53796 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 218 

[Docket No. 0907281180–91190–01] 

RIN 0648–AX90 

Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; Military Training Activities 

and Research, Development, Testing 

and Evaluation Conducted Within the 

Mariana Islands Range Complex 

(MIRC) 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for 

authorization for the Department of 

Defense (including the Navy, the U.S. 

Air Force (USAF), and the U.S. Marine 

Corps (USMC)) to take marine mammals 

incidental to training activities 

conducted in the Mariana Islands Range 

Complex (MIRC) study area for the 

period of March 2010 through February 

2015 (amended from the initial request 

for January 2010 through December 

2014). Pursuant to the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is 

proposing regulations to govern that 

take and requesting information, 

suggestions, and comments on these 

proposed regulations. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than November 19, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by 0648–AX90, by any one of 

the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Hand delivery or mailing of paper, 

disk, or CD–ROM comments should be 

addressed to Michael Payne, Chief, 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 

East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910–3225. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

NMFS will accept anonymous 

comments (enter N/A in the required 

fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolie 

Harrison, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, (301) 713–2289, ext. 166. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability 

A copy of the Navy’s application, as 

well as the draft Monitoring Plan and 

the draft Stranding Response Plan for 

MIRC, may be obtained by writing to the 

address specified above (see 

ADDRESSES), telephoning the contact 

listed above (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting the 

Internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications. 

The Navy’s Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS) for MIRC was 

published on January 30, 2009, and may 

be viewed at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications. 

NMFS is participating in the 

development of the Navy’s EIS as a 

cooperating agency under NEPA. 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct 

the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) 

to allow, upon request, the incidental, 

but not intentional taking of marine 

mammals by U.S. citizens who engage 

in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) during periods of 

not more than five consecutive years 

each if certain findings are made and 

regulations are issued or, if the taking is 

limited to harassment, notice of a 

proposed authorization is provided to 

the public for review. 

Authorization 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, 

and if the permissible methods of taking 

and requirements pertaining to the 

mitigation, monitoring and reporting of 

such taking are set forth. 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ 

in 50 CFR 216.103 as: 

an impact resulting from the specified 

activity that cannot be reasonably expected 

to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely 

affect the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

The National Defense Authorization 

Act of 2004 (NDAA) (Pub. L. 108–136) 

modified the MMPA by removing the 

‘‘small numbers’’ and ‘‘specified 

geographical region’’ limitations and 

amended the definition of ‘‘harassment’’ 

as it applies to a ‘‘military readiness 

activity’’ to read as follows (Section 

3(18)(B) of the MMPA): 

(i) Any act that injures or has the 

significant potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 

[Level A Harassment]; or 

(ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely to 

disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption of 

natural behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point 

where such behavioral patterns are 

abandoned or significantly altered [Level B 

Harassment]. 

Summary of Request 

In August 2008, NMFS received an 

application from the Navy (which was 

updated in February, March, and June 

2009) requesting authorization for the 

take of individuals of 28 species of 

marine mammals incidental to 

upcoming Department of Defense 

(including Navy, USMC, and USAF) 

training activities to be conducted from 

March 2010 through February 2015 

within the MIRC study area, which 

encompasses a 501,873-square-nautical 

mile (nm2) area around the islands of 

Guam, Tinian, Saipan, Rota, Fallaron de 

Medenillia, and others and includes 

ocean areas in both the Pacific Ocean 

and the Philippine Sea. These training 

activities are classified as military 

readiness activities under the provisions 

of the NDAA. The Navy states, and 

NMFS concurs, that these military 

readiness activities may incidentally 

take marine mammals present within 

the MIRC Study Area by exposing them 

to sound from mid-frequency or high 

frequency active sonar (MFAS/HFAS) or 

underwater detonations. The Navy 

requests authorization to take 

individuals of 27 species of marine 

mammals by Level B Harassment and 2 

individuals of 2 species by Level A 

Harassment, although injury will likely 

be avoided through the implementation 

of the Navy’s proposed mitigation 

measures. Further, although it does not 

anticipate that it will occur, the Navy 

requests authorization to take, by injury 

or mortality, up to 10 beaked whales 

over the course of the 5-yr regulations. 

Description of Specified Activities 

Purpose and Background 

The Navy’s mission is to maintain, 

train, and equip combat-ready naval 

forces capable of winning wars, 

deterring aggression, and maintaining 

freedom of the seas. Section 5062 of 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53797 

Title 10 of the United States Code 

directs the Chief of Naval Operations to 

train all military forces for combat. The 

Chief of Naval Operations meets that 

direction, in part, by conducting at-sea 

training exercises and ensuring naval 

forces have access to ranges, operating 

areas (OPAREAs) and airspace where 

they can develop and maintain skills for 

wartime missions and conduct research, 

development, testing, and evaluation 

(RDT&E) of weapons systems. 

The specified training and RDT&E 

activities addressed in this proposed 

rule are a subset of the Proposed Action 

described in the MIRC DEIS, which 

would support and maintain 

Department of Defense training and 

assessments of current capabilities, 

RDT&E activities, and associated range 

capabilities (including hardware and 

infrastructure improvements in the 

MIRC). Training and RDT&E do not 

include combat operations, operations 

in direct support of combat, or other 

activities conducted primarily for 

purposes other than training. The 

Department of Defense proposes to 

implement actions within the MIRC to: 

• Maintain baseline training and 

RDT&E activities at mandated levels; 

• Provide the potential to increase 

training activities and exercises from 

current levels; 

• Accommodate increased readiness 

activities associated with the force 

structure changes (human resources, 

new platforms, additional weapons 

systems, including underwater tracking 

capabilities and training activities to 

support Intelligence, Surveillance, 

Reconnaissance, Strike [ISR/Strike]); 

and 

• Implement range complex 

investment strategies that sustain, 

upgrade, modernize, and transform the 

MIRC to accommodate increased use 

and more realistic training scenarios. 

The proposed action would result in 

the following increases (above those 

conducted in previous years, i.e., the No 

Action Alternative in the Navy’s DEIS) 

in activities associated with the annual 

take of marine mammals: 

• Multistrike Exercises and Joint 

Expeditionary Exercises (most extensive 

at sea exercises utilizing MFAS)— 

increase from one exercise in alternate 

years to one exercise every year. 

• Other Major Exercises utilizing 

MFAS (shorter and less MFAS use)— 

increase from 1 to 7 exercises. 

• Unit Level Anti-submarine Warfare 

(ASW) Exercises (TRACKEX and 

TORPEX)—an increase from 34 to 83 

exercises. 

• Mine Warfare Exercises—an 

increase from 32 to 53 exercises. 

• Bombing Exercises (non-inert)—an 

increase from 1 to 4 exercises. 

• Sinking Exercises—an increase 

from 1 to 2 exercises. 

• Gunnery Exercises—an increase 

from 32 to 54 exercises. 

• Missile Exercises (Air to Surface, 

live HELLFIRE missile)—an increase 

from 0 to 2 exercises. 

Overview of the MIRC 

The U.S. military has been training 

and operating in the area now defined 

as the MIRC for over 100 years. The 

MIRC Study Area (see figure 1–1 in the 

Navy’s application) is located in the 

Western Pacific (WestPac) and consists 

of three primary components: ocean 

surface and undersea areas, special use 

airspace (SUA), and training land areas. 

The ocean surface and undersea areas 

extend from the international waters 

south of Guam to north of Pagan 

(CNMI), and from the Pacific Ocean east 

of the Mariana Islands to the middle of 

the Philippine Sea to the west, 

encompassing 501,873 square nautical 

miles (nm2) (1,299,851 square 

kilometers [km2]) of open ocean and 

littorals (coastal areas). The MIRC Study 

Area includes ocean areas in the 

Philippine Sea, Pacific Ocean, and 

exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of the 

United States and Federal States of 

Micronesia (FSM). The MIRC Study 

Area includes land ranges and training 

area/facilities on Guam, Rota, Tinian, 

Saipan, and Farallon de Medinilla 

(FDM), encompassing 64 nm2 (220 km2) 

of land. Special Use Airspace (SUA) 

consists of Warning Area 517 (W–517), 

restricted airspace over FDM (R–7201), 

and Air Traffic Control Assigned 

Airspace (ATCAA) encompassing 

63,000 nm2 (216,000 km2) of airspace. 

For range management and scheduling 

purposes, the MIRC is divided into 

training areas under different 

controlling authorities. 

Guam is located roughly three 

quarters of the distance from Hawaii to 

the Philippines, about 1,600 miles east 

of Manila and 1,550 miles southeast of 

Tokyo. The southern extent of the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands (CNMI) is located 40 miles north 

of Guam (Rota Island) and extends 330 

miles to the northwest. Saipan, the 

CNMI capital, is 3,300 miles west of 

Honolulu and 1,470 miles southsoutheast of Tokyo. The MIRC is of 

particular significance for the training of 

U.S. military forces in the Western 

Pacific because of its location. As the 

westernmost complex in U.S. territory, 

it provides the only opportunity for 

forward-deployed U.S. forces to train on 

U.S.-owned lands without having to 

return to Hawaii or the continental 

United States. 

The seafloor of the MIRC is 

characterized by the Mariana Trench, 

the Mariana Basin, the Mariana Ridge, 

ridges, numerous seamounts, 

hydrothermal vents, and volcanic 

activity. These areas are comprised of 

very deep water with a very rapid 

transition from the shelf to deep water. 

The Mariana Trench is located east to 

south-east of Guam and the Mariana 

Islands and is characterized by deep 

depths of 16,404 to 32,808 feet [ft] 

(5,000 to 10,000 m) (Fryer et al., 2003). 

The Mariana Basin is located west of 

Guam and the Mariana Islands, and is 

characterized by an average depth of 

11,483 ft (Taylor and Martinez 2003; 

Yamazaki et al., 1993). The Mariana 

Ridge consists of Guam and the Mariana 

Islands and the waters out to the 

Mariana Trench, and is characterized by 

shallow water transitioning to deep 

water of 11,483 ft (3,500 m) (Taylor and 

Martinez 2003; Yamazaki et al., 1993). 

The bottom substrate covering the 

seafloor in the MIRC is primarily 

volcanic or marine in nature (Eldredge, 

1983). 

The waters of the MIRC Study Area 

undergo an annual cycle of temperature 

change, however this temperature flux 

is only a few degrees each year, as 

would be expected from a tropical 

climate. The temperature throughout the 

year ranges from about 25° to 31 °C with 

an annual mean temperature of 27° to 

28 °C for the years ranging from 1984 to 

2003 (National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] 

2004). Temperatures increase during the 

summer and autumn months with peak 

temperatures occurring in September/ 

October. 

The water column in the MIRC Study 

Area contains a well-mixed surface 

layer ranging from 295 ft to 410 ft (90 

to 125 m). Immediately below the mixed 

layer is a rapid decline in temperature 

to the cold deeper waters. Unlike more 

temperate climates, the thermocline is 

relatively stable, rarely turning over and 

mixing the more nutrient-rich waters of 

the deeper ocean in to the surface layer. 

This constitutes what has been defined 

as a ‘‘significant’’ surface duct (a mixed 

layer of constant water temperature 

extending from the sea surface to 100 

feet or more), which influences the 

transmission of sound in the water. This 

factor has been included in the 

modeling analysis of marine mammal 

impacts. 

Marianas Trench Marine National 

Monument 

The Marianas Trench Marine National 

Monument (the ‘Monument’) was 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53798 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

established in January 2009 by 

Presidential Proclamation under the 

authority of the Antiquities Act (16 

U.S.C. 431). The Monument consists of 

approximately 71,897 square nautical 

miles (246,600 square kilometers) of 

submerged lands and waters of the 

Mariana Archipelago and was 

designated with the purpose of 

protecting the submerged volcanic areas 

of the Mariana Ridge, the coral reef 

ecosystems of the waters surrounding 

the islands of Farallon de Pajaros, Maug, 

and Asuncion in the Commonwealth of 

the Northern Mariana Islands, and the 

Mariana Trench. The Monument 

includes the waters and submerged 

lands of the three northernmost Mariana 

Islands (the ‘Islands Unit’) and only the 

submerged lands of designated volcanic 

sites (the ‘Volcanic Unit’) and the 

Mariana Trench (the ‘Trench Unit’) to 

the extent described as follows: The 

seaward boundaries of the Islands Unit 

of the monument extend to the lines of 

latitude and longitude which lie 

approximately 50 nautical miles (93 

kilometers) from the mean low water 

line of Farallon de Pajaros (Uracas), 

Maug, and Asuncion. The inland 

boundary of the Islands Unit of the 

monument is the mean low water line. 

The boundary of the Trench Unit of the 

Monument extends from the northern 

limit of the EEZ of the United States in 

the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands to the southern limit of 

the Exclusive Economic Zone of the 

United States in Guam approximately 

following the points of latitude and 

longitude identified in Figure 3.6–1 of 

the MIRC DEIS. The boundaries of the 

Volcanic Unit of the Monument include 

a 1 nautical mile radius centered on 

each of the islands’ volcanic features. 

The Monument contains objects of 

scientific interest, including the largest 

active mud volcanoes on Earth. The 

Champagne vent, located at the Eifuku 

submarine volcano, produces almost 

pure liquid carbon dioxide. This 

phenomenon has only been observed at 

one other site in the world. The Sulfur 

Cauldron, a pool of liquid sulfur, is 

found at the Daikoku submarine 

volcano. The only other known location 

of molten sulfur is on Io, a moon of 

Jupiter. Unlike other reefs across the 

Pacific, the northernmost Mariana reefs 

provide unique volcanic habitats that 

support marine biological communities 

requiring basalt. Maug Crater represents 

one of only a handful of places on Earth 

where photosynthetic and 

chemosynthetic communities of life are 

known to come together. 

The waters of the Monument’s 

northern islands are among the most 

biologically diverse in the Western 

Pacific and include the greatest 

diversity of seamount and hydrothermal 

vent life yet discovered. These volcanic 

islands are ringed by coral ecosystems 

with very high numbers of apex 

predators, including large numbers of 

sharks. They also contain one of the 

most diverse collections of stony corals 

in the Western Pacific. The northern 

islands and shoals in the Monument 

have substantially higher large fish 

biomass, including apex predators, than 

the southern islands and Guam. The 

waters of Farallon de Pajaros (also 

known as Uracas), Maug, and Asuncion 

support some of the largest biomass of 

reef fishes in the Mariana Archipelago. 

A portion of the Monument lies 

within the MIRC, including a small area 

on the northern border of the MIRC as 

well as the Volcanic Unit and the 

Trench Unit (See Figure 3.6–1). Any of 

the activities identified under the 

Proposed Action could take place 

within areas included in the Monument, 

where they overlap. The Presidential 

Proclamation establishing the 

Monument indicates that the 

prohibitions required by the 

Proclamation shall not apply to 

activities and exercises of the Armed 

Forces, but also that the Armed Forces 

shall ensure, by the adoption of 

appropriate measures not impairing 

operations or operational capabilities, 

that its vessels and aircraft act in a 

manner consistent, so far as is 

reasonable and practicable, with the 

Proclamation. 

Specified Activities 

As mentioned above, the Navy has 

requested MMPA authorization to take 

marine mammals incidental to training 

or RDT&E activities in the MIRC that 

would result in the generation of sound 

or pressure waves in the water at or 

above levels that NMFS has determined 

will likely result in take (see Acoustic 

Take Criteria Section), either through 

the use of MFAS/HFAS or the 

detonation of explosives in the water. 

These activities are discussed in the 

subsections below. In addition to use of 

active sonar sources and explosives, 

these activities include the operation 

and movement of vessels that are 

necessary to conduct the training, and 

the effects of this part of the activities 

are also analyzed in this document. 

The Navy’s application also briefly 

summarizes Maritime and Air 

Interdiction of Maritime Targets and Air 

Combat Maneuvers; however, these 

activities are primarily air based and do 

not utilize sound sources or explosives 

in the water. No take of marine 

mammals is anticipated to result from 

these activities and, therefore, they are 

not discussed further. 

Activities Utilizing Active Sonar 

Sources 

For the MIRC, the training activities 

that utilize active tactical sonar sources 

fall primarily into the category of Antisubmarine Warfare (ASW). This section 

includes a description of ASW, the 

active acoustic devices used in ASW 

exercises, and the exercise types in 

which these acoustic sources are used. 

ASW Training and Active Sonar 

ASW involves helicopter and sea 

control aircraft, ships, and submarines, 

operating alone or in combination, to 

locate, track, and neutralize submarines. 

Various types of active and passive 

sonars are used by the Navy to 

determine water depth, locate mines, 

and identify, track, and target 

submarines. Passive sonar ‘‘listens’’ for 

sound waves by using underwater 

microphones, called hydrophones, 

which receive, amplify and process 

underwater sounds. No sound is 

introduced into the water when using 

passive sonar. Passive sonar can 

indicate the presence, character and 

movement of submarines. However, 

passive sonar provides information 

about only the bearing (direction) to a 

sound-emitting source; it does not 

provide an accurate range (distance) to 

the source. Also, passive sonar relies on 

the underwater target itself to provide 

sufficient sound to be detected by 

hydrophones. Active sonar is needed to 

locate objects that emit little or no noise 

(such as mines or diesel-electric 

submarines operating in electric mode) 

and to establish both bearing and range 

to the detected contact. 

Active sonar transmits pulses of 

sound that travel through the water, 

reflect off objects and return to a 

receiver. By knowing the speed of sound 

in water and the time taken for the 

sound wave to travel to the object and 

back, active sonar systems can quickly 

calculate direction and distance from 

the sonar platform to the underwater 

object. There are three types of active 

sonar: Low frequency, mid-frequency, 

and high-frequency. 

MFAS, as defined in the Navy’s MIRC 

LOA application, operates between 1 

and 10 kHz, with detection ranges up to 

10 nm (19 km). Because of this detection 

ranging capability, MFAS is the Navy’s 

primary tool for conducting ASW. Many 

ASW experiments and exercises have 

demonstrated that the improved 

capability (of MFAS over other sources) 

for long range detection of adversary 

submarines before they are able to 

conduct an attack is essential to U.S. 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53799 

ship survivability. Today, ASW is the 

Navy’s number one war-fighting 

priority. Navies across the world utilize 

modern, quiet, diesel-electric 

submarines that pose the primary threat 

to the U.S. Navy’s ability to perform a 

number of critical missions. Extensive 

training is necessary if Sailors on ships 

and in strike groups are to gain 

proficiency in using MFAS. If a strike 

group does not demonstrate MFAS 

proficiency, it cannot be certified as 

combat ready. 

HFAS, as defined in the Navy’s MIRC 

LOA application, operates at 

frequencies greater than 10 kilohertz 

(kHz). At higher acoustic frequencies, 

sound rapidly dissipates in the ocean 

environment, resulting in short 

detection ranges, typically less than five 

nm (9 km). High-frequency sonar is used 

primarily for determining water depth, 

hunting mines and guiding torpedoes. 

Surveillance Towed Array Sensor 

System Low Frequency Active 

(SURTASS LFA) sonar operates below 1 

kHz and is designed to detect extremely 

quiet diesel-electric submarines at 

ranges far beyond the capabilities of 

MFA sonars. There are currently only 

two ships in use by the Navy that are 

equipped with LFA sonar; both are 

ocean surveillance vessels operated by 

Military Sealift Command (MSC). 

Acoustic Sources Used for ASW 

Exercises in the MIRC 

Modern sonar technology has 

developed a multitude of sonar sensor 

and processing systems. In concept, the 

simplest active sonars emit omnidirectional pulses (‘‘pings’’) and time 

the arrival of the reflected echoes from 

the target object to determine range. 

More sophisticated active sonar emits 

an omni-directional ping and then 

rapidly scans a steered receiving beam 

to provide directional, as well as range, 

information. More advanced active 

sonars transmit multiple preformed 

beams, listening to echoes from several 

directions simultaneously and 

providing efficient detection of both 

direction and range. The types of active 

sonar sources employed during ASW 

active sonar training exercises in the 

MIRC are identified in Table 1. 

The SURTASS LFA system may also 

be used during some of the Navy’s 

training and testing scenarios within the 

MIRC Study Area (see SURTASS LFA 

subsection below), however, that 

system’s use was analyzed in other 

environmental documentation (DON 

1999, 2002b, 2007a; NOAA 2002a, 

2007). 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53800 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP20OC09.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53801 

ASW sonar systems are deployed 

from certain classes of surface ships, 

submarines, helicopters, and fixed-wing 

maritime patrol aircraft (MPA). 

Maritime patrol aircraft is a category of 

fixed-wing aircraft that includes the 

current P–3C Orion, and the future 

P–8 Poseidon multimission maritime 

aircraft. The surface ships used are 

typically equipped with hull-mounted 

sonars (passive and active) for the 

detection of submarines. Fixed-wing 

MPA are used to deploy both active and 

passive sonobuoys to assist in locating 

and tracking submarines or ASW targets 

during the exercise. Helicopters are 

used to deploy both active and passive 

sonobuoys to assist in locating and 

tracking submarines or ASW targets 

during the exercise, and to deploy 

dipping sonar. Submarines are equipped 

with passive sonar sensors used to 

locate and prosecute other submarines 

and/or surface ships during the exercise. 

The platforms used in ASW exercises 

are identified below. 

Surface Ship Sonars—A variety of 

surface ships participate in training 

events, including the Fast Frigate (FFG) 

and the Guided Missile Destroyer 

(DDG), and the guided missile cruiser 

(CG). These three classes of ship are 

equipped with active as well as passive 

tactical sonars for mine avoidance and 

submarine detection and tracking. DDG 

and CG class ships are equipped with 

the AN/SQS–53 sonar system (the most 

powerful system), with a nominal 

source level of 235 decibels (dB) re 1 

μPa @ 1 m. The FFG class ship uses the 

SQS–56 sonar system, with a nominal 

source level of 225 decibels (dB) re 1 

μPa @ 1 m. Sonar ping transmission 

durations were modeled as lasting 1 

second per ping and omni-directional, 

which is a conservative assumption that 

will overestimate potential effects. 

Actual ping durations will be less than 

1 second. The AN/SQS–53 hullmounted sonar transmits at a center 

frequency of 3.5 kHz. The SQS–56 

transmits at a center frequency of 7.5 

kHz. Details concerning the tactical use 

of specific frequencies and the 

repetition rate for the sonar pings is 

classified but was modeled based on the 

required tactical training setting. 

Submarine Sonars—Submarine 

sonars (e.g., AN/BQQ–10) are used to 

detect and target enemy submarines and 

surface ships. Because submarine active 

sonar use is very rare and in those rare 

instances, very brief, it is extremely 

unlikely that use of active sonar by 

submarines would have any measurable 

effect on marine mammals. In addition, 

submarines have a high frequency AN/ 

BQS–15 sonar used for navigation safety 

and mine avoidance that is not unlike 

a fathometer in source level or output. 

There is, at present, no mine training 

range in the MIRC area. Therefore, given 

its limited use and rapid attenuation as 

a high frequency source, the AN/BQS– 

15 is not expected to result in the take 

of marine mammals. 

Aircraft Sonar Systems—Aircraft 

sonar systems that would operate in the 

MIRC include sonobuoys and dipping 

sonar. Sonobuoys may be deployed by 

maritime patrol aircraft or helicopters; 

dipping sonars are used by carrier-based 

helicopters. A sonobuoy is an 

expendable device used by aircraft for 

the detection of underwater acoustic 

energy and for conducting vertical water 

column temperature measurements. 

Most sonobuoys are passive, but some 

can generate active acoustic signals, as 

well. Dipping sonar is an active or 

passive sonar device lowered on cable 

by helicopters to detect or maintain 

contact with underwater targets. During 

ASW training, these systems’ active 

modes are only used briefly for 

localization of contacts and are not used 

in primary search capacity. 

Extended Echo Ranging and Improved 

Extended Echo Ranging (EER/IEER) 

Systems—EER/IEER are airborne ASW 

systems used to conduct ‘‘large area’’ 

searches for submarines. These systems 

are made up of airborne avionics ASW 

acoustic processing and sonobuoy types 

that are deployed in pairs. The EER/ 

IEER System’s active sonobuoy 

component, the AN/SSQ–110A 

Sonobuoy, generates an explosive sound 

impulse and a passive sonobuoy 

(ADAR, AN/SSQ–101A) that would 

‘‘listen’’ for the return echo that has 

been bounced off the surface of a 

submarine. These sonobuoys are 

designed to provide underwater 

acoustic data necessary for naval 

aircrews to quickly and accurately 

detect submerged submarines. The 

sonobuoy pairs are dropped from a 

maritime patrol aircraft into the ocean 

in a predetermined pattern with a few 

buoys covering a very large area. The 

AN/SSQ–110A Sonobuoy Series is an 

expendable and commandable 

sonobuoy. Upon command from the 

aircraft, the explosive charge would 

detonate, creating the sound impulse. 

Within the sonobuoy pattern, only one 

detonation is commanded at a time. 

Twelve to twenty SSQ–110A source 

sonobuoys are used in a typical 

exercise. Both charges of each sonobuoy 

would be detonated independently 

during the course of the training, either 

tactically to locate the submarine, or 

when the sonobuoys are commanded to 

scuttle at the conclusion of the exercise. 

The AN/SSQ–110A is listed in Table 1 

because it functions like a sonar ping, 

however, the source creates an 

explosive detonation and its effects are 

considered in the underwater explosive 

section. 

Advanced Extended Echo Ranging 

(AEER) System—The proposed AEER 

system is operationally similar to the 

existing EER/IEER system. The AEER 

system will use the same ADAR 

sonobuoy (SSQ–101A) as the acoustic 

receiver and will be used for a large area 

ASW search capability in both shallow 

and deep water. However, instead of 

using an explosive AN/SQS–110A as an 

impulsive source for the active acoustic 

wave, the AEER system will use a 

battery powered (electronic) source for 

the AN/SSQ 125 sonobuoy. The output 

and operational parameters for the AN/ 

SSQ–125 sonobuoy (source levels, 

frequency, wave forms, etc.) are 

classified. However, this sonobuoy is 

intended to replace the EER/IEER’s use 

of explosives and is scheduled to enter 

the fleet in 2011. For purposes of 

analysis, replacement of the EER/IEER 

system by the AEER system will be 

assumed to occur at 25% per year as 

follows: 2011—25% replacement; 

2012—50% replacement; 2013—75% 

replacement; 2014—100% replacement 

with no further use of the EER/IEER 

system beginning in 2015 and beyond. 

Torpedoes—Torpedoes are the 

primary ASW weapon used by surface 

ships, aircraft, and submarines. The 

guidance systems of these weapons can 

be autonomous or electronically 

controlled from the launching platform 

through an attached wire. The 

autonomous guidance systems are 

acoustically based. They operate either 

passively, exploiting the emitted sound 

energy by the target, or actively, 

ensonifying the target and using the 

received echoes for guidance. The MK– 

48 submarine-launched torpedo was 

modeled for active sonar transmissions 

as a high frequency source during 

specified training activities within the 

MIRC. The use of the less powerful MK– 

46 and MK–54 torpedoes will also occur 

in the MIRC, however, their use was 

accounted for by modeling all torpedo 

use in MIRC as if they were MK–48 

torpedoes. 

Portable Undersea Tracking Range— 

The Portable Undersea Tracking Range 

(PUTR) would be developed to support 

ASW training in areas where the ocean 

depth is between 400 m and 3500 m. In 

MIRC it would likely be deployed in a 

TORPEX area or in W–517. This system 

would temporarily instrument up to a 

100 square-nautical mile or smaller 

areas on the seafloor, and would 

provide high fidelity crew feedback and 

scoring of crew performance during 

ASW training activities. No on-shore 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53802 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

construction would take place. Seven 

electronics packages, each 

approximately 3 ft long by 2 ft in 

diameter, would be temporarily 

installed on the seafloor by a range boat. 

The anchors used to keep the 

electronics packages on the seafloor are 

made of steel, approximately 1.5 ft-by1.5 ft and 300 pounds. PUTR use is 

planned for Navy training areas other 

than MIRC including the Northwest 

Training Range Complex and Gulf of 

Alaska. PUTR equipment can be 

recovered for maintenance or when 

training is completed. The Navy 

proposes to deploy this system year 

round, and to conduct TRACKEX and 

TORPEX activities for up to 35 days per 

year at any time of year. During each of 

the 35 days of annual operation, the 

PUTR would be in use for up to 8 hours 

each day. Two separate sound sources 

are associated with the operation of the 

PUTR: 

• Range tracking pingers—Range 

tracking pingers would be used on 

ships, submarines, and ASW targets 

when training is conducted on the 

PUTR. A typical MK 84 range tracking 

pinger generates a 12.9 kHz pulse with 

a duty cycle of 15 milliseconds and has 

a design power of 194 dB re 1 microPascal at 1 meter. Ping rate is selectable 

and typically one pulse every two 

seconds. Under the proposed action, up 

to four range pingers would operate 

simultaneously for 8 hours each of the 

35 PUTR operating days per year. Total 

time operated would be 280 hours 

annually. 

• Transponders—Each transponder 

package consists of a hydrophone that 

receives pinger signals, and a transducer 

that sends an acoustic ‘‘uplink’’ of 

locating data to the range boat. The 

uplink signal is transmitted at 8.8 

kilohertz (kHz) or 40 kHz, at a source 

level of 190 decibels (dB) at 40 kHz, and 

186 dB at 8.8 kHz. The uplink frequency 

is selectable and typically uses the 40 

kHz signal, however the lower 

frequency may be used when PUTR is 

deployed in deep waters where 

conditions may not permit the 40 kHz 

signal to establish and maintain the 

uplink. The PUTR system also 

incorporates an emergency underwater 

voice capability that transmits at 8–11 

kHz and a source level of 190 dB. Under 

the proposed action, the uplink 

transmitters would operate 35 days per 

year, for 8 hours each day of use. Total 

time operated would be 280 hours 

annually. 

