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 RegisterMay 13, 2019

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 218

[Docket No. 190220145-9145-01]

RIN 0648-BI85

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 comment.

SUMMARY:

NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Navy (Navy) to extend the time period from November 2023 to November 2025 for Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) regulations authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to Navy training and testing activities conducted in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) Study Area. In August 2018, the MMPA was amended by the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2019 to allow for seven-year authorizations for military readiness activities, as compared to the previously allowed five years. The Navy's activities qualify as military readiness activities pursuant to the MMPA as amended by the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2004. In making the request to extend the time period covered by the MMPA AFTT regulations from five to seven years, the Navy proposes no changes to their specified activities, the geographical region in which those activities would be conducted, mitigation measures, monitoring, or reporting over the longer seven-year period. Pursuant to the MMPA, NMFS is requesting comments on the proposed seven-year rule and associated Letters of Authorization (LOAs) to cover the same activities covered by the existing 2018 AFTT regulations. NMFS will consider all public comments prior to issuing any final rule and making final decisions on the issuance of the requested LOAs, and agency responses will be summarized in the notice of the final decision.

DATES:

Comments and information must be received no later than June 12, 2019.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2019-0050, by any of the following methods:

•

Electronic submission:

Submit all electronic public comments via the federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2019-0050,

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

•

Mail:

Submit written 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.

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), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. 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.

A copy of the Navy's applications, NMFS' proposed and final rules and subsequent LOAs for the existing regulations, and other supporting documents and documents cited herein 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 use the contact listed here (see

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wendy Piniak, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose of Regulatory Action

These proposed regulations, issued under the authority of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361

et seq.

), would extend the framework for authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to the Navy's training and testing activities (which qualify as military readiness activities) from the use of sonar and other transducers, in-water detonations, air guns, impact pile driving/vibratory extraction, and the movement of vessels throughout 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.

NMFS received an application from the Navy requesting to extend NMFS' existing MMPA regulations (50 CFR part 218, subpart I; hereafter “2018 AFTT regulations”) that authorize the take of marine mammals incidental to Navy training and testing activities conducted in the AFTT Study Area to cover seven years of the Navy's activities, instead of five. Take is anticipated to occur by Level A harassment and Level B harassment as well as a very small number of serious injuries or mortalities incidental to the Navy's training and testing activities.

Background

The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA 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 incidental take 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 stocks and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in this rule as “mitigation measures”); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such takings. The MMPA defines “take” to mean to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal. The

Preliminary Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination

section below discusses the definition of “negligible impact.”

The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2004 (2004 NDAA) (Pub. L. 108-136) amended section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA to remove the “small numbers” and “specified geographical region” provisions 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). In addition, the 2004 NDAA amended the MMPA as it relates to military readiness activities such that least practicable adverse impact shall include consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.

More recently, section 316 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2019 (2019 NDAA) (Pub. L. 115-232), signed on August 13, 2018, amended the MMPA to allow incidental take rules for military readiness activities under section 101(a)(5)(A) to be issued for up to seven years. Prior to this amendment, all incidental take rules under section 101(a)(5)(A) were limited to five years.

Summary of Request

On November 14, 2018, NMFS issued a five-year final rule governing the taking of marine mammals incidental to Navy training and testing activities conducted in the AFTT Study Area (83 FR 57076; hereafter “2018 AFTT final rule”). Previously on August 13, 2018, and towards the end of the time period in which NMFS was processing the Navy's request for the 2018 regulations, the 2019 NDAA amended the MMPA for military readiness activities to allow incidental take regulations to be issued for up to seven years instead of the previous five years. The Navy's training and testing activities conducted in the AFTT Study Area qualify as military readiness activities pursuant to the MMPA, as amended by the 2004 NDAA. On November 16, 2018, the Navy submitted an application requesting that NMFS extend the 2018 AFTT regulations and associated LOAs such that they would cover take incidental to seven years of training and testing activities instead of five, extending the expiration date from November 13, 2023 to November 13, 2025. A revised application correcting the estimated takes due to ship shock trials (Table 5.1-2) was submitted to NMFS by the Navy on January 18, 2019.

In its 2019 application, the Navy proposes no changes to the nature of the specified activities covered by the 2018 AFTT final rule, the level of activity within and between years would be consistent with that previously analyzed in the 2018 AFTT final rule, and all activities would be conducted within the same boundaries of the AFTT Study Area identified in the 2018 AFTT final rule. Therefore, the training and testing activities (

e.g.,

equipment and sources used, exercises conducted) and the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are identical to those described and analyzed in the 2018 AFTT final rule. The only changes included in the Navy's request are to conduct those same activities in the same region for an additional two years. In its request, the Navy included all information necessary to identify the type and amount of incidental take that may occur in the two additional years so NMFS could determine whether the analyses and conclusions regarding the impacts of the proposed activities on marine mammal species and stocks previously reached for five years of activities remain the same for seven years of identical activity.

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. 8062), 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 continue conducting training and testing activities within the AFTT Study Area. The Navy's January 18, 2019, rulemaking and LOA extension application (hereafter “2019 Navy application”) reflects the same compilation of training and testing activities presented in the Navy's June 16, 2017, initial rulemaking and LOA application (hereafter “2017 Navy application”) and the 2018 AFTT regulations that were subsequently promulgated, which can be found at:

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

These activities are deemed by the Navy necessary to accomplish military readiness requirements and are anticipated to continue into the reasonably foreseeable future. The 2019 Navy application and this rule cover training and testing activities that would occur over seven years, including the five years already authorized under the 2018 AFTT regulations, with the regulations valid from the publication date of the final rule (if issued) through November 13, 2025.

Summary of the Proposed Regulations

NMFS is proposing to extend the incidental take regulations and associated LOAs through November 13, 2025 to cover the same Navy activities covered by the 2018 AFTT regulations. The 2018 AFTT final rule was only recently published and its analysis remains current and valid. In its 2019 application, the Navy proposes no changes to the nature (

e.g.,

equipment and sources used, exercises conducted) or level of the specified activities within or between years or to the boundaries of the AFTT Study Area. The mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures would be identical to those described and analyzed in the 2018 AFTT final rule. The proposed regulatory language included at the end of this proposed rule, which would be published at 50 CFR part 218, subpart I, also is the same as that under the AFTT 2018 regulations, except for a small number of minor, technical changes. No new information has been received from the Navy, or otherwise become available to NMFS, since publication of the 2018 AFTT final rule that significantly changes the analyses supporting the 2018 findings. Where there is any new information pertinent to the descriptions, analyses, or findings required to authorize incidental take for military readiness activities under MMPA section 101(a)(5)(A), that information is provided in the appropriate sections below.

Because the activities included in the 2019 Navy application have not changed and the analyses and findings included in the documents provided and produced in support of the recently published 2018 AFTT final rule remain current and applicable, this proposed rule relies heavily on and references to the applicable information and analyses in those documents. Below is a list of the regulatory documents referenced in this proposed rule. The list indicates the short name by which the document is referenced in this proposed rule, as well as the full titles of the cited documents. All of the documents can be found at:

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

and

http://www.aftteis.com/.

• NMFS March 13, 2018, Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) proposed rule (83 FR 10954; hereafter “2018 AFTT proposed rule”);

• NMFS November 14, 2018, Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) final rule (83 FR 57076; hereafter “2018 AFTT final rule”);

• NMFS December 27, 2018, Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT) Study Area final rule (83 FR 66846; hereafter “2018 HSTT final rule”);

• Navy June 16, 2017, MMPA rulemaking and LOA application (hereafter “2017 Navy application”);

• Navy January 18, 2019, MMPA rulemaking and LOA extension application (hereafter “2019 Navy application”); and

• September 14, 2018, Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) Final Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS/OEIS) (hereafter “2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS”).

Description of the Specified Activity

The Navy requests 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 Chapter 2 of the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS and in the 2017 and 2019 Navy applications.

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 components covered in the 2019 Navy application are described in detail in the

Overview of Training and Testing Activities

sections of the 2018 AFTT proposed rule and the 2018 AFTT final rule and Chapter 2 of the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS (

http://www.aftteis.com/

). Each military training and testing activity described meets mandated Fleet requirements to deploy ready forces. The Navy proposes no changes to the specified activities described and analyzed in the 2018 AFTT final rule. The boundaries of the AFTT Study Area (see Figure 1.2-1 of the 2019 Navy application); the training and testing activities (

e.g.,

equipment and sources used, exercises conducted); manner of or amount of vessel movement; and standard operating procedures presented in this proposed rule are identical to those described and analyzed in the 2018 AFTT final rule.

Dates and Duration

The specified activities would occur at any time during the seven-year period of validity of the regulations. The proposed number of training and testing activities are described in the

Detailed Description of the Specified Activities

section (Tables 1 through 4).

Specified Geographical Region

The Navy proposes no changes to the geographic extent of the AFTT Study Area as described in the 2018 AFTT final rule. The AFTT Study Area (see Figure 2-1 of the 2019 Navy application) includes areas of the western Atlantic Ocean along the east coast of North America, the Gulf of Mexico, and portions of the Caribbean Sea. 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 nautical miles squared (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, 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 encompass 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 OPAREAs, which may be further divided to provide better control of the area for safety reasons. Additional detail on range complexes and testing ranges was provided in the

Duration and Location

section of the 2018 AFTT proposed rule; please see the 2018 AFTT proposed rule or the 2017 Navy application for more information.

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 or shock waves from explosives into the environment. The specific components that could act as stressors by having direct or indirect impacts on the environment are described in detail in the

Description of Acoustic and Explosive Stressors

section of the 2018 AFTT final rule and Chapter 2 of the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS. The Navy proposes no changes to the nature of the specified activities and, therefore, the acoustic and explosive stressors are identical to those described and analyzed in the 2018 AFTT final rule.

Other Stressor—Vessel Strike

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 AFTT Study Area. Navy vessels transit at speeds that are optimal for fuel conservation or to meet training and testing requirements. 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).

Should a vessel strike occur, it would likely result in incidental take from serious injury and/or mortality and, accordingly, for the purposes of the analysis we assume that any ship strike would result in serious injury or mortality. The Navy proposes no changes to the nature of the specified activities, the training and testing activities, the manner of or amount of vessel movement, and standard operating procedures. Therefore, the description of vessel strikes as a stressor is the same as those presented in the

Other Stressor—Vessel Strike

sections of the 2018 AFTT proposed rule and 2018 AFTT final rule.

Detailed Description of the Specified 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 in any seven-year period. In the 2018 AFTT final rule, NMFS analyzed activities based on the Navy conducting three years of a representative level of activity and two years of a maximum level of activity. For the purposes of this rulemaking, the Navy proposes that the additional two

years of training and testing would consist of one additional year of maximum training tempo and one representative year of training tempo consistent with the pattern set forth in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS, and the 2017 Navy application.

Proposed Training Activities

The number of proposed training activities that could occur annually and the duration of those activities remains identical to those presented in Table 4 of the 2018 AFTT final rule, and are not repeated here. The number of proposed training activities that could occur over the seven-year period are presented in Table 1. The table is organized according to primary mission areas and includes the activity name, associated stressors applicable to these proposed regulations, sound source bin, 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 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS.

Table 1—Proposed Training Activities Analyzed for Seven-Year Period in the AFTT Study Area

Stressor category

Activity name

Activity description

Source bin

7-Year

number of

activities

Location

Major Training Exercise—Large Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare

Acoustic

Composite Training Unit Exercise

Aircraft carrier and its associated aircraft integrate with surface and submarine units in a challenging multi-threat operational environment in order to certify them for deployment

ASW1, ASW2, ASW3, ASW4, ASW5, HF1, LF6, MF1, MF3, MF4, MF5, MF11, MF12

VACAPES RC; Navy Cherry

Point RC; JAX RC.

Major Training Exercises—Medium Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare

Acoustic

Fleet Exercises/Sustainment Exercise

Aircraft carrier and its associated aircraft integrates with surface and submarine units in a challenging multi-threat operational environment in order to maintain their ability to deploy

ASW1, ASW2, ASW3, ASW4, HF1, LF6, MF1, MF3, MF4, MF5, MF11, MF12

JAX RC.

VACAPES RC.

Integrated/Coordinated Training—Small Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare Training

Acoustic

Naval Undersea Warfare Training Assessment Course

Multiple ships, aircraft, and submarines integrate the use of their sensors to search for, detect, classify, localize, and track a threat submarine in order to launch an exercise torpedo

ASW1, ASW3, ASW4, HF1, LF6, MF1, MF3, MF4, MF5, MF12

JAX RC.

