Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area

Federal RegisterMar 13, 2018

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 218

[Docket No. 170720687-8212-01]

RIN 0648-BH06

Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Proposed rule; request for comments and information.

SUMMARY:

NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the training and testing activities conducted in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) Study Area. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue regulations and subsequent Letters of Authorization (LOAs) to the Navy to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS will consider public comments prior to issuing any final rule and making final decisions on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorizations. Agency responses to public comments will be summarized in the final notice of our decision. The Navy's activities qualify as military readiness activities pursuant to the MMPA, as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (2004 NDAA).

DATES:

Comments and information must be received no later than April 26, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2018-0037, by any of the following methods:

•

Electronic submissions:

Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal, Go to

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2018-0037,

click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

•

Mail:

Submit comments to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225.

•

Fax:

(301) 713-0376; Attn: Jolie Harrison.

Instructions:

Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on

www.regulations.gov

without change. All personal identifying information (

e.g.,

name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephanie Egger, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS; phone: (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-military-readiness-activities.

In case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361

et seq.

) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) 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 and the opportunity to submit comments.

An 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.”

NMFS has defined “unmitigable adverse impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “. . . an impact resulting from the specified activity:

(1) That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) directly displacing subsistence users; or (iii) placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and

(2) That cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.”

The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.

The 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 June 16, 2017, NMFS received an application from the Navy requesting incidental take regulations and LOAs to take individuals of 39 marine mammal species by Level A and B harassment incidental to training and testing activities (categorized as military readiness activities) from the use of sonar and other transducers, in-water detonations, airguns, and impact pile driving/vibratory extraction in the AFTT Study Area over five years. In addition, the Navy is requesting incidental take authorization for up to nine mortalities of four marine mammal species during ship shock trials, and authorization for up to three takes by serious injury or mortality from vessel

strikes over the five-year period. The Navy's training and testing activities would occur over five years beginning November 2018. On August 4, 2017, the Navy sent an amendment to its application and Navy's rulemaking and LOA application was considered final and complete.

The Navy's requests for two five-year LOAs, one for training and one for testing activities to be conducted within the AFTT Study Area (which includes areas of the western Atlantic Ocean along the east coast of North America, portions of the Caribbean Sea, and the Gulf of Mexico), covers approximately 2.6 million square nautical miles (nmi

) of ocean area, oriented from the mean high tide line along the U.S. coast and extends east to the 45-degree west longitude line, north to the 65-degree north latitude line, and south to approximately the 20-degree north latitude line. Please refer to the Navy's rulemaking and LOA application, specifically Figure 1.1-1 for a map of the AFTT Study Area and Figures 2.2-1 through Figure 2.2-3 for additional maps of the range complexes and testing ranges. The following types of training and testing, which are classified as military readiness activities pursuant to the MMPA, as amended by the 2004 NDAA, would be covered under the LOAs (if authorized): Amphibious warfare (in-water detonations), anti-submarine warfare (sonar and other transducers, in-water detonations), expeditionary warfare (in-water detonations), surface warfare (in-water detonations), mine warfare (sonar and other transducers, in-water detonations), and other warfare activities (sonar and other transducers, impact pile driving/vibratory extraction, airguns). In addition, ship shock trials, a specific testing activity related to vessel evaluation would be conducted.

This will be NMFS' third rulemaking for AFTT activities under the MMPA. NMFS published the first rule effective from January 22, 2009 through January 22, 2014 on January 27, 2009 (74 FR 4844) and the second rule applicable from November 14, 2013 through November 13, 2018 on December 4, 2013 (78 FR 73009). For this third rulemaking, the Navy is proposing to conduct similar activities as they have conducted over the past nine years under the previous two rulemakings.

Background of Request

The Navy's mission is to organize, train, equip, and maintain combat-ready naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression, and maintaining freedom of the seas. This mission is mandated by federal law (10 U.S.C. 5062), which ensures the readiness of the naval forces of the United States. The Navy executes this responsibility by establishing and executing training programs, including at-sea training and exercises, and ensuring naval forces have access to the ranges, operating areas (OPAREAs), and airspace needed to develop and maintain skills for conducting naval activities.

The Navy proposes to conduct training and testing activities within the AFTT Study Area. The Navy has been conducting military readiness activities in the AFTT Study Area for well over a century and with active sonar for over 70 years. The tempo and types of training and testing activities have fluctuated because of the introduction of new technologies, the evolving nature of international events, advances in warfighting doctrine and procedures, and changes in force structure (organization of ships, weapons, and personnel). Such developments influenced the frequency, duration, intensity, and location of required training and testing activities. This rulemaking and LOA request reflects the most up to date compilation of training and testing activities deemed necessary to accomplish military readiness requirements. The types and numbers of activities included in the proposed rule accounts for fluctuations in training and testing in order to meet evolving or emergent military readiness requirements.

The Navy's rulemaking and LOA request covers training and testing activities that would occur for a 5-year period following the expiration of the current MMPA authorization for the AFTT Study Area, which expires on November 13, 2018.

Description of the Specified Activity

The Navy is requesting authorization to take marine mammals incidental to conducting training and testing activities. The Navy has determined that acoustic and explosives stressors are 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 AFTT Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas EIS (OEIS) (DEIS/OEIS) and in the Navy's rulemaking and LOA application (

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-military-readiness-activities

) and are summarized here.

Overview of Training and Testing Activities

The Navy routinely trains in the AFTT Study Area in preparation for national defense missions. Training and testing activities and exercises covered in the Navy's rulemaking and LOA application are briefly described below, and in more detail within chapter 2 of the AFTT DEIS/OEIS. Each military training and testing activity described meets mandated Fleet requirements to deploy ready forces.

Primary Mission Areas

The Navy categorizes its activities into functional warfare areas called primary mission areas. These activities generally fall into the following seven primary mission areas: Air warfare; amphibious warfare; anti-submarine warfare (ASW); electronic warfare; expeditionary warfare; mine warfare (MIW); and surface warfare (SUW). Most activities addressed in the AFTT DEIS/OEIS are categorized under one of the primary mission areas; the testing community has three additional categories of activities for vessel evaluation, unmanned systems, and acoustic and oceanographic science and technology (inclusive of ship shock trials). Activities that do not fall within one of these areas are listed as “other warfare activities.” Each warfare community (surface, subsurface, aviation, and expeditionary warfare) may train in some or all of these primary mission areas. The testing community also categorizes most, but not all, of its testing activities under these primary mission areas.

The Navy describes and analyzes the impacts of its training and testing activities within the AFTT DEIS/OEIS and the Navy's rulemaking and LOA application (documents available at

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-military-readiness-activities

). In its assessment, the Navy concluded that sonar and other transducers, in-water detonations, airguns, and pile driving/extraction were the stressors that would result in impacts on marine mammals that could rise to the level of harassment (also serious injury or mortality in ship shock trials or by vessel strike) as defined under the MMPA. Therefore, the rulemaking and LOA application provides the Navy's assessment of potential effects from these stressors in terms of the various warfare mission areas in which they would be conducted. In terms of Navy's primary warfare areas, this includes:

• Amphibious warfare (in-water detonations)

• anti-submarine warfare (sonar and other transducers, in-water detonations)

• expeditionary warfare (in-water detonations)

• surface warfare (in-water detonations)

• mine warfare (sonar and other transducers, in-water detonations)

• other warfare activities (sonar and other transducers, impact pile driving/vibratory extraction, airguns)

The Navy's training and testing activities in air warfare and electronic warfare do not involve sonar or other transducers, in-water detonations, pile driving/extraction, airguns or any other stressors that could result in harassment, serious injury, or mortality of marine mammals. Therefore, the activities in air warfare or electronic warfare are not discussed further, but are analyzed fully in the Navy's AFTT DEIS/OEIS.

Amphibious Warfare

The mission of amphibious warfare is to project military power from the sea to the shore (

i.e.,

attack a threat on land by a military force embarked on ships) through the use of naval firepower and expeditionary landing forces. Amphibious warfare operations include small unit reconnaissance or raid missions to large-scale amphibious exercises involving multiple ships and aircraft combined into a strike group.

Amphibious warfare training ranges from individual, crew, and small unit events to large task force exercises. Individual and crew training include amphibious vehicles and naval gunfire support training. Such training includes shore assaults, boat raids, airfield or port seizures, and reconnaissance. Largescale amphibious exercises involve ship-to-shore maneuver, naval fire support, such as shore bombardment, and air strike and attacks on targets that are in close proximity to friendly forces.

Testing of guns, munitions, aircraft, ships, and amphibious vessels and vehicles used in amphibious warfare are often integrated into training activities and, in most cases, the systems are used in the same manner in which they are used for fleet training activities. Amphibious warfare tests, when integrated with training activities or conducted separately as full operational evaluations on existing amphibious vessels and vehicles following maintenance, repair, or modernization, may be conducted independently or in conjunction with other amphibious ship and aircraft activities. Testing is performed to ensure effective ship-to-shore coordination and transport of personnel, equipment, and supplies. Tests may also be conducted periodically on other systems, vessels, and aircraft intended for amphibious operations to assess operability and to investigate efficacy of new technologies.

Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)

The mission of anti-submarine warfare is to locate, neutralize, and defeat hostile submarine forces that threaten Navy forces. ASW is based on the principle that surveillance and attack aircraft, ships, and submarines all search for hostile submarines. These forces operate together or independently to gain early warning and detection, and to localize, track, target, and attack submarine threats. ASW training addresses basic skills such as detection and classifying submarines, as well as evaluating sounds to distinguish between enemy submarines and friendly submarines, ships, and marine life. More advanced training integrates the full spectrum of anti-submarine warfare from detecting and tracking a submarine to attacking a target using either exercise torpedoes (

i.e.,

torpedoes that do not contain a warhead) or simulated weapons. These integrated ASW exercises are conducted in coordinated, at-sea training events involving submarines, ships, and aircraft.

Testing of ASW systems is conducted to develop new technologies and assess weapon performance and operability with new systems and platforms, such as unmanned systems. Testing uses ships, submarines, and aircraft to demonstrate capabilities of torpedoes, missiles, countermeasure systems, and underwater surveillance and communications systems. Tests may be conducted as part of a large-scale fleet training event involving submarines, ships, fixed-wing aircraft, and helicopters. These integrated training events offer opportunities to conduct research and acquisition activities and to train aircrew in the use of new or newly enhanced systems during a largescale, complex exercise.

Expeditionary Warfare

The mission of expeditionary warfare is to provide security and surveillance in the littoral (at the shoreline), riparian (along a river), or coastal environments. Expeditionary warfare is wide ranging and includes defense of harbors, operation of remotely operated vehicles, defense against swimmers, and boarding/seizure operations. Expeditionary warfare training activities include underwater construction team training, dive and salvage operations, and insertion/extraction operations via air, surface, and subsurface platforms.

Mine Warfare (MIW)

The mission of MIW is to detect, classify, and avoid or neutralize (disable) mines to protect Navy ships and submarines and to maintain free access to ports and shipping lanes. MIW also includes offensive mine laying to gain control of or deny the enemy access to sea space. Naval mines can be laid by ships, submarines, or aircraft. MIW neutralization training includes exercises in which ships, aircraft, submarines, underwater vehicles, unmanned vehicles, or marine mammal detection systems search for mine shapes. Personnel train to destroy or disable mines by attaching underwater explosives to or near the mine or using remotely operated vehicles to destroy the mine.

Testing and development of MIW systems is conducted to improve sonar, laser, and magnetic detectors intended to hunt, locate, and record the positions of mines for avoidance or subsequent neutralization. MIW testing and development falls into two primary categories: mine detection and classification, and mine countermeasure and neutralization. Mine detection and classification testing involves the use of air, surface, and subsurface vessels and uses sonar, including towed and sidescan sonar, and unmanned vehicles to locate and identify objects underwater. Mine detection and classification systems are sometimes used in conjunction with a mine neutralization system. Mine countermeasure and neutralization testing includes the use of air, surface, and subsurface units to evaluate the effectiveness of tracking devices, countermeasure and neutralization systems, and general purpose bombs to neutralize mine threats. Most neutralization tests use mine shapes, or non-explosive practice mines, to evaluate a new or enhanced capability. For example, during a mine neutralization test, a previously located mine is destroyed or rendered nonfunctional using a helicopter or manned/unmanned surface vehicle based system that may involve the deployment of a towed neutralization system.

A small percentage of MIW tests require the use of high-explosive mines to evaluate and confirm the ability of the system to neutralize a high-explosive mine under operational conditions. The majority of MIW systems are deployed by ships, helicopters, and unmanned vehicles. Tests may also be conducted in support of scientific research to support these new technologies.

Surface Warfare (SUW)

The mission of SUW is to obtain control of sea space from which naval forces may operate, and entails offensive action against other surface, subsurface, and air targets while also defending against enemy forces. In surface warfare, aircraft use cannons, air-launched cruise missiles, or other precision-guided munitions; ships employ torpedoes, naval guns, and surface-to-surface missiles; and submarines attack surface ships using torpedoes or submarine-launched, anti-ship cruise missiles. SUW includes surface-to-surface gunnery and missile exercises, air-to-surface gunnery and missile exercises, and submarine missile or torpedo launch events, and other munitions against surface targets.

Testing of weapons used in SUW is conducted to develop new technologies and to assess weapon performance and operability with new systems and platforms, such as unmanned systems. Tests include various air-to-surface guns and missiles, surface-to-surface guns and missiles, and bombing tests. Testing events may be integrated into training activities to test aircraft or aircraft systems in the delivery of ordnance on a surface target. In most cases the tested systems are used in the same manner in which they are used for fleet training activities.

Other Warfare Activities

Naval forces conduct additional training and maintenance activities which fall under other primary mission areas that are not listed above. The AFTT DEIS/OEIS combines these training activities together in an “other activities” grouping for simplicity. These training activities include, but are not limited to, sonar maintenance for ships and submarines, submarine navigation and under ice certification, elevated causeway system, oceanographic research, and surface ship object detection. These activities include the use of various sonar systems, impact pile driving/vibratory extraction, and air guns.

Overview of Major Training Activities and Exercises Within the AFTT Study Area

A major training exercise is comprised of several “unit level” range exercises conducted by several units operating together while commanded and controlled by a single commander. These exercises typically employ an exercise scenario developed to train and evaluate the strike group in naval tactical tasks. In a major training exercise, most of the activities being directed and coordinated by the strike group commander are identical in nature to the activities conducted during individual, crew, and smaller unit level training events. In a major training exercise, however, these disparate training tasks are conducted in concert, rather than in isolation.

Some integrated or coordinated anti-submarine warfare exercises are similar in that they are comprised of several unit level exercises but are generally on a smaller scale than a major training exercise, are shorter in duration, use fewer assets, and use fewer hours of hull-mounted sonar per exercise. These coordinated exercises are conducted under anti-submarine warfare. Three key factors used to identify and group the exercises are the scale of the exercise, duration of the exercise, and amount of hull-mounted sonar hours modeled/used for the exercise.

