[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 204 (Thursday, October 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63958-63971]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26856]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XE131


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; U.S. 
Navy Civilian Port Defense Activities at the Ports of Los Angeles/Long 
Beach, California

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

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with regulations implementing the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act (MMPA), notification is hereby given that NMFS has 
issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to the U.S. Navy 
(Navy) to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to Civilian 
Port Defense training activities within and near the Ports of Los 
Angeles and Long Beach, California.

DATES: Effective October 25, 2015, through December 31, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fiorentino, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8477.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability

    An electronic copy of the Navy's application, which contains a list 
of the references used in this document, may be obtained by visiting 
the internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm. The Navy's final Environmental Assessment (EA), 2015 West 
Coast Civilian Port Defense, which also contains a list of the 
references used in this document, may also be viewed on our Web site. 
In case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact 
listed above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) 
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the 
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine 
mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than 
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain 
findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking 
is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is 
provided to the public for review.
    An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS 
finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or 
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements 
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings 
are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 
as ``an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be 
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely 
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of 
recruitment or survival.''
    The National Defense Authorization Act of 2004 (NDAA) (Public Law 
108-136) removed the ``small numbers'' and ``specified geographical 
region'' limitations indicated above and amended the definition of 
``harassment'' as it applies to a ``military readiness activity'' to 
read as follows (Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA): (i) Any act that 
injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or 
marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A Harassment]; or (ii) Any act 
that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal 
stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, 
to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned

[[Page 63959]]

or significantly altered [Level B Harassment].
    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the 
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or 
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or 
marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the 
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not 
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering [Level B harassment].

Summary of Request

    On April 16, 2015, NMFS received a final application from the Navy 
requesting an IHA for the taking of marine mammals incidental to 2015 
Civilian Port Defense activities at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long 
Beach, California.
    The Study Area includes the waters within and near the Ports of Los 
Angeles and Long Beach, California. Since the Ports of Los Angeles and 
Long Beach are adjacent and are both encompassed within the larger 
proposed action area (Study Area) they will be described collectively 
as Los Angeles/Long Beach (see Figure 2-1 of the application for a map 
of the Study Area). These activities are classified as military 
readiness activities. Marine mammals present in the Study Area may be 
exposed to sound from active acoustic sources (sonar). The Navy is 
requesting authorization to take 7 marine mammal species by Level B 
harassment (behavioral). No injurious takes (Level A harassment) of 
marine mammals are predicted and, therefore, none are being authorized.

Description of the Specified Activity

    Additional detail regarding the specified activity was provided in 
our Federal Register notice of proposed authorization (80 FR 53658; 
September 4, 2015; pages 53658-53659); please see that document or the 
Navy's application for more information.

Overview of Training Activities

    Civilian Port Defense activities are naval mine warfare exercises 
conducted in support of maritime homeland defense, per the Maritime 
Operational Threat Response Plan. These activities are conducted in 
conjunction with other federal agencies, principally the Department of 
Homeland Security. The three pillars of Mine Warfare include airborne 
(helicopter), surface (ship and unmanned vehicles), and undersea 
(divers, marine mammal systems, and unmanned vehicles), all of which 
are used in order to ensure that strategic U.S. ports are cleared of 
mine threats. Civilian Port Defense events are conducted in ports or 
major surrounding waterways, within the shipping lanes, and seaward to 
the 300 feet (ft, 91 meters [m]) depth contour. The events employ the 
use of various mine detection sensors, some of which utilize active 
acoustics for detection of mines and mine-like objects in and around 
various ports. Assets used during Civilian Port Defense training 
include up to four unmanned underwater vehicles, marine mammal systems, 
up to two helicopters operating (two to four hours) at altitudes as low 
as 75 to 100 ft (23 to 31 m), explosive ordnance disposal platoons, a 
Littoral Combat Ship or Landing Dock Platform and AVENGER class ships. 
The AVENGER is a surface mine countermeasure vessel specifically 
outfitted for mine countermeasure capability. The proposed Civilian 
Port Defense activities for Los Angeles/Long Beach include the use of 
up to 20 bottom placed non explosive mine training shapes. Mine shapes 
may be retrieved by Navy divers, typically explosive ordnance disposal 
personnel, and may be brought to beach side locations to ensure that 
the neutralization measures are effective and the shapes are secured. 
The final step to the beach side activity is the intelligence gathering 
and identifying how the mine works, disassembling it or neutralizing 
it. The entire training event takes place over multiple weeks utilizing 
a variety of assets and scenarios. The following descriptions detail 
the possible range of activities which could take place during a 
Civilian Port Defense training event. This is all inclusive and many of 
these activities are not included within the analysis of this specific 
event. Mine detection including towed or hull mounted sources would be 
the only portion of this event which we are proposing authorization.

Mine Detection Systems

    Mine detection systems are used to locate, classify, and map 
suspected mines. Once located, the mines can either be neutralized or 
avoided. These systems are specialized to either locate mines on the 
surface, in the water column, or on the sea floor.
     Towed or Hull-Mounted Mine Detection Systems. These 
detection systems use acoustic and laser or video sensors to locate and 
classify suspect mines. Helicopters, ships, and unmanned vehicles are 
used with towed systems, which can rapidly assess large areas.
     Unmanned/Remotely Operated Vehicles. These vehicles use 
acoustic and video or lasers systems to locate and classify mines. 
Unmanned/remotely operated vehicles provide mine warfare capabilities 
in nearshore littoral areas, surf zones, ports, and channels.
     Airborne Laser Mine Detection Systems. Airborne laser 
detection systems work in concert with neutralization systems. The 
detection system initially locates mines and a neutralization system is 
then used to relocate and neutralize the mine.
     Marine Mammal Systems. Navy personnel and Navy marine 
mammals work together to detect specified underwater objects. The Navy 
deploys trained bottlenose dolphins and California sea lions as part of 
the marine mammal mine-hunting and object-recovery system.
    Sonar systems to be used during Civilian Port Defense Mine 
Detection training would include AN/SQQ-32, AN/SLQ-48, AN/AQS-24, and 
handheld sonars (e.g., AN/PQS-2A). Of these sonar sources, only the AN/
SQQ-32 would require quantitative acoustic effects analysis, given its 
source parameters. The AN/SQQ-32 is a high frequency (between 10 and 
200 kilohertz [kHz]) sonar system; the specific source parameters of 
the AN/SQQ-32 are classified. The AN/AQS-24, AN/SLQ-48 and handheld 
sonars are considered de minimis sources, which are defined as sources 
with low source levels, narrow beams, downward directed transmission, 
short pulse lengths, frequencies above known hearing ranges, or some 
combination of these factors (U.S. Department of the Navy 2013). De 
minimis sources have been determined to not have potential impact to 
marine mammals.

Mine Neutralization

    Mine neutralization systems disrupt, disable, or detonate mines to 
clear ports and shipping lanes. Mine neutralization systems can clear 
individual mines or a large number of mines quickly. Two types of mine 
neutralization could be conducted, mechanical minesweeping and 
influence system minesweeping. Mechanical minesweeping consists of 
cutting the tether of mines moored in the water column or other means 
of physically releasing the mine. Moored mines cut loose by mechanical 
sweeping must then be neutralized or rendered safe for subsequent 
analysis. Influence minesweeping consists of simulating the magnetic, 
electric, acoustic, seismic, or pressure signature of a ship so that 
the mine detonates (no

[[Page 63960]]

detonations would occur as part of the proposed training activities). 
Mine neutralization is included here to present the full spectrum of 
Civilian Port Defense Mine Warfare activities. The mine neutralization 
component of the proposed Civilian Port Defense training activities 
will not result in the incidental taking of marine mammals.

Dates, Duration, and Geographic Region

    The description of the Dates, Duration, and Geographical Region of 
authorized activities has not changed from what was provided in the 
notice of the proposed IHA (80 FR 53658; September 4, 2015; page 
53659). Civilian Port Defense training activities are scheduled every 
year, typically alternating between the east and west coasts of the 
United States. Civilian Port Defense activities in 2015 are proposed to 
occur on the U.S. west coast near Los Angeles/Long Beach, California. 
Civilian Port Defense events are typically conducted in areas of ports 
or major surrounding waterways and within the shipping lanes and 
seaward to the 300 ft (91 m) depth contour.
    Civilian Port Defense activities would occur at the Ports of Los 
Angeles/Long Beach from October through December 2015. The training 
exercise would occur for a period of two weeks in which active sonar 
would be utilized for two separate periods of four-day events. The AN/
SQQ-32 sonar could be active for up to 24 hours a day during these 
training events; however, the use of the AN/SQQ-32 would not be 
continuously active during the four-day period. Additional activities 
would occur during this time and are analyzed within the Navy's 
Environmental Assessment for 2015 Civilian Port Defense training 
activities. The Navy has determined there is potential for take as 
defined under MMPA for military readiness activities. Specifically, 
take has potential to occur from utilization of active sonar sources. 
This stressor is the only aspect of the proposed training activities 
for which this IHA is being requested.
    The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach combined represent the 
busiest port along the U.S. West Coast and second busiest in the United 
States. In 2012 and 2013, approximately 4,550 and 4,500 vessel calls, 
respectively, for ships over 10,000 deadweight tons arrived at the 
Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (Louttit and Chavez, 2014; U.S. 
Department of Transportation). This level of shipping would mean 
approximately 9,000 large ship transits to and from these ports and 
through the Study Area. By comparison, the next nearest large regional 
port, Port of San Diego, only had 318 vessel calls in 2012.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity

    Nineteen marine mammal species are known to occur in the study 
area, including five mysticetes (baleen whales), nine odontocetes 
(dolphins and toothed whales), and five pinnipeds (seals and sea 
lions). The Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified 
Activities section has not changed from what was in the notice of the 
proposed IHA (80 FR 53658; September 4, 2015; page 53660). All species 
were quantitatively analyzed in the Navy Acoustic Effects Model (NAEMO; 
see Chapter 6.4 of the application for additional information on the 
modeling process). After completing the modeling simulations, seven 
species (each with a single stock) are estimated to potentially be 
taken by harassment as defined by the MMPA, as it applies to military 
readiness, during the proposed Civilian Port Defense activities due to 
use of active sonar sources. Based on a variety of factors, including 
source characterization, species presence, species hearing range, 
duration of exposure, and impact thresholds for species that may be 
present, the remainder of the species were not quantitatively predicted 
to be exposed to or affected by active acoustic transmissions related 
to the proposed activities that would result in harassment under the 
MMPA and, therefore, are not discussed further. Other potential 
stressors related to the proposed Civilian Port Defense activities 
(e.g., vessel movement/noise, in water device use) would not result in 
disruption or alteration of breeding, feeding, or nursing patterns that 
that would rise to a level of significance under the MMPA. The seven 
species with the potential to be taken by harassment during the 
proposed training activities were presented in Table 1 of the notice of 
the proposed IHA (80 FR 53658; September 4, 2015; page 53660).
    The proposed IHA and the Navy's application include a complete 
description of information on the status, distribution, abundance, 
vocalizations, density estimates, and general biology of marine mammal 
species in the Study Area. In addition, NMFS publishes annual stock 
assessment reports for marine mammals, including some stocks that occur 
within the Study Area (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals).

Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat

    We provided a detailed discussion of the potential effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat in the notice of 
the proposed IHA (80 FR 53658; September 4, 2015; pages 53663-53674). 
Please see that document for more information.

Mitigation

    In order to issue an incidental take authorization under section 
101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the ``permissible 
methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of 
effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock 
and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating 
grounds, and areas of similar significance.'' NMFS' duty under this 
``least practicable adverse impact'' standard is to prescribe 
mitigation reasonably designed to minimize, to the extent practicable, 
any adverse population-level impacts, as well as habitat impacts. While 
population-level impacts can be minimized by reducing impacts on 
individual marine mammals, not all takes translate to population-level 
impacts. NMFS' primary objective under the ``least practicable adverse 
impact'' standard is to design mitigation targeting those impacts on 
individual marine mammals that are most likely to lead to adverse 
population-level effects.
    The NDAA of 2004 amended the MMPA as it relates to military-
readiness activities and the ITA process such that ``least practicable 
adverse impact'' shall include consideration of personnel safety, 
practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the 
``military readiness activity.'' The training activities described in 
the Navy's application are considered military readiness activities.
    NMFS reviewed the proposed activities and the suite of mitigation 
measures as described in the application to determine if they would 
result in the least practicable adverse effect on marine mammals, which 
includes a careful balancing of the likely benefit of any particular 
measure to the marine mammals with the likely effect of that measure on 
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the 
effectiveness of the ``military-readiness activity.'' NMFS described 
the Navy's proposed mitigation measures in detail in the notice of the 
proposed IHA (80 FR 53658; September 4, 2015; pages 53674-53675), and 
they have not changed. NMFS worked with the Navy to develop

[[Page 63961]]

these proposed measures, and they are informed by years of experience 
and monitoring.
    The Navy's proposed mitigation measures are modifications to the 
proposed activities that are implemented for the sole purpose of 
reducing a specific potential environmental impact on a particular 
resource. These do not include standard operating procedures, which are 
established for reasons other than environmental benefit. Most of the 
following mitigation measures are currently, or were previously, 
implemented as a result of past environmental compliance documents. The 
Navy's overall approach to assessing potential mitigation measures is 
based on two principles: (1) Mitigation measures will be effective at 
reducing potential impacts on the resource, and (2) from a military 
perspective, the mitigation measures are practicable, executable, and 
safety and readiness will not be impacted.
    The mitigation measures applicable to the proposed Civilian Port 
Defense training activities are the same as those identified in the 
Mariana Islands Training and Testing Environmental Impact Statement/
Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (MITT EIS/OEIS), Chapter 5. All 
mitigation measures which could be applicable to the proposed 
activities are provided below. For the mitigation measures described 
below, the Lookout Procedures and Mitigation Zone Procedure sections 
from the MITT EIS/OEIS have been combined. For details regarding the 
methodology for analyzing each measure, see the MITT EIS/OEIS, Chapter 
5.

Lookout Procedure Measures

    The Navy will have two types of lookouts for the purposes of 
conducting visual observations: (1) Those positioned on surface ships, 
and (2) those positioned in aircraft or on boats. Lookouts positioned 
on surface ships will be dedicated solely to diligent observation of 
the air and surface of the water. They will have multiple observation 
objectives, which include but are not limited to detecting the presence 
of biological resources and recreational or fishing boats, observing 
mitigation zones, and monitoring for vessel and personnel safety 
concerns. Lookouts positioned on surface ships will typically be 
personnel already standing watch or existing members of the bridge 
watch team who become temporarily relieved of job responsibilities that 
would divert their attention from observing the air or surface of the 
water (such as navigation of a vessel).
    Due to aircraft and boat manning and space restrictions, Lookouts 
positioned in aircraft or on boats will consist of the aircraft crew, 
pilot, or boat crew. Lookouts positioned in aircraft and boats may 
necessarily be responsible for tasks in addition to observing the air 
or surface of the water (for example, navigation of a helicopter or 
rigid hull inflatable boat). However, aircraft and boat lookouts will, 
to the maximum extent practicable and consistent with aircraft and boat 
safety and training requirements, comply with the observation 
objectives described above for Lookouts positioned on surface ships.

Mitigation Measures

High-Frequency Active Sonar

    The Navy will have one Lookout on ships or aircraft conducting 
high-frequency active sonar (HFAS) activities associated with mine 
warfare activities at sea.
    Mitigation will include visual observation from a vessel or 
aircraft (with the exception of platforms operating at high altitudes) 
immediately before and during active transmission within a mitigation 
zone of 200 yards (yds. [183 m]) from the active sonar source. Active 
transmission will cease if a marine mammal is sighted within the 
mitigation zone. Active transmission will recommence if any one of the 
following conditions is met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the 
mitigation zone, (2) the animal is thought to have exited the 
mitigation zone based on a determination of its course and speed and 
the relative motion between the animal and the source, (3) the 
mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a 
period of 10 minutes for an aircraft-deployed source, (4) the 
mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a 
period of 30 minutes for a vessel-deployed source, (5) the vessel or 
aircraft has repositioned itself more than 400 yds (366 m) away from 
the location of the last sighting, or (6) the vessel concludes that 
dolphins are deliberately closing in to ride the vessel's bow wave (and 
there are no other marine mammal sightings within the mitigation zone).

Physical Disturbance and Strike

    Although the Navy does not anticipate that any marine mammals would 
be struck during the conduct of Civilian Port Defense training 
activities, the mitigation measures below will be implemented and 
adhered to.
    Vessels--While underway, vessels will have a minimum of one 
Lookout. Vessels will avoid approaching marine mammals head on and will 
maneuver to maintain a mitigation zone of 500 yds (457 m) around 
observed whales, and 200 yds (183 m) around all other marine mammals 
(except bow riding dolphins), providing it is safe to do so.
    Towed In-Water Devices--The Navy will have one Lookout during 
activities using towed in-water devices when towed from a manned 
platform.
    The Navy will ensure that towed in-water devices being towed from 
manned platforms avoid coming within a mitigation zone of 250 yds (229 
m) around any observed marine mammal, providing it is safe to do so.

Mitigation Conclusions

    NMFS has carefully evaluated the Navy's proposed mitigation 
measures--many of which were developed with NMFS' input during previous 
Navy Training and Testing authorizations--and considered a range of 
other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the 
means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected 
marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of 
potential measures included consideration of the following factors in 
relation to one another: The manner in which, and the degree to which, 
the successful implementation of the mitigation measures is expected to 
reduce the likelihood and/or magnitude of adverse impacts to marine 
mammal species and stocks and their habitat; the proven or likely 
efficacy of the measures; and the practicability of the suite of 
measures for applicant implementation, including consideration of 
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the 
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
    Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to 
accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on 
current science), or contribute to accomplishing one or more of the 
general goals listed below:
    a. Avoid or minimize injury or death of marine mammals wherever 
possible (goals b, c, and d may contribute to this goal).
    b. Reduce the number of marine mammals (total number or number at 
biologically important time or location) exposed to received levels of 
mid-frequency active sonar/high-frequency active sonar (MFAS/HFAS), 
underwater detonations, or other activities expected to result in the 
take of marine mammals

[[Page 63962]]

(this goal may contribute to a, above, or to reducing harassment takes 
only).
    c. Reduce the number of times (total number or number at 
biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed 
to received levels of MFAS/HFAS, underwater detonations, or other 
activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal 
may contribute to a, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
    d. Reduce the intensity of exposures (either total number or number 
at biologically important time or location) to received levels of MFAS/
HFAS, underwater detonations, or other activities expected to result in 
the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to a, above, or to 
reducing the severity of harassment takes only).
    e. Avoid or minimize adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, 
paying special attention to the food base, activities that block or 
limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent 
destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance of habitat 
during a biologically important time.
    f. For monitoring directly related to mitigation--increase the 
probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more 
effective implementation of the mitigation (shut-down zone, etc.).
    Based on our evaluation of the Navy's proposed measures, as well as 
other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the Navy's 
proposed mitigation measures are adequate means of effecting the least 
practicable adverse impacts on marine mammals species or stocks and 
their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating 
grounds, and areas of similar significance, while also considering 
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the 
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
    The proposed IHA comment period provided the public an opportunity 
to submit recommendations, views, and/or concerns regarding this action 
and the proposed mitigation measures. NMFS did not receive any public 
comments on the proposed mitigation measures.