Navy Cherry Point RC.

VACAPES RC.

Integrated/Coordinated Training—Medium Coordinated Anti-Submarine Warfare Training

Acoustic

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tactical Development Exercise

Surface ships, aircraft, and submarines coordinate to search for, detect, and track submarines

ASW1, ASW3, ASW4, HF1, LF6, MF1, MF3, MF4, MF5, MF11, MF12

JAX RC.

Navy Cherry Point RC.

VACAPES RC.

Integrated/Coordinated Training—Small Coordinated Anti-Submarine Warfare Training

Acoustic

Group Sail

Surface ships and helicopters search for, detect, and track threat submarines

ASW2, ASW3, ASW4, HF1, MF1, MF3, MF4, MF5, MF11, MF12

JAX RC.

Navy Cherry Point RC.

VACAPES RC.

Amphibious Warfare

Explosive

Naval Surface Fire Support Exercise—At Sea

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

266

GOMEX RC.

JAX RC.

Navy Cherry Point RC.

VACAPES RC.

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Acoustic

Anti-submarine Warfare Torpedo Exercise—Helicopter

Helicopter aircrews search for, track, and detect submarines. Recoverable air launched torpedoes are employed against submarine targets

MF4, MF5, TORP1

JAX RC.

VACAPES RC.

Acoustic

Anti-submarine Warfare Torpedo Exercise—Maritime Patrol Aircraft

Maritime patrol aircraft aircrews search for, track, and detect submarines. Recoverable air launched torpedoes are employed against submarine targets

MF5, TORP1

JAX RC.

VACAPES RC.

Acoustic

Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo Exercise—Ship

Surface ship crews search for, track, and detect submarines. Exercise torpedoes are used

ASW3, MF1, TORP1

112

JAX RC.

VACAPES RC.

Acoustic

Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo Exercise—Submarine

Submarine crews search for, track, and detect submarines. Exercise torpedoes are used

ASW4, HF1, MF3, TORP2

JAX RC.

Northeast RC.

VACAPES RC.

Acoustic

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Exercise—Helicopter

Helicopter aircrews search for, track, and detect submarines

MF4, MF5

168

2,590

Other AFTT Areas.

JAX RC.

Navy Cherry Point RC.

VACAPES RC.

Acoustic

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Exercise—Maritime Patrol Aircraft

Maritime patrol aircraft aircrews search for, track, and detect submarines

ASW5, ASW2, MF5

630

1,232

3,675

322

Northeast RC.

VACAPES RC.

JAX RC.

Navy Cherry Point RC.

Acoustic

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Exercise—Ship

Surface ship crews search for, track, and detect submarines

ASW1, ASW3, MF1, MF11, MF12

* 35

* 770

* 35

* 3,080

* 385

* 1,540

Northeast RC.

Other AFTT Areas.

GOMEX RC.

JAX RC.

Navy Cherry Point RC.

VACAPES RC.

Acoustic

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Exercise—Submarine

Submarine crews search for, track, and detect submarines

ASW4, HF1, MF3

308

126

Other AFTT Areas.

JAX RC.

Navy Cherry Point RC.

Northeast RC.

VACAPES RC.

Expeditionary Warfare

Explosive

Maritime Security Operations—Anti-Swimmer Grenades

Small boat crews engage in force protection activities by using anti-swimmer grenades to defend against hostile divers

GOMEX RC.

JAX RC.

Navy Cherry Point RC.

Northeast RC.

VACAPES RC.

Mine Warfare

Acoustic

Airborne Mine Countermeasure—Mine Detection

Helicopter aircrews detect mines using towed or laser mine detection systems

HF4

462

2,219

2,597

1,708

10,780

GOMEX RC.

JAX RC.

Navy Cherry Point RC.

NSWC Panama City.

VACAPES RC.

Acoustic, Explosive

Civilian Port Defense—Homeland Security Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection Exercise

Maritime security personnel train to protect civilian ports against enemy efforts to interfere with access to those ports

HF4, SAS2, E2, E4

Beaumont, TX; Boston, MA; Corpus Christi, TX; Delaware Bay, DE; Earle, NJ; GOMEX RC; Hampton Roads, VA; JAX RC; Kings Bay, GA; NS Mayport; Morehead City, NC; Port Canaveral, FL; Savannah, GA; Tampa Bay, FL; VACAPES RC; Wilmington, NC.

Acoustic

Coordinated Unit Level Helicopter Airborne Mine Countermeasure Exercise

A detachment of helicopter aircrews train as a unit in the use of airborne mine countermeasures, such as towed mine detection and neutralization systems

HF4

GOMEX RC.

JAX RC.

Navy Cherry Point RC.

VACAPES RC.

Acoustic, Explosive

Mine Countermeasures—Mine Neutralization—Remotely Operated Vehicle

Ship, small boat, and helicopter crews locate and disable mines using remotely operated underwater vehicles

HF4, E4

924

497

4,410

GOMEX RC.

JAX RC.

Navy Cherry Point RC.

VACAPES RC.

Acoustic

Mine Countermeasures—Ship Sonar

Ship crews detect and avoid mines while navigating restricted areas or channels using active sonar

HF4

154

371

GOMEX RC.

JAX RC.

VACAPES RC.

Explosive

Mine Neutralization—Explosive Ordnance Disposal

Personnel disable threat mines using explosive charges

E4, E5, E6, E7

112

140

119

112

3,668

Lower Chesapeake Bay.

GOMEX RC.

JAX RC.

Key West RC.

Navy Cherry Point RC.

VACAPES RC.

Surface Warfare

Explosive

Bombing Exercise Air-to-Surface

Fixed-wing aircrews deliver bombs against surface targets

E9, E10, E12

469

3,038

756

2,303

GOMEX RC.

JAX RC.

Navy Cherry Point RC.

VACAPES RC.

Explosive

Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Boat Medium-Caliber

Small boat crews fire medium-caliber guns at surface targets

182

896

1,820

GOMEX RC.

JAX RC.

Navy Cherry Point RC.

Northeast RC.

VACAPES RC.

Explosive

Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Ship Large-Caliber

Surface ship crews fire large-caliber guns at surface targets

E3, E5

357

245

525

Other AFTT Areas.

GOMEX RC.

JAX RC.

Navy Cherry Point RC.

VACAPES RC.

Explosive

Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Ship Medium-Caliber

Surface ship crews fire medium-caliber guns at surface targets

287

231

1,127

504

2,247

Other AFTT Areas.

GOMEX RC.

JAX RC.

Navy Cherry Point RC.

VACAPES RC.

Explosive

Integrated Live Fire Exercise

Naval forces defend against a swarm of surface threats (ships or small boats) with bombs, missiles, rockets, and small-, medium- , and large-caliber guns

E1, E3, E6, E10

VACAPES RC.

JAX RC.

Explosive

Missile Exercise Air-to-Surface

Fixed-wing and helicopter aircrews fire air-to-surface missiles at surface targets

E6, E8, E10

714

364

616

JAX RC.

Navy Cherry Point RC.

VACAPES RC.

Explosive

Missile Exercise Air-to-Surface—Rocket

Helicopter aircrews fire both precision-guided and unguided rockets at surface targets

714

644

GOMEX RC.

JAX RC.

Navy Cherry Point RC.

VACAPES RC.

Explosive

Missile Exercise Surface-to-Surface

Surface ship crews defend against surface threats (ships or small boats) and engage them with missiles

E6, E10

112

JAX RC.

VACAPES RC.

Acoustic, Explosive

Sinking Exercise

Aircraft, ship, and submarine crews deliberately sink a seaborne target, usually a decommissioned ship (made environmentally safe for sinking according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards), with a variety of munitions

TORP2, E5, E8, E9, E10, E11

SINKEX Box.

Other Training Activities

Acoustic

Elevated Causeway System

A temporary pier is constructed off the beach. Supporting pilings are driven into the sand and then later removed

Impact hammer or vibratory extractor

Lower Chesapeake Bay.

Navy Cherry Point RC.

Acoustic

Submarine Navigation

Submarine crews operate sonar for navigation and object detection while transiting into and out of port during reduced visibility

HF1, MF3

1,183

588

161

NSB New London.

NSB Kings Bay.

NS Mayport.

NS Norfolk.

Port Canaveral, FL.

Acoustic

Submarine Sonar Maintenance

Maintenance of submarine sonar systems is conducted pierside or at sea

MF3

462

238

602

326

Other AFTT Areas.

NSB New London.

JAX RC.

NSB Kings Bay.

NS Norfolk.

Northeast RC.

Port Canaveral, FL.

Navy Cherry Point RC.

VACAPES RC.

Acoustic

Submarine Under Ice Certification

Submarine crews train to operate under ice. Ice conditions are simulated during training and certification events

HF1

JAX RC.

Navy Cherry Point RC.

Northeast RC.

VACAPES RC.

Acoustic

Surface Ship Object Detection

Surface ship crews operate sonar for navigation and object detection while transiting in and out of port during reduced visibility

HF8, MF1K

532

1,134

NS Mayport.

NS Norfolk.

Acoustic

Surface Ship Sonar Maintenance

Maintenance of surface ship sonar systems is conducted pierside or at sea

HF8, MF1

350

840

1,645

840

JAX RC.

NS Mayport.

Navy Cherry Point RC.

NS Norfolk.

VACAPES RC.

The number of proposed training activities that could occur annually and the duration of those activities remains identical to those presented in Table 4 of the 2018 AFTT final rule.

Locations given are areas where activities typically occur. However, activities could be conducted in other locations within the Study Area. Where multiple locations are provided within a single cell, the number of activities could occur in any of the locations, not in each of the locations.

* For Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Exercise—Ship, 50 percent of requirements are met through synthetic training or other training exercises.

Notes:

GOMEX: Gulf of Mexico; JAX: Jacksonville; NS: Naval Station; NSB: Naval Submarine Base; NSWC: Naval Surface Warfare Center; RC: Range Complex; VACAPES: Virginia Capes.

Proposed Testing Activities

The number of proposed testing activities that could occur annually and the duration of those activities are identical to those presented in Tables 5 through 7 of the 2018 AFTT final rule, and are not repeated here. Similar to the 2017 Navy application, the Navy's proposed testing activities here are 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 number of proposed testing activities that could occur for the seven-year period are presented in Tables 2 through 4. The number of ship shock trials for the seven-year period would remain the same as the number authorized under the 2018 AFTT final rule.

Naval Air Systems Command

The proposed Naval Air Systems Command testing activities that could occur over the seven-year period within the AFTT Study Area are presented in Table 2.

Table 2—Proposed Naval Air Systems Command Testing Activities Analyzed for Seven-Year Period in the AFTT Study Area

Stressor category

Activity name

Activity description

Source bin

7-Year

number of

activities

Location

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Acoustic

Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo Test

This event is similar to the training event torpedo exercise. Test evaluates anti-submarine warfare systems onboard rotary-wing (

e.g.,

helicopter) and fixed-wing aircraft and the ability to search for, detect, classify, localize, track, and attack a submarine or similar target

MF5, TORP1

209

523

JAX RC.

VACAPES RC.

Acoustic, Explosive

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Test—Helicopter

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

MF4, MF5, E3

442

1,368

GOMEX RC.

JAX RC.

Key West RC.

Northeast RC.

VACAPES RC.

Acoustic, Explosive

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Test—Maritime Patrol Aircraft

The test evaluates the sensors and systems used by maritime patrol aircraft to detect and track submarines and to ensure that aircraft systems used to deploy the tracking systems perform to specifications and meet operational requirements

ASW2, ASW5, E1, E3, MF5, MF6

133

101

279

175

GOMEX RC.

JAX RC.

Key West RC.

Navy Cherry Point RC.

Northeast RC.

VACAPES RC.

Acoustic

Kilo Dip

Functional check of a helicopter deployed dipping sonar system prior to conducting a testing or training event using the dipping sonar system

MF4

200

GOMEX RC.

JAX RC.

Key West RC.

Northeast RC.

VACAPES RC.

Acoustic, Explosive

Sonobuoy Lot Acceptance Test

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

ASW2, ASW5, HF5, HF6, LF4, MF5, MF6, E1, E3, E4

1,120

Key West RC.

Mine Warfare

Acoustic

Airborne Dipping Sonar Minehunting Test

A mine-hunting dipping sonar system that is deployed from a helicopter and uses high-frequency sonar for the detection and classification of bottom and moored mines

HF4

144

NSWC Panama City.