NMFS considered the effects of all training exercises, not just these major training exercises in this proposed rule.

Overview of Testing Activities Within the AFTT Study Area

The Navy's research and acquisition community engages in a broad spectrum of testing activities in support of the fleet. These activities include, but are not limited to, basic and applied scientific research and technology development; testing, evaluation, and maintenance of systems

(e.g.,

missiles, radar, and sonar) and platforms

(e.g.,

surface ships, submarines, and aircraft); and acquisition of systems and platforms to support Navy missions and give a technological edge over adversaries. The individual commands within the research and acquisition community are the Naval Air Systems Command, Naval Sea Systems Command, and the Office of Naval Research.

Testing activities occur in response to emerging science or fleet operational needs. For example, future Navy experiments to develop a better understanding of ocean currents may be designed based on advancements made by non-government researchers not yet published in the scientific literature. Similarly, future but yet unknown Navy operations within a specific geographic area may require development of modified Navy assets to address local conditions. However, any evolving testing activities that would be covered under this rule would be expected to fall within the range of platforms, operations, sound sources, and other equipment described in this rule and to have impacts that fall within the range (

i.e.,

nature and extent) of those covered within the rule. For example, the Navy identifies “bins” of sound sources to facilitate analyses—

i.e.,

they identify frequency and source level bounds to a bin and then analyze the worst case scenario for that bin to understand the impacts of all of the sources that fall within a bin. While the Navy might be aware that sound source

e.g.,

XYZ1 will definitely be used this year, sound source

e.g.,

XYZ2 might evolve for testing three years from now, but if it falls within the bounds of the same sound source bin, it has been analyzed and any resulting take authorized (as long as the take accounting is done correctly).

Some testing activities are similar to training activities conducted by the fleet. For example, both the fleet and the research and acquisition community fire torpedoes. While the firing of a torpedo might look identical to an observer, the difference is in the purpose of the firing. The fleet might fire the torpedo to practice the procedures for such a firing, whereas the research and acquisition community might be assessing a new torpedo guidance technology or testing it to ensure the torpedo meets performance specifications and operational requirements.

Naval Air Systems Command Testing Activities

Naval Air Systems Command testing activities generally fall in the primary mission areas used by the fleets. Naval Air Systems Command activities include, but are not limited to, the testing of new aircraft platforms (

e.g.,

the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft), weapons, and systems (

e.g.,

newly developed sonobuoys) that will ultimately be integrated into fleet training activities. In addition to the testing of new platforms, weapons, and systems, Naval Air Systems Command also conducts lot acceptance testing of weapons and systems, such as sonobuoys.

The majority of testing activities conducted by Naval Air Systems Command are similar to fleet training activities, and many platforms and systems currently being tested are already being used by the fleet or will ultimately be integrated into fleet training activities. However, some testing activities may be conducted in different locations and in a different manner than similar fleet training activities and, therefore, the analysis for those events and the potential environmental effects may differ.

Naval Sea Systems Command Testing Activities

Naval Sea Systems Command activities are generally aligned with the

primary mission areas used by the fleets. Additional activities include, but are not limited to, vessel evaluation, unmanned systems, and other testing activities. In the Navy's rulemaking and LOA application, pierside testing at Navy and contractor shipyards consists only of system testing.

Testing activities are conducted throughout the life of a Navy ship, from construction through deactivation from the fleet, to verification of performance and mission capabilities. Activities include pierside and at-sea testing of ship systems, including sonar, acoustic countermeasures, radars, launch systems, weapons, unmanned systems, and radio equipment; tests to determine how the ship performs at sea (sea trials); development and operational test and evaluation programs for new technologies and systems; and testing on all ships and systems that have undergone overhaul or maintenance.

One ship of each new class (or major upgrade) of combat ships constructed for the Navy typically undergoes an at-sea ship shock trial to allow the Navy to assess the survivability of the hull and ship's systems in a combat environment as well as the capability of the ship to protect the crew.

Office of Naval Research Testing Activities

As the Department of the Navy's science and technology provider, the Office of Naval Research provides technology solutions for Navy and Marine Corps needs. The Office of Naval Research's mission is to plan, foster, and encourage scientific research in recognition of its paramount importance as related to the maintenance of future naval power and the preservation of national security. The Office of Naval Research manages the Navy's basic, applied, and advanced research to foster transition from science and technology to higher levels of research, development, test, and evaluation. The Office of Naval Research is also a parent organization for the Naval Research Laboratory, which operates as the Navy's corporate research laboratory and conducts a broad multidisciplinary program of scientific research and advanced technological development. Testing conducted by the Office of Naval Research in the AFTT Study Area includes acoustic and oceanographic research, large displacement unmanned underwater vehicle (innovative naval prototype) research, and emerging mine countermeasure technology research.

The proposed training and testing activities were evaluated to identify specific components that could act as stressors (acoustic and explosive) by having direct or indirect impacts on the environment. This analysis included identification of the spatial variation of the identified stressors.

Description of Acoustic and Explosive Stressors

The Navy uses a variety of sensors, platforms, weapons, and other devices, including ones used to ensure the safety of Sailors and Marines, to meet its mission. Training and testing with these systems may introduce acoustic (sound) energy into the environment. The Navy's rulemaking and LOA application describes specific components that could act as stressors by having direct or indirect impacts on the environment. This analysis included identification of the spatial variation of the identified stressors. The following subsections describe the acoustic and explosive stressors for biological resources within the AFTT Study Area. Stressor/resource interactions that were determined to have de minimus or no impacts (

i.e.,

vessel, aircraft, or weapons noise) were not carried forward for analysis in the Navy's rulemaking and LOA application. NMFS has reviewed the Navy's analysis and conclusions and finds them complete and supportable.

Acoustic Stressors

Acoustic stressors include acoustic signals emitted into the water for a specific purpose, such as sonar, other transducers (devices that convert energy from one form to another—in this case, to sound waves), and airguns, as well as incidental sources of broadband sound produced as a byproduct of impact pile driving and vibratory extraction. Explosives also produce broadband sound but are characterized separately from other acoustic sources due to their unique characteristics. Characteristics of each of these sound sources are described in the following sections.

In order to better organize and facilitate the analysis of approximately 300 sources of underwater sound used for training and testing by the Navy including sonars, other transducers, airguns, and explosives, a series of source classifications, or source bins, were developed.

Sonar and Other Transducers

Active sonar and other transducers emit non-impulsive sound waves into the water to detect objects, safely navigate, and communicate. Passive sonars differ from active sound sources in that they do not emit acoustic signals; rather, they only receive acoustic information about the environment, or listen. In the Navy's rulemaking and LOA request, the terms sonar and other transducers are used to indicate active sound sources unless otherwise specified.

The Navy employs a variety of sonars and other transducers to obtain and transmit information about the undersea environment. Some examples are mid-frequency hull-mounted sonars used to find and track enemy submarines; high-frequency small object detection sonars used to detect mines; high frequency underwater modems used to transfer data over short ranges; and extremely high-frequency (>200 kilohertz [kHz]) Doppler sonars used for navigation, like those used on commercial and private vessels. The characteristics of these sonars and other transducers, such as source level, beam width, directivity, and frequency, depend on the purpose of the source. Higher frequencies can carry more information or provide more information about objects off which they reflect, but attenuate more rapidly. Lower frequencies attenuate less rapidly, so may detect objects over a longer distance, but with less detail.

Propagation of sound produced underwater is highly dependent on environmental characteristics such as bathymetry, bottom type, water depth, temperature, and salinity. The sound received at a particular location will be different than near the source due to the interaction of many factors, including propagation loss; how the sound is reflected, refracted, or scattered; the potential for reverberation; and interference due to multi-path propagation. In addition, absorption greatly affects the distance over which higher-frequency sounds propagate. The effects of these factors are explained in Appendix D (Acoustic and Explosive Concepts) of the AFTT DEIS/OEIS. Because of the complexity of analyzing sound propagation in the ocean environment, the Navy relies on acoustic models in its environmental analyses that consider sound source characteristics and varying ocean conditions across the AFTT Study Area.

The sound sources and platforms typically used in naval activities analyzed in the Navy's rulemaking and LOA request are described in Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions) of the AFTT DEIS/OEIS. Sonars and other transducers used to obtain and transmit information underwater during Navy training and testing activities generally fall into several categories of use described below.

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Sonar used during ASW would impart the greatest amount of acoustic energy of any category of sonar and other transducers analyzed in the Navy's

rulemaking and LOA request. Types of sonars used to detect enemy vessels include hull-mounted, towed, line array, sonobuoy, helicopter dipping, and torpedo sonars. In addition, acoustic targets and decoys (countermeasures) may be deployed to emulate the sound signatures of vessels or repeat received signals.

Most ASW sonars are mid frequency (1-10 kHz) because mid-frequency sound balances sufficient resolution to identify targets with distance over which threats can be identified. However, some sources may use higher or lower frequencies. Duty cycles can vary widely, from rarely used to continuously active. For example, a submarine`s mission revolves around its stealth; therefore, submarine sonar is used infrequently because its use would also reveal a submarine's location. ASW sonars can be wide-ranging in a search mode or highly directional in a track mode.

Most ASW activities involving submarines or submarine targets would occur in waters greater than 600 feet (ft) deep due to safety concerns about running aground at shallower depths. Sonars used for ASW activities would typically be used beyond 12 nautical miles (nmi) from shore. Exceptions include use of dipping sonar by helicopters, maintenance of systems while in port, and system checks while transiting to or from port.

Mine Warfare, Small Object Detection, and Imaging

Sonars used to locate mines and other small objects, as well those used in imaging (

e.g.,

for hull inspections or imaging of the seafloor), are typically high frequency or very high frequency. Higher frequencies allow for greater resolution and, due to their greater attenuation, are most effective over shorter distances. Mine detection sonar can be deployed (towed or vessel hull-mounted) at variable depths on moving platforms (ships, helicopters, or unmanned vehicles) to sweep a suspected mined area. Hull-mounted anti-submarine sonars can also be used in an object detection mode known as “Kingfisher” mode. Sonars used for imaging are usually used in close proximity to the area of interest, such as pointing downward near the seafloor.

Mine detection sonar use would be concentrated in areas where practice mines are deployed, typically in water depths less than 200 ft and at established training or testing minefields or temporary minefields close to strategic ports and harbors. Kingfisher mode on vessels is most likely to be used when transiting to and from port. Sound sources used for imaging could be used throughout the AFTT Study Area.

Navigation and Safety

Similar to commercial and private vessels, Navy vessels employ navigational acoustic devices including speed logs, Doppler sonars for ship positioning, and fathometers. These may be in use at any time for safe vessel operation. These sources are typically highly directional to obtain specific navigational data.

Communication

Sound sources used to transmit data (such as underwater modems), provide location (pingers), or send a single brief release signal to bottom-mounted devices (acoustic release) may be used throughout the AFTT Study Area. These sources typically have low duty cycles and are usually only used when it is desirable to send a detectable acoustic message.

Classification of Sonar and Other Transducers

Sonars and other transducers are grouped into classes that share an attribute, such as frequency range or purpose of use. Classes are further sorted by bins based on the frequency or bandwidth; source level; and, when warranted, the application in which the source would be used, as follows:

Frequency of the non-impulsive acoustic source.

○ Low-frequency sources operate below 1 kHz

○ Mid-frequency sources operate at and 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

Sound pressure level of the non-impulsive source.

○ Greater than 160 decibels (dB) re 1 micro Pascal (μPa), but less than 180 dB re 1 μPa

○ Equal to 180 dB re 1 μPa and up to 200 dB re 1 μPa

○ Greater than 200 dB re 1 μPa

Application in which the source would be used.

○ Sources with similar functions that have similar characteristics, such as pulse length (duration of each pulse), beam pattern, and duty cycle

The bins used for classifying active sonars and transducers that are quantitatively analyzed in the AFTT Study Area are shown in Table 1 below. While general parameters or source characteristics are shown in the table, actual source parameters are classified.

Table 1—Sonar and Transducers Quantitatively Analyzed

Source class category

Bin

Description

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

LF3

LF4

LF sources greater than 200 dB.

LF sources equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB.

LF5

LF sources less than 180 dB.

LF6

LF sources greater than 200 dB with long pulse lengths.

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

MF1

Hull-mounted surface ship sonars (

e.g.,

AN/SQS-53C and AN/SQS-61).

MF1K

Kingfisher mode associated with MF1 sonars.

MF3

Hull-mounted submarine sonars (

e.g.,

AN/BQQ-10).

MF4

Helicopter-deployed dipping sonars (

e.g.,

AN/AQS-22 and AN/AQS-13).

MF5

Active acoustic sonobuoys (

e.g.,

DICASS).

MF6

Active underwater sound signal devices (

e.g.,

MK84).

MF8

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

MF9

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

MF10

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

MF11

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

MF12

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

MF14

Oceanographic MF sonar.

High-Frequency (HF): Tactical and non-tactical sources that produce signals between 10-100 kHz

HF1

HF3

Hull-mounted submarine sonars (

e.g.,

AN/BQQ-10).

Other hull-mounted submarine sonars (classified).

HF4

Mine detection, classification, and neutralization sonar (

e.g.,

AN/SQS-20).

HF5

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

HF6

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

HF7

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

HF8

Hull-mounted surface ship sonars (

e.g.,

AN/SQS-61).

Very High-Frequency Sonars (VHF): Non-tactical sources that produce signals between 100-200 kHz

VHF1

VHF sources greater than 200 dB.

Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW): Tactical sources (

e.g.,

active sonobuoys and acoustic counter-measures systems) used during ASW training and testing activities

ASW1

ASW2

ASW3

MF systems operating above 200 dB.

MF Multistatic Active Coherent sonobuoy (

e.g.,

AN/SSQ-125).

MF towed active acoustic countermeasure systems (

e.g.,

AN/SLQ-25).

ASW4

MF expendable active acoustic device countermeasures (

e.g.,

MK 3).

ASW5

MF sonobuoys with high duty cycles.

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

TORP1

Lightweight torpedo (

e.g.,

MK 46, MK 54, or Anti-Torpedo Torpedo).

TORP2

Heavyweight torpedo (

e.g.,

MK 48).

TORP3

Heavyweight torpedo (

e.g.,

MK 48).

Forward Looking Sonar (FLS): Forward or upward looking object avoidance sonars used for ship navigation and safety

FLS2

HF sources with short pulse lengths, narrow beam widths, and focused beam patterns.

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

MF acoustic modems (greater than 190 dB).

Swimmer Detection Sonars (SD): Systems used to detect divers and sub-merged swimmers

SD1-SD2

HF and VHF sources with short pulse lengths, used for the detection of swimmers and other objects for the purpose of port security.

