Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the Northwest Training and Testing Study Area
Federal RegisterNov 24, 2015
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 218
[Docket No. 140109018-5999-02]
RIN 0648-BD89
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the Northwest 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 (MMPA) to govern the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to training and testing activities conducted in the Northwest Training and Testing (NWTT) Study Area from November 2015 through November 2020. These regulations allow us to issue Letters of Authorization (LOAs) 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. These regulations also allow us to authorize modifications to watchstander requirements for observed behavior of marine mammals during Major Training Events (MTEs) in the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT), Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT), Mariana Islands Training and Testing (MITT), and Gulf of Alaska Training (GOA) study areas. Modifications to the Navy watchstander requirements include a revision to regulatory text in current regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals during training and/or testing activities in these study areas. There are no MTEs associated with Navy training and testing activities in the NWTT Study Area.
DATES:
Effective date:
November 24, 2015.
Applicability date:
November 9, 2015, through November 8, 2020.
ADDRESSES:
To obtain an electronic copy of the Navy's application or other referenced documents, visit the internet at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm.
Documents cited in this rule may also be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at 1315 East-West Highway, SSMC III, Silver Spring MD 20912.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John Fiorentino, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8477.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability
A copy of the Navy's LOA application, which contains a list of the references used in this document, may be obtained by visiting the internet at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm.
The Navy's Final Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS/OEIS) for the NWTT Study Area, which also contains a list of the references used in this document, may be viewed at
http://www.nwtteis.com.
Documents cited in this notice may also be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned address (see
ADDRESSES
).
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
et seq.
) direct 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 either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of such takings are set forth. 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) removed the “small numbers” and “specified geographical region” limitations indicated above 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 December 19, 2013, NMFS received an application (version (v)1 dated December 18, 2013) from the Navy requesting two LOAs for the take of 25 species of marine mammals incidental to Navy training and testing activities to be conducted in the NWTT Study Area over 5 years. On October 1, 2014, the Navy submitted a revised LOA application (v2 dated September 26, 2014) to reflect updates to exposure estimates based on emergent changes to specific types of training activities which were addressed in the Navy's supplemental EIS/OEIS for the NWTT Study Area. The revised application also provided an update to the effects analysis for Guadalupe fur seals (summarized in the Analysis of Guadalupe Fur Seal Exposures section of the proposed rule, which published on June 3, 2015 (80 FR 31737)) to more realistically reflect potential impacts from offshore Navy training and testing events. On November 7, 2014, the Navy submitted a revised LOA application (v3 dated November 7, 2014) to address: (a) An inadvertent error in the recommended mitigation zone for mine countermeasure and neutralization training events; (b) removal of the time delay firing underwater explosive training activity; (c) correction or clarification of certain mitigation measures applied to testing, and (d) revised mitigation for pinniped haulouts. On November 21, 2014, the Navy submitted a revised LOA application (v4 dated November 7, 2014) to correct inadvertent errors in the exposure calculations. On April 2, 2015, the Navy submitted a final revision to the LOA application (v5 dated April 2, 2015) (hereinafter referred to as the LOA application) to incorporate and update population density estimates for the Hood Canal stock of harbor seals and remove the ship strike mortality request.
The Navy is requesting separate 5-year LOAs for training and testing activities to be conducted from 2015 through 2020. The NWTT Study Area is composed of established maritime operating and warning areas in the eastern north Pacific Ocean region, to include the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, and Western Behm Canal in southeastern Alaska. The Study Area includes the existing Northwest Training Range Complex, the Keyport Range Complex, Carr Inlet Operations Area, Southeast Alaska Acoustic Measurement Facility (SEAFAC), and Navy pierside locations where sonar maintenance or testing may occur (see Figure 1-1 of the LOA application for a map of the NWTT Study Area). The activities conducted within the NWTT Study Area are classified as military readiness activities. The Navy states that these activities may expose some of the marine mammals present within the NWTT Study Area to sound from underwater acoustic sources and explosives. The Navy is requesting authorization to take 25 marine mammal species by Level B (behavioral) harassment; 5 of those marine mammal species may be taken by injury (Level A harassment). The Navy is not requesting mortality takes for any species.
The Navy's LOA application and the NWTT 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 NWTT FEIS/OEIS Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis Technical Report (available at
http://www.nwtteis.com
). 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, which published on June 3, 2015 (80 FR 31737).
NOAA is currently in the process of developing Acoustic Guidance on thresholds for onset of auditory impacts from exposure to sound, which will be used to support assessments of the effects of anthropogenic sound on marine mammals. To develop this Guidance, NOAA is compiling, interpreting, and synthesizing the best information currently available on the effects of anthropogenic sound on marine mammals, and is committed to finalizing the Guidance through a systematic, transparent process that involves internal review, external peer review, and public comment.
In December 2013, NOAA released for public comment a “Draft Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammals: Acoustic Threshold Levels for Onset of Permanent and Temporary Threshold Shifts” (78 FR 78822). The Draft Guidance was generally consistent with the Navy's PTS/TTS criteria used in the NWTT FEIS/OEIS and detailed within Finneran and Jenkins (2012). Prior to the finalization of this guidance by NOAA, the Navy suggested revisions to the criteria (
e.g.,
auditory weighting functions and PTS/TTS thresholds) based on a number of studies available since the Navy's Phase 2 modeling, including Finneran
et al.
(2005), Finneran
et al.
(2010), Finneran and Schlundt (2013), Kastelein
et al.
(2012a), Kastelein
et al.
(2012b), Kastelein
et al.
(2014a), Kastelein
et al.
(2014b), Popov
et al.
(2013), and Popov
et al.
(2011). In January 2015, the Navy submitted a draft proposal (Finneran 2015) to NOAA staff for their consideration.
Finneran (2015) proposed new weighting functions and thresholds for predicting PTS/TTS in marine mammals. The methodologies presented within this paper build upon the methodologies used to develop the criteria used within the Navy's NWTT FEIS/OEIS (Finneran and Jenkins, 2012) and incorporate relevant auditory research made available since 2012. While Finneran and Jenkins (2012) presented a conservative approach to development of auditory weighting functions where data was limited, Finneran (2015) synthesizes a wide range of auditory data, including newly available studies, to predict refined auditory weighting functions and corresponding TTS thresholds across the complete hearing ranges of functional hearing groups. Finneran (2015) also developed updated threshold shift growth functions to facilitate the development of new PTS thresholds.
During the development process of NOAA's Draft Guidance, NOAA chose to incorporate Finneran (2015) into its Draft Guidance prior to its finalization. As a result, the Navy's proposal (Finneran 2015) was submitted for peer review by external subject matter experts, in accordance with the process previously conducted for NOAA's Draft Guidance. Peer review comments were received by NOAA in April 2015. NOAA subsequently developed a Peer Review Report, which was published on its Web site on July 31, 2015. The published report documents the Navy's proposal (Finneran 2015) that underwent peer review, the peer-review comments, and NOAA's responses to those comments. NOAA then incorporated this information into revised Draft Guidance which was published in the
Federal Register
for public review and comment (80 FR 45642) on July 31, 2015. The auditory weighting functions and PTS/TTS thresholds provided in that revised Draft Guidance will not be adopted by NOAA or applied to applicants until Final Guidance is issued. At the time of this rulemaking, Final Guidance has not been issued. Therefore, the Navy has not adopted these proposed criteria in its NWTT FEIS/OEIS. However, the underlying science contained within Finneran (2015) has been addressed qualitatively within the applicable sections of the Final EIS/OEIS and this rulemaking.
If the proposed criteria in Finneran (2015) were adopted by NOAA, incorporated into its Final Guidance, and applied to the Navy in the future, predicted numbers of PTS/TTS would change for most functional hearing groups. However, because Finneran (2015) relies on much of the same data as the auditory criteria presented in the Navy's NWTT FEIS/OEIS, these changes would not be substantial, and in most cases would result in a reduction in the predicted impacts. Predicted PTS/TTS would be reduced over much to all of their hearing range for low-frequency cetaceans and phocids. Predicted PTS/TTS for mid-frequency and high-frequency cetaceans would be reduced for sources with frequencies below about 3.5 kHz and remain relatively unchanged for sounds above this frequency. Predicted auditory effects on otariids would increase for frequencies between about 1 kHz and 20 kHz and decrease for frequencies above and below these points, although otariids remain the marine mammals with the least sensitivity to potential PTS/TTS. Overall, predicted auditory effects within this rulemaking would not change significantly.
In summary, NOAA's continued evaluation of all available science for the Acoustic Guidance could result in changes to the acoustic criteria used to model the Navy's activities for this rulemaking, and, consequently, the enumerations of “take” estimates. However, at this time, the results of prior Navy modeling described in this rule represent the best available estimate of the number and type of take that may result from the Navy's use of acoustic sources in the NWTT Study Area. Further, consideration of the
revised Draft Guidance and information contained in Finneran (2015) does not alter our assessment of the likely responses of marine mammals to acoustic sources employed by Navy in the NWTT Study Area, or the likely fitness consequences of those responses. Finally, while acoustic criteria may also inform mitigation and monitoring decisions, this rulemaking requires a robust adaptive management program that regularly addresses new information and allows for modification of mitigation and/or monitoring measures as appropriate.
NMFS is also authorizing modifications to watchstander requirements, which do not affect current mitigation measures, for observed behavior of marine mammals during MTEs in the HSTT, AFTT, MITT, and GOA study areas. With these modifications the Navy would no longer be required to report individual marine mammal sighting information when mitigation is not being implemented during the MTEs. After 5 years of collecting marine mammal sighting data for all animals sighted during MTEs, NMFS and the Navy have determined that without the ability to obtain species information this data set does not provide for any meaningful analysis beyond that which may be possible using mitigation-related observations alone. The Navy and NMFS have thoroughly investigated several potential uses for the data prior to reaching this conclusion. Additionally, this reporting requirement places an undue administrative burden on ships watch teams, which was undue given the limited value of the information collected, as was described during the Adaptive Management Process. The Navy will continue to collect marine mammal sighting data during MTEs for every instance when any form of mitigation is employed such as powering down or securing sonar, maneuvering the ship, or delaying an event—in other words, in instances where animals are closer to the sound source around which mitigation measures are implemented. This data is useful in supporting mitigation effectiveness analyses and also may be helpful in supporting an understanding of the frequency with which marine mammals (generally, not by species) may be encountered or detected in close proximity to a particular source (
e.g.,
where the likelihood of auditory or other injury is higher). Additionally, the Navy will continue to implement its separate Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program, which includes studies that are specifically designed to contribute to our understanding of the animals affected and how Navy training and testing impacts them. These modifications shall be implemented through the revision of regulatory text for existing regulations governing the taking of marine mammals incidental to training and/or testing activities in HSTT, AFTT, MITT, and GOA study areas. Revisions to the regulatory text are provided in the regulatory text at the end of this final rule. There are no MTEs or marine mammal sighting reporting requirements associated with Navy training and testing activities in the NWTT study area, therefore this revision is not applicable in NWTT.
Description of the Specified Activity
The proposed rule (80 FR 31738, June 3, 2015) and NWTT FEIS/OEIS include a complete description of the Navy's specified training and testing activities incidental to which NMFS is authorizing take of marine mammals in this final rule. Sonar use and underwater detonations are the stressors most likely to result in impacts on marine mammals that could rise to the level of harassment. Detailed descriptions of these activities are provided in the NWTT FEIS/OEIS and LOA application (
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm
) and are summarized here.
Overview of Training Activities
The Navy routinely trains in the NWTT Study Area in preparation for national defense missions. Training activities and exercises covered in the Navy's LOA request are briefly described below, and in more detail within Chapter 2 of the NWTT FEIS/OEIS. 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:
• Anti-surface warfare (impulsive sources [underwater detonations])
• Anti-submarine warfare (non-impulsive sources [active sonar], impulsive underwater detonations)
• Mine warfare (non-impulsive sources, impulsive underwater detonations)
The Navy's activities in anti-air warfare, electronic warfare, and naval special warfare do not involve stressors that could result in harassment of marine mammals. Therefore, these activities are not discussed further. The analysis and rationale for excluding these warfare areas are contained in the NWTT FEIS/OEIS.
Overview of Testing Activities
Testing activities covered in the Navy's LOA request are briefly described below, and in more detail within Chapter 2 of the NWTT FEIS/OEIS. The Navy researches, develops, tests, and evaluates new platforms, systems and technologies. Many tests are conducted in realistic conditions at sea, and can range in scale from testing new software to operating portable devices to conducting tests of live weapons (such as the Service Weapon Test of a torpedo) to ensure they function as intended. 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 described above. Other testing activities are unique and are described within their specific testing categories. Because each test is conducted by a specific component of the Navy's research and acquisition community, which includes the Navy's Systems Commands and the Navy's scientific research organizations, the testing activities described in the LOA application are organized first by that particular organization as described below and in the order as presented.
The Navy describes and analyzes the effects of its testing activities within the NWTT FEIS/OEIS. In its assessment, the Navy concluded that acoustic stressors from the use of underwater acoustic sources and underwater detonations resulted in impacts on marine mammals that rose to the level of harassment as defined under the MMPA. Therefore, the LOA application for the NWTT Study Area provides the Navy's assessment of potential effects from these stressors in terms of the various activities that produce them.
The individual commands within the research and acquisition community included in the NWTT FEIS/OEIS and in the LOA application are:
• Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA). Within NAVSEA are the following field activities:
○ Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) Division, Keyport
○ Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division (NSWCCD), Detachment Puget Sound
○ NSWCCD Southeast Alaska Acoustic Measurement Facility (SEAFAC)
○ Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility
○ Various NAVSEA program offices
• Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR)
Description of Sonar, Ordnance, Targets, and Other Systems
The Navy uses a variety of sensors, platforms, weapons, and other devices to meet its mission. Training and testing with these systems may introduce acoustic (sound) energy into the environment. This section describes and organizes sonar systems, ordnance, munitions, targets, and other systems to facilitate understanding of the activities in which these systems are used. Underwater sound is described as one of two types for the purposes of the LOA application: Impulsive and non-impulsive. Sonar and similar sound producing systems are categorized as non-impulsive sound sources. Underwater detonations of explosives and other percussive events are impulsive sounds.