Monitoring and Reporting

    Section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA states that in order to 
issue an ITA for an activity, NMFS must set forth ``requirements 
pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.'' The MMPA 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that 
requests for ITAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the 
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased 
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on 
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present. NMFS 
described the Navy's proposed Monitoring and Reporting in the notice of 
the proposed IHA (80 FR 53658; September 4, 2015; pages 53675-53677), 
and they have not changed.

Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program

    The U.S. Navy has coordinated with NMFS to develop an overarching 
program plan in which specific monitoring would occur. This plan is 
called the Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program (ICMP) (U.S. 
Department of the Navy, 2011). The ICMP has been developed in direct 
response to Navy permitting requirements established in various MMPA 
Final Rules, Endangered Species Act consultations, Biological Opinions, 
and applicable regulations. As a framework document, the ICMP applies 
by regulation to those activities on ranges and operating areas for 
which the Navy is seeking or has sought incidental take authorizations. 
The ICMP is intended to coordinate monitoring efforts across all 
regions and to allocate the most appropriate level and type of effort 
based on set of standardized research goals, and in acknowledgement of 
regional scientific value and resource availability.
    The ICMP is designed to be a flexible, scalable, and adjustable 
plan. The ICMP is evaluated annually through the adaptive management 
process to assess progress, provide a matrix of goals for the following 
year, and make recommendations for refinement. Future monitoring will 
address the following ICMP top-level goals through a series of regional 
and ocean basin study questions with a priority study and funding focus 
on species of interest as identified for each range complex.
     An increase in our understanding of the likely occurrence 
of marine mammals and/or ESA-listed marine species in the vicinity of 
the action (i.e., presence, abundance, distribution, and/or density of 
species);
     An increase in our understanding of the nature, scope, or 
context of the likely exposure of marine mammals and/or ESA-listed 
species to any of the potential stressor(s) associated with the action 
(e.g., tonal and impulsive sound), through better understanding of one 
or more of the following: (1) The action and the environment in which 
it occurs (e.g., sound source characterization, propagation, and 
ambient noise levels); (2) the affected species (e.g., life history or 
dive patterns); (3) the likely co-occurrence of marine mammals and/or 
ESA-listed marine species with the action (in whole or part) associated 
with specific adverse effects, and/or; (4) the likely biological or 
behavioral context of exposure to the stressor for the marine mammal 
and/or ESA-listed marine species (e.g., age class of exposed animals or 
known pupping, calving or feeding areas);
     An increase in our understanding of how individual marine 
mammals or ESA-listed marine species respond (behaviorally or 
physiologically) to the specific stressors associated with the action 
(in specific contexts, where possible, e.g., at what distance or 
received level);
     An increase in our understanding of how anticipated 
individual responses, to individual stressors or anticipated 
combinations of stressors, may impact either: (1) The long-term fitness 
and survival of an individual; or (2) the population, species, or stock 
(e.g., through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival);
     An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of 
mitigation and monitoring measures;
     A better understanding and record of the manner in which 
the authorized entity complies with the ITA and Incidental Take 
Statement;
     An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals 
(through improved technology or methods), both specifically within the 
safety zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the 
mitigation) and in general, to better achieve the above goals; and
     A reduction in the adverse impact of activities to the 
least practicable level, as defined in the MMPA.
    The ICMP will also address relative investments to different range 
complexes based on goals across all range complexes, and monitoring 
will leverage multiple techniques for data acquisition and analysis 
whenever possible. Because the ICMP does not specify actual monitoring 
field work or projects in a given area, it allows the Navy to 
coordinate its monitoring to gather the best scientific data possible 
across all areas in which the Navy operates. The Navy continually 
improves the level of marine mammal scientific information in support 
of ongoing environmental documentation or permit compliance. Numerous 
Navy monitoring projects associated with the Southern California Range 
Complex are ongoing (details are available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/permits/hstt_monitoring.pdf and http://www.navymarinespecies

[[Page 63963]]

monitoring.us/), and data from those region-specific-species-specific 
monitoring efforts will continue to inform our knowledge of marine 
mammals resources in Southern California. Details of the ICMP are 
available online (http://www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/ us/).

Strategic Planning Process for Marine Species Monitoring

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

Reporting

    Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as 
ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring. 
Reports from individual monitoring events, results of analyses, 
publications, and periodic progress reports for specific monitoring 
projects would be posted to the Navy's Marine Species Monitoring Web 
portal: http://www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us.
    General Notification of Injured or Dead Marine Mammals--If any 
injury or death of a marine mammal is observed during the Civilian Port 
Defense training activities, the Navy will immediately halt the 
activity and report the incident to NMFS following the standard 
monitoring and reporting measures consistent with the MITT EIS/OEIS and 
Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing EIS/OEIS. The reporting 
measures include the following procedures:
    Navy personnel shall ensure that NMFS (regional stranding 
coordinator) is notified immediately (or as soon as clearance 
procedures allow) if an injured or dead marine mammal is found during 
or shortly after, and in the vicinity of, any Navy training activity 
utilizing high-frequency active sonar. The Navy shall provide NMFS with 
species or description of the animal(s), the condition of the animal(s) 
(including carcass condition if the animal is dead), location, time of 
first discovery, observed behaviors (if alive), and photo or video (if 
available). The Navy shall consult the Stranding Response and 
Communication Plan to obtain more specific reporting requirements for 
specific circumstances.
    Vessel Strike--Vessel strike during Navy Civilian Port Defense 
activities in the Study Area is not anticipated; however, in the event 
that a Navy vessel strikes a whale, the Navy shall do the following:
    Immediately report to NMFS (pursuant to the established 
Communication Protocol) the:
     Species identification (if known);
     Location (latitude/longitude) of the animal (or location 
of the strike if the animal has disappeared);
     Whether the animal is alive or dead (or unknown); and
     The time of the strike.
    As soon as feasible, the Navy shall report to or provide to NMFS, 
the:
     Size, length, and description (critical if species is not 
known) of animal;
     An estimate of the injury status (e.g., dead, injured but 
alive, injured and moving, blood or tissue observed in the water, 
status unknown, disappeared, etc.);
     Description of the behavior of the whale during event, 
immediately after the strike, and following the strike (until the 
report is made or the animal is no longer sighted);
     Vessel class/type and operational status;
     Vessel length;
     Vessel speed and heading; and
     To the best extent possible, obtain a photo or video of 
the struck animal, if the animal is still in view.
    Within 2 weeks of the strike, provide NMFS:
     A detailed description of the specific actions of the 
vessel in the 30-minute timeframe immediately preceding the strike, 
during the event, and immediately after the strike (e.g., the speed and 
changes in speed, the direction and changes in direction, other 
maneuvers, sonar use, etc., if not classified);
     A narrative description of marine mammal sightings during 
the event and immediately after, and any information as to sightings 
prior to the strike, if available; and use established Navy shipboard 
procedures to make a camera available to attempt to capture photographs 
following a ship strike.
    NMFS and the Navy will coordinate to determine the services the 
Navy may provide to assist NMFS with the investigation of the strike. 
The response and support activities to be provided by the Navy are 
dependent on resource availability, must be consistent with military 
security, and must be logistically feasible without compromising Navy 
personnel safety. Assistance requested and provided may vary based on 
distance of strike from shore, the nature of the vessel that hit the 
whale, available nearby Navy resources, operational and installation 
commitments, or other factors.

Comments

    A notice of the proposed IHA and request for public comments was 
published in the Federal Register on September 4, 2015 (80 FR 53658; 
September 4, 2015). During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS only 
received one comment from the Marine Mammal Commission, who concurred 
with our preliminary determination and recommended that NMFS issue the 
IHA, subject to inclusion of the proposed mitigation, monitoring, and 
reporting measures.

