# 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 > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2019-09541 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Proposed Rule - **Published:** May 13, 2019 - **Citation:** 84 FR 21126 ## 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 2 ) 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 1 Location 2 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 17 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 28 14 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 42 21 21 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 14 7 7 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 28 28 35 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 E5 28 84 14 266 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 98 28 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 98 28 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 35 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 84 42 14 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 84 56 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 91 7 126 42 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 E2 14 14 14 28 35 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 4 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 14 14 14 14 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 924 497 497 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 154 371 371 GOMEX RC. JAX RC. VACAPES RC. Explosive Mine Neutralization—Explosive Ordnance Disposal Personnel disable threat mines using explosive charges E4, E5, E6, E7 42 112 140 119 112 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 E1 42 182 896 14 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 70 63 357 245 525 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 E1 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 14 14 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 E3 70 714 70 644 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 84 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 7 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 7 7 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 21 21 588 161 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 84 462 63 14 238 602 14 88 326 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 21 21 63 63 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 350 350 840 1,645 840 JAX RC. NS Mayport. Navy Cherry Point RC. NS Norfolk. VACAPES RC. 1 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. 2 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 1 Location 2 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 34 36 64 442 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 85 133 76 101 279 175 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 22 12 12 12 200 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 66 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 E4 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 E9 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 E1 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 30 234 928 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 E3 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 66 JAX RC. 1 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. 2 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 1 Location 2 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 28 28 182 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 14 JAX RC; Navy Cherry Point RC; Northeast RC; VACAPES RC. 7 JAX RC; Navy Cherry Point RC; VACAPES RC. 14 offshore Fort Pierce, FL; GOMEX RC; JAX RC; SFOMF; Northeast RC; VACAPES RC. 28 JAX RC. 14 Navy Cherry Point RC. 56 NUWC Newport. 84 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 7 NSB New London; NS Norfolk; Port Canaveral, FL 77 Bath, ME. 35 NSB New London. 28 NSB Kings Bay. 56 Newport, RI. 91 NS Norfolk. 14 Pascagoula, MS. 21 Port Canaveral, FL. 14 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 7 7 21 21 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 28 GOMEX RC; offshore Fort Pierce, FL; Key West RC; Navy Cherry Point RC; Northeast RC; VACAPES RC. 14 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 49 77 GOMEX RC. offshore Fort Pierce, FL. 12 JAX, RC. 49 Navy Cherry Point RC. 54 Northeast RC. 210 NUWC Newport. 77 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 35 GOMEX RC; JAX RC; NUWC Newport; VACAPES RC; Key West RC. 20 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 91 42 NSWC Panama City. VACAPES RC. Acoustic, Explosive Mine Countermeasure Mission Package Testing Vessels and associated aircraft conduct mine countermeasure operations HF4, SAS2, E4 133 70 77 14 35 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 42 70 GOMEX RC. Navy Cherry Point RC. 359 NSWC Panama City. 66 Riviera Beach, FL. 28 SFOMF. 21 VACAPES RC. Surface Warfare Explosive Gun Testing—Large Caliber Crews defend against targets with large-caliber guns E3, E5 84 GOMEX RC. JAX RC. Key West RC. Navy Cherry Point RC. Northeast RC. VACAPES RC. 7 GOMEX RC; 7 JAX RC; 7 Key West RC; 7 Navy Cherry Point RC; 7 Northeast RC; 231 NSWC Panama City. 35 VACAPES RC. Explosive Gun Testing—Medium-Caliber Airborne and surface crews defend against targets with medium-caliber guns E1 84 GOMEX RC; JAX RC; Key West RC; Navy Cherry Point RC; Northeast RC; VACAPES RC. 714 34 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 91 GOMEX RC; JAX RC; Key West RC; Navy Cherry Point RC; Northeast RC; VACAPES RC. 7 GOMEX RC. 14 JAX RC. 35 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. 