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

SAS1

SAS2

SAS3

MF SAS systems.

HF SAS systems.

VHF SAS systems.

SAS4

MF to HF broadband mine countermeasure sonar.

Broadband Sound Sources (BB): Sonar systems with large frequency spectra, used for various purposes

BB1

BB2

MF to HF mine countermeasure sonar.

HF to VHF mine countermeasure sonar.

BB4

LF to MF oceanographic source.

BB5

LF to MF oceanographic source.

BB6

HF oceanographic source.

BB7

LF oceanographic source.

Notes:

ASW: Anti-submarine Warfare; BB: Broadband Sound Sources; FLS: Forward Looking Sonar; HF: High-Frequency; LF: Low-Frequency; M: Acoustic Modems; MF: Mid-Frequency; SAS: Synthetic Aperture Sonars; SD: Swimmer Detection Sonars; TORP: Torpedoes; VHF: Very High-Frequency; dB: decibels.

Airguns

Airguns are essentially stainless steel tubes charged with high-pressure air via a compressor. An impulsive sound is generated when the air is almost instantaneously released into the surrounding water. Small airguns with capacities up to 60 cubic inches would be used during testing activities in various offshore areas in the AFTT Study Area, as well as near shore at Newport, RI.

Generated impulses would have short durations, typically a few hundred milliseconds, with dominant frequencies below 1 kHz. The root-mean-square sound pressure level (SPL) and peak pressure (SPL peak) at a distance 1 meter (m) from the airgun would be approximately 215 dB re 1 μPa and 227 dB re 1 μPa, respectively, if operated at the full capacity of 60 cubic inches. The size of the airgun chamber can be adjusted, which would result in lower SPLs and sound exposure level (SEL) per shot.

Pile Driving/Extraction

Impact pile driving and vibratory pile removal would occur during construction of an Elevated Causeway System, a temporary pier that allows the offloading of ships in areas without a permanent port. Construction of the elevated causeway could occur in sandy shallow water coastal areas at Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story in the Virginia Capes Range Complex or Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in the Navy Cherry Point Range Complex.

Installing piles for elevated causeways would involve the use of an impact hammer (impulsive) mechanism with both it and the pile held in place by a crane. The hammer rests on the pile, and the assemblage is then placed in position vertically on the beach or, when offshore, positioned with the pile in the water and resting on the seafloor. When the pile driving starts, the hammer part of the mechanism is raised up and allowed to fall, transferring energy to the top of the pile. The pile is thereby driven into the sediment by a repeated series of these hammer blows. Each blow results in an impulsive sound emanating from the length of the pile into the water column as well as from the bottom of the pile through the sediment. Because the impact wave travels through the steel

pile at speeds faster than the speed of sound in water, a steep-fronted acoustic shock wave is formed in the water (Reinhall and Dahl, 2011) (note this shock wave has very low peak pressure compared to a shock wave from an explosive). An impact pile driver generally operates on average 35 blows per minute.

Pile removal involves the use of vibratory extraction (non-impulsive), during which the vibratory hammer is suspended from the crane and attached to the top of a pile. The pile is then vibrated by hydraulic motors rotating eccentric weights in the mechanism, causing a rapid up and down vibration in the pile. This vibration causes the sediment particles in contact with the pile to lose frictional grip on the pile. The crane slowly lifts up on the vibratory driver and pile until the pile is free of the sediment. Vibratory removal creates continuous non-impulsive noise at low source levels for a short duration.

The source levels of the noise produced by impact pile driving and vibratory pile removal from an actual elevated causeway pile driving and removal are shown in Table 2.

Table 2—Elevated Causeway System Pile Driving and Removal Underwater Sound Levels

Pile size and type

Method

Average sound levels at 10 m

24-in. Steel Pipe Pile

Impact

192 dB re 1 μPa SPL peak.

182 dB re 1 µPa

s SEL (single strike).

24-in. Steel Pipe Pile

Vibratory

146 dB re 1 μPa SPL rms.

145 dB re 1 µPa

s SEL (per second of duration).

Illingworth and Rodkin (2016).

Illingworth and Rodkin (2015).

Notes:

dB re 1 µPa: Decibels referenced to 1 micropascal; in.: inch; rms: root mean squared; SEL: Sound Exposure Level; SPL: Sound Pressure Level.

In addition to underwater noise, the installation and removal of piles also results in airborne noise in the environment. Impact pile driving creates in-air impulsive sound about 100 dBA re 20 μPa at a range of 15 m (Illingworth and Rodkin, 2016). During vibratory extraction, the three aspects that generate airborne noise are the crane, the power plant, and the vibratory extractor. The average sound level recorded in air during vibratory extraction was about 85 dBA re 20 μPa (94 dB re 20 μPa) within a range of 10-15 m (Illingworth and Rodkin, 2015).

The size of the pier and number of piles used in an Elevated Causeway System (ELCAS) event is assumed to be no greater than 1,520 ft long, requiring 119 supporting piles. Construction of the ELCAS would involve intermittent impact pile driving over approximately 20 days. Crews work 24 hours (hrs) a day and would drive approximately 6 piles in that period. Each pile takes about 15 minutes to drive with time taken between piles to reposition the driver. When training events that use the ELCAS are complete, the structure would be removed using vibratory methods over approximately 10 days. Crews would remove about 12 piles per 24-hour period, each taking about six minutes to remove.

Pile driving for ELCAS training would occur in shallower water, and sound could be transmitted on direct paths through the water, be reflected at the water surface or bottom, or travel through bottom substrate. Soft substrates such as sand bottom at the proposed ELCAS locations would absorb or attenuate the sound more readily than hard substrates (rock), which may reflect the acoustic wave. Most acoustic energy would be concentrated below 1,000 hertz (Hz) (Hildebrand, 2009).

Explosive Stressors

This section describes the characteristics of explosions during naval training and testing. The activities analyzed in the Navy's rulemaking and LOA application that use explosives are described in Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions) of the AFTT DEIS/OEIS. Explanations of the terminology and metrics used when describing explosives in Navy's rulemaking and LOA application are in also in Appendix D (Acoustic and Explosive Concepts) of the AFTT DEIS/OEIS.

The near-instantaneous rise from ambient to an extremely high peak pressure is what makes an explosive shock wave potentially damaging. Farther from an explosive, the peak pressures decay and the explosive waves propagate as an impulsive, broadband sound. Several parameters influence the effect of an explosive: The weight of the explosive warhead, the type of explosive material, the boundaries and characteristics of the propagation medium, and, in water, the detonation depth. The net explosive weight, the explosive power of a charge expressed as the equivalent weight of trinitrotoluene (TNT), accounts for the first two parameters. The effects of these factors are explained in Appendix D (Acoustic and Explosive Concepts) of the AFTT DEIS/OEIS.

Explosions in Water

Explosive detonations during training and testing activities are associated with high-explosive munitions, including, but not limited to, bombs, missiles, rockets, naval gun shells, torpedoes, mines, demolition charges, and explosive sonobuoys. Explosive detonations during training and testing involving the use of high-explosive munitions, including bombs, missiles, and naval gun shells could occur near the water's surface. Explosive detonations associated with torpedoes and explosive sonobuoys would occur in the water column; mines and demolition charges could be detonated in the water column or on the ocean bottom. Most detonations would occur in waters greater than 200 ft in depth, and greater than 3 nmi from shore, although mine warfare, demolition, and some testing detonations would occur in shallow water close to shore.

In order to better organize and facilitate the analysis of explosives used by the Navy during training and testing that could detonate in water or at the water surface, explosive classification bins were developed. The use of explosive classification bins provides the same benefits as described for acoustic source classification bins in Section 1.4.1 (Acoustic Stressors) of the Navy's rulemaking and LOA application.

Explosives detonated in water are binned by net explosive weight. The bins of explosives that are proposed for use in the AFTT Study Area are shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3—Explosives Analyzed

Bin

Net explosive weight

(lb.)

Example explosive source

0.1-0.25

Medium-caliber projectile.

>0.25-0.5

Medium-caliber projectile.

>0.5-2.5

Large-caliber projectile.

>2.5-5

Mine neutralization charge.

>5-10

5-inch projectile.

>10-20

Hellfire missile.

>20-60

Demo block/shaped charge.

>60-100

Light-weight torpedo.

>100-250

500 lb. bomb.

E10

>250-500

Harpoon missile.

E11

>500-650

650 lb mine.

E12

>650-1,000

2,000 lb bomb.

E14

>1,741-3,625

Line charge.

E16

>7,250-14,500

Littoral Combat Ship full ship shock trial.

E17

>14,500-58,000

Aircraft carrier full ship shock trial.

Net Explosive Weight refers to the equivalent amount of TNT the actual weight of a munition may be larger due to other components.

E14 is not modeled for protected species impacts in water because most energy is lost into the air or to the bottom substrate due to detonation in very shallow water.

Propagation of explosive pressure waves in water is highly dependent on environmental characteristics such as bathymetry, bottom type, water depth, temperature, and salinity, which affect how the pressure waves are reflected, refracted, or scattered; the potential for reverberation; and interference due to multi-path propagation. In addition, absorption greatly affects the distance over which higher frequency components of explosive broadband noise can propagate. Appendix D (Acoustic and Explosive Concepts) in the AFTT DEIS/OEIS explains the characteristics of explosive detonations and how the above factors affect the propagation of explosive energy in the water. Because of the complexity of analyzing sound propagation in the ocean environment, the Navy relies on acoustic models in its environmental analyses that consider sound source characteristics and varying ocean conditions across the AFTT Study Area.

Other Stressor—Vessel Strike

There is a very small chance that a vessel utilized in training or testing activities could strike a large whale. Vessel strikes are not specific to any particular training or testing activity, but rather a limited, sporadic, and incidental result of Navy vessel movement within the Study Area. Vessel strikes from commercial, recreational, and military vessels are known to seriously injure and occasionally kill cetaceans (Abramson

et al.,

2011; Berman-Kowalewski

et al.,

2010; Calambokidis, 2012; Douglas

et al.,

2008; Laggner, 2009; Lammers

et al.,

2003; Van der Hoop

et al.,

2012; Van der Hoop

et al.,

2013), although reviews of the literature on ship strikes mainly involve collisions between commercial vessels and whales (Jensen and Silber, 2003; Laist

et al.,

2001). Vessel speed, size, and mass are all important factors in determining potential impacts of a vessel strike to marine mammals (Conn & Silber, 2013; Gende

et al.,

2011; Silber

et al.,

2010; Vanderlaan and Taggart, 2007; Wiley

et al.,

2016). For large vessels, speed and angle of approach can influence the severity of a strike. The average speed of large Navy ships ranges between 10 and 15 knots and submarines generally operate at speeds in the range of 8-13 knots, while a few specialized vessels can travel at faster speeds. By comparison, this is slower than most commercial vessels where full speed for a container ship is typically 24 knots (Bonney and Leach, 2010). Additional information on Navy vessel movements is provided in Proposed Activities section. Large Navy vessels (greater than 18 m in length) within the offshore areas of range complexes and testing ranges operate differently from commercial vessels in ways that may reduce potential whale collisions. Surface ships operated by or for the Navy have multiple personnel assigned to stand watch at all times, when a ship or surfaced submarine is moving through the water (underway). A primary duty of personnel standing watch on surface ships is to detect and report all objects and disturbances sighted in the water that may indicate a threat to the vessel and its crew, such as debris, a periscope, surfaced submarine, or surface disturbance. Per vessel safety requirements, personnel standing watch also report any marine mammals sighted in the path of the vessel as a standard collision avoidance procedure. All vessels use extreme caution and proceed at a safe speed so they can take proper and effective action to avoid a collision with any sighted object or disturbance, and can be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions. Vessel strikes have the potential to result in incidental take from serious injury and/or mortality.

Proposed Activities

Proposed Training Activities

The Navy's proposed activities are presented and analyzed as a representative year of training to account for the natural fluctuation of training cycles and deployment schedules that generally influences the maximum level of training from occurring year after year in any five-year period. Both unit-level training and major training exercises are adjusted to meet this representative year, as discussed below. For the purposes of this application, the Navy assumes that some unit-level training would be conducted using synthetic means

(e.g.,

simulators). Additionally, the Proposed Activity assumes that some unit-level active sonar training will be accounted for within major training exercises.

The Optimized Fleet Response Plan and various training plans identify the number and duration of training cycles that could occur over a five-year period. The Proposed Activity considers fluctuations in training cycles and deployment schedules that do not follow a traditional annual calendar but instead are influenced by in-theater demands and other external factors. Similar to unit-level training, the Proposed Activity does not analyze a maximum number carrier strike group Composite Training Unit Exercises (one

type of major exercise) every year, but instead assumes a maximum number of exercises would occur during two years of any five-year period and that a lower number of exercises would occur in the other three years.

The training activities that the Navy proposes to conduct in the AFTT Study Area are summarized in Table 4. The table is organized according to primary mission areas and includes the activity name, associated stressors applicable to this rulemaking and LOA request, number of proposed activities and locations of those activities in the AFTT Study Area. For further information regarding the primary platform used (

e.g.,

ship or aircraft type) see Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions) of the AFTT DEIS/OEIS.

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

EP13MR18.001

EP13MR18.002

EP13MR18.003

EP13MR18.004

EP13MR18.005

EP13MR18.006

EP13MR18.007

Testing activities covered in this rulemaking and LOA request are described in Table 5 through Table 7. The five-year Proposed Activity presented here is based on the level of testing activities anticipated to be conducted into the reasonably foreseeable future, with adjustments that account for changes in the types and tempo (increases or decreases) of testing activities to meet current and future military readiness requirements. The Proposed Activity includes the testing of new platforms, systems, and related equipment that will be introduced after November 2018 and during the period of the rule. The majority of testing activities that would be conducted under the Proposed Activity are the same as or similar as those conducted currently or in the past. The Proposed Activity includes the testing of some new systems using new technologies and takes into account inherent uncertainties in this type of testing.

Under the Proposed Activity, the Navy proposes a range of annual levels of testing that reflects the fluctuations in testing programs by recognizing that the maximum level of testing will not be conducted each year, but further indicates a five-year maximum for each activity that will not be exceeded. The Proposed Activity contains a more realistic annual representation of activities, but includes years of a higher maximum amount of testing to account for these fluctuations.

Naval Air Systems Command

Table 5 summarizes the proposed testing activities for the Naval Air Systems Command analyzed within the AFTT Study Area.