VACAPES RC.

Explosive

Airborne Mine Neutralization System Test

A test of the airborne mine neutralization system evaluates the system's ability to detect and destroy mines from an airborne mine countermeasures capable helicopter. The airborne mine neutralization system uses up to four unmanned underwater vehicles equipped with high-frequency sonar, video cameras, and explosive and non-explosive neutralizers

154

215

NSWC Panama City.

VACAPES RC.

Acoustic

Airborne Sonobuoy Minehunting Test

A mine-hunting system made up of a field of sonobuoys deployed by a helicopter. A field of sonobuoys, using high-frequency sonar, is used to detect and classify bottom and moored mines

HF6

364

168

NSWC Panama City.

VACAPES RC.

Surface Warfare

Explosive

Air-to-Surface Bombing Test

This event is similar to the training event bombing exercise air-to-surface. Fixed-wing aircraft test the delivery of bombs against surface maritime targets with the goal of evaluating the bomb, the bomb carry and delivery system, and any associated systems that may have been newly developed or enhanced

140

VACAPES RC.

Explosive

Air-to-Surface Gunnery Test

This event is similar to the training event gunnery exercise air-to-surface. Fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircrews evaluate new or enhanced aircraft guns against surface maritime targets to test that the guns, gun ammunition, or associated systems meet required specifications or to train aircrews in the operation of a new or enhanced weapon system

295

890

JAX RC.

VACAPES RC.

Explosive

Air-to-Surface Missile Test

This event is similar to the training event missile exercise air-to-surface. Test may involve both fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft launching missiles at surface maritime targets to evaluate the weapon system or as part of another system's integration test

E6, E9, E10

234

928

GOMEX RC.

JAX RC.

VACAPES RC.

Explosive

Rocket Test

Rocket tests evaluate the integration, accuracy, performance, and safe separation of guided and unguided 2.75-inch rockets fired from a hovering or forward-flying helicopter

121

233

JAX RC.

VACAPES RC.

Other Testing Activities

Acoustic

Undersea Range System Test

Following installation of a Navy underwater warfare training and testing range, tests of the nodes (components of the range) will be conducted to include node surveys and testing of node transmission functionality

MF9, BB4

JAX RC.

The number of proposed testing activities that could occur annually and the duration of those activities are identical to those presented in Table 5 of the 2018 AFTT final rule.

Locations given are areas where activities typically occur. However, activities could be conducted in other locations within the Study Area.

Notes:

GOMEX: Gulf of Mexico; JAX: Jacksonville; NSWC: Naval Surface Warfare Center; RC: Range Complex; VACAPES: Virginia Capes.

Naval Sea Systems Command

The proposed Naval Sea Systems Command testing activities that could occur over the seven-year period within the AFTT Study Area are presented in Table 3.

Table 3—Proposed Naval Sea Systems Command Testing Activities Analyzed for Seven-Year Period in the AFTT Study Area.

Stressor category

Activity name

Activity description

Source bin

7-Year

number of

activities

Location

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Acoustic

Anti-Submarine Warfare Mission Package Testing

Ships and their supporting platforms (

e.g.,

helicopters, unmanned aerial systems) detect, localize, and attack submarines

ASW1, ASW2, ASW3, ASW5, MF1, MF4, MF5, MF12, TORP1

294

182

JAX RC.

Newport, RI.

NUWC Newport.

VACAPES RC.

Acoustic

At-Sea Sonar Testing

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

ASW3, ASW4, HF1, LF5, M3, MF1, MF1K, MF3, MF5, MF9, MF11, TORP2

JAX RC; Navy Cherry Point RC; Northeast RC; VACAPES RC.

JAX RC; Navy Cherry Point RC; VACAPES RC.

offshore Fort Pierce, FL; GOMEX RC; JAX RC; SFOMF; Northeast RC; VACAPES RC.

JAX RC.

Navy Cherry Point RC.

NUWC Newport.

VACAPES RC.

Acoustic

Pierside Sonar Testing

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

ASW3, HF1, HF3, HF8, M3, MF1, MF1K, MF3, MF9, MF10

NSB New London; NS Norfolk; Port Canaveral, FL

Bath, ME.

NSB New London.

NSB Kings Bay.

Newport, RI.

NS Norfolk.

Pascagoula, MS.

Port Canaveral, FL.

PNS.

Acoustic

Submarine Sonar Testing/Maintenance

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

HF1, HF3, M3, MF3

112

168

Norfolk, VA.

PNS.

Acoustic

Surface Ship Sonar Testing/Maintenance

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

ASW3, MF1, MF1K, MF9, MF10

JAX RC.

NS Mayport.

NS Norfolk.

VACAPES RC.

Acoustic, Explosive

Torpedo (Explosive) Testing

Air, surface, or submarine crews employ explosive and non-explosive torpedoes against artificial targets

ASW3, HF1, HF5, HF6, MF1, MF3, MF4, MF5, MF6, TORP1, TORP2, E8, E11

GOMEX RC; offshore Fort Pierce, FL; Key West RC; Navy Cherry Point RC; Northeast RC; VACAPES RC.

GOMEX RC; JAX RC; Northeast RC; VACAPES RC.

Acoustic

Torpedo (Non-Explosive) Testing

Air, surface, or submarine crews employ non-explosive torpedoes against submarines or surface vessels. When performed on a testing range, these torpedoes may be launched from a range craft or fixed structures and may use artificial targets

ASW3, ASW4, HF1, HF6, MF1, MF3, MF4, MF5, MF6, TORP1, TORP2, TORP 3

GOMEX RC.

offshore Fort Pierce, FL.

JAX, RC.

Navy Cherry Point RC.

Northeast RC.

210

NUWC Newport.

VACAPES RC.

Acoustic

Countermeasure Testing

Countermeasure testing involves the testing of systems that will detect, localize, track, and attack incoming weapons including marine vessel targets. Testing includes surface ship torpedo defense systems and marine vessel stopping payloads

ASW3, HF5, TORP1, TORP2

GOMEX RC; JAX RC; NUWC Newport; VACAPES RC; Key West RC.

GOMEX RC; JAX RC; Northeast RC; VACAPES RC.

Mine Warfare

Acoustic, Explosive

Mine Countermeasure and Neutralization Testing

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

E4, E11

NSWC Panama City.

VACAPES RC.

Acoustic, Explosive

Mine Countermeasure Mission Package Testing

Vessels and associated aircraft conduct mine countermeasure operations

HF4, SAS2, E4

133

GOMEX RC.

JAX RC.

NSWC Panama City.

SFOMF.

VACAPES RC.

Acoustic

Mine Detection and Classification Testing

Air, surface, and subsurface vessels and systems detect, classify, and avoid mines and mine-like objects. Vessels also assess their potential susceptibility to mines and mine-like objects

HF1, HF4, HF8, MF1, MF1K, MF9

GOMEX RC.

Navy Cherry Point RC.

359

NSWC Panama City.

Riviera Beach, FL.

SFOMF.

VACAPES RC.

Surface Warfare

Explosive

Gun Testing—Large Caliber

Crews defend against targets with large-caliber guns

E3, E5

GOMEX RC.

JAX RC.

Key West RC.

Navy Cherry Point RC.

Northeast RC.

VACAPES RC.

GOMEX RC;

JAX RC;

Key West RC;

Navy Cherry Point RC;

Northeast RC;

231

NSWC Panama City.

VACAPES RC.

Explosive

Gun Testing—Medium-Caliber

Airborne and surface crews defend against targets with medium-caliber guns

GOMEX RC; JAX RC; Key West RC; Navy Cherry Point RC; Northeast RC; VACAPES RC.

714

NSWC Panama City.

VACAPES RC.

Explosive

Missile and Rocket Testing

Missile and rocket testing includes various missiles or rockets fired from submarines and surface combatants. Testing of the launching system and ship defense is performed

E6, E10

GOMEX RC; JAX RC; Key West RC; Navy Cherry Point RC; Northeast RC; VACAPES RC.

GOMEX RC.

JAX RC.

Northeast RC.

154

VACAPES RC.

Unmanned Systems

Acoustic, Explosive

Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Testing

Testing involves the development or upgrade of unmanned underwater vehicles. This may include testing of mine detection capabilities, evaluating the basic functions of individual platforms, or complex events with multiple vehicles

ASW4, FLS2, HF1, HF4, HF5, HF6, HF7, LF5, MF9, MF10, SAS1, SA2, SAS3, VHF1, E8

112

GOMEX RC; JAX RC; NUWC Newport.

287

GOMEX RC.

175

JAX RC.

1,018

NSWC Panama City.

2,158

NUWC Newport.

Riviera Beach, FL.

294

SFOMF.

Vessel Evaluation

Explosive

Large Ship Shock Trial

Underwater detonations are used to test new ships or major upgrades

E17

GOMEX RC; JAX RC; VACAPES RC.

Explosive

Surface Warfare Testing

Tests capability of shipboard sensors to detect, track, and engage surface targets. Testing may include ships defending against surface targets using explosive and non-explosive rounds, gun system structural test firing and demonstration of the response to Call for Fire against land-based targets (simulated by sea-based locations)

E1, E5, E8

GOMEX RC.

JAX RC.

Key West RC.

Northeast RC.

VACAPES RC.

Acoustic

Undersea Warfare Testing

Ships demonstrate capability of countermeasure systems and underwater surveillance, weapons engagement, and communications systems. This tests ships' ability to detect, track, and engage underwater targets

ASW3, ASW4, HF4, HF8, MF1, MF1K, MF4, MF5, MF9, MF10, TORP1, TORP2

JAX RC; VACAPES RC.

JAX RC; Navy Cherry Point RC; SFOMF; VACAPES RC.

GOMEX RC.

JAX RC.

VACAPES RC.

Explosive

Small Ship Shock Trial

Underwater detonations are used to test new ships or major upgrades

E16

JAX RC; VACAPES RC.

Acoustic

Submarine Sea Trials—Weapons System Testing

Submarine weapons and sonar systems are tested at-sea to meet integrated combat system certification requirements

HF1, M3, MF3, MF9, MF10, TORP2

Offshore Fort Pierce, FL; GOMEX RC; JAX RC; SFOMF; Northeast RC; VACAPES RC.

JAX RC.

Northeast RC.

VACAPES RC.

Other Testing Activities

Acoustic

Insertion/Extraction

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

MF3, MF9

1,848

Key West RC.

NSWC Panama City.

Acoustic

Acoustic Component Testing

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

FLS2, HF5, HF7, LF5, MF9, SAS2

231

SFOMF.

Acoustic

Semi-Stationary Equipment Testing

Semi-stationary equipment (

e.g.,

hydrophones) is deployed to determine functionality

AG, ASW3, ASW4, HF5, HF6, LF4, LF5, MF9, MF10, SD1, SD2

1,330

Newport, RI.

NSWC Panama City.

NUWC Newport.

Acoustic

Towed Equipment Testing

Surface vessels or unmanned surface vehicles deploy and tow equipment to determine functionality of towed systems

HF6, LF4, MF9

252

NUWC Newport.

Acoustic

Signature Analysis Operations

Surface ship and submarine testing of electromagnetic, acoustic, optical, and radar signature measurements

ASW2, HF1, LF4, LF5, LF6, M3, MF9, MF10

413

JAX RC.

SFOMF.

The number of proposed testing activities that could occur annually and the duration of those activities are identical to those presented in Table 6 of the 2018 AFTT final rule.

Notes:

JEB LC-FS: Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story; NS: Naval Station; NSB: Naval Submarine Base; NSWC: Naval Surface Warfare Center; NUWC: Naval Undersea Warfare Center; PNS: Portsmouth Naval Shipyard; SFOMF: South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range.

Office of Naval Research

The proposed Office of Naval Research testing activities that could occur over the seven-year period within the AFTT Study Area are presented in Table 4.

Table 4—Proposed Office of Naval Research Testing Activities Analyzed for Seven-Year Period in the AFTT Study Area

Stressor category

Activity name

Activity description

Source bin

7-Year

number of

activities

Location

Acoustic and Oceanographic Science and Technology

Acoustic, Explosive

Acoustic and Oceanographic Research

Research using active transmissions from sources deployed from ships and unmanned underwater vehicles. Research sources can be used as proxies for current and future Navy systems

AG, ASW2, BB4, BB5, BB6, BB7, LF3, LF4, LF5, MF8, MF9, MF14, E1

GOMEX RC.