Estimated Take

    In the Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine 
Mammals section of the notice of the proposed IHA (80 FR 53658; 
September 4, 2015; pages 53663-53672), NMFS' analysis identified the 
lethal responses, physical trauma, sensory impairment (PTS, TTS, and 
acoustic masking), physiological responses (particular stress 
responses), and behavioral responses that could potentially result from 
exposure to active sonar. In the Estimated Take by Incidental 
Harassment section of the notice of the proposed IHA, NMFS described 
the potential effects to marine mammals from active sonar in relation 
to the MMPA regulatory definitions of Level A and Level B harassment 
(80 FR 53658; September 4, 2015; pages 53677-53678). That information 
has not changed and is not repeated here.
    As mentioned previously, behavioral responses are context-
dependent, complex, and influenced to varying degrees by a number of 
factors other than just received level. For example, an animal may 
respond differently to a sound emanating from a ship that is moving 
towards the animal than it would to an identical received level

[[Page 63964]]

coming from a vessel that is moving away, or to a ship traveling at a 
different speed or at a different distance from the animal. At greater 
distances, though, the nature of vessel movements could also 
potentially not have any effect on the animal's response to the sound. 
In any case, a full description of the suite of factors that elicited a 
behavioral response would require a mention of the vicinity, speed and 
movement of the vessel, or other factors. So, while sound sources and 
the received levels are the primary focus of the analysis, it is with 
the understanding that other factors related to the training are 
sometimes contributing to the behavioral responses of marine mammals, 
although they cannot be quantified.
    Criteria and thresholds used for determining the potential effects 
from the Civilian Port Defense activities are consistent with those 
used in the Navy's Phase II Training and Testing EISs (e.g., HSTT, 
MITT). The Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment section of the 
notice of the proposed IHA (80 FR 53658; September 4, 2015; page 53678, 
see Table 3 for Injury [PTS] and disturbance [TTS, Behavioral] 
thresholds and weighting criteria) provides the criteria and thresholds 
used in the analysis for estimating quantitative acoustic exposures of 
marine mammals from the proposed training activities. Southall et al. 
(2007) proposed frequency-weighting to account for the frequency 
bandwidth of hearing in marine mammals. Frequency-weighting functions 
are used to adjust the received sound level based on the sensitivity of 
the animal to the frequency of the sound. Details regarding these 
criteria and thresholds can be found in Finneran and Jenkins (2012).
    As discussed earlier, factors other than received level (such as 
distance from or bearing to the sound source, context of animal at time 
of exposure) can affect the way that marine mammals respond; however, 
data to support a quantitative analysis of those (and other factors) do 
not currently exist. It is also worth specifically noting that while 
context is very important in marine mammal response, given otherwise 
equivalent context, the severity of a marine mammal behavioral response 
is also expected to increase with received level (Houser and Moore, 
2014). NMFS will continue to modify these criteria as new data become 
available and can be appropriately and effectively incorporated.

Incidental Take Request

    The Navy's Final EA for 2015 West Coast Civilian Port Defense 
training activities analyzed the following stressors for potential 
impacts to marine mammals:

 Acoustic (sonar sources, vessel noise, aircraft noise)
 Energy (electromagnetic devices and lasers)
 Physical disturbance and strikes (vessels, in-water devices, 
seafloor objects)

    NMFS and the Navy determined the only stressor that could 
potentially result in the incidental taking of marine mammals per the 
definition of MMPA harassment from the Civilian Port Defense activities 
within the Study Area is from acoustic transmissions related to high-
frequency sonar.
    The methods of incidental take associated with the acoustic 
transmissions from the proposed Civilian Port Defense are described 
within Chapter 2 of the application. Acoustic transmissions have the 
potential to temporarily disturb or displace marine mammals. 
Specifically, only underwater active transmissions may result in the 
``take'' in the form of Level B harassment.
    Level A harassment and mortality are not anticipated to result from 
any of the proposed Civilian Port Defense activities. Furthermore, Navy 
mitigation and monitoring measures will be implemented to further 
minimize the potential for Level B takes of marine mammals.
    A detailed analysis of effects due to marine mammal exposures to 
non-impulsive sources (i.e., active sonar) in the Study Area is 
presented in Chapter 6 of the application and in the Estimated Take by 
Incidental Harassment section of the notice of the proposed IHA (80 FR 
53658; September 4, 2015; pages 53677-53680). Based on the quantitative 
acoustic modeling and analysis described in Chapter 6 of the 
application and in the Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment section 
of the notice of the proposed IHA, Table 1 summarizes the Navy's final 
take request for the 2015 Civilian Port Defense training activities.

Table 1--Total Number of Exposures Modeled and Requested per Species for
                Civilian Port Defense Training Activities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Level B     Percentage
                  Common name                      takes       of stock
                                                 requested    taken (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long-beaked common dolphin....................            8        0.007
Short-beaked common dolphin...................          727        0.177
Risso's dolphin...............................           21        0.330
Pacific white-sided dolphin...................           40        0.149
Bottlenose dolphin coastal....................           48       14.985
Harbor seal...................................            8        0.026
California sea lion...........................           46        0.015
                                               -------------------------
    Total.....................................          898
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination

    Negligible impact is ``an impact resulting from the specified 
activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably 
likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on 
annual rates of recruitment or survival'' (50 CFR 216.103). A 
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes, alone, is not 
enough information on which to base an impact determination, as the 
severity of harassment may vary greatly depending on the context and 
duration of the behavioral response, many of which would not be 
expected to have deleterious impacts on the fitness of any individuals. 
In determining whether the expected takes will have a negligible 
impact, in addition to considering estimates of the number of marine 
mammals that might be ``taken'', NMFS must consider other factors, such 
as the likely nature of any responses (their intensity, duration, 
etc.), the context of any responses (critical reproductive time or 
location, migration, etc.), as well as the number and nature (e.g., 
severity) of estimated Level A harassment takes, the number of 
estimated mortalities, and the status of the species.
    To avoid repetition, we provide some general analysis immediately 
below that applies to all the species listed in Table 1, given that 
some of the anticipated effects (or lack thereof) of the Navy's 
training activities on marine mammals are expected to be relatively 
similar in nature. However, below that, we break our analysis into 
species or groups to provide more specific information

[[Page 63965]]

related to the anticipated effects on individuals or where there is 
information about the status or structure of any species that would 
lead to a differing assessment of the effects on the population.

Behavioral Harassment

    As discussed previously in the notice of the proposed IHA, marine 
mammals can respond to MFAS/HFAS in many different ways, a subset of 
which qualifies as harassment (see Behavioral Harassment). One thing 
that the Level B harassment take estimates do not take into account is 
the fact that most marine mammals will likely avoid strong sound 
sources to one extent or another. Although an animal that avoids the 
sound source will likely still be taken in some instances (such as if 
the avoidance results in a missed opportunity to feed, interruption of 
reproductive behaviors, etc.), in other cases avoidance may result in 
fewer instances of take than were estimated or in the takes resulting 
from exposure to a lower received level than was estimated, which could 
result in a less severe response. An animal's exposure to a higher 
received level is more likely to result in a behavioral response that 
is more likely to adversely affect the health of the animal.
    Specifically, given a range of behavioral responses that may be 
classified as Level B harassment, to the degree that higher received 
levels are expected to result in more severe behavioral responses, only 
a small percentage of the anticipated Level B harassment from Navy 
activities might necessarily be expected to potentially result in more 
severe responses, especially when the distance from the source at which 
the levels below are received is considered. Marine mammals are able to 
discern the distance of a given sound source, and given other equal 
factors (including received level), they have been reported to respond 
more to sounds that are closer (DeRuiter et al., 2013). Further, the 
estimated number of responses do not reflect either the duration or 
context of those anticipated responses, some of which will be of very 
short duration, and other factors should be considered when predicting 
how the estimated takes may affect individual fitness.
    Although the Navy has been monitoring the effects of MFAS/HFAS on 
marine mammals since 2006, and research on the effects of active sonar 
is advancing, our understanding of exactly how marine mammals in the 
Study Area will respond to active sonar is still growing. The Navy has 
submitted reports from more than 60 major exercises across Navy range 
complexes that indicate no behavioral disturbance was observed. One 
cannot conclude from these results that marine mammals were not 
harassed from MFAS/HFAS, as a portion of animals within the area of 
concern were not seen, the full series of behaviors that would more 
accurately show an important change is not typically seen (i.e., only 
the surface behaviors are observed), and some of the non-biologist 
watchstanders might not be well-qualified to characterize behaviors. 
However, one can say that the animals that were observed did not 
respond in any of the obviously more severe ways, such as panic, 
aggression, or anti-predator response.

Diel Cycle

    As noted previously, many animals perform vital functions, such as 
feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing on a diel cycle (24-hour 
cycle). Behavioral reactions to noise exposure (when taking place in a 
biologically important context, such as disruption of critical life 
functions, displacement, or avoidance of important habitat) are more 
likely to be significant if they last more than one diel cycle or recur 
on subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007). Consequently, a behavioral 
response lasting less than one day and not recurring on subsequent days 
is not considered severe unless it could directly affect reproduction 
or survival (Southall et al., 2007). Note that there is a difference 
between multiple-day substantive behavioral reactions and multiple-day 
anthropogenic activities. For example, just because at-sea exercises 
last for multiple days does not necessarily mean that individual 
animals are either exposed to those exercises for multiple days or, 
further, exposed in a manner resulting in a sustained multiple day 
substantive behavioral response. Additionally, the Navy does not 
necessarily operate active sonar the entire time during an exercise. 
While it is certainly possible that these sorts of exercises could 
overlap with individual marine mammals multiple days in a row at levels 
above those anticipated to result in a take, because of the factors 
mentioned above, it is considered not to be likely for the majority of 
takes, does not mean that a behavioral response is necessarily 
sustained for multiple days, and still necessitates the consideration 
of likely duration and context to assess any effects on the 
individual's fitness.

