to describe a functional check of a helicopter deployed dipping sonar system. The sonar system is briefly activated to ensure all systems are functional. A kilo dip is simply a precursor to more comprehensive testing

MF4

43.

Non-Impulsive

Sonobuoy Lot Acceptance Test

Sonobuoys are deployed from surface vessels and aircraft to verify the integrity and performance of a lot, or group, of sonobuoys in advance of delivery to the Fleet for operational use

ASW2; MF5,6

39.

Non-Impulsive

ASW Tracking Test—Helicopter

This event is similar to the training event anti-submarine warfare Tracking Exercise—Helicopter. The test evaluates the sensors and systems used to detect and track submarines and to ensure that helicopter systems used to deploy the tracking systems perform to specifications

MF4,5

428.

Non-Impulsive

ASW Tracking Test—Maritime Patrol Aircraft

This event is similar to the training event anti-submarine warfare Tracking Exercise—Maritime Patrol Aircraft. The test evaluates the sensors and systems used by maritime patrol aircraft to detect and track submarines and to ensure that aircraft systems used to deploy the tracking systems perform to specifications and meet operational requirements

ASW2; MF5,6

75.

Mine Warfare (MIW)

Non-Impulsive

Airborne Towed Minehunting Sonar System Test

Tests of the Airborne Towed Minehunting Sonar System to evaluate the search capabilities of this towed, mine hunting, detection, and classification system. The sonar on the Airborne Towed Minehunting Sonar System identifies mine-like objects in the deeper parts of the water column

HF4

155.

Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW)

Impulsive

Air to Surface Missile Test

This event is similar to the training event Missile Exercise Air to Surface. Test may involve both fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft launching missiles at surface maritime targets to evaluate the weapons system or as part of another systems integration test

E6; E10

239.

Impulsive

Air to Surface Gunnery Test

This event is similar to the training event Gunnery Exercise Air to Surface. Strike fighter and helicopter aircrews evaluate new or enhanced aircraft guns against surface maritime targets to test that the gun, gun ammunition, or associated systems meet required specifications or to train aircrew in the operation of a new or enhanced weapons system

165.

Impulsive

Rocket Test

Rocket testing evaluates the integration, accuracy, performance, and safe separation of laser-guided and unguided 2.75-in rockets fired from a hovering or forward flying helicopter or from a fixed wing strike aircraft

332.

Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)

Impulsive

Sonobuoy Lot Acceptance Test

Sonobuoys are deployed from surface vessels and aircraft to verify the integrity and performance of a lot, or group, of sonobuoys in advance of delivery to the Fleet for operational use

E3; E4

39.

Impulsive

ASW Tracking Test—Helicopter

428.

Impulsive

ASW Tracking Test—Maritime Patrol Aircraft

E3; E4

75.

Mine Warfare (MIW)

Impulsive

Airborne Mine Neutralization System Test

Airborne mine neutralization tests evaluate the system's ability to detect and destroy mines. The Airborne Mine Neutralization System Test uses up to four unmanned underwater vehicles equipped with HF sonar, video cameras, and explosive neutralizers

E4; E11

165.

Impulsive

Airborne Projectile-based Mine Clearance System

An MH-60S helicopter uses a laser-based detection system to search for mines and to fix mine locations for neutralization with an airborne projectile-based mine clearance system. The system neutralizes mines by firing a small or medium-caliber inert, supercavitating projectile from a hovering helicopter

E11

237.

Impulsive

Airborne Towed Minesweeping Test

Tests of the Airborne Towed Minesweeping System would be conducted by a MH-60S helicopter to evaluate the functionality of the system and the MH-60S at sea. The system is towed from a forward flying helicopter and works by emitting an electromagnetic field and mechanically generated underwater sound to simulate the presence of a ship. The sound and electromagnetic signature cause nearby mines to explode

E11

72.

Table 7—Naval Sea Systems Command Testing Activities Within the Study Area

Stressor

Testing event

Description

Source class

Number of events per year

New Ship Construction

Non-Impulsive

Surface Combatant Sea Trials—Pierside Sonar Testing

Tests ship's sonar systems pierside to ensure proper operation

MF1,9,10; MF1K

12.

Non-Impulsive

Surface Combatant Sea Trials—Anti-Submarine Warfare Testing

Ships demonstrate capability of countermeasure systems and underwater surveillance and communications systems

ASW3; MF 1,9,10; MF1K

10.

Non-Impulsive

Submarine Sea Trials—Pierside Sonar Testing

Tests ship's sonar systems pierside to ensure proper operation

M3; HF1; MF3,10

Non-Impulsive

Submarine Sea Trials—Anti-Submarine Warfare Testing

Submarines demonstrate capability of underwater surveillance and communications systems

M3; HF1; MF3,10

12.

Non-Impulsive

Anti-submarine Warfare Mission Package Testing

Ships and their supporting platforms (e.g., helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles) detect, localize, and prosecute submarines

ASW1,3; MF4,5,12; TORP1

24.

Non-Impulsive

Mine Countermeasure Mission Package Testing

Ships conduct mine countermeasure operations

HF4

Life Cycle Activities

Non-Impulsive

Surface Ship Sonar Testing/Maintenance

Pierside and at-sea testing of ship systems occurs periodically following major maintenance periods and for routine maintenance

ASW3; MF1, 9,10; MF1K

16.

Non-Impulsive

Submarine Sonar Testing/Maintenance

Pierside and at-sea testing of submarine systems occurs periodically following major maintenance periods and for routine maintenance

HF1,3; M3; MF3

28.

Non-Impulsive

Combat System Ship Qualification Trial (CSSQT)—In-port Maintenance Period

All combat systems are tested to ensure they are functioning in a technically acceptable manner and are operationally ready to support at-sea CSSQT events

MF1

12.

Non-Impulsive

Combat System Ship Qualification Trial (CSSQT)—Undersea Warfare (USW)

Tests ships ability to track and defend against undersea targets

HF4; MF1,2,4,5; TORP1

NAVSEA Range Activities

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division (NSWC PCD)

Non-Impulsive

Unmanned Underwater Vehicles Demonstration

Testing and demonstrations of multiple Unmanned Underwater Vehicles and associated acoustic, optical, and magnetic systems

HF5,6,7; LF5; FLS2; MF9; SAS2

1 per 5 year period.

Non-Impulsive

Mine Detection and Classification Testing

Air, surface, and subsurface vessels detect and classify mines and mine-like objects

HF1,4; MF1K; SAS2

81.

Non-Impulsive

Stationary Source Testing

Stationary equipment (including swimmer defense systems) is deployed to determine functionality

LF4; MF8; SD1,2

11.

Non-Impulsive

Special Warfare Testing

Testing of submersibles capable of inserting and extracting personnel and/or payloads into denied areas from strategic distances

MF9

110.

Non-Impulsive

Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Testing

Unmanned Underwater Vehicles are deployed to evaluate hydrodynamic parameters, to full mission, multiple vehicle functionality assessments

FLS2; HF 5,6,7; LF5; MF9; SAS2

88.

Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport (NUWCDIVNPT)

Non-Impulsive

Torpedo Testing

Non-explosive torpedoes are launched to record operational data. All torpedoes are recovered

TORP1; TORP2

30.

Non-Impulsive

Towed Equipment Testing

Surface vessel or Unmanned Underwater Vehicle deploys equipment to determine functionality of towed systems

LF4; MF9; SAS1

33.

Non-Impulsive

Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Testing

Unmanned Underwater Vehicles are deployed to evaluate hydrodynamic parameters, to full mission, multiple vehicle functionality assessments

HF6,7; LF5; MF10; SAS2

123.

Non-Impulsive

Semi-Stationary Equipment Testing

Semi-stationary equipment (e.g., hydrophones) is deployed to determine functionality

ASW3,4; HF 5,6; LF 4,5; MF9,10

154.

Non-Impulsive

Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Demonstrations

Testing and demonstrations of multiple Unmanned Underwater Vehicles and associated acoustic, optical, and magnetic systems

FLS2; HF5,6,7; LF5; MF9; SAS2

1 per 5 year period.

Non-Impulsive

Pierside Integrated Swimmer Defense Testing

Swimmer defense testing ensures that systems can effectively detect, characterize, verify, and defend against swimmer/diver threats in harbor environments

LF4; MF8; SD1

South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility (SFOMF)

Non-Impulsive

Signature Analysis Activities

Testing of electromagnetic, acoustic, optical, and radar signature measurements of surface ship and submarine

ASW2; HF1,6; LF4; M3; MF9

18.

Non-Impulsive

Mine Testing

Air, surface, and sub-surface systems detect, counter, and neutralize ocean-deployed mines

HF4

33.

Non-Impulsive

Surface Testing

Various surface vessels, moored equipment and materials are tested to evaluate performance in the marine environment

FLS2; HF5,6,7;LF5;MF9; SAS2

33.

Non-Impulsive

Unmanned Underwater Vehicles Demonstrations

Testing and demonstrations of multiple Unmanned Underwater Vehicles and associated acoustic, optical, and magnetic systems

FLS2; HF5,6,7; LF5; MF9; SAS2

1 per 5 year period.

Additional Activities at Locations Outside of NAVSEA Ranges

Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW)/Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Testing

Non-Impulsive

Torpedo (Non-explosive) Testing

Air, surface, or submarine crews employ inert torpedoes against submarines or surface vessels. All torpedoes are recovered

ASW3,4; HF1; M3; MF1,3,4,5; TORP1,2

26.

Non-Impulsive

Torpedo (Explosive) Testing

Air, surface, or submarine crews employ explosive torpedoes against artificial targets or deactivated ships

TORP1; TORP2

Non-Impulsive

Countermeasure Testing

Towed sonar arrays and anti-torpedo torpedo systems are employed to detect and neutralize incoming weapons

ASW3; HF5; TORP 1,2

Non-Impulsive

Pierside Sonar Testing

Pierside testing to ensure systems are fully functional in a controlled pierside environment prior to at-sea test activities

ASW3; HF1,3; M3; MF1,3

23.

Non-Impulsive

At-sea Sonar Testing

At-sea testing to ensure systems are fully functional in an open ocean environment

ASW4; HF1; M3; MF3

15.

Mine Warfare (MIW) Testing

Non-Impulsive

Mine Detection and Classification Testing

Air, surface, and subsurface vessels detect and classify mines and mine-like objects

HF4

66.

Non-Impulsive

Mine Countermeasure/Neutralization Testing

Air, surface, and subsurface vessels neutralize threat mines that would otherwise restrict passage through an area

HF4; M3

14.

Shipboard Protection Systems and Swimmer Defense Testing

Non-Impulsive

Pierside Integrated Swimmer Defense Testing

Swimmer defense testing ensures that systems can effectively detect, characterize, verify, and defend against swimmer/diver threats in harbor environments

LF4; MF8; SD1

Unmanned Vehicle Testing

Non-Impulsive

Unmanned Vehicle Development and Payload Testing

Vehicle development involves the production and upgrade of new unmanned platforms on which to attach various payloads used for different purposes

MF9; SAS2

111.

Other Testing Activities

Non-Impulsive

Special Warfare Testing

Special warfare includes testing of submersibles capable of inserting and extracting personnel and/or payloads into denied areas from strategic distances

HF1; M3; MF9

Ship Construction and Maintenance

New Ship Construction

Impulsive

Aircraft Carrier Sea Trials—Gun Testing—Medium-Caliber

Medium-caliber gun systems are tested using non-explosive and explosive rounds

410 per 5 year period.

Impulsive

Surface Warfare Mission Package—Gun Testing—Medium Caliber

Ships defense against surface targets with medium-caliber guns

Impulsive

Surface Warfare Mission Package—Gun Testing—Large Caliber

Ships defense against surface targets with large-caliber guns

Impulsive

Surface Warfare Mission Package—Missile/Rocket Testing

Ships defense against surface targets with medium range missiles or rockets

15.

Impulsive

Mine Countermeasure Mission Package Testing

Ships conduct mine countermeasure operations

Ship Shock Trials

Impulsive

Aircraft Carrier Full Ship Shock Trial

Explosives are detonated underwater against surface ships

E17

1 per 5 year period.

Impulsive

DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class Destroyer Full Ship Shock Trial

Explosives are detonated underwater against surface ships

E16

1 per 5 year period.

Impulsive

Littoral Combat Ship Full Ship Shock Trial

Explosives are detonated underwater against surface ships

E16

2 per 5 year period.