Sonar and Other Active Acoustic Sources
Modern sonar technology includes a variety of sonar sensor and processing systems. The simplest active sonar emits sound waves, or “pings,” sent out in multiple directions and the sound waves then reflect off of the target object in multiple directions. The sonar source calculates the time it takes for the reflected sound waves to return; this calculation determines the distance to the target object. More sophisticated active sonar systems emit a ping and then rapidly scan or listen to the sound waves in a specific area. This provides both distance to the target and directional information. Even more advanced sonar systems use multiple receivers to listen to echoes from several directions simultaneously and provide efficient detection of both direction and distance. The Navy rarely uses active sonar continuously throughout activities. When sonar is in use, the pings occur at intervals, referred to as a duty cycle, and the signals themselves are very short in duration. For example, sonar that emits a 1-second ping every 10 seconds has a 10-percent duty cycle. The Navy's largest hull-mounted mid-frequency sonar source nominally emits a 1-second ping every 50 seconds representing a 2% duty cycle. The Navy utilizes sonar systems and other acoustic sensors in support of a variety of mission requirements. Primary uses include the detection of and defense against submarines (anti-submarine warfare) and mines (mine warfare); safe navigation and effective communications; use of unmanned undersea vehicles; and oceanographic surveys. Sources of sonar and other active acoustic sources include surface ship sonar, sonobuoys, torpedoes, range pingers, and unmanned underwater vehicles.
Ordnance and Munitions
Most ordnance and munitions used during training and testing events fall into three basic categories: Projectiles (such as gun rounds), missiles (including rockets), and bombs. Ordnance can be further defined by their net explosive weight, which considers the type and quantity of the explosive substance without the packaging, casings, bullets, etc. Net explosive weight (NEW) is the trinitrotoluene (TNT) equivalent of energetic material, which is the standard measure of strength of bombs and other explosives. For example, a 12.7-centimeter (cm) shell fired from a Navy gun is analyzed at about 9.5 pounds (lb) (4.3 kilograms (kg)) of NEW. The Navy also uses non-explosive ordnance in place of high explosive ordnance in many training and testing events. Non-explosive ordnance look and perform similarly to high explosive ordnance, but lack the main explosive charge.
Defense Countermeasures
Naval forces depend on effective defensive countermeasures to protect themselves against missile and torpedo attack. Defensive countermeasures are devices designed to confuse, distract, and confound precision-guided munitions. Defensive countermeasures analyzed in the LOA application include acoustic countermeasures, which are used by surface ships and submarines to defend against torpedo attack. Acoustic countermeasures are either released from ships and submarines, or towed at a distance behind the ship.
Mine Warfare Systems
The Navy divides mine warfare systems into two categories: Mine detection and mine neutralization. Mine detection systems are used to locate, classify, and map suspected mines, on the surface, in the water column, or on the seafloor. The Navy analyzed the following mine detection systems for potential impacts to marine mammals:
• Towed or hull-mounted mine detection systems. These detection systems use acoustic and laser or video sensors to locate and classify suspect mines. Fixed and rotary wing platforms, ships, and unmanned vehicles are used for towed systems, which can rapidly assess large areas.
• Airborne Laser Mine Detection Systems. Airborne laser detection systems work in concert with neutralization systems. The detection system initially locates mines and a neutralization system is then used to relocate and neutralize the mine.
• Unmanned/remotely operated vehicles. These vehicles use acoustic and video or lasers to locate and classify mines and provide unique capabilities in nearshore littoral areas, surf zones, ports, and channels.
Mine neutralization systems disrupt, disable, or detonate mines to clear ports and shipping lanes, as well as littoral, surf, and beach areas in support of naval amphibious operations. Mine neutralization systems can clear individual mines or a large number of mines quickly. The Navy analyzed the following mine neutralization systems for potential impacts to marine mammals:
• Towed influence mine sweep systems. These systems use towed equipment that mimic a particular ship's magnetic and acoustic signature triggering the mine and causing it to explode.
• Towed mechanical mine sweeping systems. These systems tow a sweep wire to snag the line that attaches a moored mine to its anchor and then uses a series of cables and cutters to sever those lines. Once these lines are cut, the mines float to the surface where Navy personnel can neutralize the mines.
• Unmanned/remotely operated mine neutralization systems. Surface ships and helicopters operate these systems, which place explosive charges near or directly against mines to destroy the mine.
• Projectiles. Small- and medium-caliber projectiles, fired from surface ships or hovering helicopters, are used to neutralize floating and near-surface mines.
• Diver emplaced explosive charges. Operating from small craft, divers put explosive charges near or on mines to destroy the mine or disrupt its ability to function.
Explosive charges are used during mine neutralization system training activities; however, only non-explosive mines or mine shapes would be used.
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 1-3. 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, as with most explosives, 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 transmission, 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 1-4 of the LOA application and in the NWTT FEIS/OEIS. These sources generally meet the following criteria:
• Acoustic sources with frequencies greater than 200 kHz (based on known marine mammal hearing ranges)
• Sources with source levels less than 160 dB
Table 1—Impulsive Training and Testing Source Classes Analyzed
Source class
Representative munitions
Net explosive weight
(lbs)
E1
Medium-caliber projectiles
0.1-0.25
E3
Large-caliber projectiles
>0.5-2.5
E4
Improved Extended Echo Ranging Sonobuoy
>2.5-5.0
E5
5 in. (12.7 cm) projectiles
>5-10
E8
250 lb. bomb, lightweight torpedo
>60-100
E10
1,000 lb. bomb, Air-to-Surface Missile
>250-500
E11
650 lb. mine, heavyweight torpedo
>500-650
E12
2,000 lb. bomb
>650-1,000
Table 2—Non-Impulsive Training Source Classes Analyzed
Source class category
Source class
Description
Mid-Frequency (MF): Tactical and non-tactical sources that produce mid-frequency (1 to 10 kHz) signals
MF1
Active hull-mounted surface ship sonar (
e.g.
, AN/SQS-53C and AN/SQS-60).
MF3
Active hull-mounted submarine sonar (
e.g.
, AN/BQQ-10).
MF4
Active helicopter-deployed dipping sonar (
e.g.
, AN/AQS-22 and AN/AQS-13).
MF5
Active acoustic sonobuoys (
e.g.
, AN/SSQ-62 DICASS
2
).
MF11
Hull-mounted surface ship sonar with an active duty cycle greater than 80%.
High-Frequency (HF) and Very High-Frequency (VHF): Tactical and non-tactical sources that produce high-frequency (greater than 10 kHz but less than 200 kHz) signals
HF1
Active hull-mounted submarine sonar (
e.g.
, AN/BQQ-15).
HF4
Active mine detection, classification, and neutralization sonar (
e.g.
, AN/SQS-20).
HF6
Active sources (equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB).
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW): Tactical sources such as active sonobuoys and acoustic countermeasures systems used during ASW training activities
ASW2
MF active Multistatic Active Coherent (MAC) sonobuoy (
e.g.
, AN/SSQ-125).
ASW3
MF active towed active acoustic countermeasure systems (
e.g.
, AN/SLQ-25 NIXIE).
Table 3—Non-Impulsive Testing Source Classes Analyzed
Source class category
Source class
Description
Low-Frequency (LF): Sources that produce low-frequency (less than 1 kilohertz [kHz]) signals
LF4
Low-frequency sources equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB.
LF5
Low-frequency sources less than 180 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF): Tactical and non-tactical sources that produce mid-frequency (1 to 10 kHz) signals
MF1
Active hull-mounted surface ship sonar (
e.g.
, AN/SQS-53C and AN/SQS-60).
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 underwater sound signal devices (
e.g.
, MK-84).
MF8
Active sources (greater than 200 dB).
MF9
Active sources (equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB).
MF10
Active sources (greater than 160 dB, but less than 180 dB) not otherwise binned.
MF11
Hull-mounted surface ship sonar with an active duty cycle greater than 80%.
MF12
High duty cycle—variable depth sonar.
High-Frequency (HF) and Very High-Frequency (VHF): Tactical and non-tactical sources that produce high-frequency (greater than 10 kHz but less than 200 kHz) signals
HF1
Hull-mounted submarine sonar (
e.g.
, AN/BQQ-10).
HF3
Hull-mounted submarine sonar (classified).
HF5
1
Active sources (greater than 200 dB).
HF6
Active sources (equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB).
VHF2
Active sources with a frequency greater than 100 kHz, up to 200 kHz with a source level less than 200 dB.
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW): Tactical sources such as active sonobuoys and acoustic countermeasures systems used during the conduct of ASW testing activities
ASW1
Mid-frequency Deep Water Active Distributed System (DWADS).
ASW2
Mid-frequency Multistatic Active Coherent sonobuoy (
e.g.
, AN/SSQ-125)—sources analyzed by number of items (sonobuoys).
ASW2
Mid-frequency sonobuoy (
e.g.
, high duty cycle)—Sources that are analyzed by hours.
ASW3
Mid-frequency towed active acoustic countermeasure systems (
e.g.
, AN/SLQ-25).
ASW4
Mid-frequency expendable active acoustic device countermeasures (
e.g.
, MK-3).
Torpedoes (TORP): Source classes associated with the active acoustic signals produced by torpedoes
TORP1
Lightweight torpedo (
e.g.
, MK-46, MK-54).
TORP2
Heavyweight torpedo (
e.g.
, MK-48, electric vehicles).
Acoustic Modems (M): Systems used to transmit data acoustically through water
M3
Mid-frequency acoustic modems and similar sources (up to 210 dB) (
e.g.
, Underwater Emergency Warning System, Aid to Navigation).
Swimmer Detection Sonar (SD): Systems used to detect divers and submerged swimmers
SD1
High-frequency sources with short pulse lengths, used for the detection of swimmers and other objects for the purpose of port security.
Synthetic Aperture Sonar (SAS): Sonar in which active acoustic signals are post-processed to form high-resolution images of the seafloor.
SAS2
High frequency unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV) (
e.g.
, UUV payloads).
1
Notes:
(1) For this analysis, HF5 consists of only one source; the modeling was conducted specifically for that source. (2) DICASS = Directional Command Activated Sonobuoy System Proposed Action.
Training and Testing
The training and testing activities that the Navy proposes to conduct in the NWTT Study Area are listed in Tables 4-6. Detailed information about each activity (stressor, training or testing event, description, sound source, duration, and geographic location) can be found in the LOA application and in Appendix A of the NWTT FEIS/OEIS. NMFS used the detailed information in the LOA application and in Appendix A of the NWTT FEIS/OEIS to analyze the potential impacts from training and testing activities on marine mammals. The Navy's activities are anticipated to meet training and testing needs in the years 2015-2020.
Correction to Sonar Testing Activities
During the development of the Navy's NWTT Draft, Supplemental and Final EIS/OEIS, 8 proposed life cycle pierside sonar testing events involving surface ships at Naval Station (NS) Everett were incorrectly modeled as 8 life cycle pierside sonar testing events involving submarines at Naval Base Kitsap (NBK)—Bremerton. The Navy identified this error while considering, at the request of NMFS, the overlap of NWTT activities within biologically important areas. Although documents released to the public for comment, including the NWTT Draft, Supplemental and Final EIS/OEIS, the Navy's LOA application, and NMFS' proposed rule qualitatively describe life cycle pierside sonar testing events as occurring at both NBK—Bremerton and Naval Station Everett, the quantitative analysis of impacts on marine mammals that could result from these activities is based on modeling data for more events occurring at NBK—Bremerton and fewer events than
required occurring at Naval Station Everett. Additionally, both the FEIS/OEIS and the proposed rule already included and considered quantitative analysis for Naval Station Everett pierside surface ship sonar maintenance training events, events which are similar in both conduct and effects to life cycle pierside sonar testing events.
The Navy corrected the error by eliminating 8 life cycle pierside sonar testing events involving submarines and their associated hours at NBK—Bremerton and adding 8 life cycle pierside sonar testing events involving surface ships and their associated hours to Naval Station Everett. This correction results in a reduction of hours in the MF3 bin (submarine sonar) and an addition of hours to the MF1 bin (surface ship sonar). Life cycle pierside sonar testing events involving submarines require use of up to 2 hours of MF3 sonar per event. Life cycle pierside sonar testing events involving surface ships require use of up to 4 hours of MF1 sonar per event. Given this difference between submarine and surface ship life cycle pierside sonar testing, elimination of the 8 submarine events at NBK—Bremerton will result in an overall reduction of 16 MF3 hours and addition of the 8 surface ship events at Naval Station Everett will result in an overall increase of 32 MF1 hours.
These revisions have been incorporated in this final rule (Table 5). Further, the updated predicted exposures resulting from this correction are included in the estimated Take of Marine Mammals section of this rule and depicted in Table 18, and the resulting analysis is discussed in the Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section of this rule.
Summary of Non-Impulsive and Impulsive Sources
Table 4 provides a quantitative annual summary of training activities by sonar and other active acoustic source class analyzed in the Navy's LOA request.
Table 4—Annual Hours of Sonar and Other Active Acoustic Sources Used During Training Within the NWTT Study Area
Source class category
Source class
Annual use
Mid-Frequency (MF) Active sources from 1 to 10 kHz
MF1
166 hours.
MF3
70 hours.
MF4
4 hours.
MF5
896 items.
MF11
16 hours.
High-Frequency (HF) Tactical and non-tactical sources that produce signals greater than 10kHz but less than 100kHz
HF1
48 hours.
HF4
384 hours.
HF6
192 hours.
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)
ASW2
720 items.
ASW3
78 hours.
Table 5 provides a quantitative annual summary of testing activities by sonar and other active sources analyzed in the Navy's LOA request.