TTS

    As mentioned previously, TTS can last from a few minutes to days, 
be of varying degree, and occur across various frequency bandwidths, 
all of which determine the severity of the impacts on the affected 
individual, which can range from minor to more severe. The TTS 
sustained by an animal is primarily classified by three 
characteristics:
    1. Frequency--Available data (of mid-frequency hearing specialists 
exposed to mid- or high-frequency sounds; Southall et al., 2007) 
suggest that most TTS occurs in the frequency range of the source up to 
one octave higher than the source (with the maximum TTS at \1/2\ octave 
above). The more powerful MF sources used have center frequencies 
between 3.5 and 8 kHz and the other unidentified MF sources are, by 
definition, less than 10 kHz, which suggests that TTS induced by any of 
these MF sources would be in a frequency band somewhere between 
approximately 2 and 20 kHz. There are fewer hours of HF source use and 
the sounds would attenuate more quickly, plus they have lower source 
levels, but if an animal were to incur TTS from these sources, it would 
cover a higher frequency range (sources are between 20 and 100 kHz, 
which means that TTS could range up to 200 kHz; however, HF systems are 
typically used less frequently and for shorter time periods than 
surface ship and aircraft MF systems, so TTS from these sources is even 
less likely).
    2. Degree of the shift (i.e., by how many dB the sensitivity of the 
hearing is reduced)--Generally, both the degree of TTS and the duration 
of TTS will be greater if the marine mammal is exposed to a higher 
level of energy (which would occur when the peak dB level is higher or 
the duration is longer). The threshold for the onset of TTS was 
discussed previously in this document. An animal would have to approach 
closer to the source or remain in the vicinity of the sound source 
appreciably longer to increase the received SEL, which would be 
difficult considering the Lookouts and the nominal speed of an active 
sonar vessel (10-15 knots). In the TTS studies, some using exposures of 
almost an hour in duration or up to 217 SEL, most of the TTS induced 
was 15 dB or less, though Finneran et al. (2007) induced 43 dB of TTS 
with a 64-second exposure to a 20 kHz source. However, MFAS/HFAS emits 
a nominal ping every 50 seconds, and incurring those levels of TTS is 
highly unlikely.
    3. Duration of TTS (recovery time)--In the TTS laboratory studies, 
some using exposures of almost an hour in duration or up to 217 SEL, 
almost all individuals recovered within 1 day (or less, often in 
minutes), although in one study (Finneran et al., 2007), recovery took 
4 days.

[[Page 63966]]

    Based on the range of degree and duration of TTS reportedly induced 
by exposures to non-pulse sounds of energy higher than that to which 
free-swimming marine mammals in the field are likely to be exposed 
during MFAS/HFAS training exercises in the Study Area, it is unlikely 
that marine mammals would ever sustain a TTS from active sonar that 
alters their sensitivity by more than 20 dB for more than a few days 
(and any incident of TTS would likely be far less severe due to the 
short duration of the majority of the exercises and the speed of a 
typical vessel). Also, for the same reasons discussed in the Diel Cycle 
section, and because of the short distance within which animals would 
need to approach the sound source, it is unlikely that animals would be 
exposed to the levels necessary to induce TTS in subsequent time 
periods such that their recovery is impeded. Additionally, though the 
frequency range of TTS that marine mammals might sustain would overlap 
with some of the frequency ranges of their vocalization types, the 
frequency range of TTS from MFAS/HFAS (the source from which TTS would 
most likely be sustained because the higher source level and slower 
attenuation make it more likely that an animal would be exposed to a 
higher received level) would not usually span the entire frequency 
range of one vocalization type, much less span all types of 
vocalizations or other critical auditory cues. If impaired, marine 
mammals would typically be aware of their impairment and are sometimes 
able to implement behaviors to compensate (see Acoustic Masking or 
Communication Impairment section), though these compensations may incur 
energetic costs.

Acoustic Masking or Communication Impairment

    Masking only occurs during the time of the signal (and potential 
secondary arrivals of indirect rays), versus TTS, which continues 
beyond the duration of the signal. Standard MFAS/HFAS nominally pings 
every 50 seconds for hull-mounted sources. For the sources for which we 
know the pulse length, most are significantly shorter than hull-mounted 
active sonar, on the order of several microseconds to tens of 
microseconds. For hull-mounted active sonar, though some of the 
vocalizations that marine mammals make are less than one second long, 
there is only a 1 in 50 chance that they would occur exactly when the 
ping was received, and when vocalizations are longer than one second, 
only parts of them are masked. Alternately, when the pulses are only 
several microseconds long, the majority of most animals' vocalizations 
would not be masked. Masking effects from MFAS/HFAS are expected to be 
minimal. If masking or communication impairment were to occur briefly, 
it would be in the frequency range of MFAS/HFAS, which overlaps with 
some marine mammal vocalizations; however, it would likely not mask the 
entirety of any particular vocalization, communication series, or other 
critical auditory cue, because the signal length, frequency, and duty 
cycle of the MFAS/HFAS signal does not perfectly mimic the 
characteristics of any marine mammal's vocalizations.

Species and Group-Specific Analysis

    Long-Beaked Common Dolphin--Long-beaked common dolphins that may be 
found in the Study Area belong to the California stock (Carretta et 
al., 2014). The Navy's acoustic analysis (quantitative modeling) 
predicts that 8 instances of Level B harassment of long-beaked common 
dolphin may occur from active sonar in the Study Area during Civilian 
Port Defense training activities. These Level B takes are anticipated 
to be in the form of behavioral reactions (3) and TTS (5) and no 
injurious takes of long-beaked common dolphin are requested or proposed 
for authorization. Relative to population size, these activities are 
anticipated to result only in a limited number of level B harassment 
takes. When the numbers of behavioral takes are compared to the 
estimated stock abundance (stock abundance estimates are shown in Table 
1 of the notice of the proposed IHA) and if one assumes that each take 
happens to a separate animal, less than 0.01 percent of the California 
stock of long-beaked common dolphin would be behaviorally harassed 
during proposed training activities.
    Behavioral reactions of marine mammals to sound are known to occur 
but are difficult to predict. Recent behavioral studies indicate that 
reactions to sounds, if any, are highly contextual and vary between 
species and individuals within a species (Moretti et al., 2010; 
Southall et al., 2011; Thompson et al., 2010; Tyack, 2009; Tyack et 
al., 2011). Behavioral responses can range from alerting, to changing 
their behavior or vocalizations, to avoiding the sound source by 
swimming away or diving (Richardson, 1995; Nowacek, 2007; Southall et 
al., 2007; Finneran and Jenkins, 2012). Long-beaked common dolphins 
generally travel in large pods and should be visible from a distance in 
order to implement mitigation measures and reduce potential impacts. 
Many of the recorded long-beaked common dolphin vocalizations overlap 
with the MFAS/HFAS TTS frequency range (2-20 kHz) (Moore and Ridgway, 
1995; Ketten, 1998); however, NMFS does not anticipate TTS of a serious 
degree or extended duration to occur as a result of exposure to MFAS/
HFAS. Recovery from a threshold shift (TTS) can take a few minutes to a 
few days, depending on the exposure duration, sound exposure level, and 
the magnitude of the initial shift, with larger threshold shifts and 
longer exposure durations requiring longer recovery times (Finneran et 
al., 2005; Mooney et al., 2009a; Mooney et al., 2009b; Finneran and 
Schlundt, 2010). Large threshold shifts are not anticipated for these 
activities because of the unlikelihood that animals will remain within 
the ensonified area at high levels for the duration necessary to induce 
larger threshold shifts. Threshold shifts do not necessarily affect all 
hearing frequencies equally, so some threshold shifts may not interfere 
with an animal's hearing of biologically relevant sounds.
    Overall, the number of predicted behavioral reactions is low and 
temporary behavioral reactions in long-beaked common dolphins are 
unlikely to cause long-term consequences for individual animals or the 
population. The Civilian Port Defense activities are not expected to 
occur in an area/time of specific importance for reproductive, feeding, 
or other known critical behaviors for long-beaked common dolphin. No 
evidence suggests any major reproductive differences in comparison to 
short-beaked common dolphins (Reeves et al., 2002). Short-beaked common 
dolphin gestation is approximately 11 to 11.5 months in duration 
(Danil, 2004; Murphy and Rogan, 2006) with most calves born from May to 
September (Murphy and Rogan, 2006). Therefore, calving would not occur 
during the Civilian Port Defense training timeframe. The California 
stock of long-beaked common dolphin is not depleted under the MMPA. 
Although there is no formal statistical trend analysis, over the last 
30 years sighting and stranding data shows an increasing trend of long-
beaked common dolphins in California waters (Carretta et al., 2014). 
Consequently, the activities are not expected to adversely impact 
annual rates of recruitment or survival of long-beaked common dolphin.
    Short-Beaked Common Dolphin--Short-beaked common dolphins that may 
be found in the Study Area belong to the California/Washington/Oregon 
stock (Carretta et al., 2014). The Navy's acoustic analysis 
(quantitative