NAVSEA Range Activities

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division (NSWC PCD)

Impulsive

Mine Countermeasure/Neutralization Testing

Air, surface, and subsurface vessels neutralize threat mines and mine-like objects

15.

Impulsive

Ordnance Testing

Airborne and surface crews defend against surface targets with small-, medium-, and large-caliber guns, as well as line charge testing

E5; E14

37.

Additional Activities at Locations Outside of NAVSEA Ranges

Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW)/Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Testing

Impulsive

Torpedo (Explosive) Testing

Air, surface, or submarine crews employ explosive torpedoes against artificial targets or deactivated ships

E8; E11

Mine Warfare (MIW) Testing

Impulsive

Mine Countermeasure/Neutralization Testing

Air, surface, and subsurface vessels neutralize threat mines that would otherwise restrict passage through an area

E4; E8

14.

Other Testing Activities

Impulsive

At-Sea Explosives Testing

Explosives are detonated at sea

Vessels

Representative Navy vessel types, lengths, and speeds used in both training and testing activities are shown in Table 8. While these speeds are representative, some vessels operate outside of these speeds due to unique training or safety requirements for a given event. Examples include increased speeds needed for flight operations, full speed runs to test engineering equipment, time critical positioning needs, etc. Examples of decreased speeds include speeds less than 5 knots or completely stopped for launching small boats, certain tactical maneuvers, target launch or retrievals, UUVs etc.

Table 8—Typical Navy Boat and Vessel Types With Length Greater Than 18 Meters Used Within the AFTT Study Area

Vessel type (>18 m)

Example(s) (specifications in meters (m) for length, metric tons (mt) for mass, and knots for speed)

Typical operating speed (knots)

Aircraft Carrier

Aircraft Carrier (CVN) length: 333 m beam: 41 m draft: 12 m displacement: 81,284 mt max. speed: 30+ knots

10 to 15.

Surface Combatants

Cruiser (CG) length: 173 m beam: 17 m draft: 10 m displacement: 9,754 mt max. speed: 30+ knots

10 to 15.

Destroyer (DDG) length: 155 m beam: 18 m draft: 9 m displacement: 9,648 mt max. speed: 30+ knots

Frigate (FFG) length: 136 m beam: 14 m draft: 7 m displacement: 4,166 mt max. speed: 30+ knots

Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) length: 115 m beam: 18 m draft: 4 m displacement: 3,000 mt max. speed: 40+ knots

Amphibious Warfare Ships

Amphibious Assault Ship (LHA, LHD) length: 253 m beam: 32 m draft: 8 m displacement: 42,442 mt max. speed: 20+ knots

10 to 15.

Amphibious Transport Dock (LPD) length: 208 m beam: 32 m draft: 7 m displacement: 25,997 mt max. speed: 20+ knots

Dock Landing Ship (LSD) length: 186 m beam: 26 m draft: 6 m displacement: 16,976 mt max. speed: 20+ knots

Mine Warship Ship

Mine Countermeasures Ship (MCM) length: 68 m beam: 12 m draft: 4 m displacement: 1,333 max. speed: 14 knots

5 to 8.

Submarines

Attack Submarine (SSN) length: 115 m beam: 12 m draft: 9 m displacement: 12,353 mt max. speed: 20+ knots

8 to 13.

Guided Missile Submarine (SSGN) length: 171 m beam: 13 m draft: 12 m displacement: 19,000 mt max. speed: 20+ knots

Combat Logistics Force Ships

Fast Combat Support Ship (T-AOE) length: 230 m beam: 33 m draft: 12 m displacement: 49,583 max. speed: 25 knots

8 to 12.

Dry Cargo/Ammunition Ship (T-AKE) length: 210 m beam: 32 m draft: 9 m displacement: 41,658 mt max speed: 20 knots

Fleet Replenishment Oilers (T-AO) length: 206 m beam: 30 m draft: 11 displacement: 42,674 mt max. speed: 20 knots

Fleet Ocean Tugs (T-ATF) length: 69 m beam: 13 m draft: 5 m displacement: 2,297 max. speed: 14 knots

Support Craft/Other

Landing Craft, Utility (LCU) length: 41m beam: 9 m draft: 2 m displacement: 381 mt max. speed: 11 knots

3 to 5.

Landing Craft, Mechanized (LCM) length: 23 m beam: 6 m draft: 1 m displacement: 107 mt max. speed: 11 knots

Support Craft/Other Specialized High Speed

MK V Special Operations Craft length: 25 m beam: 5 m displacement: 52 mt max. speed: 50 knots

Variable.

Duration and Location

The description of the location of authorized activities has not changed from what was provided in the proposed rule (78 FR 7050, January 31, 2013; page 7066) and AFTT FEIS/OEIS (

http://www.aftteis.com

). For a complete description, please see those documents. Training and testing activities will be conducted in the AFTT Study Area from November 2013 through November 2018. The Study Area includes several existing study areas, range complexes, and testing ranges: the Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training (AFAST) Study Area; Northeast Range Complexes; Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport (NUWCDIVNPT) Testing Range; Virginia Capes (VACAPES) Range Complex; Cherry Point (CHPT) Range Complex; Jacksonville (JAX) Range Complex; Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Carderock Division, South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility (SFOMF) Testing Range; Key West Range Complex; Gulf of Mexico (GOMEX) Range Complex; and Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division (NSWC PCD) Testing Range. In addition, the Study Area includes Narragansett Bay, the lower Chesapeake Bay and St. Andrew Bay for training and testing activities. Ports included for Civilian Port Defense training events include Earle, New Jersey; Groton, Connecticut; Norfolk, Virginia; Morehead City, North Carolina; Wilmington, North Carolina; Kings Bay, Georgia; Mayport, Florida; Beaumont, Texas; and Corpus Christi, Texas. The Study Area includes pierside locations where Navy surface ship and submarine sonar maintenance and testing occur. The Study Area also includes channels and transit routes to ports and facilities associated with ports and shipyards.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activities

There are 48 marine mammal species with possible or known occurrence in the AFTT Study Area, 45 of which are managed by NMFS, of which 39 are cetacean species (8 mysticetes and 31 odontocetes) and six are pinnipeds. To address a public comment on population structure, and consistent with NMFS most recent Stock Assessment Report, a single species may include multiple stocks recognized for management purposes (e.g., bottlenose dolphin), while other species are grouped into a single stock due to limited species-specific information (e.g., beaked whales belonging to the genus

Mesoplodon

). However, when there is sufficient information available, the Navy's take estimates and NMFS' negligible impact determination are based on stock-specific numbers. Eight marine mammal species are listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531

et seq.

): bowhead whale, North Atlantic right whale, humpback whale, sei whale, fin whale, blue whale, sperm whale, and ringed seal.

The Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activities section has not changed from what was in the proposed rule (78 FR 7050, January 31, 2013; pages 7066-7073). Table 9 of the proposed rule provided a list of marine mammals with possible or confirmed occurrence within the AFTT Study Area, including stock, abundance, and status. Although not repeated in this final rule, we have reviewed these data, determined them to be the best available scientific information for the purposes of the rulemaking, and consider this information part of the administrative record for this action.

The Navy's LOA application, proposed rule (78 FR 7050, January 31, 2013), and the AFTT FEIS/OEIS include a complete description of information on the status, distribution, abundance, vocalizations, density estimates, and general biology of marine mammal species.

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals

For the purpose of MMPA authorizations, NMFS' effects assessments serve five primary purposes: (1) To prescribe the permissible methods of taking (i.e., Level B harassment (behavioral harassment), Level A harassment (injury), or mortality, including an identification of the number and types of take that could occur by harassment or mortality); (2) to prescribe other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its habitat (i.e., mitigation); (3) to determine whether the specified activity would have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of marine mammals (based on the likelihood that the activity would adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival); (4) to determine whether the specified activity would have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses; and (5) to prescribe requirements pertaining to monitoring and reporting.

In the Potential Effect of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals section of the proposed rule, we included a qualitative discussion of the different ways that Navy training and testing activities may potentially affect marine mammals without consideration of mitigation and monitoring measures (78 FR 7050, January 31, 2013; pages 7077-7092). Marine mammals may experience: direct physiological effects (e.g., threshold shift and non-acoustic injury); acoustic masking; impaired communication; stress responses; behavioral disturbance; stranding; behavioral responses from vessel movement; and injury or death from vessel collisions. NMFS made no changes to the information contained in that section of the proposed rule, and it adopts that discussion for purposes of this final rule.

NMFS is constantly evaluating new science and how to best incorporate it into our decisions. This process involves careful consideration of new data and how it is best interpreted within the context of a given management framework. Since publication of the proposed rule, studies have been published regarding behavioral responses that are relevant to the proposed activities and energy sources: Moore and Barlow, 2013, DeRuiter

et al.,

2013, and Goldbogen

et al.,

2013, among others. These articles are specifically addressed in the Comments and Responses section of this document. Each of these articles is about the importance of context (e.g., behavioral state of the animals, distance from the sound source, etc.) in evaluating behavioral responses of marine mammals to acoustic sources. In addition, New

et al.,

(2013) was released after publication of the proposed rule. This study uses energetic models to investigate the survival and reproduction of beaked whales. The model suggests that impacts to habitat quality may affect adult female beaked whales' ability to reproduce; and therefore, a reduction in energy intake over a long period of time may have the potential to impact reproduction. However, the AFTT Study Area continues to support high densities of beaked whales and there is no data to suggest a decline in this population.

Also since the publication of the proposed rule, the Final report of the Independent Scientific Review Panel investigating potential contributing factors to a 2008 mass stranding of melon-headed whales (

Peponocephala electra

) in Antsohihy, Madagascar was released. This report suggests that the operation of high-powered 12kHz multi-beam echosounders was a plausible and likely initial trigger that caused a large group of melon-headed whales to leave their typical habitat and then ultimately strand as a result of secondary factors such as malnourishment and

dehydration. The report indicates that the risk of this particular convergence of factors and ultimate outcome is likely very low, but recommends that the potential be considered in environmental planning (for example, through rapid response contingency plans). Because of the association between tactical MFA sonar use and a small number of marine mammal strandings, the Navy and NMFS have been considering and addressing the potential for strandings in association with Navy activities for years. In addition to a suite of mitigation intended to more broadly minimize impacts to marine mammals, the Navy and NMFS have a detailed Stranding Response Plan that outlines reporting, communication, and response protocols intended both to minimize the impacts of, and enhance the analysis of, any potential stranding in areas where the Navy operates.

Mitigation

In order to issue regulations and LOAs under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the “permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.” NMFS duty under this “least practicable adverse impact” standard is to prescribe mitigation reasonably designed to minimize, to the extent practicable, any adverse population-level impacts, as well as habitat impacts. While population-level impacts can be minimized by reducing impacts on individual marine mammals, not all takes translate to population level impacts. NMFS' objective under the “least practicable adverse impact” standard is to design mitigation targeting those impacts on individual marine mammals that are most likely to lead to adverse population-level effects.

The NDAA of 2004 amended the MMPA as it relates to military readiness activities and the ITA process such that “least practicable adverse impact” shall include consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the “military readiness activity.” The training and testing activities described in the Navy's LOA application are considered military readiness activities.

NMFS reviewed the proposed activities and the suite of proposed mitigation measures as described in the Navy's LOA application to determine if they would result in the least practicable adverse effect on marine mammal species and stocks, which includes a careful balancing of the degree to which the mitigation measures are expected to reduce the likelihood and/or magnitude of adverse impacts to marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat with the likely effect of the measures on personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity. Included below are the mitigation measures the Navy proposed in their LOA application.

NMFS described the Navy's proposed mitigation measures in detail in the proposed rule (78 FR 7050, January 31, 2013; pages 7092-7098). These required mitigation measures, summarized below, have not changed with the exception of the extension of the boundary in the eastern Gulf of Mexico planning awareness area to further protect a population of Bryde's whale that has been exclusively observed in that area year-round. NMFS worked with the Navy in the development of the Navy's initial proposed measures, which have been informed through years of experience and monitoring. As described in the mitigation conclusions below and in responses to comments, and the AFTT FEIS/OEIS, additional measures were considered and analyzed, but ultimately not chosen for implementation. Below is a summary of the mitigation measures initially proposed by the Navy. For additional details regarding the Navy's mitigation measures, see Chapter 5 in the AFTT FEIS/OEIS.