Acoustic Device Countermeasures 

(ADCs)—ADCs (e.g., AN/SLQ–25 

(‘‘NIXIE’’), MK–2 and MK–3 are, in 

effect, decoys to avert localization and/ 

or torpedo attacks. These do not 

represent a significant source of sound 

given their intermittent use and 

operational characteristics (source 

output level and/or frequency). Given 

the sporadic use of these devices, the 

potential to affect marine mammals is 

unlikely, therefore these sources were 

not modeled or considered further in 

this analysis. 

Training Targets—ASW training 

targets are used to simulate opposition 

submarines. They are equipped with 

one or a combination of the following 

devices: (1) Acoustic projectors 

emanating sounds to simulate 

submarine acoustic signatures, (2) echo 

repeaters to simulate the characteristics 

of the echo of a particular sonar signal 

reflected from a specific type of 

submarine, and (3) magnetic sources to 

trigger magnetic detectors. Based on the 

operational characteristics (source 

output level and/or frequency) of these 

acoustic sources, the potential to affect 

marine mammals is unlikely, and 

therefore they were not modeled for this 

analysis. 

SURTASS LFA—SURTASS LFA is a 

long-range, all-weather, sonar system 

that operates in the low frequency band 

(100–500 Hz). The system has both 

passive and active components. The 

active system component, LFA, is an 

augmentation to the passive detection 

system, and is planned for use when 

passive system performance proves 

inadequate. LFA is a set of acoustic 

transmitting source elements suspended 

by cable from underneath a ship. These 

elements, called projectors, are devices 

that produce the active sound pulse, or 

ping. The projectors transform electrical 

energy to mechanical energy that set up 

vibrations or pressure disturbances 

within the water to produce a ping. The 

passive, or listening, part of the system 

is SURTASS, which detects returning 

echoes from submerged objects, such as 

submarines, through the use of 

hydrophones. The SURTASS 

hydrophones are mounted on a receive 

array that is towed behind the vessel. 

The return signals or echoes, which are 

usually below background or ambient 

sound level, are then processed and 

evaluated to identify and classify 

potential underwater targets. 

In the MIRC Study Area, the military 

intends to conduct three exercises 

(multi-strike group exercises) that will 

include an LFA component during a 

five-year period that may include both 

SURTASS LFA and MFA active sonar 

sources. The expected duration of these 

combined exercises is approximately 14 

days. Based on an exercise of this 

length, an LFA system would be active 

(i.e., actually transmitting) for no more 

than approximately 25 hours. In the 

combined exercise, LFA sonar is used as 

a long-range search tool (to find a 

potential target at long range) while 

MFA sonar is generally used as a closerrange search tool (to find a target at 

closer range). The LFA sonar and the 

MFA sonar would not normally be 

operated in close proximity to each 

other. Tactical and technical 

considerations dictate that the LFA ship 

would typically be tens of miles from 

the MFA ship when using active sonar. 

Analysis of the environmental 

impacts of the SURTASS LFA system, 

including the potential for synergistic 

and cumulative effects with MFAS 

operation, was previously presented in 

a series of Navy EISs and the August, 

2009 biological opinion for SURTASS 

LFA 2009 LOA, and the take of marine 

mammals incidental to the operation of 

LFA in the MIRC and elsewhere has 

been previously authorized by NOAA/ 

NMFS (2002a, 2007). Although the 

authorization of take of marine 

mammals incidental to the operation of 

LFA sonar will not be considered here, 

NMFS describes and considers the 

limited manner in which the two 

separately analyzed systems (LFAS and 

MFAS) may interact in a multi-strike 

group exercise in the MIRC. 

Exercises Utilizing MFAS in the MIRC 

As described above, ASW Exercises 

are the primary type of exercises that 

utilize MFAS and HFAS sources in the 

MIRC. Unit level tracking and torpedo 

ASW exercises occur regularly in the 

MIRC. Additionally, in a single year the 

MIRC will either have several major 

exercises, or one multi-strike group 

exercise, that integrate ASW training 

with other types of training such as air, 

surface, or strike warfare. ASW exercise 

descriptions are included below and 

summarized (along with the exercises 

utilizing explosives) in Table 2. 

ASW Tracking Exercise (TRACKEX)— 

Generally, TRACKEXs train aircraft, 

ship, and submarine crews in tactics, 

techniques, and procedures for search, 

detection, localization, and tracking of 

submarines with the goal of determining 

a firing solution that could be used to 

launch a torpedo and destroy the 

submarine. ASW Tracking Exercises 

occur during both day and night. A 

typical unit-level exercise involves one 

(1) ASW unit (aircraft, ship, or 

submarine) versus one (1) target—either 

a MK–39 Expendable Mobile ASW 

Training Target (EMATT), or a live 

submarine. The target may be nonevading while operating on a specified 

track or fully evasive. Participating units 

use active and passive sensors, 

including hull-mounted sonar, towed 

arrays, and sonobuoys for tracking. If 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53803 

the exercise continues into the firing of 

a practice torpedo it is termed a 

Torpedo Exercise (TORPEX). The ASW 

TORPEX usually starts as a TRACKEX 

to achieve the firing solution. The 

different types of TORPEXs are further 

described below. 

Torpedo Exercise (TORPEX)—Antisubmarine Warfare (ASW) TORPEX 

activities train crews in tracking and 

attack of submerged targets, firing one or 

two exercise torpedoes (EXTORPs) or 

recoverable exercise torpedoes 

(REXTORPs). TORPEX targets and 

systems used in the Offshore Areas may 

include live submarines, MK–46, MK– 

54, and MK–48 torpedoes, MK–30 ASW 

training targets, and MK–39 Expendable 

Mobile ASW Training Targets 

(EMATTs). The target may be nonevading while operating on a specified 

track, or it may be fully evasive, 

depending on the training requirements 

of the training exercise. Submarines 

periodically conduct torpedo firing 

training exercises within the MIRC. 

Typical duration of a submarine 

TORPEX exercise is 10 hours, while air 

and surface ASW platform TORPEX 

exercises using the MK–46 and MK–54 

torpedoes are considerably shorter. 

Joint Expeditionary Exercise—The 

Joint Expeditionary Exercise brings 

different branches of the U.S. military 

together in a joint environment that 

includes planning and execution efforts 

as well as military operations at sea, in 

the air, and ashore. The purpose of the 

exercise is to train a U.S. Joint Task 

Force staff in crisis action planning for 

execution of contingency operations. It 

provides U.S. forces an opportunity to 

practice training together in a joint 

environment as well as a combined 

environment with partner nation forces, 

where more than 8,000 personnel may 

participate. 

The participants and assets could 

include: Carrier Strike Group with its 

aircraft carrier, guided missile cruisers 

and Guided missile destroyers; 

Amphibious command and assault 

ships, submarines, logistic ships. It may 

also include Fleet and Battle Group 

Staffs, Naval and Air Force aircraft, 

Marine Expeditionary Units (MEU), and 

Army Infantry Units. This type of 

exercise would include activities 

conducted at sea and in the air and nearshore and ashore activities on Tinian, 

FDM, Guam, and Saipan. 

ASW active sonar activity may 

include: Single and multi-unit 

TRACKEX and TORPEX in coordinated 

ASW events; active ASW sources may 

include SQS–53; SQS–56; DICASS; 

IEER/AEER; AQS–22; BQQ–10; MK–48 

EXTORP; and, Portable Underwater 

Tracking Range operation including 

transponders and MK–84 range tracking 

pingers. 

Marine Air Ground Task Force 

(Amphibious) (MAGTF) Exercise—This 

major exercise includes over the 

horizon, ship to objective maneuver and 

activities of the ESG and Amphibious 

MAGTF for up to 10 days. The exercise 

utilizes all elements of the MAGTF to 

secure the battlespace (air, land, and 

sea), maneuver to and seize the 

objective, and conduct self-sustaining 

operations ashore with continual 

logistic support of the ESG. Tinian is the 

primary MIRC training area for this 

exercise; however elements of the 

exercise may be rehearsed nearshore 

and on Guam. 

ASW active sonar activity may 

include: single and multi-unit 

TRACKEX and TORPEX in coordinated 

ASW event; active ASW sources may 

include SQS–53C/D; SQS–56; DICASS; 

IEER/AEER; AQS–22; BQQ–10; MK–48 

EXTORP and Portable Underwater 

Tracking Range operation including 

transponders and MK–84 range tracking 

pingers. 

Joint Multi-Strike Group Exercise— 

The Joint Multi-Strike Group conducts 

training involving Navy assets engaging 

in a schedule of events (SOE) battle 

scenario, with U.S. forces pitted against 

a notional opposition force (OPFOR). 

Participants use and build upon 

previously gained training skill sets to 

maintain and improve the proficiency 

needed for a mission-capable, 

deployment-ready unit. 

The exercise includes several at-sea 

activities. In Command and Control 

(C2), a command organization exercises 

operational control of the assets 

involved in the exercise. This control 

includes monitoring for safety and 

compliance with protective measures. 

Air Warfare (AW) includes missile 

exercises which involve firing live 

missiles at air targets. Ships and aircraft 

fire missiles against air targets. AW also 

includes non-firing events such as 

Defensive Counter Air (DCA). DCA 

exercises ship and aircrew capabilities 

at detecting and reacting to incoming 

airborne threats. In Anti-Surface 

Warfare (ASUW), Naval forces control 

sea lanes by countering hostile surface 

combatant ships. 

ASW active sonar activity in this 

exercise may include: Single and multiunit TRACKEX and TORPEX in 

coordinated ASW events; active ASW 

sources may include SQS–53C/D; SQS– 

56; DICASS; IEER/AEER; AQS–22; 

BQQ–10; MK–48 EXTORP; Portable 

Underwater Tracking Range operation 

including transponders and MK–84 

range tracking pingers. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53804 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP20OC09.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53805 

Activities Utilizing Underwater 

Detonations 

Underwater detonation activities can 

occur at various depths depending on 

the activity, but may also include 

activities with detonations at or just 

below the surface (such as SINKEX or 

gunnery exercise [GUNEX]). When the 

weapons hit the target, except for live 

torpedo shots, there is no explosion in 

the water, and so a ‘‘hit’’ is not modeled 

(i.e., the energy (either acoustic or 

pressure) from the hit is not expected to 

reach levels that would result in take of 

marine mammals). When a live weapon 

misses, it is modeled as exploding 

below the water surface at 1 ft (5-inch 

naval gunfire, 76-mm rounds), 2 meters 

(Maverick, Harpoon, MK–82, MK–83, 

MK–84), or 50 ft (MK–48 torpedo) as 

shown in Appendix A of the Navy’s 

application (the depth is chosen to 

represent the worst case of the possible 

scenarios as related to potential marine 

mammals impacts). Exercises may 

utilize either live or inert ordnance of 

the types listed in Table 3. Additionally, 

successful hit rates are known to the 

Navy and are utilized in the effects 

modeling. Training events that involve 

explosives and underwater detonations 

occur throughout the year and are 

described below and summarized in 

Table 2. 

Sinking Exercise—In a SINKEX, a 

specially prepared, deactivated vessel is 

deliberately sunk using multiple 

weapons systems. The exercise provides 

training to ship and aircraft crews in 

delivering both live and inert ordnance 

on a real target. These target vessels are 

empty, cleaned, and environmentallyremediated ship hulk. A SINKEX target 

is towed to sea and set adrift at the 

SINKEX location. The duration of a 

SINKEX is unpredictable since it ends 

when the target sinks, sometimes 

immediately after the first weapon 

impact and sometimes only after 

multiple impacts by a variety of 

weapons. Typically, the exercise lasts 

for 4 to 8 hours over 1 to 2 days. 

SINKEXs occur only occasionally 

during MIRC exercises. Potential 

harassment would be from underwater 

detonation. SINKEX events have been 

conducted in the open ocean of the 

western Pacific and within the MIRC, in 

compliance with 40 CFR 229.2. 

The Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) grants the Navy a general permit 

through the Marine Protection, 

Research, and Sanctuaries Act to 

transport vessels ‘‘for the purpose of 

sinking such vessels in ocean waters...’’ 

(40 CFR 229.2). Subparagraph (a)(3) of 

this regulation states ‘‘All such vessel 

sinkings shall be conducted in water at 

least 1,000 fathoms (6,000 feet) deep 

and at least 50 nautical miles from 

land.’’ 

SINKEX events typically include at 

least one surface combatant (frigate, 

destroyer, or cruiser); one submarine; 

and numerous fixed-wing and rotarywing aircraft. One surface ship will 

serve as a surveillance platform to 

ensure the hulk does not pose a hazard 

to navigation prior to and during the 

SINKEX. The weapons actually 

expended during a SINKEX can vary 

greatly. Table 1–2 in the Navy’s 

application indicates the typical 

ordnance used in a SINKEX, which 

include HARPOON, HELLFIRE, and 

MAVERICK missiles, 5′ gunfire, MK–48 

torpedoes, and underwater demolitions. 

This table reflects the planning for 

weapons, which may be expended 

during one SINKEX in the MIRC Study 

Area. This level of ordnance is expected 

for each of the SINKEX events in the 

Joint Multi-strike Group exercise. With 

the exception of the torpedo, which is 

designed to explode below the target 

hulk in the water column, the weapons 

deployed during a SINKEX are intended 

to strike the target hulk, and thus not 

explode within the water column. 

Surface-to-Surface Gunnery 

Exercise—S–S GUNEX take place in the 

open ocean to provide gunnery practice 

for Navy and Coast Guard ship crews. 

GUNEX training activities conducted in 

the offshore study area involve 

stationary targets such as a MK–42 

floating at-sea target (FAST) or a MK–58 

marker (smoke) buoy. The gun systems 

employed against surface targets include 

the 5-inch, 76 millimeter (mm), 25-mm 

chain gun, 20-mm Close-in Weapon 

System (CIWS), and 50-caliber machine 

gun. Typical ordnance expenditure for a 

single GUNEX is a minimum of 21 

rounds of 5-inch or 76-mm ammunition, 

and approximately 150 rounds of 25- 

mm or .50-caliber ammunition. Both 

live and inert training rounds are used. 

After impacting the water, the rounds 

and fragments sink to the bottom of the 

ocean. A GUNEX lasts approximately 1 

to 2 hours, depending on target services 

and weather conditions. The live 5-inch 

and 76-mm rounds are considered in the 

underwater detonation modeling. 

Air-to-Surface Gunnery Exercise (A–S 

GUNEX)—A–S GUNEX training 

activities are conducted by rotary-wing 

aircraft against stationary targets 

(Floating at-sea Target [FAST] and 

smoke buoy). Rotary-wing aircraft 

involved in this activity would include 

a single helicopter using either 7.62-mm 

or .50-caliber door-mounted machine 

guns. A typical GUNEX will last 

approximately one hour and involve the 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP20OC09.002</GPH>
53806 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

expenditure of approximately 400 

rounds of 0.50-caliber or 7.62-mm 

ammunition. Due to their being inert 

and the small size of the rounds, they 

are not considered to have an 

underwater detonation impact. 

Air-to-Surface Missile Exercise (A–S 

MISSILEX)—The A–S MISSILEX 

consists of the attacking platform 

releasing a forward-fired, guided 

weapon at the designated towed target. 

The exercise involves locating the 

target, then designating the target, 

usually with a laser. A–S MISSILEX 

training that does not involve the 

release of a live weapon can take place 

if the attacking platform is carrying a 

captive air training missile (CATM) 

simulating the weapon involved in the 

training. The CATM MISSILEX is 

identical to a live-fire exercise in every 

aspect except that a weapon is not 

released. The training requires a lasersafe range as the target is designated just 

as in a live-fire exercise. From 1 to 16 

aircraft, carrying live, inert, or CATMs, 

or flying without ordnance (dry runs) 

are used during the exercise. At sea, 

seaborne powered targets (SEPTARs), 

Improved Surface Towed Targets 

(ISTTs), and decommissioned hulks are 

used as targets. A–S MISSILEX assets 

include helicopters and/or 1 to 16 fixedwing aircraft with air-to-surface missiles 

and anti-radiation missiles 

(electromagnetic radiation source 

seeking missiles). Targets include 

SEPTARs, ISTTs, and excess ship hulks. 

When HELLFIRE Missiles are used the 

exercise is called a HELLFIRE 

MISSILEX. HELLFIRE MISSILEXs 

would occur 2 times per year in an area 

approximately 30–35 nm south of Apra 

Harbor in W–517. Potential harassment 

would be from underwater detonation. 

Surface-to-Surface Missile Exercise 

(S–S MISSILEX)—S–S MISSILEX 

involves the attack of surface targets at 

sea by use of cruise missiles or other 

missile systems, usually by a single ship 

conducting training in the detection, 

classification, tracking and engagement 

of a surface target. S–S MISSILEXs 

always occur during a SINKEX. 

Engagement is usually with HARPOON 

missiles or Standard missiles in the 

surface-to-surface mode. Targets could 

include virtual targets or the SEPTAR or 

ship deployed surface target. S–S 

MISSILEX training is routinely 

conducted on individual ships with 

embedded training devices. A S–S 

MISSILEX could include 4 to 20 

surface-to-surface missiles, SEPTARs, a 

weapons recovery boat, and a helicopter 

for environmental and photo evaluation. 

All missiles are equipped with 

instrumentation packages or a warhead. 

Surface-to-air missiles can also be used 

in a surface-to-surface mode. Each 

exercise typically lasts five hours. 

Future S–S MISSILEX could range from 

4 to 35 hours. Potential harassment 

would be from underwater detonation. 

Air-to-Surface Bombing Exercise— 

During an Air-to-Surface Bombing 

Exercise (BOMBEX A–S), fixed-wing 

aircraft deliver bombs against simulated 

surface maritime targets, typically a 

smoke float, with the goal of destroying 

or disabling enemy ships or boats. 

Typically, a flight of two aircraft will 

approach the target from an altitude of 

between 15,000 ft to less than 3,000 ft, 

and will adhere to designated ingress 

and egress routes. Typical bomb release 

altitude is below 3,000 ft and within a 

range of 1000 yards for unguided 

munitions, and above 15,000 ft and in 

excess of 10 nm for precision-guided 

munitions. In most training exercises, 

the aircrew drops inert training 

ordnance, such as the Bomb Dummy 

Unit (BDU–45) on a MK–58 smoke float 

used as the target. Some BOMBEXs 

include the use of the MK–84/GBU–31 

JDAM, the largest bomb proposed for 

use. JDAM training would occur 4 times 

per year in W–517 and generally in the 

southern portion avoiding known 

fishing areas. The surface danger zone 

requires a 25 nm buffer around the aim 

point, so that all operations occur 

within W–517. Each BOMBEX A–S can 

take up to 4 hours to complete. 

Mine Neutralization—Mine 

Neutralization involves the detection, 

identification, evaluation, rendering 

safe, and disposal of mines and 

unexploded ordnance (UXO) that 

constitutes a threat to ships or 

personnel. Mine neutralization training 

can be conducted by a variety of air, 

surface and undersea assets. Potential 

harassment would be from underwater 

detonation. 

Tactics for neutralization of ground or 

bottom mines involve the diver placing 

a specific amount of explosives, which 

when detonated underwater at a specific 

distance from a mine results in 

neutralization of the mine. Floating, or 

moored, mines involve the diver placing 

a specific amount of explosives directly 

on the mine. Floating mines 

encountered by Fleet ships in openocean areas are detonated at the surface. 

In support of an expeditionary assault, 

divers and Navy marine mammal assets 

deploy in very shallow water depths (10 

to 40 feet) to locate mines and 

obstructions. Divers are transported to 

the mines by boat or helicopter. Inert 

dummy mines are used in the exercises. 

The total net explosive weight used 

against each mine ranges from less than 

1 pound to 20 pounds. 

All demolition activities are 

conducted in accordance with 

Commander, Naval Surface Forces 

Pacific (COMNAVSURFPAC) 

Instruction 3120.8F, Procedures for 

Disposal of Explosives at Sea/Firing of 

Depth Charges and Other Underwater 

Ordnance (DoN 2003). Before any 

explosive is detonated, divers are 

transported a safe distance away from 

the explosive. Standard practices for 

tethered mines require ground mine 

explosive charges to be suspended 10 

feet below the surface of the water. 

EER–IEER AN/SSQ–110A—The 

Extended Echo Ranging and Improved 

Extended Echo Ranging (EER/IEER) 

Systems are airborne ASW systems used 

in conducting ‘‘large area’’ searches for 

submarines. These systems are made up 

of airborne avionics ASW acoustic 

processing and sonobuoy types that are 

deployed in pairs. The IEER System’s 

active sonobuoy component, the AN/ 

SSQ–110A Sonobuoy, generates a sound 

similar to a ‘‘sonar ping’’ using a small 

explosive and the passive AN/SSQ– 

101A ADAR Sonobuoy ‘‘listens’’ for the 

return echo of the ‘‘sonar ping’’ that has 

been bounced off the surface of a 

submarine. These sonobuoys are 

designed to provide underwater 

acoustic data necessary for naval 

aircrews to quickly and accurately 

detect submerged submarines. The 

sonobuoy pairs are dropped from a 

fixed-wing aircraft into the ocean in a 

predetermined pattern with a few buoys 

covering a very large area. The AN/ 

SSQ–110A Sonobuoy Series is an 

expendable and commandable 

sonobuoy. Upon command from the 

aircraft, the bottom payload is released 

to sink to a designated operating depth. 

A second command is required from the 

aircraft to cause the second payload to 

release and detonate the explosive to 

generate a ‘‘ping’’. There is only one 

detonation in the pattern of buoys at a 

time. Potential harassment would be 

from underwater detonations. 

The AEER system (described in the 

sonar source section) will eventually 

replace use of the EER/IEER system and 

was analyzed for this proposed rule. 

Vessel Movement 

The operation and movement of 

vessels that is necessary to conduct the 

training described above is also 

analyzed here. Training exercises 

involving vessel movements occur 

intermittently and are variable in 

duration, ranging from a few hours up 

to 10 days. During training, speeds vary 

and depend on the specific type of 

activity, although 10–14 knots is 

considered the typical speed. The Navy 

logs about 1,000 total vessel days within 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53807 

the MIRC Study Area during a typical 

year. Training activities are widely 

dispersed throughout the large 

OPAREA, which encompasses 501,873 

nm2 (1,299,851 km2). Consequently, the 

density of Navy ships within the Study 

Area at any given time is low. 

Research, Development, Testing, and 

Evaluation 

The Services may conduct RDT&E, 

engineering, and fleet support for 

command, control, and communications 

systems and ocean surveillance in the 

MIRC. These activities may include 

ocean engineering, missile firings, 

torpedo testing, manned and unmanned 

submersibles testing, unmanned aerial 

vehicle (UAV) tests, electronic combat 

(EC), and other DoD weapons testing. 

RDT&E activities, if they have a 

potential for takes of marine mammals, 

will be reviewed to assure they are 

included within the parameters of 

existing sonar and explosive activities 

as modeled for this rule and the LOAs. 

As an example, if a new model of SQS 

53 sonar were tested, as long as it’s 

operating parameters are within the 

parameters modeled, an equal number 

of hours of SQS 53C use in training 

would be deducted to ensure that the 

total SQS 53C hours for the year 

(training plus RDT&E) remain within 

those described in the rule. The same 

would apply for explosives, overall NET 

explosive weights for similar munitions 

would be reviewed to assure 

compliance with existing rules. 

Additional information on the Navy’s 

proposed activities may be found in the 

LOA Application and the Navy’s MIRC 

DEIS. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activities 

Thirty-two marine mammal species or 

populations/stocks have confirmed or 

possible occurrence within the MIRC, 

including seven species of baleen 

whales (mysticetes), 22 species of 

toothed whales (odontocetes), two 

species of seal (pinnipeds), and the 

dugong (sirenian). Table 4 summarizes 

their abundance, Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) status, occurrence, and 

density in the area. Seven of the species 

are ESA-listed and considered depleted 

under the MMPA: Blue whale; fin 

whale; humpback whale; sei whale; 

sperm whale; North Pacific right whale; 

Hawaiian monk seal; and dugong. The 

dugong is managed by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and will not be 

addressed further here. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53808 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Species Not Considered Further 

North Pacific right whale—The 

likelihood of a North Pacific right whale 

(Eubalaena japonica) occurring in the 

action area is extremely low. The North 

Pacific right whale population is the 

most endangered of the large whale 

species (Perry et al., 1999) and, 

currently, there is no reliable population 

estimate for this species, although the 

population in the western North Pacific 

Ocean is considered to be very small, 

perhaps in the tens to low hundreds of 

animals. Despite many years of 

systematic aerial and ship-based surveys 

for marine mammals off the western 

coast of the U.S., only seven 

documented sightings of right whales 

were made from 1990 through 2005 near 

Alaska (Waite et al., 2003; Wade et al., 

2006). Based on this information, it is 

highly unlikely for a right whale to be 

present in the action area. 

Consequently, this species will not be 

considered in the remainder of this 

analysis. 

Hawaiian monk seal—The likelihood 

of a Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus 

schauinslandi) being present in the 

action area is extremely low. There are 

no confirmed records of Hawaiian monk 

seals in the Micronesia region; however, 

Reeves et al. (1999) and Eldredge (1991, 

2003) have noted occurrence records for 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP20OC09.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53809 

seals (unidentified species) in the 

Marshall and Gilbert islands. It is 

possible that Hawaiian monk seals 

wander from the Hawaiian Islands to 

appear at the Marshall or Gilbert Islands 

in the Micronesia region (Eldredge 

1991). However, given the extremely 

low likelihood of this species 

occurrence in the action area, the 

Hawaiian monk seal will not be 

considered in the remainder of this 

analysis. 

Hubbs Beaked Whale—The likelihood 

of a Hubbs beaked whale (Mesoplodon 

carlhubbsi) occurring in the action area 

is extremely low. There are no 

occurrence records for the Mariana 

Islands and the nearest records are from 

strandings in Japan (DoN 2005). Recent 

data suggests that the distribution is 

likely north of 30° N (MacCleod et al., 

2006). Given the extremely low 

likelihood of this species occurrence in 

the action area, the Hubbs beaked whale 

will not be considered in the remainder 

of this analysis. 

Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphin—The 

likelihood of an Indo-Pacific bottlenose 

dolphin (Tursiops aduncas) occurring in 

the action area is extremely low. The 

Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin is 

generally associated with continental 

margins and does not appear to occur 

around offshore islands that are great 

distances from a continent, such as the 

Marianas (Jefferson as cited in DoN 

2005). Given the extremely low 

likelihood of this species occurrence in 

the action area, the Indo-Pacific 

bottlenose dolphin will not be 

considered in the remainder of this 

analysis. 

Northern Elephant Seal—Northern 

elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris) 

are common on islands and mainland 

haul-out sites in Baja California, Mexico 

north through central California. 

Elephant seals spend several months at 

sea feeding and travel as far as the Gulf 

of Alaska. Occasionally juveniles 

wander great distances with several 

individuals being observed in Hawaii 

and Japan. Although elephant seals may 

wander great distances it is very 

unlikely that they would travel to Japan 

or Hawaii and then continue traveling to 

the MIRC. Given the extremely low 

likelihood of this species occurrence in 

the action area, the northern elephant 

seal will not be considered in the 

remainder of this analysis. 

The Navy has compiled information 

on the abundance, behavior, status and 

distribution, and vocalizations of 

marine mammal species in the MIRC 

waters from the Navy Marine Resource 

Assessment and has supplemented this 

information with additional citations 

derived from new survey efforts and 

scientific publications. NMFS has not 

designated stocks of marine mammals in 

the waters surrounding the MIRC and, 

therefore, does not compile stock 

assessment reports for this area. This 

information may be viewed in the 

Navy’s LOA application and/or the 

Navy’s DEIS for MIRC (see Availability), 

and is incorporated by reference herein. 

There are no designated marine 

mammal critical habitats or known 

breeding areas within the MIRC. Much 

is unknown about the reproductive 

habits of the dolphin species in MIRC, 

but they are thought to mate throughout 

their range (like better studied species 

and stocks are known to do) and 

possibly throughout the year. Even less 

is known about the mating habits of 

beaked whales. Baleen whales and 

sperm whales are thought to breed 

seasonally in areas within and around 

the MIRC and some calves have been 

seen with sperm, Bryde’s and sei whales 

(DoN 2007b), although it is not known 

where exactly breeding and calving 

occurs. 

Spinner dolphins, which rest 

primarily during the day in relatively 

large groups, are known to consistently 

use certain areas (usually bays) for this 

function. Because of this, they are 

regularly visited by whalewatching 

boats or other members of the public 

interested in viewing or interacting with 

them, which could potentially put them 

at increased energetic risk if their 

resting cycles are repeatedly interrupted 

in a significant manner. There are 

several recognized resting areas for 

spinner dolphins in the MIRC Study 

Area: Agat Bay, Bile/Tougan Bay, and 

Double Reef. These areas are in clear, 

calm, shallow waters sheltered from 

prevailing tradewinds. 

Marine Mammal Hearing and 

Vocalizations 

Cetaceans have an auditory anatomy 

that follows the basic mammalian 

pattern, with some changes to adapt to 

the demands of hearing in the sea. The 

typical mammalian ear is divided into 

an outer ear, middle ear, and inner ear. 

The outer ear is separated from the 

inner ear by a tympanic membrane, or 

eardrum. In terrestrial mammals, the 

outer ear, eardrum, and middle ear 

transmit airborne sound to the inner ear, 

where the sound waves are propagated 

through the cochlear fluid. Since the 

impedance of water is close to that of 

the tissues of a cetacean, the outer ear 

is not required to transduce sound 

energy as it does when sound waves 

travel from air to fluid (inner ear). 