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

EP13MR18.008

EP13MR18.009

EP13MR18.010

EP13MR18.011

EP13MR18.012

EP13MR18.013

Office of Naval Research

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

EP13MR18.014

Summary of Acoustic and Explosive Sources Analyzed for Training and Testing

Table 8 through Table 11 show the acoustic source classes and numbers, explosive source bins and numbers, airgun sources, and pile driving and removal activities associated with Navy training and testing activities in the AFTT Study Area that were analyzed in the Navy's rulemaking and LOA application. Table 8 shows the acoustic source classes (

i.e.,

LF, MF, and HF) that could occur in any year under the Proposed Activity for training and testing activities. Under the Proposed Activity, acoustic source class use would vary annually, consistent with the number of annual activities summarized above. The five-year total for the Proposed Activity takes into account that annual variability.

EP13MR18.015

EP13MR18.016

EP13MR18.017

EP13MR18.018

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

Table 9 shows the number of airguns shots proposed in AFTT Study Area for training and testing activities.

Table 9—Training and Testing Airgun Sources Quantitatively Analyzed in the AFTT Study Area

Source class category

Bin

Unit

Training

Annual

5-year total

Testing

Annual

5-year total

Airguns (AG): Small underwater airguns

604

3,020

C = count. One count (C) of AG is equivalent to 100 airgun firings.

Table 10 summarizes the impact pile driving and vibratory pile removal activities that would occur during a 24-hour period. Annually, for impact pile driving, the Navy will drive 119 piles, two times a year for a total of 238 piles. Over the five-year period of the rule, the Navy will drive a total of 1190 piles by impact pile driving. Annually, for vibratory pile driving, the Navy will drive 119 piles, two times a year for a total of 238 piles. Over the 5-year period of the rule, the Navy will drive a total of 1190 piles by vibratory pile driving.

Table 10—Summary of Pile Driving and Removal Activities per 24-Hour Period

Method

Piles per

24-hour period

Time per pile

(minutes)

Total

estimated time of noise per 24-hour period

(minutes)

Pile Driving (Impact)

Pile Removal (Vibratory)

Table 11 shows the number of in-water explosives that could be used in any year under the Proposed Activity for training and testing activities. Under the Proposed Activity, bin use would vary annually, consistent with the number of annual activities summarized above. The five-year total for the Proposed Activity takes into account that annual variability.

Table 11—Explosive Source Bins Analyzed and Numbers Used During Training and Testing Activities

Bin

Net explosive weight

(lb)

Example explosive source

Training

Annual

5-year total

Testing

Annual

5-year total

0.1-0.25

Medium-caliber projectile

7,700

38,500

17,840-26,840

116,200

>0.25-0.5

Medium-caliber projectile

210-214

1,062

>0.5-2.5

Large-caliber projectile

4,592

22,960

3,054-3,422

16,206

>2.5-5

Mine neutralization charge

127-133

653

746-800

3,784

>5-10

5-inch projectile

1,436

7,180

1,325

6,625

>10-20

Hellfire missile

602

3,010

28-48

200

>20-60

Demo block/shaped charge

>60-100

Light-weight torpedo

110

165

>100-250

500 lb bomb

330

E10

>250-500

Harpoon missile

450

68-98

400

E11

>500-650

650 lb mine

E12

>650-1,000

2,000 lb bomb

E16

>7,250-14,500

Littoral Combat Ship full ship shock trial

0-12

E17

>14,500-58,000

Aircraft carrier full ship shock trial

0-4

Net Explosive Weight refers to the equivalent amount of TNT the actual weight of a munition may be larger due to other components.

Expected annual use may vary per bin because the number of events may vary from year to year, as described in Section 1.5 (Proposed Activity).

Shock trials consist of four explosions each. In any given year there could be 0-3 small ship shock trials (E16) and 0-1 large ship shock trials (E17). Over a 5-year period, there could be three small ship shock trials (E16) and one large ship shock trial (E17).

Vessel Movement

Vessels used as part of the Proposed Activity include ships, submarines and boats ranging in size from small, 22 ft (7 m) rigid hull inflatable boats to aircraft carriers with lengths up to 1,092 ft (333 m). Large Navy ships greater than 60 ft (18 m) generally operate at speeds in the range of 10 to 15 knots for fuel conservation. Submarines generally operate at speeds in the range of 8 to 13 knots in transits and less than those speeds for certain tactical maneuvers. Small craft, less than 60 ft (18 m) in length, have much more variable speeds (dependent on the mission). For small craft types, sizes and speeds vary during training and testing. Speeds generally range from 10 to 14 knots. While these speeds for large and small crafts are representative of most events, some vessels need to temporarily operate outside of these parameters.

The number of Navy vessels used in the AFTT Study Area varies based on military training and testing requirements, deployment schedules, annual budgets, and other unpredictable factors. Most training and testing activities involve the use of vessels. These activities could be widely dispersed throughout the AFTT Study Area, but would be typically conducted near naval ports, piers, and range areas. Activities involving vessel movements occur intermittently and are variable in duration, ranging from a few hours up to two weeks. The number of activities that include the use of vessels for testing events is lower (around 10 percent) than the number of training activities.

Standard Operating Procedures

For training and testing to be effective, personnel must be able to safely use their sensors and weapon systems as they are intended to be used in a real-world situation and to their optimum capabilities. While standard operating procedures are designed for the safety of personnel and equipment and to ensure the success of training and testing activities, their implementation often yields additional benefits on environmental, socioeconomic, public health and safety, and cultural resources.

Because standard operating procedures are essential to safety and mission success, the Navy considers them to be part of the proposed activities under the Proposed Activity, and has included them in the environmental analysis. Standard operating procedures that are recognized as providing a potential secondary benefit on marine mammals during training and testing activities are noted below and discussed in more detail within the AFTT Draft EIS/OEIS.

• Vessel Safety

• Weapons Firing Safety

• Target Deployment Safety

• Towed In-Water Device Safety

• Pile Driving Safety

• Coastal Zones

Standard operating procedures (which are implemented regardless of their secondary benefits) are different from mitigation measures (which are designed entirely for the purpose of avoiding or reducing potential impacts on the environment.) Refer to Section 1.5.5 Standing Operating Procedures of the Navy's rulemaking and LOA application for greater detail.

Duration and Location

Training and testing activities would be conducted in the AFTT Study Area throughout the year from 2018 through 2023 for the five-year period covered by the regulations.

The AFTT Study Area (see Figure 1.1-1 of the Navy's rulemaking and LOA application) includes areas of the western Atlantic Ocean along the east coast of North America, portions of the Caribbean Sea, and the Gulf of Mexico. The AFTT Study Area begins at the mean high tide line along the U.S. coast and extends east to the 45-degree west longitude line, north to the 65 degree north latitude line, and south to approximately the 20-degree north latitude line. The AFTT Study Area also includes Navy pierside locations, bays, harbors, and inland waterways, and civilian ports where training and testing occurs. The AFTT Study Area generally follows the Commander Task Force 80 area of operations, covering approximately 2.6 million nmi

of ocean area, and includes designated Navy range complexes and associated operating areas (OPAREAs) and special use airspace. While the AFTT Study Area itself is very large, it is important to note that the vast majority of Navy training and testing occurs in designated range complexes and testing ranges.

A Navy range complex consists of geographic areas that encompasses a water component (above and below the surface) and airspace, and may encompass a land component where training and testing of military platforms, tactics, munitions, explosives, and electronic warfare systems occur. Range complexes include established operating areas and special use airspace, which may be further divided to provide better control of the area for safety reasons. Please refer to the regional maps provided in the Navy's rulemaking and LOA application (Figure 2.2-1 through Figure 2.2-3) for additional detail of the range complexes and testing ranges. The range complexes and testing ranges are described in the following sections.

Northeast Range Complex

The Northeast Range Complexes include the Boston Range Complex, Narragansett Bay Range Complex, and Atlantic City Range Complex (see Figure 2.2-1 in the Navy's rulemaking and LOA application). These range complexes span 761 miles (mi) along the coast from Maine to New Jersey. The Northeast Range Complexes include special use airspace with associated warning areas and surface and subsurface sea space of the Boston OPAREA, Narragansett Bay OPAREA, and Atlantic City OPAREA. The Northeast Range Complexes include over 25,000 nmi

of special use airspace. The altitude at which aircraft may fly varies from just above the surface to 60,000 ft, except for one specific warning area (W-107A) in the Atlantic City Range Complex, which is

18,000 ft to unlimited altitudes. Six warning areas are located within the Northeast Range Complexes. The Boston, Narragansett Bay, and Atlantic City OPAREAs Encompass over 45,000 nmi

of sea space and undersea space. The Boston, Narragansett Bay, and Atlantic City OPAREAs are offshore of the states of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey. The OPAREAs of the three complexes are outside 3 nmi but within 200 nmi from shore.

Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport Testing Range

The Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport Testing Range includes the waters of Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island Sound, Block Island Sound, Buzzards Bay, Vineyard Sound, and Long Island Sound (see Figure 2.2-1 in the Navy's rulemaking and LOA application). A portion of Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport Testing Range air space is under restricted area R-4105A, known as No Man's Land Island, and a minimal amount of testing occurs in this airspace. Three restricted areas are located within the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport Testing Range:

Coddington Cove Restricted Area, 0.5 nmi

adjacent to Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport;

Narragansett Bay Restricted Area (6.1 nmi

area surrounding Gould Island) including the Hole Test Area and the North Test Range; and

Rhode Island Sound Restricted Area, a rectangular box (27.2 nmi

) located in Rhode Island and Block Island Sounds.

Virginia Capes Range Complex

The Virginia Capes (VACAPES) Range Complex spans 270 mi. along the coast from Delaware to North Carolina from the shoreline to 155 nmi seaward (see Figure 2.2-1 in the Navy's rulemaking and LOA application). The VACAPES Range Complex includes special use airspace with associated warning and restricted areas, and surface and subsurface sea space of the VACAPES OPAREA. The VACAPES Range Complex also includes established mine warfare training areas located within the lower Chesapeake Bay and off the coast of Virginia. The VACAPES Range Complex includes over 28,000 nmi

of special use airspace. Flight altitudes range from surface to ceilings of 18,000 ft to unlimited altitudes. Five warning areas are located within the VACAPES Range Complex. Restricted airspace extends from the shoreline to approximately the 3 nmi state territorial sea limit within the VACAPES Range Complex, and is designated as R-6606. The VACAPES Range Complex shore boundary roughly follows the shoreline from Delaware to North Carolina; the seaward boundary extends 155 nmi into the Atlantic Ocean proximate to Norfolk, Virginia. The VACAPES OPAREA encompasses over 27,000 nmi

of sea space and undersea space. The VACAPES OPAREA is offshore of the states of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina.

Navy Cherry Point Complex

The Navy Cherry Point Range Complex, off the coast of North Carolina and South Carolina, encompasses the sea space from the shoreline to 120 nmi seaward. The Navy Cherry Point Range Complex includes special use airspace with associated warning areas and surface and subsurface sea space of the Navy's Cherry Point OPAREA (see Figure 2.2-2 in the Navy's rulemaking and LOA application). The Navy Cherry Point Range Complex is adjacent to the U.S. Marine Corps Cherry Point and Camp Lejeune Range Complexes associated with Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point and Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune. The Navy Cherry Point Range Complex includes over 18,000 nmi

of special use airspace. The airspace varies from the surface to unlimited altitudes. A single warning area is located within the Navy Cherry Point Range Complex. The Navy Cherry Point Range Complex is roughly aligned with the shoreline and extends out 120 nmi into the Atlantic Ocean. The Navy Cherry Point OPAREA encompasses over 18,000 nmi

of sea space and undersea space.

Jacksonville Range Complex

The Jacksonville (JAX) Range Complex spans 520 mi along the coast from North Carolina to Florida from the shoreline to 250 nmi seaward. The JAX Range Complex includes special use airspace with associated warning areas and surface and subsurface sea space of the Charleston and JAX OPAREAs. The Undersea Warfare Training Range is located within the JAX Range Complex (see Figure 2.2-2 in the Navy's rulemaking and LOA application).

Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division, South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range

The Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division operates the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range, an offshore testing area in support of various Navy and non-Navy programs. The South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range is located adjacent to the Port Everglades entrance channel in Fort Lauderdale, Florida (see Figure 2.2-2 in the Navy's rulemaking and LOA application). The test area at the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range includes an extensive cable field located within a restricted anchorage area and two designated submarine operating areas. The South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range does not have associated special use airspace. The airspace adjacent to the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range is managed by the Fort Lauderdale International Airport. Air operations at the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range are coordinated with Fort Lauderdale International Airport by the air units involved in the testing events. The South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range is divided into four subareas:

The Port Everglades Shallow Submarine Operating Area is a 120-nmi

area that encompasses nearshore waters from the shoreline to 900 ft deep and 8 nmi offshore.

The Training Minefield is a 41-nmi

area used for special purpose surface ship and submarine testing where the test vessels are restricted from maneuvering and require additional protection. This Training Minefield encompasses waters from 60 to 600 ft deep and from 1 to 3 nmi offshore.

The Port Everglades Deep Submarine Operating Area is a 335-nmi

area that encompasses the offshore range from 900 to 2,500 ft in depth and from 9 to 25 nmi offshore.

The Port Everglades Restricted Anchorage Area is an 11-nmi

restricted anchorage area ranging in depths from 60 to 600 ft where the majority of the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range cables run from offshore sensors to the shore facility and where several permanent measurement arrays are used for vessel signature acquisition.

Key West Range Complex

The Key West Range Complex lies off the southwestern coast of mainland Florida and along the southern Florida Keys, extending seaward into the Gulf of Mexico 150 nmi and south into the Straits of Florida 60 nmi. The Key West Range Complex includes special use airspace with associated warning areas and surface and subsurface sea space of the Key West OPAREA (see Figure 2.2-3 in the Navy's rulemaking and LOA application). The Key West Range Complex includes over 20,000 nmi

special use airspace. Flight altitudes range from the surface to unlimited altitudes. Eight warning areas, Bonefish Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace, and Tortugas Military Operating Area are located within the Key West Range Complex. The Key West OPAREA is over 8,000 nmi

of sea space and undersea space south of Key West, Florida.