• At least one lookout during applicable training and testing activities requiring mitigation;

• Mitigation zones during impulsive and non-impulsive sources to avoid or reduce the potential for onset of the lowest level of injury, PTS, out to the predicted maximum range (Tables 11 and 12);

• Mitigation zones of 457 meters (1,500 ft) around whales and 183 meters (600 ft) around all other marine mammals (except bow riding dolphins) during vessel movement;

• A mitigation zone of 229 meters (750 ft) around marine mammals during use of towed in-water devices from a manned platform;

• Mitigation zones during non-explosive gunnery exercises, missile exercises, and bombing exercises to avoid or reduce the potential for a direct strike from munitions;

• Mitigation measures within pre-defined mitigation areas.

Table 11—Predicted Ranges to TTS, PTS, and Recommended Mitigation Zones

Activity category

Representative source (bin)

Predicted average range to TTS

Predicted average range to PTS

Predicted

maximum range

to PTS

Recommended mitigation zone

Non-Impulsive Sound

Low-Frequency and Hull-Mounted Mid-Frequency Active Sonar

SQS-53 ASW hull-mounted sonar (MF1)

3,821 yd. (3.5 km) for one ping

100 yd. (91 m) for one ping

Not Applicable

6 dB power down at 1,000 yd. (914 m); 4 dB power down at 500 yd. (457 m); and shutdown at 200 yd. (183 m).

Low-frequency sonar

(LF4)

3,821 yd. (3.5 km) for one ping

100 yd. (91 m) for one ping

Not Applicable

200 yd. (183 m)

High-Frequency and Non-Hull Mounted Mid-Frequency Active Sonar

AQS-22 ASW dipping sonar (MF4)

230 yd. (210 m) for one ping

20 yd. (18 m) for one ping

Not Applicable

200 yd. (183 m).

Explosive and Impulsive Sound

Improved Extended Echo Ranging Sonobuoys

Explosive sonobuoy (E4)

434 yd. (397 m)

156 yd. (143 m)

563 yd. (515 m)

600 yd. (549 m).

Explosive Sonobuoys Using 0.6-2.5 lb. NEW

Explosive sonobuoy (E3)

290 yd. (265 m)

113 yd. (103 m)

309 yd. (283 m)

350 yd. (320 m).

Anti-Swimmer Grenades

Up to 0.5 lb. NEW (E2)

190 yd. (174 m)

83 yd. (76 m)

182 yd. (167 m)

200 yd. (183 m).

Mine Countermeasure and Neutralization Activities Using Positive Control Firing Devices

NEW dependent (see Table 12)

Mine Neutralization Diver-Placed Mines Using Time-Delay Firing Devices

Up to 20 lb. NEW (E6)

647 yd. (592 m)

232 yd. (212 m)

469 yd. (429 m)

1,000 yd. (914 m).

Gunnery Exercises—Small- and Medium-Caliber Using a Surface Target

40 mm projectile (E2)

190 yd. (174 m)

83 yd. (76 m)

182 yd. (167 m)

200 yd. (183 m).

Gunnery Exercises—Large-Caliber Using a Surface Target

5 in. projectiles (E5 at the surface

)

453 yd. (414 m)

186 yd. (170 m)

526 yd. (481 m)

600 yd. (549 m).

Missile Exercises (Including Rockets) up to 250 lb. NEW Using a Surface Target

Maverick missile (E9)

949 yd. (868 m)

398 yd. (364 m)

699 yd. (639 m)

900 yd. (823 m).

Missile Exercises Using 251-500 lb. NEW Using a Surface Target

Harpoon missile (E10)

1,832 yd. (1.7 km)

731 yd. (668 m)

1,883 yd. (1.7 km)

2,000 yd. (1.8 km).

Bombing Exercises

MK-84 2,000 lb. bomb (E12)

2,513 yd. (2.3 km)

991 yd. (906 m)

2,474 yd. (2.3 km)

2,500 yd. (2.3 km)

Torpedo (Explosive) Testing

MK-48 torpedo (E11)

1,632 yd. (1.5 km)

697 yd. (637 m)

2,021 yd. (1.8 km)

2,100 yd. (1.9 km).

Sinking Exercises

Various sources up to the MK-84 2,000 lb. bomb (E12)

2,513 yd. (2.3 km)

991 yd. (906 m)

2,474 yd. (2.3 km)

2.5 nm

At-Sea Explosive Testing

Various sources of 10 lb. NEW and less (E5 at various depths

)

525 yd. (480 m)

204 yd. (187 m)

649 yd. (593 m)

1,600 yd. (1.4 km)

Ordnance Testing—Line Charge Testing

Numerous 5-lb. charges (E4)

434 yd. (397 m)

156 yd. (143 m)

563 yd. (515 m)

900 yd. (823 m)

Ship Shock Trials in JAX Range Complex

10,000-lb. charge (HBX)

5.8 nm

2.7 nm

4.8 nm

3.5 nm

40,000-lb. charge (HBX)

9.2 nm

3.6 nm

6.4 nm

3.5 nm

Ship Shock Trials in VACAPES Range Complex

10,000-lb. charge (HBX)

9 nm

2 nm

4.7 nm

3.5 nm

40,000-lb. charge (HBX)

10.3 nm

3.7 nm

7.6 nm

3.5 nm

ASW: anti-submarine warfare; HBX: high blast explosive; JAX: Jacksonville; km: kilometer; lb.: pound; m: meter;

NEW: net explosive weight; nm: nautical mile; PTS: permanent threshold shift; TTS: temporary threshold shift;

VACAPES: Virginia Capes; yd.: yard.

This table does not provide an inclusive list of source bins; bins presented here represent the source bin with the largest range to effects within the given activity category.

Recommended mitigation zones are larger than the modeled injury zones to account for multiple types of sources or charges being used.

The representative source bin E5 has different range to effects depending on the depth of activity occurrence (at the surface or at various depths).

See Section 5.3.2.1.2.15 (Ship Shock Trials) in the FEIS/EIS regarding ship shock trial mitigation zones.

Table 12—Predicted Ranges to Effects and Mitigation Zone Radius for Mine Countermeasure and Neutralization Activities Using Positive Control Firing Devices

Charge size

net explosive weight

(Bins)

General mine countermeasure and

neutralization activities using positive control firing devices

Predicted average range to TTS

Predicted average range to PTS

Predicted

maximum range

to PTS

Recommended mitigation zone

Mine countermeasure and neutralization

activities using diver-placed charges under positive control

Predicted average range to TTS

Predicted average range to PTS

Predicted

maximum range

to PTS

Recommended mitigation zone

2.6-5 lb. (E4)

434 yd. (397 m)

197 yd. (180 m)

563 yd. (515 m)

600 yd. (549 m)

545 yd. (498 m)

169 yd. (155 m)

301 yd. (275 m)

350 yd. (320 m).

6-10 lb. (E5)

525 yd. (480 m)

204 yd. (187 m)

649 yd. (593 m)

800 yd. (732 m)

587 yd. (537 m)

203 yd. (185 m)

464 yd. (424 m)

500 yd. (457 m).

11-20 lb. (E6)

766 yd. (700 m)

288 yd. (263 m)

648 yd. (593 m)

800 yd. (732 m)

647 yd. (592 m)

232 yd. (212 m)

469 yd. (429 m)

500 yd. (457 m).

21-60 lb. (E7)

1,670 yd. (1.5 km)

581 yd. (531 m)

964 yd. (882 m)

1,200 yd. (1.1 km)

1,532 yd. (1.4 km)

473 yd. (432 m)

789 yd. (721 m)

800 yd. (732 m).

61-100 lb. (E8)

878 yd. (802 m)

383 yd. (351 m)

996 yd. (911 m)

1,600 yd. (1.4 km)

969 yd. (886 m)

438 yd. (400 m)

850 yd. (777 m)

850 yd. (777 m).

251-500 lb. (E10)

1,832 yd. (1.7 km)

731 yd. (668 m)

1,883 yd. (1.7 km)

2,000 yd. (1.8 km)

Not Applicable.

501-650 lb. (E11)

1,632 yd. (1.5 km)

697 yd. (637 m)

2,021 yd. (1.8 km)

2,100 yd. (1.9 km)

Not Applicable.

km: kilometer; lb.: pound; m: meter; PTS: permanent threshold shift; TTS: temporary threshold shift; yd.: yard.

These mitigation zones are applicable to all mine countermeasure and neutralization activities conducted in all locations specified in Tables 2.8-1 through 2.8-3 in the FEIS/OEIS.

These mitigation zones are only applicable to mine countermeasure and neutralization activities involving the use of diver-placed charges. These activities are conducted in shallow water, and the mitigation zones are based only on the functional hearing groups with species that occur in these areas (mid-frequency cetaceans and sea turtles).

The E7 bin was only modeled in shallow-water locations, so there is no difference for the diver-placed charges category.

The E8 bin was only modeled for surface explosions, so some of the ranges are shorter than for sources modeled in the E7 bin, which occur at depth.

Time-Delay Firing Devices

When mine neutralization activities using diver placed charges (up to a 20 lb. NEW) are conducted with a time-delay firing device, the detonation is fused with a specified time-delay by the personnel conducting the activity and is not authorized until the area is clear at the time the fuse is initiated. During these activities, the detonation cannot be terminated once the fuse is initiated due to human safety concerns. During activities using up to a 20 lb. NEW (bin E6) detonation, the Navy will have four lookouts and two small rigid hull inflatable boats (two lookouts positioned in each of the two boats) monitoring a 1,000-yd (914-m) mitigation zone. In addition, when aircraft are used, the pilot or member of the aircrew will serve as an additional lookout. The Navy will monitor the mitigation zone for 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after the activity to ensure that the area is clear of marine mammals and time-delay firing device events will only be conducted during daylight hours.

Vessel Strike

(1) Naval vessels will maneuver to keep at least 500 yds (457 m) away from any observed whale in the vessel's path and avoid approaching whales head-on. These requirements do not apply if a vessel's safety is threatened, such as when change of course will create an imminent and serious threat to a person, vessel, or aircraft, and to the extent vessels are restricted in their ability to maneuver. Restricted maneuverability includes, but is not limited to, situations when vessels are engaged in dredging, submerged activities, launching and recovering aircraft or landing craft, minesweeping activities, replenishment while underway and towing activities that severely restrict a vessel's ability to deviate course. Vessels will take reasonable steps to alert other vessels in the vicinity of the whale. Given rapid swimming speeds and maneuverability of many dolphin species, naval vessels would maintain normal course and speed on sighting dolphins unless some condition indicated a need for the vessel to maneuver.

(2) If a large whale surfaces within 500 yds (457 m) of a Navy vessel (or if a vessel is within this distance of a large whale for any other reason), the vessel should exercise caution, increase vigilance, and consider slower speed if operationally supportable and does not interfere with safety of navigation until the vessel has moved beyond a 500 yds (457 m) radius of the observed whale, or any subsequently observed whales (whales often travel in pairs within several body lengths of one another (fin/blue) and humpbacks in feeding aggregations).

(3) North Atlantic right whale Dynamic Management Areas (DMAs)—NMFS has established a program whereby temporary zones, called Dynamic Management Areas (DMAs), can be established quickly in locations throughout the species' range when right whales are observed outside of the geographic extend or effected period of Seasonal Management Areas (SMAs). DMAs are established when reliable sightings are obtained (derived primarily from systematic aircraft surveys for marine mammals using trained observers) of three of more right whales in U.S. waters within a 75 nm

(138.9 km

) area, such that right whale density is ≥0.04 right whales/nm

. Additional (15 nm2) areas are then delineated around the sighting location to account for potential whale movement and are incorporated into a single polygon that encompasses both the sighting location and its surrounding zone. Each DMA is established immediately (i.e., within 24 hours) upon confirmation of right whale sighting locations and automatically set to expire 15 days after the initial date. If whales remain in the area, the DMA may be extended for an additional 15 days. Maritime communities, including the Navy, are notified of the existence of a DMA via: NOAA Weather Radio; U.S. Coast Guard notice to mariners; an email distribution list; postings on the NMFS Office of Protected Resources ship strike Web site and the Northeast Fisheries Science Center's web-based interactive right whale sighting system; and an automatic return message via email is sent to mariners who seek information on whale-sighting locations. Mariners are requested, but not required, to either navigate around DMAs or travel through them at 10 knots or less. If a DMA is created the Navy will consider whether to either navigate around the area or travel through at slow safe speed consistent with mission training and safety of navigation. The Navy will receive notification regarding the creation of a DMA as well as information pertaining to its location, size, and duration through the U.S. Coast Guard's Notice to Mariners.