Sound waves traveling through the 

inner ear cause the basilar membrane to 

vibrate. Specialized cells, called hair 

cells, respond to the vibration and 

produce nerve pulses that are 

transmitted to the central nervous 

system. Acoustic energy causes the 

basilar membrane in the cochlea to 

vibrate. Sensory cells at different 

positions along the basilar membrane 

are excited by different frequencies of 

sound (Pickles, 1998). Baleen whales 

have inner ears that appear to be 

specialized for low-frequency hearing. 

Conversely, dolphins and porpoises 

have ears that are specialized to hear 

high frequencies. 

Marine mammal vocalizations often 

extend both above and below the range 

of human hearing; vocalizations with 

frequencies lower than 18 Hertz (Hz) are 

labeled as infrasonic and those higher 

than 20 kHz as ultrasonic (National 

Research Council [NRC], 2003; Figure 

4–1). Measured data on the hearing 

abilities of cetaceans are sparse, 

particularly for the larger cetaceans such 

as the baleen whales. The auditory 

thresholds of some of the smaller 

odontocetes have been determined in 

captivity. It is generally believed that 

cetaceans should at least be sensitive to 

the frequencies of their own 

vocalizations. Comparisons of the 

anatomy of cetacean inner ears and 

models of the structural properties and 

the response to vibrations of the ear’s 

components in different species provide 

an indication of likely sensitivity to 

various sound frequencies. The ears of 

small toothed whales are optimized for 

receiving high-frequency sound, while 

baleen whale inner ears are best in low 

to infrasonic frequencies (Ketten, 1992; 

1997; 1998). 

Baleen whale vocalizations are 

composed primarily of frequencies 

below 1 kHz, and some contain 

fundamental frequencies as low as 16 

Hz (Watkins et al., 1987; Richardson et 

al., 1995; Rivers, 1997; Moore et al., 

1998; Stafford et al., 1999; Wartzok and 

Ketten, 1999) but can be as high as 24 

kHz (humpback whale; Au et al., 2006). 

Clark and Ellison (2004) suggested that 

baleen whales use low frequency 

sounds not only for long-range 

communication, but also as a simple 

form of echo ranging, using echoes to 

navigate and orient relative to physical 

features of the ocean. Information on 

auditory function in mysticetes is 

extremely lacking. Sensitivity to lowfrequency sound by baleen whales has 

been inferred from observed 

vocalization frequencies, observed 

reactions to playback of sounds, and 

anatomical analyses of the auditory 

system. Although there is apparently 

much variation, the source levels of 

most baleen whale vocalizations lie in 

the range of 150–190 dB re 1 μPa at 1 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53810 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

m. Low-frequency vocalizations made 

by baleen whales and their 

corresponding auditory anatomy suggest 

that they have good low-frequency 

hearing (Ketten, 2000), although specific 

data on sensitivity, frequency or 

intensity discrimination, or localization 

abilities are lacking. Marine mammals, 

like all mammals, have typical Ushaped audiograms that begin with 

relatively low sensitivity (high 

threshold) at some specified low 

frequency with increased sensitivity 

(low threshold) to a species specific 

optimum followed by a generally steep 

rise at higher frequencies (high 

threshold) (Fay, 1988). 

The toothed whales produce a wide 

variety of sounds, which include 

species-specific broadband ‘‘clicks’’ 

with peak energy between 10 and 200 

kHz, individually variable ‘‘burst pulse’’ 

click trains, and constant frequency or 

frequency-modulated (FM) whistles 

ranging from 4 to 16 kHz (Wartzok and 

Ketten, 1999). The general consensus is 

that the tonal vocalizations (whistles) 

produced by toothed whales play an 

important role in maintaining contact 

between dispersed individuals, while 

broadband clicks are used during 

echolocation (Wartzok and Ketten, 

1999). Burst pulses have also been 

strongly implicated in communication, 

with some scientists suggesting that 

they play an important role in agonistic 

encounters (McCowan and Reiss, 1995), 

while others have proposed that they 

represent ‘‘emotive’’ signals in a broader 

sense, possibly representing graded 

communication signals (Herzing, 1996). 

Sperm whales, however, are known to 

produce only clicks, which are used for 

both communication and echolocation 

(Whitehead, 2003). Most of the energy of 

toothed whales social vocalizations is 

concentrated near 10 kHz, with source 

levels for whistles as high as 100–180 

dB re 1 μPa at 1 m (Richardson et al., 

1995). No odontocete has been shown 

audiometrically to have acute hearing 

(<80 dB re 1 μPa) below 500 Hz (DoN, 

2001). Sperm whales produce clicks, 

which may be used to echolocate 

(Mullins et al., 1988), with a frequency 

range from less than 100 Hz to 30 kHz 

and source levels up to 230 dB re 1 μPa 

1 m or greater (Mohl et al., 2000). 

Table 5 includes a summary of the 

vocalizations of the species found in the 

MIRC. The ‘‘Brief Background on 

Sound’’ section below contains a 

description of the functional hearing 

groups designated by Southall et al. 

(2007), which includes the functional 

hearing range of various marine 

mammal groups (i.e., what frequencies 

that can actually hear). 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53811 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP20OC09.004</GPH>
53812 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP20OC09.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53813 

Marine Mammal Density Estimates 

Understanding the distribution and 

abundance of a particular marine 

mammal species or stock is necessary to 

analyze the potential impacts of an 

action on that species or stock. Further, 

it is necessary to know the density of 

the animals in the affected area in order 

to quantitatively assess the likely 

acoustic impacts of a potential action on 

individuals and estimate take (discussed 

further in the Estimated Take section). 

Prior to 2007 there was little 

information available on the abundance 

and density of marine mammals in the 

MIRC Study Area. Most information on 

the occurrence of marine mammals 

came from short surveys (several days) 

and opportunistic sightings (NMFS 

Platform of Opportunity, oceanographic 

cruises or strandings). The first 

comprehensive survey of the area, 

Mariana Islands Sea Turtle and 

Cetacean Survey (MISTCS), was funded 

by the Navy to gather data in support of 

this analysis and was conducted in early 

2007 covering mid January to mid April 

(DoN 2007b). Densities were calculated 

for 13 species observed during this 

survey and are the only published 

densities derived for this area that are 

based upon actual sightings. For the 

purposes of the MIRC analysis, the Navy 

compiled published densities from 

other geographical areas with existing 

survey data and similar oceanography 

(e.g. sea surface temperature) such as 

the Hawaiian Islands (Barlow 2003, 

2006), warm water areas of the eastern 

tropical Pacific (Ferguson and Barlow 

2001, 2003) and Miyashita (1993). As 

shown in Table 3–2 of the MIRC 

application, for the species that MISTCS 

provided an estimate for, the estimated 

densities are either mid-range or higher 

than the other published densities. This, 

combined with the fact that the MISTCS 

survey was conducted in the actual 

MIRC Study Area, supports the Navy’s 

decision to use MISTCS data as the 

primary source for modeling. 

Considering the similar habitat and 

species diversity with the MIRC Study 

Area, offshore survey data from the 

Hawaiian Islands (Barlow 2003, 2006) 

was used as a secondary source. 

Densities from the Eastern Tropical 

Pacific survey (Ferguson and Barlow 

2001, 2003) were used for six remaining 

species. Miyashita 1993 was also 

reviewed; however, no densities from 

that report were ultimately utilized 

because the surveys were not conducted 

in the systematic line transect manner 

typically used by NMFS, but rather 

occurred while searching for cetaceans. 

The draft MISTCS density report was 

reviewed by local biologists at NMFS– 

Pacific Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) 

and Pacific Islands Regional Office 

(PIRO), whose recommendations were 

incorporated into the final document. 

The methods used in the final MISTCS 

report was approved by NMFS PIFSC 

and PIRO for use in preparation of 

environmental planning documents for 

the Mariana Islands. 

Brief Background on Sound 

An understanding of the basic 

properties of underwater sound is 

necessary to comprehend many of the 

concepts and analyses presented in this 

document. A summary is included 

below. 

Sound is a wave of pressure variations 

propagating through a medium (for the 

MFAS/HFAS considered in this 

proposed rule, the medium is marine 

water). Pressure variations are created 

by compressing and relaxing the 

medium. Sound measurements can be 

expressed in two forms: intensity and 

pressure. Acoustic intensity is the 

average rate of energy transmitted 

through a unit area in a specified 

direction and is expressed in watts per 

square meter (W/m2). Acoustic intensity 

is rarely measured directly, it is derived 

from ratios of pressures; the standard 

reference pressure for underwater sound 

is 1 microPascal (μPa); for airborne 

sound, the standard reference pressure 

is 20 μPa (Richardson et al., 1995). 

Acousticians have adopted a 

logarithmic scale for sound intensities, 

which is denoted in decibels (dB). 

Decibel measurements represent the 

ratio between a measured pressure value 

and a reference pressure value (in this 

case 1 μPa or, for airborne sound, 20 

μPa). The logarithmic nature of the scale 

means that each 10 dB increase is a tenfold increase in power (e.g., 20 dB is a 

100-fold increase over 10 dB, 30 dB is 

a 1,000-fold increase over 10dB). 

Humans perceive a 10-dB increase in 

noise as a doubling of loudness, or a 10 

dB decrease in noise as a halving of 

loudness. The term ‘‘sound pressure 

level’’ implies a decibel measure and a 

reference pressure that is used as the 

denominator of the ratio. Throughout 

this document, NMFS uses 1 

microPascal (denoted re: 1μPa) as a 

standard reference pressure unless 

noted otherwise. 

It is important to note that decibels 

underwater and decibels in air are not 

the same and cannot be directly 

compared. To estimate a comparison 

between sound in air and underwater, 

because of the different densities of air 

and water and the different decibel 

standards (i.e., reference pressures) in 

water and air, a sound with the same 

intensity (i.e., power) in air and in water 

would be approximately 63 dB quieter 

in air. Thus a sound that is 160 dB loud 

underwater would have the same 

approximate effective intensity as a 

sound that is 97 dB loud in air. 

Sound frequency is measured in 

cycles per second, or Hertz (abbreviated 

Hz), and is analogous to musical pitch; 

high-pitched sounds contain high 

frequencies and low-pitched sounds 

contain low frequencies. Natural sounds 

in the ocean span a huge range of 

frequencies: from earthquake noise at 5 

Hz to harbor porpoise clicks at 150,000 

Hz (150 kHz). These sounds are so low 

or so high in pitch that humans cannot 

even hear them; acousticians call these 

infrasonic (typically below 20 Hz) and 

ultrasonic (typically above 20,000 Hz) 

sounds, respectively. A single sound 

may be made up of many different 

frequencies together. Sounds made up 

of only a small range of frequencies are 

called ‘‘narrowband’’, and sounds with 

a broad range of frequencies are called 

‘‘broadband’’; explosives are an example 

of a broadband sound source and active 

tactical sonars are an example of a 

narrowband sound source. 

When considering the influence of 

various kinds of sound on the marine 

environment, it is necessary to 

understand that different kinds of 

marine life are sensitive to different 

frequencies of sound. Based on available 

behavioral data, audiograms derived 

using auditory evoked potential (AEP) 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data, Southall et al. (2007) 

designate ‘‘functional hearing groups’’ 

for marine mammals and estimate the 

lower and upper frequencies of 

functional hearing of the groups. 

Further, the frequency range in which 

each group’s hearing is estimated as 

being most sensitive is represented in 

the flat part of the M-weighting 

functions (which are derived from the 

audiograms described above, see figure 

1 in Southall et al. (2007) developed for 

each group. The functional groups and 

the associated frequencies are indicated 

below (though, again, animals are less 

sensitive to sounds at the outer edge of 

their functional range and most 

sensitive to sounds of frequencies 

within a smaller range somewhere in 

the middle of their functional hearing 

range): 

• Low frequency cetaceans (13 

species of mysticetes): functional 

hearing is estimated to occur between 

approximately 7 Hz and 22 kHz; 

• Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 

species of dolphins, six species of larger 

toothed whales, and 19 species of 

beaked and bottlenose whales): 

functional hearing is estimated to occur 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53814 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

between approximately 150 Hz and 160 

kHz; 

• High frequency cetaceans (eight 

species of true porpoises, six species of 

river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana, 

and four species of cephalorhynchids): 

functional hearing is estimated to occur 

between approximately 200 Hz and 180 

kHz; 

• Pinnipeds in Water: functional 

hearing is estimated to occur between 

approximately 75 Hz and 75 kHz, with 

the greatest sensitivity between 

approximately 700 Hz and 20 kHz. 

Because ears adapted to function 

underwater are physiologically different 

from human ears, comparisons using 

decibel measurements in air would still 

not be adequate to describe the effects 

of a sound on a whale. When sound 

travels (propagates) away from its 

source, its loudness decreases as the 

distance traveled by the sound 

increases. Thus, the loudness of a sound 

at its source is higher than the loudness 

of that same sound a kilometer distant. 

Acousticians often refer to the loudness 

of a sound at its source (typically 

measured one meter from the source) as 

the source level and the loudness of 

sound elsewhere as the received level. 

For example, a humpback whale three 

kilometers from an airgun that has a 

source level of 230 dB may only be 

exposed to sound that is 160 dB loud, 

depending on how the sound propagates 

(in this example, it is spherical 

spreading). As a result, it is important 

not to confuse source levels and 

received levels when discussing the 

loudness of sound in the ocean or its 

impacts on the marine environment. 

As sound travels from a source, its 

propagation in water is influenced by 

various physical characteristics, 

including water temperature, depth, 

salinity, and surface and bottom 

properties that cause refraction, 

reflection, absorption, and scattering of 

sound waves. Oceans are not 

homogeneous and the contribution of 

each of these individual factors is 

extremely complex and interrelated. 

The physical characteristics that 

determine the sound’s speed through 

the water will change with depth, 

season, geographic location, and with 

time of day (as a result, in actual MFAS/ 

HFAS operations, crews will measure 

oceanic conditions, such as sea water 

temperature and depth, to calibrate 

models that determine the path the 

sonar signal will take as it travels 

through the ocean and how strong the 

sound signal will be at a given range 

along a particular transmission path). As 

sound travels through the ocean, the 

intensity associated with the wavefront 

diminishes, or attenuates. This decrease 

in intensity is referred to as propagation 

loss, also commonly called transmission 

loss. 

Metrics Used in This Document 

This section includes a brief 

explanation of the two sound 

measurements (sound pressure level 

(SPL) and sound exposure level (SEL)) 

frequently used in the discussions of 

acoustic effects in this document. 

SPL 

Sound pressure is the sound force per 

unit area, and is usually measured in 

micropascals (μPa), where 1 Pa is the 

pressure resulting from a force of one 

newton exerted over an area of one 

square meter. SPL is expressed as the 

ratio of a measured sound pressure and 

a reference level. The commonly used 

reference pressure level in underwater 

acoustics is 1 μPa, and the units for 

SPLs are dB re: 1 μPa. 

SPL (in dB) = 20 log (pressure/reference 

pressure) 

SPL is an instantaneous measurement 

and can be expressed as the peak, the 

peak-peak, or the root mean square 

(rms). Root mean square, which is the 

square root of the arithmetic average of 

the squared instantaneous pressure 

values, is typically used in discussions 

of the effects of sounds on vertebrates 

and all references to SPL in this 

document refer to the root mean square. 

SPL does not take the duration of a 

sound into account. SPL is the 

applicable metric used in the risk 

continuum, which is used to estimate 

behavioral harassment takes (see Level 

B Harassment Risk Function (Behavioral 

Harassment) Section). 

SEL 

SEL is an energy metric that integrates 

the squared instantaneous sound 

pressure over a stated time interval. The 

units for SEL are dB re: 1 μPa2¥s. 

SEL = SPL + 10log(duration in seconds) 

As applied to MFAS/HFAS, the SEL 

includes both the SPL of a sonar ping 

and the total duration. Longer duration 

pings and/or pings with higher SPLs 

will have a higher SEL. If an animal is 

exposed to multiple pings, the SEL in 

each individual ping is summed to 

calculate the total SEL. The total SEL 

depends on the SPL, duration, and 

number of pings received. The 

thresholds that NMFS uses to indicate at 

what received level the onset of 

temporary threshold shift (TTS) and 

permanent threshold shift (PTS) in 

hearing are likely to occur are expressed 

in SEL. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals 

The Navy has requested authorization 

for the take of marine mammals that 

may occur incidental to training and 

RDT&E activities in the MIRC utilizing 

MFAS/HFAS or underwater 

detonations. In addition to MFAS/HFAS 

and underwater detonations, the Navy 

has analyzed other potential impacts to 

marine mammals from training 

activities in the MIRC DEIS, including 

ship strike, aerial overflights, ship noise 

and movement, and others, and, in 

consultation with NMFS as a 

cooperating agency for the MIRC DEIS, 

has determined that take of marine 

mammals incidental to these nonacoustic components of the MIRC is 

unlikely and, therefore, has not 

requested authorization for take of 

marine mammals that might occur 

incidental to these non-acoustic 

components. In this document, NMFS 

analyzes the potential effects on marine 

mammals from exposure to MFAS/ 

HFAS and underwater detonations, but 

also includes some additional analysis 

of the potential impacts from vessel 

operations in the MIRC. 

For the purpose of MMPA 

authorizations, NMFS’ effects 

assessments serve four primary 

purposes: (1) To help identify the 

permissible methods of taking, meaning: 

the nature of the take (e.g., resulting 

from anthropogenic noise vs. from ship 

strike, etc.); the regulatory level of take 

(i.e., mortality vs. Level A or Level B 

harassment); and, the amount of take; 

(2) to inform the prescription of means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact on such species or stock and its 

habitat (i.e., mitigation); (3) to support 

the determination of whether the 

specified activity will have a negligible 

impact on the affected species or stocks 

of marine mammals (based on the 

likelihood that the activity will 

adversely affect the species or stock 

through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival); and (4) to 

determine whether the specified activity 

will have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (however, 

there are no subsistence communities 

that would be affected in the MIRC). 

More specifically, for activities 

involving sonar or underwater 

detonations, NMFS’ analysis will 

identify the probability of lethal 

responses, physical trauma, sensory 

impairment (permanent and temporary 

threshold shifts and acoustic masking), 

physiological responses (particular 

stress responses), behavioral 

disturbance (that rises to the level of 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53815 

harassment), and social responses that 

would be classified as behavioral 

harassment or injury and/or would be 

likely to adversely affect the species or 

stock through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival. In this section, 

we will focus qualitatively on the 

different ways that MFAS/HFAS and 

underwater explosive detonations may 

affect marine mammals (some of which 

NMFS would not classify as 

harassment). Then, in the Estimated 

Take of Marine Mammals Section, 

NMFS will relate the potential effects to 

marine mammals from MFAS/HFAS 

and underwater detonation of 

explosives to the MMPA regulatory 

definitions of Level A and Level B 

Harassment and attempt to quantify 

those effects. 

Exposure to MFAS/HFAS 

In the subsections below, the 

following types of impacts are discussed 

in more detail: direct physiological 

impacts, stress responses, acoustic 

masking and impaired communication, 

behavioral disturbance, and strandings. 

An additional useful graphic tool for 

better understanding the layered nature 

of potential marine mammal responses 

to anthropogenic sound is presented in 

Figure 1 of NMFS’ August 13, 2009 

biological opinion for SURTASS LFA 

(available at: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental.htm#applications). That 

document presents a conceptual model 

of the potential responses of endangered 

and threatened species upon being 

exposed to active sonar and the 

pathways by which those responses 

might affect the fitness of individual 

animals that have been exposed, and the 

resulting impact on the individual 

animal’s ability to reproduce or survive. 

Literature supporting the framework, 

with examples drawn from many taxa 

(both aquatic and terrestrial) was 

included in the ‘‘Application of this 

Approach’’ and ‘‘Response Analyses’’ 

sections of that document. 

Direct Physiological Effects 

Based on the literature, there are two 

basic ways that MFAS/HFAS might 

directly result in physical trauma or 

damage: noise-induced loss of hearing 

sensitivity (more commonly called 

‘‘threshold shift’’) and acoustically 

mediated bubble growth. Separately, an 

animal’s behavioral reaction to an 

acoustic exposure might lead to 

physiological effects that might 

ultimately lead to injury or death, which 

is discussed later in the Stranding 

section. 

Threshold Shift (Noise-Induced Loss of 

Hearing) 

When animals exhibit reduced 

hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds must be 

louder for an animal to recognize them) 

following exposure to a sufficiently 

intense sound, it is referred to as a 

noise-induced threshold shift (TS). An 

animal can experience temporary 

threshold shift (TTS) or permanent 

threshold shift (PTS). TTS can last from 

minutes or hours to days (i.e., there is 

recovery), occurs in specific frequency 

ranges (i.e., an animal might only have 

a temporary loss of hearing sensitivity 

between the frequencies of 1 and 10 

kHz)), and can be of varying amounts 

(for example, an animal’s hearing 

sensitivity might be reduced by only 6 

dB or reduced by 30 dB). PTS is 

permanent (i.e., there is no recovery), 

but also occurs in a specific frequency 

range and amount as mentioned above 

for TTS. 

The following physiological 

mechanisms are thought to play a role 

in inducing auditory TSs: effects to 

sensory hair cells in the inner ear that 

reduce their sensitivity, modification of 

the chemical environment within the 

sensory cells, residual muscular activity 

in the middle ear, displacement of 

certain inner ear membranes, increased 

blood flow, and post-stimulatory 

reduction in both efferent and sensory 

neural output (Southall et al., 2007). 

The amplitude, duration, frequency, 

temporal pattern, and energy 

distribution of sound exposure all affect 

the amount of associated TS and the 

frequency range in which it occurs. As 

amplitude and duration of sound 

exposure increase, so, generally, does 

the amount of TS, along with the 

recovery time. Human non-impulsive 

noise exposure guidelines are based on 

exposures of equal energy (the same 

SEL) producing equal amounts of 

hearing impairment regardless of how 

the sound energy is distributed in time 

(NIOSH 1998). Until recently, previous 

marine mammal TTS studies have also 

generally supported this equal energy 

relationship (Southall et al., 2007). 

Three newer studies, two by Mooney et 

al. (2009a, 2009b) on a single bottlenose 

dolphin either exposed to playbacks of 

Navy MFAS or octave-band noise (4–8 

kHz) and one by Kastak et al. (2007) on 

a single California sea lion exposed to 

airborne octave-band noise (centered at 

2.5 kHz), concluded that for all noise 

exposure situations the equal energy 

relationship may not be the best 

indicator to predict TTS onset levels. 

All three of these studies highlight the 

inherent complexity of predicting TTS 

onset in marine mammals, as well as the 

importance of considering exposure 

duration when assessing potential 

impacts. Generally, with sound 

exposures of equal energy, those that 

were quieter (lower sound pressure 

level [SPL]) with longer duration were 

found to induce TTS onset more than 

those of louder (higher SPL) and shorter 

duration (more similar to MFAS). For 

intermittent sounds, less TS will occur 

than from a continuous exposure with 

the same energy (some recovery will 

occur between intermittent exposures) 

(Kryter et al., 1966; Ward, 1997). For 

example, one short but loud (higher 

SPL) sound exposure may induce the 

same impairment as one longer but 

softer sound, which in turn may cause 

more impairment than a series of several 

intermittent softer sounds with the same 

total energy (Ward, 1997). Additionally, 

though TTS is temporary, very 

prolonged exposure to sound strong 

enough to elicit TTS, or shorter-term 

exposure to sound levels well above the 

TTS threshold, can cause PTS, at least 

in terrestrial mammals (Kryter, 1985) 

(although in the case of MFAS/HFAS, 

animals are not expected to be exposed 

to levels high enough or durations long 

enough to result in PTS). 

PTS is considered auditory injury 

(Southall et al., 2007). Irreparable 

damage to the inner or outer cochlear 

hair cells may cause PTS, however, 

other mechanisms are also involved, 

such as exceeding the elastic limits of 

certain tissues and membranes in the 

middle and inner ears and resultant 

changes in the chemical composition of 

the inner ear fluids (Southall et al., 

2007). 

Although the published body of 

scientific literature contains numerous 

theoretical studies and discussion 

papers on hearing impairments that can 

occur with exposure to a loud sound, 

only a few studies provide empirical 

information on the levels at which 

noise-induced loss in hearing sensitivity 

occurs in nonhuman animals. For 

cetaceans, published data on the onset 

of TTS are limited to the captive 

bottlenose dolphin and beluga 

(Finneran et al., 2000, 2002b, 2005a; 

Schlundt et al., 2000; Nachtigall et al., 

2003, 2004). For pinnipeds in water, 

data are limited to Kastak et al.’s 

measurement of TTS in one harbor seal, 

one elephant seal, and one California 

sea lion. 

Marine mammal hearing plays a 

critical role in communication with 

conspecifics and in interpretation of 

environmental cues for purposes such 

as predator avoidance and prey capture. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery 

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53816 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious (similar to those discussed in 

auditory masking, below). For example, 

a marine mammal may be able to readily 

compensate for a brief, relatively small 

amount of TTS in a non-critical 

frequency range that takes place during 

a time when the animal is traveling 

through the open ocean, where ambient 

noise is lower and there are not as many 

competing sounds present. 

Alternatively, a larger amount and 

longer duration of TTS sustained during 

a time when communication is critical 

for successful mother/calf interactions 

could have more serious impacts if it 

were in the same frequency band as the 

necessary vocalizations and of a severity 

that it impeded communication. The 

fact that animals exposed to levels and 

durations of sound that would be 

expected to result in this physiological 

response would also be expected to 

have behavioral responses of a 

comparatively more severe or sustained 

nature is also notable and potentially of 

more importance than the simple 

existence of a TTS. 

Also, depending on the degree and 

frequency range, the effects of PTS on 

an animal could range in severity, 

although it is considered generally more 

serious than TTS because it is a 

permanent condition. Of note, reduced 

hearing sensitivity as a simple function 

of development and aging has been 

observed in marine mammals, as well as 

humans and other taxa (Southall et al., 

2007), so we can infer that strategies 

exist for coping with this condition to 

some degree, though likely not without 

cost. There is no empirical evidence that 

exposure to MFAS/HFAS can cause PTS 

in any marine mammals; instead the 

probability of PTS has been inferred 

from studies of TTS (see Richardson et 

al., 1995). 

Acoustically Mediated Bubble Growth 

One theoretical cause of injury to 

marine mammals is rectified diffusion 

(Crum and Mao, 1996), the process of 

increasing the size of a bubble by 

exposing it to a sound field. This 

process could be facilitated if the 

environment in which the ensonified 

bubbles exist is supersaturated with gas. 

Repetitive diving by marine mammals 

can cause the blood and some tissues to 

accumulate gas to a greater degree than 

is supported by the surrounding 

environmental pressure (Ridgway and 

Howard, 1979). The deeper and longer 

dives of some marine mammals (for 

example, beaked whales) are 

theoretically predicted to induce greater 

supersaturation (Houser et al., 2001b) 

although recent preliminary empirical 

data suggests that there is no increase in 

blood nitrogen levels or formation of 

bubbles in diving bottlenose dolphins 

(Houser 2008). If rectified diffusion 

were possible in marine mammals 

exposed to high-level sound, conditions 

of tissue supersaturation could 

theoretically speed the rate and increase 

the size of bubble growth. Subsequent 

effects due to tissue trauma and emboli 

would presumably mirror those 

observed in humans suffering from 

decompression sickness. 

It is unlikely that the short duration 

of MFAS pings would be long enough 

to drive bubble growth to any 

substantial size, if such a phenomenon 

occurs. However, an alternative but 

related hypothesis has also been 

suggested: stable bubbles could be 

destabilized by high-level sound 

exposures such that bubble growth then 

occurs through static diffusion of gas 

out of the tissues. In such a scenario the 

marine mammal would need to be in a 

gas-supersaturated state for a long 

enough period of time for bubbles to 

become of a problematic size. 

Yet another hypothesis 

(decompression sickness) speculated 

that rapid ascent to the surface 

following exposure to a startling sound 

might produce tissue gas saturation 

sufficient for the evolution of nitrogen 

bubbles (Jepson et al., 2003; Fernandez 

et al., 2005). In this scenario, the rate of 

ascent would need to be sufficiently 

rapid to compromise behavioral or 

physiological protections against 

nitrogen bubble formation. 

Alternatively, Tyack et al. (2006) 

studied the deep diving behavior of 

beaked whales and concluded that 

‘‘Using current models of breath-hold 

diving, we infer that their natural diving 

behavior is inconsistent with known 

problems of acute nitrogen 

supersaturation and embolism.’’ 

Collectively, these hypotheses can be 

referred to as ‘‘hypotheses of 

acoustically mediated bubble growth.’’ 

Although theoretical predictions 

suggest the possibility for acoustically 

mediated bubble growth, there is 

considerable disagreement among 

scientists as to its likelihood (Piantadosi 

and Thalmann, 2004; Evans and Miller, 

2003; Cox et al., 2006; Rommel et al., 

2006). Crum and Mao (1996) 

hypothesized that received levels would 

have to exceed 190 dB in order for there 

to be the possibility of significant 

bubble growth due to supersaturation of 

gases in the blood (i.e., rectified 

diffusion). More recent work conducted 

by Crum et al. (2005) demonstrated the 

possibility of rectified diffusion for 

short duration signals, but at SELs and 

tissue saturation levels that are highly 

improbable to occur in diving marine 

mammals. To date, Energy Levels (ELs) 

predicted to cause in vivo bubble 

formation within diving cetaceans have 

not been evaluated (NOAA, 2002b). 

Although it has been argued that 

traumas from some recent beaked whale 

strandings are consistent with gas 

emboli and bubble-induced tissue 

separations (Jepson et al., 2003), there is 

no conclusive evidence of this (Rommel 

et al., 2006). However, Jepson et al. 