63 Riviera Beach, FL. 294 SFOMF. Vessel Evaluation Explosive Large Ship Shock Trial Underwater detonations are used to test new ships or major upgrades E17 1 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 14 91 7 70 63 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 14 JAX RC; VACAPES RC. 6 JAX RC; Navy Cherry Point RC; SFOMF; VACAPES RC. 14 GOMEX RC. 42 JAX RC. 14 VACAPES RC. Explosive Small Ship Shock Trial Underwater detonations are used to test new ships or major upgrades E16 3 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 14 Offshore Fort Pierce, FL; GOMEX RC; JAX RC; SFOMF; Northeast RC; VACAPES RC. 28 JAX RC. 28 Northeast RC. 28 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 28 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 28 77 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 7 413 JAX RC. SFOMF. 1 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. 2 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. 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 1 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 30 60 16 14 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 7 14 7 JAX RC. Northeast RC. VACAPES RC. 1 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 1 7-Year total 2 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 H H C 0 0 0 9,156 6,797 140 LF5 LF sources less than 180 dB H 60 12,264 LF6 LF sources greater than 200 dB with long pulse lengths H 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) H 36,833 23,358 MF1K Kingfisher mode associated with MF1 sonars H 819 1,064 MF3 Hull-mounted submarine sonars ( e.g., AN/BQQ-10) H 14,604 8,799 MF4 Helicopter-deployed dipping sonars ( e.g., AN/AQS-22 and AN/AQS-13) H 4,196 3,797 MF5 Active acoustic sonobuoys ( e.g., DICASS) C 47,340 38,663 MF6 Active underwater sound signal devices ( e.g., MK84) C 0 8,986 MF8 Active sources (greater than 200 dB) not otherwise binned H 0 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 H 0 52,128 MF10 Active sources (greater than 160 dB, but less than 180 dB) not otherwise binned H 6,088 39,830 MF11 Hull-mounted surface ship sonars with an active duty cycle greater than 80% H 6,495 9,968 MF12 Towed array surface ship sonars with an active duty cycle greater than 80% H 2,658 9,716 MF14 Oceanographic MF sonar H 0 10,080 HF1 Hull-mounted submarine sonars ( e.g., AN/BQQ-10) H 13,504 2,772 HF3 Other hull-mounted submarine sonars (classified) H 34,275 215 HF4 Mine detection, classification, and neutralization sonar ( e.g., AN/SQS-20) H 41,717 179,516 HF5 Active sources (greater than 200 dB) not otherwise binned H C 0 0 13,624 280 HF6 Active sources (equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB) not otherwise binned H 0 15,254 HF7 Active sources (greater than 160 dB, but less than 180 dB) not otherwise binned H 0 8,568 HF8 Hull-mounted surface ship sonars ( e.g., AN/SQS-61) H 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 H 0 84 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) H C 4,251 10,572 5,740 35,842 ASW3 MF towed active acoustic countermeasure systems ( e.g., AN/SLQ-25) H 34,275 21,737 ASW4 MF expendable active acoustic device countermeasures ( e.g., MK 3) C 2,994 24,043 ASW5 MF sonobuoys with high duty cycles H 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) C 399 6,122 TORP2 Heavyweight torpedo ( e.g., MK 48) C 560 2,600 TORP3 Heavyweight torpedo ( e.g., MK 48) C 0 640 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 H 0 8,568 Acoustic Modems (M): Systems used to transmit data through the water M3 MF acoustic modems (greater than 190 dB) H 0 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 H 0 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 H H H H 0 33,600 0 0 6,720 24,584 6,720 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 LF to MF oceanographic source HF oceanographic source LF oceanographic source H H H H H C 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,720 6,720 10,884 4,704 4,704 840 1 H = hours; C = count ( e.g., number of individual pings or individual sonobuoys). 2 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 1 7-Year total 2 Training Testing Air Guns (AG): Small underwater air guns AG C 0 4,228 1 C = count. One count (C) of AG is equivalent to 100 air gun firings. 2 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) 6 15 90 Pile Removal (Vibratory) 12 6 72 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 1 (lb.) Example explosive source 7-Year total 2 Training Testing E1 0.1-0.25 Medium-caliber projectile 53,900 160,880 E2 >0.25-0.5 Medium-caliber projectile 1,486 0 E3 >0.5-2.5 Large-caliber projectile 32,144 20,162 E4 >2.5-5 Mine neutralization charge 913 5,330 E5 >5-10 5-inch projectile 10,052 9,275 E6 >10-20 Hellfire missile 4,214 276 E7 >20-60 Demo block/shaped charge 28 0 E8 >60-100 Light-weight torpedo 154 231 E9 >100-250 500 lb. bomb 462 28 E10 >250-500 Harpoon missile 630 566 E11 >500-650 650 lb. mine 7 70 E12 >650-1,000 2,000 lb. bomb 126 0 E16 2 >7,250-14,500 Littoral Combat Ship full ship shock trial 0 12 E17 2 >14,500-58,000 Aircraft carrier full ship shock trial 0 4 1 Net Explosive Weight refers to the equivalent amount of Trinitrotoluene (TNT) the actual weight of a munition may be larger due to other components. 