[[Page 63967]]

modeling) predicts that 727 instances of Level B harassment of short-
beaked common dolphin may occur from active sonar in the Study Area 
during Civilian Port Defense training activities. These Level B takes 
are anticipated to be in the form of behavioral reactions (422) and TTS 
(305) and no injurious takes of short-beaked common dolphin are 
requested or proposed for authorization. Relative to population size, 
these activities are anticipated to result only in a limited number of 
level B harassment takes. When the numbers of behavioral takes are 
compared to the estimated stock abundance (stock abundance estimates 
are shown in Table 1 of the notice of the proposed IHA) and if one 
assumes that each take happens to a separate animal, less than 0.18 
percent of the California/Washington/Oregon stock of short-beaked 
common dolphin would be behaviorally harassed during proposed training 
activities.
    Behavioral reactions of marine mammals to sound are known to occur 
but are difficult to predict. Recent behavioral studies indicate that 
reactions to sounds, if any, are highly contextual and vary between 
species and individuals within a species (Moretti et al., 2010; 
Southall et al., 2011; Thompson et al., 2010; Tyack, 2009; Tyack et 
al., 2011). Behavioral responses can range from alerting, to changing 
their behavior or vocalizations, to avoiding the sound source by 
swimming away or diving (Richardson, 1995; Nowacek, 2007; Southall et 
al., 2007; Finneran and Jenkins, 2012). Short-beaked common dolphins 
generally travel in large pods and should be visible from a distance in 
order to implement mitigation measures and reduce potential impacts. 
Many of the recorded short-beaked common dolphin vocalizations overlap 
with the MFAS/HFAS TTS frequency range (2-20 kHz) (Moore and Ridgway, 
1995; Ketten, 1998); however, NMFS does not anticipate TTS of a serious 
degree or extended duration to occur as a result of exposure to MFAS/
HFAS. Recovery from a threshold shift (TTS) can take a few minutes to a 
few days, depending on the exposure duration, sound exposure level, and 
the magnitude of the initial shift, with larger threshold shifts and 
longer exposure durations requiring longer recovery times (Finneran et 
al., 2005; Mooney et al., 2009a; Mooney et al., 2009b; Finneran and 
Schlundt, 2010). Large threshold shifts are not anticipated for these 
activities because of the unlikelihood that animals will remain within 
the ensonified area at high levels for the duration necessary to induce 
larger threshold shifts. Threshold shifts do not necessarily affect all 
hearing frequencies equally, so some threshold shifts may not interfere 
with an animal's hearing of biologically relevant sounds.
    Overall, the number of predicted behavioral reactions is low and 
temporary behavioral reactions in short-beaked common dolphins are 
unlikely to cause long-term consequences for individual animals or the 
population. The Civilian Port Defense activities are not expected to 
occur in an area/time of specific importance for reproductive, feeding, 
or other known critical behaviors for long-beaked common dolphin. 
Short-beaked common dolphin gestation is approximately 11 to 11.5 
months in duration (Danil, 2004; Murphy and Rogan, 2006) with most 
calves born from May to September (Murphy and Rogan, 2006). Therefore, 
calving would not occur during the Civilian Port Defense training 
timeframe. The California/Washington/Oregon stock of short-beaked 
common dolphin is not depleted under the MMPA. Abundance off California 
has increased dramatically since the late 1970s, along with a smaller 
decrease in abundance in the eastern tropical Pacific, suggesting a 
large-scale northward shift in the distribution of this species in the 
eastern north Pacific (Forney and Barlow, 1998; Forney et al., 1995). 
Consequently, the activities are not expected to adversely impact 
annual rates of recruitment or survival of short-beaked common dolphin.
    Risso's Dolphin--Risso's dolphins that may be found in the Study 
Area belong to the California/Washington/Oregon stock (Carretta et al., 
2014). The Navy's acoustic analysis (quantitative modeling) predicts 
that 21 instances of Level B harassment of Risso's dolphin may occur 
from active sonar in the Study Area during Civilian Port Defense 
training activities. These Level B takes are anticipated to be in the 
form of behavioral reactions (16) and TTS (5) and no injurious takes of 
Risso's dolphin are requested or proposed for authorization. Relative 
to population size, these activities are anticipated to result only in 
a limited number of level B harassment takes. When the numbers of 
behavioral takes are compared to the estimated stock abundance (stock 
abundance estimates are shown in Table 1 of the notice of the proposed 
IHA) and if one assumes that each take happens to a separate animal, 
approximately 0.33 percent of the California/Washington/Oregon stock of 
Risso's dolphin would be behaviorally harassed during proposed training 
activities.
    Behavioral reactions of marine mammals to sound are known to occur 
but are difficult to predict. Recent behavioral studies indicate that 
reactions to sounds, if any, are highly contextual and vary between 
species and individuals within a species (Moretti et al., 2010; 
Southall et al., 2011; Thompson et al., 2010; Tyack, 2009; Tyack et 
al., 2011). Behavioral responses can range from alerting, to changing 
their behavior or vocalizations, to avoiding the sound source by 
swimming away or diving (Richardson, 1995; Nowacek, 2007; Southall et 
al., 2007; Finneran and Jenkins, 2012). Risso's dolphins generally 
travel in large pods and should be visible from a distance in order to 
implement mitigation measures and reduce potential impacts. Many of the 
recorded Risso's dolphin vocalizations overlap with the MFAS/HFAS TTS 
frequency range (2-20 kHz) (Corkeron and Van Parijs 2001); however, 
NMFS does not anticipate TTS of a serious degree or extended duration 
to occur as a result of exposure to MFAS/HFAS. Recovery from a 
threshold shift (TTS) can take a few minutes to a few days, depending 
on the exposure duration, sound exposure level, and the magnitude of 
the initial shift, with larger threshold shifts and longer exposure 
durations requiring longer recovery times (Finneran et al., 2005; 
Mooney et al., 2009a; Mooney et al., 2009b; Finneran and Schlundt, 
2010). Large threshold shifts are not anticipated for these activities 
because of the unlikelihood that animals will remain within the 
ensonified area at high levels for the duration necessary to induce 
larger threshold shifts. Threshold shifts do not necessarily affect all 
hearing frequencies equally, so some threshold shifts may not interfere 
with an animal's hearing of biologically relevant sounds.
    Overall, the number of predicted behavioral reactions is low and 
temporary behavioral reactions in Risso's dolphins are unlikely to 
cause long-term consequences for individual animals or the population. 
The Civilian Port Defense activities are not expected to occur in an 
area/time of specific importance for reproductive, feeding, or other 
known critical behaviors for Risso's dolphin. The California/
Washington/Oregon stock of Risso's dolphin is not depleted under the 
MMPA. The distribution of Risso's dolphins throughout the region is 
highly variable, apparently in response to oceanographic changes 
(Forney and Barlow, 1998). The status of Risso's dolphins off 
California, Oregon and Washington relative to optimum sustainable 
population is not known,

[[Page 63968]]

and there are insufficient data to evaluate potential trends in 
abundance. However, Civilian Port Defense training activities are not 
expected to adversely impact annual rates of recruitment or survival of 
Risso's dolphin for the reasons stated above.
    Pacific White-Sided Dolphin--Pacific white-sided dolphins that may 
be found in the Study Area belong to the California/Washington/Oregon 
stock (Carretta et al., 2014). The Navy's acoustic analysis 
(quantitative modeling) predicts that 40 instances of Level B 
harassment of Pacific white-sided dolphin may occur from active sonar 
in the Study Area during Civilian Port Defense training activities. 
These Level B takes are anticipated to be in the form of behavioral 
reactions (21) and TTS (19) and no injurious takes of Pacific white-
sided dolphin are requested or proposed for authorization. Relative to 
population size, these activities are anticipated to result only in a 
limited number of level B harassment takes. When the numbers of 
behavioral takes are compared to the estimated stock abundance (stock 
abundance estimates are shown in Table 1 of the notice of the proposed 
IHA) and if one assumes that each take happens to a separate animal, 
less than 0.15 percent of the California/Washington/Oregon stock of 
Pacific white-sided dolphin would be behaviorally harassed during 
proposed training activities.
    Behavioral reactions of marine mammals to sound are known to occur 
but are difficult to predict. Recent behavioral studies indicate that 
reactions to sounds, if any, are highly contextual and vary between 
species and individuals within a species (Moretti et al., 2010; 
Southall et al., 2011; Thompson et al., 2010; Tyack, 2009; Tyack et 
al., 2011). Behavioral responses can range from alerting, to changing 
their behavior or vocalizations, to avoiding the sound source by 
swimming away or diving (Richardson, 1995; Nowacek, 2007; Southall et 
al., 2007; Finneran and Jenkins, 2012). Pacific white-sided dolphins 
generally travel in large pods and should be visible from a distance in 
order to implement mitigation measures and reduce potential impacts. 
Many of the recorded Pacific white-sided dolphin vocalizations overlap 
with the MFAS/HFAS TTS frequency range (2-20 kHz); however, NMFS does 
not anticipate TTS of a serious degree or extended duration to occur as 
a result of exposure to MFAS/HFAS. Recovery from a threshold shift 
(TTS) can take a few minutes to a few days, depending on the exposure 
duration, sound exposure level, and the magnitude of the initial shift, 
with larger threshold shifts and longer exposure durations requiring 
longer recovery times (Finneran et al., 2005; Mooney et al., 2009a; 
Mooney et al., 2009b; Finneran and Schlundt, 2010). Large threshold 
shifts are not anticipated for these activities because of the 
unlikelihood that animals will remain within the ensonified area at 
high levels for the duration necessary to induce larger threshold 
shifts. Threshold shifts do not necessarily affect all hearing 
frequencies equally, so some threshold shifts may not interfere with an 
animal's hearing of biologically relevant sounds.
    Overall, the number of predicted behavioral reactions is low and 
temporary behavioral reactions in Pacific white-sided dolphins are 
unlikely to cause long-term consequences for individual animals or the 
population. The Civilian Port Defense activities are not expected to 
occur in an area/time of specific importance for reproductive, feeding, 
or other known critical behaviors for long-beaked common dolphin. 
Pacific white-sided dolphin calves are typically born in the summer 
months between April and early September (Black, 1994; NOAA, 2012; 
Reidenberg and Laitman, 2002). This species is predominantly located 
around the proposed Study Area in the colder winter months when neither 
mating nor calving is expected, as both occur off the coast of Oregon 
and Washington outside of the timeframe for the proposed activities. 
The California/Washington/Oregon stock of Pacific white-sided dolphin 
is not depleted under the MMPA. The stock is considered stable, with no 
indications of any positive or negative trends in abundance (NOAA, 
2014). Consequently, the activities are not expected to adversely 
impact annual rates of recruitment or survival of Pacific white-sided 
dolphin.
    Bottlenose Dolphin--Bottlenose dolphins that may be found in the 
Study Area belong to the California Coastal stock (Carretta et al., 
2014). The Navy's acoustic analysis (quantitative modeling) predicts 
that 48 instances of Level B harassment of bottlenose dolphin may occur 
from active sonar in the Study Area during Civilian Port Defense 
training activities. These Level B takes are anticipated to be in the 
form of behavioral reactions (29) and TTS (19) and no injurious takes 
of bottlenose dolphin are requested or proposed for authorization. 
Relative to population size, these activities are anticipated to result 
only in a limited number of level B harassment takes. When the numbers 
of behavioral takes are compared to the estimated stock abundance 
(stock abundance estimates are shown in Table 1 of the notice of the 
proposed IHA) and if one assumes that each take happens to a separate 
animal, less than 15 percent of the Coastal stock of bottlenose dolphin 
would be behaviorally harassed during proposed training activities.
    Behavioral reactions of marine mammals to sound are known to occur 
but are difficult to predict. Recent behavioral studies indicate that 
reactions to sounds, if any, are highly contextual and vary between 
species and individuals within a species (Moretti et al., 2010; 
Southall et al., 2011; Thompson et al., 2010; Tyack, 2009; Tyack et 
al., 2011). Behavioral responses can range from alerting, to changing 
their behavior or vocalizations, to avoiding the sound source by 
swimming away or diving (Richardson, 1995; Nowacek, 2007; Southall et 
al., 2007; Finneran and Jenkins, 2012). Bottlenose dolphins generally 
travel in large pods and should be visible from a distance in order to 
implement mitigation measures and reduce potential impacts. Many of the 
recorded bottlenose dolphin vocalizations overlap with the MFAS/HFAS 
TTS frequency range (2-20 kHz); however, NMFS does not anticipate TTS 
of a serious degree or extended duration to occur as a result of 
exposure to MFAS/HFAS. Recovery from a threshold shift (TTS) can take a 
few minutes to a few days, depending on the exposure duration, sound 
exposure level, and the magnitude of the initial shift, with larger 
threshold shifts and longer exposure durations requiring longer 
recovery times (Finneran et al., 2005; Mooney et al., 2009a; Mooney et 
al., 2009b; Finneran and Schlundt, 2010). Large threshold shifts are 
not anticipated for these activities because of the unlikelihood that 
animals will remain within the ensonified area at high levels for the 
duration necessary to induce larger threshold shifts. Threshold shifts 
do not necessarily affect all hearing frequencies equally, so some 
threshold shifts may not interfere with an animal's hearing of 
biologically relevant sounds.
    Overall, the number of predicted behavioral reactions is low and 
temporary behavioral reactions in bottlenose dolphins are unlikely to 
cause long-term consequences for individual animals or the population. 
The Civilian Port Defense activities are not expected to occur in an 
area/time of specific importance for reproductive, feeding, or other 
known critical behaviors for bottlenose dolphin. The California/
Washington/Oregon stock of bottlenose dolphin is not depleted