(2003, 2005) and Fernandez et al. (2004, 

2005) concluded that in vivo bubble 

formation, which may be exacerbated by 

deep, long-duration, repetitive dives, 

may explain why beaked whales appear 

to be particularly vulnerable to MFAS/ 

HFAS exposures. Further investigation 

is needed to further assess the potential 

validity of these hypotheses. More 

information regarding hypotheses that 

attempt to explain how behavioral 

responses to MFAS/HFAS can lead to 

strandings is included in the 

Behaviorally Mediated Bubble Growth 

Section, after the summary of 

strandings. 

Acoustic Masking 

Marine mammals use acoustic signals 

for a variety of purposes, which differ 

among species, but include 

communication between individuals, 

navigation, foraging, reproduction, and 

learning about their environment (Erbe 

and Farmer, 2000; Tyack, 2000). 

Masking, or auditory interference, 

generally occurs when sounds in the 

environment are louder than, and of a 

similar frequency as, auditory signals an 

animal is trying to receive. Masking is 

a phenomenon that affects animals that 

are trying to receive acoustic 

information about their environment, 

including sounds from other members 

of their species, predators, prey, and 

sounds that allow them to orient in their 

environment. Masking these acoustic 

signals can disturb the behavior of 

individual animals, groups of animals, 

or entire populations. 

The extent of the masking interference 

depends on the spectral, temporal, and 

spatial relationships between the signals 

an animal is trying to receive and the 

masking noise, in addition to other 

factors. In humans, significant masking 

of tonal signals occurs as a result of 

exposure to noise in a narrow band of 

similar frequencies. As the sound level 

increases, though, the detection of 

frequencies above those of the masking 

stimulus decreases also. This principle 

is expected to apply to marine mammals 

as well because of common 

biomechanical cochlear properties 

across taxa. 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53817 

Richardson et al. (1995b) argued that 

the maximum radius of influence of an 

industrial noise (including broadband 

low frequency sound transmission) on a 

marine mammal is the distance from the 

source to the point at which the noise 

can barely be heard. This range is 

determined by either the hearing 

sensitivity of the animal or the 

background noise level present. 

Industrial masking is most likely to 

affect some species’ ability to detect 

communication calls and natural 

sounds (i.e., surf noise, prey noise, etc.; 

Richardson et al., 1995). 

The echolocation calls of toothed 

whales are subject to masking by high 

frequency sound. Human data indicate 

low-frequency sound can mask highfrequency sounds (i.e., upward 

masking). Studies on captive 

odontocetes by Au et al. (1974, 1985, 

1993) indicate that some species may 

use various processes to reduce masking 

effects (e.g., adjustments in echolocation 

call intensity or frequency as a function 

of background noise conditions). There 

is also evidence that the directional 

hearing abilities of odontocetes are 

useful in reducing masking at the highfrequencies these cetaceans use to 

echolocate, but not at the low-tomoderate frequencies they use to 

communicate (Zaitseva et al., 1980). A 

recent study by Nachtigall and Supin 

(2008) showed that false killer whales 

adjust their hearing to compensate for 

ambient sounds and the intensity of 

returning echolocation signals. 

As mentioned previously, the 

functional hearing ranges of 

odontocetes, pinnipeds underwater, and 

mysticetes all overlap the frequencies of 

the MFAS/HFAS sources used in the 

Navy’s MFAS/HFAS training exercises 

(although some mysticete’s best hearing 

capacities are likely at frequencies 

somewhat lower than MFAS). 

Additionally, in almost all species, 

vocal repertoires span across the 

frequencies of these MFAS/HFAS 

sources used by the Navy. The closer 

the characteristics of the masking signal 

to the signal of interest, the more likely 

masking is to occur. For hull-mounted 

MFAS/HFAS, which accounts for the 

largest part of the takes of marine 

mammals (because of the source 

strength and number of hours it’s 

conducted), the pulse length and duty 

cycle of the MFAS/HFAS signal (∼ 1 

second pulse twice a minute) makes it 

less likely that masking will occur as a 

result. 

Impaired Communication 

In addition to making it more difficult 

for animals to perceive acoustic cues in 

their environment, anthropogenic sound 

presents separate challenges for animals 

that are vocalizing. When they vocalize, 

animals are aware of environmental 

conditions that affect the ‘‘active space’’ 

of their vocalizations, which is the 

maximum area within which their 

vocalizations can be detected before 

they drop to the level of ambient noise 

(Brenowitz, 2004; Brumm et al., 2004; 

Lohr et al., 2003). Animals are also 

aware of environmental conditions that 

affect whether listeners can discriminate 

and recognize their vocalizations from 

other sounds, which is more important 

than simply detecting that a 

vocalization is occurring (Brenowitz, 

1982; Brumm et al., 2004; Dooling, 

2004, Marten and Marler, 1977; 

Patricelli et al., 2006). Most animals that 

vocalize have evolved with an ability to 

make adjustments to their vocalizations 

to increase the signal-to-noise ratio, 

active space, and recognizability/ 

distinguishability of their vocalizations 

in the face of temporary changes in 

background noise (Brumm et al., 2004; 

Patricelli et al., 2006). Vocalizing 

animals can make one or more of the 

following adjustments to their 

vocalizations: Adjust the frequency 

structure; adjust the amplitude; adjust 

temporal structure; or adjust temporal 

delivery. 

Many animals will combine several of 

these strategies to compensate for high 

levels of background noise. 

Anthropogenic sounds that reduce the 

signal-to-noise ratio of animal 

vocalizations, increase the masked 

auditory thresholds of animals listening 

for such vocalizations, or reduce the 

active space of an animal’s vocalizations 

impair communication between 

animals. Most animals that vocalize 

have evolved strategies to compensate 

for the effects of short-term or temporary 

increases in background or ambient 

noise on their songs or calls. Although 

the fitness consequences of these vocal 

adjustments remain unknown, like most 

other trade-offs animals must make, 

some of these strategies probably come 

at a cost (Patricelli et al., 2006). For 

example, vocalizing more loudly in 

noisy environments may have energetic 

costs that decrease the net benefits of 

vocal adjustment and alter a bird’s 

energy budget (Brumm, 2004; Wood and 

Yezerinac, 2006). Shifting songs and 

calls to higher frequencies may also 

impose energetic costs (Lambrechts, 

1996). 

Stress Responses 

Classic stress responses begin when 

an animal’s central nervous system 

perceives a potential threat to its 

homeostasis. That perception triggers 

stress responses regardless of whether a 

stimulus actually threatens the animal; 

the mere perception of a threat is 

sufficient to trigger a stress response 

(Moberg, 2000; Sapolsky et al., 2005; 

Seyle, 1950). Once an animal’s central 

nervous system perceives a threat, it 

mounts a biological response or defense 

that consists of a combination of the 

four general biological defense 

responses: behavioral responses, 

autonomic nervous system responses, 

neuroendocrine responses, or immune 

response. 

In the case of many stressors, an 

animal’s first and most economical (in 

terms of biotic costs) response is 

behavioral avoidance of the potential 

stressor or avoidance of continued 

exposure to a stressor. An animal’s 

second line of defense to stressors 

involves the sympathetic part of the 

autonomic nervous system and the 

classical ‘‘fight or flight’’ response 

which includes the cardiovascular 

system, the gastrointestinal system, the 

exocrine glands, and the adrenal 

medulla to produce changes in heart 

rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal 

activity that humans commonly 

associate with ‘‘stress.’’ These responses 

have a relatively short duration and may 

or may not have significant long-term 

effect on an animal’s welfare. 

An animal’s third line of defense to 

stressors involves its neuroendocrine or 

sympathetic nervous systems; the 

system that has received the most study 

has been the hypothalmus-pituitaryadrenal system (also known as the HPA 

axis in mammals or the hypothalamuspituitary-interrenal axis in fish and 

some reptiles). Unlike stress responses 

associated with the autonomic nervous 

system, virtually all neuro-endocrine 

functions that are affected by stress— 

including immune competence, 

reproduction, metabolism, and 

behavior—are regulated by pituitary 

hormones. Stress-induced changes in 

the secretion of pituitary hormones have 

been implicated in failed reproduction 

(Moberg, 1987; Rivier, 1995) and altered 

metabolism (Elasser et al., 2000), 

reduced immune competence (Blecha, 

2000) and behavioral disturbance. 

Increases in the circulation of 

glucocorticosteroids (cortisol, 

corticosterone, and aldosterone in 

marine mammals; see Romano et al., 

2004) have been equated with stress for 

many years. 

The primary distinction between 

stress (which is adaptive and does not 

normally place an animal at risk) and 

distress is the biotic cost of the 

response. During a stress response, an 

animal uses glycogen stores that can be 

quickly replenished once the stress is 

alleviated. In such circumstances, the 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53818 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

cost of the stress response would not 

pose a risk to the animal’s welfare. 

However, when an animal does not have 

sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the 

energetic costs of a stress response, 

energy resources must be diverted from 

other biotic functions, which impairs 

those functions that experience the 

diversion. For example, when mounting 

a stress response diverts energy away 

from growth in young animals, those 

animals may experience stunted growth. 

When mounting a stress response 

diverts energy from a fetus, an animal’s 

reproductive success and its fitness will 

suffer. In these cases, the animals will 

have entered a pre-pathological or 

pathological state which is called 

‘‘distress’’ (sensu Seyle, 1950) or 

‘‘allostatic loading’’ (sensu McEwen and 

Wingfield, 2003). This pathological state 

will last until the animal replenishes its 

biotic reserves sufficient to restore 

normal function. Note that these 

examples involved a long term (days or 

weeks) stress response exposure to a 

stimuli. 

Relationships between these 

physiological mechanisms, animal 

behavior, and the costs of stress 

responses have also been documented 

fairly well through controlled 

experiment; because this physiology 

exists in every vertebrate that has been 

studied, it is not surprising that stress 

responses and their costs have been 

documented in both laboratory and freeliving animals (for examples see, 

Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; 

Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et al., 

2004; Lankford et al., 2005; Reneerkens 

et al., 2002; Thompson and Hamer, 

2000). Although no information has 

been collected on the physiological 

responses of marine mammals to 

exposure to anthropogenic sounds, 

studies of other marine animals and 

terrestrial animals would lead us to 

expect some marine mammals to 

experience physiological stress 

responses and, perhaps, physiological 

responses that would be classified as 

‘‘distress’’ upon exposure to high 

frequency, mid-frequency and lowfrequency sounds. 

For example, Jansen (1998) reported 

on the relationship between acoustic 

exposures and physiological responses 

that are indicative of stress responses in 

humans (for example, elevated 

respiration and increased heart rates). 

Jones (1998) reported on reductions in 

human performance when faced with 

acute, repetitive exposures to acoustic 

disturbance. Trimper et al. (1998) 

reported on the physiological stress 

responses of osprey to low-level aircraft 

noise while Krausman et al. (2004) 

reported on the auditory and physiology 

stress responses of endangered Sonoran 

pronghorn to military overflights. Smith 

et al. (2004a, 2004b) identified noiseinduced physiological transient stress 

responses in hearing-specialist fish (i.e., 

goldfish) that accompanied short- and 

long-term hearing losses. Welch and 

Welch (1970) reported physiological 

and behavioral stress responses that 

accompanied damage to the inner ears 

of fish and several mammals. 

Hearing is one of the primary senses 

marine mammals use to gather 

information about their environment 

and to communicate with conspecifics. 

Although empirical information on the 

relationship between sensory 

impairment (TTS, PTS, and acoustic 

masking) on marine mammals remains 

limited, it seems reasonable to assume 

that reducing an animal’s ability to 

gather information about its 

environment and to communicate with 

other members of its species would be 

stressful for animals that use hearing as 

their primary sensory mechanism. 

Therefore, we assume that acoustic 

exposures sufficient to trigger onset PTS 

or TTS would be accompanied by 

physiological stress responses because 

terrestrial animals exhibit those 

responses under similar conditions 

(NRC, 2003). More importantly, marine 

mammals might experience stress 

responses at received levels lower than 

those necessary to trigger onset TTS. 

Based on empirical studies of the time 

required to recover from stress 

responses (Moberg, 2000), NMFS also 

assumes that stress responses could 

persist beyond the time interval 

required for animals to recover from 

TTS and might result in pathological 

and pre-pathological states that would 

be as significant as behavioral responses 

to TTS. 

Behavioral Disturbance 

Behavioral responses to sound are 

highly variable and context-specific. 

Many different variables can influence 

an animal’s perception of and response 

to (in both nature and magnitude) an 

acoustic event. An animal’s prior 

experience with a sound or sound 

source affects whether it is less likely 

(habituation) or more likely 

(sensitization) to respond to certain 

sounds in the future (animals can also 

be innately pre-disposed to respond to 

certain sounds in certain ways) 

(Southall et al., 2007). Related to the 

sound itself, the perceived nearness of 

the sound, bearing of the sound 

(approaching vs. retreating), similarity 

of a sound to biologically relevant 

sounds in the animal’s environment 

(i.e., calls of predators, prey, or 

conspecifics), and familiarity of the 

sound may affect the way an animal 

responds to the sound (Southall et al., 

2007). Individuals (of different age, 

gender, reproductive status, etc.) among 

most populations will have variable 

hearing capabilities, and differing 

behavioral sensitivities to sounds that 

will be affected by prior conditioning, 

experience, and current activities of 

those individuals. Often, specific 

acoustic features of the sound and 

contextual variables (i.e., proximity, 

duration, or recurrence of the sound or 

the current behavior that the marine 

mammal is engaged in or its prior 

experience), as well as entirely separate 

factors such as the physical presence of 

a nearby vessel, may be more relevant 

to the animal’s response than the 

received level alone. 

Exposure of marine mammals to 

sound sources can result in (but is not 

limited to) no response or any of the 

following observable responses: 

increased alertness; orientation or 

attraction to a sound source; vocal 

modifications; cessation of feeding; 

cessation of social interaction; alteration 

of movement or diving behavior; 

avoidance; habitat abandonment 

(temporary or permanent); and, in 

severe cases, panic, flight, stampede, or 

stranding, potentially resulting in death 

(Southall et al., 2007). A review of 

marine mammal responses to 

anthropogenic sound was first 

conducted by Richardson (1995). A 

more recent review (Nowacek et al., 

2007) addresses studies conducted since 

1995 and focuses on observations where 

the received sound level of the exposed 

marine mammal(s) was known or could 

be estimated. The following subsections provide examples of behavioral 

responses that provide an idea of the 

variability in behavioral responses that 

would be expected given the differential 

sensitivities of marine mammal species 

to sound and the wide range of potential 

acoustic sources to which a marine 

mammal may be exposed. Estimates of 

the types of behavioral responses that 

could occur for a given sound exposure 

should be determined from the 

literature that is available for each 

species, or extrapolated from closely 

related species when no information 

exists. 

Alteration of Diving or Movement— 

Changes in dive behavior can vary 

widely. They may consist of increased 

or decreased dive times and surface 

intervals as well as changes in the rates 

of ascent and descent during a dive. 

Variations in dive behavior may reflect 

interruptions in biologically significant 

activities (e.g., foraging) or they may be 

of little biological significance. 

Variations in dive behavior may also 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53819 

expose an animal to potentially harmful 

conditions (e.g., increasing the chance 

of ship-strike) or may serve as an 

avoidance response that enhances 

survivorship. The impact of a variation 

in diving resulting from an acoustic 

exposure depends on what the animal is 

doing at the time of the exposure and 

the type and magnitude of the response. 

Nowacek et al. (2004) reported 

disruptions of dive behaviors in foraging 

North Atlantic right whales when 

exposed to an alerting stimulus, a 

reaction, they noted, that could lead to 

an increased likelihood of ship strike. 

However, the whales did not respond to 

playbacks of either right whale social 

sounds or vessel noise, highlighting the 

importance of the sound characteristics 

in producing a behavioral reaction. 

Conversely, Indo-Pacific humpback 

dolphins have been observed to dive for 

longer periods of time in areas where 

vessels were present and/or 

approaching (Ng and Leung, 2003). In 

both of these studies, the influence of 

the sound exposure cannot be 

decoupled from the physical presence of 

a surface vessel, thus complicating 

interpretations of the relative 

contribution of each stimulus to the 

response. Indeed, the presence of 

surface vessels, their approach and 

speed of approach, seemed to be 

significant factors in the response of the 

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Ng 

and Leung, 2003). Low frequency 

signals of the Acoustic Thermometry of 

Ocean Climate (ATOC) sound source 

were not found to affect dive times of 

humpback whales in Hawaiian waters 

(Frankel and Clark, 2000) or to overtly 

affect elephant seal dives (Costa et al., 

2003). They did, however, produce 

subtle effects that varied in direction 

and degree among the individual seals, 

illustrating the varied nature of 

behavioral effects and consequent 

difficulty in defining and predicting 

them. 

Foraging—Disruption of feeding 

behavior can be difficult to correlate 

with anthropogenic sound exposure, so 

it is usually inferred by observed 

displacement from known foraging 

areas, the appearance of secondary 

indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment 

plumes), or changes in dive behavior. 

Noise from seismic surveys was not 

found to impact the feeding behavior in 

western grey whales off the coast of 

Russia (Yazvenko et al., 2007) and 

sperm whales engaged in foraging dives 

did not abandon dives when exposed to 

distant signatures of seismic airguns 

(Madsen et al., 2006). Balaenopterid 

whales exposed to moderate SURTASS 

LFA demonstrated no variation in 

foraging activity (Croll et al., 2001), 

whereas five out of six North Atlantic 

right whales exposed to an acoustic 

alarm interrupted their foraging dives 

(Nowacek et al., 2004). Although the 

received sound pressure level at the 

animals was similar in the latter two 

studies, the frequency, duration, and 

temporal pattern of signal presentation 

were different. These factors, as well as 

differences in species sensitivity, are 

likely contributing factors to the 

differential response. A determination 

of whether foraging disruptions incur 

fitness consequences will require 

information on or estimates of the 

energetic requirements of the 

individuals and the relationship 

between prey availability, foraging effort 

and success, and the life history stage of 

the animal. 

Brownell (2004) reported the 

behavioral responses of western gray 

whales off the northeast coast of 

Sakhalin Island to sounds produced by 

seismic activities in that region. In 1997, 

the gray whales responded to seismic 

activities by changing their swimming 

speed and orientation, respiration rates, 

and distribution in waters around the 

seismic surveys. In 2001, seismic 

activities were conducted in a known 

feeding area of these whales and the 

whales left the feeding area and moved 

to areas farther south in the Sea of 

Okhotsk. They only returned to the 

feeding area several days after the 

seismic activities stopped. The potential 

fitness consequences of displacing these 

whales, especially mother-calf pairs and 

‘‘skinny whales,’’ outside of their 

normal feeding area is not known; 

however, because gray whales, like 

other large whales, must gain enough 

energy during the summer foraging 

season to last them the entire year, 

sounds or other stimuli that cause them 

to abandon a foraging area for several 

days could disrupt their energetics and 

force them to make trade-offs like 

delaying their migration south, delaying 

reproduction, reducing growth, or 

migrating with reduced energy reserves. 

Social relationships—Social 

interactions between mammals can be 

affected by noise via the disruption of 

communication signals or by the 

displacement of individuals. Sperm 

whales responded to military sonar, 

apparently from a submarine, by 

dispersing from social aggregations, 

moving away from the sound source, 

remaining relatively silent and 

becoming difficult to approach (Watkins 

et al., 1985). In contrast, sperm whales 

in the Mediterranean that were exposed 

to submarine sonar continued calling (J. 

Gordon pers. Comm. cited in 

Richardson et al., 1995). Social 

disruptions must be considered, 

however, in context of the relationships 

that are affected. While some 

disruptions may not have deleterious 

effects, long-term or repeated 

disruptions of mother/calf pairs or 

interruption of mating behaviors have 

the potential to affect the growth and 

survival or reproductive effort/success 

of individuals, respectively. 

Vocalizations (also see Masking 

Section)—Vocal changes in response to 

anthropogenic noise can occur across 

the repertoire of sound production 

modes used by marine mammals, such 

as whistling, echolocation click 

production, calling, and singing. 

Changes may result in response to a 

need to compete with an increase in 

background noise or may reflect an 

increased vigilance or startle response. 

For example, in the presence of lowfrequency active sonar, humpback 

whales have been observed to increase 

the length of their ‘‘songs’’ (Miller et al., 

2000; Fristrup et al., 2003), possibly due 

to the overlap in frequencies between 

the whale song and the low-frequency 

active sonar. A similar compensatory 

effect for the presence of low frequency 

vessel noise has been suggested for right 

whales; right whales have been 

observed to shift the frequency content 

of their calls upward while reducing the 

rate of calling in areas of increased 

anthropogenic noise (Parks et al., 2007). 

Killer whales off the northwestern coast 

of the United States have been observed 

to increase the duration of primary calls 

once a threshold in observing vessel 

density (e.g., whale watching) was 

reached, which has been suggested as a 

response to increased masking noise 

produced by the vessels (Foote et al., 

2004). In contrast, both sperm and pilot 

whales potentially ceased sound 

production during the Heard Island 

feasibility test (Bowles et al., 1994), 

although it cannot be absolutely 

determined whether the inability to 

acoustically detect the animals was due 

to the cessation of sound production or 

the displacement of animals from the 

area. 

Avoidance—Avoidance is the 

displacement of an individual from an 

area as a result of the presence of a 

sound. Richardson et al. (1995) noted 

that avoidance reactions are the most 

obvious manifestations of disturbance in 

marine mammals. It is qualitatively 

different from the flight response, but 

also differs in the magnitude of the 

response (i.e., directed movement, rate 

of travel, etc.). Oftentimes avoidance is 

temporary, and animals return to the 

area once the noise has ceased. Longer 

term displacement is possible, however, 

which can lead to changes in abundance 

or distribution patterns of the species in 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53820 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

the affected region if they do not 

become acclimated to the presence of 

the chronic sound (Blackwell et al., 

2004; Bejder et al., 2006; Teilmann et 

al., 2006). Acute avoidance responses 

have been observed in captive porpoises 

and pinnipeds exposed to a number of 

different sound sources (Kastelein et al., 

2001; Finneran et al., 2003; Kastelein et 

al., 2006a; Kastelein et al., 2006b). Short 

term avoidance of seismic surveys, low 

frequency emissions, and acoustic 

deterrents have also been noted in wild 

populations of odontocetes (Bowles et 

al., 1994; Goold, 1996; 1998; Stone et 

al., 2000; Morton and Symonds, 2002) 

and to some extent in mysticetes (Gailey 

et al., 2007), while longer term or 

repetitive/chronic displacement for 

some dolphin groups and for manatees 

has been suggested to be due to the 

presence of chronic vessel noise 

(Haviland-Howell et al., 2007; MiksisOlds et al., 2007). 

Maybaum (1993) conducted sound 

playback experiments to assess the 

effects of mid-frequency active sonar on 

humpback whales in Hawaiian waters. 

Specifically, she exposed focal pods to 

sounds of a 3.3-kHz sonar pulse, a sonar 

frequency sweep from 3.1 to 3.6 kHz, 

and a control (blank) tape while 

monitoring the behavior, movement, 

and underwater vocalizations. The two 

types of sonar signals (which both 

contained both mid- and low frequency 

components) differed in their effects on 

the humpback whales, but both resulted 

in avoidance behavior. The whales 

responded to the pulse by increasing 

their distance from the sound source 

and responded to the frequency sweep 

by increasing their swimming speeds 

and track linearity. In the Caribbean, 

sperm whales avoided exposure to midfrequency submarine sonar pulses, in 

the range of 1000 Hz to 10,000 Hz (IWC 

2005). 

Kvadsheim et al., (2007) conducted a 

controlled exposure experiment in 

which killer whales (Orcinus orca) that 

had been fitted with D-tags were 

exposed to mid-frequency active sonar 

(Source A: a 1.0 s upsweep 209 dB @ 1– 

2 kHz every 10 seconds for 10 minutes; 

Source B: with a 1.0 s upsweep 197 dB 

@ 6–7 kHz every 10 s for 10 min). When 

exposed to Source A, a tagged whale 

and the group it was traveling with did 

not appear to avoid the source. When 

exposed to Source B, the tagged whales 

along with other whales that had been 

carousel feeding, ceased feeding during 

the approach of the sonar and moved 

rapidly away from the source. When 

exposed to Source B, Kvadsheim and 

his co-workers reported that a tagged 

killer whale seemed to try to avoid 

further exposure to the sound field by 

immediately swimming away 

(horizontally) from the source of the 

sound; by engaging in a series of erratic 

and frequently deep dives that seem to 

take it below the sound field; or by 

swimming away while engaged in a 

series of erratic and frequently deep 

dives. Although the sample sizes in this 

study are too small to support statistical 

analysis, the behavioral responses of the 

orcas were consistent with the results of 

other studies. 

In 2007, the first in the series of 

behavioral response studies conducted 

by NMFS and other scientists showed 

one beaked whale (Mesoplodon 

densirostris) responding to an MFAS 

playback. The BRS–07 Cruise report 

indicates that the playback began when 

the tagged beaked whale was vocalizing 

at depth (at the deepest part of a typical 

feeding dive), following a previous 

control with no sound exposure. The 

whale appeared to stop clicking 

significantly earlier than usual, when 

exposed to mid-frequency signals in the 

130–140 dB (rms) received level range. 

After a few more minutes of the 

playback, when the received level 

reached a maximum of 140–150 dB, the 

whale ascended on the slow side of 

normal ascent rates with a longer than 

normal ascent, at which point the 

exposure was terminated. The BRS–07 

Cruise report notes that the results are 

from a single experiment and that a 

greater sample size is needed before 

robust and definitive conclusions can be 

drawn (NMFS, 2008). The BRS–08 

Cruise report has not been published 

yet. 

Flight Response—A flight response is 

a dramatic change in normal movement 

to a directed and rapid movement away 

from the perceived location of a sound 

source. Relatively little information on 

flight responses of marine mammals to 

anthropogenic signals exist, although 

observations of flight responses to the 

presences of predators have occurred 

(Connor and Heithaus, 1996). Flight 

responses have been speculated as being 

a component of marine mammal 

strandings associated with MFAS 

activities (Evans and England, 2001). If 

marine mammals respond to Navy 

vessels that are transmitting active sonar 

in the same way that they might 

respond to a predator, their probability 

of flight responses should increase 

when they perceive that Navy vessels 

are approaching them directly, because 

a direct approach may convey detection 

and intent to capture (Burger and 

Gochfeld, 1981, 1990, Cooper, 1997, 

1998). The probability of avoidance and 

flight responses should also increase as 

received levels of active sonar increase 

(and the ship is, therefore, closer) and 

as ship speeds increase (that is, as 

approach speeds increase). For example, 

the probability of flight responses in 

Dall’s sheep Ovis dalli dalli (Frid 2001a, 

2001b), ringed seals Phoca hispida 

(Born et al., 1999), Pacific brant (Branta 

bernicl nigricans) and Canada geese (B. 

Canadensis) increased as a helicopter or 

fixed-wing aircraft approached groups 

of these animals more directly (Ward et 

al., 1999). Bald eagles (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus) perched on trees 

alongside a river were also more likely 

to flee from a paddle raft when their 

perches were closer to the river or were 

closer to the ground (Steidl and 

Anthony, 1996). 

Breathing—Variations in respiration 

naturally vary with different behaviors 

and variations in respiration rate as a 

function of acoustic exposure can be 

expected to co-occur with other 

behavioral reactions, such as a flight 

response or an alteration in diving. 

However, respiration rates in and of 

themselves may be representative of 

annoyance or an acute stress response. 

Mean exhalation rates of gray whales at 

rest and while diving were found to be 

unaffected by seismic surveys 

conducted adjacent to the whale feeding 

grounds (Gailey et al., 2007). Studies 

with captive harbor porpoises showed 

increased respiration rates upon 

introduction of acoustic alarms 

(Kastelein et al., 2001; Kastelein et al., 

2006a) and emissions for underwater 

data transmission (Kastelein et al., 

2005). However, exposure of the same 

acoustic alarm to a striped dolphin 

under the same conditions did not elicit 

a response (Kastelein et al., 2006a), 

again highlighting the importance in 

understanding species differences in the 

tolerance of underwater noise when 

determining the potential for impacts 

resulting from anthropogenic sound 

exposure. 

Continued Pre-disturbance Behavior 

and Habituation—Under some 

circumstances, some of the individual 

marine mammals that are exposed to 

active sonar transmissions will continue 

their normal behavioral activities; in 

other circumstances, individual animals 

will become aware of the sonar 

transmissions at lower received levels 

and move to avoid additional exposure 

or exposures at higher received levels 

(Richardson et al., 1995). 

It is difficult to distinguish between 

animals that continue their predisturbance behavior without stress 

responses, animals that continue their 

behavior but experience stress responses 

(that is, animals that cope with 

disturbance), and animals that habituate 

to disturbance (that is, they may have 

experienced low-level stress responses 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53821 

initially, but those responses abated 

over time). Watkins (1986) reviewed 

data on the behavioral reactions of fin, 

humpback, right and minke whales that 

were exposed to continuous, broadband 

low-frequency shipping and industrial 

noise in Cape Cod Bay. He concluded 

that underwater sound was the primary 

cause of behavioral reactions in these 

species of whales and that the whales 

responded behaviorally to acoustic 

stimuli within their respective hearing 

ranges. Watkins also noted that whales 

showed the strongest behavioral 

reactions to sounds in the 15 Hz to 28 

kHz range, although negative reactions 

(avoidance, interruptions in 

vocalizations, etc.) were generally 

associated with sounds that were either 

unexpected, too loud, suddenly louder 

or different, or perceived as being 

associated with a potential threat (such 

as an approaching ship on a collision 

course). In particular, whales seemed to 

react negatively when they were within 

100 m of the source or when received 

levels increased suddenly in excess of 

12 dB relative to ambient sounds. At 

other times, the whales ignored the 

source of the signal and all four species 

habituated to these sounds. 