Table 5—Annual Hours of Sonar and Other Active Acoustic Sources Used During Testing Within the NWTT Study Area
Source class category
Source class
Annual use
Low-Frequency (LF): Sources that produce signals less than 1 kHz
LF4
110 hours.
LF5
71 hours.
Mid-Frequency (MF): Tactical and non-tactical sources that produce signals from 1 to 10 kHz
MF1
32 hours.
MF3
145 hours.
MF4
10 hours.
MF5
273 items.
MF6
12 items.
MF8
40 hours.
MF9
1,183 hours.
MF10
1,156 hours.
MF11
34 hours.
MF12
24 hours.
High-Frequency (HF) and Very High-Frequency (VHF): Tactical and non-tactical sources that produce signals greater than 10 kHz but less than 200 kHz
HF1
161 hours.
HF3
145 hours.
HF5
1
360 hours.
HF6
2,099 hours.
Very High-Frequency (VHF): Tactical and non-tactical sources that produce signals greater than 100 kHz but less than 200 kHz
VHF2
35 hours.
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW): Tactical sources used during ASW training and testing activities
ASW1
16 hours.
ASW2
2
64 hours.
ASW2
2
170 items.
ASW3
444 hours.
ASW4
1,182 hours.
Torpedoes (TORP): Source classes associated with active acoustic signals produced by torpedoes
TORP1
315 items.
TORP2
299 items.
Acoustic Modems (M): Transmit data acoustically through the water
M3
1,519 hours.
Swimmer Detection Sonar (SD): Used to detect divers and submerged swimmers
SD1
757 hours.
Synthetic Aperture Sonar (SAS): Sonar in which active acoustic signals are post-processed to form high-resolution images of the seafloor
SAS2
798 hours.
1
For this analysis, HF5 consists of only one source; the modeling was conducted specifically for that source.
2
The ASW2 bin contains sources that are analyzed by hours and some that are analyzed by count of items. There is no overlap of the numbers in the two rows.
Table 6 provides a quantitative annual summary of training explosive source classes analyzed in the Navy's LOA request.
Table 6—Proposed Annual Number of Impulsive Source Detonations During Training in the NWTT Study Area
Explo-
sive
class
Net
explosive
weight
(NEW)
Annual
in-water
detonations
(training)
E1
(0.1 lb.-0.25 lb.)
48
E3
(>0.5 lb.-2.5 lb.)
6
E5
(>5 lb.-10 lb.)
80
E10
(>250 lb.-500 lb.)
4
E12
(>650 lb.-1000 lb.)
10
Table 7 provides a quantitative annual summary of testing explosive source classes analyzed in the Navy's LOA request.
Table 7—Proposed Annual Number of Impulsive Source Detonations During Testing in the NWTT Study Area
Explo-
sive
class
Net
explosive
weight
(NEW)
Annual
in-water
detonations
(testing)
E3
(>0.5 lb.-2.5 lb.)
72.
E4
(>2.5 lb.-5 lb.)
140 (70 buoys).
E8
(>60 lb.-100 lb.)
3.
E11
(>500 lb.-650 lb.)
3.
Other Stressors—Vessel Strikes
In addition to potential impacts to marine mammals from activities during which explosives or sonar and other active acoustic sources are used, the Navy also considered potential ship strike impacts to marine mammals, which are discussed below. The Navy concluded that no additional stressors would result in a take and require authorization under the MMPA.
Vessel strikes may occur from surface operations and sub-surface operations (excluding bottom crawling, unmanned underwater vehicles). Vessels used as part of the Navy's NWTT training and testing activities (proposed action) include ships, submarines and boats ranging in size from small, 16-foot (ft.) (5-meter [m]) rigid hull inflatable boats to aircraft carriers with lengths up to 1,092 ft. (333 m). Representative Navy vessel types, lengths, and speeds used in both training and testing activities are shown in Table 8.
Table 8—Representative Navy Vessel Types, Lengths, and Speeds Used Within the NWTT Study Area
Vessel type
Example(s)
Length
Typical
operating
speed
Max speed
Aircraft Carrier
Aircraft Carrier
>900 ft (>300 m)
10-15 knots
30+ knots.
Surface Combatants
Cruisers, Destroyers, Littoral Combat Ships
330-660 ft (100-200 m)
10-15 knots
30+ knots.
Support Craft/Other
Range Support Craft, Combat Rubber Raiding Craft, Landing Craft, Utility; Submarine Tenders, Yard Patrol Craft, Protection Vessels, Barge
16-250 ft (5-80 m)
Variable
20 knots.
Support Craft/Other—Specialized High Speed
Patrol Coastal Ships, Patrol Boats, Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat, High Speed Protection Vessels
33-130 ft (10-40 m)
Variable
50+ knots.
Submarines
Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarines, Attack Submarines, Guided Missile Submarines
330-660 ft (100-200 m)
8-13 knots
20+ knots.
Large Navy ships greater than 65 ft. (20 m) generally operate at speeds in the range of 10-15 knots for fuel conservation when cruising. Submarines generally operate at speeds in the range of 8-13 knots during transit and slower for certain tactical maneuvers. Small craft (for purposes of this discussion less than 65 ft. [20 m] in length) have much more variable speeds, dependent on the mission. While these speeds are representative, some vessels operate outside of these speeds due to unique training, testing, 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, etc.
The number of Navy vessels in the Study Area varies based on training and testing schedules. Most activities include either one or two vessels, with an average of one vessel per activity, and last from a few hours up to 2 weeks. Vessel movement and the use of in-water devices as part of the proposed action would be concentrated in certain portions of the Study Area (such as Western Behm Canal [Alaska] or Hood Canal in the inland waters portion of the
Study Area) but may occur anywhere within the Study Area.
The Navy analyzed the potential environmental impacts of approximately 286 ongoing annual Maritime Security Operations events in Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Included in this activity are approximately 226 annual Transit Protection System training events. These critical events have been occurring since 2006 and exercise the Navy's Transit Protection System, where up to nine escort vessels provide protection during all nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) transits between the vessel's homeport and the dive/surface point in the Strait of Juan de Fuca or Dabob Bay. During a Transit Protection System event, the security escorts enforce a moving 1,000yard security zone around the SSBN to prevent other vessels from approaching while the SSBN is in transit on the surface. These events include security escort vessels, U.S. Coast Guard personnel and their ancillary equipment and weapons systems. The Transit Protection System involves the movement of security vessels and also includes periodic exercises and firearms training (with blank rounds). Given the relative slow speed of the escorted and blocking vessels and multiple lookouts, no marine mammal vessel strikes are expected as a result of these events.
In addition to Transit Protection System events, the Navy would conduct approximately 60 annual maritime security escort training events with Coastal Riverine Group boats that conduct force protection for designated vessels and movements. These Coastal Riverine Group boat crews train to protect ships while entering and leaving ports. Other missions include ensuring compliance with vessel security zones for ships in port and at anchor, conducting patrols to counter waterborne threats, and conducting harbor approach defense. Special consideration will be given to the presence of marine mammals during training events. Training will be paused until marine mammals have cleared the area, or the training area will be temporarily relocated.
Navy policy (Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 3100.6H) requires Navy vessels to report all whale strikes. That information is collected by the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Energy and Environmental Readiness Division (OPNAV N45) and cumulatively provided to NMFS on an annual basis. In addition, the Navy and NMFS also have standardized regional reporting protocols for communicating to regional NMFS stranding coordinators information on any Navy vessel strikes as soon as possible. These communication procedures will remain in place for the duration of the LOAs. There are no records of any Navy vessel strikes to marine mammals during training or testing activities in the NWTT Study Area.
Duration and Location
Training and testing activities will be conducted in the NWTT Study Area for the reasonably foreseeable future. The description of the location of authorized activities has not changed from what was provided in the proposed rule (80 FR 31737, June 3, 2015; pages 31747-31749) and NWTT FEIS/OEIS (
http://www.nwtteis.com
). For a complete description, please see those documents. The Study Area is composed of established maritime operating and warning areas in the eastern North Pacific Ocean region, including areas of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, and Western Behm Canal in southeastern Alaska. The Study Area includes air and water space within and outside Washington state waters, and outside the state waters of Oregon and Northern California. The Study Area includes four existing range complexes and facilities: The Northwest Training Range Complex (NWTRC), the Keyport Range Complex, Carr Inlet Operations Area, and SEAFAC. In addition to these range complexes, the Study Area also includes Navy pierside locations where sonar maintenance and testing occurs as part of overhaul, modernization, maintenance and repair activities at NAVBASE Kitsap, Bremerton; NAVBASE Kitsap, Bangor; and Naval Station Everett.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activities
Twenty-nine marine mammal species are known to occur in the Study Area, including seven mysticetes (baleen whales), 16 odontocetes (dolphins and toothed whales), and six pinnipeds (seals and sea lions). The Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activities section was included in the proposed rule (80 FR 31737, June 3, 2015, 2014; pages 31749-31750). Table 9 of the proposed rule provided a list of marine mammals with possible or confirmed occurrence within the NWTT Study Area, including stock, abundance, and status.
The proposed rule, the Navy's LOA application, and the NWTT FEIS/OEIS include a complete description of information on the status, distribution, abundance, vocalizations, density estimates, and general biology of marine mammal species in the Study Area. In addition, NMFS publishes annual stock assessment reports for marine mammals, including some stocks that occur within the Study Area (
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals
).
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals
In the Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals section of the proposed rule (80 FR 31737, June 3, 2015; pages 31752-31769), 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. That information has not changed and is not repeated here.
Mitigation
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 are minimized by reducing impacts on individual marine mammals, not all takes have a reasonable potential for translating 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 reasonably likely to contribute 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.
In
Conservation Council for Hawaii
v.
National Marine Fisheries Service,
No. 1:13-cv-00684 (D. Hawaii March 31, 2015), the court stated that NMFS “appear[s] to think that [it] satisf[ies] the statutory `least practicable adverse impact' requirement with a `negligible impact' finding.” In light of the court's decision, we take this opportunity to make clear our position that the
“negligible impact” and “least practicable adverse impact” requirements are distinct, even though the focus of both is on population-level impacts.
A population-level impact is an impact on the population numbers (survival) or growth and reproductive rates (recruitment) of a particular marine mammal species or stock. As we noted in the preamble to our general MMPA implementing regulations, not every population-level impact violates the negligible impact requirement. As we explained, the negligible impact standard does not require a finding that the anticipated take will have “no effect” on population numbers or growth rates: “The statutory standard does not require that the same recovery rate be maintained, rather that no significant effect on annual rates of recruitment or survival occurs . . . [T]he key factor is the significance of the level of impact on rates of recruitment or survival. Only insignificant impacts on long-term population levels and trends can be treated as negligible.” See 54 FR 40338, 40341-42 (September 29, 1989). Nevertheless, while insignificant impacts on population numbers or growth rates may satisfy the negligible impact requirement, such impacts still must be mitigated, to the extent practicable, under the “least practicable adverse impact” requirement. Thus, the negligible impact and least practicable adverse impact requirements are clearly distinct, even though both focus on population-level effects.
As explained in the proposed rule, any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to accomplishing one or more of the general goals listed below:
a. Avoid or minimize injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals b, c, and d may contribute to this goal).
b. Reduce the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to received levels of MFAS/HFAS, 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. Reduce the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed to received levels of MFAS/HFAS, 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. Reduce the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to received levels of MFAS/HFAS, 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. Avoid or minimize adverse effects to marine mammal habitat (including acoustic 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—increase the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation (shut-down zone, etc.).
Our final evaluation of measures that meet one or more of the above goals includes consideration of the following factors in relation to one another: The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the mitigation measures is expected to reduce population-level impacts to marine mammal species and stocks and impacts to their habitat; the proven or likely efficacy of the measures; and the practicability of the suite of measures for applicant implementation, including consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
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 mammals. NMFS described the Navy's proposed mitigation measures in detail in the proposed rule (80 FR 31738, June 3, 2015; pages 31771-31780). NMFS worked with the Navy in the development of the Navy's initially proposed measures, and they are informed by years of experience and monitoring. As described in the Mitigation Conclusions below and in responses to comments, and in the NWTT FEIS/OEIS, some additional measures were considered and analyzed, but ultimately not chosen for implementation. However, some area-specific mitigation measures considered by the Navy and NMFS for the Navy's low use of mid-frequency active sonar and other activities in certain areas of particular importance to marine mammals have been clarified or updated below (see
Consideration of Time/Area Limitation
) and in the Comments and Responses section of this rule. These additional area-specific measures are also included in the regulatory text (see § 218.144 Mitigation) at the end of this rule. Below are the mitigation measures as agreed upon by the Navy and NMFS. For additional details regarding the Navy's mitigation measures, see Chapter 5 in the NWTT FEIS/OEIS.
• At least one Lookout during the training and testing activities provided in Table 9;
• Mitigation zones ranging from 70 yards (yd) (64 m) to 2.5 nautical miles (nm) during applicable activities that involve the use of 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 (Table 10).
• For all training activities and for testing activities involving surface ships, vessels shall maneuver to keep at least 500 yd (457 m) away from whales and 200 yd (183 m) away from all other marine mammals (except bow riding dolphins, and pinnipeds hauled out on man-made navigational and port structures and vessels) during vessel movements. These requirements do not apply if a vessel's safety is threatened and to the extent that vessels are restricted in their ability to maneuver (
e.g.
launching and recovering aircraft or landing craft, towing activities, mooring, etc.) (Table 10).
• For testing activities not involving surface ships (
e.g.
range craft), vessels shall maneuver to keep at least 100 yd (91 m) away from marine mammals (except bow-riding dolphins, pinnipeds hauled out on man-made navigational and port structures and vessels, and pinnipeds during test body retrieval) during vessel movements. These requirements do not apply if a vessel's safety is threatened and to the extent that vessels are restricted in their ability to maneuver (
e.g.
launching and recovering aircraft or landing craft, towing activities, mooring, etc.) (Table 10).