Northeast RC.

VACAPES RC.

Other AFTT Areas.

Acoustic

Emerging Mine Countermeasure Technology Research

Test involves the use of broadband acoustic sources on unmanned underwater vehicles

BB1, BB2, SAS4

JAX RC.

Northeast RC.

VACAPES RC.

The number of proposed testing activities that could occur annually and the duration of those activities are identical to those presented in Table 7 of the 2018 AFTT final rule.

Notes:

GOMEX: Gulf of Mexico; JAX: Jacksonville, Florida; RC: Range Complex; VACAPES: Virginia Capes.

Summary of Acoustic and Explosive Sources Analyzed for Training and Testing

Tables 5 through 8 show the acoustic source classes and numbers, explosive source bins and numbers, airgun sources, and pile driving and removal activities associated with the Navy's proposed training and testing activities over a seven-year period in the AFTT Study Area that were analyzed in the 2019 Navy application and for this proposed rule. The annual numbers for acoustic source classes, explosive source bins, and airgun sources, as well as the annual pile driving and removal activities associated with Navy training and testing activities in the AFTT Study Area are identical to those presented in Tables 8 through 11 of the 2018 AFTT final rule, and are not repeated here. Consistent with the periodicity in the 2018 AFTT final rule, the Navy proposes the addition of two pile driving/extraction activities for each of the two additional years.

Table 5 describes the acoustic source classes (

i.e.,

low-frequency (LF), mid-frequency (MF), and high-frequency (HF)) that could occur over seven years under the proposed training and testing activities. Acoustic source bin use in the proposed activities would vary annually. The seven-year totals for the proposed training and testing activities take into account that annual variability.

Table 5—Acoustic Source Classes Analyzed and Number Used for Seven-Year Period for Training and Testing Activities in the AFTT Study Area

Source class category

Bin

Description

Unit

7-Year total

Training

Testing

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

9,156

6,797

140

LF5

LF sources less than 180 dB

12,264

LF6

LF sources greater than 200 dB with long pulse lengths

1,104

280

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)

36,833

23,358

MF1K

Kingfisher mode associated with MF1 sonars

819

1,064

MF3

Hull-mounted submarine sonars (

e.g.,

AN/BQQ-10)

14,604

8,799

MF4

Helicopter-deployed dipping sonars (

e.g.,

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

4,196

3,797

MF5

Active acoustic sonobuoys (

e.g.,

DICASS)

47,340

38,663

MF6

Active underwater sound signal devices (

e.g.,

MK84)

8,986

MF8

Active sources (greater than 200 dB) not otherwise binned

2,436

High-Frequency (HF):

Tactical and non-tactical sources that produce signals between 10-100 kHz

MF9

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

52,128

MF10

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

6,088

39,830

MF11

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

6,495

9,968

MF12

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

2,658

9,716

MF14

Oceanographic MF sonar

10,080

HF1

Hull-mounted submarine sonars (

e.g.,

AN/BQQ-10)

13,504

2,772

HF3

Other hull-mounted submarine sonars (classified)

34,275

215

HF4

Mine detection, classification, and neutralization sonar (

e.g.,

AN/SQS-20)

41,717

179,516

HF5

Active sources (greater than 200 dB) not otherwise binned

13,624

280

HF6

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

15,254

HF7

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

8,568

HF8

Hull-mounted surface ship sonars (

e.g.,

AN/SQS-61)

140

14,587

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

MF systems operating above 200 dB

MF Multistatic Active Coherent sonobuoy (

e.g.,

AN/SSQ-125)

4,251

10,572

5,740

35,842

ASW3

MF towed active acoustic countermeasure systems (

e.g.,

AN/SLQ-25)

34,275

21,737

ASW4

MF expendable active acoustic device countermeasures (

e.g.,

MK 3)

2,994

24,043

ASW5

MF sonobuoys with high duty cycles

4,244

4,316

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)

399

6,122

TORP2

Heavyweight torpedo (

e.g.,

MK 48)

560

2,600

TORP3

Heavyweight torpedo (

e.g.,

MK 48)

640

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

8,568

Acoustic Modems (M):

Systems used to transmit data through the water

MF acoustic modems (greater than 190 dB)

4,436

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

1,232

Synthetic Aperture Sonars (SAS):

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

SAS1

SAS2

SAS3

SAS4

MF SAS systems

HF SAS systems

VHF SAS systems

MF to HF broadband mine coiuntermeasure sonar

33,600

6,720

24,584

6,720

Broadband Sound Sources (BB):

Sonar systems with large frequency spectra, used for various purposes

BB1

BB2

BB4

BB5

BB6

BB7

MF to HF mine countermeasure sonar

HF to VHF mine countermeasure sonar

LF to MF oceanographic source

HF oceanographic source

LF oceanographic source

6,720

10,884

4,704

840

H = hours; C = count (

e.g.,

number of individual pings or individual sonobuoys).

The annual numbers for acoustic source classes associated with Navy training and testing activities in the AFTT Study Area are identical to those presented in Table 8 in the 2018 AFTT final rule.

Note:

dB = decibel.

Table 6 describes the number of air gun shots that could occur over seven years under the proposed training and testing activities.

Table 6—Training and Testing Air Gun Sources Quantitatively Analyzed in the AFTT Study Area

Source class category

Bin

Unit

7-Year total

Training

Testing

Air Guns (AG):

Small underwater air guns

4,228

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

The annual numbers for airgun sources associated with Navy training and testing activities in the AFTT Study Area are identical to those presented in Table 9 in the 2018 AFTT final rule.

Table 7 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 would drive 119 piles, two times a year for a total of 238 piles. Over the seven-year period of the rule, the Navy would drive a total of 1,666 piles by impact pile driving. Annually, for vibratory pile removal, the Navy would remove 119 piles, two times a year for a total of 238 piles. Over the seven-year period of the rule, the Navy would remove a total of 1,666 piles by vibratory pile removal.

Table 7—Summary of Pile Driving and Removal Activities per 24-Hour Period in the AFTT Study Area

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

Table 8—Explosive Source Bins Analyzed and Number Used for Seven-Year Period for Training and Testing Activities Within the AFTT Study Area

Bin

Net explosive weight

(lb.)

Example explosive source

7-Year total

Training

Testing

0.1-0.25

Medium-caliber projectile

53,900

160,880

>0.25-0.5

Medium-caliber projectile

1,486

>0.5-2.5

Large-caliber projectile

32,144

20,162

>2.5-5

Mine neutralization charge

913

5,330

>5-10

5-inch projectile

10,052

9,275

>10-20

Hellfire missile

4,214

276

>20-60

Demo block/shaped charge

>60-100

Light-weight torpedo

154

231

>100-250

500 lb. bomb

462

E10

>250-500

Harpoon missile

630

566

E11

>500-650

650 lb. mine

E12

>650-1,000

2,000 lb. bomb

126

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 Trinitrotoluene (TNT) the actual weight of a munition may be larger due to other components.

The annual numbers for explosive source bins associated with Navy training and testing activities in the AFTT Study Area are identical to those presented in Table 11 in the 2018 AFTT final rule.

Note:

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 7-year period, there could be three small ship shock trials (E16) and one large ship shock trial (E17) which is the same amount of ship shock trial events that could occur over the original five-year period. Therefore, there is no increase in ship shock trial events under the proposed rule.

Vessel Movement

Vessel movements associated with the proposed activities include both surface and sub-surface operations. Vessels used as part of the proposed activities include ships, submarines, unmanned vessels, and boats ranging in size from small, 22 feet (ft.) (7 meters (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 kn for fuel conservation. Submarines generally operate at speeds in the range of 8 to 13 kn 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 kn. While these speeds for large and small crafts are representative of most events, some vessels need to temporarily operate outside of these parameters. A full description of Navy vessels that are used during training and testing activities can be found in the 2017 Navy application and Chapter 2 of the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS.

The Navy proposes no changes to the manner in which Navy vessels would be used during training and testing activities, the speeds at which they operate, the number of vessels that would be used during various activities, or the locations in which Navy vessel movement would be concentrated within the AFTT Study Area from those analyzed in the 2018 AFTT final rule. The only change related to the Navy's request regarding Navy vessel movement is the vessel use associated with the additional two years of Navy 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 and has included them in the environmental analysis. Details on standard operating procedures were provided in the 2018 AFTT proposed rule; please see the 2018 AFTT proposed rule, the 2017 Navy application, and Chapter 2 of the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS for more information. The Navy proposes no changes to the Standard Operating Procedures from those included in the 2018 AFTT final rule.

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

Marine mammal species and their associated stocks that have the potential to occur in the AFTT Study Area are presented in Table 9 along with the best/minimum abundance estimate and associated coefficient of variation value. 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. Consistent with the 2018 AFTT final rule, the Navy still anticipates the take of individuals of 39 marine mammal species by Level A harassment and B harassment incidental to training and testing activities from the use of sonar and other transducers, in-water detonations, air guns, and impact pile driving/vibratory extraction activities. The Navy requested authorization for nine serious injuries or mortalities combined from four marine mammal stocks during ship shock trials, and four takes of large whales by serious injury or mortality from vessel strikes over the seven-year period.

We presented a detailed discussion of marine mammals and their occurrence in the AFTT Study Area, inclusive of important marine mammal habitat (

e.g.,

critical habitat), biologically important areas (BIAs), national marine sanctuaries (NMSs), and unusual mortality events (UMEs) in the 2018 AFTT proposed rule and 2018 AFTT final rule; please see these rules and the 2017 and 2019 Navy applications for

additional information. There have been no changes to important marine mammal habitat, BIAs, NMSs, or Endangered Species Act (ESA) designated critical habitat since the issuance of the 2018 AFTT final rule; therefore the information that supports our determinations here can be found in the 2018 AFTT proposed and final rules. NMFS has reviewed the most recent Stock Assessment Reports (SARs), which have not been revised since the publication of the 2018 AFTT final rule); information on relevant UMEs; and other scientific literature, and determined that none of these nor any other new information changes our determination of which species or stocks have the potential to be affected by the Navy's activities or the pertinent information in the

Description of the Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities

section in the 2018 AFTT proposed and final rules. Therefore the information presented in those sections of the 2018 proposed and final rules remains current and valid.

As described in the 2018 AFTT final rule, 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 (addressed in more detail in the

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

section of the 2018 AFTT rule) include the bowhead whale, beluga whale, and narwhal as these would be considered extralimital and are not part of the AFTT seasonal species assemblage. Additionally, for multiple bottlenose dolphin stocks, there was no potential for overlap with any stressors from Navy activities; therefore, there would be no adverse effects (or takes), and those stocks were not considered further. Specifically, with the exception of the Mississippi Sound, Lake Borgne, Bay Boudreau stock of bottlenose dolphins (which is addressed in the

Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination

section of the 2018 AFTT final rule), there is no potential for overlap of any Navy stressor with any other Northern Gulf of Mexico Bay, Sound, and Estuary stocks. Also, the following bottlenose dolphin stocks for the Atlantic do not have any potential for overlap with Navy activity stressors (or take), and therefore are not considered further: Northern South Carolina Estuarine System, Charleston Estuarine System, Northern Georgia/Southern South Carolina Estuarine System, Central Georgia Estuarine System, Southern Georgia Estuarine System, Biscayne Bay, and Florida Bay stocks. For the same reason, bottlenose dolphins off the coasts of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands were also not considered further.

Table 9—Marine Mammals Present in 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

451 (0)/445

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 Balaenop- teridae (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

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

896 (0)/896

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.

Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)

Family Physeteridae (sperm whale):

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 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

6,639 (0.41)/4,759

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

3,751 (0.06)/2,353

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

6,027 (0.34)/4,569

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.

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

877 (0.49)/595

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

1,218 (0.35)/913

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.