Nevertheless, Watkins concluded that 

whales ignored most sounds in the 

background of ambient noise, including 

the sounds from distant human 

activities even though these sounds may 

have had considerable energies at 

frequencies well within the whales’ 

range of hearing. Further, he noted that 

of the whales observed, fin whales were 

the most sensitive of the four species, 

followed by humpback whales; right 

whales were the least likely to be 

disturbed and generally did not react to 

low-amplitude engine noise. By the end 

of his period of study, Watkins (1986) 

concluded that fin and humpback 

whales have generally habituated to the 

continuous and broadband noise of 

Cape Cod Bay while right whales did 

not appear to change their response. As 

mentioned above, animals that habituate 

to a particular disturbance may have 

experienced low-level stress responses 

initially, but those responses abated 

over time. In most cases, this likely 

means a lessened immediate potential 

effect from a disturbance; however, 

concern exists where the habituation 

occurs in a potentially more harmful 

situation, for example: animals may 

become more vulnerable to vessel 

strikes once they habituate to vessel 

traffic (Swingle et al., 1993; Wiley et al., 

1995). 

Aicken et al., (2005) monitored the 

behavioral responses of marine 

mammals to a new low-frequency active 

sonar system that was being developed 

for use by the British Navy. During 

those trials, fin whales, sperm whales, 

Sowerby’s beaked whales, long-finned 

pilot whales (Globicephala melas), 

Atlantic white-sided dolphins, and 

common bottlenose dolphins were 

observed and their vocalizations were 

recorded. These monitoring studies 

detected no evidence of behavioral 

responses that the investigators could 

attribute to exposure to the lowfrequency active sonar during these 

trials. 

Behavioral Responses (Southall et al. 

(2007)) 

Southall et al. (2007) reports the 

results of the efforts of a panel of experts 

in acoustic research from behavioral, 

physiological, and physical disciplines 

that convened and reviewed the 

available literature on marine mammal 

hearing and physiological and 

behavioral responses to human-made 

sound with the goal of proposing 

exposure criteria for certain effects. This 

peer-reviewed compilation of literature 

is very valuable, though Southall et al. 

(2007) note that not all data are equal, 

some have poor statistical power, 

insufficient controls, and/or limited 

information on received levels, 

background noise, and other potentially 

important contextual variables—such 

data were reviewed and sometimes used 

for qualitative illustration but were not 

included in the quantitative analysis for 

the criteria recommendations. All of the 

studies considered, however, contain an 

estimate of the received sound level 

when the animal exhibited the indicated 

response. 

In the Southall et al. (2007) 

publication, for the purposes of 

analyzing responses of marine mammals 

to anthropogenic sound and developing 

criteria, the authors differentiate 

between single pulse sounds, multiple 

pulse sounds, and non-pulse sounds. 

MFAS/HFAS is considered a non-pulse 

sound. Southall et al. (2007) summarize 

the studies associated with lowfrequency, mid-frequency, and highfrequency cetacean and pinniped 

responses to non-pulse sounds, based 

strictly on received level, in Appendix 

C of their article (incorporated by 

reference and summarized in the three 

paragraphs below). 

The studies that address responses of 

low frequency cetaceans to non-pulse 

sounds include data gathered in the 

field and related to several types of 

sound sources (of varying similarity to 

MFAS/HFAS) including: vessel noise, 

drilling and machinery playback, lowfrequency M-sequences (sine wave with 

multiple phase reversals) playback, 

tactical low-frequency active sonar 

playback, drill ships, Acoustic 

Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC) 

source, and non-pulse playbacks. These 

studies generally indicate no (or very 

limited) responses to received levels in 

the 90 to 120 dB re: 1 μPa range and an 

increasing likelihood of avoidance and 

other behavioral effects in the 120 to 

160 dB range. As mentioned earlier, 

though, contextual variables play a very 

important role in the reported responses 

and the severity of effects are not linear 

when compared to received level. Also, 

few of the laboratory or field datasets 

had common conditions, behavioral 

contexts or sound sources, so it is not 

surprising that responses differ. 

The studies that address responses of 

mid-frequency cetaceans to non-pulse 

sounds include data gathered both in 

the field and the laboratory and related 

to several different sound sources (of 

varying similarity to MFAS/HFAS) 

including: pingers, drilling playbacks, 

ship and ice-breaking noise, vessel 

noise, Acoustic Harassment Devices 

(AHDs), Acoustic Deterrent Devices 

(ADDs), MFAS, and non-pulse bands 

and tones. Southall et al. (2007) were 

unable to come to a clear conclusion 

regarding the results of these studies. In 

some cases, animals in the field showed 

significant responses to received levels 

between 90 and 120 dB, while in other 

cases these responses were not seen in 

the 120 to 150 dB range. The disparity 

in results was likely due to contextual 

variation and the differences between 

the results in the field and laboratory 

data (animals typically responded at 

lower levels in the field). 

The studies that address responses of 

high frequency cetaceans to non-pulse 

sounds include data gathered both in 

the field and the laboratory and related 

to several different sound sources (of 

varying similarity to MFAS/HFAS) 

including: pingers, AHDs, and various 

laboratory non-pulse sounds. All of 

these data were collected from harbor 

porpoises. Southall et al. (2007) 

concluded that the existing data 

indicate that harbor porpoises are likely 

sensitive to a wide range of 

anthropogenic sounds at low received 

levels (∼90–120 dB), at least for initial 

exposures. All recorded exposures 

above 140 dB induced profound and 

sustained avoidance behavior in wild 

harbor porpoises (Southall et al., 2007). 

Rapid habituation was noted in some 

but not all studies. There is no data to 

indicate whether other high frequency 

cetaceans are as sensitive to 

anthropogenic sound as harbor 

porpoises are. 

The studies that address the responses 

of pinnipeds in water to non-pulse 

sounds include data gathered both in 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53822 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

the field and the laboratory and related 

to several different sound sources (of 

varying similarity to MFAS/HFAS) 

including: AHDs, ATOC, various nonpulse sounds used in underwater data 

communication; underwater drilling, 

and construction noise. Few studies 

exist with enough information to 

include them in the analysis. The 

limited data suggested that exposures to 

non-pulse sounds between 90 and 140 

dB generally do not result in strong 

behavioral responses in pinnipeds in 

water, but no data exist at higher 

received levels. 

In addition to summarizing the 

available data, the authors of Southall et 

al. (2007) developed a severity scaling 

system with the intent of ultimately 

being able to assign some level of 

biological significance to a response. 

Following is a summary of their scoring 

system; a comprehensive list of the 

behaviors associated with each score 

may be found in the report: 

• 0–3 (Minor and/or brief behaviors) 

includes, but is not limited to: no 

response; minor changes in speed or 

locomotion (but with no avoidance); 

individual alert behavior; minor 

cessation in vocal behavior; minor 

changes in response to trained 

behaviors (in laboratory) 

• 4–6 (Behaviors with higher potential 

to affect foraging, reproduction, or 

survival) includes, but is not limited 

to: moderate changes in speed, 

direction, or dive profile; brief shift in 

group distribution; prolonged 

cessation or modification of vocal 

behavior (duration > duration of 

sound), minor or moderate individual 

and/or group avoidance of sound; 

brief cessation of reproductive 

behavior; or refusal to initiate trained 

tasks (in laboratory) 

• 7–9 (Behaviors considered likely to 

affect the aforementioned vital rates) 

includes, but is not limited to: 

extensive or prolonged aggressive 

behavior; moderate, prolonged or 

significant separation of females and 

dependent offspring with disruption 

of acoustic reunion mechanisms; 

long-term avoidance of an area; 

outright panic, stampede, stranding; 

threatening or attacking sound source 

(in laboratory) 

In Table 6 we have summarized the 

scores that Southall et al. (2007) 

assigned to the papers that reported 

behavioral responses of low-frequency 

cetaceans, mid-frequency cetaceans, and 

pinnipeds in water to non-pulse sounds. 

This table is included simply to 

summarize the findings of the studies 

and opportunistic observations (all of 

which were capable of estimating 

received level) that Southall et al. (2007) 

compiled in the effort to develop 

acoustic criteria. 

Potential Effects of Behavioral 

Disturbance 

The different ways that marine 

mammals respond to sound are 

sometimes indicators of the ultimate 

effect that exposure to a given stimulus 

will have on the well-being (survival, 

reproduction, etc.) of an animal. There 

are little quantitative marine mammal 

data relating the exposure of marine 

mammals to sound to effects on 

reproduction or survival, though data 

exist for terrestrial species to which we 

can draw comparisons for marine 

mammals. Several authors have 

reported that disturbance stimuli cause 

animals to abandon nesting and foraging 

sites (Sutherland and Crockford, 1993), 

cause animals to increase their activity 

levels and suffer premature deaths or 

reduced reproductive success when 

their energy expenditures exceed their 

energy budgets (Daan et al., 1996, Feare 

1976, Giese 1996, Mullner et al., 2004, 

Waunters et al., 1997), or cause animals 

to experience higher predation rates 

when they adopt risk-prone foraging or 

migratory strategies (Frid and Dill, 

2002). Each of these studies addressed 

the consequences that result when 

animals shift from one behavioral state 

(for example, resting or foraging) to 

another behavioral state (avoidance or 

escape behavior) because of human 

disturbance or disturbance stimuli. 

One consequence of behavioral 

avoidance results from changing the 

energetics of marine mammals because 

of the energy required to avoid surface 

vessels or the sound field associated 

with active sonar (Frid and Dill, 2002). 

Most animals can avoid that energetic 

cost by swimming away at slow speeds 

or those speeds that are at or near the 

minimum cost of transport (MiksisOlds, 2006), as has been demonstrated 

in Florida manatees (Hartman, 1979, 

Miksis-Olds, 2006). 

Those costs increase, however, when 

animals shift from a resting state, which 

is designed to conserve an animal’s 

energy, to an active state that consumes 

energy the animal would have 

conserved had it not been disturbed. 

Marine mammals that have been 

disturbed by anthropogenic noise and 

vessel approaches are commonly 

reported to shift from resting behavioral 

states to active behavioral states, which 

would imply that they incur an energy 

cost. Morete et al., (2007) reported that 

undisturbed humpback whale cows that 

were accompanied by their calves were 

frequently observed resting while their 

calves circled them (milling) and rolling 

interspersed with dives. When vessels 

approached, the amount of time cows 

and calves spent resting and milling, 

respectively declined significantly. 

These results are similar to those 

reported by Scheidat et al. (2004) for the 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP20OC09.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53823 

humpback whales they observed off the 

coast of Ecuador. 

Constantine and Brunton (2001) 

reported that bottlenose dolphins in the 

Bay of Islands, New Zealand only 

engaged in resting behavior 5% of the 

time when vessels were within 300 

meters compared with 83% of the time 

when vessels were not present. MiksisOlds (2006) and Miksis-Olds et al. 

(2005) reported that Florida manatees in 

Sarasota Bay, Florida, reduced the 

amount of time they spent milling and 

increased the amount of time they spent 

feeding when background noise levels 

increased. Although the acute costs of 

these changes in behavior are not likely 

to exceed an animal’s ability to 

compensate, the chronic costs of these 

behavioral shifts are uncertain. 

Attention is the cognitive process of 

selectively concentrating on one aspect 

of an animal’s environment while 

ignoring other things (Posner, 1994). 

Because animals (including humans) 

have limited cognitive resources, there 

is a limit to how much sensory 

information they can process at any 

time. The phenomenon called 

‘‘attentional capture’’ occurs when a 

stimulus (usually a stimulus that an 

animal is not concentrating on or 

attending to) ‘‘captures’’ an animal’s 

attention. This shift in attention can 

occur consciously or unconsciously (for 

example, when an animal hears sounds 

that it associates with the approach of 

a predator) and the shift in attention can 

be sudden (Dukas, 2002; van Rij, 2007). 

Once a stimulus has captured an 

animal’s attention, the animal can 

respond by ignoring the stimulus, 

assuming a ‘‘watch and wait’’ posture, 

or treat the stimulus as a disturbance 

and respond accordingly, which 

includes scanning for the source of the 

stimulus or ‘‘vigilance’’ (Cowlishaw et 

al., 2004). 

Vigilance is normally an adaptive 

behavior that helps animals determine 

the presence or absence of predators, 

assess their distance from conspecifics, 

or to attend cues from prey (Bednekoff 

and Lima, 1998; Treves, 2000). Despite 

those benefits, however, vigilance has a 

cost of time: when animals focus their 

attention on specific environmental 

cues, they are not attending to other 

activities such a foraging. These costs 

have been documented best in foraging 

animals, where vigilance has been 

shown to substantially reduce feeding 

rates (Saino, 1994; Beauchamp and 

Livoreil, 1997; Fritz et al., 2002). 

Animals will spend more time being 

vigilant, which may translate to less 

time foraging or resting, when 

disturbance stimuli approach them 

more directly, remain at closer 

distances, have a greater group size (for 

example, multiple surface vessels), or 

when they co-occur with times that an 

animal perceives increased risk (for 

example, when they are giving birth or 

accompanied by a calf). Most of the 

published literature, however, suggests 

that direct approaches will increase the 

amount of time animals will dedicate to 

being vigilant. For example, bighorn 

sheep and Dall’s sheep dedicated more 

time to being vigilant, and less time 

resting or foraging, when aircraft made 

direct approaches over them (Frid, 2001; 

Stockwell et al., 1991). 

Several authors have established that 

long-term and intense disturbance 

stimuli can cause population declines 

by reducing the body condition of 

individuals that have been disturbed, 

followed by reduced reproductive 

success, reduced survival, or both (Daan 

et al., 1996; Madsen, 1994; White, 

1983). For example, Madsen (1994) 

reported that pink-footed geese (Anser 

brachyrhynchus) in undisturbed habitat 

gained body mass and had about a 46% 

reproductive success rate compared 

with geese in disturbed habitat (being 

consistently scared off the fields on 

which they were foraging) which did 

not gain mass and had a 17% 

reproductive success rate. Similar 

reductions in reproductive success have 

been reported for mule deer (Odocoileus 

hemionus) disturbed by all-terrain 

vehicles (Yarmoloy et al., 1988), caribou 

disturbed by seismic exploration blasts 

(Bradshaw et al., 1998), caribou 

disturbed by low-elevation military jetfights (Luick et al., 1996), and caribou 

disturbed by low-elevation jet flights 

(Harrington and Veitch, 1992). 

Similarly, a study of elk (Cervus 

elaphus) that were disturbed 

experimentally by pedestrians 

concluded that the ratio of young to 

mothers was inversely related to 

disturbance rate (Phillips and 

Alldredge, 2000). 

The primary mechanism by which 

increased vigilance and disturbance 

appear to affect the fitness of individual 

animals is by disrupting an animal’s 

time budget and, as a result, reducing 

the time they might spend foraging and 

resting (which increases an animal’s 

activity rate and energy demand). For 

example, a study of grizzly bears (Ursus 

horribilis) reported that bears disturbed 

by hikers reduced their energy intake by 

an average of 12 kcal/min (50.2 × 103 kJ/ 

min), and spent energy fleeing or acting 

aggressively toward hikers (White et al., 

1999). Alternately, Ridgway et al., 

(2006) reported that increased vigilance 

in bottlenose dolphins exposed to sound 

over a five day period did not cause any 

sleep deprivation or stress effects such 

as changes in cortisol or epinephrine 

levels. 

On a related note, many animals 

perform vital functions, such as feeding, 

resting, traveling, and socializing, on a 

diel cycle (24-hr cycle). Behavioral 

reactions to noise exposure (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 particularly severe unless it 

could directly affect reproduction or 

survival (Southall et al., 2007). 

Stranding and Mortality 

When a live or dead marine mammal 

swims or floats onto shore and becomes 

‘‘beached’’ or incapable of returning to 

sea, the event is termed a ‘‘stranding’’ 

(Geraci et al., 1999; Perrin and Geraci, 

2002; Geraci and Lounsbury, 2005; 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

2007p). The legal definition for a 

stranding within the United States is 

that (A) ‘‘a marine mammal is dead and 

is (i) on a beach or shore of the United 

States; or (ii) in waters under the 

jurisdiction of the United States 

(including any navigable waters); or (B) 

a marine mammal is alive and is (i) on 

a beach or shore of the United States 

and is unable to return to the water; (ii) 

on a beach or shore of the United States 

and, although able to return to the 

water, is in need of apparent medical 

attention; or (iii) in the waters under the 

jurisdiction of the United States 

(including any navigable waters), but is 

unable to return to its natural habitat 

under its own power or without 

assistance.’’ (16 U.S.C. 1421h). 

Marine mammals are known to strand 

for a variety of reasons, such as 

infectious agents, biotoxicosis, 

starvation, fishery interaction, ship 

strike, unusual oceanographic or 

weather events, sound exposure, or 

combinations of these stressors 

sustained concurrently or in series. 

However, the cause or causes of most 

strandings are unknown (Geraci et al., 

1976; Eaton, 1979, Odell et al., 1980; 

Best, 1982). Numerous studies suggest 

that the physiology, behavior, habitat 

relationships, age, or condition of 

cetaceans may cause them to strand or 

might pre-dispose them to strand when 

exposed to another phenomenon. These 

suggestions are consistent with the 

conclusions of numerous other studies 

that have demonstrated that 

combinations of dissimilar stressors 

commonly combine to kill an animal or 

dramatically reduce its fitness, even 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53824 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

though one exposure without the other 

does not produce the same result 

(Chroussos, 2000; Creel, 2005; DeVries 

et al., 2003; Fair and Becker, 2000; Foley 

et al., 2001; Moberg, 2000; Relyea, 

2005a, 2005b; Romero, 2004; Sih et al., 

2004). 

Several sources have published lists 

of mass stranding events of cetaceans in 

an attempt to identify relationships 

between those stranding events and 

military active sonar (Hildebrand, 2004; 

IWC, 2005; Taylor et al., 2004). For 

example, based on a review of stranding 

records between 1960 and 1995, the 

International Whaling Commission 

(2005) identified ten mass stranding 

events of Cuvier’s beaked whales that 

had been reported and one mass 

stranding of four Baird’s beaked whales 

(Berardius bairdii). The IWC concluded 

that, out of eight stranding events 

reported from the mid-1980s to the 

summer of 2003, seven had been 

coincident with the use of MFAS, one 

of those seven had been associated with 

the use of tactical low-frequency sonar, 

and the remaining stranding event had 

been associated with the use of seismic 

airguns. 

Most of the stranding events reviewed 

by the IWC involved beaked whales. A 

mass stranding of Cuvier’s beaked 

whales in the eastern Mediterranean Sea 

occurred in 1996 (Franzis, 1998) and 

mass stranding events involving 

Gervais’ beaked whales, Blainville’s 

beaked whales, and Cuvier’s beaked 

whales occurred off the coast of the 

Canary Islands in the late 1980s 

(Simmonds and Lopez-Jurado, 1991). 

The stranding events that occurred in 

the Canary Islands and Kyparissiakos 

Gulf in the late 1990s and the Bahamas 

in 2000 have been the most intensivelystudied mass stranding events and have 

been associated with naval exercises 

involving the use of MFAS. 

Strandings Associated With MFAS 

Over the past 12 years, there have 

been five stranding events coincident 

with military mid-frequency active 

sonar use in which exposure to sonar is 

believed by NMFS and the Navy to have 

been a contributing factor: Greece 

(1996); the Bahamas (2000); Madeira 

(2000); Canary Islands (2002); and Spain 

(2006). Additionally, in 2004, during the 

RIMPAC exercises, between 150–200 

usually pelagic melon-headed whales 

occupied the shallow waters of the 

Hanalei Bay, Kaua’i, Hawaii for over 28 

hours. NMFS determined that the midfrequency sonar was a plausible, if not 

likely, contributing factor in what may 

have been a confluence of events that 

led to the Hanalei Bay stranding. A 

number of other stranding events 

coincident with the operation of MFAS 

including the death of beaked whales or 

other species (Minke whales, dwarf 

sperm whales, pilot whales) have been 

reported; however, the majority have 

not been investigated to the degree 

necessary to determine the cause of the 

stranding and only one of these 

exercises was conducted by the U.S. 

Navy. 

Greece (1996) 

Twelve Cuvier’s beaked whales 

stranded atypically (in both time and 

space) along a 38.2-kilometer strand of 

the coast of the Kyparissiakos Gulf on 

May 12 and 13, 1996 (Frantzis, 1998). 

From May 11 through May 15, the 

NATO research vessel Alliance was 

conducting active sonar tests with 

signals of 600 Hz and 3 kHz and source 

levels of 228 and 226 dB re: 1μPa, 

respectively (D’Amico and Verboom, 

1998; D’Spain et al., 2006). The timing 

and the location of the testing 

encompassed the time and location of 

the whale strandings (Frantzis, 1998). 

Necropsies of eight of the animals 

were performed but were limited to 

basic external examination and 

sampling of stomach contents, blood, 

and skin. No ears or organs were 

collected, and no histological samples 

were preserved. No apparent 

abnormalities or wounds were found 

(Frantzis, 2004). Examination of photos 

of the animals, taken soon after their 

death, revealed that the eyes of at least 

four of the individuals were bleeding. 

Photos were taken soon after their death 

(Frantzis, 2004). Stomach contents 

contained the flesh of cephalopods, 

indicating that feeding had recently 

taken place (Frantzis, 1998). 

All available information regarding 

the conditions associated with this 

stranding event were compiled, and 

many potential causes were examined 

including major pollution events, 

prominent tectonic activity, unusual 

physical or meteorological events, 

magnetic anomalies, epizootics, and 

conventional military activities 

(International Council for the 

Exploration of the Sea, 2005a). 

However, none of these potential causes 

coincided in time or space with the 

mass stranding, or could explain its 

characteristics (International Council for 

the Exploration of the Sea, 2005a). The 

robust condition of the animals, plus the 

recent stomach contents, is inconsistent 

with pathogenic causes (Frantzis, 2004). 

In addition, environmental causes can 

be ruled out as there were no unusual 

environmental circumstances or events 

before or during this time period and 

within the general proximity (Frantzis, 

2004). 

Because of the rarity of this mass 

stranding of Cuvier’s beaked whales in 

the Kyparissiakos Gulf (first one in 

history), the probability for the two 

events (the military exercises and the 

strandings) to coincide in time and 

location, while being independent of 

each other, was thought to be extremely 

low (Frantzis, 1998). However, because 

full necropsies had not been conducted, 

and no abnormalities were noted, the 

cause of the strandings could not be 

precisely determined (Cox et al., 2006). 

A Bioacoustics Panel convened by 

NATO concluded that the evidence 

available did not allow them to accept 

or reject sonar exposures as a causal 

agent in these stranding events. Their 

official finding was ‘‘An acoustic link 

can neither be clearly established, nor 

eliminated as a direct or indirect cause 

for the May 1996 strandings.’’ The 

analysis of this stranding event 

provided support for, but no clear 

evidence for, the cause-and-effect 

relationship of active sonar training 

activities and beaked whale strandings 

(Cox et al., 2006). 

Bahamas (2000) 

NMFS and the Navy prepared a joint 

report addressing the multi-species 

stranding in the Bahamas in 2000, 

which took place within 24 hours of 

U.S. Navy ships using MFAS as they 

passed through the Northeast and 

Northwest Providence Channels on 

March 15–16, 2000. The ships, which 

operated both AN/SQS–53C and AN/ 

SQS–56, moved through the channel 

while emitting MFAS pings 

approximately every 24 seconds. Of the 

17 cetaceans that stranded over a 36-hr 

period (Cuvier’s beaked whales, 

Blainville’s beaked whales, Minke 

whales, and a spotted dolphin), seven 

animals died on the beach (5 Cuvier’s 

beaked whales, 1 Blainville’s beaked 

whale, and the spotted dolphin), while 

the other 10 were returned to the water 

alive (though their ultimate fate is 

unknown). As discussed in the Bahamas 

report (DOC/DON, 2001), there is no 

likely association between the Minke 

whale and spotted dolphin strandings 

and the operation of MFAS. 

Necropsies were performed on five of 

the stranded beaked whales. All five 

necropsied beaked whales were in good 

body condition, showing no signs of 

infection, disease, ship strike, blunt 

trauma, or fishery related injuries, and 

three still had food remains in their 

stomachs. Auditory structural damage 

was discovered in four of the whales, 

specifically bloody effusions or 

hemorrhaging around the ears. Bilateral 

intracochlear and unilateral temporal 

region subarachnoid hemorrhage, with 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53825 

blood clots in the lateral ventricles, 

were found in two of the whales. Three 

of the whales had small hemorrhages in 

their acoustic fats (located along the jaw 

and in the melon). 

A comprehensive investigation was 

conducted and all possible causes of the 

stranding event were considered, 

whether they seemed likely at the outset 

or not. Based on the way in which the 

strandings coincided with ongoing 

naval activity involving tactical MFAS 

use, in terms of both time and 

geography, the nature of the 

physiological effects experienced by the 

dead animals, and the absence of any 

other acoustic sources, the investigation 

team concluded that MFAS aboard U.S. 

Navy ships that were in use during the 

active sonar exercise in question were 

the most plausible source of this 

acoustic or impulse trauma to beaked 

whales. This sound source was active in 

a complex environment that included 

the presence of a surface duct, unusual 

and steep bathymetry, a constricted 

channel with limited egress, intensive 

use of multiple, active sonar units over 

an extended period of time, and the 

presence of beaked whales that appear 

to be sensitive to the frequencies 

produced by these active sonars. The 

investigation team concluded that the 

cause of this stranding event was the 

confluence of the Navy MFAS and these 

contributory factors working together, 

and further recommended that the Navy 

avoid operating MFAS in situations 

where these five factors would be likely 

to occur. This report does not conclude 

that all five of these factors must be 

present for a stranding to occur, nor that 

beaked whales are the only species that 

could potentially be affected by the 

confluence of the other factors. Based on 

this, NMFS believes that the operation 

of MFAS in situations where surface 

ducts exist, or in marine environments 

defined by steep bathymetry and/or 

constricted channels may increase the 

likelihood of producing a sound field 

with the potential to cause cetaceans 

(especially beaked whales) to strand, 

and therefore, suggests the need for 

increased vigilance while operating 

MFAS in these areas, especially when 

beaked whales (or potentially other 

deep divers) are likely present. 

Madeira, Spain (2000) 

From May 10–14, 2000, three Cuvier’s 

beaked whales were found atypically 

stranded on two islands in the Madeira 

archipelago, Portugal (Cox et al., 2006). 

A fourth animal was reported floating in 

the Madeiran waters by fishermen but 

did not come ashore (Woods Hole 

Oceanographic Institution, 2005). Joint 

NATO amphibious training 

peacekeeping exercises involving 

participants from 17 countries aboard 80 

warships, took place in Portugal during 

May 2–15, 2000. 

The bodies of the three stranded 

whales were examined post mortem 

(Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 

2005), though only one of the stranded 

whales was fresh enough (24 hours after 

stranding) to be necropsied (Cox et al., 

2006). Results from the necropsy 

revealed evidence of hemorrhage and 

congestion in the right lung and both 

kidneys (Cox et al., 2006). There was 

also evidence of intercochlear and 

intracranial hemorrhage similar to that 

which was observed in the whales that 

stranded in the Bahamas event (Cox et 

al., 2006). There were no signs of blunt 

trauma, and no major fractures (Woods 

Hole Oceanographic Institution, 2005). 

The cranial sinuses and airways were 

found to be clear with little or no fluid 

deposition, which may indicate good 

preservation of tissues (Woods Hole 

Oceanographic Institution, 2005). 

Several observations on the Madeira 

stranded beaked whales, such as the 

pattern of injury to the auditory system, 

are the same as those observed in the 

Bahamas strandings. Blood in and 

around the eyes, kidney lesions, pleural 

hemorrhages, and congestion in the 

lungs are particularly consistent with 

the pathologies from the whales 

stranded in the Bahamas, and are 

consistent with stress and pressure 

related trauma. The similarities in 

pathology and stranding patterns 

between these two events suggest that a 

similar pressure event may have 

precipitated or contributed to the 

strandings at both sites (Woods Hole 

Oceanographic Institution, 2005). 

Even though no definitive causal link 

can be made between the stranding 

event and naval exercises, certain 

conditions may have existed in the 

exercise area that, in their aggregate, 

may have contributed to the marine 

mammal strandings (Freitas, 2004): 

Exercises were conducted in areas of at 

least 547 fathoms (1000 m) depth near 

a shoreline where there is a rapid 

change in bathymetry on the order of 

547 to 3,281 (1000–6000 m) fathoms 

occurring across a relatively short 

horizontal distance (Freitas, 2004); 

multiple ships were operating around 

Madeira, though it is not known if 

MFAS was used, and the specifics of the 

sound sources used are unknown (Cox 

et al., 2006, Freitas, 2004); exercises 

took place in an area surrounded by 

land masses separated by less than 35 

nm (65 km) and at least 10 nm (19 km) 

in length, or in an embayment. Exercises 

involving multiple ships employing 

MFAS near land may produce sound 

directed towards a channel or 

embayment that may cut off the lines of 

egress for marine mammals (Freitas, 

2004). 

Canary Islands, Spain (2002) 

The southeastern area within the 

Canary Islands is well known for 

aggregations of beaked whales due to its 

ocean depths of greater than 547 

fathoms (1000 m) within a few hundred 

meters of the coastline (Fernandez et al., 

2005). On September 24, 2002, 14 

beaked whales were found stranded on 

Fuerteventura and Lanzarote Islands in 

the Canary Islands (International 

Council for Exploration of the Sea, 

2005a). Seven whales died, while the 

remaining seven live whales were 

returned to deeper waters (Fernandez et 

al., 2005). Four beaked whales were 

found stranded dead over the next 3 

days either on the coast or floating 

offshore. These strandings occurred 

within near proximity of an 

international naval exercise that utilized 

MFAS and involved numerous surface 

warships and several submarines. 