• The Navy will ensure that towed in-water devices being towed from manned platforms avoid coming within a mitigation zone of 250 yd (229 m) for all training events and testing activities involving surface ships, and a mitigation zone of 100 yd (91 m) for testing activities not involving surface ships (
e.g.
range craft) around any observed marine mammal, providing it is safe to do so.
• Mitigation zones ranging from 200 yd (183 m) to 1,000 yd (914 m) during
activities that involve the use of non-explosive practice munitions.
• The Navy is clarifying its existing speed protocol: While in transit, Navy vessels shall be alert at all times, use extreme caution, and proceed at a “safe speed” so that the vessel can take proper and effective action to avoid a collision with any sighted object or disturbance, including any marine mammal or sea turtle and can be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.
Table 9—Lookout Mitigation Measures for Training and Testing Activities Within the NWTT Study Area
Number of lookouts
Training and testing activities
1-2
Low-Frequency and Hull Mounted Mid-Frequency Active Sonar.
1-2
High-Frequency and Non-Hull Mounted Mid-Frequency Active Sonar.
1
Improved Extended Echo Ranging Sonobuoys (testing only).
1
Explosive Signal Underwater Sound Buoys Using >0.5-2.5 Pound Net Explosive Weight.
2
Mine Countermeasures and Neutralization Activities Using Positive Control Firing Devices (training only).
1-2
Gunnery Exercises Using Surface Target (training only).
1
Missile Exercises Using Surface Target (training only).
1 (minimum)
Bombing Exercises—Explosive (training only).
1-2
Torpedo—Explosive (testing only).
1
1
Weapons Firing Noise During Gunnery Exercises (training only).
1 (minimum)
Vessel Movement.
1
Towed In-Water Device.
1
Gunnery Exercises—Non-Explosive (training only).
1
Bombing Exercises—Non-Explosive (training only).
1
For explosive torpedo tests from aircraft, the Navy will have one Lookout positioned in an aircraft; for explosive torpedoes tested from a surface ship, the Navy is proposing to use the Lookout procedures currently implemented for hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar activities.
Table 10—Predicted Ranges to TTS, PTS, and Recommended Mitigation Zones for Each Activity Category
Activity category
Bin (representative source)
1
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
2
SQS-53 ASW hull-mounted sonar (MF1)
4,251 yd. (3,887 m) for one ping
100 yd. (91 m) for one ping
Not applicable
Training: 1,000 yd. (914 m) and 500 yd. (457 m) power downs and 200 yd. (183 m) shutdown for cetaceans, 100 yd. (91 m) mitigation zone for pinnipeds (excludes haulout areas).
Testing: 1,000 yd. (914 m) and 500 yd. (457 m) power downs for sources that can be powered down and 200 yd. (183 m) shutdown for cetaceans, 100 yd. (91 m) for pinnipeds (excludes haulout areas).
High-Frequency and Non-Hull-Mounted Mid-Frequency Active Sonar
2
AQS-22 ASW dipping sonar (MF4)
226 yd. (207 m) for one ping
20 yd. (18 m) for one ping
Not applicable
Training: 200 yd. (183 m).
Testing: 200 yd. (183 m) for cetaceans, 100 yd. (91 m) for pinnipeds (excludes haulout areas).
Explosive and Impulsive Sound
Improved Extended Echo Ranging Sonobuoys
Explosive sonobuoy (E4)
237 yd. (217 m)
133 yd. (122 m)
235 yd. (215 m)
Training: n/a.
Testing: 600 yd. (549 m).
Signal Underwater Sound (SUS) buoys using >0.5-2.5 lb. NEW
Explosive sonobuoy (E3)
178 yd. (163 m)
92 yd. (84 m)
214 yd. (196 m)
Training: 350 yd. (320 m).
Testing: 350 yd. (320 m).
Mine Countermeasure and Neutralization Activities (positive control)
>0.5 to 2.5 lb NEW (E3)
495 yd. (453 m)
145 yd. (133 m)
373 yd. (341 m)
Training: 400 yd. (336 m).
Testing: n/a.
Gunnery Exercises—Small- and Medium-Caliber (Surface Target)
25 mm projectile (E1)
72 yd. (66 m)
48 yd. (44 m)
73 yd. (67 m)
Training: 200 yd. (183 m).
Testing: n/a.
Gunnery Exercises—Large-Caliber (Surface Target)
5 in. projectiles (E5 at the surface)
3
210 yd. (192 m)
110 yd. (101 m)
177 yd. (162 m)
Training: 600 yd. (549 m).
Testing: n/a.
Missile Exercises up to 500 lb. NEW (Surface Target)
Harpoon missile (E10)
1,164 yd. (1,065 m)
502 yd. (459 m)
955 yd. (873 m)
Training: 2,000 yd. (1.8 km).
Testing: n/a.
Bombing Exercises
MK-84 2,000 lb. bomb (E12)
1,374 yd. (1,256 m)
591 yd. (540 m)
1,368 yd. (1,251 m)
Training: 2,500 yd. (2.3 km).
Testing: n/a.
Lightweight Torpedo (Explosive) Testing
MK-46 torpedo (E8)
497 yd. (454 m)
245 yd. (224 m)
465 yd. (425 m)
Training: n/a.
Testing: 2,100 yd. (1.9 km).
Heavyweight Torpedo (Explosive) Testing
MK-48 torpedo (E11)
1,012 yd. (926 m)
472 yd. (432 m)
885 yd. (809 m)
Training: n/a.
Testing: 2,100 yd. (1.9 km).
1
This table does not provide an inclusive list of source bins; bins presented here represent the source bin with the largest range to effects within the given activity category.
2
High-frequency and non-hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar category includes unmanned underwater vehicle and torpedo testing activities.
3
The representative source Bin E5 has different range to effects depending on the depth of activity occurrence (at the surface or at various depths).
Notes:
ASW = anti-submarine warfare, in. = inch, km = kilometer, m = meter, mm = millimeter, n/a = Not Applicable, NEW = net explosive weight, PTS = permanent threshold shift, TTS = temporary threshold shift, yd. = yard.
Consideration of Time/Area Limitations
Area-Specific Mitigation
The Navy has previously placed certain voluntary limitations on their activities in Puget Sound and coastal areas. These limitations have been incorporated into the final rule.
Puget Sound
MFAS Training: Currently, the Navy is not conducting nor is it proposing to conduct training with mid-frequency active hull-mounted sonar on vessels while underway in Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The Navy's process since 2003 requires approval prior to operating mid-frequency active hull-mounted sonar in Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The Navy will continue the permission and approval process, in place since 2003, through U.S. Pacific Fleet's designated authority for all mid-frequency active hull-mounted sonar on vessels while training underway in Puget Sound and Strait of Juan de Fuca.
Pierside Maintenance/Testing of Sonar Systems: Pierside maintenance and testing of sonar systems within Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca will also require approval by U.S. Pacific Fleet's designated authority or System Command designated authority as applicable and must be conducted in accordance with Navy's Protective Measures Assessment Protocol (PMAP) for ship and submarine active sonar use, to include use of lookouts. Use of active sonar for anti-terrorism force protection or for safe navigation within the Puget Sound or Strait of Juan de Fuca, or for testing activities within the Dabob Bay Range is always permitted for safety of ship/national security reasons. This scheme has been functioning appropriately since 2003 and there has been, as reflected in annual reports submitted to NMFS for the Northwest Training Range Complex, limited active sonar use for maintenance and testing across Puget Sound and no use for training purposes has been approved in that timeframe.
Civilian Port Defense Exercise (Maritime Homeland Defense/Security Mine Countermeasure Exercise): Prior to Maritime Homeland Defense/Security Mine Countermeasure Integrated Exercises, the Navy will conduct pre-event planning and training to ensure environmental awareness of all exercise participants. When this event is proposed to be conducted in Puget Sound, Navy event planners will consult with Navy biologists who will contact NMFS (Protected Resources Division, West Coast Marine Species Branch Chief) during the planning process in order to determine likelihood of gray whale or southern resident killer whale presence in the proposed exercise area as planners consider specifics of the event.
Non-Explosive Gunnery Exercises: One gunnery exercise, Small Boat Attack, involves only blank rounds and no targets. However, because of the exercise location in Puget Sound, prior to Small Boat Attack training, the Navy will conduct pre-event planning and training to ensure environmental awareness of all exercise participants. When this event is proposed to be conducted in and around Naval Station Everett, Naval Base Kitsap Bangor, or Naval Base Kitsap Bremerton in Puget Sound, Navy event planners will consult with Navy biologists who will contact NMFS early in the planning process in order to determine the extent marine mammals may be present in the immediate vicinity of proposed exercise area as planners consider the specifics of the event.
Mine Neutralization: The Navy conducts Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Mine Neutralization events in only two designated locations within the Inland Waters of the NWTT Study Area. A process has been in place requiring approval from U.S. Third Fleet prior to conducting EOD underwater detonations. The Navy will continue the permission and approval process through U.S. Third Fleet for in-water explosives training conducted at Hood Canal or Crescent Harbor.
Coastal Areas
The Navy will conduct Missile Exercises using high explosives at least 50 nm from shore in the NWTRC Offshore Area. The Navy will conduct BOMBEX (high explosive munitions) events at least 50 nm from shore, and will conduct BOMBEX (non-explosive practice munitions) events at least 20 nm from shore.
Feeding and Migration Areas
The Navy's and NMFS' analysis of effects to marine mammals considers emergent science regarding locations where cetaceans are known to engage in specific activities (
e.g.,
feeding, breeding/calving, or migration) at certain times of the year that are important to individual animals as well as populations of marine mammals (see discussion in Van Parijs, 2015). Where data were available, Van Parijs (2015) identified areas that are important in this way and named the areas Biologically Important Area (BIA). It is important to note that the BIAs were not meant to define exclusionary zones, nor were they meant to be locations that
serve as sanctuaries from human activity, or areas analogous to marine protected areas (see Ferguson
et al.
(2015a) regarding the envisioned purpose for the BIA designations). The delineation of BIAs does not have direct or immediate regulatory consequences, although it is appropriate to consider them as part of the body of science that may inform mitigation decisions, depending on the circumstances. The intention was that the BIAs would serve as resource management tools and that their boundaries be dynamic and considered along with any new information as well as, “existing density estimates, range-wide distribution data, information on population trends and life history parameters, known threats to the population, and other relevant information” (Van Parijs, 2015).
The Navy and NMFS have supported and will continue to support the Cetacean and Sound Mapping project, including providing representation on the Cetacean Density and Distribution Mapping Working Group (CetMap) developing the BIAs, which informed NMFS' identification of BIAs. The same marine mammal density data present in the Navy's Density Database Technical Report (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2014) and used in the analysis for the NWTT FEIS/OEIS and this rule were used in the development of BIAs. The final products, including U.S. West Coast BIAs, from this mapping effort were completed and published in March 2015 (Aquatic Mammals, 2015; Calambokidis
et al.,
2015; Ferguson
et al.,
2015a, 2015b; Van Parijs, 2015). 131 BIAs for 24 marine mammal species, stocks, or populations in seven regions within U.S. waters were identified (Ferguson
et al.,
2015a). BIAs in the West Coast of the continental U.S. with the potential to overlap portions of the Study Area include the following feeding and migration areas: Northern Puget Sound Feeding Area for gray whales (March-May); Northwest Feeding Area for gray whales (May-November); Northbound Migration Phase A for gray whales (January-July); Northbound Migration Phase B for gray whales (March-July); Northern Washington Feeding Area for humpback whales (May-November); Stonewall and Heceta Bank Feeding Area for humpback whales (May-November); and Point St. George Feeding Area for humpback whales (July-November) (Calambokidis
et al.,
2015).
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. BIAs are useful tools for planning and impact assessments and are being provided to the public via this Web site:
www.cetsound.noaa.gov.
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, nor does it have direct or immediate regulatory consequences.
During the April 2014 annual adaptive management meeting in Washington, DC, NMFS and the Navy discussed the BIAs that might overlap with portions of the NWTT Study Area, what Navy activities take place in these areas (in the context of what their effects on marine mammals might be or whether additional mitigation might be 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). Upon request by NMFS the Navy prepared an assessment of these BIAs, including the degree of spatial overlap of their action areas and activities as well as an analysis of potential impacts or lack of impacts for each BIA. The Navy determined that there was some very limited, to no direct spatial overlap with the marine mammal feeding and migration areas for the majority of the NWTT Study Area (as depicted in Figures 3.4-2—3.4-4 of the NWTT FEIS/OEIS). There is even less overlap with the actual training and testing activities based on historical training and testing profiles. The majority of overlap involves vessel transit activity rather than actual acoustic training and testing activities. The following paragraphs go into more detail on the spatial and activity overlap with marine mammal feeding and migration areas.
Spatial Overlap of NWTT Study Area and BIAs
Gray whale areas: There is no direct spatial overlap between the Study Area and four of the offshore gray whale feeding areas—Grays Harbor, WA; Depoe Bay, OR; Cape Blanco and Orford Reef, OR; and Pt. St. George, CA. The NWTT Study Area does overlap with the newly designated offshore gray whale Northwest WA feeding area and the Northern Puget Sound gray whale feeding area. There is no overlap of the gray whale migrations corridor(s) and the NWTT Study Area, with the exception of a portion of the NW coast of Washington approximately from Pacific Beach (WA) and extending north to the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
Humpback whale areas: The offshore Northern WA humpback whale feeding area is located entirely within the Study Area boundaries. The humpback whale feeding area at Stonewall and Hecta Bank only partially overlaps with the Study Area, and the feeding area at Point St. George has extremely limited overlap with the Study Area.