[[Page 63969]]

under the MMPA. In a comparison of abundance estimates from 1987-89 (n 
= 354), 1996-98 (n = 356), and 2004-05 (n = 323), Dudzik et al. (2006) 
found that the population size has remained stable over this period of 
approximately 20 years. Consequently, the activities are not expected 
to adversely impact annual rates of recruitment or survival of 
bottlenose dolphin.
    Harbor Seal--Harbor seals that may be found in the Study Area 
belong to the California stock (Carretta et al., 2014). Harbor seals 
have not been observed on the mainland coast of Los Angeles, Orange, 
and northern San Diego Counties (Henkel and Harvey, 2008; Lowry et al., 
2008). Thus, no harbor seal haul-outs are located within the proposed 
Study Area. The Navy's acoustic analysis (quantitative modeling) 
predicts that 8 instances of Level B harassment of harbor seal may 
occur from active sonar in the Study Area during Civilian Port Defense 
training activities. These Level B takes are anticipated to be in the 
form of non-TTS behavioral reactions only and no injurious takes of 
harbor seal are requested or proposed for authorization. Relative to 
population size, these activities are anticipated to result only in a 
limited number of level B harassment takes. When the numbers of 
behavioral takes are compared to the estimated stock abundance (stock 
abundance estimates are shown in Table 1 of the notice of the proposed 
IHA) and if one assumes that each take happens to a separate animal, 
less than 0.03 percent of the California stock of harbor seal would be 
behaviorally harassed during proposed training activities.
    Research and observations show that pinnipeds in the water may be 
tolerant of anthropogenic noise and activity (a review of behavioral 
reactions by pinnipeds to impulsive and non-impulsive noise can be 
found in Richardson et al., 1995 and Southall et al., 2007). Available 
data, though limited, suggest that exposures between approximately 90 
and 140 dB SPL do not appear to induce strong behavioral responses in 
pinnipeds exposed to nonpulse sounds in water (Jacobs and Terhune, 
2002; Costa et al., 2003; Kastelein et al., 2006c). Based on the 
limited data on pinnipeds in the water exposed to multiple pulses 
(small explosives, impact pile driving, and seismic sources), exposures 
in the approximately 150 to 180 dB SPL range generally have limited 
potential to induce avoidance behavior in pinnipeds (Harris et al., 
2001; Blackwell et al., 2004; Miller et al., 2004). If pinnipeds are 
exposed to sonar or other active acoustic sources they may react in a 
number of ways depending on their experience with the sound source and 
what activity they are engaged in at the time of the acoustic exposure. 
Pinnipeds may not react at all until the sound source is approaching 
within a few hundred meters and then may alert, ignore the stimulus, 
change their behaviors, or avoid the immediate area by swimming away or 
diving. Effects on pinnipeds in the Study Area that are taken by Level 
B harassment, on the basis of reports in the literature as well as Navy 
monitoring from past activities, will likely be limited to reactions 
such as increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or 
decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring). Most likely, 
individuals will simply move away from the sound source and be 
temporarily displaced from those areas, or not respond at all. In areas 
of repeated and frequent acoustic disturbance, some animals may 
habituate or learn to tolerate the new baseline or fluctuations in 
noise level. Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a 
stimulus wanes with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of 
unpleasant associated events (Wartzok et al., 2003). While some animals 
may not return to an area, or may begin using an area differently due 
to training activities, most animals are expected to return to their 
usual locations and behavior. Given their documented tolerance of 
anthropogenic sound (Richardson et al., 1995 and Southall et al., 
2007), repeated exposures of harbor seals to levels of sound that may 
cause Level B harassment are unlikely to result in hearing impairment 
or to significantly disrupt foraging behavior.
    Overall, the number of predicted behavioral reactions is low and 
temporary behavioral reactions in harbor seals are unlikely to cause 
long-term consequences for individual animals or the population. The 
Civilian Port Defense activities are not expected to occur in an area/
time of specific importance for reproductive, feeding, or other known 
critical behaviors for harbor seal. In California, harbor seals breed 
from March to May and pupping occurs between April and May (Alden et 
al., 2002; Reeves et al., 2002), neither of which occur within the 
timeframe of the proposed activities. The California stock of harbor 
seal is not depleted under the MMPA. Counts of harbor seals in 
California increased from 1981 to 2004, although a review of harbor 
seal dynamics through 1991 concluded that their status could not be 
determined with certainty (Hanan, 1996). The population appears to be 
stabilizing at what may be its carrying capacity. Consequently, the 
activities are not expected to adversely impact annual rates of 
recruitment or survival of harbor seal.
    California Sea Lion--California sea lions that may be found in the 
Study Area belong to the U.S. stock (Carretta et al., 2014). The Navy's 
acoustic analysis (quantitative modeling) predicts that 46 instances of 
Level B harassment of California sea lion may occur from active sonar 
in the Study Area during Civilian Port Defense training activities. 
These Level B takes are anticipated to be in the form of non-TTS 
behavioral reactions only and no injurious takes of California sea 
lions are requested or proposed for authorization. Relative to 
population size, these activities are anticipated to result only in a 
limited number of level B harassment takes. When the numbers of 
behavioral takes are compared to the estimated stock abundance (stock 
abundance estimates are shown in Table 1 of the notice of the proposed 
IHA) and if one assumes that each take happens to a separate animal, 
less than 0.02 percent of the U.S. stock of California sea lions would 
be behaviorally harassed during proposed training activities.
    Research and observations show that pinnipeds in the water may be 
tolerant of anthropogenic noise and activity (a review of behavioral 
reactions by pinnipeds to impulsive and non-impulsive noise can be 
found in Richardson et al., 1995 and Southall et al., 2007). Available 
data, though limited, suggest that exposures between approximately 90 
and 140 dB SPL do not appear to induce strong behavioral responses in 
pinnipeds exposed to nonpulse sounds in water (Jacobs and Terhune, 
2002; Costa et al., 2003; Kastelein et al., 2006c). Based on the 
limited data on pinnipeds in the water exposed to multiple pulses 
(small explosives, impact pile driving, and seismic sources), exposures 
in the approximately 150 to 180 dB SPL range generally have limited 
potential to induce avoidance behavior in pinnipeds (Harris et al., 
2001; Blackwell et al., 2004; Miller et al., 2004). If pinnipeds are 
exposed to sonar or other active acoustic sources they may react in a 
number of ways depending on their experience with the sound source and 
what activity they are engaged in at the time of the acoustic exposure. 
Pinnipeds may not react at all until the sound source is approaching 
within a few hundred meters and then may alert, ignore the stimulus, 
change their behaviors, or avoid the immediate area by swimming away or 
diving. Effects on