Strandings began about 4 hours after the 

onset of MFAS activity (International 

Council for Exploration of the Sea, 

2005a; Fernandez et al., 2005). 

Eight Cuvier’s beaked whales, one 

Blainville’s beaked whale, and one 

Gervais’ beaked whale were necropsied, 

six of them within 12 hours of stranding 

(Fernandez et al., 2005). No pathogenic 

bacteria were isolated from the carcasses 

(Jepson et al., 2003). The animals 

displayed severe vascular congestion 

and hemorrhage especially around the 

tissues in the jaw, ears, brain, and 

kidneys, displaying marked 

disseminated microvascular 

hemorrhages associated with 

widespread fat emboli (Jepson et al., 

2003; International Council for 

Exploration of the Sea, 2005a). Several 

organs contained intravascular bubbles, 

although definitive evidence of gas 

embolism in vivo is difficult to 

determine after death (Jepson et al., 

2003). The livers of the necropsied 

animals were the most consistently 

affected organ, which contained 

macroscopic gas-filled cavities and had 

variable degrees of fibrotic 

encapsulation. In some animals, 

cavitary lesions had extensively 

replaced the normal tissue (Jepson et al., 

2003). Stomachs contained a large 

amount of fresh and undigested 

contents, suggesting a rapid onset of 

disease and death (Fernandez et al., 

2005). Head and neck lymph nodes 

were enlarged and congested, and 

parasites were found in the kidneys of 

all animals (Fernandez et al., 2005). 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53826 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

The association of NATO MFAS use 

close in space and time to the beaked 

whale strandings, and the similarity 

between this stranding event and 

previous beaked whale mass strandings 

coincident with active sonar use, 

suggests that a similar scenario and 

causative mechanism of stranding may 

be shared between the events. Beaked 

whales stranded in this event 

demonstrated brain and auditory system 

injuries, hemorrhages, and congestion in 

multiple organs, similar to the 

pathological findings of the Bahamas 

and Madeira stranding events. In 

addition, the necropsy results of Canary 

Islands stranding event lead to the 

hypothesis that the presence of 

disseminated and widespread gas 

bubbles and fat emboli were indicative 

of nitrogen bubble formation, similar to 

what might be expected in 

decompression sickness (Jepson et al., 

2003; Ferna ́ndez et al., 2005). 

Spain (2006) 

The Spanish Cetacean Society 

reported an atypical mass stranding of 

four beaked whales that occurred 

January 26, 2006, on the southeast coast 

of Spain, near Mojacar (Gulf of Vera) in 

the Western Mediterranean Sea. 

According to the report, two of the 

whales were discovered the evening of 

January 26 and were found to be still 

alive. Two other whales were 

discovered during the day on January 

27, but had already died. The fourth 

animal was found dead on the afternoon 

of January 27, a few kilometers north of 

the first three animals. From January 

25–26, 2006, Standing North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization (NATO) Response 

Force Maritime Group Two (five of 

seven ships including one U.S. ship 

under NATO Operational Control) had 

conducted active sonar training against 

a Spanish submarine within 50 nm (93 

km) of the stranding site. 

Veterinary pathologists necropsied 

the two male and two female Cuvier’s 

beaked whales. According to the 

pathologists, the most likely primary 

cause of this type of beaked whale mass 

stranding event was anthropogenic 

acoustic activities, most probably antisubmarine MFAS used during the 

military naval exercises. However, no 

positive acoustic link was established as 

a direct cause of the stranding. Even 

though no causal link can be made 

between the stranding event and naval 

exercises, certain conditions may have 

existed in the exercise area that, in their 

aggregate, may have contributed to the 

marine mammal strandings (Freitas, 

2004); exercises were conducted in 

areas of at least 547 fathoms (1000 m) 

depth near a shoreline where there is a 

rapid change in bathymetry on the order 

of 547 to 3,281 fathoms (1000–6000 m) 

occurring across a relatively short 

horizontal distance (Freitas, 2004); 

multiple ships (in this instance, five) 

were operating MFAS in the same area 

over extended periods of time (in this 

case, 20 hours) in close proximity; 

exercises took place in an area 

surrounded by landmasses, or in an 

embayment. Exercises involving 

multiple ships employing MFAS near 

land may have produced sound directed 

towards a channel or embayment that 

may have cut off the lines of egress for 

the affected marine mammals (Freitas, 

2004). 

Hanalei Bay (2004) 

On July 3–4, 2004, approximately 

150–200 melon-headed whales 

occupied the shallow waters of the 

Hanalei Bay, Kaua’i, Hawaii for over 28 

hours. Attendees of a canoe blessing 

observed the animals entering the Bay 

in a single wave formation at 7 a.m. on 

July 3, 2004. The animals were observed 

moving back into the shore from the 

mouth of the Bay at 9 a.m. The usually 

pelagic animals milled in the shallow 

bay and were returned to deeper water 

with human assistance beginning at 9:30 

a.m. on July 4, 2004, and were out of 

sight by 10:30 a.m. 

Only one animal, a calf, was known 

to have died following this event. The 

animal was noted alive and alone in the 

Bay on the afternoon of July 4, 2004 and 

was found dead in the Bay the morning 

of July 5, 2004. A full necropsy, 

magnetic resonance imaging, and 

computerized tomography examination 

were performed on the calf to determine 

the manner and cause of death. The 

combination of imaging, necropsy and 

histological analyses found no evidence 

of infectious, internal traumatic, 

congenital, or toxic factors. Although 

cause of death could not be definitively 

determined, it is likely that maternal 

separation, poor nutritional condition, 

and dehydration contributed to the final 

demise of the animal. Although we do 

not know when the calf was separated 

from its mother, the movement into the 

Bay, the milling and re-grouping may 

have contributed to the separation or 

lack of nursing especially if the 

maternal bond was weak or this was a 

primiparous calf. 

Environmental factors, abiotic and 

biotic, were analyzed for any anomalous 

occurrences that would have 

contributed to the animals entering and 

remaining in Hanalei Bay. The Bay’s 

bathymetry is similar to many other 

sites within the Hawaiian Island chain 

and dissimilar to sites that have been 

associated with mass strandings in other 

parts of the United States. The weather 

conditions appeared to be normal for 

that time of year with no fronts or other 

significant features noted. There was no 

evidence of unusual distribution or 

occurrence of predator or prey species, 

or unusual harmful algal blooms, 

although Mobley et al., 2007 suggested 

that the full moon cycle that occurred at 

that time may have influenced a run of 

squid into the Bay Weather patterns and 

bathymetry that have been associated 

with mass strandings elsewhere were 

not found to occur in this instance. 

The Hanalei event was spatially and 

temporally correlated with RIMPAC. 

Official sonar training and tracking 

exercises in the Pacific Missile Range 

Facility (PMRF) warning area did not 

commence until approximately 8 a.m. 

on July 3 and were thus ruled out as a 

possible trigger for the initial movement 

into the Bay. 

However, six naval surface vessels 

transiting to the operational area on July 

2 intermittently transmitted active sonar 

(for approximately 9 hours total from 

1:15 p.m. to 12:30 a.m.) as they 

approached from the south. The 

potential for these transmissions to have 

triggered the whales’ movement into 

Hanalei Bay was investigated. Analyses 

with the information available indicated 

that animals to the south and east of 

Kaua’i could have detected active sonar 

transmissions on July 2, and reached 

Hanalei Bay on or before 7 a.m. on July 

3, 2004. However, data limitations 

regarding the position of the whales 

prior to their arrival in the Bay, the 

magnitude of sonar exposure, behavioral 

responses of melon-headed whales to 

acoustic stimuli, and other possible 

relevant factors preclude a conclusive 

finding regarding the role of sonar in 

triggering this event. Propagation 

modeling suggest that transmissions 

from sonar use during the July 3 

exercise in the PMRF warning area may 

have been detectable at the mouth of the 

Bay. If the animals responded negatively 

to these signals, it may have contributed 

to their continued presence in the Bay. 

The U.S. Navy ceased all active sonar 

transmissions during exercises in this 

range on the afternoon of July 3, 2004. 

Subsequent to the cessation of sonar 

use, the animals were herded out of the 

Bay. 

While causation of this stranding 

event may never be unequivocally 

determined, we consider the active 

sonar transmissions of July 2–3, 2004, a 

plausible, if not likely, contributing 

factor in what may have been a 

confluence of events. This conclusion is 

based on: (1) The evidently anomalous 

nature of the stranding; (2) its close 

spatiotemporal correlation with wideVerDate Nov<24>2008 14:42 Oct 19, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20OCP2.SGM 20OCP2

cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53827 

scale, sustained use of sonar systems 

previously associated with stranding of 

deep-diving marine mammals; (3) the 

directed movement of two groups of 

transmitting vessels toward the 

southeast and southwest coast of Kauai; 

(4) the results of acoustic propagation 

modeling and an analysis of possible 

animal transit times to the Bay; and (5) 

the absence of any other compelling 

causative explanation. The initiation 

and persistence of this event may have 

resulted from an interaction of 

biological and physical factors. The 

biological factors may have included the 

presence of an apparently uncommon, 

deep-diving cetacean species (and 

possibly an offshore, non-resident 

group), social interactions among the 

animals before or after they entered the 

Bay, and/or unknown predator or prey 

conditions. The physical factors may 

have included the presence of nearby 

deep water, multiple vessels transiting 

in a directed manner while transmitting 

active sonar over a sustained period, the 

presence of surface sound ducting 

conditions, and/or intermittent and 

random human interactions while the 

animals were in the Bay. 

A separate event involving melonheaded whales and rough-toothed 

dolphins took place over the same 

period of time in the Northern Mariana 

Islands (Jefferson et al., 2006), which is 

several thousand miles from Hawaii. 

Some 500–700 melon-headed whales 

came into Sasanhaya Bay on 4 July 2004 

on the island of Rota and then left of 

their own accord after 5.5 hours; no 

known active sonar transmissions 

occurred in the vicinity of that event. 

The Rota incident led to scientific 

debate regarding what, if any, 

relationship the event had to the 

simultaneous events in Hawaii and 

whether they might be related by some 

common factor (e.g., there was a full 

moon on July 2, 2004 as well as during 

other melon-headed whale strandings 

and nearshore aggregations (Brownell et 

al. 2009; Lignon, et al. 2007; Mobley et 

al. 2007). Brownell et al., (2009) 

compared the two incidents, along with 

one other stranding incident at Nuka 

Hiva in French Polynesia and normal 

resting behaviors observed at Palmyra 

Island, in regard to physical features in 

the areas, melon-headed whale 

behavior, and lunar cycles. Brownell et 

al., (2009) concluded that the rapid 

entry of the whales into Hanalei Bay, 

their movement into very shallow water 

far from the 100-m contour, their 

milling behavior (typical pre-stranding 

behavior), and their reluctance to leave 

the bay constituted an unusual event 

that was not similar to the events that 

occurred at Rota (but was similar to the 

events at Palmyra), which appear to be 

similar to observations of melon-headed 

whales resting normally at Palmyra 

Island. Additionally, there was not a 

correlation between lunar cycle and the 

types of behaviors observed in the 

Brownell et al., (2009) examples. 

Association Between Mass Stranding 

Events and Exposure to MFAS 

Several authors have noted 

similarities between some of these 

stranding incidents: they occurred in 

islands or archipelagoes with deep 

water nearby, several appeared to have 

been associated with acoustic 

waveguides like surface ducting, and 

the sound fields created by ships 

transmitting MFAS (Cox et al., 2006, 

D’Spain et al., 2006). Although Cuvier’s 

beaked whales have been the most 

common species involved in these 

stranding events (81% of the total 

number of stranded animals), other 

beaked whales (including Mesoplodon 

europeaus, M. densirostris, and 

Hyperoodon ampullatus) comprise 14% 

of the total. Other species, such as Kogia 

breviceps, have stranded in association 

with the operation of MFAS, but in 

much lower numbers and less 

consistently than beaked whales. 

Based on the evidence available, 

however, we cannot determine whether 

(a) Cuvier’s beaked whale is more prone 

to injury from high-intensity sound than 

other species, (b) their behavioral 

responses to sound makes them more 

likely to strand, or (c) they are more 

likely to be exposed to MFAS than other 

cetaceans (for reasons that remain 

unknown). Because the association 

between active sonar exposures and 

marine mammals mass stranding events 

is not consistent—some marine 

mammals strand without being exposed 

to active sonar and some sonar 

transmissions are not associated with 

marine mammal stranding events 

despite their co-occurrence—other risk 

factors or a grouping of risk factors 

probably contribute to these stranding 

events. 

Behaviorally Mediated Responses to 

MFAS That May Lead to Stranding 

Although the confluence of Navy 

MFAS with the other contributory 

factors noted in the report was 

identified as the cause of the 2000 

Bahamas stranding event, the specific 

mechanisms that led to that stranding 

(or the others) are not understood, and 

there is uncertainty regarding the 

ordering of effects that led to the 

stranding. It is unclear whether beaked 

whales were directly injured by sound 

(acoustically mediated bubble growth, 

addressed above) prior to stranding or 

whether a behavioral response to sound 

occurred that ultimately caused the 

beaked whales to be injured and to 

strand. 

Although causal relationships 

between beaked whale stranding events 

and active sonar remain unknown, 

several authors have hypothesized that 

stranding events involving these species 

in the Bahamas and Canary Islands may 

have been triggered when the whales 

changed their dive behavior in a startled 

response to exposure to active sonar or 

to further avoid exposure (Cox et al., 

2006; Rommel et al., 2006). These 

authors proposed three mechanisms by 

which the behavioral responses of 

beaked whales upon being exposed to 

active sonar might result in a stranding 

event. These include: gas bubble 

formation caused by excessively fast 

surfacing; remaining at the surface too 

long when tissues are supersaturated 

with nitrogen; or diving prematurely 

when extended time at the surface is 

necessary to eliminate excess nitrogen. 

More specifically, beaked whales that 

occur in deep waters that are in close 

proximity to shallow waters (for 

example, the ‘‘canyon areas’’ that are 

cited in the Bahamas stranding event; 

see D’Spain and D’Amico, 2006), may 

respond to active sonar by swimming 

into shallow waters to avoid further 

exposures and strand if they were not 

able to swim back to deeper waters. 

Second, beaked whales exposed to 

active sonar might alter their dive 

behavior. Changes in their dive behavior 

might cause them to remain at the 

surface or at depth for extended periods 

of time which could lead to hypoxia 

directly by increasing their oxygen 

demands or indirectly by increasing 

their energy expenditures (to remain at 

depth), which would increase their 

oxygen. If beaked whales are at depth 

when they detect a ping from an active 

sonar transmission and change their 

dive profile, this could lead to the 

formation of significant gas bubbles, 

which could damage multiple organs or 

interfere with normal physiological 

function (Cox et al., 2006; Rommel et 

al., 2006; Zimmer and Tyack, 2007). 

Baird et al. (2005) found that slow 

ascent rates from deep dives and long 

periods of time spent within 50 m of the 

surface were typical for both Cuvier’s 

and Blainville’s beaked whales, the two 

species involved in mass strandings 

related to naval MFAS. These two 

behavioral mechanisms may be 

necessary to purge excessive dissolved 

nitrogen concentrated in their tissues 

during their frequent long dives (Baird 

et al., 2005). Baird et al. (2005) further 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53828 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

suggests that abnormally rapid ascents 

or premature dives in response to highintensity active sonar could indirectly 

result in physical harm to the beaked 

whales, through the mechanisms 

described above (gas bubble formation 

or non-elimination of excess nitrogen). 

Because many species of marine 

mammals make repetitive and 

prolonged dives to great depths, it has 

long been assumed that marine 

mammals have evolved physiological 

mechanisms to protect against the 

effects of rapid and repeated 

decompressions. Although several 

investigators have identified 

physiological adaptations that may 

protect marine mammals against 

nitrogen gas supersaturation (alveolar 

collapse and elective circulation; 

Kooyman et al., 1972; Ridgway and 

Howard, 1979), Ridgway and Howard 

(1979) reported that bottlenose dolphins 

(Tursiops truncatus) that were trained to 

dive repeatedly had muscle tissues that 

were substantially supersaturated with 

nitrogen gas. Houser et al. (2001) used 

these data to model the accumulation of 

nitrogen gas within the muscle tissue of 

other marine mammal species and 

concluded that cetaceans that dive deep 

and have slow ascent or descent speeds 

would have tissues that are more 

supersaturated with nitrogen gas than 

other marine mammals. Based on these 

data, Cox et al. (2006) hypothesized that 

a critical dive sequence might make 

beaked whales more prone to stranding 

in response to acoustic exposures. The 

sequence began with (1) very deep (to 

depths of up to 2 kilometers) and long 

(as long as 90 minutes) foraging dives 

with (2) relatively slow, controlled 

ascents, followed by (3) a series of 

‘‘bounce’’ dives between 100 and 400 

meters in depth (also see Zimmer and 

Tyack, 2007). They concluded that 

acoustic exposures that disrupted any 

part of this dive sequence (for example, 

causing beaked whales to spend more 

time at surface without the bounce dives 

that are necessary to recover from the 

deep dive) could produce excessive 

levels of nitrogen supersaturation in 

their tissues, leading to gas bubble and 

emboli formation that produces 

pathologies similar to decompression 

sickness. 

Recently, Zimmer and Tyack (2007) 

modeled nitrogen tension and bubble 

growth in several tissue compartments 

for several hypothetical dive profiles 

and concluded that repetitive shallow 

dives (defined as a dive where depth 

does not exceed the depth of alveolar 

collapse, approximately 72 m for 

Ziphius), perhaps as a consequence of 

an extended avoidance reaction to 

active sonar sound, could pose a risk for 

decompression sickness and that this 

risk should increase with the duration 

of the response. Their models also 

suggested that unrealistically rapid rates 

of ascent from normal dive behaviors 

are unlikely to result in supersaturation 

to the extent that bubble formation 

would be expected. Tyack et al. (2006) 

suggested that emboli observed in 

animals exposed to MFAS (Jepson et al., 

2003; Fernandez et al., 2005) could stem 

from a behavioral response that involves 

repeated dives shallower than the depth 

of lung collapse. Given that nitrogen gas 

accumulation is a passive process (i.e. 

nitrogen is metabolically inert), a 

bottlenose dolphin was trained to 

repetitively dive a profile predicted to 

elevate nitrogen saturation to the point 

that nitrogen bubble formation was 

predicted to occur. However, inspection 

of the vascular system of the dolphin via 

ultrasound did not demonstrate the 

formation of asymptomatic nitrogen gas 

bubbles (Houser et al., 2007). Baird et al. 

(2008), in a beaked whale tagging study 

off Hawaii, showed that deep dives are 

equally common during day or night, 

but ‘‘bounce dives’’ are typically a 

daytime behavior, possibly associated 

with visual predator avoidance (Baird et 

al., 2008). This may indicate that 

‘‘bounce dives’’ are associated with 

something other than behavioral 

regulation of dissolved nitrogen levels, 

which would be necessary day and 

night. 

Despite the many theories involving 

bubble formation (both as a direct cause 

of injury (see Acoustically Mediated 

Bubble Growth Section) and an indirect 

cause of stranding (See Behaviorally 

Mediated Bubble Growth Section), 

Southall et al. (2007) summarizes that 

there is either scientific disagreement or 

a lack of information regarding each of 

the following important points: (1) 

Received acoustical exposure conditions 

for animals involved in stranding 

events; (2) pathological interpretation of 

observed lesions in stranded marine 

mammals; (3) acoustic exposure 

conditions required to induce such 

physical trauma directly; (4) whether 

noise exposure may cause behavioral 

reactions (such as atypical diving 

behavior) that secondarily cause bubble 

formation and tissue damage; and (5) 

the extent the post mortem artifacts 

introduced by decomposition before 

sampling, handling, freezing, or 

necropsy procedures affect 

interpretation of observed lesions. 

Although not all of the five 

environmental factors believed to have 

contributed to the Bahamas stranding (at 

least 3 surface vessel MFAS sources 

operating simultaneously or in 

conjunction with one another, beaked 

whale presence, surface ducts, steep 

bathymetry, and constricted channels 

with limited egress) will be present 

during exercises in the MIRC Study area 

(the MIRC study area does not contain 

similar bathymetric features), NMFS 

recommends caution when either steep 

bathymetry, surface ducting conditions 

(which are present in the MIRC study 

area), or a constricted channel is present 

when mid-frequency active sonar is 

employed by multiple surface vessels 

simultaneously and cetaceans 

(especially beaked whales) are present. 

LFA Sonar 

Analysis of the environmental 

impacts of the SURTASS LFA sonar 

system, including the potential for 

synergistic and cumulative effects with 

MFAS operation, has been addressed to 

some degree in the Navy’s SURTASS 

LFA Sonar EISs and more recently in 

NMFS’ August, 2009 biological opinion 

for SURTASS LFA Sonar. The take of 

marine mammals incidental to the 

operation of LFA sonar in the MIRC and 

elsewhere has been previously 

authorized by NOAA/NMFS (2002a, 

2007). 

Although the authorization of take of 

marine mammals incidental to the 

operation of LFA sonar will not be 

considered here because it has already 

been separately authorized, NMFS has 

considered more specifically the 

manner in which LFA sonar and MFAS 

may interact in a multi-strike group 

exercise with respect to the potential to 

impact marine mammals in a manner 

not previously considered. 

As mentioned previously, the military 

intends to conduct three exercises 

(multi-strike group exercises) during the 

five-year duration of the rule that may 

include both SURTASS LFA and MFA 

sonar sources. The expected duration of 

these combined exercises is 

approximately 14 days. Based on an 

exercise of this length, an LFA sonar 

system would be active (i.e., actually 

transmitting) for no more than 

approximately 25 hours. Tactical and 

technical considerations dictate that the 

LFA sonar ship would typically be tens 

of miles from the MFA sonar ship when 

using active sonar. 

It is unlikely, but possible, that both 

LFA and MFA sonar would be active at 

exactly the same time during a major 

exercise. In the unlikely event that both 

systems were operating simultaneously, 

the likelihood of more than a relatively 

small number of individual marine 

mammals being physically present at a 

time, location, and depth to be able to 

receive both LFA and MFA sonar 

signals at levels of concern at the same 

time is even smaller as the sound from 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53829 

both signals would have attenuated 

when they reached the marine mammal 

in question, so even a simultaneous 

exposure would not be at the full signal 

of either system. Additionally, few 

species have maximum sensitivity to 

both the low and middle frequencies. 

In terms of estimating hours of such 

exposure, assuming an LFA and MFA 

sonar source transmitting at the same 

time over a 25-hour period (which is a 

subset of a nominal 14-day exercise) and 

based on the fact that the two sources 

transmit at very different duty cycles, 

the overlap of the actual signals would 

be approximately 3.2%, or 0.8 hours 

(assuming that there is only one MFA 

sonar ship transmitting). But the 

possibility of even that overlap must 

consider the other factors discussed 

above. 

Based on the fact that an LFA sonar 

ship would be tens of miles away from 

an MFA ship when using active sonar 

and that the overlap of the signals 

would only be about 50 minutes, the 

potential impacts on marine mammals 

that might be exposed simultaneously to 

both MFA and LFA sonars would be 

limited and not significant. 

Exposure to Underwater Detonation of 

Explosives 

Some of the Navy’s training exercises 

include the underwater detonation of 

explosives. For many of the exercises 

discussed, inert ordnance is used for a 

subset of the exercises. For exercises 

that involve ‘‘shooting’’ at a target that 

is above the surface of the water, 

underwater explosions only occur when 

the target is missed, which is the 

minority of the time (the Navy has 

historical hit/miss ratios and uses them 

in their exposure estimates). The 

underwater explosion from a weapon 

would send a shock wave and blast 

noise through the water, release gaseous 

by-products, create an oscillating 

bubble, and cause a plume of water to 

shoot up from the water surface. The 

effects of an underwater explosion on a 

marine mammal depends on many 

factors, including the size, type, and 

depth of both the animal and the 

explosive charge; the depth of the water 

column; and the standoff distance 

between the charge and the animals, as 

well as the sound propagation 

properties of the environment. Potential 

impacts can range from brief effects 

(such as behavioral disturbance), tactile 

perception, physical discomfort, slight 

injury of the internal organs and the 

auditory system, to death of the animal 

(Yelverton et al., 1973; O’Keeffe and 

Young, 1984; DoN, 2001). Non-lethal 

injury includes slight injury to internal 

organs and the auditory system; 

however, delayed lethality can be a 

result of individual or cumulative 

sublethal injuries (DoN, 2001). 

Immediate lethal injury would be a 

result of massive combined trauma to 

internal organs as a direct result of 

proximity to the point of detonation 

(DoN, 2001).’’ Generally, exposures to 

higher levels of impulse and pressure 

levels would result in worse impacts to 

an individual animal. 

Injuries resulting from a shock wave 

take place at boundaries between tissues 

of different density. Different velocities 

are imparted to tissues of different 

densities, and this can lead to their 

physical disruption. Blast effects are 

greatest at the gas-liquid interface 

(Landsberg, 2000). Gas-containing 

organs, particularly the lungs and 

gastrointestinal tract, are especially 

susceptible (Goertner, 1982; Hill, 1978; 

Yelverton et al., 1973). In addition, gascontaining organs including the nasal 

sacs, larynx, pharynx, trachea, and 

lungs may be damaged by compression/ 

expansion caused by the oscillations of 

the blast gas bubble (Reidenberg and 

Laitman, 2003). Intestinal walls can 

bruise or rupture, with subsequent 

hemorrhage and escape of gut contents 

into the body cavity. Less severe 

gastrointestinal tract injuries include 

contusions, petechiae (small red or 

purple spots caused by bleeding in the 

skin), and slight hemorrhaging 

(Yelverton et al., 1973). 

Because the ears are the most 

sensitive to pressure, they are the organs 

most sensitive to injury (Ketten, 2000). 

Sound-related trauma associated with 

blast noise can be theoretically distinct 

from injury from the shock wave, 

particularly farther from the explosion. 

If an animal is able to hear a noise, at 

some level it can fatigue or damage its 

hearing by causing decreased sensitivity 

(Ketten, 1995) (See Noise-induced 

Threshold Shift Section above). Soundrelated trauma can be lethal or 

sublethal. Lethal impacts are those that 

result in immediate death or serious 

debilitation in or near an intense source 

and are not, technically, pure acoustic 

trauma (Ketten, 1995). Sublethal 

impacts include hearing loss, which is 

caused by exposures to perceptible 

sounds. Severe damage (from the shock 

wave) to the ears includes tympanic 

membrane rupture, fracture of the 

ossicles, damage to the cochlea, 

hemorrhage, and cerebrospinal fluid 

leakage into the middle ear. Moderate 

injury implies partial hearing loss due 

to tympanic membrane rupture and 

blood in the middle ear. Permanent 

hearing loss also can occur when the 

hair cells are damaged by one very loud 

event, as well as by prolonged exposure 

to a loud noise or chronic exposure to 

noise. The level of impact from blasts 

depends on both an animal’s location 

and, at outer zones, on its sensitivity to 

the residual noise (Ketten, 1995). 

There have been fewer studies 

addressing the behavioral effects of 

explosives on marine mammals than 

MFAS/HFAS. However, though the 

nature of the sound waves emitted from 

an explosion is different (in shape and 

rise time) from MFAS/HFAS, we still 

anticipate the same sorts of behavioral 

responses (see Exposure to MFAS/ 

HFAS: Behavioral Disturbance Section) 

to result from repeated explosive 

detonations (a smaller range of likely 

less severe responses would be expected 

to occur as a result of exposure to a 

single explosive detonation). 

Potential Effects of Vessel Movement 

and Collisions 

Vessel movement in the vicinity of 

marine mammals has the potential to 

result in either a behavioral response or 

a direct physical interaction. Both 

scenarios are discussed below. 

Vessel Movement 

There are limited data concerning 

marine mammal behavioral responses to 

vessel traffic and vessel noise, and a 

lack of consensus among scientists with 

respect to what these responses mean or 

whether they result in short-term or 

long-term adverse effects. In those cases 

where there is a busy shipping lane or 

where there is large amount of vessel 

traffic, marine mammals may 

experience acoustic masking 

(Hildebrand, 2005) if they are present in 

the area (e.g., killer whales in Puget 

Sound; Foote et al., 2004; Holt et al., 

2008). In cases where vessels actively 

approach marine mammals (e.g., whale 

watching or dolphin watching boats), 

scientists have documented that animals 

exhibit altered behavior such as 

increased swimming speed, erratic 

movement, and active avoidance 

behavior (Bursk, 1983; Acevedo, 1991; 

Baker and MacGibbon, 1991; Trites and 

Bain, 2000; Williams et al., 2002; 

Constantine et al., 2003), reduced blow 

interval (Ritcher et al., 2003), disruption 

of normal social behaviors (Lusseau, 

2003; 2006), and the shift of behavioral 

activities which may increase energetic 

costs (Constantine et al., 2003; 2004). A 

detailed review of marine mammal 

reactions to ships and boats is available 

in Richardson et al. (1995). For each of 

the marine mammals taxonomy groups, 

Richardson et al. (1995) provided the 

following assessment regarding cetacean 

reactions to vessel traffic: 

Toothed whales: ‘‘In summary, 

toothed whales sometimes show no 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53830 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

avoidance reaction to vessels, or even 

approach them. However, avoidance can 

occur, especially in response to vessels 

of types used to chase or hunt the 

animals. This may cause temporary 

displacement, but we know of no clear 

evidence that toothed whales have 

abandoned significant parts of their 

range because of vessel traffic.’’ 