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range

The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range is located off the panhandle of Florida and Alabama, extending from the shoreline to 120 nmi seaward, and includes St. Andrew Bay. Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range also includes special use airspace and offshore surface and subsurface waters of offshore OPAREAs (see Figure 2.2-3 of the Navy's rulemaking and LOA application). Special use airspace associated with Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range includes three warning areas. The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range includes the waters of St. Andrew Bay and the sea space within the Gulf of Mexico from the mean high tide line to 120 nmi offshore. The Panama City OPAREA covers just over 3,000 nmi

of sea space and lies off the coast of the Florida panhandle. The Pensacola OPAREA lies off the coast of Alabama and Florida west of the Panama City OPAREA and totals just under 5,000 nmi

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex

Unlike most of the range complexes previously described, the Gulf of Mexico (GOMEX) Range Complex includes geographically separated areas throughout the Gulf of Mexico. The GOMEX Range Complex includes special use airspace with associated warning areas and restricted airspace and surface and subsurface sea space of the Panama City, Pensacola, New Orleans, and Corpus Christi OPAREAs (see Figure 2.2-3 of the Navy's rulemaking and LOA application). The GOMEX Range Complex includes approximately 20,000 nmi

of special use airspace. Flight altitudes range from the surface to unlimited. Six warning areas are located within the GOMEX Range Complex. Restricted airspace associated with the Pensacola OPAREA, designated R-2908, extends from the shoreline to approximately 3 nmi offshore. The GOMEX Range Complex encompasses approximately 17,000 nmi

of sea and undersea space and includes 285 nmi of coastline. The OPAREAs span from the eastern shores of Texas to the western panhandle of Florida. They are described as follows:

Panama City OPAREA lies off the coast of the Florida panhandle and totals approximately 3,000 nmi

;

Pensacola OPAREA lies off the coast of Florida west of the Panama City OPAREA and totals approximately 4,900 nmi

;

New Orleans OPAREA lies off the coast of Louisiana and totals approximately 2,600 nmi

; and

Corpus Christi OPAREA lies off the coast of Texas and totals approximately 6,900 nmi

Inshore Locations

Although within the boundaries of the Range Complexes and testing ranges detailed above, various inshore locations including piers, bays, and civilian ports are identified in Figure 2.2-1 through Figure 2.2-3 of the Navy's rulemaking and LOA application.

Pierside locations include channels and transit routes in ports and facilities associated with the following Navy ports and naval shipyards:

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery, Maine;

Naval Submarine Base New London, Groton, Connecticut;

Naval Station Norfolk, Norfolk, Virginia;

Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story, Virginia Beach, Virginia;

Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia;

Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Kings Bay, Georgia;

Naval Station Mayport, Jacksonville, Florida; and

Port Canaveral, Cape Canaveral, Florida.

Commercial shipbuilding facilities in the following cities are also in the AFTT Study Area:

Bath, Maine;

Groton, Connecticut;

Newport News, Virginia;

Mobile, Alabama; and

Pascagoula, Mississippi.

Bays, Harbors, and Inland Waterways

Inland waterways used for training and testing activities include:

Narragansett Bay Range Complex/Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport Testing Range: Thames River, Narragansett Bay;

VACAPES Complex: James River and tributaries, Broad Bay, York River, Lower Chesapeake Bay;

JAX Range Complex: southeast Kings Bay, Cooper River, St. Johns River; and

GOMEX Range Complex/Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division (including Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division): St. Andrew Bay Civilian Ports.

Civilian ports included for civilian port defense training events are listed in Section A.2.7.3 of Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions) of the Navy's AFTT DEIS/OEIS and include:

Boston, Massachusetts;

Earle, New Jersey;

Delaware Bay, Delaware;

Hampton Roads, Virginia;

Morehead City, North Carolina;

Wilmington, North Carolina;

Savannah, Georgia;

Kings Bay, Georgia;

Mayport, Florida;

Port Canaveral, Florida;

Tampa, Florida;

Beaumont, Texas; and

Corpus Christi, Texas.

Description of Marine Mammals and Their Habitat in the Area of the Specified Activities

Marine mammal species that have the potential to occur in the AFTT Study Area and their associated stocks are presented in Table 12 along with an abundance estimate, an associated coefficient of variation value, and best/minimum abundance estimates. Some marine mammal species, such as manatees, are not managed by NMFS, but by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and therefore not discussed below. The Navy proposes to take individuals of 39 marine mammal species by Level A and B harassment incidental to training and testing activities from the use of sonar and other transducers, in-water detonations, airguns, and impact pile driving/vibratory extraction. In addition, the Navy is requesting nine mortalities of four marine mammal stocks during ship shock trials, and three takes by serious injury or mortality from vessel strikes over the five-year period. One marine mammal species, the North Atlantic right whale (

Eubalaena glacialis

), has critical habitat designated under the Endangered Species Act in the AFTT Study Area (described below).

Information on the status, distribution, abundance, and vocalizations of marine mammal species in the AFTT Study Area may be found in Chapter 4 Affected Species Status and Distribution of the Navy's rulemaking and LOA application. Additional information on the general biology and ecology of marine mammals are included in the AFTT DEIS/OEIS. In addition, NMFS annually publishes Stock Assessment Reports (SARs) for all marine mammals in U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) waters, including stocks that occur within the AFTT

Study Area—U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports (Hayes et

al.,

2017) (see

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/us-atlantic-and-gulf-mexico-marine-mammal-stock-assessments-2016

The species carried forward for analysis are those likely to be found in the AFTT Study Area based on the most recent data available, and do not include stocks or species that may have once inhabited or transited the area but have not been sighted in recent years and therefore are extremely unlikely to occur in the AFTT Study Area (

e.g.,

species which were extirpated because of factors such as nineteenth and twentieth century commercial exploitation).

The species not carried forward for analysis are the bowhead whale, beluga whale, and narwhal as these would be considered extralimital species. Bowhead whales are likely to be found only in the Labrador Current open ocean area, but in 2012 and 2014, the same bowhead whale was observed in Cape Cod Bay, which represents the southernmost record of this species in the western North Atlantic. In June 2014, a beluga whale was observed in several bays and inlets of Rhode Island and Massachusetts (Swaintek, 2014). This sighting likely represents an extralimital beluga whale occurrence in the Northeast United States Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. There is no stock of narwhal that occurs in the U.S. EEZ in the Atlantic Ocean; however, populations from Hudson Strait and Davis Strait may extend into the AFTT Study Area at its northwest extreme. However, narwhals prefer cold Arctic waters those wintering in Hudson Strait occur in smaller numbers. For these reasons, the likelihood of any Navy activities encountering and having any effect on any of these three species is so slight as to be unlikely; therefore, these species do not require further analysis.

Table 12—Marine Mammals With the Potential To Occur Within the AFTT Study Area

Common name

Scientific name

Stock

ESA/MMPA

status

Stock

abundance

best/minimum

population

Occurrence in AFTT study area

Open ocean

Large marine

ecosystems

Inland waters

Order Cetacea

Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)

Family Balaenidae (right whales)

Bowhead whale

Balaena mysticetus

Eastern Canada-West Greenland

Endangered, strategic, depleted

7,660 (4,500-11,100)

Labrador Current

Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, West Greenland Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf

NA.

North Atlantic right whale

Eubalaena glacialis

Western

Endangered, strategic, depleted

440 (0)/440

Gulf Stream, Labrador Current, North Atlantic Gyre

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Gulf of Mexico (extralimital)

NA.

Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals)

Blue whale

Balaenoptera musculus

Western North Atlantic (Gulf of St. Lawrence)

Endangered, strategic, depleted

Unknown/440

Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre, Labrador Current

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of Mexico (strandings only)

NA.

Bryde's whale

Balaenoptera brydei/edeni

Northern Gulf of Mexico

Proposed Endangered, Strategic

33 (1.07)/16

Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Fin whale

Balaenoptera physalus

Western North Atlantic

Endangered, strategic, depleted

1,618 (0.33)/1,234

Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre, Labrador Current

Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf

NA.

West Greenland

Endangered, strategic, depleted

4,468 (1,343-14,871)

Labrador Current

West Greenland Shelf

NA.

Gulf of St. Lawrence

Endangered, strategic, depleted

328 (306-350)

Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf

NA.

Humpback whale

Megaptera novaeangliae

Gulf of Maine

Strategic

823 (0)/823

Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre, Labrador Current

Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf

NA.

Minke whale

Balaenoptera acutorostrata

Canadian Eastern Coastal

2,591 (0.81)/1,425

Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre, Labrador Current

Caribbean Sea, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf

NA.

West Greenland

16,609 (7,172-38,461)/NA

Labrador Current

West Greenland Shelf

NA.

Sei whale

Balaenoptera borealis

Nova Scotia

Endangered, strategic, depleted

357 (0.52)/236

Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre

Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, Southeast Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf

NA.

Labrador Sea

Endangered, strategic, depleted

Unknown

Labrador Current

Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, West Greenland Shelf

NA.

Family Physeteridae (sperm whale)

Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)

Sperm whale

Physeter macrocephalus

North Atlantic

Endangered, strategic, depleted

2,288 (0.28)/1,815

Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre, Labrador Current

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Caribbean Sea

NA.

Northern Gulf of Mexico

Endangered, strategic, depleted

763 (0.38)/560

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands

Endangered, strategic, depleted

Unknown

North Atlantic Gyre

Caribbean Sea

NA.

Family Kogiidae (sperm whales)

Pygmy and dwarf sperm whales

Kogia breviceps

and

Kogia sima

Western North Atlantic

3,785 (0.47)/2,598

Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Caribbean Sea

NA.

Northern Gulf of Mexico

186 (1.04)/90

Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea

NA.

Family Monodontidae (beluga whale and narwhal)

Beluga whale

Delphinapterus leucas

Eastern High Arctic/Baffin Bay

21,213 (10,985-32,619)

Labrador Current

West Greenland Shelf

NA.

West Greenland

10,595 (4.904-24,650)

West Greenland Shelf

NA.

Narwhal

Monodon monoceros

Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, West Greenland Shelf

NA.

Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales)

Blainville's beaked whale

Mesoplodon densirostris

Western North Atlantic

7,092 (0.54)/4,632

Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre, Labrador Current

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf

NA.

Northern Gulf of Mexico

149 (0.91)/77

Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea

NA.

Cuvier's beaked whale

Ziphius cavirostris

Western North Atlantic

6,532 (0.32)/5,021

Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf

NA.

Northern Gulf of Mexico

74 (1.04)/36

Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea

NA.

Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands

Strategic

Unknown

Caribbean Sea

NA.

Gervais' beaked whale

Mesoplodon europaeus

Western North Atlantic

7,092 (0.54)/4,632

Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast United States Continental Shelf

NA.

Northern Gulf of Mexico

149 (0.91)/77

Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre

Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea

NA.

Northern bottlenose whale

Hyperoodon ampullatus

Western North Atlantic

Unknown

Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre, Labrador Current

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf

NA.

Sowerby's beaked whale

Mesoplodon bidens

Western North Atlantic

7,092 (0.54)/4,632

Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf

NA.

True's beaked whale

Mesoplodon mirus

Western North Atlantic

7,092 (0.54)/4,632

Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf

NA.

Family Delphinidae (dolphins)

Atlantic spotted dolphin

Stenella frontalis

Western North Atlantic

44,715 (0.43)/31,610

Gulf Stream

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf

NA.

Northern Gulf of Mexico

Unknown

Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea

NA.

Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands

Strategic

Unknown

Caribbean Sea

NA.

Atlantic white-sided dolphin

Lagenorhynchus acutus

Western North Atlantic

48,819 (0.61)/30,403

Gulf Steam, Labrador Current

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf

NA.

Clymene dolphin

Stenella clymene

Western North Atlantic

Unknown

Gulf Stream

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf

NA.

Northern Gulf of Mexico

129 (1.0)/64

Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea

NA.

Common bottlenose dolphin

Tursiops truncatus

Western North Atlantic Offshore

Strategic, depleted

77,532 (0.40)/56,053

Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf

NA.

Western North Atlantic Northern Migratory Coastal

11,548 (0.36)/8,620

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf

Long Island Sound, Sandy Hook Bay, Lower Chesapeake Bay, James River, Elizabeth River.

Western North Atlantic Southern Migratory Coastal

Strategic, depleted

9,173 (0.46)/6,326

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf

Lower Chesapeake Bay, James River, Elizabeth River, Beaufort Inlet, Cape Fear River, Kings Bay, St. Johns River.

Western North Atlantic South Carolina/Georgia Coastal

Strategic, depleted

4,377 (0.43)/3,097

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf

Kings Bay, St. Johns River.

Northern North Carolina Estuarine System

Strategic

823 (0.06)/782

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf

Beaufort Inlet, Cape Fear River.

Southern North Carolina Estuarine System

Strategic

Unknown

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf

Beaufort Inlet, Cape Fear River

Northern South Carolina Estuarine System

Strategic

Unknown

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf

NA.

Charleston Estuarine System

Strategic

Unknown

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf

NA.

Common bottlenose dolphin (continued)

Tursiops truncatus

Northern Georgia/Southern South Carolina Estuarine System

Strategic

Unknown

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf

NA.

Central Georgia Estuarine System

Strategic

192 (0.04)/185

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf

NA.

Southern Georgia Estuarine System

Strategic

194 (0.05)/185

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf

Kings Bay, St. Johns River.

Western North Atlantic Northern Florida Coastal

Strategic, depleted

1,219 (0.67)/730

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf

Kings Bay, St. Johns River.

Jacksonville Estuarine System

Strategic

Unknown

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf

Kings Bay, St. Johns River.

Western North Atlantic Central Florida Coastal

Strategic, depleted

4,895 (0.71)/2,851

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf

Port Canaveral.

Indian River Lagoon Estuarine System

Strategic

Unknown

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf

Port Canaveral.

Biscayne Bay

Strategic

Unknown

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf

NA.

Florida Bay

Unknown

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf

51,192 (0.10)/46,926

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Gulf of Mexico Eastern Coastal

12,388 (0.13)/11,110

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Gulf of Mexico Northern Coastal

7,185 (0.21)/6,044

Gulf of Mexico

St. Andrew Bay, Pascagoula River.

Gulf of Mexico Western Coastal

20,161 (0.17)/17,491

Gulf of Mexico

Corpus Christi Bay, Galveston Bay.

Northern Gulf of Mexico Oceanic

5,806 (0.39)/4,230

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Northern Gulf of Mexico Bay, Sound, and Estuaries

Strategic

Unknown

Gulf of Mexico

St. Andrew Bay, Pascagoula River, Sabine Lake, Corpus Christi Bay, and Galveston Bay.

Barataria Bay Estuarine System

Strategic

Unknown

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Mississippi Sound, Lake Borgne, Bay Boudreau

Strategic

901 (0.63)/551

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

St. Joseph Bay

Strategic

152 (0.08)/Unknown

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Choctawhatchee Bay

Strategic

179 (0.04)/Unknown

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands

Strategic

Unknown

Caribbean Sea

NA.

False killer whale

Pseudorca crassidens

Western North Atlantic

Strategic

442 (1.06)/212

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf

NA.

Northern Gulf of Mexico

Unknown

Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea

NA.

Fraser's dolphin

Lagenodelphis hosei

Western North Atlantic

Unknown

Gulf Stream

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf

NA.

Northern Gulf of Mexico

Unknown

Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea

NA.

Killer Whale

Orcinus orca

Western North Atlantic

Unknown

Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre, Labrador Current

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast United States Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland—Labrador Shelf

NA.

Northern Gulf of Mexico

28 (1.02)/14

Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea

NA.

Long-finned pilot whale

Globicephala melas

Western North Atlantic

Strategic

5,636 (0.63)/3,464

Gulf Stream

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf

NA.