Cetacean and Sound Mapping

NMFS Office of Protected Resources routinely considers available information about marine mammal habitat use to inform discussions with applicants regarding potential spatio-temporal limitations on their activities that might help effect the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat (e.g., Humpback Whale Cautionary Area in Hawaii). Through the Cetacean and Sound Mapping effort (

www.cetsound.noaa.gov

), NOAA's Cetacean Density and Distribution Mapping Working Group (CetMap) is currently involved in a process to compile available literature and solicit expert review to identify areas and times where species are known to concentrate for specific behaviors (e.g., feeding, breeding/calving, or migration) or be range-limited (e.g., small resident populations). These areas, called Biologically Important Areas (BIAs), are useful tools for planning and impact assessments and are being provided to the public via the CetSound Web site, along with a summary of the supporting information. While these BIAs are useful tools for analysts, any decisions regarding protective measures based on these areas must go through the normal MMPA evaluation process (or any other statutory process that the BIAs are used to inform)—the designation of a BIA does not pre-suppose any specific management decision associated with those areas. Additionally, the BIA process is iterative and the areas will be updated as new information becomes available. Currently, NMFS has some BIAs in Hawaii (which were considered in the Comments and Responses section of the final rule for the Hawaii Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT) Study Area). The BIAs in other regions, such as the Atlantic and West Coast of the continental U.S. are preliminary and are being prepared for submission to a peer-reviewed journal for review. NMFS and the Navy have discussed the draft BIAs, what Navy activities take place in these areas (in the context of what their effects on marine mammals might be or whether additional mitigation is necessary), and what measures could be implemented to reduce impacts in these areas (in the context of their potential to reduce marine mammal impacts and their practicability). As a result of the Navy's Biological Assessment and Operational Assessment, the Navy is extending the boundary of the eastern Gulf of Mexico planning awareness area (an area in which major training exercises are limited) to further protect a resident population of Bryde's whales that has been observed exclusively in that area year-round. As we learn more about marine mammal density, distribution, and habitat use (and the BIAs are updated), NMFS and the Navy will continue to reevaluate appropriate time-area measures through the

Adaptive Management process outlined in these regulations.

Stranding Response Plan

NMFS and the Navy developed Stranding Response Plans for the Study Areas and Range Complexes that make up the AFTT Study Area in 2009 as part of previous incidental take authorizations (ITAs). The Stranding Response Plans specifically intended to outline applicable requirements in the event that a marine mammal stranding is reported in the east coast Range Complexes and AFTT Study Area during a major training exercise. NMFS considers all plausible causes within the course of a stranding investigation and these plans in no way presume that any strandings in a Navy range complex are related to, or caused by, Navy training and testing activities, absent a determination made during investigation. The plans are designed to address mitigation, monitoring, and compliance. The Navy is currently working with NMFS to refine these plans for the new AFTT Study Area and the revised plans will be made available here:

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications.

Modifications to the Stranding Response Plan may also be made through the adaptive management process.

Mitigation Conclusions

NMFS has carefully evaluated the Navy's proposed suite of mitigation measures and considered a broad range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another: the manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the required mitigation measures is expected to reduce the likelihood and/or magnitude of adverse impacts to marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat; the proven or likely efficacy of the measures; and the practicability of the suite of measures for implementation, including consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.

In some cases, additional mitigation measures are required beyond those that the applicant proposes. NMFS may consider the practicability of implementing a particular mitigation measure if the best available science indicates that the measure (either alone or in combination with other mitigation measures) has a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing or contributing to the accomplishment of one or more of the goals listed below, which, in turn, would be expected to lessen the likelihood and/or magnitude of adverse impacts on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat:

a. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals b, c, and d may contribute to this goal).

b. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to received levels of active sonar, underwater detonations, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to a, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).

c. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed to received levels of active sonar, underwater detonations, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to a, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).

d. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to received levels of active sonar, underwater detonations, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to a, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only).

e. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.

f. For monitoring directly related to mitigation—an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation (shut-down zone, etc.).

Based on our evaluation of the Navy's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS or recommended by the public, NMFS has determined that the Navy's proposed mitigation measures (especially when the adaptive management component is taken into consideration (see Adaptive Management, below)), along with the additions detailed in the Mitigation section above, are adequate means of effecting the least practicable adverse impacts on marine mammals species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, while also considering personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.

Monitoring

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that in order to issue an ITA for an activity, NMFS must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for LOAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present.

Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or more of the following general goals:

• An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, both within the mitigation zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and in general to generate more data to contribute to the analyses mentioned below.

• An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals are likely to be exposed to levels of active sonar (or in-water explosives or other stimuli) that we associate with specific adverse effects, such as behavioral harassment, TTS, or PTS.

• An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond to active sonar (at specific received levels), in-water explosives, or other stimuli expected to result in take and how anticipated adverse effects on individuals (in different ways and to varying degrees) may impact the population, species, or stock (specifically through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival) through any of the following methods:

○ Behavioral observations in the presence of active sonar compared to observations in the absence of sonar (need to be able to accurately predict received level and report bathymetric conditions, distance from source, and other pertinent information).

○ Physiological measurements in the presence of active sonar compared to observations in the absence of sonar (need to be able to accurately predict received level and report bathymetric conditions, distance from source, and other pertinent information).

○ Pre-planned and thorough investigation of stranding events that occur coincident to naval activities.

○ Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or areas with concentrated active sonar versus times or areas without sonar.

• An increased knowledge of the affected species.

• An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain mitigation and monitoring measures.

NMFS described an overview of Navy monitoring and research, highlighted recent findings, and the Navy's proposed new approach to monitoring in the proposed rule (78 FR 7050, January 31, 2013; pages 7098-7100). Below is a summary of the Navy's Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program (ICMP) and the Navy's Strategic Planning Process for Marine Species Monitoring.

Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program (ICMP)

—The Navy's ICMP is intended to coordinate monitoring efforts across all regions and to allocate the most appropriate level and type of effort for each range complex based on a set of standardized objectives, and in acknowledgement of regional expertise and resource availability. The ICMP is designed to be flexible, scalable, and adaptable through the adaptive management and strategic planning processes to periodically assess progress and reevaluate objectives. Although the ICMP does not specify actual monitoring field work or projects, it does establish top-level goals that have been developed in coordination with NMFS. As the ICMP is implemented, detailed and specific studies will be developed which support the Navy's top-level monitoring goals. In essence, the ICMP directs that monitoring activities relating to the effects of Navy training and testing activities on marine species should be designed to accomplish one or more of the top-level goals. Monitoring will address the ICMP top-level goals through a collection of specific regional and ocean basin studies based on scientific objectives. Quantitative metrics of monitoring effort (e.g., 20 days of aerial surveys) will not be a specific requirement. The adaptive management process and reporting requirements will serve as the basis for evaluating performance and compliance, primarily considering the quality of the work and results produced, as well as peer review and publications, and public dissemination of information, reports and data. Details of the current ICMP are available here:

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications;

or at the Navy's marine species monitoring Web site:

http://www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/.

Strategic Planning Process for Marine Species Monitoring

—The Navy also developed the Strategic Planning Process for Marine Species Monitoring, which establishes the guidelines and processes necessary to develop, evaluate, and fund individual projects based on objective scientific study questions. The process uses an underlying framework designed around top-level goals, a conceptual framework incorporating a progression of knowledge, and in consultation with the Scientific Advisory Group and other regional experts. The Strategic Planning Process for Marine Species Monitoring will be used to set intermediate scientific objectives, identify potential species of interest at a regional scale, and evaluate and select specific monitoring projects to fund or continue supporting for a given fiscal year. This process will also address relative investments to different range complexes based on goals across all range complexes, and monitoring would leverage multiple techniques for data acquisition and analysis whenever possible. The Strategic Planning Process for Marine Species Monitoring is also available on our Web site:

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications;

or at the Navy's marine species monitoring Web site:

http://www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/.

Past and Current Monitoring in the AFTT Study Area

NMFS has received multiple years' worth of annual exercise and monitoring reports addressing active sonar use and explosive detonations within the AFTT Study Area. The data and information contained in these reports have been considered in developing mitigation and monitoring measures for the training and testing activities within the AFTT Study Area. The Navy's annual exercise and monitoring reports may be viewed at:

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications;

or at the Navy's marine species monitoring Web site:

http://www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/.

NMFS' summary of the Navy's monitoring reports was included in the proposed rule (78 FR 7050, January 31, 2013; pages 7098-7102).

Monitoring for the AFTT Study Area

2014 will be a transitional year for Navy monitoring so that ongoing data collection from the Navy's current east coast rulemakings can be completed. Therefore, monitoring in 2014 will be a combination of previously funded FY-13 “carry-over” projects and new FY-14 project starts. A more detailed description of the Navy's planned projects starting in 2014 (and some continuing from previous years) is available on NMFS' Web site (

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications

). The Navy will update the status of its monitoring program and funded projects through their Navy Marine Species Monitoring Web site:

http://www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/.

NMFS will provide one public comment period on the Navy's monitoring program during the 5-year regulations. At this time, the public will have an opportunity (likely in the second year) to comment specifically on the Navy's AFTT monitoring projects and data collection to date, as well as planned projects for the remainder of the regulations.

Through the adaptive management process (including annual meetings), the Navy will coordinate with NMFS and the Marine Mammal Commission (the Commission) to review and provide input for projects that will meet the scientific objectives that are used to guide development of individual monitoring projects. The adaptive management process will continue to serve as the primary venue for both NMFS and the Commission to provide input on the Navy's monitoring program, including ongoing work, future priorities, and potential new projects. The Navy will submit annual monitoring reports to NMFS as part of the AFTT rulemaking and LOA requirements. Each annual report will contain a section describing the adaptive management process and summarize the Navy's anticipated monitoring projects for the next reporting year. Following annual report submission to NMFS, the final rule language mandates a 3-month NMFS review prior to each report being finalized. This will provide ample time for NMFS and the Commission to comment on the next year's planned projects as well as ongoing regional projects or proposed new projects. Comments will be received by the Navy prior to the annual adaptive management meeting to facilitate a meaningful and productive discussion. NMFS and the Commission will also have the opportunity for involvement at monitoring program science review meetings and/or regional Scientific Advisory Group meetings. This will help keep NMFS and the Commission informed and able to understand the scientific considerations and limitations involved with planning and executing various monitoring projects.

Adaptive Management

Although substantial improvements have been made in our understanding of the effects of Navy training and testing activities (e.g., sonar, underwater detonations) on marine mammals, the science in this field is evolving fairly quickly. These circumstances make the inclusion of an adaptive management component both valuable and necessary within the context of 5-year regulations.

The reporting requirements associated with this rule are designed to provide NMFS with monitoring data from the previous year to allow us to consider whether any changes are appropriate. NMFS, the Navy, and the Commission will meet to discuss the monitoring reports, Navy R&D developments, current science, and whether mitigation or monitoring modifications are appropriate. The use of adaptive management allows NMFS to consider new information from different sources to determine (with input from the Navy regarding practicability) on an annual or biennial basis if mitigation or monitoring measures should be modified (including additions or deletions). Mitigation measures could be modified if new data suggests that such modifications would have a reasonable likelihood of reducing adverse effects to marine mammal species and their habitat and if the measures are practicable.

The following are some of the possible sources of applicable data to be considered through the adaptive management process: (1) Results from monitoring, exercise and testing reports, as required by MMPA authorizations; (2) compiled results of Navy funded R&D studies; (3) results from specific stranding investigations; (4) results from general marine mammal and sound research; and (5) any information which reveals that marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent, or number not authorized by these regulations or subsequent LOAs.

Reporting

In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring. The proposed rule contains the proposed reporting requirements for the Navy (78 FR 7050, January 31, 2013; page 7102). Since then, the Navy has expanded upon those reports to include specific language for testing activities, which is detailed in the regulatory text at the end of this document. Reports from individual monitoring events, results of analyses, publications, and periodic progress reports for specific monitoring projects will be posted to the Navy's Marine Species Monitoring web portal:

http://www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us

and NMFS' Web site:

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications.

There are several different reporting requirements that are further detailed in the regulatory text at the end of this document and summarized below.