Baleen whales: ‘‘When baleen whales 

receive low-level sounds from distant or 

stationary vessels, the sounds often 

seem to be ignored. Some whales 

approach the sources of these sounds. 

When vessels approach whales slowly 

and non-aggressively, whales often 

exhibit slow and inconspicuous 

avoidance maneuvers. In response to 

strong or rapidly changing vessel noise, 

baleen whales often interrupt their 

normal behavior and swim rapidly 

away. Avoidance is especially strong 

when a boat heads directly toward the 

whale.’’ 

It is important to recognize that 

behavioral responses to stimuli are 

complex and influenced to varying 

degrees by a number of factors such as 

species, behavioral contexts, 

geographical regions, source 

characteristics (moving or stationary, 

speed, direction, etc.), prior experience 

of the animal, and physical status of the 

animal. For example, studies have 

shown that beluga whales reacted 

differently when exposed to vessel noise 

and traffic. In some cases, naı ̈ve beluga 

whales exhibited rapid swimming from 

ice-breaking vessels up to 80 km away, 

and showed changes in surfacing, 

breathing, diving, and group 

composition in the Canadian high 

Arctic where vessel traffic is rare (Finley 

et al., 1990). In other cases, beluga 

whales were more tolerant of vessels, 

but responded differentially to certain 

vessels and operating characteristics by 

reducing their calling rates (especially 

older animals) in the St. Lawrence River 

where vessel traffic is common (Blane 

and Jaakson, 1994). In Bristol Bay, 

Alaska, beluga whales continued to feed 

when surrounded by fishing vessels and 

resisted dispersal even when 

purposefully harassed (Fish and Vania, 

1971). 

In reviewing more than 25 years of 

whale observation data, Watkins (1986) 

concluded that whale reactions to vessel 

traffic were ‘‘modified by their previous 

experience and current activity: 

Habituation often occurred rapidly, 

attention to other stimuli or 

preoccupation with other activities 

sometimes overcame their interest or 

wariness of stimuli.’’ Watkins noticed 

that over the years of exposure to ships 

in the Cape Cod area, minke whales 

(Balaenoptera acutorostrata) changed 

from frequent positive (such as 

approaching vessels) interest to 

generally uninterested reactions; finback 

whales (B. physalus) changed from 

mostly negative (such as avoidance) to 

uninterested reactions; right whales 

(Eubalaena glacialis) apparently 

continued the same variety of responses 

(negative, uninterested, and positive 

responses) with little change; and 

humpbacks (Megaptera novaeangliae) 

dramatically changed from mixed 

responses that were often negative to 

often strongly positive reactions. 

Watkins (1986) summarized that 

‘‘whales near shore, even in regions 

with low vessel traffic, generally have 

become less wary of boats and their 

noises, and they have appeared to be 

less easily disturbed than previously. In 

particular locations with intense 

shipping and repeated approaches by 

boats (such as the whale-watching areas 

of Stellwagen Bank), more and more 

whales had P [positive] reactions to 

familiar vessels, and they also 

occasionally approached other boats 

and yachts in the same ways.’’ 

Although the radiated sound from 

Navy vessels will be audible to marine 

mammals over a large distance, it is 

unlikely that animals will respond 

behaviorally (in a manner that NMFS 

would consider MMPA harassment) to 

low-level distant shipping noise as the 

animals in the area are likely to be 

habituated to such noises (Nowacek et 

al., 2004). In light of these facts, NMFS 

does not expect the Navy’s vessel 

movements to result in Level B 

harassment. 

Vessel Strike 

Commercial and Navy ship strikes of 

cetaceans can cause major wounds, 

which may lead to the death of the 

animal. An animal at the surface could 

be struck directly by a vessel, a 

surfacing animal could hit the bottom of 

a vessel, or an animal just below the 

surface could be cut by a vessel’s 

propeller. The severity of injuries 

typically depends on the size and speed 

of the vessel (Knowlton and Kraus, 

2001; Laist et al., 2001; Vanderlaan and 

Taggart, 2007). 

The most vulnerable marine mammals 

are those that spend extended periods of 

time at the surface in order to restore 

oxygen levels within their tissues after 

deep dives (for example, the sperm 

whale). In addition, some baleen 

whales, such as the North Atlantic right 

whale, seem generally unresponsive to 

vessel sound, making them more 

susceptible to vessel collisions 

(Nowacek et al., 2004). These species 

are primarily large, slow moving 

whales. Smaller marine mammals (for 

example, bottlenose dolphin) move 

quickly through the water column and 

are often seen riding the bow wave of 

large ships. Marine mammal responses 

to vessels may include avoidance and 

changes in dive pattern (NRC, 2003). 

An examination of all known ship 

strikes from all shipping sources 

(civilian and military) indicates vessel 

speed is a principal factor in whether a 

vessel strike results in death (Knowlton 

and Kraus, 2001; Laist et al., 2001, 

Jensen and Silber, 2003; Vanderlaan and 

Taggart, 2007). In assessing records in 

which vessel speed was known, Laist et 

al. (2001) found a direct relationship 

between the occurrence of a whale 

strike and the speed of the vessel 

involved in the collision. The authors 

concluded that most deaths occurred 

when a vessel was traveling in excess of 

13 knots. 

Jensen and Silber (2003) detailed 292 

records of known or probable ship 

strikes of all large whale species from 

1975 to 2002. Of these, vessel speed at 

the time of collision was reported for 58 

cases. Of these cases, 39 (or 67%) 

resulted in serious injury or death (19 or 

33% resulted in serious injury as 

determined by blood in the water, 

propeller gashes or severed tailstock, 

and fractured skull, jaw, vertebrae, 

hemorrhaging, massive bruising or other 

injuries noted during necropsy and 20 

or 35% resulted in death). Operating 

speeds of vessels that struck various 

species of large whales ranged from 2 to 

51 knots. The majority (79%) of these 

strikes occurred at speeds of 13 knots or 

greater. The average speed that resulted 

in serious injury or death was 18.6 

knots. Pace and Silber (2005) found that 

the probability of death or serious injury 

increased rapidly with increasing vessel 

speed. Specifically, the predicted 

probability of serious injury or death 

increased from 45% to 75% as vessel 

speed increased from 10 to 14 knots, 

and exceeded 90% at 17 knots. Higher 

speeds during collisions result in greater 

force of impact, but higher speeds also 

appear to increase the chance of severe 

injuries or death by pulling whales 

toward the vessel. Computer simulation 

modeling showed that hydrodynamic 

forces pulling whales toward the vessel 

hull increase with increasing speed 

(Clyne, 1999, Knowlton et al., 1995). 

The Jensen and Silber (2003) report 

notes that the database represents a 

minimum number of collisions, because 

the vast majority probably go 

undetected or unreported. In contrast, 

Navy vessels are likely to detect any 

strike that does occur, and they are 

required to report all ship strikes 

involving marine mammals. Overall, the 

percentages of Navy traffic relative to 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53831 

overall large shipping traffic are very 

small (on the order of 2%). 

The probability of vessel and marine 

mammal interactions occurring in the 

MIRC Study Area is dependent upon 

several factors including numbers, 

types, and speeds of vessels; the 

regularity, duration, and spatial extent 

of training events; the presence/absence 

and density of marine mammals; and 

mitigation measures implemented by 

the Navy. Currently, the number of 

Navy vessels operating in the MIRC 

Study Area varies based on training 

schedules and can typically range from 

zero to about ten vessels at any given 

time. Ship sizes range from 362 ft (110 

m) for a nuclear submarine (SSN) to 

1,092 ft (331 m) for a nuclear aircraft 

carrier (CVN). Smaller boats such as 

RHIBS, LCAC, etc. are also utilized in 

the MIRC study area. The smaller boats 

do not contain acoustic sound sources. 

Speeds are typically within 10 to 14 

knots; however, slower or faster speeds 

are possible depending upon the 

specific training scenario. Training 

involving vessel movements occurs 

intermittently and is variable in 

duration, ranging from a few hours up 

to two weeks. These training events are 

widely dispersed. Consequently, the 

density of ships within the MIRC Study 

Area at any given time is extremely low 

(i.e., less than 0.0002 ships/nm2). The 

Navy logs about 1,000 total vessel days 

within the MIRC Study Area during a 

typical year. Vessel days was computed 

as the number of steaming days per year 

by summing the number of steaming 

hours proposed in the range complex, 

dividing by 24 hours per day, and 

rounding to the nearest 10 days. 

Moreover, naval vessels transiting the 

study area or engaging in the training 

exercises will not actively or 

intentionally approach a marine 

mammal. While in transit, naval vessels 

will be alert at all times, use extreme 

caution, and proceed at a ‘‘safe speed’’ 

so that the vessel can take proper and 

effective action to avoid a collision with 

any marine animal and can be stopped 

within a distance appropriate to the 

prevailing circumstances and 

conditions. When whales have been 

sighted in the area, Navy vessels will 

increase vigilance and take reasonable 

and practicable actions to avoid 

collisions and activities that might 

result in close interaction of naval assets 

and marine mammals. Actions may 

include changing speed and/or direction 

and would be dictated by environmental 

and other conditions (e.g., safety, 

weather). For a thorough discussion of 

mitigation measures, please see the 

Mitigation section. 

Additionally, the majority of ships 

participating in MIRC training activities 

have a number of advantages for 

avoiding ship strikes as compared to 

most commercial merchant vessels, 

including the following: 

• Navy ships have their bridges 

positioned forward, offering good 

visibility ahead of the bow. 

• Crew size is much larger than that 

of merchant ships allowing for more 

potential observers on the bridge. 

• Dedicated lookouts are posted 

during a training activity scanning the 

ocean for anything detectable in the 

water; anything detected is reported to 

the Officer of the Deck. 

• Navy lookouts receive extensive 

training including Marine Species 

Awareness Training designed to provide 

marine species detection cues and 

information necessary to detect marine 

mammals. 

• Navy ships are generally much 

more maneuverable than commercial 

merchant vessels. 

Based on the implementation of Navy 

mitigation measures and the low density 

of Navy ships in the Study Area, NMFS 

has concluded preliminarily that the 

probability of a ship strike is very low, 

especially for dolphins and porpoises, 

killer whales, social pelagic odontocetes 

and pinnipeds that are highly visible, 

and/or comparatively small and 

maneuverable. Though more probable, 

NMFS also believes that the likelihood 

of a Navy vessel striking a mysticete or 

sperm whale is low. The Navy did not 

request take from a ship strike and 

based on our preliminary determination, 

NMFS is not recommending that they 

modify their request at this time. 

However, both NMFS and the Navy are 

currently engaged in a Section 7 

consultation under the ESA, and that 

consultation will further inform our 

final decision. 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an incidental take 

authorization (ITA) under Section 

101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, NMFS must 

set forth the ‘‘permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to such activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact on such 

species or stock and its habitat, paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 

grounds, and areas of similar 

significance.’’ 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 MIRC 

application are considered military 

readiness activities. 

NMFS reviewed the proposed MIRC 

activities and the proposed MIRC 

mitigation measures as described in the 

Navy’s LOA application to determine if 

they would result in the least 

practicable adverse effect on marine 

mammals, 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 

identified the need to further flesh out 

the Navy’s plan for how to respond in 

the event of a stranding in the MIRC, 

and the Navy and NMFS subsequently 

coordinated and produced the draft 

Stranding Response Plan for MIRC, 

which is summarized below and 

available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications. 

Included below are the mitigation 

measures the Navy initially proposed 

(see ‘‘Mitigation Measures Proposed in 

the Navy’s LOA Application’’) and the 

Stranding Response Plan that NMFS 

and the Navy developed (see 

‘‘Additional Measure Developed by 

NMFS and the Navy’’ below). 

Mitigation Measures Proposed in the 

Navy’s LOA Application 

Personnel Training 

The use of shipboard lookouts is a 

critical component of all Navy 

protective measures. Lookout duties 

require that they report all objects 

sighted in the water to the officer of the 

deck (OOD) (e.g., trash, a periscope, 

marine mammals, sea turtles) and all 

disturbances (e.g., surface disturbance, 

discoloration) that may be indicative of 

a threat to the vessel and its crew. There 

are personnel serving as lookouts on 

station at all times (day and night) when 

a ship or surfaced submarine is moving 

through the water. 

• All commanding officers (COs), 

executive officers (XOs), lookouts, 

officers of the deck (OODs), junior 

OODs (JOODs), maritime patrol aircraft 

aircrews, and Anti-submarine Warfare 

(ASW) helicopter crews will complete 

the NMFS-approved Marine Species 

Awareness Training (MSAT) by viewing 

the U.S. Navy MSAT digital versatile 

disk (DVD). All bridge lookouts will 

complete both parts one and two of the 

MSAT; part two is optional for other 

personnel. This training addresses the 

lookout’s role in environmental 

protection, laws governing the 

protection of marine species, Navy 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53832 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

stewardship commitments and general 

observation information to aid in 

avoiding interactions with marine 

species. 

• Navy lookouts will undertake 

extensive training in order to qualify as 

a watchstander in accordance with the 

Lookout Training Handbook (Naval 

Education and Training Command 

[NAVEDTRA] 12968–D). 

• Lookout training will include onthe-job instruction under the 

supervision of a qualified, experienced 

lookout. Following successful 

completion of this supervised training 

period, lookouts will complete the 

Personal Qualification Standard 

Program, certifying that they have 

demonstrated the necessary skills (such 

as detection and reporting of partially 

submerged objects). Personnel being 

trained as lookouts can be counted 

among the number of lookeouts required 

by a particular mitigation measure as 

long as supervisors monitor their 

progress and performance. 

• Lookouts will be trained in the most 

effective means to ensure quick and 

effective communication within the 

command structure in order to facilitate 

implementation of protective measures 

if marine species are spotted. 

• All lookouts onboard platforms 

involved in ASW training events will 

review the NMFS-approved Marine 

Species Awareness Training material 

prior to use of mid-frequency active 

sonar. 

• All COs, XOs, and officers standing 

watch on the bridge will have reviewed 

the Marine Species Awareness Training 

material prior to a training event 

employing the use of MFAS/HFAS. 

General Operating Procedures (for All 

Training Types) 

Prior to major exercises, a Letter of 

Instruction, Mitigation Measures 

Message or Environmental Annex to the 

Operational Order will be issued to 

further disseminate the personnel 

training requirement and general marine 

species protective measures. 

• COs will make use of marine 

species detection cues and information 

to limit interaction with marine species 

to the maximum extent possible 

consistent with safety of the ship. 

• While underway, surface vessels 

will have at least two lookouts with 

binoculars; surfaced submarines will 

have at least one lookout with 

binoculars. Lookouts already posted for 

safety of navigation and man-overboard 

precautions may be used to fill this 

requirement. As part of their regular 

duties, lookouts will watch for and 

report to the OOD the presence of 

marine mammals. 

• On surface vessels equipped with a 

multi-function active sensor, pedestal 

mounted ‘‘Big Eye’’ (20x110) binoculars 

will be properly installed and in good 

working order to assist in the detection 

of marine mammals in the vicinity of 

the vessel. 

• Personnel on lookout will employ 

visual search procedures employing a 

scanning methodology in accordance 

with the Lookout Training Handbook 

(NAVEDTRA 12968–D). 

• After sunset and prior to sunrise, 

lookouts will employ Night Lookouts 

Techniques in accordance with the 

Lookout Training Handbook. 

(NAVEDTRA 12968–D). 

• While in transit, naval vessels will 

be alert at all times, use extreme 

caution, and proceed at a ‘‘safe speed’’, 

which means the speed at which CO can 

maintain crew safety and effectiveness 

of current operational directives, so that 

the vessel can take action to avoid a 

collision with any marine mammal. 

• When whales have been sighted in 

the area, Navy vessels will increase 

vigilance and take all reasonable actions 

to avoid collisions and close interaction 

of naval assets and marine mammals. 

Actions may include changing speed 

and/or direction and would be dictated 

by environmental and other conditions 

(e.g., safety, weather). 

• Navy aircraft participating in 

exercises at sea will conduct and 

maintain, when operationally feasible 

and safe, surveillance for marine species 

of concern as long as it does not violate 

safety constraints or interfere with the 

accomplishment of primary operational 

duties. 

• Marine mammal detections will be 

immediately reported to assigned 

Aircraft Control Unit for further 

dissemination to ships in the vicinity of 

the marine species as appropriate where 

it is reasonable to conclude that the 

course of the ship will likely result in 

a closing of the distance to the detected 

marine mammal. 

Operating Procedures (for AntiSubmarine Warfare Operations) 

• On the bridge of surface ships, there 

will always be at least three people on 

watch whose duties include observing 

the water surface around the vessel. 

• All surface ships participating in 

ASW training events will, in addition to 

the three personnel on watch noted 

previously, have at all times during the 

exercise at least two additional 

personnel on watch as lookouts. 

• Personnel on lookout and officers 

on watch on the bridge will have at least 

one set of binoculars available for each 

person to aid in the detection of marine 

mammals. 

• Personnel on lookout will be 

responsible for reporting all objects or 

anomalies sighted in the water 

(regardless of the distance from the 

vessel) to the Officer of the Deck, since 

any object or disturbance (e.g., trash, 

periscope, surface disturbance, 

discoloration) in the water may be 

indicative of a threat to the vessel and 

its crew or indicative of a marine 

species that may need to be avoided as 

warranted. 

• All personnel engaged in passive 

acoustic sonar operation (including 

aircraft, surface ships, or submarines) 

will monitor for marine mammal 

vocalizations and report the detection of 

any marine mammal to the appropriate 

watch station for dissemination and 

appropriate action. 

• During MFAS operations, personnel 

will utilize all available sensor and 

optical systems (such as night vision 

goggles) to aid in the detection of 

marine mammals. 

• Aircraft with deployed sonobuoys 

will use only the passive capability of 

sonobuoys when marine mammals are 

detected within 200 yds (183 m) of the 

sonobuoy. 

• Helicopters shall observe/survey 

the vicinity of an ASW exercise for 10 

minutes before the first deployment of 

active (dipping) sonar in the water. 

• Helicopters shall not dip their sonar 

within 200 yards of a marine mammal 

and shall cease pinging if a marine 

mammal closes within 200 yards after 

pinging has begun. 

• Safety Zones—When marine 

mammals are detected by any means 

(aircraft, shipboard lookout, or 

acoustically) within or closing to inside 

1,000 yds (914 m) of the sonar dome 

(the bow), the ship or submarine will 

limit active transmission levels to at 

least 6 decibels (dB) below normal 

operating levels (i.e., limit to at most 

229 dB for AN/SQS–53C and 219 for 

AN/SQS–56C, etc) 

• Ships and submarines will continue 

to limit maximum transmission levels 

by this 6-dB factor until the animal has 

been seen to leave the 1000-yd 

exclusion zone, has not been detected 

for 30 minutes, or the vessel has 

transited more than 2,000 yds (1829 m) 

beyond the location of the last 

detection. 

• Should a marine mammal be 

detected within or closing to inside 500 

yds (457 m) of the sonar dome, active 

sonar transmissions will be limited to at 

least 10 dB below the equipment’s 

normal operating level (i.e., limit to at 

most 225 dB for AN/SQS–53C and 215 

for AN/SQS–56C, etc.). Ships and 

submarines will continue to limit 

maximum ping levels by this 10-dB 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53833 

factor until the animal has been seen to 

leave the 500-yd area (at which point 

the Navy could return to the 6-dB down 

powerdown, but not full power) or the 

1000-yd area, has not been detected for 

30 minutes, or the vessel has transited 

more than 2,000 yds (1829 m) beyond 

the location of the last detection. 

• Should the marine mammal be 

detected within or closing to inside 200 

yds (183 m) of the sonar dome, active 

sonar transmissions will cease. Active 

sonar will not resume until the animal 

has been seen to leave the 200-yd 

exclusion zone (at which point the 500 

or 1000-yd powerdowns apply until the 

animal is beyond the 1000-yd exclusion 

zone), has not been detected for 30 

minutes, or the vessel has transited 

more than 2,000 yds (1829 m) beyond 

the location of the last detection. 

• Special conditions applicable for 

dolphin and porpoise only: If, after 

conducting an initial maneuver to avoid 

close quarters with dolphin or porpoise, 

the OOD concludes that dolphins are 

deliberately closing to ride the vessel’s 

bow wave, no further mitigation actions 

would be necessary while the dolphin 

or porpoise continue to exhibit bow 

wave riding behavior. 

• If the need for power-down should 

arise (as detailed in ‘‘Safety Zones’’ 

above) when the Navy was operating a 

hull-mounted or sub-mounted source 

above 235 dB (infrequent) the Navy 

shall follow the requirements as though 

they were operating at 235 dB (i.e., the 

first power-down will be to 229 dB). 

• Prior to start up or restart of active 

sonar, operators will check that the 

Safety Zone radius around the sound 

source is clear of marine mammals. 

• Active sonar levels (generally)— 

Navy will operate sonar at the lowest 

practicable level, not to exceed 235 dB, 

except as required to meet tactical 

training objectives. 

• Submarine sonar operators will 

review detection indicators of closeaboard marine mammals prior to the 

commencement of ASW training events 

involving MFAS. 

Underwater Detonations (Up to 10-lb 

Charges) 

Exclusion Zones—All training 

activities involving the use of explosive 

charges must include exclusion zones 

for marine mammals to prevent physical 

and/or acoustic effects to those species. 

These exclusion zones for demolitions 

and ship mine countermeasres shall 

extend in a 700-yard arc (640 m) radius 

around the detonation site. Should a 

marine mammal be present within the 

the surveillance area, the explosive 

event shall not be started until the 

animal leaves the area. 

Pre-Exercise Surveys—For Demolition 

and Ship Mine Countermeasures 

Operations, pre-exercise surveys shall 

be conducted within 30 minutes prior to 

the commencement of the scheduled 

explosive event. The survey may be 

conducted from the surface, by divers, 

and/or from the air, and personnel shall 

be alert to the presence of any marine 

mammal. Should such an animal be 

present within the exclusion area, the 

explosive event shall be paused until 

the animal voluntarily leaves the area. 

The Navy will ensure the exclusion area 

is clear of marine mammals for a full 30 

minutes prior to initiating the explosive 

event. 

Post-Exercise Surveys—Surveys 

within the same radius shall also be 

conducted within 30 minutes after the 

completion of the explosive event. 

Reporting—If there is any evidence 

that a marine mammal may have been 

injured or killed by the action, Navy 

training activities shall be immediately 

suspended and the action reported 

immediately to Commander, Navy 

Marianas who will contact the 

Commander, Pacific Fleet. The situation 

shall also be reported to NMFS (see 

Stranding Plan for details). 

Sinking Exercises 

The selection of sites suitable for 

SINKEXs involves a balance of 

operational suitability, requirements 

established under the Marine 

Protection, Research and Sanctuaries 

Act (MPRSA) permit granted to the 

Navy (40 CFR 229.2), and the 

identification of areas with a low 

likelihood of encountering ESA-listed 

species. To meet operational suitability 

criteria, the locations of SINKEXs must 

be within a reasonable distance of the 

target vessels’ originating location. The 

locations should also be close to active 

military bases to allow participating 

assets access to shore facilities. For 

safety purposes, these locations should 

also be in areas that are not generally 

used by non-military air or watercraft. 

The MPRSA permit requires vessels to 

be sunk in waters which are at least 

1000 fathoms (1828 m) deep and at least 

50 nm from land. In general, most listed 

species prefer areas with strong 

bathymetric gradients and 

oceanographic fronts for significant 

biological activity such as feeding and 

reproduction. Typical locations include 

the continental shelf and shelf-edge. 

• All weapons firing would be 

conducted during the period 1 hour 

after official sunrise to 30 minutes 

before official sunset. 

• Extensive range clearance activities 

would be conducted in the hours prior 

to commencement of the exercise, 

ensuring that no shipping is located 

within the hazard range of the longestrange weapon being fired for that event. 

• An exclusion zone with a radius of 

1.0 nm (1.9 km) would be established 

around each target. This exclusion zone 

is based on calculations using a 990-lb 

(450-kg) H6 net explosive weight high 

explosive source detonated 5 ft (1.5 m) 

below the surface of the water, which 

yields a distance of 0.85 nm (1.57 km) 

(cold season) and 0.89 nm (1.65 km) 

(warm season) beyond which the 

received level is below the 182 decibels 

(dB) re: 1 micropascal squared-seconds 

(μPa2-s) threshold established for the 

WINSTON S. CHURCHILL (DDG 81) 

shock trials (U.S. Navy, 2001). An 

additional buffer of 0.5 nm (0.9 km) 

would be added to account for errors, 

target drift, and animal movements. 

Additionally, a safety zone, which 

would extend beyond the buffer zone by 

an additional 0.5 nm (0.9 km), would be 

surveyed. Together, the zones extend 

out 2 nm (3.7 km) from the target. 

• A series of surveillance overflights 

shall be conducted prior to the event to 

determine whether marine mammals are 

present in the exclusion zone. Survey 

protocol will be as follows: 

• Overflights within the exclusion 

zone would be conducted in a manner 

that optimizes the surface area of the 

water observed. This may be 

accomplished through the use of the 

Navy’s Search and Rescue Tactical Aid, 

which provides the best search altitude, 

ground speed, and track spacing for the 

discovery of small, possibly dark objects 

in the water based on the environmental 

conditions of the day. These 

environmental conditions include the 

angle of sun inclination, amount of 

daylight, cloud cover, visibility, and sea 

state. 

• All visual surveillance activities 

would be conducted by Navy personnel 

trained in visual surveillance. At least 

one member of the mitigation team 

would have completed the Navy’s 

marine mammal training program for 

lookouts. 

• In addition to the overflights, the 

exclusion zone would be monitored by 

passive acoustic means, when assets are 

available. This passive acoustic 

monitoring would be maintained 

throughout the exercise. Potential assets 

include sonobuoys, which can be 

utilized to detect any vocalizing marine 

mammals (particularly sperm whales) in 

the vicinity of the exercise. The 

sonobuoys would be re-seeded as 

necessary throughout the exercise. 

Additionally, passive sonar onboard 

submarines may be utilized to detect 

any vocalizing marine mammals in the 

area. The OCE would be informed of 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53834 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

any aural detection of marine mammals 

and would include this information in 

the determination of when it is safe to 

commence the exercise. 

• On each day of the exercise, aerial 

surveillance of the exclusion and safety 

zones would commence 2 hours prior to 

the first firing. 

• The results of all visual, aerial, and 

acoustic searches would be reported 

immediately to the OCE. No weapons 

launches or firing would commence 

until the OCE declares the safety and 

exclusion zones free of marine 

mammals and threatened and 

endangered species. 

• If a marine mammal observed 

within the exclusion zone is diving, 

firing would be delayed until the animal 

is re-sighted outside the exclusion zone, 

or 30 minutes have elapsed, whichever 

occurs first. After 30 minutes, if the 

animal has not been re-sighted it would 

be assumed to have left the exclusion 

zone. The OCE would determine if the 

marine mammal is in danger of being 

adversely affected by commencement of 

the exercise. 

• During breaks in the exercise of 30 

minutes or more, the exclusion zone 

would again be surveyed for any marine 

mammal. If a marine mammal is sighted 

within the exclusion zone or the buffer 

zone, the OCE would be notified, and 

the procedure described above would be 

followed. 

• Upon sinking of the vessel, a final 

surveillance of the exclusion zone 

would be monitored for 2 hours, or until 

sunset, to verify that no marine 

mammals were harmed. 

• Aerial surveillance would be 

conducted using helicopters or other 

aircraft based on necessity and 

availability. The Navy has several types 

of aircraft capable of performing this 

task; however, not all types are available 

for every exercise. For each exercise, the 

available asset best suited for 

identifying objects on and near the 

surface of the ocean would be used. 

These aircraft would be capable of 

flying at the slow safe speeds necessary 

to enable viewing of marine vertebrates 

with unobstructed, or minimally 

obstructed, downward and outward 

visibility. The exclusion and safety zone 

surveys may be cancelled in the event 

that a mechanical problem, emergency 

search and rescue, or other similar and 

unexpected event preempts the use of 

one of the aircraft onsite for the 

exercise. 

• Every attempt would be made to 

conduct the exercise in sea states that 

are ideal for marine mammal sighting— 

Beaufort Sea State 3 or less. In the event 

of a sea state of 4 or above, survey 

efforts would be increased within the 

zones. This would be accomplished 

through the use of an additional aircraft, 

if available, and conducting tight search 

patterns. 

• The exercise would not be 

conducted unless the exclusion zone or 

buffer zone could be adequately 

monitored visually. Should low cloud 

cover or surface visibility prevent 

adequate visual monitoring as described 

previously, the exercise would be 

delayed until conditions improved, and 

all of the above monitoring criteria 

could be met. 

• In the unlikely event that any 

marine mammal is observed to be 

harmed in the area, a detailed 

description of the animal would be 

taken, the location noted, and if 

possible, photos taken. This information 

would be provided to NMFS via the 

Navy’s regional environmental 

coordinator for purposes of 

identification (see the draft Stranding 

Plan for detail). 

• An after action report detailing the 

exercise’s time line, the time the surveys 

commenced and terminated, amount, 

and types of all ordnance expended, and 

the results of survey efforts for each 

event would be submitted to NMFS. 

Surface-to-Surface Gunnery (Up to 5- 

Inch Explosive Rounds) 

• For exercises using targets towed by 

a vessel, target-towing vessels shall 

maintain a trained lookout for marine 

mammals when feasible. If a marine 

mammal is sighted in the vicinity, the 

tow vessel will immediately notify the 

firing vessel, which will suspend the 

exercise until the area is clear. 

• A 600 yard (585 m) radius buffer 

zone will be established around the 

intended target. 