2 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 1 Stock 2 ESA/MMPA status 3 Stock abundance 4 best/minimum population Occurrence in AFTT Study Area 5 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) 6 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 11 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) 9 Labrador Current West Greenland Shelf NA. Gulf of St. Lawrence Endangered, strategic, depleted 328 (306-350) 10 Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf NA. Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae Gulf of Maine NA 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 NA 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 7 NA 16,609 (7,172-38,461)/NA 7 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 8 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 NA 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 NA 3,785 (0.47)/2,598 12 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 NA 186 (1.04)/90 12 NA Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea NA. Family Monodontidae (beluga whale and narwhal) Beluga whale Delphinapterus leucas Eastern High Arctic/Baffin Bay 13 NA 21,213 (10,985-32,619) 13 Labrador Current West Greenland Shelf NA. West Greenland 14 NA 10,595 (4.904-24,650) 14 NA West Greenland Shelf NA. Narwhal Monodon monoceros NA 15 NA NA 15 NA Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, West Greenland Shelf NA. Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales) Blainville's beaked whale Mesoplodon densirostris Western North Atlantic 16 NA 7,092 (0.54)/4,632 17 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 NA 149 (0.91)/77 18 NA Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea NA. Cuvier's beaked whale Ziphius cavirostris Western North Atlantic 16 NA 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 16 NA 74 (1.04)/36 NA Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea NA. Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands Strategic Unknown NA Caribbean Sea NA. Gervais' beaked whale Mesoplodon europaeus Western North Atlantic 16 NA 7,092 (0.54)/4,632 17 Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast United States Continental Shelf NA. Northern Gulf of Mexico 16 NA 149 (0.91)/77 18 Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea NA. Northern bottlenose whale Hyperoodon ampullatus Western North Atlantic NA 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 16 NA 7,092 (0.54)/4,632 17 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 16 NA 7,092 (0.54)/4,632 17 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 16 NA 44,715 (0.43)/31,610 Gulf Stream Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf NA. Northern Gulf of Mexico NA Unknown NA Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea NA. Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands Strategic Unknown NA Caribbean Sea NA. Atlantic white-sided dolphin Lagenorhynchus acutus Western North Atlantic NA 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 16 NA Unknown Gulf Stream Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf NA. Northern Gulf of Mexico 16 NA 129 (1.0)/64 NA Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea NA. Common bottlenose dolphin Common bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus Western North Atlantic Offshore 19 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 20 NA 6,639 (0.41)/4,759 NA 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 20 Strategic, depleted 3,751 (0.06)/2,353 NA 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 20 Strategic, depleted 6,027 (0.34)/4,569 NA Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Kings Bay, St. Johns River. Northern North Carolina Estuarine System 20 Strategic 823 (0.06)/782 NA Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Beaufort Inlet, Cape Fear River. Southern North Carolina Estuarine System 20 Strategic Unknown NA Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Beaufort Inlet, Cape Fear River. Northern South Carolina Estuarine System 20 Strategic Unknown NA Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf NA. Charleston Estuarine System 20 Strategic Unknown NA Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf NA. Northern Georgia/Southern South Carolina Estuarine System 20 Strategic Unknown NA Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf NA. Central Georgia Estuarine System 20 Strategic 192 (0.04)/185 NA Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf NA. Southern Georgia Estuarine System 20 Strategic 194 (0.05)/185 NA Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Kings Bay, St. Johns River. Western North Atlantic Northern Florida Coastal 20 Strategic, depleted 877 (0.49)/595 NA Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Kings Bay, St. Johns River. Jacksonville Estuarine System 20 Strategic Unknown NA Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Kings Bay, St. Johns River. Western North Atlantic Central Florida Coastal 20 Strategic, depleted 1,218 (0.35)/913 NA Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Port Canaveral. Indian River Lagoon Estuarine System 20 Strategic Unknown NA Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Port Canaveral. Biscayne Bay 16 Strategic Unknown NA Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf NA. Florida Bay 16 NA Unknown NA Gulf of Mexico NA. Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf 20 Na 51,192 (0.10)/46,926 NA Gulf of Mexico NA. Gulf of Mexico Eastern Coastal 20 NA 12,388 (0.13)/11,110 NA Gulf of Mexico NA. Gulf of Mexico Northern Coastal 20 NA 7,185 (0.21)/6,044 NA Gulf of Mexico St. Andrew Bay, Pascagoula River. Gulf of Mexico Western Coastal 20 NA 20,161 (0.17)/17,491 NA Gulf of Mexico Corpus Christi Bay, Galveston Bay. Northern Gulf of Mexico Oceanic 20 NA 5,806 (0.39)/4,230 NA Gulf of Mexico NA. Laguna Madre 20 Strategic 80 (1.57)/Unknown NA Gulf of Mexico NA. Nueces Bay/Corpus Christi Bay 20 Strategic 58 (0.61)/Unknown NA Gulf of Mexico NA. Copano Bay/Aransas Bay/San Antonio Bay/Redfish Bay/Espiritu Santo Bay 20 Strategic 55 (0.82)/Unknown NA Gulf of Mexico NA. Matagorda Bay/Tres Palacios Bay/Lavaca Bay 20 Strategic 61 (0.45)/Unknown NA Gulf of Mexico NA. West Bay 20 NA 48 (0.03)/46 NA Gulf of Mexico NA. Galveston Bay/East Bay/Trinity Bay 20 Strategic 152 (0.43)/Unknown NA Gulf of Mexico NA. Sabine Lake 20 Strategic 0 NA Gulf of Mexico NA. Calcasieu Lake 20 Strategic 0 NA Gulf of Mexico NA. Vermilion Bay/West Cote Blanche Bay/Atchafalaya Bay 20 Strategic 0 NA Gulf of Mexico NA. Terrebonne Bay/Timbalier Bay 20 NA 3,870 (0.15)/3,426 NA Gulf of Mexico NA. Barataria Bay Estuarine System 20 Strategic 2,306 (0.09)/2,138 NA Gulf of Mexico NA. Mississippi River Delta 20 Strategic 332 (0.93)/170 NA Gulf of Mexico NA. Mississippi Sound, Lake Borgne, Bay Boudreau 20 Strategic 3,046 (0.06)/2,896 NA Gulf of Mexico NA. Mobile Bay/Bonsecour Bay 20 Strategic 122 (0.34)/Unknown NA Gulf of Mexico NA. Perdido Bay 20 Strategic 0 NA Gulf of Mexico NA. Pensacola Bay/East Bay 20 Strategic 33 (0.80)/Unknown NA Gulf of Mexico NA. Choctawhatchee Bay 20 Strategic 179 (0.04)/Unknown NA Gulf of Mexico NA. St. Andrew Bay 20 Strategic 124 (0.57)/Unknown NA Gulf of Mexico NA. St. Joseph Bay 20 Strategic 152 (0.08)/Unknown NA Gulf of Mexico NA. St. Vincent Sound/Apalachicola Bay/St. George Sound 20 Strategic 439 (0.14)/Unknown NA Gulf of Mexico NA. Apalachee Bay 20 Strategic 491 (0.39)/Unknown NA Gulf of Mexico NA. Waccasassa Bay/Withlacoochee Bay/Crystal Bay 20 Strategic Unknown NA Gulf of Mexico NA. St. Joseph Sound/Clearwater Harbor 20 Strategic Unknown NA Gulf of Mexico NA. Tampa Bay 20 Strategic Unknown NA Gulf of Mexico NA. Sarasota Bay/Little Sarasota Bay 20 Strategic 158 (0.27)/126 NA Gulf of Mexico NA. Pine Island Sound/Charlotte Harbor/Gasparilla Sound/Lemon Bay 20 Strategic 826 (0.09)/Unknown NA Gulf of Mexico NA. Caloosahatchee River 20 Strategic 0 NA Gulf of Mexico NA. Estero Bay 20 Strategic Unknown NA Gulf of Mexico NA. Chokoloskee Bay/Ten Thousand Islands/Gullivan Bay 20 Strategic Unknown NA Gulf of Mexico NA. Whitewater Bay 20 Strategic Unknown NA Gulf of Mexico NA. Florida Keys (Bahia Honda to Key West) 20 Strategic Unknown NA Gulf of Mexico NA. Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands Strategic Unknown NA Caribbean Sea NA. False killer whale Pseudorca crassidens Western North Atlantic 22 Strategic 442 (1.06)/212 NA Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf NA. Northern Gulf of Mexico 16 NA Unknown NA Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea NA. Fraser's dolphin Lagenodelphis hosei Western North Atlantic 23 NA Unknown Gulf Stream Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf NA. Northern Gulf of Mexico 16 NA Unknown NA Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea NA. Killer Whale Orcinus orca Western North Atlantic 22 NA 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 16 NA 28 (1.02)/14 NA Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea NA. Long-finned pilot whale Globicephala melas Western North Atlantic NA 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 23 NA Unknown Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf NA. Northern Gulf of Mexico 16 NA 2,235 (0.75)/1,274 NA Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea NA. Pantropical spotted-dolphin Stenella attenuate Western North Atlantic 16 NA 3,333 (0.91)/1,733 Gulf Stream Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf NA. Northern Gulf of Mexico 22 NA 50,880 (0.27)/40,699 NA Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea NA. Pygmy Killer Whales Feresa attenuata Western North Atlantic 16 NA Unknown Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf NA. Northern Gulf of Mexico 16 NA 152 (1.02)/75 NA Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea NA. Risso's dolphin Grampus griseus Western North Atlantic NA 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 NA 2,442 (0.57)/1,563 NA Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea NA. Rough-toothed dolphin Steno bredanensis Western North Atlantic 16 NA 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 NA 624 (0.99)/311 NA Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea NA. Short-finned pilot whale Globicephala macrorhynchus Western North Atlantic NA 28,924 (0.24)/23,637 NA Northeast Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf NA. Northern Gulf of Mexico 22 NA 2,415 (0.66)/1,456 NA Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea NA. Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands Strategic Unknown NA Caribbean Sea NA. Spinner dolphin Stenella longirostris Western North Atlantic 16 NA Unknown Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Gyre Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf NA. Northern Gulf of Mexico 16 NA 11,441 (0.83)/6,221 NA Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea NA. Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands Strategic Unknown NA Caribbean Sea NA. Striped dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba Western North Atlantic 16 NA 54,807 (0.30)/42,804 Gulf Stream Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf NA. Northern Gulf of Mexico 16 NA 1,849 (0.77)/1,041 NA Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea NA. Short-beaked common dolphin Delphinus delphis Western North Atlantic NA 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 23 NA 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 NA 79,883 (0.32)/61,415 NA 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 24 NA Unknown 24 Labrador Current Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf NA. Newfoundland 25 NA Unknown 25 Labrador Current Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf NA. Greenland 26 NA Unknown 26 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 NA 27,131 (0.19)/23,158 NA 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 NA 75,834 (0.15)/66,884 NA 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 NA Unknown NA Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf NA. Hooded seal Cystophora cristata Western North Atlantic NA Unknown NA 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. 1 Taxonomy follows (Committee on Taxonomy, 2016). 2 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. 3 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. 4 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. 5 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. 6 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). 7 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). 8 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). 9 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). 10 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). 11 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). 12 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). 13 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). 14 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). 15 NA = Not applicable. Narwhals in the Atlantic are not managed by NMFS and have no associated Stock Assessment Report. 16 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. 17 Estimate includes undifferentiated Mesoplodon species. 18 Estimate includes Gervais' and Blainville's beaked whales. 19 Estimate may include sightings of the coastal form. 20 Estimates for these Gulf of Mexico stocks are from SARs. 21 NMFS is in the process of writing individual stock assessment reports for each of the 32 bay, sound, and estuary stocks. 22 Estimates for these stocks are from Waring et al., (2015). 23 Estimates for these western North Atlantic stocks are from (Waring et al., 2007). 24 Harbor porpoise in the Gulf of St. Lawrence are not managed by NMFS and have no associated Stock Assessment Report. 25 Harbor porpoise in Newfoundland are not managed by NMFS and have no associated Stock Assessment Report. 26 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 1 Level B Level A Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales) Family Balaenidae (right whales): North Atlantic right whale * Western North Atlantic 1,644 0 Family Balaenopteridae (roquals): Blue whale * Western North Atlantic (Gulf of St. Lawrence) 171 0 Bryde's whale Northern Gulf of Mexico 5 0 No Stock Designation 1,351 0 Minke whale Canadian East Coast 15,824 0 Fin whale * Western North Atlantic 10,225 19 Humpback whale Gulf of Maine 1,564 4 Sei whale * Nova Scotia 1,964 0 Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales) Family Physeteridae (sperm whale): Sperm whale * Gulf of Mexico Oceanic 167 0 North Atlantic 96,479 0 Family Kogiidae (sperm whales): Dwarf sperm whale Gulf of Mexico Oceanic 103 0 Western North Atlantic 56,060 68 Pygmy sperm whale Northern Gulf of Mexico 103 0 Western North Atlantic 56,060 68 Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales): Blainville's beaked whale Northern Gulf of Mexico 244 0 Western North Atlantic 85,661 0 Cuvier's beaked whale Northern Gulf of Mexico 242 0 Western North Atlantic 317,180 0 Gervais' beaked whale Northern Gulf of Mexico 244 0 Western North Atlantic 85,661 0 Northern bottlenose whale Western North Atlantic 7,504 0 Sowersby's beaked w [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2019-09541. Public record. Not legal advice.