General Notification of Injured or Dead Marine Mammals

Navy personnel will ensure that NMFS (the appropriate Regional Stranding Coordinator) is notified immediately (or as soon as clearance procedures allow) if an injured or dead marine mammal is found during or shortly after, and in the vicinity of, any Navy training or testing exercise utilizing sonar or underwater explosive detonations. The Navy will provide NMFS with species identification or a description of the animal(s), the condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the animal is dead), location, time of first discovery, observed behaviors (if alive), and photographs or video (if available). The AFTT Stranding Response Plan contains further reporting requirements for specific circumstances (

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications

Vessel Strike

Since the proposed rule, NMFS has added the following language to address monitoring and reporting measures specific to vessel strike. Most of this language comes directly from the Stranding Response Plan. This section has also been included in the regulatory text at the end of this document. In the event that a Navy vessel strikes a whale, the Navy shall do the following: Report to NMFS (pursuant to the established Communication Protocol) the:

• Species identification (if known);

• Location (latitude/longitude) of the animal (or location of the strike if the animal has disappeared);

• Whether the animal is alive or dead (or unknown); and

• The time of the strike.

As soon as feasible, the Navy shall report to or provide to NMFS, the:

• Size, length, and description (critical if species is not known) of animal;

• An estimate of the injury status (e.g., dead, injured but alive, injured and moving, blood or tissue observed in the water, status unknown, disappeared, etc.);

• Description of the behavior of the whale during event, immediately after the strike, and following the strike (until the report is made or the animal is no longer sighted);

• Vessel class/type and operational status;

• Vessel length;

• Vessel speed and heading; and

• To the best extent possible, obtain a photo or video of the struck animal, if the animal is still in view.

Within 2 weeks of the strike, provide NMFS:

• A detailed description of the specific actions of the vessel in the 30-minute timeframe immediately preceding the strike, during the event, and immediately after the strike (e.g., the speed and changes in speed, the direction and changes in direction, other maneuvers, sonar use, etc., if not classified); and

• A narrative description of marine mammal sightings during the event and immediately after, and any information as to sightings prior to the strike, if available.

Use established Navy shipboard procedures to make a camera available to attempt to capture photographs following a ship strike.

NMFS and the Navy will coordinate to determine the services the Navy may provide to assist NMFS with the investigation of the strike. The response and support activities to be provided by the Navy are dependent on resource availability, must be consistent with military security, and must be logistically feasible without compromising Navy personnel safety. Assistance requested and provided may vary based on distance of strike from shore, the nature of the vessel that hit the whale, available nearby Navy resources, or other factors.

Annual Monitoring and Exercise and Testing Reports

As noted above, reports from individual monitoring events, results of analyses, publications, and periodic progress reports for specific monitoring projects will be posted to the Navy's Marine Species Monitoring web portal and NMFS' Web site as they become available. Progress and results from all monitoring activity conducted within the AFTT Study Area, as well as required Major Training Event exercise activity, will be summarized in an annual report.

In the past, each annual report has summarized data for a single year. At

the Navy's suggestion, the annual reports under this final rule will take a cumulative approach in that each report will compare data from that year to all previous years. For example, the third annual report will include data from the third year and compare it to data from the first and second years. This will provide an ongoing cumulative look at the Navy's results and eliminate the need for a comprehensive monitoring and exercise summary report (as included in the proposed rule). A draft of the annual report will be submitted to NMFS for review in April of each year. NMFS will review the report and provide comments to be addressed by the Navy within 3 months.

Ship Shock Trials

The reporting requirements will be developed in conjunction with the individual test-specific mitigation plan for each ship shock trial. This will allow both Navy and NMFS to take into account specific information regarding location, assets, species, and seasonality.

Comments and Responses

On January 31, 2013, NMFS published a proposed rule (78 FR 7050) in response to the Navy's request to take marine mammals incidental to military readiness activities in the AFTT Study Area and solicited comments, information, and suggestions concerning the proposed rule. NMFS received over 900 comment letters from state agencies, environmental non-governmental organizations, the Commission, and interested members of the public. Comments specific to section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and NMFS' analysis of impacts to marine mammals are summarized, sorted into general topic areas, and addressed below and/or throughout the final rule. Comments specific to the FEIS/OEIS, which NMFS participated in developing as a cooperating agency and adopted, or that were also submitted to the Navy during the DEIS/OEIS public comment period are addressed in Appendix E (Public Participation) of the FEIS/OEIS. Last, some commenters presented technical comments on the general behavioral risk function that are largely identical to those submitted during the comment period for the AFAST proposed rule, the predecessor to the AFTT rule. The behavioral risk function remains unchanged since then, and here we incorporate our responses to those initial technical comments (74 FR 4844, Behavior Harassment Threshold section, pp. 4865-4867). Full copies of the comment letters may be accessed at

http://www.regulations.gov.

Monitoring and Reporting

Comment 1:

The Commission recommended that we require the Navy to use passive and active acoustics to supplement visual monitoring during implementation of mitigation measures for all activities that could cause Level A harassment or mortality. Specifically, the Commission questioned why passive and active acoustic monitoring used during the Navy's Surveillance Towed Array Sensory System Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA) activities is not applied here.

Response:

The Navy requested Level A take of marine mammals for impulse and non-impulse sources during training and testing based on its acoustic analysis. The Navy also requested take of marine mammals by mortality for impulse sources, unspecified sources (impulse or non-impulse), and vessel strike. While it is impractical for the Navy to conduct passive acoustic monitoring during all training and testing activities, the Navy has engineered the use of passive acoustic detection for monitoring purposes, taking into consideration where the largest impacts could potentially occur, and the effectiveness and practicality of installing or using these devices. The Navy will use passive acoustic monitoring to supplement visual observations during Improved Extended Echo Ranging (IEER) sonobuoy activities, explosive sonobuoys using 0.6-2.5 pound (lb) net explosive weight, torpedo (explosive) testing, and sinking exercises, to detect marine mammal vocalizations. However, it is important to note that passive acoustic detections do not provide range or bearing to detected animals, and therefore cannot provide locations of these animals. Passive acoustic detections will be reported to lookouts to increase vigilance of the visual surveillance.

The active sonar system used by SURTASS LFA is unique to the platforms that use SURTASS LFA. Moreover, this system requires the platforms that carry SURTASS LFA to travel at very slow speeds for the system to be effective. For both of these reasons it is not possible for the Navy to use this system for the platforms analyzed in the AFTT FEIS/OEIS.

NMFS believes that the Navy's suite of mitigation measures (which include mitigation zones that exceed or meet the predicted maximum distance to PTS) will typically ensure that animals will not be exposed to injurious levels of sound. To date, the post-explosive monitoring reports submitted by the Navy for the East Coast Range Complexes and Gulf of Mexico do not show any evidence of injured marine mammals.

Comment 2:

The Commission recommended that NMFS require the Navy to submit a proposed monitoring plan for public review and comment prior to issuance of final regulations.

Response:

NMFS provided an overview of the Navy's Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program (ICMP) in the proposed rule (78 FR 7050, January 31, 2013). While the ICMP does not specify actual monitoring field work or projects, it does establish top-level goals that have been developed by the Navy and NMFS. As explained in the proposed rule, detailed and specific studies will be developed as the ICMP is implemented and funding is allocated.

Since the proposed rule was published, the Navy has provided a more detailed short-term plan for the first year of the rule. 2014 will be a transitional year with ongoing data collection straddling the shift from Phase I (metric-based) to Phase II Compliance Monitoring. Therefore, monitoring in 2014 will be a combination of previously funded FY-13 “carry-over” projects from Phase I and new FY-14 project starts under the vision for Phase II monitoring. A more detailed description of the Navy's planned projects starting in 2014 (and some continuing from previous years) are available on NMFS' Web site (

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications

Additionally, NMFS will provide one public comment period on the Navy's monitoring program during the 5-year regulations. At this time, the public will have an opportunity (likely in the second year) to comment specifically on the Navy's AFTT monitoring projects and data collection to date, as well as planned projects for the remainder of the regulations. The public will also have the opportunity to review the Navy's monitoring reports, which will be posted and available for download every year from the Navy's marine species monitoring Web site:

http://www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/.

Details of already funded AFTT monitoring projects and new start projects are available through the Navy's marine species monitoring Web site:

http://www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/.

The Navy will update the status of their monitoring projects through the marine species monitoring site, which serves as a public portal for information regarding all aspects of the Navy's monitoring program, including background and guidance documents, access to reports,

and specific information on current monitoring projects.

Through the adaptive management process (including annual meetings), the Navy will coordinate with NMFS and the Commission to review and revise, if required, the list of intermediate scientific objectives that are used to guide development of individual monitoring projects. As described previously in the Monitoring section of this document, NMFS and the Commission will also have the opportunity to attend annual monitoring program science review meetings and/or regional Scientific Advisory Group meetings.

The Navy will continue to submit annual monitoring reports to NMFS, which describe the results of the adaptive management process and summarize the Navy's anticipated monitoring projects for the next reporting year. NMFS will have a 3-month review period to comment on the next year's planned projects, ongoing regional projects, and proposed new project starts. NMFS' comments will be submitted to the Navy prior to the annual adaptive management meeting to facilitate a meaningful and productive discussion between NMFS, the Navy, and the Commission.

Comment 3:

One commenter shared concerns about how sequestration will affect the Navy's marine mammal monitoring program and research efforts.

Response:

The Navy is required to comply with the terms of the regulations and LOAs regardless of sequestration.

Comment 4:

One commenter suggested that Navy lookouts should be dedicated solely to the observation of marine mammals and turtles.

Response:

The Navy has lookouts stationed onboard ships whose primary duty is to detect objects in the water, estimate the distance from the ship, and identify them as any number of inanimate or animate objects that are significant to a Navy exercise or as a marine mammal so that the mitigation measure can be implemented. Navy lookouts undergo extensive training to learn these skills and the Navy's Marine Species Awareness Training is used to make them more aware of marine mammal species and behaviors. However, because lookouts must be able to detect and identify multiple objects in the water to ensure the safety of the ship, they are not expected to solely observe for marine mammals and sea turtles.

Comment 5:

NRDC recommended that the Navy use all available range assets for marine mammal monitoring.

Response:

NMFS has worked with the Navy over the years to help develop the most effective mitigation protocols using the platforms and assets that are available for monitoring. The required mitigation measures in this document represent the maximum level of effort (e.g., numbers of lookouts and passive sonobuoys) that the Navy can commit to observing mitigation zones given the number of personnel that will be involved and the number and type of assets and resources available. The Navy has determined that it is impractical to increase visual and passive acoustic observations for the purpose of mitigation.

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2004 amended the MMPA as it relates to military readiness activities (which these Navy activities are) and the incidental take authorization process such that “least practicable adverse impact” shall include consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the “military readiness activity.” As explained in Chapter 5 of the AFTT FEIS/OEIS, it is impractical for the Navy to increase the level of marine mammal monitoring. The Navy has a limited number of resources (e.g., personnel and other assets) and the monitoring requirements in this rulemaking represent the maximum level of effort that the Navy can commit to marine mammal monitoring.

Mitigation

Comment 6:

One commenter believes that using lookouts as the primary strategy for limiting potential impacts from Navy activities is inadequate.

Response:

NMFS disagrees. Navy Lookouts are a vital aspect of this strategy for limiting potential impacts from Navy activities. Lookouts are qualified and experienced observers of the marine environment. All Lookouts take part in Marine Species Awareness Training so that they are better prepared to spot marine mammals. Their duties require that they report all objects sighted in the water to the Office of the Deck (OOD) and all disturbances that may be indicative of a threat to the vessel and its crew. Lookouts are on duty at all times, day and night, when a ship or surfaced submarine is moving through the water. Visual detections of marine mammals would be communicated immediately to a watch station for information disseminations and appropriate mitigation action. NMFS has carefully considered Navy's use of Lookouts and determined that in combination with the use of planning awareness areas to minimize impacts in areas of higher concern, the Stranding Response Plans, special measures to minimize impacts to North Atlantic right whales and the other mitigation measures identified, the Navy's mitigation plan will effect the least practicable adverse impacts on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat.

Comment 7:

One commenter asked that the Navy stay away from areas of high marine mammal density during their training and testing.