Training and Testing Activity Overlap
Gray whale areas: The gray whale NW Washington feeding area abuts to the shoreline of the NW coast of WA and lies adjacent to the main shipping channel between the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Pacific Ocean. There is a small likelihood of Navy vessel movement in the gray whale feeding area mapped along the northern coast of Washington as ships transit to the offshore training and testing areas. Based on approximate historically used locations and the proposed training and testing activities described in the NWTT FEIS/OEIS, there is no direct spatial overlap of any training or testing activities within this feeding area. The majority of activities occur greater than 12 nm offshore, thus significantly reducing the potential for overlap. Furthermore, the Navy's LOA request describes mitigation measures that it will implement to avoid vessel strikes, such as continuing to use extreme caution and a safe speed when transiting, maneuvering to keep at least 500 yards from whales observed in a vessel's path, and not approaching whales head-on, provided it is safe to do so. The Navy will also be required to report any vessel strike. The Navy and NMFS concluded that these mitigation measures in addition to historical training and testing profiles indicate that additional mitigations are not warranted for this feeding area.
Vessel movement associated with both training and testing activities is likely to occur within the gray whale feeding area in Northern Puget Sound. Navy ships cannot avoid transiting through this area in order to exit the Puget Sound. Figure 3.0-5 in the NWTT FEIS/OIES depicts average ship traffic density within the major shipping routes within the Pacific Northwest. Overall vessel traffic near Everett, whose port is within or adjacent to the Northern Puget Sound feeding area, is relatively low compared to other inland water areas. The Navy's proportion of the total vessel traffic is extremely minimal with only 6 surface ships
homeported at Naval Station Everett. Therefore, while there is overlap, the potential for Navy vessels to interact with feeding gray whales within this area is low, especially given the short time period (March-May) that whales will be present. The Navy's request describes mitigation measures that it will implement to avoid vessel strikes, such as continuing to use extreme caution and a safe speed when transiting, maneuvering to keep at least 500 yards from whales observed in a vessel's path, and not approaching whales head-on, provided it is safe to do so. The Navy will also be required to report any vessel strike. (Note that the Navy does not find vessel strikes likely to occur given there is no recorded occurrence of vessel strike of any species of marine mammal, including gray whales, by Navy ships during training or testing in the Northwest).
The following training and testing activities occur at Naval Station Everett which appears to be located within the Northern Puget Sound gray whale feeding area; annual pierside sonar maintenance training, annual life-cycle hull-mounted sonar testing, and Maritime Homeland Defense/Security Mine Countermeasure exercises which could occur once every other year (3 events out of 5 years). Acoustic emissions would propagate into this feeding area from these activities. However it is highly unlikely that gray whales would be within the vicinity of the piers or the shorelines around Naval Station Everett based on historical data of their presence (Calambokidis
et al.,
2015). In the case of Maritime Homeland Defense/Security Mine Countermeasure exercises, acoustic emissions would be very infrequent, transitory, and happen with a high degree of temporal variability; activities would occur for a limited time (less than 2 weeks) and generally utilize HF and VHF active sonar for mine detection that operates outside of the functional hearing and vocalization range for mysticetes, and has less acoustic energy and shorter propagation distances. Based on the acoustic modeling potentially one gray whale take by TTS could occur from the activities at Naval Station Everett. However, since the scheduling of these activities is dependent upon deployment cycles and maintenance schedules the activities may not occur during periods when gray whales are present within this area for feeding. Further, Navy mitigation measures for acoustic activities include avoiding the conduct of acoustic and explosive activities in the immediate vicinity of all marine mammals, including gray whales, and include power down and shutdown procedures to reduce the potential for exposures to whales from sonar events.
Given this area's location in Puget Sound, the vast majority of sound and disturbance in the area will be the result of non-Navy vessel traffic. As such, precluding Navy activity at Naval Station Everett and in Northern Puget Sound would be of little to no biological benefit to the gray whales. Furthermore, given pending overseas deployment needs and individual ship readiness cycles to support those deployments, the time of year when maintenance occurs cannot be proscribed. As for the Maritime Homeland Defense exercise, the location in which it would occur provides realistic conditions necessary to effectively train personnel to protect a major port and the vital assets (ships, cargo) and shipping channels near those ports. This training event, which may include a pierside component, cannot be relocated without losing realism given the ships/cargo and transit lanes requiring protection are in fixed locations. Moreover, as described in the area-specific mitigation section above, the Navy will require approval from designated authorities prior to conducting mine countermeasure and neutralization underwater detonations at Hood Canal or Crescent Harbor, hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar training on vessels while underway in Puget Sound and the Strat of Juan de Fuca, and pierside maintenance or testing in Puget Sound or the Strait of Juan de Fuca. In summary, the Navy and NMFS conclude that seasonal avoidance of the use of acoustic sources within the Northern Puget Sound feeding area is unlikely to further reduce impacts to gray whales in this area which are already estimated to be extremely low (
i.e.
one Level B TTS take) and would negatively impact readiness in a significant manner.
The Navy acknowledges that gray whales migrate along the entire western coast of the United States, typically within 15 nm of the shore in the NWTT Study Area, but possibly anywhere over the continental shelf, and that a small subset of the gray whale population may enter Puget Sound during their migrations. Vessel movement associated with virtually all of the training and testing activities proposed in the NWTT FEIS/OEIS will occur and has been occurring in areas potentially used by migrating gray whales for decades; however, the majority of the Navy's vessel traffic and training and testing occur outside the 12 nm line, thus significantly reducing the overlap, since the gray whale migration areas only extend 10 nm offshore. Navy vessels are not the only vessel traffic that these migrating whales may encounter as Navy vessels represent a small fraction of total vessel traffic within the Greater Puget Sound and offshore areas (see Figure 3.0-5 of the NWTT FEIS/OIS). The Figure shows little correlation of impedance or interference to gray whale migration in areas where Navy vessels transit and training and testing activities have historically occurred or are expected to continue into the reasonably foreseeable future in the NWTT Study Area. In fact, with the shipping density data overlapped, it is evident that while shipping traffic is heavy into the Strait of Juan de Fuca, as well as within the shipping lanes of Puget Sound, this traffic does not restrict or interfere with the annual north and south bound migration of gray whales nor their movements in Puget Sound. Some training and most testing activities will include acoustic emissions within or propagating into areas potentially used by migrating gray whales. However, these activities may not always be timed during periods in which the gray whales are present. The Navy has requested a small number of Level B (behavioral) gray whale takes for all activities occurring within the offshore NWTT Study Area. As described in the Navy's LOA application and this final rule, the Navy is seeking authorization for 17 Level B (TTS) takes of gray whales annually (6 from training activities and 11 from testing activities) from activities occurring throughout the offshore Study Area. The Navy's LOA request describes mitigation measures that it will implement to avoid vessel strikes, such as continuing to use extreme caution and a safe speed when transiting, maneuvering to keep at least 500 yards from whales observed in a vessel's path, and not approaching whales head-on, provided it is safe to do so. The Navy will also be required to report any vessel strike. However, the Navy does not find vessel strikes likely to occur given there is no recorded occurrence of vessel strike of any species of marine mammal, including gray whales, by Navy ships during training or testing in the Northwest. Navy mitigation measures for acoustic activities also include avoiding the conduct of acoustic and explosive activities in the immediate vicinity of all marine mammals, including gray whales. Further, as described in the area-specific mitigation section above, the Navy will require approval from designated authorities prior to conducting mine countermeasure and neutralization underwater detonations at Hood Canal
or Crescent Harbor, hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar training on vessels while underway in Puget Sound and the Strat of Juan de Fuca, and pierside maintenance or testing in Puget Sound or the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The Navy and NMFS concluded that based on the mitigations in place, historical training and testing profiles, limited estimated effects, and no evidence of ship strikes to migrating gray whales within the Study area that no additional mitigations are warranted in the gray whale migration areas.
Humpback whale areas: Vessel movement is likely to occur in at least some of the humpback whale BIAs, including the designated humpback whale feeding area mapped at the mouth of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Historical ship density (majority of which is non-Navy vessels) depicted in Figure 3.0-5 of the NWTT FEIS/OEIS is high in the Northern Washington humpback whale feeding area. However, Navy vessel traffic is extremely minimal in comparison to commercial ship traffic, with typically only 20 ships and submarines homeported in the Puget Sound region. Therefore, Navy vessel traffic is low within this feeding area. There is an extremely low likelihood of any Navy vessel movements occurring within the two southern humpback whale feeding areas, especially given that the Point St. George feeding area only overlaps the very eastern boundary of the Study Area. The Navy's LOA request describes mitigation measures that it will implement to avoid vessel strikes, such as continuing to use extreme caution and a safe speed when transiting, maneuvering to keep at least 500 yards from whales observed in a vessel's path, and not approaching whales head-on, provided it is safe to do so. The Navy will also be required to report any vessel strike. (Note that neither the Navy nor NMFS find vessel strikes likely to occur given there is no recorded occurrence of vessel strike of any species of marine mammal, including gray whales, by Navy ships during training or testing in the Northwest).
Based on a review of the historic activity profiles and the proposed training activities described in the NWTT FEIS/OEIS, there would be no direct spatial overlap of training activities with any designated feeding areas for humpbacks in the offshore portion of the NWTT Study Area. There is a generally low probability of potential acoustic overlap with the specifically identified feeding areas. Any propagation of sound from training activities into the Northern Washington humpback whale feeding area would mostly likely result from hull-mounted sonar maintenance or systems checks as vessels are transiting to other areas within and outside of the NWTT Study Area. The Navy estimates very low impacts to humpback whales from offshore training activities involving sonar, and no impacts from any explosive events. Only 12 total Level B (7 behavioral, 5 TTS) takes of humpback whales are anticipated annually from all training activities combined occurring within the offshore Study Area, not just those areas overlapping with the feeding areas. Requiring Navy vessels to avoid this feeding area and utilize acoustic systems further offshore would position ships into higher dense traffic waters based on commercial shipping density data in that area. In addition to the fact that avoidance would not be expected to notably reduce takes, avoidance of these feeding areas during Navy training could create safety concerns by forcing the Navy to delay maintenance and systems checks until ships are farther from shore and homeport infrastructure that could have assisted in addressing potential technical issues.
For testing activities, there is a chance that countermeasure testing could propagate non-impulsive sound into the Northern Washington humpback whale feeding area adjacent to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. These testing activities would be transitory, last from three to eight hours, and are conducted sporadically in any given geographic location. These countermeasure testing activities may be scheduled for any time of year based upon the availability of assets (ships and/or aircraft) needed to support the tests. Though the Navy does not expect to conduct tests within this feeding area, it would be difficult to ensure that all countermeasure testing was conducted far enough from the site to avoid sound propagation into it since some countermeasure devices propagate mid-frequency sound a long distance, so it is possible that some amount of sound from these measures conducted outside of the area may propagate into the feeding area some limited number of times. Conducting this testing further from port and from support facilities would increase event costs, time, and fuel required to complete them, as well as limit available sites suitable to support the testing requirements and limit Navy's use of the existing Quinault Range Site. Avoidance of this area would negatively impact readiness, while likely only providing a small potential reduction in marine mammal sound exposure.
Occasional shallow water testing with sonobuoys would overlap the Stonewall and Heceta Bank humpback whale feeding area offshore of Oregon. The shallow water features in the area affect bottom reflecting, scattering, and absorption of the sound and typically create a more challenging environment to test sonobuoys in due to other surface sound sources (commercial/recreational boats). These conditions allow aircrews to gain understanding of how noise from other sources will impact underwater signal detection. However, these sonobuoy testing events are infrequent (fewer than 50 per year) and of short-duration (less than a day). These events occur sporadically throughout the year and will not necessarily occur during time periods of humpback whale feeding. It is unlikely that this limited testing of sonobuoys would have any biologically meaningful effect on humpback whale feeding behavior in this area; however, avoidance of this area would negatively impact readiness. The Navy estimates very low impacts to humpback whales from offshore testing activities involving sonar and no impacts from explosive testing. Only 45 Level B (6 behavioral, 39 TTS) takes of humpback whales are anticipated annually from all testing activities occurring within the offshore Study Area, not just those areas overlapping with the feeding areas. Based on the Navy's existing mitigation measures for these activities, the low numbers of potential take to all humpback whales not just those within the feeding areas, the lack of prior ship strikes of humpback whales within the Study Area, and the impacts to readiness from avoiding or relocating activities the Navy and NMFS conclude that further mitigation within the humpback whale feeding areas is not warranted.
In summary, the Navy's and NMFS' analysis indicates that there is generally low use of the BIAs and the modeling supports that there are limited impacts to gray whales and humpbacks throughout the entire NWTT study area. There is the potential for the most overlap between Navy activities within the following threes feeding areas—the Humpback Whale Northern Washington feeding area, Stonewall Heceta Bank feeding area, and the Gray Whale Northern Puget Sound feeding area. Very few takes are expected to result from activities within these feeding areas, and the nature of these activities along with the required mitigation measures would result in the least practicable adverse impacts on the species and their habitat. However, the Navy has agreed to monitor, and provide NMFS with reports of, hull-mounted mid-frequency and high frequency active sonar use during
training and testing in the months specified in the following three feeding areas to the extent that active sonar training or testing does occur in these feeding areas: Humpback Whale Northern Washington feeding area (May through November); Stonewall and Heceta Bank feeding area (May through November) and Gray Whale Northern Puget Sound Feeding Area (March through May). The Navy will provide this information annually in the classified exercise report to the extent sonar use in those areas can be distinguished from data retrieved in Navy's system. The intent would be to inform future adaptive management discussions about future mitigation adjustments should sonar use increase above the existing low use/low overlap description provided by the Navy or if new science provides a biological basis for increased protective measures.
If additional biologically important areas are identified by NMFS after finalization of this rule and the Navy's NWTT FEIS/OEIS, the Navy and NMFS will use the Adaptive Management process to assess whether any additional mitigation should be considered in those areas. Results of the species-specific assessment of potential impacts to humpback and gray whales in their respective BIAs within the Study Area are included in Chapter 3.4.3 and Chapter 5.3.4.1.11 of the NWTT FEIS/OEIS and in the Species/Group Specific Analysis below. 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.