Melon-headed Whale

Peponocephala electra

Western North Atlantic

Unknown

Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf

NA.

Northern Gulf of Mexico

2,235 (0.75)/1,274

Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea

NA.

Pantropical spotted-dolphin

Stenella attenuate

Western North Atlantic

3,333 (0.91)/1,733

Gulf Stream

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf

NA.

Northern Gulf of Mexico

50,880 (0.27)/40,699

Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea

NA.

Pygmy Killer Whales

Feresa attenuata

Western North Atlantic

Unknown

Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf

NA.

Northern Gulf of Mexico

152 (1.02)/75

Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea

NA.

Risso's dolphin

Grampus griseus

Western North Atlantic

18,250 (0.46)/12,619

Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast United States Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland—Labrador Shelf

NA.

Northern Gulf of Mexico

2,442 (0.57)/1,563

Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea

NA.

Rough-toothed dolphin

Steno bredanensis

Western North Atlantic

271 (1.00)/134

Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre

Caribbean Sea Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf

NA.

Northern Gulf of Mexico

624 (0.99)/311

Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea

NA.

Short-finned pilot whale

Globicephala macrorhynchus

Western North Atlantic

Strategic

21,515 (0.37)/15,913

Northeast Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf

NA.

Northern Gulf of Mexico

2,415 (0.66)/1,456

Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea

NA.

Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands

Strategic

Unknown

Caribbean Sea

NA.

Spinner dolphin

Stenella longirostris

Western North Atlantic

Unknown

Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf

NA.

Northern Gulf of Mexico

11,441 (0.83)/6,221

Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea

NA.

Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands

Strategic

Unknown

Caribbean Sea

NA.

Striped dolphin

Stenella coeruleoalba

Western North Atlantic

54,807 (0.30)/42,804

Gulf Stream

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf

NA.

Northern Gulf of Mexico

1,849 (0.77)/1,041

Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea

NA.

Short-beaked common dolphin

Delphinus delphis

Western North Atlantic

70,184 (0.28)/55,690

Gulf Stream

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf

NA.

White-beaked dolphin

Lagenorhynchus albirostris

Western North Atlantic

2,003 (0.94)/1,023

Labrador Current

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf

NA.

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)

Harbor porpoise

Phocoena

Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy

79,883 (0.32)/61,415

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf

Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island Sound, Block Island Sound, Buzzards Bay, Vineyard Sound, Long Island Sound, Piscataqua River, Thames River, Kennebec River.

Gulf of St. Lawrence

Unknown

Labrador Current

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf

NA.

Newfoundland

Unknown

Labrador Current

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf

NA.

Greenland

Unknown

Labrador Current

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, West Greenland Shelf

NA.

Order Carnivora

Suborder Pinnipedia

Family Phocidae (true seals)

Gray seal

Halichoerus grypus

Western North Atlantic

Unknown

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf

Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island Sound, Block Island Sound, Buzzards Bay, Vineyard Sound, Long Island Sound, Piscataqua River, Thames River, Kennebeck River.

Harbor seal

Phoca vitulina

Western North Atlantic

75,834 (0.15)/66,884

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf

Chesapeake Bay, Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island Sound, Block Island Sound, Buzzards Bay, Vineyard Sound, Long Island Sound, Piscataqua River, Thames River, Kennebeck River.

Harp seal

Pagophilus groenlandicus

Western North Atlantic

Unknown

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf

NA.

Hooded seal

Cystophora cristata

Western North Atlantic

Unknown

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, West Greenland Shelf

Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island Sound, Block Island Sound, Buzzards Bay, Vineyard Sound, Long Island Sound, Piscataqua River, Thames River, Kennebec River.

Notes:

CV: Coefficient of variation; ESA: Endangered Species Act; MMPA: Marine Mammal Protection Act; NA: Not applicable.

Taxonomy follows (Committee on Taxonomy, 2016).

Stock designations for the U.S. EEZ and abundance estimates are from Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Stock Assessment Reports prepared by NMFS (

Hayes et al.,

2017), unless specifically noted.

Populations or stocks defined by the MMPA as “strategic” for one of the following reasons: (1) The level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal level; (2) based on the best available scientific information, numbers are declining and species are likely to be listed as threatened species under the ESA within the foreseeable future; (3) species are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA; (4) species are designated as depleted under the MMPA.

Stock abundance, CV, and minimum population are numbers provided by the Stock Assessment Reports (

Hayes et al.,

2017). The stock abundance is an estimate of the number of animals within the stock. The CV is a statistical metric used as an indicator of the uncertainty in the abundance estimate. The minimum population estimate is either a direct count (

e.g.,

pinnipeds on land) or the lower 20th percentile of a statistical abundance estimate.

Occurrence in the AFTT Study Area includes open ocean areas—Labrador Current, North Atlantic Gyre, Gulf Stream, and coastal/shelf waters of seven large marine ecosystems—West Greenland Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, and Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, and inland waters of Kennebec River, Piscataqua River, Thames River, Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island Sound, Block Island Sound, Buzzards Bay, Vineyard Sound, Long Island Sound, Sandy Hook Bay, Lower Chesapeake Bay, James River, Elizabeth River, Beaufort Inlet, Cape Fear River, Kings Bay, St. Johns River, Port Canaveral, St. Andrew Bay, Pascagoula River, Sabine Lake, Corpus Christi Bay, and Galveston Bay.

The bowhead whale population off the west coast of Greenland is not managed by NMFS and, therefore, does not have an associated Stock Assessment Report. Abundance and 95 percent highest density interval were presented in (Frasier

et al.,

2015).

The West Greenland stock of minke whales is not managed by NMFS and, therefore, does not have an associated Stock Assessment Report. Abundance and 95 percent confidence interval were presented in (Heide-Jørgensen

et al.,

2010).

The Labrador Sea stock of sei whales is not managed by NMFS and, therefore, does not have an associated Stock Assessment Report. Information was obtained in (Prieto

et al.,

2014).

The West Greenland stock of fin whales is not managed by NMFS and, therefore, does not have an associated Stock Assessment Report. Abundance and 95 percent confidence interval were presented in (Heide-Jørgensen

et al.,

2010).

The Gulf of St. Lawrence stock of fin whales is not managed by NMFS and, therefore, does not have an associated Stock Assessment Report. Abundance and 95 percent confidence interval were presented in (Ramp

et al.,

2014).

Photo identification catalogue count of 440 recognizable blue whale individuals from the Gulf of St. Lawrence is considered a minimum population estimate for the western North Atlantic stock (Waring

et al.,

2010).

Estimates include both the pygmy and dwarf sperm whales in the western North Atlantic (Waring

et al.,

2014) and the northern Gulf of Mexico (Waring

et al.,

2013).

Beluga whales in the Atlantic are not managed by NMFS and have no associated Stock Assessment Report. Abundance and 95 percent confidence interval for the Eastern High Arctic/Baffin Bay stock were presented in (Innes e

t al.,

2002).

Beluga whales in the Atlantic are not managed by NMFS and have no associated Stock Assessment Report. Abundance and 95 percent confidence interval for the West Greenland stock were presented in (Heide-Jørgensen

et al.,

2009).

NA = Not applicable. Narwhals in the Atlantic are not managed by NMFS and have no associated Stock Assessment Report.

Estimates for these western North Atlantic stocks are from Waring

et al.

(2014) and the northern Gulf of Mexico stock are from (Waring

et al.,

2013) as applicable.

Estimate includes undifferentiated Mesoplodon species.

Estimate includes Gervais' and Blainville's beaked whales.

Estimate may include sightings of the coastal form.

Estimates for these Gulf of Mexico stocks are from Waring et al. (2016).

NMFS is in the process of writing individual stock assessment reports for each of the 32 bay, sound, and estuary stocks.

Estimates for these stocks are from Waring

et al.,

(2015).

Estimates for these western North Atlantic stocks are from (Waring

et al.,

2007).

Harbor porpoise in the Gulf of St. Lawrence are not managed by NMFS and have no associated Stock Assessment Report.

Harbor porpoise in Newfoundland are not managed by NMFS and have no associated Stock Assessment Report.

Harbor porpoise in Greenland are not managed by NMFS and have no associated Stock Assessment Report.

Important Marine Mammal Habitat

ESA Critical Habitat for North Atlantic Right Whale

The only ESA-listed marine mammal with designated critical habitat within the AFTT Study Area is the North Atlantic right whale (NARW). On February 26, 2016, NMFS issued a final rule (81 FR 4837) to replace the critical habitat for NARW with two new areas. The areas now designated as critical habitat contain approximately 29,763 nmi

of marine habitat in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank region (Unit 1), essential for NARW foraging and off the Southeast U.S. coast (Unit 2), including the coast of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, which are key areas essential for calving. These two ESA-designated critical habitats were established to replace three smaller previously ESA-designated critical habitats (Cape Cod Bay/Massachusetts Bay/Stellwagen Bank, Great South Channel, and the coastal waters of Georgia and Florida in the southeastern United States) that had been designated by NMFS in 1994 (59 FR 28805; June 3, 1994). Two additional areas in Canadian waters, Grand Manan Basin and Roseway Basin, were identified and designated as critical habitat under Canada's endangered species law (Section 58 (5) of the Species at Risk Act (SARA), S. C. 2002, c. 29) and identified in Final Recovery Strategy for the North Atlantic right whale, posted June 2009 on the SARA Public Registry.

Unit 1 encompasses the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank region including the large embayments of Cape Cod Bay and Massachusetts Bay and deep underwater basins, as well as state waters, except for inshore areas, bays, harbors, and inlets, from Maine through Massachusetts in addition to Federal waters, all of which are key areas. Unit 1 includes the large embayments of Cape Cod Bay and Massachusetts Bay but does not include inshore areas, bays, harbors and inlets. It also does not include waters landward of the 72 COLREGS lines (33 CFR part 80). A large portion of the critical habitat of Unit 1 lies within the coastal waters of the Boston OPAREA (see Figure 4.1-1 of the Navy's rulemaking and LOA application).

Unit 2 consists of all marine waters from Cape Fear, North Carolina, southward to approximately 27 nmi below Cape Canaveral, Florida, within the area bounded on the west by the shoreline and the 72 COLREGS lines, and on the east by rhumb lines connecting the specific points described below. The physical features correlated with the distribution of NARW in the southern critical habitat area provide an optimum environment for calving in the waters of Brunswick County, North Carolina; Horry, Georgetown, Charleston, Colleton, Beaufort, and Jasper Counties, South Carolina; Chatham, Bryan, Liberty, McIntosh, Glynn, and Camden Counties, Georgia; and Nassau, Duval, St. John's, Flagler, Volusia, and Brevard Counties, Florida. For example, the bathymetry of the inner and nearshore middle shelf area minimizes the effect of strong winds and offshore waves, limiting the formation of large waves and rough water. The average temperature of critical habitat waters is cooler during the time right whales are present due to a lack of influence by the Gulf Stream and cool freshwater runoff from coastal areas. The water temperatures may provide an optimal balance between offshore waters that are too warm for nursing mothers to tolerate, yet not too cool for calves that may only have minimal fatty insulation. Reproductive females and calves are expected to be concentrated in the critical habitat from December through April. A majority of the critical habitat of Unit 2 lies within the coastal waters of the Jacksonville OPAREA and the Charleston OPAREA (see Figure 4.1-1 of the Navy's rulemaking and LOA application).

Important Habitat for Sperm Whales

Sperm whales aggregate at the mouth of the Mississippi River and along the continental slope in or near cyclonic cold-core eddies (counterclockwise water movements in the northern hemisphere with a cold center) or

anticyclone eddies (clockwise water movements in the northern hemisphere) (Davis

et al.,

2007). Habitat models for sperm whale occurrence indicate a high probability of suitable habitat along the shelf break off the Mississippi delta, Desoto Canyon, and western Florida (Best e

t al.,

2012; Weller

et al.,

2000). Due to the nutrient-rich freshwater plume from the Mississippi Delta the continental slope waters south of the Mississippi River Delta and the Mississippi Canyon play an important ecological role for sperm whales (Davis

et al.,

2002; Weller

et al.,

2000). Sightings during extensive surveys in this area consisted of mixed-sex groups of females, immature males, and mother-calf pairs as well as groups of bachelor males (Jochens

et al.,

2008; Weller

et al.,

2000). Female sperm whales have displayed a high level of site fidelity and year round utilization off the Mississippi River Delta compared to males (Jochens

et al.,

2008) suggesting this area may also support year-round feeding, breeding, and nursery areas (Baumgartner

et al.,

2001; NMFS, 2010), although the seasonality of breeding in Gulf of Mexico sperm whales is not known (Jochens e

t al.,

2008).

Biologically Important Areas

Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) include areas of known importance for reproduction, feeding, or migration, or areas where small and resident populations are known to occur (LeBrecque

et al.,

2015a and 2015b). Unlike Critical Habitat, these areas are not formally designated pursuant to any statute or law, but are a compilation of the best available science intended to inform impact and mitigation analyses.

On the East Coast, 19 of the 24 identified BIAs fall within or overlap with the AFTT Study area—10 feeding (2 for minke whale, 1 for sei whale, 3 for fin whale, 3 for NARW, and 1 for humpback), 1 migration (NARW), 2 reproduction (NARW), 6 small and resident population (1 for harbor porpoise and 5 for bottlenose dolphin). Figures 11.2-1 through11.2-2 of the Navy's rulemaking and LOA application illustrate how these BIAs overlap with Navy OPAREAs on the East Coast. In the Gulf of Mexico, 4 of the 12 identified BIAs for small and resident populations overlap the AFTT study area (1 for Bryde's whale and 3 for Bottlenose dolphin). Figures 11.2-3 of the Navy's rulemaking and LOA application illustrate how these BIAs overlap with Navy OPAREAs in the Gulf of Mexico.

Large Whales Feeding BIAs—East Coast Within the AFTT Study Area

Two minke whale feeding BIAs are located in the northeast Atlantic from March through November in waters less than 200 m in the southern and southwestern section of the Gulf of Maine including Georges Bank, the Great South Channel, Cape Cod Bay and Massachusetts Bay, Stellwagen Bank, Cape Anne, and Jeffreys Ledge (LaBrecque

et al.

(2015a, 2015b)) LaBrecque

et al.

(2015b) delineated a feeding area for sei whales in the northeast Atlantic between the 25-meter contour off coastal Maine and Massachusetts to the 200-meter contour in central Gulf of Maine, including the northern shelf break area of Georges Bank. The feeding area also includes the southern shelf break area of Georges Bank from 100 to 2,000 m and the Great South Channel. Feeding activity is concentrated from May through November with a peak in July and August. LaBrecque

et al.

(2015b) identified three feeding areas for fin whales in the North Atlantic within the AFTT Study Area: (1) June to October in the northern Gulf of Maine; (2) year-round in the southern Gulf of Maine, and (3) March to October east of Montauk Point. LaBrecque

et al.