Laguna Madre

Strategic

80 (1.57)/Unknown

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Nueces Bay/Corpus Christi Bay

Strategic

58 (0.61)/Unknown

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Copano Bay/Aransas Bay/San Antonio Bay/Redfish Bay/Espiritu Santo Bay

Strategic

55 (0.82)/Unknown

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Matagorda Bay/Tres Palacios Bay/Lavaca Bay

Strategic

61 (0.45)/Unknown

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

West Bay

48 (0.03)/46

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Galveston Bay/East Bay/Trinity Bay

Strategic

152 (0.43)/Unknown

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Sabine Lake

Strategic

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Calcasieu Lake

Strategic

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Vermilion Bay/West Cote Blanche Bay/Atchafalaya Bay

Strategic

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Terrebonne Bay/Timbalier Bay

3,870 (0.15)/3,426

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Barataria Bay Estuarine System

Strategic

2,306 (0.09)/2,138

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Mississippi River Delta

Strategic

332 (0.93)/170

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Mississippi Sound, Lake Borgne, Bay Boudreau

Strategic

3,046 (0.06)/2,896

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Mobile Bay/Bonsecour Bay

Strategic

122 (0.34)/Unknown

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Perdido Bay

Strategic

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Pensacola Bay/East Bay

Strategic

33 (0.80)/Unknown

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Choctawhatchee Bay

Strategic

179 (0.04)/Unknown

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

St. Andrew Bay

Strategic

124 (0.57)/Unknown

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

St. Joseph Bay

Strategic

152 (0.08)/Unknown

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

St. Vincent Sound/Apalachicola Bay/St. George Sound

Strategic

439 (0.14)/Unknown

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Apalachee Bay

Strategic

491 (0.39)/Unknown

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Waccasassa Bay/Withlacoochee Bay/Crystal Bay

Strategic

Unknown

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

St. Joseph Sound/Clearwater Harbor

Strategic

Unknown

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Tampa Bay

Strategic

Unknown

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Sarasota Bay/Little Sarasota Bay

Strategic

158 (0.27)/126

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Pine Island Sound/Charlotte Harbor/Gasparilla Sound/Lemon Bay

Strategic

826 (0.09)/Unknown

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Caloosahatchee River

Strategic

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Estero Bay

Strategic

Unknown

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Chokoloskee Bay/Ten Thousand Islands/Gullivan Bay

Strategic

Unknown

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Whitewater Bay

Strategic

Unknown

Gulf of Mexico

NA.

Florida Keys (Bahia Honda to Key West)

Strategic

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

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

136 (1.00)/67

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

28,924 (0.24)/23,637

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 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

27,131 (0.19)/23,158

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 SARs prepared by NMFS

(Hayes et al.,

2017) and the draft 2018 SARs, 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 (SARs; 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

et 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 SARs.

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.

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat

We provided a full discussion of the potential effects of the specified activities on marine mammals and their habitat in our 2018 AFTT proposed rule and 2018 AFTT final rule. In the

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat

section of the 2018 AFTT proposed and final rules, NMFS provided a description of the ways marine mammals may be affected by the same activities that the Navy will be conducting during the seven-year period analyzed in this rule in the form of serious injury or mortality, physical trauma, sensory impairment (permanent and temporary threshold shifts and acoustic masking), physiological responses (particularly stress responses), behavioral disturbance, or habitat effects. Therefore, we do not repeat the information here, all of which remains current and applicable, but refer the reader to those rules and the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS (Chapter 3, Section 3.7

Marine Mammals, http://www.aftteis.com/

), which NMFS participated in the development of via our cooperating agency status and adopted to meet our NEPA requirements.

In addition, NMFS has reviewed information in relevant SARs (which have not been revised since the publication of the 2018 AFTT final rule) any new information on active UMEs and from the scientific literature. Summaries of current UMEs and new scientific literature since publication of the 2018 AFTT final rule are presented below.

Unusual Mortality Events

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. The five active UMEs with ongoing investigations in the AFTT Study Area that inform our analysis are discussed below. The impacts to Barataria Bay bottlenose dolphins from the closed Northern Gulf of Mexico UME (discussed in the 2018 AFTT proposed rule) associated with the Deep Water Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico are thought to be persistent and continue to inform population analyses. The other more recent UMEs closed 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.

North Atlantic Right Whale (NARW) UME

NOAA declared an UME for NARWs from January 1, 2017, to the present. The current total number of mortalities included in the event is 20 whales, including 12 NARW carcasses from Canada in 2017 and eight carcasses in the United States (5 in 2017; 3 in 2018). There have been no carcasses reported in 2019. In 2017, 17 right whale mortalities were documented, and in 2018, an additional three whales were found dead. Of the 12 NARW carcasses found in Canadian waters in 2017, six were necropsied and died as a direct result of human activities (either confirmed, probable, or suspect), from either rope entanglements (2) or vessel strikes (4) (Daoust

et al.,

2017). Of the eight carcasses found in U.S. waters in 2017-2018, the cause of death was determined in six whales, with deaths attributable to either rope entanglement (5) or vessel strikes (1). Eight carcasses were not able to be examined. Daoust

et al.

(2018) 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. Navy was consulted as to sonar use and they confirmed none was used in the vicinity of any of the strandings.

As part of the UME investigation process for NARW, NOAA assembled an independent team of scientists (Investigative Team) that coordinates with the Working Group on Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality Events to review the data collected, sample future whales that strand, and 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/2017-2019-north-atlantic-right-whale-unusual-mortality-event#causes-of-the-north-atlantic-right-whale-ume.

While data are not yet available to statistically estimate the population's trend beyond 2015, three lines of evidence indicate the population is still in decline. First, calving rates in 2016, 2017, and 2018 were low. Only five new calves were documented in 2017 (Pettis

et al.,

2017a), well below the number needed to compensate for expected mortalities (Pace

et al.,

2017), and no new calves were reported for 2018. Long-term photographic identification data indicate new calves rarely go undetected, so these years likely represent a continuation of the low calving rates that began in 2012 (Kraus

et al.,

2007; Pace

et al.,

2017). So far in 2019, seven calves have been documented. Second, as noted above, the preliminary abundance estimate for 2016 is 451 individuals, down approximately 1.5 percent from 458 in 2015. Third, since June 2017, at least 20 NARWs have died in what has been declared an UME as discussed above, and at least one calf died in April 2017 (Meyer-Gutbrod

et al.,

2018; NMFS, 2017).

Humpback Whale UME Along the Atlantic Coast

NOAA declared an UME for humpback whales from January 1, 2016, to the present, along the Atlantic coast from Maine through Florida. As of April 1, 2019, 92 humpback strandings have occurred (26, 34, 25, and 9 whales in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 respectively). As of April 2019, partial or full necropsy examinations have been conducted on 43 cases, or approximately half of the 92 strandings (at that time). Of the 43 whales examined, approximately 20 had evidence of blunt force trauma or pre-mortem propeller wounds indicative of vessel strike and approximately 6 had evidence of entanglements. NOAA, in coordination with our stranding network partners, continues to investigate the recent mortalities and environmental conditions, and conduct 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 led to the death of a whale. Therefore, NOAA considers all sizes of vessels to be a potential risk for whale species in highly trafficked areas. The Navy has investigated potential strikes and confirmed that it had none. Please refer to

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2016-2019-humpback-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast

for more information on this UME.

Minke Whale UME Along the Atlantic Coast

NOAA declared an UME for minke whales from January 1, 2017, to the present, along the Atlantic coast from Maine through Florida. As of April 1, 2019, 59 strandings have occurred (27, 20, and 2 whales in 2017, 2018 and 2019, respectively). As of April 1, 2019, full or partial necropsy examinations have been conducted on 33 whales. Preliminary findings on 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, and final diagnostic results are still pending for

many of the cases. Please refer to

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2019-minke-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast

for more information on this UME.

Northeast Pinniped UME Along the Atlantic Coast

NOAA declared an UME on August 30, 2018, to the present due to increased numbers of harbor seal and gray seal strandings along the U.S. coasts of Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts during July and August of 2018. Strandings have remained elevated in these three states and expanded south to Virginia with cases on-going. Recently, harp and hooded seals have begun stranding as they migrate from Canada into U.S. waters and have been included in the investigation. From July 1, 2018, to March 28, 2019, more than 2,062 seals have stranded with 95 percent of the seals stranding in Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. Full or partial necropsy examinations have been conducted on many of the seals and samples have been collected for testing. Based on testing conducted so far, the main pathogen found in the seals is phocine distemper virus. Please refer to

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/marine-life-distress/2018-2019-pinniped-unusual-mortality-event-along

for more information on this UME.

Southwest Florida Bottlenose Dolphin UME Along the Gulf of Mexico

NOAA declared a UME in 2018 to the present due to elevated bottlenose dolphin mortalities occurring along the Southwest coast of Florida including Collier, Lee, Charlotte, Sarasota, Manatee, Hillsborough, and Pinellas counties. From July 1, 2018, to March 27, 2019, 159 dolphins have been confirmed stranded in this event. Our stranding network partners have conducted full or partial necropsy examinations on several dolphins, with positive results for the red tide toxin (brevetoxin) indicating this UME is related to the severe bloom of a red tide that has been ongoing since November 2017. Please refer to

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/southeast/marine-life-distress/2018-2019-bottlenose-dolphin-unusual-mortality-event-southwest

for more information on this UME.

New Pertinent Science Since Publication of the 2018 AFTT Final Rule

Southall

et al.

(2019a) evaluated Southall

et al.

(2007) and used updated scientific information to propose revised noise exposure criteria to predict onset of auditory effects in marine mammals (

i.e.,

PTS and TTS onset). Southall

et al.

(2019) note that the quantitative processes described and the resulting exposure criteria (

i.e.,

thresholds and auditory weighting functions) are largely identical to those in Finneran (2016) and NMFS (2016 and 2018). However they differ in that the Southall

et al.

(2019a) exposure criteria are more broadly applicable as they include all marine mammal species (rather than those only under NMFS jurisdiction) for all noise exposures (both in air and underwater for amphibious species), and that while the hearing group compositions are identical they renamed the hearing groups.

Recent studies on the behavioral responses of cetaceans to sonar examine and continue to demonstrate the importance of not only sound source parameters, but exposure context (

e.g.,

behavioral state, presence of other animals and social relationships, prey abundance, distance to source, presence of vessels, environmental parameters, etc.) in determining or predicting a behavioral response. Kastelein

et al.

(2018) examined the role of sound pressure level (SPL) and duty cycle on the behavior of two captive harbor porpoises when exposed to simulated Navy mid-frequency sonar (53C, 3.5 to 4.1 kHz). Neither harbor porpoise responded to the low duty cycle (2.7 percent) at any of the five SPLs presented, even at the maximum received SPL (143 dB re: 1 µPa). At the higher duty cycle (96 percent), one porpoise responded by increasing his respiration rate at a received SPL of greater than or equal to 119 dB re: 1 µPa, and moved away from the transducer at a received SPL of 143 dB re: 1 µPa. Kastelein

et al.

(2018) observed that at the same received SPL and duty cycle, harbor porpoises respond less to 53C sonar sounds than 1-2 kHz, 6-7 kHz, and 25 kHz sonar signals observed in previous studies, but noted that when examining behavioral responses it is important to take into account the spectrum and temporal structure of the signal, the duty cycle, and the psychological interpretation by the animal. Wensveen

et al.

(2019) examined the role of sound source (simulated sonar pulses) distance and received level in northern bottlenose whales in an environment without frequent sonar activity using multi-scaled controlled exposure experiments. They observed behavioral avoidance of the sound source over a wide range of distances (0.8-28 km) and estimated avoidance thresholds ranging from received SPLs of 117-126 dB re: 1 µPa. The behavioral response characteristics and avoidance thresholds were comparable to those previously observed in beaked whale studies; however, they did not observe an effect of distance on behavioral response and found that onset and intensity of behavioral response were better predicted by received SPL. When conducting controlled exposure experiments on blue whales Southall

et al.

(2019b) observed that after exposure to simulated and operational mid-frequency active sonar, more than 50 percent of blue whales in deep-diving states responded to the sonar, while no behavioral response was observed in shallow-feeding blue whales. The behavioral responses they observed were generally brief, of low to moderate severity, and highly dependent on exposure context (behavioral state, source-to-whale horizontal range, and prey availability). Blue whale response did not follow a simple exposure-response model based on received sound exposure level. In a review of the potential impacts of sonar on beaked whales, Bernaldo de Quirós

et al.

(2019) suggested that the effect of mid-frequency active sonar on beaked whales varies among individuals or populations, and that predisposing conditions such as previous exposure to sonar and individual health risk factors may contribute to individual outcomes (such as decompression sickness).

Having considered this information, we have preliminarily determined that there is no new information that substantively affects our analysis of impacts on marine mammals and their habitat that appeared in the 2018 AFTT final rule, all of which remains applicable and valid for our assessment of the effects of the Navy's activities during the seven-year period of this rule.