Marine Protected Areas
Marine protected areas (MPAs) in the National System of MPAs potentially occurring within the Study Area are listed and described in Section 6.1.2 of the NWTT FEIS/OEIS (Marine Protected Areas, Table 6.1-2). As shown in Figure 6.1-1 of the NWTT FEIS/OEIS, proposed Navy training and testing activities in the Study Area do not overlap these MPAs (with the exception of the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS), discussed below). The NWTT FEIS/OEIS has been prepared in accordance with the requirements to avoid harm to the natural and cultural resources of existing National System MPAs. Navy activities, should they occur within or near a MPA, would fully abide by the regulations of the individual MPA (see Table 6.1-2 of the NWTT FEIS/OEIS for information See Section 6.1.2 of the NWTT FEIS/OEIS (Marine Protected Areas) for more information.
Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary
To the extent practicable, the Navy currently avoids conducting activities within the OCNMS, and expects this practice to continue. However, some Navy NWTT activities may occur within the OCNMS. The Navy has been conducting training and testing offshore of the coast of Washington for decades. The area provides variable bathymetries, and training and testing challenges to simulate potential operational scenarios. There is relatively small spatial overlap between the NWTT Offshore Area and the OCNMS. For training activities occurring in the Offshore Area, less than 3% would be expected to occur within the OCNMS. Most training events would occur outside the boundaries of the OCNMS. Although the Navy is specifically authorized to conduct certain activities within the OCNMS, the Navy currently conducts very limited training within the OCNMS and does not use explosives within the OCNMS. Non-explosive bombing exercises will also not occur in the OCNMS. The Navy expects this level and type of activity to continue into the reasonably foreseeable future.
While active sonar and ASW activities are authorized within the OCNMS, the Navy uses its Protective Measures Assessment Protocol (PMAP) program to inform all users of active sonar that the OCNMS is within the NWTT Study Area. PMAP informs users that no high explosives are authorized in the OCNMS. The Navy proposes to continue use of PMAP in this manner for awareness and notification. The Navy has also agreed to monitor, and provide NMFS with reports of, hull-mounted mid-frequency and high-frequency active sonar use during training and testing in the OCNMS.
Federal agency actions that are likely to injure sanctuary resources are subject to consultation with the NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) under section 304(d) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). The Navy and NMFS initiated joint consultation with ONMS through the submittal of a Sanctuary Resource Statement (SRS) on September 8, 2015. Within the Navy's SRS, only a subset of NWTT activities, primarily non-impulsive testing events, were identified as possibly occurring routinely within OCNMS because of the existing Quinault Range which overlaps portions of OCNMS. Furthermore, these events would be spatially and temporarily separated throughout the year as well as from any preceding event. ONMS provided recommended alternatives to the Navy and NMFS to further protect sanctuary resources on October 23, 2015. On November 9, 2015, the Navy and NMFS jointly responded in writing to each of the ONMS recommendations.
Notification of Marine Mammal Stranding
Navy personnel shall ensure that NMFS is notified immediately (or as soon as clearance procedures allow) if a stranded marine mammal is found during or shortly after, and in the vicinity of, any Navy training exercise utilizing MFAS, HFAS, or underwater explosive detonations. See
General Notification of Injured or Dead Marine Mammals
in the Reporting section below for details on the communication and reporting requirements if a marine mammal stranding is observed.
Mitigation Conclusions
NMFS has carefully evaluated the Navy's proposed mitigation measures—many of which were developed with NMFS' input during the first phase of Navy Training and Testing authorizations—and considered a 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. Based on our evaluation of the Navy's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the Navy's proposed mitigation measures (especially when the adaptive management component is taken into consideration (see Adaptive Management, below)) 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.
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 contribute towards one or more of the following top-level goals:
• An increase in our understanding of the likely occurrence of marine mammals and/or ESA-listed marine species in the vicinity of the action (
i.e.,
presence, abundance, distribution, and/or density of species);
• An increase in our understanding of the nature, scope, or context of the likely exposure of marine mammals and/or ESA-listed species to any of the potential stressor(s) associated with the action (
e.g.,
tonal and impulsive sound), through better understanding of one or more of the following: (1) The action and the environment in which it occurs (
e.g.,
sound source characterization, propagation, and ambient noise levels); (2) the affected species (
e.g.,
life history or dive patterns); (3) the likely co-occurrence of marine mammals and/or ESA-listed marine species with the action (in whole or part) associated with specific adverse effects, and/or; (4) the likely biological or behavioral context of exposure to the stressor for the marine mammal and/or ESA-listed marine species (
e.g.,
age class of exposed animals or known pupping, calving or feeding areas);
• An increase in our understanding of how individual marine mammals or ESA-listed marine species respond (behaviorally or physiologically) to the specific stressors associated with the action (in specific contexts, where possible,
e.g.,
at what distance or received level);
• An increase in our understanding of the impacts of the activity on marine mammal or ESA-listed species habitat;
• An increase in our understanding of how anticipated individual responses to individual stressors or anticipated combinations of stressors, and/or impacts to habitat, may impact either: (1) The long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or (2) the population, species, or stock (
e.g.,
through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival);
• An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of mitigation and monitoring measures;
• A better understanding and record of the manner in which the authorized entity complies with the ITA and Incidental Take Statement;
• An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals (through improved technology or methods), both specifically within the safety zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and in general, to better achieve the above goals; and
• A reduction in the adverse impact of activities to further achieve the least practicable level, as defined in the MMPA.
Monitoring would 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) would not be a specific requirement. The adaptive management process and reporting requirements would 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 ICMP are available online (
http://www.navymarinespeciesmoni toring.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 a Scientific Advisory Group and other regional experts. The Strategic Planning Process for Marine Species Monitoring would 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 would 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 online (
http://www.navymar inespeciesmonitoring.us/
).
Past Monitoring in the NWTT Study Area
NMFS has received multiple years' worth of annual exercise and monitoring reports addressing active sonar use and explosive detonations within portions of the NWTT Study Area and other Navy range complexes. The data and information contained in these reports have been considered in developing mitigation and monitoring measures for the proposed training and testing activities proposed to occur within the NWTT Study Area. The Navy's annual exercise and monitoring reports may be viewed at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm
and
http://www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us.
NMFS' summary of the Navy's annual monitoring reports was included in the proposed rule (80 FR 31738, June 3, 2015; pages 31781-31783).
Other Regional Navy-Funded Monitoring Efforts
Additional marine mammal studies are being funded or conducted by the Navy outside of and in addition to the Navy's commitments in the NWTT Study Area and other Navy range complexes. NMFS' summary of the Navy's other regional monitoring efforts was included in the proposed rule (80 FR 31738, June 3, 2015; pages 31781-31783).
Proposed Monitoring for the NWTT Study Area
Based on discussions between the Navy and NMFS, future Navy compliance monitoring should address ICMP top-level goals through a series of regional and ocean basin study questions with a prioritization and funding focus on species of interest as identified for each range complex. The ICMP will also address relative investments to different range complexes based on goals across all range complexes, and monitoring will leverage multiple techniques for data
acquisition and analysis whenever possible.
Within the NWTT Study Area, the Navy's initial recommendation for species of interest includes blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, Southern Resident killer whale (offshore portion of their annual movements), and beaked whales. Navy monitoring for NWTT under this LOA authorization and concurrently in other areas of the Pacific Ocean will therefore be structured to address region-specific and species-specific study questions in consultation with NMFS. The following projects will be funded or have been funded to support the NWTT monitoring program:
A. Modeling the Distribution of Southern Resident Killer Whales in the Pacific Northwest
As an early start to NWTT monitoring, in July 2014 the Navy provided funding ($209,000) to NMFS' Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) to jointly participate in a new NWTT-specific study: Modeling the distribution of southern resident killer whales in the Pacific Northwest. The goal of this new study is to provide a more scientific understanding of endangered southern resident killer whale winter distribution off the Pacific Northwest coast. The end product will be a Bayesian space-state model for predicting the offshore winter occurrence of southern resident killer whales. The project will consist of analysis of existing NMFS data (passive acoustic detections, satellite tag tracks) as well as new data collection from fall 2014 through spring 2016, some of which is being accomplished with the Navy's funding. The Navy has also provided NMFS NWFSC funds to support the FY16 fieldwork associated with the larger southern resident killer whale Habitat Model Project to collect biopsy samples, prey remains, fecal, mucus, and regurgitation samples. The goal of this field work is to determine the prey selected by southern resident killer whales throughout their range, but particularly in the coastal waters of the US, mainly from Cape Flattery to the Columbia River).
Details of the study can be found at:
http://www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/regions/pacific/current-projects/.
The main tasks the study supports include:
• Identification and classification of marine mammal detections from acoustic recorders.
• Acquisition and field deployment of satellite-linked transmitters to track and determine southern resident killer whales movements.
• Deployment of autonomous underwater acoustic recorders in and adjacent to the coastal and shelf/slope waters of Washington State. Navy funding will allow 10 additional recorders to be purchased and deployed along with four NMFS recorders for a total of 14 deployed recorders.
• Estimation of the probability of Southern Resident killer whale detection on acoustic recorders.
• Development of the state-space occurrence models.
• Development of predicative maps of the seasonal annual occurrence of southern resident killer whales.
• Development a cost efficient strategy for the deployment of acoustic recorders in and adjacent to Pacific Northwest Navy ranges.
• Reporting.
B. Pacific Northwest Pinniped Satellite Tracking Project
This project began in FY14 and will continue through FY16. Navy provided funding to the Alaska Fisheries Science Center to conduct satellite tagging and behavioral monitoring of sea lions in the Pacific Northwest in proximity to Navy facilities. The goal of the study is to fill in data gaps that exist in identifying the location of local foraging areas and documenting the percentage of time pinniped species are hauled out or utilizing the waters near Puget Sound naval facilities. The objectives of this study include:
• Census data of the adult males that haulout at Naval Station Everett, and Naval Base Kitsap-Bremerton/Bangor to develop minimum population estimates for the inland waters;
• Monthly correction factors from tagging data to correct count data from census locations;
• Geographical distribution and foraging behavior of California sea lion adult males in the inland waters of Washington, specifically relative to Navy installations;
• Migration and foraging behavior of California sea lions in coastal Washington, Oregon, and California.
C. Marine Mammal Aerial Surveys in the Pacific Northwest, Inland Puget Sound Waters
This project began in FY13 and will continue through FY16. The goal of this effort was to fill critical data gaps regarding the current abundance and population status of marine mammal species within the inland waters of Puget Sound and in relation to Navy training and testing locations. The objectives of this task are to:
• Collect data to estimate the abundance and densities of marine mammals in inland waters of Puget Sound;
• Document the distribution, habitat use, and behaviors of each species observed.
A more detailed description of the Navy's planned projects starting in 2015 (and some continuing from previous years) is available at the Navy's Marine Species Monitoring web portal:
http://www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/.
The Navy will update the status of its monitoring program and funded projects through their Marine Species Monitoring web portal.
Ongoing Navy Research
The U.S. Navy is one of the world's leading organizations in assessing the effects of human activities on the marine environment, including marine mammals. From 2004 through 2013, the Navy has funded over $240M specifically for marine mammal research. Navy scientists work cooperatively with other government researchers and scientists, universities, industry, and non-governmental conservation organizations in collecting, evaluating, and modeling information on marine resources. They also develop approaches to ensure that these resources are minimally impacted by existing and future Navy operations. It is imperative that the Navy's Research and Development (R&D) efforts related to marine mammals are conducted in an open, transparent manner with validated study needs and requirements. The goal of the Navy's R&D program is to enable collection and publication of scientifically valid research as well as development of techniques and tools for Navy, academic, and commercial use. Historically, R&D programs are funded and developed by the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Energy and Environmental Readiness Division and Office of Naval Research (ONR), Code 322 Marine Mammals and Biological Oceanography Program. Since the 1990s, the primary focus of these programs has been on understanding the effects of sound on marine mammals, including physiological, behavioral and ecological effects. ONR's current Marine Mammals and Biology Program thrusts include, but are not limited to: (1) Monitoring and detection research; (2) integrated ecosystem research including sensor and tag development; (3) effects of sound on marine life (such as hearing, behavioral response studies, physiology [diving and stress], and PCAD); and (4) models and databases for environmental compliance.
To manage some of the Navy's marine mammal research programmatic elements, OPNAV N45 developed in
2011 a new Living Marine Resources (LMR) Research and Development Program (
http://www.lmr.navy.mil/
). The goal of the LMR Research and Development Program is to identify and fill knowledge gaps and to demonstrate, validate, and integrate new processes and technologies to minimize potential effects to marine mammals and other marine resources. Key elements of the LMR program include:
• Providing science-based information to support Navy environmental effects assessments for research, development, acquisition, testing, and evaluation as well as Fleet at-sea training, exercises, maintenance, and support activities.
• Improving knowledge of the status and trends of marine species of concern and the ecosystems of which they are a part.
• Developing the scientific basis for the criteria and thresholds to measure the effects of Navy-generated sound.
• Improving understanding of underwater sound and sound field characterization unique to assessing the biological consequences resulting from underwater sound (as opposed to tactical applications of underwater sound or propagation loss modeling for military communications or tactical applications).
• Developing technologies and methods to monitor and, where possible, mitigate biologically significant consequences to living marine resources resulting from naval activities, emphasizing those consequences that are most likely to be biologically significant.
Navy Research and Development
Navy Funded
—Both the LMR and ONR R&D programs periodically fund projects within the NWTT Study Area. Some data and results from these R&D projects are summarized in the Navy's annual range complex monitoring reports, and available on NMFS' Web site (
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm
) and the Fleet's new marine species monitoring Web site (
http://www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/regions/pacific/current-projects/
). In addition, the Navy's Range Complex monitoring during training and testing activities is coordinated with the R&D monitoring in a given region to leverage research objectives, assets, and studies where possible under the ICMP.