(2015b) delineated a humpback whale feeding area in the Gulf of Maine, Stellwagen Bank, and Great South Channel.

NARW BIAs—East Coast Within the AFTT Study Area

LaBrecque

et al.

(2015b) identified three seasonal NARW feeding areas BIAs located in or near the AFTT Study Area (1) February to April on Cape Cod Bay and Massachusetts Bay (2) April to June in the Great South Channel and on the northern edge of Georges Bank, and (3) June to July and October to December on Jeffreys Ledge in the western Gulf of Maine. A mating BIA was identified in the central Gulf of Maine (from November through January), a calving BIA in the southeast Atlantic (from mid-November to late April) and the migratory corridor area BIA along the U.S. East Coast between the NARW southern calving grounds and northern feeding areas (see Figure 11.2-1 and 11.2-2 of the Navy's rulemaking and LOA application for how these BIAs overlap with Navy OPAREAs).

Harbor Porpoise BIA—East Coast Within the AFTT Study Area

LaBrecque

et al.

(2015b) identified a small and resident population BIA for harbor porpoise in the Gulf of Maine (see Figure 11.2-1 of the Navy's rulemaking and LOA application). From July to September, harbor porpoises are concentrated in waters less than 150 m deep in the northern Gulf of Maine and southern Bay of Fundy. During fall (October to December) and spring (April to June), harbor porpoises are widely dispersed from New Jersey to Maine, with lower densities farther north and south (LaBrecque

et al.,

2015b).

Bottlenose Dolphin BIAs—East Coast Within the AFTT Study Area

LaBrecque

et al.

(2015b) identified nine small and resident bottlenose dolphin population areas within estuarine areas along the east coast of the U.S. (see Figure 11.2-2 of the Navy's rulemaking and LOA application). These areas include estuarine and nearshore areas extending from Pamlico Sound, North Carolina down to Florida Bay, Florida (LaBrecque

et al.,

2015b). The Northern North Carolina Estuarine System, Southern North Carolina Estuarine System, and Charleston Estuarine System populations partially overlap with nearshore portions of the Navy Cherry Point Range Complex and Jacksonville Estuarine System Populations partially overlaps with nearshore portions of the Jacksonville Range Complex. The Southern Georgia Estuarine System Population area also overlaps with the Jacksonville Range Complex, specifically within Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Kings Bay, Georgia and includes estuarine and intercoastal waterways from Altamaha Sound, to the Cumberland River (LaBrecque

et al.,

2015b). The remaining four BIAs are outside but adjacent to the AFTT Study Area boundaries.

Bottlenose Dolphin BIAs—Gulf of Mexico Within the AFTT Study Area

LaBrecque

et al.

(2015) also described 11 year-round BIAs for small and resident estuarine stocks of bottlenose dolphin that primarily inhabit inshore waters of bays, sounds, and estuaries (BSE) in the Gulf of Mexico (see Figure 11.2-3 in the Navy's rulemaking and LOA application). Of the 11 BIAs identified for the BSE bottlenose dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico, three overlap with the Gulf of Mexico Range Complex (Aranas Pass Area, Texas; Mississippi Sound Area, Mississippi; and St. Joseph Bay Area, Florida), while eight are located adjacent to the AFTT Study Area boundaries.

Bryde's Whale BIA—Gulf of Mexico Within the AFTT Study Area

The Gulf of Mexico Bryde's whale is a very small population that is genetically distinct from other Bryde's whales and not genetically diverse

within the Gulf of Mexico (Rosel and Wilcox, 2014). Further, the species is typically observed only within a narrowly circumscribed area within the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Therefore, this area is described as a year-round BIA by LaBrecque

et al.

(2015). Although survey effort has covered all oceanic waters of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, whales were observed only between approximately the 100- and 300-m isobaths in the eastern Gulf of Mexico from the head of the De Soto Canyon (south of Pensacola, Florida) to northwest of Tampa Bay, Florida (Maze-Foley and Mullin, 2006; Waring

et al.,

2016; Rosel and Wilcox, 2014; Rosel

et al.,

2016). Rosel

et al.

(2016) expanded this description by stating that, due to the depth of some sightings, the area is more appropriately defined to the 400-m isobath and westward to Mobile Bay, Alabama, in order to provide some buffer around the deeper sightings and to include all sightings in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico.

National Marine Sanctuaries

Under Title III of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (also known as the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA)), NOAA can establish as national marine sanctuaries (NMS) areas of the marine environment with special conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, cultural, archaeological, scientific, educational, or aesthetic qualities. Sanctuary regulations prohibit destroying, causing the loss of, or injuring any sanctuary resource managed under the law or regulations for that sanctuary (15 CFR part 922). NMS are managed on a site-specific basis, and each sanctuary has site-specific regulations. Most, but not all sanctuaries have site-specific regulatory exemptions from the prohibitions for certain military activities. Additionally, section 304(d) of the NMSA requires Federal agencies to consult with the NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries whenever their Proposed Activity are likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure a sanctuary resource.

Three NMS are in the vicinity of or overlap with the AFTT Study Area including the Gerry E. Studds Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (Stellwagen Bank NMS), Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary (Gray's Reef NMS), and Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (Florida Keys NMS). Stellwagen Bank NMS sits at the mouth of Massachusetts Bay, just three miles south of Cape Ann, three miles north of Cape Cod and 25 mi due east of Boston and provides feeding and nursery grounds for marine mammals including NARW, humpback, sei, and fin whales. The Stellwagen Bank NMS is within critical habitat for the NARW for foraging (Unit 1). Gray's Reef NMS is 19 mi east of Sapelo Island Georgia, in the South Atlantic Bight (the offshore area between Cape Hatteras, North Carolina and Cape Canaveral, Florida) and is within the designated critical habitat for NARW calving in the southeast (Unit 2). Florida Keys NMS protects 2,900 nmi

of waters surrounding the Florida Keys, from south of Miami westward to encompass the Dry Tortugas, excluding Dry Tortugas National Park and supports a resident group of bottlenose dolphin (Florida Bay Population BIA). Two additional sanctuaries, Flower Gardens NMS in the Gulf of Mexico and Monitor NMS off of North Carolina, were determined by the Navy as unnecessary to consult on based on the lack of impacts to sanctuary resources for section 304(d) under NMSA and therefore not discussed further.

Unusual Mortality Events (UME)

A UME is defined under Section 410(6) of the MMPA as a stranding that is unexpected; involves a significant die-off of any marine mammal population; and demands immediate response. From 1991 to the present, there have been 34 formally recognized UMEs affecting marine mammals along the Atlantic Coast and the Gulf of Mexico involving species under NMFS's jurisdiction. The NARW, humpback whale, and minke whale UMEs on the Atlantic Coast are still active and involve ongoing investigations and the impacts to Barataria Bay bottlenose dolphins from the expired UME associated with the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico are thought to be persistent and continue to inform population analyses. The other UMEs expired several years ago and little is known about how the effects of those events might be appropriately applied to an impact assessment several years later. The three UMEs that could inform the current analysis are discussed below.

NARW UME

Since June 7, 2017, elevated mortalities of NARW have occurred. A total of 16 confirmed dead stranded NARW (12 in Canada; 4 in the United States), and five live whale entanglements in Canada have been documented to date predominantly in the Gulf of St. Lawrence region of Canada and around the Cape Cod area of Massachusetts. An additional whale stranded in the United States in April 2017 prior to the start of the UME bringing the annual 2017 total to 17 confirmed dead stranded whales (12 in Canada; 5 in the United States) as of December 5, 2017. Historically (2006-2016), the annual average for dead strandings in Canada and the United States combined is 3.8 whales per year. This event was declared a UME and is under investigation. Full necropsy examinations have been conducted on 11 of the 17 whales and final results from the examinations are pending. Necropsy results from six of the Canadian whales suggest mortalities of four whales were compatible with blunt trauma likely caused by vessel collision and one mortality confirmed from chronic entanglement in fishing gear. The sixth whale was too decomposed to determine the cause of mortality, but some observations in this animal suggested blunt trauma. A seventh necropsy has been performed, but the results are not currently available (Daoust

et al.,

2017). Daoust

et al.

(2017) also concluded there were no oil and gas seismic surveys authorized in the months prior to or during the period over which these mortalities occurred, as well as no blasting or major marine development projects. All of the NARW that stranded in the United States that are part of the UME have been significantly decomposed at the time of stranding, and investigations have been limited. Sonar has not been investigated for the mortalities in the United States.

As part of the UME investigation process, an independent team of scientists (Investigative Team) was assembled to coordinate with the Working Group on Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality Events to review the data collected, sample future whales that strand and to determine the next steps for the investigation. For more information on this UME, please refer to

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2018-north-atlantic-right-whale-unusual-mortality-event.

Humpback Whale UME Along the Atlantic Coast

Since January 2016, elevated mortalities of humpback whales along the Atlantic coast from Maine through North Carolina have occurred. As of December 1, 2017 a total of 58 humpback strandings have occurred (26 and 32 whales in 2016 and 2017, respectively). As of April 2017, partial or full necropsy examinations were conducted on 20 cases, or approximately half of the 42 strandings (at that time). Of the 20 whales examined, 10 had evidence of blunt force trauma or pre-mortem propeller wounds indicative of vessel strike,

which is over six times above the 16-year average of 1.5 whales showing signs of vessel strike in this region. Vessel strikes were documented for stranded humpback whales in Virginia (3), New York (3), Delaware (2), Massachusetts (1) and New Hampshire (1). NOAA, in coordination with our stranding network partners, continues to investigate the recent mortalities, environmental conditions, and population monitoring to better understand the recent humpback whale mortalities. At this time, vessel parameters (including size) are not known for each vessel-whale collision that lead to the death of the whales. Therefore, NOAA considers all sizes of vessels to be risks for whale species in highly trafficked areas. This investigation is ongoing. Please refer to

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/2017humpbackatlanticume.html

for more information on this UME.

Minke Whale UME Along the Atlantic Coast

Since January 2017, elevated mortalities of minke whale along the Atlantic coast from Maine through South Carolina have occurred. As of February 16, 2018, a total of 30 strandings have occurred (28 and 2 whales in 2017 and 2018, respectively). As of February 16, 2018 full or partial necropsy examinations were conducted on over 60 percent of the whales. Preliminary findings in several of the whales have shown evidence of human interactions, primarily fisheries interactions, or infectious disease. These findings are not consistent across all of the whales examined, so more research is needed. This investigation is ongoing. Please refer to

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2018-minke-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast

for more information on this UME.

Cetacean UME in the Northern Gulf of Mexico and Persistent Impacts on Barataria Bay Bottlenose Dolphins

The cetacean UME in the northern Gulf of Mexico UME occurred from March 2010 through July 2014. The event included all cetaceans stranded during this time in Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana and all cetaceans other than bottlenose dolphins stranded in the Florida Panhandle (Franklin County through Escambia County), with a total of 1,141 cetaceans stranded or reported dead offshore. For reference, the same area experienced a normal average of 75 strandings per year from 2002-09 (Litz

et al.,

2014). The majority of stranded animals were bottlenose dolphins, though at least ten additional species were reported as well. Since not all cetaceans that die wash ashore where they may be found, the number reported stranded is likely a fraction of the total number of cetaceans that died during the UME. There was also an increase in strandings of stillborn and newborn dolphins (Colegrove

et al.,

2016).

Increased dolphin strandings occurred in northern Louisiana and Mississippi before the DWH oil spill (March-mid-April 2010). Some previous Gulf of Mexico cetacean UMEs had included environmental influences (

e.g.,

low salinity due to heavy rainfall and associated runoff of land-based pesticides, low temperatures) as possible contributing factors (Litz

et al.,

2014). Low air and water temperatures occurred in the spring of 2010 throughout the Gulf of Mexico prior to and during the start of the UME, and a portion of the pre-spill atypical strandings occurred in Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, concurrent with lower than average salinity (Mullin

et al.,

2015). Therefore, a large part of the increased dolphin strandings during this time may have been due to a combination of cold temperatures and low salinity (Litz

et al.,

2014).

The UME investigation and the DWH Natural Resource Damage Assessment (described below) determined that the DWH oil spill is the most likely explanation of the persistent, elevated stranding numbers in the northern Gulf of Mexico after the spill that began on April 20, 2010. The evidence to date supports that exposure to hydrocarbons released during the DWH oil spill was the most likely explanation of adrenal and lung disease in dolphins, which contributed to increased deaths of dolphins living within the oil spill footprint and increased fetal loss. The longest and most prolonged stranding cluster of the UME was in Barataria Bay, Louisiana in 2010-11, followed by Mississippi and Alabama in 2011, consistent with timing and spatial distribution of oil, while the number of deaths was not elevated for areas which were not as heavily oiled.

In order to assess the health of free-ranging (not stranded) dolphin capture-release health assessments were conducted in Barataria Bay, during which physical examinations, including weighing and morphometric measurements, were conducted, routine biological samples (

e.g.,

blood, tissue) were obtained, and animals were examined with ultrasound. Veterinarians then reviewed the findings and determined an overall prognosis for each animal (

e.g.,

favorable outcome expected, outcome uncertain, unfavorable outcome expected). Almost half of the examined animals were given a guarded or worse prognosis, and 17 percent were not expected to survive (Schwacke

et al.,

2014a). Comparison of Barataria Bay dolphins to a reference population found significantly increased adrenal disease, lung disease, and poor health. In addition to the health assessments, histological evaluations of samples from dead stranded animals from within and outside the UME area found that UME animals were more likely to have lung and adrenal lesions and to have primary bacterial pneumonia, which caused or contributed significantly to death (Schwacke

et al.,

2014a, 2014b; Venn-Watson

et al.,

2015b).

The prevalence of brucellosis and morbillivirus infections was low and biotoxin levels were low or below the detection limit, meaning that these were not likely primary causes of the UME (Venn-Watson

et al.,

2015b; Fauquier

et al.,

2017). Subsequent study found that persistent organic pollutants (

e.g.,

polychlorinated biphenyls), which are associated with endocrine disruption and immune suppression when present in high levels, are likely not a primary contributor to the poor health conditions and increased mortality observed in these Gulf of Mexico populations (Balmer

et al.,

2015). The chronic adrenal gland and lung diseases identified in stranded UME dolphins are consistent with exposure to petroleum compounds (Venn-Watson

et al.,

2015b). Colegrove

et al.

(2016) found that the increase in perinatal strandings resulted from late-term pregnancy failures and development of

in utero

infections likely caused by chronic illnesses in mothers who were exposed to oil.