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals

This section indicates the number of takes that NMFS is proposing to authorize, which are based on the amount of take that NMFS anticipates could occur or is likely to occur, depending on the type of take and the methods used to estimate it, as described below. NMFS coordinated closely with the Navy in the development of their incidental take application, and preliminarily agrees that the methods the Navy has put forth described herein and in the 2018 AFTT proposed and final rules to estimate take (including the model, thresholds, and density estimates), and the resulting numbers are based on the best available science and appropriate for

authorization. The number and type of incidental takes that could occur or are likely to occur annually remain identical to those authorized in the 2018 AFTT regulations.

Takes are predominantly in the form of harassment, but a small number of serious injuries or mortalities are also possible. For military readiness activities, the MMPA defines “harassment” as (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).

Proposed authorized takes would primarily be in the form of Level B harassment, as use of the acoustic and explosive sources (

i.e.,

sonar, air guns, pile driving, explosives) is more likely to result in behavioral disruption (rising to the level of a take as described above) or temporary threshold shift (TTS) for marine mammals than other forms of take. There is also the potential for Level A harassment, however, in the form of auditory injury and/or tissue damage (the latter from explosives only) to result from exposure to the sound sources utilized in training and testing activities. Lastly, a limited number of serious injuries or mortalities could occur for four species of mid-frequency cetaceans during ship shock trials and no more than four serious injuries or mortalities total (over the seven-year period) of mysticetes (except for blue whales, Bryde's whales, and North Atlantic right whales) and North Atlantic sperm whales could occur through vessel collisions. Although we analyze the impacts of these potential serious injuries or mortalities that are proposed to be authorized, the required mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the likelihood that ship strike or these high level explosive exposures (and the associated serious injury or mortality) actually occur.

Generally speaking, for acoustic impacts we estimate the amount and type of harassment by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be taken by Level B harassment (in this case, as defined in the military readiness definition of Level B harassment included above) or incur some degree of temporary or permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day or event; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and (4) and the number of days of activities or events.

Acoustic Thresholds

Using the best available science, NMFS, in coordination with the Navy, has established acoustic thresholds that identify the most appropriate received level of underwater sound above which marine mammals exposed to these sound sources could be reasonably expected to experience a disruption in behavior patterns to a point where they are abandoned or significantly altered, or to incur TTS (equated to Level B harassment) or permanent threshold shift (PTS) of some degree (equated to Level A harassment). Thresholds have also been developed to identify the pressure levels above which animals may incur non-auditory injury from exposure to pressure waves from explosive detonation.

Despite the quickly evolving science, there are still challenges in quantifying expected behavioral responses that qualify as Level B harassment, especially where the goal is to use one or two predictable indicators

(e.g.,

received level and distance) to predict responses that are also driven by additional factors that cannot be easily incorporated into the thresholds (

e.g.,

context). So, while the new behavioral Level B harassment thresholds have been refined here to better consider the best available science (

e.g.,

incorporating both received level and distance), they also still, accordingly, have some built-in conservative factors to address the challenge noted. For example, while duration of observed responses in the data are now considered in the thresholds, some of the responses that are informing take thresholds are of a very short duration, such that it is possible some of these responses might not always rise to the level of disrupting behavior patterns to a point where they are abandoned or significantly altered. We describe the application of this Level B harassment threshold as identifying the maximum number of instances in which marine mammals could be reasonably expected to experience a disruption in behavior patterns to a point where they are abandoned or significantly altered. In summary, we believe these behavioral Level B harassment thresholds are the most appropriate method for predicting behavioral Level B harassment given the best available science and the associated uncertainty.

We described these acoustic thresholds, none of which have changed, in detail in the

Acoustic Thresholds

section and Tables 13 through 22 of the 2018 AFTT final rule; please see the 2018 AFTT final rule for detailed information.

Navy's Acoustic Effects Model

The Navy proposes no changes to the Acoustic Effects Model as described in the 2018 AFTT final rule and there is no new information that would affect the applicability or validity of the Model. Please see the 2018 AFTT final rule for detailed information.

Range to Effects

The Navy proposes no changes from the 2018 AFTT final rule to the type and nature of the specified activities to be conducted during the seven-year period analyzed in this proposed rule, including equipment and sources used and exercises conducted. There is also no new information that would affect the applicability or validity of the ranges to effects previously analyzed for these activities.Therefore the ranges to effects in this proposed rule are identical to those described and analyzed in the 2018 AFTT final rule, including received sound levels that may cause onset of significant behavioral response and TTS and PTS in hearing for each source type or explosives that may cause non-auditory injury. Please see the

Range to Effects

section and Tables 23 through 38 of the 2018 AFTT final rule for detailed information.

Marine Mammal Density

The Navy proposes no changes to the methods used to estimate marine mammal density described in the 2018 AFTT final rule and there is no new information that would affect the applicability or validity of these methods. Please see the 2018 AFTT final rule for detailed information.

Take Requests

As in the 2018 AFTT final rule, in its 2019 application, the Navy determined that the three stressors below could result in the incidental taking of marine mammals. NMFS has reviewed the Navy's data and analysis and determined that it is complete and accurate, and NMFS agrees that the following stressors have the potential to result in takes of marine mammals from the Navy's planned activities:

• Acoustics (sonar and other transducers; air guns; pile driving/extraction);

• Explosives (explosive shock wave and sound, assumed to encompass the risk due to fragmentation); and

• Physical Disturbance and Strike (vessel strike).

NMFS reviewed and agrees with the Navy's conclusion that acoustic and explosive sources have the potential to result in incidental takes of marine mammals by harassment, serious injury, or mortality. NMFS carefully reviewed the Navy's analysis and conducted its own analysis of vessel strikes, determining that the likelihood of any particular species of large whale being struck is quite low. Nonetheless, NMFS agrees that vessel strikes have the potential to result in incidental take from serious injury or mortality for certain species of large whales and the Navy has specifically requested coverage for these species. Therefore, the likelihood of vessel strikes, and later the effects of the incidental take that is being proposed to be authorized, has been fully analyzed and is described below.

Regarding the quantification of expected takes from acoustic and explosive sources (by Level A and Level B harassment, as well as mortality resulting from exposure to explosives), the number of takes are based directly on the level of activities (days, hours, counts, etc., of different activities and events) in a given year. In the 2018 AFTT final rule, take estimates across the five-years were based on the Navy conducting three years of a representative level of activity and two years of maximum level of activity. Consistent with the pattern set forth in the 2017 application, the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS, and the 2018 AFTT final rule, the Navy proposes to add one additional representative year and one additional maximum year to determine the predicted take numbers in this rule. Specifically, as in the 2018 AFTT final rule, here the Navy proposes to use the maximum annual level to calculate annual takes (which would remain identical to what was determined in the 2018 AFTT final rule), and the sum of all years (four representative and three maximum) to calculate the seven-year totals for this rule. The Navy is not proposing to conduct any additional ship shock activities, and therefore both the total number and annual number of ship shock takes estimated and requested for the seven-year period is the same as the number requested in the five-year period under the 2018 AFTT final rule.

The quantitative analysis process used for the 2018 AFTT FEIS/OEIS and the 2017 and 2019 Navy applications to estimate potential exposures to marine mammals resulting from acoustic and explosive stressors is detailed in the technical report titled

Quantifying Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles: Methods and Analytical Approach for Phase III Training and Testing

(U.S. Department of the Navy, 2018). The Navy Acoustic Effects Model estimates acoustic and explosive effects without taking mitigation into account; therefore, the model overestimates predicted impacts on marine mammals within mitigation zones. To account for mitigation for marine species in the take estimates, the Navy conducts a quantitative assessment of mitigation. The Navy conservatively quantifies the manner in which procedural mitigation is expected to reduce model-estimated PTS to TTS for exposures to sonar and other transducers, and reduces model-estimated mortality to injury for exposures to explosives. For a complete explanation of the process for assessing the effects of mitigation, see the 2017 Navy application and the 2018 AFTT final rule. The extent to which the mitigation areas reduce impacts on the affected species and stocks is addressed separately in the

Preliminary Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination

section.

No changes have been made to the quantitative analysis process to estimate potential exposures to marine mammals resulting from acoustic and explosive stressors and calculate take estimates. In addition, there is no new information that would call into question the validity of the Navy's quantitative analysis process. Please see the documents described in the paragraph above, the 2018 AFTT proposed rule, and the 2018 AFTT final rule for detailed descriptions of these analyses. In summary, we believe the Navy's methods, including the method for incorporating mitigation and avoidance, are the most appropriate methods for predicting PTS, TTS, and behavioral disruption. But even with the consideration of mitigation and avoidance, given some of the more conservative components of the methodology (

e.g.,

the thresholds do not consider ear recovery between pulses), we would describe the application of these methods as identifying the maximum number of instances in which marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be taken through PTS, TTS, or behavioral disruption.

Summary of Requested Take From Training and Testing Activities

Based on the methods discussed in the previous sections and the Navy's model and quantitative assessment of mitigation, the Navy provided its take estimate and request for authorization of takes incidental to the use of acoustic and explosive sources for training and testing activities both annually (based on the maximum number of activities that could occur per 12-month period) and over the seven-year period covered by the 2019 Navy application. Annual takes (based on the maximum number of activities that could occur per 12-month period) are identical to those presented in Tables 39 through 41 in the

Take Requests

section of the 2018 AFTT final rule. The 2019 Navy application also includes the Navy's take estimate and request for vessel strikes due to vessel movement in the AFTT Study Area and individual small and large ship shock trials over a seven-year period. The Navy proposes no additional ship shock trials, so the estimated and requested takes from ship shock trials are the same as those authorized in the 2018 AFTT final rule. NMFS has reviewed the Navy's data, methodology, and analysis and determined that it is complete and accurate. NMFS agrees that the estimates for incidental takes by harassment from all sources as well as the incidental takes by serious injury or mortality from explosives requested for authorization are reasonably expected to occur. NMFS also agrees that the takes by serious injury or mortality as a result of vessel strikes could occur. The total amount of estimated incidental take over the seven years covered by the 2019 Navy application is less than the sum total of each year because although the annual estimates are based on the maximum number of activities per year and therefore the maximum estimated takes, the seven-year take estimates are based on the sum of three maximum years and four representative years.

Estimated Harassment Take From Training Activities

For training activities, Table 10 summarizes the Navy's take estimate and request and the maximum amount and type of Level A and Level B harassment for the seven-year period covered by the 2019 Navy application that NMFS concurs is reasonably expected to occur by species or stock. For the estimated amount and type of Level A harassment and Level B harassment annually, see Table 39 in the 2018 AFTT final rule. Note that take by Level B harassment includes both behavioral disruption and TTS. Navy Figures 6.4-10 through 6.5-39 in Section 6 of the 2017 Navy application illustrate the comparative amounts of TTS and behavioral disruption for each species annually, noting that if a modeled marine mammal was “taken”

through exposure to both TTS and behavioral disruption in the model, it was recorded as a TTS.