Response:

Avoiding all areas of high marine mammal density for the purpose of mitigation would be impractical with respect to implementation of military readiness activities, would result in unacceptable impacts on readiness, and would increase safety risks to personnel for the following reasons: areas where training and testing activities are scheduled to occur are carefully selected to provide safety and allow realism of events, and the varying environmental conditions of these areas maximize the training realism and testing effectiveness; activity locations inevitably overlap with a wide array of marine mammal habitats, and limiting activities to avoid all of those areas would adversely impact the effectiveness of the training or testing activity, which would result in an unacceptable adverse risk to personnel safety and the ability to achieve mission goals.

However, the Navy has designated several Planning Awareness Areas (PAAs), in which activities are limited, based on areas of high productivity that have been correlated with high concentrations of marine mammals (e.g., persistent oceanographic features such as upwellings associated with the Gulf Stream front where it is deflected off the east coast near the Outer Banks of North Carolina), and areas of steep bathymetric contours that are frequented by deep-diving marine mammals (e.g., beaked whales and sperm whales). As part of the MMPA process and a result of public input, NMFS and the Navy considered additional available information related to known feeding and reproductive areas for certain species, as well as resident populations, and as a result of this process, the Navy has extended the boundary in the eastern Gulf of Mexico PAA to further protect a population of Bryde's whale that has been exclusively observed in that area year-round.

Comment 8:

The Commission requested that NMFS require the Navy to cease use of sound sources and not reinitiate them for (1) at least 15 minutes if small odontocetes or pinnipeds enter the mitigation zone and

are not observed to leave; and (2) relevant time periods based on the maximum dive times of mysticetes or large- or medium-sized odontocetes if they enter the mitigation zone and are not observed to leave. Other commenters also suggested that activities should not resume until the animal is observed to exit the mitigation zone or the target has been repositioned more than 366 meters away from the last marine mammal sighting; and that monitoring the mitigation zone for 30 minutes, before, during, and after the activity is insufficient for deep-diving species.

Response:

Section 5.3 of the AFTT FEIS/OEIS details the mitigation measures in place for each type of activity. These mitigation measures are also provided in the regulatory text at the end of this document. In summary, depending on the specific activity type and following the shutdown or delay of any acoustic activities, the Navy may resume activities if any one of the following conditions are 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 and speed and the relative motion between the animal and the source; (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 30 minutes (or 10 minutes for certain types of aircraft); or (4) the intended target location has been repositioned more than 400 yd (366 m) away from the location of the last sighting; (5) the ship has transited more than 140 yd (128 m) (large-caliber gunnery exercises) or 2,000 yd (1.8 km) (active sonar) beyond the location of the last sighting; or (6) dolphins are bow riding and there are no other marine mammal sightings within the mitigation zone.

The Commission expressed concern regarding the Navy's ability to determine the relative position of an animal. Understanding relative motion is a critical skill for Navy personnel, who receive training in target and contact tracking, target and contact interception, multi-ship maneuvering drills, etc. While an animal may occasionally act unpredictably, it is more likely that the animal will be seen leaving the mitigation zone or Navy personnel will be able to track the animal's location.

With regard to maximum dive times, NMFS disagrees that the clearance time should be lengthened for deep-diving species for the following reasons: (1) Just because an animal can dive for longer than 30 minutes does not mean that they always do, so a longer delay would only potentially add value in instances when animals had remained underwater for more than 30 minutes; (2) The animal would need to have stayed in the immediate vicinity of the sound source for more than 30 minutes. Considering the maximum area that both the vessel and the animal could cover in an hour, it is improbable that this would randomly occur. For example, during a 1-hour dive by a beaked whale or sperm whale, a mid-frequency active sonar ship moving at a nominal speed of 10 knots could transit up to 10 nautical miles from its original location. Additionally, the times when marine mammals are diving deep (i.e., the times when they are under the water for longer periods of time) are the same times that a large portion of their motion is in the vertical direction, which means that they are far less likely to keep pace with a horizontally moving vessel. Moreover, considering that many animals have been shown to avoid both acoustic sources and ships without acoustic sources, it is improbable that a deep-diving cetacean (as opposed to a dolphin that might bow ride) would choose to remain in the immediate vicinity of the acoustic source; (3) Visual observers are not always able to differentiate species to the degree that would be necessary to implement this measure; and (4) Increasing clearance time is not operationally feasible for Navy activities that require aircraft surveillance because of fuel limitations. NMFS does not believe that increasing the clearance time based on maximum dive times will add to the protection of marine mammals in the vast majority of cases, and therefore, we have not required it.

Comment 9:

The Commission recommended that NMFS require the Navy to either (1) adjust the size of the mitigation zone for mine neutralization activities using the average swim speed of the fastest swimming marine mammal occurring in the area where time-delay firing devices will be used and ensure that the zone is adequately monitored; or (2) authorize all model-estimated takes for Level A harassment and mortality for mine neutralization activities in which divers use time-delay firing devices.

Response:

The Navy proposed a mitigation zone of 1,000 yards for all charge sizes (5, 10, and 20 lb) and for a maximum time-delay of 10 minutes. This is the maximum distance that lookouts in two small boats can realistically monitor. The use of more than two boats for monitoring during time-delay firing device events is impractical due to the Navy's limited personnel resources. The Navy's proposed mitigation zone covers the potential for mortality up to a 9-minute time delay (but not 10-minute). The proposed mitigation zone also covers the potential for injury up to a 5-minute time-delay for 10 and 20 lb charges, and a 6-minute time-delay for 5 lb charges, but not for time delays greater than 6 minutes for any charge size. As a result of the mitigation zone restriction and the Commission's recommendation, and based on the Navy's modeling results and mitigation effectiveness, the Navy has requested 6 mortalities and 48 Level A injuries for any training or testing event (not just underwater detonations), in case of an unavoidable incident.

Comment 10:

Several commenters suggested that the proposed mitigation measures were inadequate because observers do not always detect marine mammals and cannot see as far as sound travels.

Response:

It is the duty of Navy lookouts to detect marine mammals in the water and estimate the distance from the ship so that the mitigation measures (shut-down, power-down, etc.) can be implemented. Navy Lookouts undergo extensive training to learn these skills and the Marine Species Awareness Training is used to augment this general training with information specific to marine mammals. However, the mitigation measures the Navy is implementing are designed primarily to avoid and minimize the likelihood of mortality and injury, which are associated with acoustic exposures above a certain level, and therefore it is not necessary to see as far as sound travels to successfully implement the mitigation measures.

Comment 11:

Several commenters requested that the proposed activities be limited to periods of good visibility, avoid biologically sensitive areas, establish meaningful buffer zones, and improve and expand mitigation methods.

Response:

Planning Awareness Areas (PAAs) and Mitigation Areas for North Atlantic right whales are already in place for the Navy's training and testing activities.

Several PAAs have been designated by the Navy based on locations of high productivity correlated with high concentrations of marine mammals (such as persistent oceanographic features like upwellings associated with the Gulf Stream front where it is deflected off the east coast near the Outer Banks), and areas of steep bathymetric contours that are frequented by deep diving marine mammals such as beaked whales and sperm whales. In addition, the Cetacean Density and Distribution Mapping Working Group is currently involved in a process to compile available literature and solicit expert review to identify areas and times where species are known to concentrate for specific behaviors or be range-limited. These areas, called Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) are useful for planning and impact assessment. As a result of the Navy's Biological Assessment and Operational Assessment of potential mitigation measures, including draft BIAs, the Navy recommends extending the boundary of the eastern Gulf of Mexico planning awareness area to further protect a population of Bryde's whale that has been exclusively observed in that area year-round.

The Navy developed mitigation zones to avoid or reduce the potential for onset of the lowest level of injury, PTS, out to the predicted maximum range. Mitigating to the predicted maximum range to PTS also mitigates to the predicted maximum range to onset mortality (1 percent mortality), onset slight lung injury, and onset slight gastrointestinal tract injury, since the maximum range to effects for these criteria are shorter than for PTS. For low-frequency and hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar, the Navy will implement a 6 dB power down at 1,000 yards (914 m), a 4 dB power down at 500 yards (457 m), and shutdown at 200 yards (183 m). Both powerdown criteria exceed the predicted average and maximum ranges to PTS. NMFS believes that these mitigation zone distances will help avoid the potential for onset of PTS in marine mammals and reduce the potential for TTS.

Comment 12:

One commenter states that the Navy should not use active sonar and only use passive sonar. In addition, the commenter believes that testing should be conducted in another water environment such as a pool, river, lake, stream, or estuary.

Response:

As stated in the Navy's AFTT FEIS/OEIS, the Navy uses sonar systems and other acoustic sensors in support of a variety of mission requirements. Primary uses include detection of and defense against submarines (anti-submarine warfare) and mines (mine warfare); safe navigation and effective communications; and oceanographic surveys. Active sonar emits sound waves that travel through the water, reflect off objects, and return to the receiver. Passive sonar uses listening equipment, such as an underwater microphone (hydrophone) and receiving sensors on ships, submarine, aircraft, and autonomous vehicles, to pick up underwater sounds. Although passive sonar can indicate the presence, character, and direction of ships and submarines, it has become increasingly ineffective at detecting modern, quieter submarines. Therefore, Navy training and testing activities must include active sonar in order to ensure safety of ships and crew and meet its statutory mission.

With respect to training in other water environments, the Navy indicated in its AFTT FEIS/OEIS that the ranges used for training and testing have evolved over decades because these geographic areas allow for the entire spectrum of training and testing to occur. In addition, no other locations match the unique attributes found in the AFTT Study Area, and no other potential locations where land ranges, OPAREAs, undersea terrain and ranges, testing ranges, and military airspace combine to provide the venues necessary for the training and testing realism and effectiveness required to train and certify naval forces.

Comment 13:

Several commenters recommended that the Navy use more than one lookout during all training and testing activities.

Response:

The Navy will have more than one lookout for several higher risk training and testing activities or where the ensonified area is larger, such as while using low-frequency and hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar, mine countermeasure and neutralization activities, sinking exercises, and ship shock trials. For the reasons stated below, the Navy cannot use more than one lookout for all training and testing activities. However, a minimum of one lookout would always be required. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2004 amended the MMPA as it relates to military readiness activities (which these Navy activities are) and the incidental take authorization process such that “least practicable adverse impact” shall include consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the “military readiness activity.” As explained in Chapter 5 of the AFTT FEIS/OEIS, it is impractical for the Navy to increase visual observations for the purpose of mitigation beyond the amounts that have already been established in coordination with NMFS. The Navy has a limited number of resources (e.g., personnel and other assets) and the mitigation requirements in this rulemaking represent the maximum level of effort that the Navy can commit to observing mitigation zones. Also, the use of additional lookouts in association with lower risk activities with smaller ensonified areas would be not be expected to provide as much protective value as is provided for the activities mentioned above.

Comment 14:

Several commenters suggested that the Navy limit their activities to periods of good visibility. More specifically, NRDC suggested that all weapons firing in missile, bombing, and sinking exercises involving detonations exceeding 20 lb. net explosive weight take place during the period 1 hour after sunrise to 30 minutes before sunset.

Response:

The Navy explained in Chapter 5 of the AFTT FEIS/OEIS that avoiding or reducing active sonar at night and during periods of low visibility for the purpose of mitigation would result in an unacceptable impact on readiness. In summary, the Navy must train and test in a variety of conditions (including at night and in low-visibility) to adequately train for military operations and ensure that systems and equipment operate as intended. However, certain activities, such as those involving explosives greater than 20 lb net explosive weight, are currently conducted during daylight hours only. The Navy does not anticipate impacts to the training or testing programs, as long as training or testing requirements do not change; however, the Navy needs to retain the ability to conduct these activities at night if emergent requirements dictate the need for this capability.

The Navy will use passive acoustic monitoring to supplement visual observations during Improved Extended Echo Ranging (IEER) sonobuoy activities, explosive sonouboys using 0.6-2.5 pound net explosive weight, torpedo (explosive) testing, and sinking exercises, to detect marine mammal vocalizations. However, it is important to note that passive acoustic detections do not provide range or bearing to detected animals, and therefore cannot provide locations of these animals. Passive acoustic detections will be reported to lookouts to increase vigilance of the visual surveillance.

Comment 15:

One commenter suggested that Navy training and testing activities could be significantly reduced

while still maintaining military readiness.