The integration between the Navy's new LMR R&D program and related range complex monitoring will continue and improve during the applicable period of the rulemaking with results presented in NWTT annual monitoring reports.
Other National Department of Defense Funded Initiatives
—Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) and Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) are the DoD's environmental research programs, harnessing the latest science and technology to improve environmental performance, reduce costs, and enhance and sustain mission capabilities. The Programs respond to environmental technology requirements that are common to all of the military Services, complementing the Services' research programs. SERDP and ESTCP promote partnerships and collaboration among academia, industry, the military Services, and other Federal agencies. They are independent programs managed from a joint office to coordinate the full spectrum of efforts, from basic and applied research to field demonstration and validation.
Adaptive Management
The final regulations governing the take of marine mammals incidental to Navy training and testing activities in the NWTT Study Area contain an adaptive management component carried over from previous authorizations. Although better than 5 years ago, our understanding of the effects of Navy training and testing activities (
e.g.,
MFAS/HFAS, underwater detonations) on marine mammals is still relatively limited, and yet 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 for activities that have been associated with marine mammal mortality in certain circumstances and locations.
The reporting requirements associated with this rule are designed to provide NMFS with monitoring data from the previous year to allow NMFS to consider whether any changes are appropriate. NMFS and the Navy would meet to discuss the monitoring reports, Navy R&D developments, and 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 mammals 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 and exercises 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. NMFS described the proposed Navy reporting requirements in the proposed rule (80 FR 31738, June 3, 2015; page 31784). 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/military.htm.
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 would ensure that NMFS (the appropriate Regional Stranding Coordinator) is notified immediately (or as soon as clearance procedures allow) if an injured, stranded, or dead marine mammal is found during or shortly after, and in the vicinity of, any Navy training exercise utilizing MFAS, HFAS, or underwater explosive detonations. The Navy would 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).
Vessel Strike
Since the publication of 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 for other Navy Phase 2 rulemakings. This section has also been included in the regulatory text at the end of this document. Vessel strike during Navy training and testing activities in the Study Area is not anticipated; however, in the event that a Navy vessel strikes a whale, the Navy shall do the following:
Immediately 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);
• 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; and 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, operational and installation commitments, or other factors.
Annual Monitoring Reports
The Navy shall submit an annual report of the NWTT monitoring describing the implementation and results of the NWTT monitoring efforts from the previous calendar year. Data collection methods will be standardized across range complexes and study areas to allow for comparison in different geographic locations. Although additional information will be gathered, the protected species observers collecting marine mammal data pursuant to the NWTT monitoring plan shall, at a minimum, provide the same marine mammal observation data required in § 218.145. The report shall be submitted either 90 days after the calendar year, or 90 days after the conclusion of the monitoring year to be determined by the Adaptive Management process.
The NWTT Monitoring Report may be provided to NMFS within a larger report that includes the required Monitoring Plan reports from multiple range complexes and study areas (the multi-Range Complex Annual Monitoring Report). Such a report would describe progress of knowledge made with respect to monitoring plan study questions across all Navy ranges associated with the ICMP. Similar study questions shall be treated together so that progress on each topic shall be summarized across all Navy ranges. The report need not include analyses and content that does not provide direct assessment of cumulative progress on the monitoring plan study questions.
Annual Exercise and Testing Reports
The Navy shall submit preliminary reports detailing the status of authorized sound sources within 21 days after the anniversary of the date of issuance of the LOA. The Navy shall submit detailed reports 3 months after the annual anniversary of the date of issuance of the LOA. The detailed annual reports shall describe the level of training and testing conducted during the reporting period, and a summary of sound sources used (total annual hours or quantity [per the LOA] of each bin of sonar or other non-impulsive source; total annual number of each type of explosive exercises; total annual expended/detonated rounds [missiles, bombs, etc.] for each explosive bin; and improved Extended Echo-Ranging System (IEER)/sonobuoy summary, including total number of IEER events conducted in the Study Area, total expended/detonated rounds (buoys), and total number of self-scuttled IEER rounds. The analysis in the detailed reports will be based on the accumulation of data from the current year's report and data collected from previous reports.
The annual classified exercise reports will also include the amount of hull-mounted mid-frequency and high frequency active sonar use during training and testing activities in the OCNMS and in the months specified for the following three feeding areas (to the extent that active sonar training or testing does occur in these areas): The Humpback Whale Northern Washington feeding area (May through November); the Stonewall and Heceta Bank feeding area (May through November) and the Gray Whale Northern Puget Sound Feeding Area (March through May).
5-Year Close-out Exercise and Testing Report
This report will be included as part of the 2020 annual exercise or testing report. This report will provide the annual totals for each sound source bin with a comparison to the annual allowance and the 5-year total for each sound source bin with a comparison to the 5-year allowance. Additionally, if there were any changes to the sound source allowance, this report will include a discussion of why the change was made and include the analysis to support how the change did or did not result in a change in the EIS and final rule determinations. The report will be submitted 3 months after the expiration of the rule. NMFS will submit comments on the draft close-out report, if any, within 3 months of receipt. The report will be considered final after the Navy has addressed NMFS' comments, or 3 months after the submittal of the draft if NMFS does not provide comments.
Comments and Responses
On June 3, 2015 (80 FR 31738), NMFS published a proposed rule in response to the Navy's request to take marine mammals incidental to training and testing activities in the NWTT Study Area and requested comments, information, and suggestions concerning the request. During the 45-day public
comment period, NMFS received over 100 comments (including several duplicates) from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission), non-governmental organizations, Tribes, and private citizens. Comments were collectively submitted in a letter on behalf of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Welfare Institute, Center for Biological Diversity, Earthjustice, Environmental Protection Information Center, Friends of the Earth, Friends of the San Juans, The Humane Society of the United States, InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council, Klamath Forest Alliance, Natural Resources Defense Council, New York Whale and Dolphin Action League, Northcoast Environmental Center, Ocean Mammal Institute, Orca Network, Surfrider Foundation—Mendocino Coast Chapter, Carol Van Strum, and the Whale and Dolphin Conservation (hereinafter referred to as Animal Legal Defense Fund
et al.
). 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 NWTT FEIS/OEIS, which NMFS participated in developing as a cooperating agency and adopted, or that were also submitted to the Navy during the NWTT DEIS/OEIS public comment period are addressed in Appendix E (Public Participation) of the NWTT FEIS/OEIS. Some commenters presented technical comments on the general behavioral risk function that are largely identical to those posed during the comment period for proposed rules for the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT), Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT), and Mariana Islands Training and Testing (MITT) study areas, predecessors to the NWTT rule. The behavioral risk function remains unchanged since then, and here we incorporate our responses to those initial technical comments (78 FR 73010, Acoustic Thresholds, page 73038; 78 FR 78106, Acoustic Thresholds, page 78129; 80 FR 46112, Criteria and Thresholds, page 46146). Full copies of the comment letters may be accessed at
http://www.regulations.gov.
Activity
Comment 1:
The Animal Legal Defense Fund
et al.
commented that the Navy's training and testing activities and resulting takes are “a picture of harm that exceeds anything the Navy has proposed for the area in the past.” The commenters further expressed particular concerns for southern resident killer whales, blue whales, fin whales, harbor porpoises, and beaked whales.
Response:
The Navy has been conducting largely the same training and testing activities using the same type of equipment in the NWTT Study Area for decades without any evidence of harm to marine species as a result of those activities. The takes authorized by this rule are comparable to what is currently authorized for the same training and testing activities that have been occurring for decades in the NWTT Study Area, and are less than what is authorized in other Navy training and testing areas (
e.g.,
AFTT, HSTT). In particular, see Section 3.4.4.1 of the NWTT FEIS/OEIS (Summary of Monitoring and Observations During Navy Activities) and the Long Term Consequences section of this rule regarding the likely long-term consequences from those activities. Also note that as described in Section 1.9 of the NWTT FEIS/OEIS, previous analyses have taken place regarding a comprehensive understanding of Navy activities in the Pacific Northwest involving training and testing at sea. Specifically with regard to the Proposed Action, see the September 2010 Northwest Training Range Complex FEIS/OEIS and the May 2010 Final Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement NAVSEA NUWC Keyport Range Complex Extension FEIS/OEIS.
Please see Section 3.4.3.1.18 of the NWTT FEIS/OEIS (Application of the Marine Mammal Protection Act to Potential Acoustic and Explosive Effects) and the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section of the proposed rule for a description of “take” and note that the overwhelming majority of takes predicted for all species—including those mentioned above by the commenters—are short-term behavioral responses to relatively short-term activities (Level B harassment). Further, the majority of these Level B takes are expected to be in the form of milder responses (
i.e.,
lower-level exposures that still rise to the level of take, but would be less severe in the ranges of responses that qualify as a take) and are not expected to have deleterious impacts on the fitness of any individuals or long-term consequences to populations of marine mammals. Effects on marine mammals will minimized through the Navy's implementation of the following mitigation measures (among others): (1) The use of lookouts to monitor for marine mammals and begin powerdown and shutdown of sonar when marine mammals are detected within ranges where the received sound level is likely to result in temporary threshold shift (TTS) or injury; (2) the use of mitigation zones that avoid exposing marine mammals to levels of explosives likely to result in injury or death of marine mammals; and (3) vessel maneuvering protocols. NMFS and the Navy have also worked to develop a robust monitoring plan to improve our understanding of the environmental effects resulting from the use of active sonar and underwater explosives. Additionally, the proposed rule includes an adaptive management component that allows for timely modification of mitigation or monitoring measures based on new information, when appropriate.
Regarding southern resident killer whales, and as discussed in the Group and Species-Specific Analysis section of this rule, the Navy's acoustic analysis predicts only 2 instances of Level B harassment (behavioral reaction) of southern resident killer whales from sonar and other active acoustic sources during annual training activities in the Study Area. The Navy has not asked for, and NMFS has not authorized, any takes resulting from mortality or injury for southern resident killer whales. No injury or mortality is predicted by the acoustic impact modeling, or anticipated to result from the continuation of Navy training and testing, which has been occurring in the area for decades. The Navy and NMFS considered numerous studies analyzing the impact from chronic noise associated with vessel traffic as well as other threats, and these are cited in the NWTT FEIS/OEIS, Section 3.4.2.4 (General Threats) and Section 3.4.3.1.5 (Physiological Stress). As described in the Biological Opinion, the available scientific information does not provide evidence that exposure to acoustic stressors from Navy training and testing activities will impact the fitness of any individuals of this species. Therefore, exposure to acoustic stressors will not have population or species level impacts.
NMFS considered the distribution of southern resident killer whales in its effects analysis. The majority of the Navy's proposed training and testing activities would not occur in the southern resident killer whale's designated critical habitat (NMFS, 2006). Furthermore, the majority of testing events would occur in Hood Canal, where southern resident killer whales are not believed to be present (southern resident killer whales have not been reported in Hood Canal or Dabob Bay since 1995 [NMFS, 2008c]), while the majority of training activities
would occur in the offshore portions of the Study Area, where they are only present briefly during their annual migration period. As the commenters noted, NMFS issued a 12-month finding on a petition to revise the critical habitat for this species earlier this year (80 FR 9682, Feb. 24, 2015); however, as stated in that notice, NMFS does not anticipate developing a proposed rule for comment until 2017. The Navy and NMFS will consider as appropriate any revisions to the critical habitat designation. Finally, to further support awareness of southern resident killer whale in the Study Area, prior to Maritime Homeland Defense/Security Mine Countermeasure Integrated Exercises, the Navy will conduct pre-event planning and training to ensure environmental awareness of all exercise participants. When this event is proposed to be conducted in Puget Sound, Navy event planners will consult with Navy biologists who will contact NMFS during the planning process in order to determine the likelihood of gray whale or southern resident killer whale presence in the proposed exercise area as planners consider the specifics of the event.
As discussed in the Group and Species-Specific Analysis section of this rule, take numbers for ESA-listed mysticetes are also predicted to be low relative to estimated stock abundances, and occasional behavioral reactions are predicted to occur at low received levels and are unlikely to cause long-term consequences for individuals or populations. Furthermore, there is no designated critical habitat for mysticetes in the Study Area.
The number of harbor porpoises behaviorally harassed by exposure to MFAS/HFAS in the Study Area is higher than the other species because of the low Level B harassment threshold (we assume for the purpose of estimating take that all harbor porpoises exposed to 120 dB or higher MFAS/HFAS will be taken by Level B behavioral harassment), which essentially makes the ensonified area of effects significantly larger than for the other species. However, the fact that the threshold is a step function and not a curve (and assuming uniform density) means that the vast majority of the takes occur in the very lowest levels that exceed the threshold (it is estimated that approximately 80 percent of the takes are from exposures to 120 dB to 126 dB), which means that anticipated behavioral effects are not expected to be severe (
e.g.,
temporary avoidance). See the Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section of this rule for further information regarding the expected impacts to harbor porpoises.
Moore and Barlow (2013) have noted a decline in beaked whale populations in a broad area of the Pacific Ocean within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. However, there are scientific caveats and limitations to the data used for that analysis, as well as oceanographic and species assemblage changes on the U.S. Pacific coast not thoroughly addressed. Although Moore and Barlow (2013) have noted a decline in the overall beaked whale population along the Pacific coast, in the small fraction of that area where the Navy has been training and testing with sonar and other systems for decades (the Navy's Southern California (SOCAL) Range Complex), higher densities and long-term residency by individual Cuvier's beaked whales suggest that the decline noted elsewhere is not apparent where Navy sonar use is most intense. Navy sonar training and testing is not conducted along a large part of the U.S. west coast from which Moore and Barlow (2013) drew their survey data. In Southern California, based on a series of surveys from 2006 to 2008 and a high number encounter rate, Falcone
et al.