Table 10—Seven-Year Total Species- and Stock-Specific Take Estimates Proposed for Authorization From Acoustic and Explosive Sound Source Effects for All Training Activities

Species

Stock

7-Year total

Level B

Level A

Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)

Family Balaenidae (right whales):

North Atlantic right whale *

Western North Atlantic

1,644

Family Balaenopteridae (roquals):

Blue whale *

Western North Atlantic (Gulf of St. Lawrence)

171

Bryde's whale

Northern Gulf of Mexico

No Stock Designation

1,351

Minke whale

Canadian East Coast

15,824

Fin whale *

Western North Atlantic

10,225

Humpback whale

Gulf of Maine

1,564

Sei whale *

Nova Scotia

1,964

Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)

Family Physeteridae (sperm whale):

Sperm whale *

Gulf of Mexico Oceanic

167

North Atlantic

96,479

Family Kogiidae (sperm whales):

Dwarf sperm whale

Gulf of Mexico Oceanic

103

Western North Atlantic

56,060

Pygmy sperm whale

Northern Gulf of Mexico

103

Western North Atlantic

56,060

Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales):

Blainville's beaked whale

Northern Gulf of Mexico

244

Western North Atlantic

85,661

Cuvier's beaked whale

Northern Gulf of Mexico

242

Western North Atlantic

317,180

Gervais' beaked whale

Northern Gulf of Mexico

244

Western North Atlantic

85,661

Northern bottlenose whale

Western North Atlantic

7,504

Sowersby's beaked whale

Western North Atlantic

85,661

True's beaked whale

Western North Atlantic

85,661

Family Delphinidae (dolphins):

Atlantic spotted dolphin

Northern Gulf of Mexico

6,584

Western North Atlantic

804,058

Atlantic white-sided dolphin

Western North Atlantic

99,615

Bottlenose dolphin

Choctawhatchee Bay

Gulf of Mexico Eastern Coastal

166

Gulf of Mexico Northern Coastal

1,524

Gulf of Mexico Western Coastal

16,778

Indian River Lagoon Estuarine System

1,980

Jacksonville Estuarine System

589

Mississippi Sound, Lake Borgne, Bay Boudreau

Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf

10,918

Northern Gulf of Mexico Oceanic

1,356

Northern North Carolina Estuarine System

16,089

Southern North Carolina Estuarine System

Western North Atlantic Northern Florida Coastal

6,060

Western North Atlantic Central Florida Coastal

35,861

Western North Atlantic Northern Migratory Coastal

175,237

Western North Atlantic Offshore

2,062,942

269

Western North Atlantic South Carolina/Georgia Coastal

28,814

Western North Atlantic Southern Migratory Coastal

81,155

Clymene dolphin

Northern Gulf of Mexico

694

Western North Atlantic

463,220

False killer whale

Northern Gulf of Mexico

291

Western North Atlantic

54,818

Fraser's dolphin

Northern Gulf of Mexico

418

Western North Atlantic

26,155

Killer whale

Northern Gulf of Mexico

Western North Atlantic

522

Long-finned pilot whale

Western North Atlantic

116,412

Melon-headed whale

Northern Gulf of Mexico

493

Western North Atlantic

246,178

Pantropical spotted dolphin

Northern Gulf of Mexico

3,959

Western North Atlantic

964,072

Pygmy killer whale

Northern Gulf of Mexico

118

Western North Atlantic

43,009

Risso's dolphin

Northern Gulf of Mexico

276

Western North Atlantic

140,368

Rough-toothed dolphin

Northern Gulf of Mexico

606

Western North Atlantic

129,594

Short-beaked common dolphin

Western North Atlantic

1,467,625

Short-finned pilot whale

Northern Gulf of Mexico

251

Western North Atlantic

210,736

Spinner dolphin

Northern Gulf of Mexico

1,593

Western North Atlantic

487,644

Striped dolphin

Northern Gulf of Mexico

471

Western North Atlantic

631,680

White-beaked dolphin

Western North Atlantic

269

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):

Harbor porpoise

Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy

206,071

1,121

Suborder Pinnipedia

Family Phocidae (true seals):

Gray seal

Western North Atlantic

10,038

Harbor seal

Western North Atlantic

16,277

Harp seal

Western North Atlantic

59,063

Hooded seal

Western North Atlantic

882

The estimated amount and type of Level A harassment and Level B harassment annually are identical to those presented in Table 39 in the 2018 AFTT final rule.

* ESA-listed species (all stocks) within the AFTT Study Area.

†

NSD: No stock designated.

Estimated Harassment Take From Testing Activities

For testing activities (excluding ship shock trials), Table 11 summarizes the Navy's take estimate and request and the maximum amount and type of Level A harassment and Level B harassment for the seven-year period covered by the 2019 Navy application that NMFS concurs is reasonably expected to occur by species or stock. For the estimated amount and type of Level A harassment and Level B harassment annually, see Table 40 in the 2018 AFTT final rule. Note that take by Level B harassment includes both behavioral disruption and TTS. Navy Figures 6.4-10 through 6.5-39 in Section 6 of the 2017 Navy application illustrate the comparative amounts of TTS and behavioral disruption for each species annually, noting that if a “taken” animat was exposed to both TTS and behavioral disruption in the model, it was recorded as a TTS.

Table 11—Seven-Year Total Species and Stock-Specific Take Estimates Proposed for Authorization From Acoustic and Explosive Sound Source Effects for All Testing Activities (Excluding Ship Shock Trials)

Species

Stock

7-Year total

Level B

Level A

Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)

Family Balaenidae (right whales):

North Atlantic right whale *

Western North Atlantic

1,528

Family Balaenopteridae (roquals):

Blue whale *

Western North Atlantic (Gulf of St. Lawrence)

127

Bryde's whale

Northern Gulf of Mexico

358

No Stock Designation

856

Minke whale

Canadian East Coast

11,155

Fin whale *

Western North Atlantic

24,808

Humpback whale

Gulf of Maine

3,380

Sei whale *

Nova Scotia

3,262

Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)

Family Physeteridae (sperm whale):

Sperm whale *

Gulf of Mexico Oceanic

7,315

North Atlantic

71,820

Family Kogiidae (sperm whales):

Dwarf sperm whale

Gulf of Mexico Oceanic

4,787

Western North Atlantic

29,368

Pygmy sperm whale

Northern Gulf of Mexico

4,787

Western North Atlantic

29,368

Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales):

Blainville's beaked whale

Northern Gulf of Mexico

9,368

Western North Atlantic

68,738

Cuvier's beaked whale

Northern Gulf of Mexico

9,757

Western North Atlantic

252,367

Gervais' beaked whale

Northern Gulf of Mexico

9,368

Western North Atlantic

68,738

Northern bottlenose whale

Western North Atlantic

6,231

Sowersby's beaked whale

Western North Atlantic

68,903

True's beaked whale

Western North Atlantic

68,903

Family Delphinidae (dolphins):

Atlantic spotted dolphin

Northern Gulf of Mexico

473,262

Western North Atlantic

708,931

Atlantic white-sided dolphin

Western North Atlantic

210,578

Bottlenose dolphin

Choctawhatchee Bay

6,297

Gulf of Mexico Eastern Coastal

Gulf of Mexico Northern Coastal

108,154

Gulf of Mexico Western Coastal

25,200

Indian River Lagoon Estuarine System

Jacksonville Estuarine System

Mississippi Sound, Lake Borgne, Bay Boudreau

Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf

841,076

Northern Gulf of Mexico Oceanic

95,044

Northern North Carolina Estuarine System

746

Southern North Carolina Estuarine System

Western North Atlantic Northern Florida Coastal

2,263

Western North Atlantic Central Florida Coastal

15,409

Western North Atlantic Northern Migratory Coastal

79,042

Western North Atlantic Offshore

794,581

161

Western North Atlantic South Carolina/Georgia Coastal

11,232

Western North Atlantic Southern Migratory Coastal

29,176

Clymene dolphin

Northern Gulf of Mexico

27,841

Western North Atlantic

234,001

False killer whale

Northern Gulf of Mexico

12,788

Western North Atlantic

24,580

Fraser's dolphin

Northern Gulf of Mexico

7,452

Western North Atlantic

8,270

Killer whale

Northern Gulf of Mexico

212

Western North Atlantic

264

Long-finned pilot whale

Western North Atlantic

131,095

Melon-headed whale

Northern Gulf of Mexico

20,324

Western North Atlantic

109,192

Pantropical spotted dolphin

Northern Gulf of Mexico

169,678

Western North Atlantic

495,207

Pygmy killer whale

Northern Gulf of Mexico

4,771

Western North Atlantic

18,609

Risso's dolphin

Northern Gulf of Mexico

10,929

Western North Atlantic

132,141

Rough-toothed dolphin

Northern Gulf of Mexico

26,033

Western North Atlantic

58,008

Short-beaked common dolphin

Western North Atlantic

2,351,361

101

Short-finned pilot whale

Northern Gulf of Mexico

12,041

Western North Atlantic

111,326

Spinner dolphin

Northern Gulf of Mexico

51,039

Western North Atlantic

218,786

Striped dolphin

Northern Gulf of Mexico

16,344

Western North Atlantic

652,197

White-beaked dolphin

Western North Atlantic

300

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):

Harbor porpoise

Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy

811,201

1,405

Suborder Pinnipedia

Family Phocidae (true seals):

Gray seal

Western North Atlantic

6,130

Harbor seal

Western North Atlantic

9,941

Harp seal

Western North Atlantic

53,646

Hooded seal

Western North Atlantic

5,335

The estimated amount and type of Level A harassment and Level B harassment annually are identical to those presented in Table 40 in the 2018 AFTT final rule.

* ESA-listed species (all stocks) within the AFTT Study Area.

†

NSD: No stock designated.

Estimated Take From Ship Shock

For ship shock trials, Table 12 summarizes the Navy's take estimate and request and the maximum amount and type of Level A and Level B harassment and serious injury/mortality for the seven-year period covered by the Navy application that NMFS concurs is reasonably expected to occur by species or stock per small and large ship shock events. For the estimated amount and type of Level A harassment, Level B harassment, and serious injury/mortality annually, see Table 41 in the 2018 AFTT final rule. The Navy proposed no additional ship shock trials over the additional two years covered by the 2019 Navy application, so the estimated and requested takes are the same as those authorized in the 2018 AFTT final rule.

Table 12—Seven-Year Total Species and Stock-Specific Take Estimates Proposed for Authorization From Ship Shock Trials

Species

7-Year total

Level B

Level A

Mortality

Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)

Family Balaenidae (right whales):

North Atlantic right whale *

Family Balaenopteridae (roquals):

Blue whale *

Bryde's whale

Minke whale

Fin whale *

627

Humpback whale

Sei whale *

Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)

Family Physeteridae (sperm whale):

Sperm whale *

Family Kogiidae (sperm whales):

Dwarf sperm whale

229

154

Pygmy sperm whale

229

154

Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales):

Blainville's beaked whale

Cuvier's beaked whale

Gervais' beaked whale

Northern bottlenose whale

Sowersby's beaked whale

True's beaked whale

Family Delphinidae (dolphins):

Atlantic spotted dolphin

Atlantic white-sided dolphin

Bottlenose dolphin

Clymene dolphin

False killer whale

Fraser's dolphin

Killer whale

Long-finned pilot whale

Melon-headed whale

Pantropical spotted dolphin

Pygmy killer whale

Risso's dolphin

Rough-toothed dolphin

Short-beaked common dolphin

187

260

Short-finned pilot whale

Spinner dolphin

Striped dolphin

White-beaked dolphin

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):

Harbor porpoise

249

204

Suborder Pinnipedia

Family Phocidae (true seals):

Gray seal

Harbor seal

Harp seal

Hooded seal

The estimated amount and type of Level A harassment and Level B harassment and serious injury/mortality annually are identical to those presented in Table 41 in the 2018 AFTT final rule.

* ESA-listed species (all stocks) within the AFTT Study Area.

†

NSD: No stock designated.

Estimated Take From Vessel Strikes

Vessel strikes from commercial, recreational, and military vessels are known to affect large whales and have resulted in serious injury and occasional fatalities to cetaceans (Berman-Kowalewski

et al.,

2010; Calambokidis, 2012; Douglas

et al.,

2008; Laggner 2009; Lammers

et al.,

2003). Records of collisions date back to the early 17th century, and the worldwide number of collisions appears to have increased steadily during recent decades (Laist

et al.,

2001; Ritter, 2012).

Numerous studies of interactions between surface vessels and marine mammals have demonstrated that free-ranging marine mammals often, but not always (

e.g.,

McKenna

et al.,

2015), engage in avoidance behavior when surface vessels move toward them. It is not clear whether these responses are caused by the physical presence of a surface vessel, the underwater noise generated by the vessel, or an interaction between the two (Amaral and Carlson, 2005; Au and Green, 2000; Bain

et al.,

2006; Bauer 1986; Bejder

et al.,

1999; Bejder and Lusseau, 2008; Bejder

et al.,

2009; Bryant

et al.,

1984; Corkeron, 1995; Erbe, 2002; Félix, 2001; Goodwin and Cotton, 2004; Lemon

et al.,

2006; Lusseau, 2003; Lusseau, 2006; Magalhaes

et al.,

2002; Nowacek

et al.,

2001; Richter

et al.,

2003; Scheidat

et al.,

2004; Simmonds, 2005; Watkins, 1986; Williams

et al.,

2002; Wursig

et al.,

1998). Several authors suggest that the noise generated during motion is probably an important factor (Blane and Jaakson, 1994; Evans

et al.,

1992; Evans

et al.,

1994). Water disturbance may also be a factor. These studies suggest that the behavioral responses of marine mammals to surface vessels are similar to their behavioral responses to predators. Avoidance behavior is expected to be even stronger in the subset of instances that the Navy is conducting training or testing activities using active sonar or explosives.