Response:

The Navy has identified the level of training and testing requirements that are necessary to meet its legally mandated requirements. NMFS' must decide whether to authorize the take of marine mammals incidental to an applicant's proposed action based on the factors contained in the MMPA; NMFS does not permit or authorize the underlying action itself. In this case, NMFS has determined that the Navy's training and testing activities will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks and has met all other statutory requirements, therefore, we plan to issue the requested MMPA authorization.

Comment 16:

NRDC and other commenters recommended an expansion of the Navy's mitigation zones during the use of MFAS to reflect international best practice (4 km) or the standard prescribed by the California Coastal Commission (2 km).

Response:

The Navy developed mitigation zones to avoid or reduce the potential for onset of the lowest level of injury, PTS, out to the predicted maximum range. For low-frequency and hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar, the Navy will implement a 6 dB power down at 1,000 yards (914 m), a 4 dB power down at 500 yards (457 m), and shutdown at 200 yards (183 m). Both powerdown criteria exceed the predicted average and maximum ranges to PTS. NMFS believes that these mitigation zone distances will help avoid the potential for onset of PTS in marine mammals and reduce the potential for TTS. These shutdown zones, combined with other mitigation measures, are expected to effect the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat.

Furthermore, the Navy developed mitigation zones represent the maximum area the Navy can observe based on the platform of observation, number of personnel that will be involved, and the number and types of assets and resources available. Increasing the size of observed mitigation zones for the purposes of mitigation would be impractical with regard to implementation of military readiness activities and result in an unacceptable impact on readiness.

Comment 17:

NRDC recommended that the Navy use sonar and other active acoustic sources at the lowest practicable source level.

Response:

The Navy utilizes sonar and other active acoustic sources to support a variety of missions. Primary uses of sonar include detection of and defense against submarines (anti-submarine warfare) and mines (mine warfare); safe navigation and effective communications; and oceanographic surveys. The source levels must be adequate to perform these tasks, but mitigation measures (e.g., powerdown and shutdown) will be implemented if marine mammals are within or approaching established zones. The Navy will submit annual exercise and testing reports to NMFS that summarize exercise activities related to their activities. These reports will be made available to the public via NMFS' Web site and the U.S. Navy Marine Species Monitoring web portal.

Comment 18:

NRDC suggested that the Navy delay or relocate activities when beaked whales are detected through passive acoustic monitoring, even if potentially occurring beyond the established mitigation zone.

Response:

This recommendation is impractical for the Navy because operators of passive acoustic systems may not be able to identify whether a vocalization is from a beaked whale. However, all passive acoustic detections will be reported to lookouts to increase vigilance of the visual surveillance.

Comment 19:

NRDC suggested that the Navy use gliders or other platforms for pre-activity monitoring to avoid significant aggregations of marine mammals and delay or relocate activities when significant aggregations of marine mammals are detected within the vicinity of an exercise.

Response:

The development of passive acoustic detectors on gliders and other platforms is still in the research and development stages under funding from the Office of Naval Research and the Navy's new Living Marine Resources programs. While promising, many of the various technologies are still being tested and not ready for transition to compliance monitoring where a higher degree of performance is needed. Gliders, even if able to report in real-time, or even delayed near real-time, would only be able to document the presence of marine mammals, not the marine mammal distance from the glider or individual animal movement. In many places Navy activity occurs there are almost near constant small odontocete passive acoustic detections. Finally, gliders would only provide an indication that animals are in the area, but these same animals could easily move substantial distances over the course of just a few hours. In some cases, use of gliders in and around where Navy submarines also operate is an underwater safety hazard to the submarine and to the glider. Gliders and other passive acoustic platforms, therefore, are more appropriate for broad area searches within Navy ranges to document marine mammal seasonal occurrence, but are not practical as a mitigation tool.

The Navy will implement mitigation measures for all marine mammals, regardless of species, if they approach or enter a mitigation zone, which were calculated to help avoid the potential for onset of PTS and reduce the potential for TTS. Additionally, the Navy has already identified and limited activity in the PAAs, which were developed based on areas of high productivity correlated with high concentrations of marine mammals (such as persistent oceanographic features like upwellings associated with the Gulf Stream front where it is deflected off the east coast near the Outer Banks), and areas of steep bathymetric contours that are frequented by deep diving marine mammals such as beaked whales and sperm whales.

Comment 20:

NRDC suggested that the Navy use simulated geography and planning of ship tracks to reduce or eliminate chokepoint exercises in near-coastal environments, particularly within canyons and channels or other important habitat. Similarly, NRDC suggested the use of dedicated aerial monitors during chokepoint exercises, major exercises, and near-coastal exercises.

Response:

For decades, the Navy has been using simulated electronic depictions of land in some of its at-sea exercises. However, the types of exercises the commenter refers to are critical to realistic and effective training due to the unique sound propagation characteristics and they cannot be replicated by simulated geography. The Navy will implement mitigation for all training and testing activities to minimize any potential effects.

Specific aerial monitoring is not typically feasible given the limited duration of typical monitoring flights (less than 4 hours). In addition, there are significant flight safety considerations and airspace restrictions during major exercises when larger groups of military aircraft are present in high numbers at various altitudes.

It is important to note that the Navy does have a particular set of monitoring measures (intended to help reduce the chance of a stranding) that would be applied if circumstances are thought to make a stranding more likely (e.g., steep bathymetry, multiple vessels in a single area over an extended period of time, constricted channels or embayments). However, there are no areas with these

features included in the AFTT Study Area.

Comment 21:

NRDC stated that the Navy did not account for reverberation in its modeling and also suggested the use of additional powerdowns when significant surface ducting conditions coincide with other conditions that elevate risk (such as during exercises involving the use of multiple systems or in beaked whale habitat).

Response:

The Navy's propagation model used for all non-impulsive modeling accommodates surface and bottom boundary interactions (including reverberation), but does not account for side reflections that would be a factor in a highly reverberant environment, such as a depression or canyon, or in a man-made structure, such as a dredged harbor. The details of the Navy's propagation model are provided in a technical report (“Determination of acoustic effects on marine mammals and sea turtles for the Atlantic Training and Testing EIS/OEIS,”

aftteis.com

Based on the lessons learned from five beaked whale stranding events, all of which took place outside of the AFTT Study Area, and occurred over approximately a decade, exposure of beaked whales to mid-frequency active sonar in the presence of certain conditions (e.g., multiple units using tactical sonar, steep bathymetry, constricted channels, strong surface ducts, etc.) may result in strandings, potentially leading to mortality. Although these physical features are not present on the Atlantic Coast of the U.S. or in the Gulf of Mexico in the aggregate, scientific uncertainty exists regarding what other factors, or combination of factors, may contribute to beaked whale strandings.

To minimize risk to beaked whales, during exercise planning, several conditions will be considered: (1) Areas of at least 1000 m depth near a shoreline where there is rapid change in bathymetry on the order of 1000-6000 m occurring across a relatively short horizontal distance (e.g., 5 nm); (2) cases for which multiple ships or submarines (≥3) are operating active sonar in the same area over extended periods of time (≥6 hours) in close proximity (≤10 nm apart); (3) an area surrounded by land masses, separated by less than 35 nm and at least 10 nm in length, or an embayment, wherein operations involving multiple ships/subs (≥3) employing active sonar near land may produce sound directed toward the channel or embayment that may cut off the lines of egress for marine mammals; and (4) though not as dominant a condition as bathymetric features, the historical presence of a strong surface duct (i.e., mixed layer of constant water temperature extending from the sea surface to 100 or more feet).

If a major exercise must occur in an area where the above conditions exist in the aggregate, these conditions must be fully analyzed in environmental planning documentation. The Navy will increase vigilance by undertaking the following additional protective measure: a dedicated aircraft (Navy asset or contracted aircraft) will undertake reconnaissance of the embayment or channel ahead of the exercise participants to detect marine mammals that may be in the area exposed to active sonar. Where practical, the advance survey should occur within about 2 hours prior to sonar use and periodic surveillance should continue for the duration of the exercise. Any unusual conditions (e.g., presence of marine mammals, groups of species milling out of habitat, and any stranded animals) shall be reported to the Officer in Tactical Command, who should give consideration to delaying, suspending, or altering the activity. All mitigation zone power down requirements described in the Mitigation section will apply. Finally, the post-exercise report must include specific reference to any event conducted in areas where the above conditions exist, with exact location and time/duration of the event and noting results of surveys conducted.

Comment 22:

NRDC suggested the suspension or postponement of chokepoint exercises during surface ducting conditions and scheduling of such exercises during daylight hours.

Response:

See responses to Comments 14, 20, 21, and 34.

Comment 23:

NRDC suggested the use of aerial surveys and ship-based surveys before, during, and after major exercises.

Response:

As proposed, and detailed in the AFTT FEIS/OEIS, the Navy will implement pre-exercise aerial observation as a mitigation measure for Improved Extended Echo Ranging (IEER) sonobuoys and explosive buoys using 0.6-2.5 pound net explosive weight, mine countermeasure and neutralization activities using positive control firing devices involving explosives in bin E11 (501-650 pound net explosive weight), and sinking exercises. Aerial monitoring will continue throughout the duration of these exercises. This amount of monitoring represents the maximum level of effort that the Navy can commit to observing mitigation zones given the number of personnel and assets available. Surveys before, during, and after major exercises would require an inordinate amount of resources that are not available and would have a significant impact on readiness.

In addition to the monitoring required to implement mitigation, the Navy is also committed to a robust marine mammal monitoring program designed to answer specific questions about the effects of the Navy's activities on marine mammals. The Navy uses visual surveys (by trained protected species observers; from aircraft and vessels), passive acoustic monitoring devices, and tagging as some of the methods to best detect and evaluate any effects. See the Navy's monitoring reports at

http://www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/

Comment 24:

NRDC suggested the use of NMFS-certified observers for marine mammal detection and several commenters requested further information on the Navy's lookout effectiveness study. More specifically, NRDC suggested that the Navy complete a lookout effectiveness study comparing the abilities of Navy vessel-based lookouts and third-party protected species observers. If Navy lookouts are significantly less likely to detect marine mammals, NRDC recommends the use of NMFS-certified lookouts or other monitoring enhancements.

Response:

The Navy has determined that the use of third-party observers (e.g., NMFS-certified protected species observers) in air or on surface platforms in addition to existing Navy lookouts for the purposes of mitigation is impractical for the following reasons: the use of third-party observers would compromise security for some activities involving active sonar due to the requirement to provide advance notification of specific times and locations of Navy platforms; reliance on the availability of third-party personnel could impact training and testing flexibility; the presence of additional aircraft in the vicinity of naval activities would raise safety concerns; and there is limited space aboard Navy vessels. Furthermore, Navy personnel are extensively trained in spotting items on or near the water surface and receive more hours of training than many third-party personnel.

The Navy undertakes monitoring of marine mammals during training and testing activities and has mitigation procedures designed to minimize risk to these animals. One key component of this monitoring and mitigation is the shipboard lookouts (also known as watchstanders), who are part of the standard operating procedure that ships use to detect objects (including marine mammals) within a specific area around the ship during events. The lookouts are an element of the Navy's monitoring plan, as required by NMFS and

specified in the LOAs. The goal is to detect marine mammals entering ranges of 200, 500, and 1,000 yd (183, 457, and 914 m) around the vessel, which correspond to distances at which various mitigation actions should be performed. In addition to the lookouts, officers on the bridge search visually and sonar operators listen for marine mammal vocalizations. All of these observers together are referred to as the observation team.

In 2010, the Navy initiated a study designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Navy lookout team. The University of St. Andrews, Scotland, under contract to the Navy, developed an initial data collection protocol for use during the study. Between 2010 and 2012, trained Navy marine mammal observers collected data during nine field trials as part of a “proof of concept” phase. The goal of the proof of concept phase was to develop a statistically valid protocol for quantitatively analyzing the effectiveness of lookouts during Navy training exercises. Field trials were conducted in the HRC, SOCAL Range Complex, and Jacksonville Range Complex onboard one frigate, one cruiser, and seven destroyers. Preliminary analysis of the proof of concept data is ongoing. The Navy is also working to finalize the data collection process for use during the next phase of the study. While data was collected as part of this proof of concept phase, those data are not fairly comparable because protocols were being changed and assessed, nor are those data statistically significant. Therefore, it is improper to use these data to draw any conclusions on the effectiveness of Navy lookouts at this time.