While the number of dolphin mortalities in the area decreased after the peak from March 2010-July 2014, it does not follow that the effects of the oil spill on these populations have ended. Researchers still saw evidence of chronic lung disease and adrenal impairment four years after the spill (in July 2014) and saw evidence of failed pregnancies in 2015 (Smith

et al.,

2017). These follow-up studies found a yearly mortality rate for Barataria Bay dolphins of roughly 13 percent (as compared to annual mortality rates of 5 percent or less that have been previously reported for other dolphin populations), and found that only 20 percent of pregnant dolphins produced viable calves (compared with 83 percent in a reference population) (Lane

et al.,

2015; McDonald

et al.,

2017). Research into the long-term health effects of the spill

on marine mammal populations is ongoing. For more information on the UME, please visit

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/cetacean_gulfofmexico.htm.

Marine Mammal Hearing

Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (

e.g.,

Richardson

et al.,

1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall

et al.

(2007) recommended that marine mammals be divided into functional hearing groups based on directly measured or estimated hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response data, audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques, anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no direct measurements of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes (

i.e.,

low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2016) described generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups. Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 dB threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower bound from Southall

et al.

(2007) retained. The functional groups and the associated frequencies are indicated below (note that these frequency ranges correspond to the range for the composite group, with the entire range not necessarily reflecting the capabilities of every species within that group):

Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 35 kHz, with best hearing estimated to be from 100 Hz to 8 kHz;

Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked whales, and most delphinids): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz, with best hearing from 10 kHz to less than 100 kHz;

High-frequency cetaceans (porpoises, river dolphins, and members of the genera Kogia and Cephalorhynchus; including two members of the genus Lagenorhynchus, on the basis of recent echolocation data and genetic data): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz.

Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true seals): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 50 Hz to 86 kHz, with best hearing between 1-50 kHz;

Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz, with best hearing between 2-48 kHz.

The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall

et al.

(2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range (Hemilä

et al.,

2006; Kastelein

et al.,

2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013).

For more detail concerning these groups above and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2016) for a review of available information.

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat

This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The “Estimated Take of Marine Mammals” section later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The “Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination” section considers the content of this section, the “Estimated Take of Marine Mammals” section, and the “Proposed Mitigation” section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and how those impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or stocks.

The Navy has requested authorization for the take of marine mammals that may occur incidental to training and testing activities in the AFTT Study Area. The Navy analyzed potential impacts to marine mammals from acoustics and explosives sources as well as vessel strikes.

Other potential impacts to marine mammals from training and testing activities in the AFTT Study Area were analyzed in the AFTT DEIS/OEIS, in consultation with NMFS as a cooperating agency, and determined to be unlikely to result in marine mammal take in the form of harassment, serious injury, or mortality. Therefore, the Navy has not requested authorization for take of marine mammals that might occur incidental to other components of their proposed activities and we agree that take is unlikely to occur from those components. In this proposed rule, NMFS analyzes the potential effects on marine mammals from the activity components that may cause the take of marine mammals: Exposure to non-impulsive (sonar and other active acoustic sources) and impulsive (explosives, ship shock trials, impact pile driving, and airguns) stressors, and vessel strikes.

For the purpose of MMPA incidental take authorizations, NMFS' effects assessments serve four primary purposes: (1) To prescribe the permissible methods of taking (

i.e.,

Level B harassment (behavioral harassment and temporary threshold shift (TTS)), Level A harassment (permanent threshold shift (PTS) or non-auditory injury), serious injury or mortality, including an identification of the number and types of take that could occur by harassment, serious injury, or mortality) and to prescribe other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its habitat (

i.e.,

mitigation); (2) to determine whether the specified activity would have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of marine mammals (based on the likelihood that the activity would adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival); (3) to determine whether the specified activity would have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (however, there are no subsistence communities that would be affected in the AFTT Study Area, so this determination is inapplicable to the AFTT rulemaking); and (4) to prescribe requirements pertaining to monitoring and reporting.

In the Potential Effects Section, NMFS' provides a general description of the ways marine mammals may be affected by these activities in the form of mortality, physical trauma, sensory impairment (permanent and temporary threshold shifts and acoustic masking), physiological responses (particular stress responses), behavioral disturbance, or habitat effects. Ship shock and vessel strikes, which have the potential to result in incidental take from serious injury and/or mortality, will be discussed in more detail in the “Estimated Take of Marine Mammals” section. The Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section also discusses how the potential effects on marine mammals from non-impulsive and impulsive sources relate to the MMPA definitions of Level A and Level B Harassment, and quantifies those effects that rise to the level of a take along with

the potential effects from vessel strikes. The Negligible Impact Analysis Section assesses whether the proposed authorized take will have a negligible impact on the affected species and stocks.

Potential Effects of Underwater Sound

Note that, in the following discussion, we refer in many cases to a review article concerning studies of noise-induced hearing loss conducted from 1996-2015 (

i.e.,

Finneran, 2015). For study-specific citations, please see that work. Anthropogenic sounds cover a broad range of frequencies and sound levels and can have a range of highly variable impacts on marine life, from none or minor to potentially severe responses, depending on received levels, duration of exposure, behavioral context, and various other factors. The potential effects of underwater sound from active acoustic sources can potentially result in one or more of the following: Temporary or permanent hearing impairment, non-auditory physical or physiological effects, behavioral disturbance, stress, and masking (Richardson

et al.,

1995; Gordon

et al.,

2004; Nowacek

et al.,

2007; Southall

et al.,

2007; Götz

et al.,

2009). The degree of effect is intrinsically related to the signal characteristics, received level, distance from the source, and duration of the sound exposure. In general, sudden, high level sounds can cause hearing loss, as can longer exposures to lower level sounds. Temporary or permanent loss of hearing will occur almost exclusively for noise within an animal's hearing range. We first describe specific manifestations of acoustic effects before providing discussion specific to the Navy's activities.

Richardson

et al.

(1995) described zones of increasing intensity of effect that might be expected to occur, in relation to distance from a source and assuming that the signal is within an animal's hearing range. First is the area within which the acoustic signal would be audible (potentially perceived) to the animal, but not strong enough to elicit any overt behavioral or physiological response. The next zone corresponds with the area where the signal is audible to the animal and of sufficient intensity to elicit behavioral or physiological responsiveness. Third is a zone within which, for signals of high intensity, the received level is sufficient to potentially cause discomfort or tissue damage to auditory or other systems. Overlaying these zones to a certain extent is the area within which masking (

i.e.,

when a sound interferes with or masks the ability of an animal to detect a signal of interest that is above the absolute hearing threshold) may occur; the masking zone may be highly variable in size.

We also describe more severe effects (

i.e.,

certain non-auditory physical or physiological effects). Potential effects from impulsive sound sources can range in severity from effects such as behavioral disturbance or tactile perception to physical discomfort, slight injury of the internal organs and the auditory system, or mortality (Yelverton

et al.,

1973). Non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in marine mammals exposed to high level underwater sound or as a secondary effect of extreme behavioral reactions (

e.g.,

change in dive profile as a result of an avoidance reaction) caused by exposure to sound include neurological effects, bubble formation, resonance effects, and other types of organ or tissue damage (Cox

et al.,

2006; Southall

et al.,

2007; Zimmer and Tyack, 2007; Tal

et al.,

2015).

Acoustic Sources

Direct Physiological Effects

Based on the literature, there are two basic ways that non-impulsive sources might directly result in direct physiological effects. Noise-induced loss of hearing sensitivity (more commonly-called “threshold shift”) is the both the better-understood of these two effects, and the only one that is actually expected to occur. Acoustically mediated bubble growth and other pressure-related physiological impacts are addressed briefly below, but are not expected to result from the Navy's activities. Separately, an animal's behavioral reaction to an acoustic exposure might lead to physiological effects that might ultimately lead to injury or death, which is discussed later in the Stranding Section.

Threshold Shift (Noise-Induced Loss of Hearing)

When animals exhibit reduced hearing sensitivity within their auditory range (

i.e.,

sounds must be louder for an animal to detect them) following exposure to a sufficiently intense sound or a less intense sound for a sufficient duration, it is referred to as a noise-induced threshold shift (TS). An animal can experience a temporary threshold shift (TTS) and/or permanent threshold shift (PTS). TTS can last from minutes or hours to days (

i.e.,

there is recovery back to baseline/pre-exposure levels), can occur within a specific frequency range (

i.e.,

an animal might only have a temporary loss of hearing sensitivity within a limited frequency band of its auditory range), and can be of varying amounts (for example, an animal's hearing sensitivity might be reduced by only 6 dB or reduced by 30 dB). Repeated sound exposure that leads to TTS could cause PTS. In severe cases of PTS, there can be total or partial deafness, while in most cases the animal has an impaired ability to hear sounds in specific frequency ranges (Kryter, 1985). When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in the ear (

i.e.,

tissue damage), whereas TTS represents primarily tissue fatigue and is reversible (Southall

et al.,

2007). PTS is permanent (

i.e.,

there is incomplete recovery back to baseline/pre-exposure levels), but also can occur in a specific frequency range and amount as mentioned above for TTS. In addition, other investigators have suggested that TTS is within the normal bounds of physiological variability and tolerance and does not represent physical injury (

e.g.,

Ward, 1997). Therefore, NMFS does not consider TTS to constitute auditory injury.

The following physiological mechanisms are thought to play a role in inducing auditory TS: Effects to sensory hair cells in the inner ear that reduce their sensitivity; modification of the chemical environment within the sensory cells; residual muscular activity in the middle ear; displacement of certain inner ear membranes; increased blood flow; and post-stimulatory reduction in both efferent and sensory neural output (Southall

et al.,

2007). The amplitude, duration, frequency, temporal pattern, and energy distribution of sound exposure all can affect the amount of associated TS and the frequency range in which it occurs. Generally, the amount of TS, and the time needed to recover from the effect, increase as amplitude and duration of sound exposure increases. Human non-impulsive noise exposure guidelines are based on the assumption that exposures of equal energy (the same SEL) produce equal amounts of hearing impairment regardless of how the sound energy is distributed in time (NIOSH, 1998). Previous marine mammal TTS studies have also generally supported this equal energy relationship (Southall

et al.,

2007). However, some more recent studies concluded that for all noise exposure situations the equal energy relationship may not be the best indicator to predict TTS onset levels (Mooney

et al.,

2009a and 2009b; Kastak

et al.,

2007). These studies highlight the inherent complexity of predicting TTS onset in marine mammals, as well as the importance of considering exposure duration when assessing potential

impacts. Generally, with sound exposures of equal energy, those that were quieter (lower SPL) with longer duration were found to induce TTS onset at lower levels than those of louder (higher SPL) and shorter duration. Less TS will occur from intermittent sounds than from a continuous exposure with the same energy (some recovery can occur between intermittent exposures) (Kryter

et al.,

1966; Ward, 1997; Mooney

et al.,

2009a, 2009b; Finneran

et al.,

2010). For example, one short but loud (higher SPL) sound exposure may induce the same impairment as one longer but softer (lower SPL) sound, which in turn may cause more impairment than a series of several intermittent softer sounds with the same total energy (Ward, 1997). Additionally, though TTS is temporary, very prolonged or repeated exposure to sound strong enough to elicit TTS, or shorter-term exposure to sound levels well above the TTS threshold can cause PTS, at least in terrestrial mammals (Kryter, 1985; Lonsbury-Martin

et al.,

1987).

PTS is considered auditory injury (Southall

et al.,

2007). Irreparable damage to the inner or outer cochlear hair cells may cause PTS; however, other mechanisms are also involved, such as exceeding the elastic limits of certain tissues and membranes in the middle and inner ears and resultant changes in the chemical composition of the inner ear fluids (Southall

et al.,

2007).

Although the published body of scientific literature contains numerous theoretical studies and discussion papers on hearing impairments that can occur with exposure to a loud sound, only a few studies provide empirical information on the levels at which noise-induced loss in hearing sensitivity occurs in nonhuman animals. The NMFS 2016 Acoustic Technical Guidance, which was used in the assessment of effects for this action, compiled, interpreted, and synthesized the best available scientific information for noise-induced hearing effects for marine mammals to derive updated thresholds for assessing the impacts of noise on marine mammal hearing, as noted above. For cetaceans, published data on the onset of TTS are limited to the captive bottlenose dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise (summarized in Finneran, 2015). TTS studies involving exposure to other Navy activities (

e.g.,

SURTASS LFA) or other low-frequency sonar (below 1 kHz) have never been conducted due to logistical difficulties of conducting experiments with low frequency sound sources. However, there are TTS measurements for exposures to other LF sources, such as seismic airguns. Finneran

et al.

(2015) suggest that the potential for airguns to cause hearing loss in dolphins is lower than previously predicted, perhaps as a result of the low-frequency content of airgun impulses compared to the high-frequency hearing ability of dolphins. Finneran et al. (2015) measured hearing thresholds in three captive bottlenose dolphins before and after exposure to ten pulses produced by a seismic airgun in order to study TTS induced after exposure to multiple pulses. Exposures began at relatively low levels and gradually increased over a period of several months, with the highest exposures at peak SPLs from 196 to 210 dB and cumulative (unweighted) SELs from 193-195 dB. No substantial TTS was observed. In addition, behavioral reactions were observed that indicated that animals can learn behaviors that effectively mitigate noise exposures (although exposure patterns must be learned, which is less likely in wild animals than for the captive animals considered in the study). The authors note that the failure to induce more significant auditory effects was likely due to the intermittent nature of exposure, the relatively low peak pressure produced by the acoustic source, and the low-frequency energy in airgun pulses as compared with the frequency range of best sensitivity for dolphins and other mid-frequency cetaceans. For pinnipeds in water, measurements of TTS are limited to harbor seals, elephant seals, and California sea lions (summarized in Finneran, 2015).

Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with conspecifics and in interpretation of environmental cues for purposes such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (

i.e.,

recovery time), and frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to serious similar to those discussed in auditory masking, below. For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily compensate for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency range that takes place during a time when the animal is traveling through the open ocean, where ambient noise is lower and there are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during a time when communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could have more serious impacts if it were in the same frequency band as the necessary vocalizations and of a severity that impeded communication. The fact that animals exposed to high levels of sound that would be expected to result in this physiological response would also be expected to have behavioral responses of a comparatively more severe or sustained nature is potentially more significant than simple existence of a TTS. However, it is important to note that TTS could occur due to longer exposures to sound at lower levels so that a behavioral response may not be elicited.

Depending on the degree and frequency range, the effects of PTS on an animal could also range in severity, although it is considered generally more serious than TTS because it is a permanent condition. Of note, reduced hearing sensitivity as a simple function of aging has been observed in marine mammals, as well as humans and other taxa (Southall

et al.,

2007), so we can infer that strategies exist for coping with this condition to some degree, though likely not without some cost to the animal.

Acoustically Mediated Bubble Growth and Other Pressure-Related Injury

One theoretical cause of injury to marine mammals is rectified diffusion (Crum and Mao, 1996), the process of increas

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.