The marine mammals most vulnerable to vessel strikes are those that spend extended periods of time at the surface in order to restore oxygen levels within their tissues after deep dives (

e.g.,

the sperm whale). In addition, some baleen whales, such as the NARW seem generally unresponsive to vessel sound, making them more susceptible to vessel collisions (Nowacek

et al.,

2004). These species are primarily large, slower moving whales.

Some researchers have suggested the relative risk of a vessel strike can be assessed as a function of animal density and the magnitude of vessel traffic (

e.g.,

Fonnesbeck

et al.,

2008; Vanderlaan

et al.,

2008). Differences among vessel types also influence the probability of a vessel strike. The ability of any ship to detect a marine mammal and avoid a collision depends on a variety of factors, including environmental conditions, ship design, size, speed, and personnel, as well as the behavior of the animal. Vessel speed, size, and mass are all important factors in determining if injury or death of a marine mammal is likely due to a vessel strike. For large vessels, speed and angle of approach can influence the severity of a strike. For example, Vanderlaan and Taggart (2007) found that between vessel speeds of 8.6 and 15 knots, the probability that a vessel strike is lethal increases from 0.21 to 0.79. Large whales also do not have to be at the water's surface to be struck. Silber

et al.

(2010) found when a whale is below the surface (about one to two times the vessel draft), there is likely to be a pronounced propeller suction effect. This suction effect may draw the whale into the hull of the ship, increasing the probability of propeller strikes.

There are some key differences between the operation of military and non-military vessels, which make the likelihood of a military vessel striking a whale lower than some other vessels (

e.g.,

commercial merchant vessels). Key differences include:

• Many military ships have their bridges positioned closer to the bow, offering better visibility ahead of the ship (compared to a commercial merchant vessel).

• There are often aircraft associated with the training or testing activity (which can serve as Lookouts), which can more readily detect cetaceans in the vicinity of a vessel or ahead of a vessel's present course before crew on the vessel would be able to detect them.

• Military ships are generally more maneuverable than commercial merchant vessels, and if cetaceans are spotted in the path of the ship, could be capable of changing course more quickly.

• The crew size on military vessels is generally larger than merchant ships, allowing for stationing more trained Lookouts on the bridge. At all times when vessels are underway, trained Lookouts and bridge navigation teams are used to detect objects on the surface of the water ahead of the ship, including cetaceans. Additional Lookouts, beyond those already stationed on the bridge and on navigation teams, are positioned as Lookouts during some activities.

• When submerged, submarines are generally slow moving (to avoid detection) and therefore marine mammals at depth with a submarine are likely able to avoid collision with the submarine. When a submarine is transiting on the surface, there are Lookouts serving the same function as they do on surface ships.

Vessel strike to marine mammals is not associated with any specific training or testing activity but is rather an extremely limited and sporadic, but possible, accidental result of Navy vessel movement within the AFTT Study Area or while in transit.

There have been three recorded Navy vessel strikes (one in 2011 and two in 2012) of large whales in the AFTT Study Area from 2009 through 2018 (ten years), the period in which the Navy began implementing effective mitigation measures to reduce the likelihood of vessel strikes. Two of the vessel strikes occurred in the Virginia Capes Range Complex and one occurred in the lower Chesapeake Bay. One of the whales in 2012 had features suggesting it was most likely a humpback whale. Note that while the Navy is generally unable to identify the species of whale is it unlikely the unidentified whales were NARW as the strikes occurred in areas where, or times of year when, NARW are not known to be present. In order to account for the accidental nature of vessel strikes to large whales in general, and the potential risk from any vessel movement within the AFTT Study Area within the seven-year period, the Navy requested incidental takes based on probabilities derived from a Poisson distribution using ship strike data between 2009 and 2018 in the AFTT Study Area (the time period from when current mitigation measures were instituted until the Navy conducted the analysis for the 2019 Navy application, with no new ship strikes occurring since this analysis), as well as historical at-sea days in the AFTT Study Area from 2009-2018 and estimated potential at-sea days for the period from 2018 to 2025 covered by the requested regulations. This distribution predicted the probabilities of a specific number of strikes (n=0, 1, 2, etc.) over the period from 2018 to 2025. The analysis is described in detail in Chapter 6 of the Navy's 2017 and 2019 applications (and further refined in the Navy's revised ship strike analysis posted on NMFS' website

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

For the same reasons listed above describing why a Navy vessel strike is comparatively unlikely, it is highly unlikely that a Navy vessel would strike a whale, dolphin, porpoise, or pinniped without detecting it and, accordingly, NMFS is confident that the Navy's reported strikes are accurate and appropriate for use in the analysis. Specifically, Navy ships have multiple Lookouts, including on the forward part of the ship that can visually detect a hit animal, in the unlikely event ship personnel do not feel the strike (which has occasionally occurred). Navy's strict internal procedures and mitigation requirements include reporting of any vessel strikes of marine mammals, and the Navy's discipline, extensive training (not only for detecting marine mammals, but for detecting and reporting any potential navigational obstruction), and strict chain of command give NMFS a high level of confidence that all strikes actually get reported.

The Navy used the three whale strikes since 2009 in their calculations to determine the number of strikes likely to result from their activities (although worldwide strike information, from all Navy activities and other strikes, was used to inform the species that may be struck). The Navy evaluated data beginning in 2009, as that was the start of the Navy's Marine Species Awareness Training and adoption of additional mitigation measures to address ship strike, which will remain in place along with additional mitigation measures during the seven years of this rule.

The updated probability analysis in the 2019 Navy application concluded that there was a 12 percent chance that zero whales would be struck by Navy vessels over the next seven years in the AFTT Study Area, indicating an 88 percent chance that at least one whale would be struck over the next seven years. The analysis also concludes that there is a 10 percent chance of striking four whales over the seven-year period. Based on the revised analysis, the Navy requests coverage for one additional large whale mortality not previously included in the 2018 AFTT final rule bringing the total from three vessel strikes over five years to four vessel strikes over seven years. NMFS agrees that there is some probability that the Navy could strike, and take by serious injury or mortality, up to four large whales incidental to training and testing activities within the AFTT Study Area over the course of the seven years covered by this proposed rule.

Small delphinids, porpoises, and pinnipeds are not expected to be struck by Navy vessels. In addition to the reasons listed above that make it unlikely that the Navy will hit a large whale (more maneuverable ships, larger crew, etc.), the following are additional reasons that vessel strike of dolphins, small whales, porpoises, and pinnipeds is very unlikely. Dating back more than 20 years and for as long as it has kept records, the Navy has no records of individuals of these groups being struck by a vessel as a result of Navy activities and, further, their smaller size and maneuverability make a strike unlikely. Also, NMFS has never received any reports from other authorized activities indicating that these species have been struck by vessels. Worldwide ship strike records show little evidence of strikes of these groups from the shipping sector and larger vessels, and the majority of the Navy's activities involving faster-moving vessels (that could be considered more likely to hit a marine mammal) are located in offshore areas where smaller delphinid, porpoise, and pinniped densities are lower. Based on this information, NMFS concurs with the Navy's assessment and recognizes the potential for incidental take by vessel strike of large whales only (

i.e.,

no dolphins, small whales, porpoises, or pinnipeds) over the course of the seven-year period analyzed here from training and testing activities.

Taking into account the available information regarding how many of any given stock could be struck and therefore should be proposed for authorization for take NMFS considered two factors in addition to those considered in the Navy's request: (1) The relative likelihood of hitting one stock versus another based on available strike data from all vessel types as denoted in the SARs and (2) whether the Navy has ever definitively struck an individual from a particular stock and, if so, how many times. To address number (1) above, NMFS compiled information from NMFS' SARs on detected annual rates of large whale serious injury and mortality from vessel collisions (Table 13). The annual rates of large whale serious injury and mortality from vessel collisions from the SARs help inform the relative susceptibility of large whale species to vessel strike in the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. We summed the annual rates of mortality and serious

injury from vessel collisions as reported in the SARs, then divided each species' annual rate by this sum to get the relative likelihood. To estimate the percent likelihood of striking a particular species of large whale, we multiplied the relative likelihood of striking each species by the total probability of striking a whale (

i.e.,

88 percent, as described by the Navy's probability analysis). We also calculated the percent likelihood of striking a particular species of large whale twice by squaring the value estimated for the probability of striking a particular species of whale once (

i.e.,

to calculate the probability of an event occurring twice, multiply the probability of the first event by the second). We note that these probabilities vary from year to year as the average annual mortality for a given five-year window changes (and we include the annual averages from 2017 and 2018 draft SARs in Table 13 to illustrate); however, over the years and through changing SARs, stocks tend to consistently maintain a relatively higher or relatively lower likelihood of being struck. The analysis indicates that there is a very low percent chance of striking any particular species or stock more than once except for humpback whales, as shown in Table 13. The probabilities calculated as described above are then considered in combination with the information indicating the species that the Navy has definitively hit in the AFTT Study Area since 1995 (since they started tracking consistently). Accordingly, stocks that have no record of ever having been struck by any vessel are considered unlikely to be struck by the Navy in the seven-year period of the rule. Stocks that have never been struck by the Navy, have rarely been struck by other vessels, and have a low percent likelihood based on the SAR calculation and a low relative abundance are also considered unlikely to be struck by the Navy during the seven-year rule.

Table 13—Annual Rates of Mortality and Serious Injury (M/SI) From Vessel Collisions Compiled From NMFS Draft 2018 Stock Assessment Reports (SARs) and Estimated Percent Chance of Striking Each Large Whale Species in the AFTT Study Area Over a Seven-Year Period

Species

(stock)

Annual rate of M/SI from

vessel collision

(2017 SARs)

Annual rate of M/SI from

vessel collision (2018 draft SARs)

Percent chance of ONE strike

Percent chance of TWO strikes

Annual

proposed take

Potential take proposed over 7 years

Fin whale (Western North Atlantic)

1.6

1.4

19.51

3.81

0.14

Sei whale (Nova Scotia)

0.8

11.15

1.24

0.14

Minke whale (Canadian East Coast)

1.4

13.94

1.94

0.14

Humpback whale (Gulf of Maine)

1.8

2.7

37.63

14.16

0.29

Sperm (North Atlantic)

0.2

2.79

0.08

0.14

Bryde's whale (Northern Gulf of Mexico)

0.2

2.79

0.08

Sperm (Gulf of Mexico)

0.00

Blue whale (Western North Atlantic)

0.00

North Atlantic right whales are not included in this analysis as NARWs are not anticipated to be struck due to the additional extensive mitigation the Navy implements to minimize the risk of striking this particular species. In addition, the Navy has not struck this species since prior to 2009 when the Navy's current vessel movement mitigation, reporting, and monitoring requirements have been in place.

The analysis indicates only a very small likelihood (less than 3 percent) that a North Atlantic sperm whale would be struck over the seven years, however, the Navy has struck a sperm whale previously in the Atlantic, which may indicate a higher possibility that it could occur and suggests that authorizing one mortality over the seven years would be appropriate.

Due to their low population abundance within the Study Area and lack of previous vessel strikes by the Navy, along with the Navy's enhanced mitigation measures in the Bryde's Whale Mitigation Area, Bryde's whales are not anticipated to be struck therefore and have zero mortality/serious injury takes.

For the reasons discussed in detail in the 2018 AFTT final rule and discussed further below, due to enhanced mitigation measures, NARWs are not anticipated to be struck by Navy vessels and are anticipated to have zero mortality/serious injury takes over the seven years of the rule. In addition, based on the quantitative method described above, blue whales and Gulf of Mexico sperm whales have a zero percent chance of being struck. After considering this result, along with additional factors discussed below, the Navy found that any vessel strike of these two stocks is highly unlikely. After fully considering all relevant information, NMFS agreed with this conclusion. Finally, the quantitative analysis outlined above indicates only a very small likelihood the Navy would strike a Bryde's whale (3 percent). Due to their low population abundance and lack of previous vessel strikes by the Navy, Bryde's whales are also unlikely to be struck and we have proposed to authorize zero mortality/serious injury takes. Alternately, the quantitative analysis discussed above also indicates only a very small likelihood that the Navy would strike a North Atlantic sperm whale over the seven years covered by the 2019 Navy application (less than 3 percent), however, the Navy has struck a sperm whale previously in the Atlantic (2005), which points to a higher possibility that it could occur and suggests that authorizing a single mortality/serious injury would be appropriate. Additional discussion relevant to our determinations for North Atlantic blue whales, Gulf of Mexico sper

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.