In addition, given the distance from shore and especially the dynamic and moving nature of major training events (MTEs) where sonar platforms can be widely dispersed and then move on to another area, aerial or ship-based civilian monitoring concurrent to MTEs would not be logistically practical or safe. Before and after surveys would only duplicate similar marine mammal sightings that have already been conducted under the previous Navy rulemakings. During the period from 2009 to 2012, the Navy has visually surveyed a great expanse of ocean within the AFAST Study Area and Gulf of Mexico Range Complex with marine mammal sightings described in annual monitoring reports as well as posted electronically on public online data portals. While contributing to the body of science on marine mammal occurrence, these broad area surveys are less informative for monitoring of Navy impacts to marine mammals. The Navy's revised monitoring plan consists of more focused objective-oriented studies to address both species-specific occurrence and determine impact or lack of impact from training and testing activities.

Comment 25:

NRDC recommended that the Navy comply with underwater detonation and gunnery exercise mitigation measures as set forth in NMFS' final rule for the Southern California (SOCAL) Range Complex.

Response:

The mitigation measures for underwater detonation and gunnery exercises in NMFS' final rule for the SOCAL Range Complex have been carried over to AFTT and HSTT (i.e., mitigation zones around the intended target, monitoring before and during the exercise, avoidance of sighted marine mammals). There have been some slight modifications to the time-delay firing device (TDFD) mitigation to account for resource limitations in the number of available boats and lookouts.

Comment 26:

NRDC recommended the use of dedicated aerial monitoring for all Navy explosive activities using time-delay firing devices and/or all activities involving explosives greater than 20 lb. net explosive weight.

Response:

Time-delay firing device events can occur over several hours and the exact detonation time is dependent on multiple variables including, but not limited to, weather, background traffic, training requirements, delays for mitigation, etc., that make it impractical and unsafe to have aircraft surveys. Time-delay firing device events also typically occur near commercial and military airspace that would pose a serious risk to the survey and non-survey aircraft.

Mitigation during explosive events (greater than 20 lb. net explosive weight) already includes the use of available aircraft for mitigation monitoring. However, these activities can occur offshore and over several hours duration, making a dedicated aerial survey platform unsafe and impractical. The Navy has mitigation zones in place designed to minimize potential effects from all explosive activities.

Comment 27:

NRDC suggested avoidance and reduction in the use of time-delay firing devices in favor of explosives with positive controls.

Response:

The Navy has explained their use of time-delay firing devices in previous documents (LOA application for the Silver Strand Training Complex, LOA application for the Hawaii Range Complex, the VACAPES LOA renewal, and the AFTT FEIS/OEIS). The Navy relies on both time-delay and positive control to initiate underwater detonations, depending on the training event and objectives. The Navy has cited time-delay firing devices as the simplest, safest, least expensive, most operationally acceptable method of initiating an underwater detonation. They are preferred due to their light weight, low magnetic signature, and reduced risk of accidental detonation from nearby radios or other electronics. Time-delay firing devices allow sufficient time for personnel to swim outside of the detonation plume radius and human safety buffer zone after the timer is set. The Navy considers it critical that personnel qualify annually with necessary time-delay certification, maintain proficiency, and train to face real-world scenarios that require the use of time-delay firing devices. However, the Navy does strive to use positive control detonation whenever feasible depending on the training need. Within the SSTC portion of HSTT for instance, during the last year of the 86 completed underwater detonations with charge weights between 10-20 lb net explosive weight, only two TDFDs were used; the remaining 84 detonations used positive control.

Time-delay firing devices raised concern in 2011, when three or four long-beaked common dolphins were killed in an explosion during an underwater detonation training event. About 5 minutes remained on a time-delay fuse when a pod of long-beaked common dolphins was observed, but attempts to guide the dolphins away from the area were unsuccessful. Following the event, the Navy worked with NMFS to develop a more robust monitoring and mitigation plan to ensure that marine mammal mortality and injury would not occur during activities that involve time-delay firing devices. NMFS incorporated additional mitigation and monitoring measures into the appropriate authorizations. Those additions are being carried over to the AFTT rule, with some modifications to the mitigation zone and number of observers due to the impracticality of the initial changes. As detailed in the proposed rule, NMFS believes that the Navy's modifications will still reduce the potential for injury and mortality because (1) the mitigation zone exceeds the predicted ranges to TTS and PTS; (2) the number of lookouts for a 1,000-yd (915-m) mitigation zone would not change; (3) the maximum net explosive weight would decrease; (4) monitoring 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after the activity would still take place;

and (5) time-delay firing device activities are only conducted during daylight hours.

Comment 28:

NRDC suggested that the Navy should evaluate before each major exercise whether reductions in sonar are possible, given the readiness status of the strike groups involved.

Response:

The Navy only uses active sonar for validated training requirements, so this type of pre-exercise evaluation is unnecessary.

Comment 29:

NRDC recommended that the Navy establish a plan and timetable for maximizing synthetic training in order to reduce the use of active sonar training.

Response:

As described in section 2.5.1.3 of the AFTT FEIS/OEIS, the Navy currently uses computer simulation for training and testing whenever possible. Computer simulation can provide familiarity and complement live training; however, it cannot provide the fidelity and level of training necessary to prepare naval forces for deployment.

The Navy is required to provide a ready and capable force. In doing so, the Navy must operationally test major platforms, systems, and components of these platforms and systems in realistic combat conditions before full-scale production can occur. Substituting simulation for live training and testing fails to meet the Navy's statutory requirement to properly prepare forces for National defense.

Comment 30:

NRDC recommended that specific mitigation requirements be prescribed for individual classes (or sub-classes) of training and testing activities in order to maximize mitigation given varying sets of operational needs.

Response:

NMFS has already worked with the Navy to develop mitigation by activity type to reduce potential impacts on marine mammals. The regulatory text of this document details the different types of mitigation required for different activities.

Comment 31:

NRDC recommended that the Navy submit timely, regular reports to NMFS, state coastal management authorities, and the public to describe and verify use of mitigation measures during training and testing activities.

Response:

The Navy will be required to submit annual reports and the unclassified portions of these reports will be made available to the public through NMFS' Web site. The reports will include a description of the mitigation measures implemented during major training exercises and will also include an evaluation of the effectiveness of any mitigation measure implemented.

Comment 32:

Several commenters recommended additional mitigation, including exclusion zones and time-area closures, and suggested that NMFS did not provide any additional mitigation to the Navy's proposed measures in order to reduce impacts on marine mammals.

Response:

Exclusion zones (termed “mitigation zones” in the proposed rule and this document) are already in place for the Navy's training and testing activities. Training and testing activities require continuous access to large areas consisting potentially of thousands of square miles of ocean and air space to provide naval personnel the ability to train with and develop competence and confidence in their capabilities and their entire suite of weapons and sensors. Exercises may change mid-stream based on evaluators' assessment of performance and other conditions including weather or mechanical issues. These preclude use of a time-area closure scheme for access to water space.

NMFS has been heavily involved in developing the Navy's suite of mitigation measures since 2007. Many of the Navy's proposed mitigation measures were a result of NMFS' input over the past 5 years. It is also important to note that the NDAA of 2004 amended the MMPA to require the consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the “military readiness activity” when determining the “least practicable adverse impact.” Mitigation measures that the Navy considered, but could not implement, are included in the FEIS/OEIS.

Finally, NMFS did require additional measures beyond those initially proposed by the Navy in its application, including both the expansion of the Gulf of Mexico PAA to further protect the resident population of Bryde's whales as well as the 500-yd mitigation zone for whales around all vessels.

Comment 33:

Several commenters suggested that the Navy's activities should be moved to pelagic sea depths, away from continental shelves and islands to reduce impacts on marine mammals.

Response:

As stated in the AFTT FEIS/OEIS, the Navy has eliminated from consideration alternative training and testing locations because there are no other potential locations where land ranges, OPAREAs, undersea terrain and ranges, testing ranges, and military airspace combine to provide the venues necessary for the training and testing realism and effectiveness required to train and certify naval forces ready for combat operations. Training and testing in shallow water is an essential component to maintaining military readiness. Sound propagates differently in shallow water and operators must learn to train in this environment. Additionally, submarines have become quieter through the use of improved technology and have learned to hide in the higher ambient noise levels of the shallow coastal waters. In real world events, it is likely that sailors would be working in, and therefore must train in, and use systems that have been tested in, these types of environments.

However, the Navy has already reduced impacts in shallow areas by limiting activities in PAAs (as described elsewhere), and the ESA and MMPA permitting processes have resulted in additional mitigation measures, including geographic constraints within the AFTT study area to further protect a resident population of Bryde's whale in the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, following the implementation of the rule and issuance of LOAs, the adaptive management process will also provide a mechanism for considering if modifications to mitigation measures are necessary in the future.

Comment 34:

NRDC recommended that the Navy avoid or reduce their activities during months with historically significant surface ducting conditions.

Response:

The Navy's activities must be conducted during all months and in a variety of conditions in order for the Navy to meet its mission. Training schedules are driven by deployment requirements, which are established by the Department of Defense and the President. These schedules are dynamic based on real world events, ship availability, and numerous other factors that prevent the Navy from being confined to certain months. Similarly, Navy testing schedules are driven by Fleet maintenance, repair, and modernization needs; and the delivery of Navy ships, aircraft, and systems to support these training and deployment requirement, and cannot be confined to certain months. Therefore, the Navy's MMPA permit must support year round training and cannot be reduced during certain months.

Comment 35:

NRDC recommended that the Navy delay activities or implement powerdowns during significant surface ducting conditions.

Response:

Avoiding or reducing active sonar during strong surface ducts for the purpose of mitigation would increase safety risks to personnel, be impractical with regard to implementation of military readiness activities, and result in unacceptable

impacts on readiness for the following reasons: The Navy must train in the same manner as it will fight. Anti-submarine warfare can require a significant amount of time to develop the “tactical picture,” or an understanding of the battle space (e.g., area searched or unsearched, identifying false contacts, and understanding the water conditions). Training in surface ducting conditions is a critical component to military readiness because sonar operators need to learn how sonar transmissions are altered due to surface ducting, how submarines may take advantage of them, and how to operate sonar effectively in this environment. Furthermore, avoiding surface ducting would be impractical to implement because ocean conditions contributing to surface ducting change frequently, and surface ducts can be of varying duration. Surface ducting can also lack uniformity and may or may not extend over a large geographic area, making it difficult to determine where to reduce power and for what periods.

Comment 36:

NRDC recommended that the Navy plan their ship tracks to avoid embayments and provide escape routes for marine mammals.

Response:

As noted in the response to Comment 35 above, the Navy does have a particular set of monitoring measures (intended to help reduce the chance of a stranding) that would be applied if circumstances are thought to make a stranding more likely (e.g., steep bathymetry, constricted channels, etc.). However, there are no areas with these features in aggregate included in the AFTT Study Area.

Comment 37:

NRDC recommended that the Navy be required to implement mitigation prescribed by state regulators, by the courts, by other navies or research centers, or from past Navy actions.

Response:

NMFS and the Navy have worked together on developing a comprehensive suite of mitigation measures to reduce the impacts from Navy training and testing activities on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat. During the process of developing mitigation measures, NMFS and the Navy considered all potentially applicable mitigation measures. NMFS has determined that the Navy's proposed mitigation measures, along with the Planning Awareness Areas, Stranding Response Plan, and Adaptive Management are adequate means of effecting the least practicable adverse impacts on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, while also considering personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity. The justification for this conclusion is discussed in the Mitigation Conclusions section of the proposed rule (78 FR 7050, January 31, 2013; page 7098).

Acoustic Thresholds

Comment 38:

The Commission recommended that NMFS require the Navy to adjust all acoustic and explosive thresholds for low-, mid-, and high-frequency cetaceans by the appropriate amplitude factor (e.g., 16.5 or 19.4 dB), if the Type II weighting functions from Figure 6 of Finneran and Jenkins (2012) are to be used.

Response:

The acoustic and explosive thresholds were adjusted based on weighting the exposures from the original research from which the thresholds were derived with the Type II weighing functions. The weighted threshold is not derived by a simple amplitude shift.

The high-frequency cetacean onset TTS threshold is based on the onset-TTS threshold derived from data in Lucke

et al.

(2009) for impulsive exposures. This threshold was subsequently adjusted in Finneran and Jenkins (2012) to reflect Type II high-frequency cetacean weighting. Therefore, a simple 19.4 dB adjustment to the thresholds presented in

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.