[[Page 63970]]

pinnipeds in the Study Area that are taken by Level B harassment, on 
the basis of reports in the literature as well as Navy monitoring from 
past activities will likely be limited to reactions such as increased 
swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if 
such activity were occurring). Most likely, individuals will simply 
move away from the sound source and be temporarily displaced from those 
areas, or not respond at all. In areas of repeated and frequent 
acoustic disturbance, some animals may habituate or learn to tolerate 
the new baseline or fluctuations in noise level. Habituation can occur 
when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes with repeated exposure, 
usually in the absence of unpleasant associated events (Wartzok et al., 
2003). While some animals may not return to an area, or may begin using 
an area differently due to training activities, most animals are 
expected to return to their usual locations and behavior. Given their 
documented tolerance of anthropogenic sound (Richardson et al., 1995 
and Southall et al., 2007), repeated exposures of individuals to levels 
of sound that may cause Level B harassment are unlikely to result in 
hearing impairment or to significantly disrupt foraging behavior.
    Overall, the number of predicted behavioral reactions is low and 
temporary behavioral reactions in California sea lions are unlikely to 
cause long-term consequences for individual animals or the population. 
The Civilian Port Defense activities are not expected to occur in an 
area/time of specific importance for reproductive, feeding, or other 
known critical behaviors for California sea lions. It is likely that 
male California sea lions will be primarily outside of the Study Area 
during the timeframe of the proposed activities, but females may be 
present. Typically during the summer, California sea lions congregate 
near rookery islands and specific open-water areas. The primary 
rookeries off the coast of California are on San Nicolas, San Miguel, 
Santa Barbara, and San Clemente Islands (Boeuf and Bonnell, 1980; 
Carretta et al., 2000; Lowry et al., 1992; Lowry and Forney, 2005). In 
May or June, female sea lions give birth, either on land or in water. 
Adult males establish breeding territories, both on land and in water, 
from May to July. In addition to the rookery sites, Santa Catalina 
Island is a major haul-out site within the Southern California Bight 
(Boeuf, 2002). Thus, breeding and pupping take place outside of the 
timeframe and location of the proposed training activities. The U.S. 
stock of California sea lions is not depleted under the MMPA. A 
regression of the natural logarithm of the pup counts against year 
indicates that the counts of pups increased at an annual rate of 5.4 
percent between 1975 and 2008 (when pup counts for El Ni[ntilde]o years 
were removed from the 1975-2005 time series). These records of pup 
counts from 1975 to 2008 were compiled from Lowry and Maravilla-Chavez 
(2005) and unpublished NMFS data. Consequently, the activities are not 
expected to adversely impact annual rates of recruitment or survival of 
California sea lion.

Final Determination

    Overall, the conclusions and predicted exposures in this analysis 
find that overall impacts on marine mammal species and stocks would be 
negligible for the following reasons:
     All estimated acoustic harassments for the proposed 
Civilian Port Defense training activities are within the non-injurious 
temporary threshold shift (TTS) or behavioral effects zones (Level B 
harassment), and these harassments (take numbers) represent only a 
small percentage (less than 15 percent of bottlenose dolphin coastal 
stock; less than 0.5 percent for all other species) of the respective 
stock abundance for each species taken.
     Marine mammal densities inputted into the acoustic effects 
model are overly conservative, particularly when considering species 
where data is limited in portions of the proposed Study Area and 
seasonal migrations extend throughout the Study Area.
     The protective measures described in Mitigation are 
designed to reduce sound exposure on marine mammals to levels below 
those that may cause physiological effects (injury).
     Animals exposed to acoustics from this two-week event are 
habituated to a bustling industrial port environment.
    This final IHA assumes that short-term non-injurious SELs predicted 
to cause onset-TTS or predicted SPLs predicted to cause temporary 
behavioral disruptions (non-TTS) qualify as Level B harassment. This 
approach predominately overestimates disturbances from acoustic 
transmissions as qualifying as harassment under MMPA's definition for 
military readiness activities because there is no established 
scientific correlation between short term sonar use and long term 
abandonment or significant alteration of behavioral patterns in marine 
mammals.
    Consideration of negligible impact is required for NMFS to 
authorize incidental take of marine mammals. By definition, an activity 
has a ``negligible impact'' on a species or stock when it is determined 
that the total taking is not likely to reduce annual rates of adult 
survival or recruitment (i.e., offspring survival, birth rates).
    Behavioral reactions of marine mammals to sound are known to occur 
but are difficult to predict. Recent behavioral studies indicate that 
reactions to sounds, if any, are highly contextual and vary between 
species and individuals within a species (Moretti et al., 2010; 
Southall et al., 2011; Thompson et al., 2010; Tyack, 2009; Tyack et 
al., 2011). Depending on the context, marine mammals often change their 
activity when exposed to disruptive levels of sound. When sound becomes 
potentially disruptive, cetaceans at rest become active, feeding or 
socializing cetaceans or pinnipeds often interrupt these events by 
diving or swimming away. If the sound disturbance occurs around a haul 
out site, pinnipeds may move back and forth between water and land or 
eventually abandon the haul out. When attempting to understand 
behavioral disruption by anthropogenic sound, a key question to ask is 
whether the exposures have biologically significant consequences for 
the individual or population (National Research Council of the National 
Academies, 2005).
    If a marine mammal does react to an underwater sound by changing 
its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change may 
not be detrimental to the individual. For example, researchers have 
found during a study focusing on dolphins response to whale watching 
vessels in New Zealand, that when animals can cope with constraint and 
easily feed or move elsewhere, there's little effect on survival 
(Lusseau and Bejder, 2007). On the other hand, if a sound source 
displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for 
a prolonged period and they do not have an alternate equally desirable 
area, impacts on the marine mammal could be negative because the 
disruption has biological consequences. Biological parameters or key 
elements having greatest importance to a marine mammal relate to its 
ability to mature, reproduce, and survive. For example, some elements 
that should be considered include the following:
     Growth: adverse effects on ability to feed;
     Reproduction: the range at which reproductive displays can 
be heard and the quality of mating/calving grounds; and
     Survival: sound exposure may directly affect survival, for 
example

[[Page 63971]]

where sources of a certain type are deployed in a manner that could 
lead to a stranding response.
    The importance of the disruption and degree of consequence for 
individual marine mammals often has much to do with the frequency, 
intensity, and duration of the disturbance. Isolated acoustic 
disturbances such as acoustic transmissions usually have minimal 
consequences or no lasting effects for marine mammals. Marine mammals 
regularly cope with occasional disruption of their activities by 
predators, adverse weather, and other natural phenomena. It is also 
reasonable to assume that they can tolerate occasional or brief 
disturbances by anthropogenic sound without significant consequences.
    The exposure estimates calculated by predictive models currently 
available reliably predict propagation of sound and received levels and 
measure a short-term, immediate response of an individual using 
applicable criteria. Consequences to populations are much more 
difficult to predict and empirical measurement of population effects 
from anthropogenic stressors is limited (National Research Council of 
the National Academies, 2005). To predict indirect, long-term, and 
cumulative effects, the processes must be well understood and the 
underlying data available for models. Based on each species' life 
history information, expected behavioral patterns in the Study Area, 
all of the modeled exposures resulting in temporary behavioral 
disturbance (Table 1), and the application of mitigation procedures 
proposed above, the proposed Civilian Port Defense activities are 
anticipated to have a negligible impact on marine mammal stocks within 
the Study Area.
    NMFS concludes that Civilian Port Defense training activities 
within the Study Area would result in Level B takes only, as summarized 
in Table 1. The effects of these military readiness activities will be 
limited to short-term, localized changes in behavior and possible 
temporary threshold shift in the hearing of marine mammal species. 
These effects are not likely to have a significant or long-term impact 
on feeding, breeding, or other important biological functions. No take 
by injury or mortality is anticipated, and the potential for permanent 
hearing impairment is unlikely. Based on best available science NMFS 
concludes that exposures to marine mammal species and stocks due to the 
proposed training activities would result in only short-term effects 
from those Level B takes to most individuals exposed and would likely 
not affect annual rates of recruitment or survival.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat and dependent 
upon the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS 
finds that the total taking from Civilian Port Defense training 
activities in the Study Area will have a negligible impact on the 
affected species or stocks.

Subsistence Harvest of Marine Mammals

    There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated 
by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of 
affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact 
on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for 
subsistence purposes.

NEPA

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 
1969 (42 United States Code 4321 et seq.), as implemented by the 
regulations published by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 
parts 1500-1508), the Navy prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to 
consider the direct, indirect and cumulative effects to the human 
environment resulting from all components of the proposed 2015 Civilian 
Port Defense training activities. Also in compliance with NEPA and the 
CEQ regulations, as well as NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, NMFS has 
reviewed the Navy's EA, determined it to be sufficient, and adopted 
that EA and signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The 
Navy's EA and NMFS' FONSI for this action may be found on the internet 
at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/militay.htm.

ESA

    No species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are 
expected to be affected by the proposed Civilian Port Defense training 
activities and no takes of any ESA-listed species are authorized under 
the MMPA. Therefore, NMFS has determined that a formal section 7 
consultation under the ESA is not required.

    Dated: October 19, 2015.
Perry F. Gayaldo,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-26856 Filed 10-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P