(2009) suggested the ocean basin west of San Clemente Island may be an important region for Cuvier's beaked whales given the number of animals encountered there. Follow-up research (Falcone and Schorr, 2012, 2014) in this same location suggests that Cuvier's beaked whales may have population sub-units with higher than expected residency, particularly in the Navy's instrumented Southern California Anti-Submarine Warfare Range. Encounters with multiple groups of Cuvier's and Baird's beaked whales indicated not only that they were prevalent on the range where Navy routinely trains and tests, but also that they were potentially present in much higher densities than had been reported for anywhere along the U.S. west coast (Falcone
et al.,
2009, Falcone and Schorr, 2012). This finding is also consistent with concurrent results from passive acoustic monitoring that estimated regional Cuvier's beaked whale densities were higher where Navy trains in the SOCAL training and testing area than indicated by NMFS's broad scale visual surveys for the U.S. west coast (Hildebrand and McDonald, 2009). See the Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section of this rule for further information regarding the expected impacts to beaked whales.
Marine Mammal Density Estimates
Comment 2:
The Commission stated that it was unsure how the Navy determined that extrapolated densities better represent expected densities than densities from relevant environmental suitability (RES) models in the absence of density data. The Commission recommended that NMFS require the Navy to (1) account for uncertainty in extrapolated density estimates for all species by using the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval or the arithmetic mean plus two standard deviations and (2) then re-estimate the numbers of takes accordingly.
Response:
As noted in the Commission's comment, the Navy coordinated with NMFS scientists at the Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) and the National Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML) to help identify the best available density estimates for marine mammals occurring in the Study Area. Regarding the use of extrapolated density estimates from the SWFSC rather than using estimates from RES models, in the Pacific Ocean the distribution patterns predicted by the RES model do not correspond well to known species distribution patterns. RES density estimates for some of the other Navy Study Areas (
e.g.,
HSTT) were found to be orders of magnitude different from density estimates derived from multiple years of systematic line-transect survey data (Department of the Navy 2014—Navy Marine Species Density Database Technical Report). Therefore, in the absence of density data, extrapolation of density estimates from well-studied regions to lesser-known regions was deemed more appropriate than using RES data, which have shown to be inconsistent with what is known to be a more representative estimate of species density.
The use of a mean density estimate is consistent with the approach taken by NMFS to estimate and report the populations of marine mammals in the Stock Assessment Reports, and the estimated mean is thus considered the “best available data.” Adjusting the mean estimates as suggested would result in unreasonable take estimates, particularly given the very high coefficients of variation (CVs) associated with most marine mammal density estimates. Note that the CVs in the Navy's marine species density database for the California Current Ecosystem represent the interannual variability in marine mammal occurrence; the CV does not represent uncertainty in the model predicted density estimates. Further, the Navy's acoustic model includes conservative estimates of all parameters (
e.g.,
assumes that the animals do not move horizontally, assumes they are always head-on to the sound source so that they receive the maximum amount of energy, etc.), which results in a more conservative
(
i.e.,
greater) assessment of potential impacts.
Comment 3:
The Commission recommended that NMFS require the Navy to (1) incorporate data from Raum-Suryan
et al.
(2004) and Call
et al.
(2007) and consult with scientists at NMML regarding unpublished data to revise the areas used in estimating Steller sea lion densities in the offshore and Western Behm Canal areas, (2) incorporate data from Robinson
et al.
(2012) into the areas used in estimating northern elephant seal densities in the offshore and Western Behm Canal areas, (3) incorporate data from Weise
et al.
(2006) and consult with scientists at NMML regarding unpublished data to revise the areas used in estimating California sea lion densities in the offshore area, and (4) incorporate data from Ream
et al.
(2005), Lea
et al.
(2009), Melin
et al.
(2012), Pelland
et al.
(2014), and Sterling
et al.
(2014) and consult with scientists at NMML to revise its northern fur seal density estimates by using movement and dispersion data from tagged fur seals specific to the study area and scaled to the population.
Response:
With respect to estimating Steller sea lion (SSL) density offshore and in the Western Behm Canal, the Navy Pacific Marine Species Density Database Technical Report (Department of the Navy, 2014) used the eastern stock of SSL (highest stock estimate was used), multiplied by 0.25 (Bonnell and Bowlby, 1992) to get at-sea numbers. This numbers was then divided by the area of the eastern stock of SSL (1,244,000 km
2
) to get a uniform distribution density estimate. Raum-Suryan
et al.
(2005) and Call
et al.
(2007) present the movement, dispersal and haulout use of juvenile (Call et al.) and juvenile and pups (Raum-Suryan
et al.
). Both papers confirm SSLs are present in the offshore and Western Behm Canal portions of the NWTT. However, these papers present information on haul out use, round trip duration, and distance of a subset of the available population, which may be useful for small estimates of area use. This information is limited to juveniles and pups, and does not represent the range of area that is potentially covered by all SSLs in the eastern stock of SSLs. Therefore, as most literature indicates a wide variety of dispersal and movement among age classes and sex, the uniform distribution was used. In short, this information does not change the analysis presented in the NWTT FEIS/OEIS. See the Revised May 2015) Navy Marine Species Density Database Technical Report available at
http://www.nwtteis.com.
With regard to the density of northern elephant seals, the area used for calculation was based on all animals in the LeBouef
et al.
(2000) paper and was mistakenly reported in the Technical Report as only females. The Robinson
et al.
(2012) study presents reinforcing data on the presence of northern elephant seals in both the NWTRC offshore and Western Behm Canal portions of the NWTT Study Area and the incorporation of the Robinson study would not change the analysis of impacts on the stock.
The Weise
et al.
(2006) paper adds to the information regarding movements of a subset of animals under “anomalous” conditions and for the majority of the Pacific coast of North America, which is outside the NWTT Study Area. Given these factors, it was not included in the definition of area. However, the findings are not inconsistent with the current analysis; California sea lions are assumed to be present in the Study Area. The Navy has also taken into account monitoring data on California sea lions in the Study Area, as presented in Section 3.4.2.29 (California Sea Lion [
Zalophus californianus]
) of the NWTT FEIS/OEIS, including that from local researchers (
i.e.,
NMML) in the Pacific Northwest. Ream
et al.
(2005), Melin
et al.
(2012) and Lea
et al.
(2009) all indicate that there is some use of the nearshore areas of the NWTT off Washington and Oregon by pups and females, and those findings are not inconsistent with the current analysis. Regarding Pelland
et al.
(2014) and Sterling
et al.
(2014), who document a highly pelagic distribution of northern fur seals through the offshore areas of the Study Area where the majority of training would occur, the Navy used these studies to develop its at-sea densities, described in the Pacific Marine Species Density Database Technical Report, which were derived as Study Area-wide single density values by season (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2014b). Pelland
et al.
(2014) and Sterling
et al.
(2014) were discussed in the
Analysis of Guadalupe Fur Seal Exposures
in the proposed rule
The Commission's suggested novel method of determining a density of pinnipeds based on the presence of tagged animals and then “scaled to the population” may be investigated in the future as the science and methodology evolves. NMFS, along with the Navy, will continue to work with researchers and scientists at NMML in the development of future at-sea analyses.
Comment 4:
The Commission recommended that NMFS require the Navy to (1) revise its abundance estimates to include data from Allen and Angliss (2014) and Carretta
et al.
(2014) to determine Steller sea lion and northern fur seal densities in both the offshore and Western Behm Canal areas, (2) update the Guadalupe fur seal take estimates based on the revised northern fur seal density estimates and provide better justification for the reduction in Guadalupe fur seal takes for the offshore area, and (3) revise its abundance estimates to include updated data for harbor seals in the Western Behm Canal area, if available.
Response:
The Navy used the best available science and consulted with regional marine mammal experts in the derivation of the data used in the analysis. The Navy incorporated abundance estimates for Steller sea lions and northern fur seals from the most recent (2014) stock assessment reports (Caretta
et al.,
2015, Allen and Angliss, 2015) into the NWTT FEIS/OEIS (see Section 3.4.2.28.2 Abundance and 3.4.2.30.2 Abundance). The reported increase in abundance estimates does not result in a significant change in the density estimates and does not affect the impact assessment.
Regarding the reduction in Guadalupe fur seal takes for the offshore area, the Navy's September 26, 2014 revision to the LOA application included an update to the effects analysis for Guadalupe fur seals to more realistically reflect potential impacts from offshore Navy training and testing activities. The analysis used to modify the Guadalupe fur seal takes is fully described in Analysis of Guadalupe Fur Seal Exposures in the proposed rule (80 FR 31738, June 3, 2015; page 31792).
The Navy's Marine Species Density Database Technical Report, was revised in May 2015 to update the density estimates for harbor seals in the NWTT Study Area. The report is available at
http://www.nwtteis.com.
These updates did not affect marine mammal densities used for acoustic impact modeling nor change the results of the acoustics effects analysis.
Comment
5: The Commission recommended that NMFS require the Navy to use Hubner
et al.
's (2001) harbor seal haul-out correction factors of 1.50 for the offshore area, 1.85 for the Strait of Juan de Fuca and San Juan Islands, 1.51 for Eastern Bays, and 1.36 for Puget Sound rather than a pooled correction factor of 1.53. The proportion of seals at sea for each of those areas also should be adjusted accordingly and then incorporated with the relevant abundance estimates to derive the appropriate density estimates.
Response:
The Navy corresponded with Huber and other regional harbor seal scientists at the NMML regarding
appropriate haul out correction factors. While Huber
et al.
(2001) did report a regional correction factor for each survey site, analysis of variance (ANOVA) results in the same paper concluded there was no significant difference between any of the locations and proportion ashore. Therefore, the regional combined haulout factor can be viewed as a conservative approach. The Navy did, however, apply the revised stock assessment (2014 SAR) for the Hood Canal resident population of harbor seals.
Comment 6:
The Commission recommended that NMFS require the Navy to use a haul-out correction factor of 1.49 rather than 0.198 to determine the overall abundance of harbor seals for the Western Behm Canal area and apply a correction of 0.33 to determine the proportion of the overall abundance at sea, which then is used to derive the density estimate.
Response:
With regard to Western Behm Canal, the description of the correction factor, as reported in the Marine Mammal Occurrence/Density Report (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2010, prepared in support of Navy activities at the Southeast Alaska Acoustic Measurement Facility [SEAFAC]), is confusingly written as 0.198. The text was written as “Total seals were calculated as the 1,094 seals hauled out in the area (Withrow
et al.,
1999) plus an at sea correction factor of 0.198 of the haul-out count (Allen and Angliss, 2010).” The “plus” in this language was meant to indicate that the Simpkins 1.198 factor was used to achieve a total population of 1,310. The at-sea proportion based on the Simpkins value (which Allen and Angliss used) would be approximately 216 animals, and this value is reported in the Navy's Marine Species Density Database Technical Report. While the confusing language was carried into the Technical Report, the methodology is the same as presented in the Commission's comment and the density reported would not change.
Using a mean haulout correction factor of 1.47 would revise the density estimate from 0.29 seals per km
2
to 0.56 seals per km
2
. Given that Southeast Alaska (Clarence Strait) stock of harbor seals would not be exposed to sound that would exceed the current impact thresholds (as listed in Section 3.4 [Marine Mammals] of the NWTT FEIS/OEIS), it is unlikely that any revisions to density values will result in a change in modeled effects.
Comment 7:
The Commission recommended that NMFS require the Navy to provide the methods by which species-specific densities were calculated for each area and each season and cite the primary literature from which the data originated.
Response:
The Navy Pacific Marine Species Density Database Technical Report (Department of the Navy, 2014) includes individual species-specific descriptions of the density estimates used for each area and each season. The seasonal delineation used by the Navy is specifically described in the Technical Report (Section 3.2). Due to the many different sources of data used, all sections incorporate by reference the literature from which the estimates were taken. In addition, Chapter 3.3 (Information on Density Data Sources Considered and Included) of the Technical Report provides additional details on the main data sources used (and for many of the systematic surveys maps are included to show the extent of the study area or transects surveyed). For those cases where density estimates were taken directly from an existing report (
e.g.,
U.S. Department of the Navy, 2010, Marine Mammal Occurrence/Density Report), a general description is provided but it is beyond the scope of this document to summarize all the information contained in each of the reports that are incorporated by reference.
The technical report is available on the NWTT FEIS/OEIS Web site at:
http://nwtteis.com/DocumentsandReferences/NWTTDocuments/SupportingTechnicalDocuments.aspx.
The Navy continues to use the best available science, and this information will be considered in future projects.
Criteria and Thresholds
Comment 8:
The Commission recommended that NMFS require the Navy to update Finneran and Jenkins (2012) to include the appropriate justification for its use of the 6-dB extrapolation factor between explosive and acoustic sources; use 151 dB rather than 152 dB re 1 μPa2-sec as the TTS threshold for high-frequency cetaceans exposed to acoustic sources; use 145 rather than 146 dB re 1 μPa2-sec as the TTS threshold for high-frequency cetaceans for explosive sources; and based on these changes to the TTS thresholds, adjust the PTS thresholds for high-frequency cetaceans by increasing the amended TTS threshold by 20 dB for acoustic sources and 15 dB for explosive sources, and adjust the behavioral thresholds by decreasing the amended TTS thresholds by 5 dB for explosive sources.
Response:
At the time the acoustic criteria and thresholds were developed, no direct measurements of TTS due to non-impulsive sound exposures were available for any high-frequency cetacean; therefore, the relationship between onset-TTS sound exposure level (SEL)-based thresholds (Type II weighted) for mid-frequency cetaceans exposed to impulsive and non-impulsive sounds (beluga data) was used to derive the onset-TTS threshold for high-frequency cetaceans exposed to non-impulsive sounds (6-dB difference). The derived high-frequency cetacean non-impulsive onset TTS threshold is consistent with data recently published by Kastelein,
et al.
(2012) on TTS measured after exposing a harbor porpoise to non-impulsive sounds.
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 Southall
et al.
(2007) is not appropriate.
As detailed in Finneran and Jenkins (2012), the thresholds presented incorporate new findings since the publication of Southall
et al.
(2007) and the evolution of scientific underst
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.