• From the intended firing position, 

trained lookouts will survey the buffer 

zone for marine mammals and sea 

turtles prior to commencement and 

during the exercise as long as 

practicable. Due to the distance between 

the firing position and the buffer zone, 

lookouts are only expected to visually 

detect breaching whales, whale blows, 

and large pods of dolphins and 

porpoises. 

• The exercise will be conducted only 

when the buffer zone is visible and 

marine mammals are not detected 

within it. 

Surface-to-Surface Gunnery (NonExplosive Rounds) 

• A 200 yard (183 m) radius buffer 

zone will be established around the 

intended target. 

• From the intended firing position, 

trained lookouts will survey the buffer 

zone for marine mammals and sea 

turtles prior to commencement and 

during the exercise as long as 

practicable. Due to the distance between 

the firing position and the buffer zone, 

lookouts are only expected to visually 

detect breaching whales, whale blows, 

and large pods of dolphins and 

porpoises. 

• If applicable, target towing vessels 

will maintain a lookout. If a marine 

mammal or sea turtle is sighted in the 

vicinity of the exercise, the tow vessel 

will immediately notify the firing vessel 

in order to secure gunnery firing until 

the area is clear. 

• The exercise will be conducted only 

when the buffer zone is visible and 

marine mammals and sea turtles are not 

detected within the target area and the 

buffer zone. 

Surface-to-Air Gunnery (Explosive and 

Non-Explosive Rounds) 

• Vessels will orient the geometry of 

gunnery exercises in order to prevent 

debris from falling in the area of sighted 

marine mammals and sea turtles. 

• Vessels will expedite the attempt to 

recover any parachute deploying aerial 

targets to reduce the potential for 

entanglement of marine mammals and 

sea turtles. 

• Target towing aircraft shall 

maintain a lookout if feasible. If a 

marine mammal or sea turtle is sighted 

in the vicinity of the exercise, the tow 

aircraft will immediately notify the 

firing vessel in order to secure gunnery 

firing until the area is clear. 

Air-to-Surface Gunnery (Explosive and 

Non-Explosive Rounds) 

• A 200 yard (183 m) radius buffer 

zone will be established around the 

intended target. 

• If surface vessels are involved, 

lookout(s) will visually survey the 

buffer zone for marine mammals and sea 

turtles prior to and during the exercise. 

• Aerial surveillance of the buffer 

zone for marine mammals and sea 

turtles will be conducted prior to 

commencement of the exercise. Aerial 

surveillance altitude of 500 feet to 1,500 

feet (152–456 m) is optimum. Aircraft 

crew/pilot will maintain visual watch 

during exercises. Release of ordnance 

through cloud cover is prohibited; 

aircraft must be able to actually see 

ordnance impact areas. 

• The exercise will be conducted only 

if marine mammals and sea turtles are 

not visible within the buffer zone. 

Small Arms Training (Grenades, 

Explosive and Non-Explosive Rounds) 

Lookouts will visually survey for 

marine mammals and sea turtles. 

Weapons will not be fired in the 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53835 

direction of known or observed marine 

mammals or sea turtles. 

Air-to-Surface At-Sea Bombing 

Exercises (Explosive Bombs and 

Rockets) 

• Ordnance shall not be targeted to 

impact within 1,000 yards (914 m) of 

known or observed sea turtles or marine 

mammals. 

• A buffer zone of 1,000 yards (914 

m) radius will be established around the 

intended target. 

• Aircraft will visually survey the 

target and buffer zone for marine 

mammals and sea turtles prior to and 

during the exercise. The survey of the 

impact area will be made by flying at 

1,500 feet or lower, if safe to do so, and 

at the slowest safe speed. When safety 

or other considerations require the 

release of weapons without the releasing 

pilot having visual sight of the target 

area, a second aircraft, the ‘‘wingman,’’ 

will clear the target area and perform 

the clearance and observation functions 

required before the dropping plane may 

release its weapons. Both planes must 

have direct communication to assure 

immediate notification to the dropping 

plane that the target area may have been 

fouled by encroaching animals or 

people. The clearing aircraft will assure 

it has visual site of the target area at a 

maximum height of 1500 ft. The 

clearing plane will remain within visual 

sight of the target until required to clear 

the area for safety reasons. 

• Survey aircraft should employ most 

effective search tactics and capabilities. 

• The exercises will be conducted 

only if marine mammals and sea turtles 

are not visible within the buffer zone. 

Air-to-Surface At-Sea Bombing 

Exercises (Non-Explosive Bombs and 

Rockets) 

• If surface vessels are involved, 

trained lookouts will survey for sea 

turtles and marine mammals. Ordnance 

shall not be targeted to impact within 

1,000 yards (914 m) of known or 

observed sea turtles or marine 

mammals. 

• A 1,000 yard (914 m) radius buffer 

zone will be established around the 

intended target. 

• Aircraft will visually survey the 

target and buffer zone for marine 

mammals and sea turtles prior to and 

during the exercise. The survey of the 

impact area will be made by flying at 

1,500 feet (152 m) or lower, if safe to do 

so, and at the slowest safe speed. When 

safety or other considerations require 

the release of weapons without the 

releasing pilot having visual sight of the 

target area, a second aircraft, the 

‘‘wingman,’’ will clear the target area 

and perform the clearance and 

observation functions required before 

the dropping plane may release its 

weapons. Both planes must have direct 

communication to assure immediate 

notification to the dropping plane that 

the target area may have been fouled by 

encroaching animals or people. The 

clearing aircraft will assure it has visual 

site of the target area at a maximum 

height of 1500 ft. The clearing plane 

will remain within visual sight of the 

target until required to clear the area for 

safety reasons. Survey aircraft shall 

employ most effective search tactics and 

capabilities. 

• The exercise will be conducted only 

if marine mammals and sea turtles are 

not visible within the buffer zone. 

Air-to-Surface Missile Exercises 

(explosive and non-explosive)—Aircraft 

will visually survey the target area for 

marine mammals. Visual inspection of 

the target area will be made by flying at 

1,500 (457 m) feet or lower, if safe to do 

so, and at slowest safe speed. Firing or 

range clearance aircraft must be able to 

actually see ordnance impact areas. 

Explosive ordnance shall not be targeted 

to impact within 1,800 yds (1646 m) of 

sighted marine mammals. 

Aircraft Training Activities Involving 

Non-Explosive Devices 

Non-explosive devices such as some 

sonobuoys, inert bombs, and Mining 

Training Activities involve aerial drops 

of devices that have the potential to hit 

marine mammals and sea turtles if they 

are in the immediate vicinity of a 

floating target. The exclusion zone, as 

established above for each nonexplosive exercise type and if notdefined above, the minimum exclusion 

zone is 200 yards, shall be clear of 

marine mammals and sea turtles around 

the target location. Pre- and postsurveillance and reporting requirements 

outlined for underwater detonations 

shall be implemented during Mining 

Training Activities. 

Explosive Source Sonobuoys Used in 

EER/IEER (AN/SSQ–110A) 

• Crews will conduct visual 

reconnaissance of the drop area prior to 

laying their intended sonobuoy pattern. 

This search should be conducted below 

457 m (500 yd) at a slow speed, if 

operationally feasible and weather 

conditions permit. In dual aircraft 

operations, crews are allowed to 

conduct coordinated area clearances. 

• Crews shall conduct a minimum of 

30 minutes of visual and aural 

monitoring of the search area prior to 

commanding the first post detonation. 

This 30-minute observation period may 

include pattern deployment time. 

• For any part of the briefed pattern 

where a post (source/receiver sonobuoy 

pair) will be deployed within 914 m 

(1,000 yd) of observed marine mammal 

activity, deploy the receiver only and 

monitor while conducting a visual 

search. When marine mammals are no 

longer detected within 914 m (1,000 yd) 

of the intended post position, co-locate 

the explosive source sonobuoy (AN/ 

SSQ–110A) (source) with the receiver. 

• When operationally feasible, crews 

will conduct continuous visual and 

aural monitoring of marine mammal 

activity. This is to include monitoring of 

own-aircraft sensors from first sensor 

placement to checking off station and 

out of RF range of these sensors. 

• Aural Detection—If the presence of 

marine mammals is detected aurally, 

then that should cue the aircrew to 

increase the diligence of their visual 

surveillance. Subsequently, if no marine 

mammals are visually detected, then the 

crew may continue multi-static active 

search. 

• Visual Detection—If marine 

mammals are visually detected within 

914 m (1,000 yd) of the explosive source 

sonobuoy (AN/SSQ–110A) intended for 

use, then that payload shall not be 

detonated. Aircrews may utilize this 

post once the marine mammals have not 

been re-sighted for 30 minutes, or are 

observed to have moved outside the 914 

m (1,000 yd) safety buffer, whichever 

occurs first. Aircrews may shift their 

multi-static active search to another 

post, where marine mammals are 

outside the 914 m (1,000 yd) safety 

buffer. 

• Aircrews shall make every attempt 

to manually detonate the unexploded 

charges at each post in the pattern prior 

to departing the operations area by 

using the ‘‘Payload 1 Release’’ command 

followed by the ‘‘Payload 2 Release’’ 

command. Aircrews shall refrain from 

using the ‘‘Scuttle’’ command when two 

payloads remain at a given post. 

Aircrews will ensure that a 914 m (1,000 

yd) safety buffer, visually clear of 

marine mammals, is maintained around 

each post as is done during active 

search training activities. 

• Aircrews shall only leave posts 

with unexploded charges in the event of 

a sonobuoy malfunction, an aircraft 

system malfunction, or when an aircraft 

must immediately depart the area due to 

issues such as fuel constraints, 

inclement weather, and in-flight 

emergencies. In these cases, the 

sonobuoy will self-scuttle using the 

secondary (detonation occurs by timer 

approximately 6 hours after water entry) 

or tertiary (detonation occurs by salt 

water soluble plug approximately 12 

hours after water entry) method. 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53836 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

• Aircrews shall ensure all payloads 

are accounted for. Explosive source 

sonobuoys (AN/SSQ–110A) that cannot 

be scuttled shall be reported as 

unexploded ordnance via voice 

communications while airborne, then 

upon landing via naval message. 

• Mammal monitoring shall continue 

until out of own-aircraft sensor range. 

Stranding Response Plan for MIRC 

NMFS and the Navy have developed 

a draft Stranding Response Plan for 

Major Exercises in the MIRC Study Area 

(available at: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental.htm). Pursuant to 50 CFR 

216.105, the plan will be included as 

part of (attached to) the Navy’s MMPA 

Letter of Authorization (LOA), which 

contains the conditions under which the 

Navy is authorized to take marine 

mammals pursuant to training activities 

in the MIRC Study Area. The Stranding 

Response plan is specifically intended 

to outline the applicable requirements 

the authorization is conditioned upon in 

the event that a marine mammal 

stranding is reported in the MIRC Study 

Area during a major training exercise 

(MTE) (see glossary below). NMFS 

considers all plausible causes within the 

course of a stranding investigation and 

this plan in no way presumes that any 

strandings in the MIRC Study Area are 

related to, or caused by, Navy training 

activities, absent a determination made 

in a Phase 2 Investigation, as outlined 

in Paragraph 7 of this plan, indicating 

that MFAS or explosive detonation in 

the MIRC Study Area were a cause of 

the stranding. This plan is designed to 

address the following three issues: 

• Mitigation—When marine 

mammals are in a situation that can be 

defined as a stranding (see glossary of 

plan), they are experiencing 

physiological stress. When animals are 

stranded, and alive, NMFS believes that 

exposing these compromised animals to 

additional known stressors would likely 

exacerbate the animal’s distress and 

could potentially cause its death. 

Regardless of the factor(s) that may have 

initially contributed to the stranding, it 

is NMFS’ goal to avoid exposing these 

animals to further stressors. Therefore, 

when live stranded cetaceans are in the 

water and engaged in what is classified 

as an Uncommon Stranding Event (USE) 

(see glossary of plan), the shutdown 

component of this plan is intended to 

minimize the exposure of those animals 

to MFAS and explosive detonations, 

regardless of whether or not these 

activities may have initially played a 

role in the event. 

• Monitoring—This plan will 

enhance the understanding of how 

MFAS/HFAS or IEER (as well as other 

environmental conditions) may, or may 

not, be associated with marine mammal 

injury or strandings. Additionally, 

information gained from the 

investigations associated with this plan 

may be used in the adaptive 

management of mitigation or monitoring 

measures in subsequent LOAs, if 

appropriate. 

• Compliance—The information 

gathered pursuant to this protocol will 

inform NMFS’ decisions regarding 

compliance with Sections 101(a)(5)(B) 

and (C) of the MMPA. 

The Stranding Response Plan has 

several components: 

Shutdown Procedures—When an 

uncommon stranding event (USE— 

defined in the plan) occurs during a 

major exercise in the MIRC Study Area, 

and a live cetacean(s) is in the water 

exhibiting indicators of distress (defined 

in the plan), NMFS will advise the Navy 

that they should cease MFAS/HFAS 

operation and explosive detonations 

within 14 nm of the live animal 

involved in the USE (NMFS and Navy 

will maintain a dialogue, as needed, 

regarding the identification of the USE 

and the potential need to implement 

shutdown procedures). This distance is 

the approximate distance at which 

sounds from the sonar sources are 

anticipated to attenuate to 145 dB (SPL). 

The risk function predicts that less than 

1 percent of the animals exposed to 

sonar at this level (mysticete or 

odontocete) would respond in a manner 

that NMFS considers Level B 

Harassment. 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)— 

The Navy and NMFS will develop an 

MOA, or other mechanism consistent 

with federal fiscal law requirements 

(and all other applicable laws), that 

allows the Navy to assist NMFS with the 

Phase 1 and 2 Investigations of USEs 

through the provision of in-kind 

services, such as (but not limited to) the 

use of plane/boat/truck for transport of 

stranding responders or animals, use of 

Navy property for necropsies or burial, 

or assistance with aerial surveys to 

discern the extent of a USE. The Navy 

may assist NMFS with the 

investigations by providing one or more 

of the in-kind services outlined in the 

MOA, when available and logistically 

feasible and when the provision does 

not negatively affect Fleet operational 

commitments. 

Communication Protocol—Effective 

communication is critical to the 

successful implementation of this 

Stranding Response Plan. Very specific 

protocols for communication, including 

identification of the Navy personnel 

authorized to implement a shutdown 

and the NMFS personnel authorized to 

advise the Navy of the need to 

implement shutdown procedures and 

the associated phone trees, etc. are 

currently in development and will be 

refined and finalized for the Stranding 

Response Plan prior to the issuance of 

a final rule (and updated yearly). 

Stranding Investigation—The 

Stranding Response Plan also outlines 

the way that NMFS plans to investigate 

any strandings (providing staff and 

resources are available) that occur 

during major training exercises in the 

MIRC. 

Mitigation Conclusions 

NMFS has carefully evaluated the 

Navy’s proposed mitigation measures 

and considered a broad 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 measure is 

expected to minimize adverse impacts 

to marine mammals, 

• The proven or likely efficacy of the 

specific measure to minimize adverse 

impacts as planned, 

• The practicability of the measure 

for applicant implementation, including 

consideration of personnel safety, 

practicality of implementation, and 

impact on the effectiveness of the 

military readiness activity. 

In some cases, additional mitigation 

measures are required beyond those that 

the applicant proposes. 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 the 

accomplishment of one or more of the 

general goals listed below: 

(a) Avoidance or minimization of 

injury or death of marine mammals 

wherever possible (goals b, c, and d may 

contribute to this goal). 

(b) A reduction in the numbers of 

marine mammals (total number or 

number at biologically important time 

or location) exposed to received levels 

of MFAS/HFAS, underwater 

detonations, or other activities expected 

to result in the take of marine mammals 

(this goal may contribute to a, above, or 

to reducing harassment takes only). 

(c) A reduction in 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, 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53837 

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) A reduction in 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) Avoidance or minimization of 

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—an increase in 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 or 

recommended by the public, NMFS has 

determined preliminarily that the 

Navy’s proposed mitigation measures 

(especially when the Adaptive 

Management component is taken into 

consideration (see Adaptive 

Management below)) are adequate 

means of effecting the least practicable 

adverse impacts on marine mammals 

species or stocks and their habitat, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar 

significance, while also considering 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. Further detail is included 

below. 

The proposed rule comment period 

will afford the public an opportunity to 

submit recommendations, views and/or 

concerns regarding this action and the 

proposed mitigation measures. While 

NMFS has determined preliminarily 

that the Navy’s proposed mitigation 

measures will effect the least practicable 

adverse impact on the affected species 

or stocks and their habitat, NMFS will 

consider all public comments to help 

inform our final decision. Consequently, 

the proposed mitigation measures may 

be refined, modified, removed, or added 

to prior to the issuance of the final rule 

based on public comments received, 

and where appropriate, further analysis 

of any additional mitigation measures. 

NMFS believes that the range 

clearance procedures and shutdown/ 

safety zone/exclusion zone measures the 

Navy has proposed will enable the Navy 

to avoid injuring marine mammals and 

will enable them to minimize the 

numbers of marine mammals exposed to 

levels associated with TTS for the 

following reasons: 

MFAS/HFAS 

The Navy’s standard protective 

measures indicate that they will ensure 

powerdown of MFAS/HFAS by 6-dB 

when a marine mammal is detected 

within 1000 yd (914 m), powerdown of 

4 more dB (or 10-dB total) when a 

marine mammal is detected within 500 

yd (457 m), and will cease MFAS/HFAS 

transmissions when a marine mammal 

is detected within 200 yd (183 m). 

PTS/Injury—NMFS believes that the 

proposed mitigation measures will 

allow the Navy to avoid exposing 

marine mammals to received levels of 

MFAS/HFAS sound that would result in 

injury for the following reasons: 

• The estimated distance from the 

most powerful source at which 

cetaceans would receive levels at or 

above the threshold for PTS/injury/ 

Level A Harassment is approximately 10 

m (10.9 yd). 

• NMFS believes that the probability 

that a marine mammal would approach 

within the above distances of the sonar 

dome (to the sides or below) without 

being seen by the watchstanders (who 

would then activate a shutdown if the 

animal was within 200 yd (183 m)) is 

very low, especially considering that 

animals would likely avoid approaching 

a source transmitting at that level at that 

distance. 

• The model predicted that one 

pantropical dolphin and one sperm 

whale would be exposed to levels 

associated with injury, however, the 

model does not consider the mitigation 

or likely avoidance behaviors and 

NMFS believes that injury is unlikely 

when those factors are considered. 

TTS—NMFS believes that the 

proposed mitigation measures will 

allow the Navy to minimize exposure of 

marine mammals to received levels of 

MFAS/HFAS sound associated with 

TTS for the following reasons: 

• The estimated maximum distance 

from the most powerful source at which 

cetaceans would receive levels at or 

above the threshold for TTS is 

approximately 140 m from the source in 

most operating environments. 

• Based on the size of the animals, 

average group size, behavior, and 

average dive time, NMFS believes that 

the probability that Navy watchstanders 

will visually detect mysticetes or sperm 

whales, dolphins, and social pelagic 

species (pilot whales, melon-headed 

whales, etc.) at some point within the 

1000 yd (914 km) safety zone before 

they are exposed to the TTS threshold 

levels is high, which means that the 

Navy would often be able to shutdown 

or powerdown to avoid exposing these 

species to sound levels associated with 

TTS. 

• However, more cryptic animals that 

are difficult to detect and observe, such 

as deep-diving cetaceans (beaked 

whales and Kogia spp.), are less likely 

to be visually detected and could 

potentially be exposed to levels of 

MFAS/HFAS expected to cause TTS. 

However, animals at depth in one 

location would not be expected to be 

continuously exposed to repeated sonar 

signals given the typical 10–14 knot 

speed of Navy surface ships during 

ASW events. During a typical one-hour 

subsurface dive by a beaked whale, the 

ship will have moved over 5 to 10 nm 

from the original location. 

• Additionally, the Navy’s bow-riding 

mitigation exception for dolphins may 

sometimes result in dolphins being 

exposed to levels of MFAS/HFAS likely 

to result in TTS. However, there are 

combinations of factors that reduce the 

acoustic energy received by dolphins 

approaching ships to ride in bow waves. 

Dolphins riding a ship’s bow wave are 

outside of the main beam of the MFAS 

vertical beam pattern. Source levels 

drop quickly outside of the main beam. 

Sidelobes of the radiate beam pattern 

that point to the surface are significantly 

lower in power. Together with spherical 

spreading losses, received levels in the 

ship’s bow wave can be more than 42 

dB less than typical source level (i.e., 

235 dB ¥ 42 dB = 193 dB SPL). Finally, 

bow wave riding dolphins are 

frequently in and out of a bubble layer 

generated by the breaking bow waves. 

This bubble layer is an excellent 

scatterer of acoustic energy and can 

further reduce received energy. 

The Stranding Response Plan will 

minimize the probability of distressed 

live-stranded animals responding to the 

proximity of sonar in a manner that 

further stresses them or increases the 

potential likelihood of mortality. 

Underwater Explosives 

The Navy utilizes exclusion zones 

(wherein explosive detonation will not 

begin/continue if animals are within the 

zone) for explosive exercises. Table 3 

identifies the various explosives, the 

estimated distance at which animals 

will receive levels associated with take 

(see Acoustic Take Criteria Section), and 

the exclusion zone associated with the 

explosive types. 

Mortality and Injury—NMFS believes 

that the mitigation measures will allow 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53838 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

the Navy to avoid exposing marine 

mammals to underwater detonations 

that would result in injury or mortality 

for the following reasons: 

• Surveillance for large charges 

(which includes aerial and passive 

acoustic detection methods, when 

available, to ensure clearance) begins 

two hours before the exercise and 

extends to 2 nm (3704 m) from the 

source. Surveillance for all charges 

extends out 3–50 times the farthest 

distance from the source at which injury 

would be anticipated to occur (see Table 

3). 

• Animals would need to be less than 

426 m (465 yd) (large explosives) or 8– 

160 m (9–175 yd) (smaller charges) from 

the source to be injured. 

• Unlike for active sonar, an animal 

would need to be present at the exact 

moment of the explosion(s) (except for 

the short series of gunfire example in 

GUNEX) to be taken. 

• The model predicted that 0 animals 

would be exposed to explosive levels 

associated with injury or death. 

• When the implementation of the 

exclusion zones (i.e., the fact that the 

Navy will not start a detonation or will 

not continue to detonate explosives if an 

animal is detected within the exclusion 

zone) is considered in combination with 

the factors described in the above 

bullets, NMFS believes that the Navy’s 

mitigation will prevent injury and 

mortality to marine mammals from 

explosives. 

TTS—NMFS believes that the 

proposed mitigation measures will 

allow the Navy to minimize the 

exposure of marine mammals to 

underwater detonations that would 

result in TTS for the following reasons: 

• 43 animals annually were predicted 

to be exposed to explosive levels that 

would result in TTS. For the reasons 

explained above, NMFS believes that 

most modeled TTS takes can be 

avoided, especially dolphins, mysticetes 

and sperm whales, and social pelagic 

species. 

• However, more cryptic, deep-diving 

species (beaked whales and Kogia spp.) 

are less likely to be visually detected 

and could potentially be exposed to 

explosive levels expected to cause TTS. 

The model estimated that 4 beaked 

whales and zero Kogia would be 

exposed to TTS levels. 

• Additionally, for SINKEXs, the 

distance at which an animal would be 

expected to receive sound or pressure 

levels associated with TTS (182 dB SEL 

or 23 psi) is sometimes (when the 

largest explosive type, the MK–84, is 

used) larger than the exclusion zone, 

which means that for those two exercise 

types, some individuals will likely be 

exposed to levels associated with TTS 

outside of the exclusion zone. 

Research 

The Navy provides a significant 

amount of funding and support to 

marine research. In the past five years 

the agency funded over $100 million 

($26 million in FY08 alone) to 

universities, research institutions, 

federal laboratories, private companies, 

and independent researchers around the 

world to study marine mammals. The 

U.S. Navy sponsors 70% of all U.S. 

research concerning the effects of 

human-generated sound on marine 

mammals and 50% of such research 

conducted worldwide. Major topics of 

Navy-supported research include the 

following: 

• Better understanding of marine 

species distribution and important 

habitat areas, 

• Developing methods to detect and 

monitor marine species before and 

during training, 

• Understanding the effects of sound 

on marine mammals, sea turtles, fish, 

and birds, and 

• Developing tools to model and 

estimate potential effects of sound. 

This research is directly applicable to 

Fleet training activities, particularly 

with respect to the investigations of the 

potential effects of underwater noise 

sources on marine mammals and other 

protected species. Proposed training 

activities employ active sonar and 

underwater explosives, which introduce 

sound into the marine environment. 

The Marine Life Sciences Division of 

the Office of Naval Research currently 

coordinates six programs that examine 

the marine environment and are 

devoted solely to studying the effects of 

noise and/or the implementation of 

technology tools that will assist the 

Navy in studying and tracking marine 

mammals. The six programs are as 

follows: 

• Environmental Consequences of 

Underwater Sound, 

• Non-Auditory Biological Effects of 

Sound on Marine Mammals, 

• Effects of Sound on the Marine 

Environment, 

• Sensors and Models for Marine 

Environmental Monitoring, 

• Effects of Sound on Hearing of 

Marine Animals, and 

• Passive Acoustic Detection, 

Classification, and Tracking of Marine 

Mammals. 

The Navy has also developed the 

technical reports referenced within this 

document, which include the Marine 

Resource Assessments and the Marine 

Mammal and sea turtle density 

estimates for Guam and the CNMI (DoN 

2007). Furthermore, research cruises by 

the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) and by academic institutions 

have received funding from the U.S. 

Navy. 

The Navy has sponsored several 

workshops to evaluate the current state 

of knowledge and potential for future 

acoustic monitoring of marine 

mammals. The workshops brought 

together acoustic experts and marine 

biologists from the Navy and other 

research organizations to present data 

and information on current acoustic 

monitoring research efforts and to 

evaluate the potential for incorporating 

similar technology and methods on 

instrumented ranges. However, acoustic 

detection, identification, localization, 

and tracking of individual animals still 

requires a significant amount of research 

effort to be considered a reliable method 

for marine mammal monitoring. The 

Navy supports research efforts on 

acoustic monitoring and will continue 

to investigate the feasibility of passive 

acoustics as a potential mitigation and 

monitoring tool. 

Overall, the Navy will continue to 

fund ongoing marine mammal research, 

and is planning to coordinate long-term 

monitoring/studies of marine mammals 

on various established ranges and 

operating areas. The Navy will continue 

to research and contribute to university/ 

external research to improve the state of 

the science regarding marine species 

biology and acoustic effects. These 

efforts include mitigation and 

monitoring programs; data sharing with 

NMFS and via the literature for research 

and development efforts; and future 

research as described previously. 

Long-Term Prospective Study 

Apart from this proposed rule, NMFS, 

with input and assistance from the Navy 

and several other agencies and entities, 

will perform a longitudinal 

observational study of marine mammal 

strandings to systematically observe and 

record the types of pathologies and 

diseases and investigate the relationship 

with potential causal factors (e.g., active 

sonar, seismic, weather). The study will 

not be a true ‘‘cohort’’ study, because we 

will be unable to quantify or estimate 

specific active sonar or other sound 

exposures for individual animals that 

strand. However, a cross-sectional or 

correlational analyses, a method of 

descriptive rather than analytical 

epidemiology, can be conducted to 

compare population characteristics, e.g., 

frequency of strandings and types of 

specific pathologies between general 

periods of various anthropogenic 

activities and non-activities within a 

prescribed geographic space. In the 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53839 

long-term study, we will more fully and 

consistently collect and analyze data on 

the demographics of strandings in 

specific locations and consider 

anthropogenic activities and physical, 

chemical, and biological environmental 

parameters. This approach in 

conjunction with true cohort studies 

(tagging animals, measuring received 

sounds, and evaluating behavior or 

injuries) in the presence of activities 

and non-activities will provide critical 

information needed to further define the 

impacts of MTEs and other 

anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic 

stressors. In coordination with the Navy 

and other Federal and non-federal 

partners, the comparative study will be 

designed and conducted for specific 

sites during intervals of the presence of 

anthropogenic activities such as active 

sonar transmission or other sound 

exposures and absence to evaluate 

demographics of morbidity and 

mortality, lesions found, and cause of 

death or stranding. Additional data that 

will be collected and analyzed in an 

effort to control potential confounding 

factors include variables such as average 

sea temperature (or just season), 

meteorological or other environmental 

variables (e.g., seismic activity), fishing 

activities, etc. All efforts will be made 

to include appropriate controls (i.e., no 

active sonar or no seismic); 

environmental variables may complicate 

the interpretation of ‘‘control’’ 

measurements. The Navy and NMFS 

along with other partners are evaluating 

mechanisms for funding this study. 

Monitoring 

In order to issue an ITA for an 

activity, Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

‘‘requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such 

taking’’. The MMPA implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) 

indicate that requests for LOAs must 

include the suggested means of 

accomplishing the necessary monitoring 

and reporting that will result in 

increased knowledge of the species and 

of the level of taking or impacts on 

populations of marine mammals that are 

expected to be present. 

Monitoring measures prescribed by 

NMFS should accomplish one or more 

of the following general goals: 

(a) An increase in our understanding 

of how many marine mammals are 

likely to be exposed to levels of MFAS/ 

HFAS (or explosives or other stimuli) 

that we associate with specific adverse 

effects, such as behavioral harassment, 

TTS, or PTS. 

(b) An increase in our understanding 

of how individual marine mammals 

respond (behaviorally or 

physiologically) to MFAS/HFAS (at 

specific received levels), explosives, or 

other stimuli expected to result in take. 

(c) An increase in our understanding 

of how anticipated takes of individuals 

(in different ways and to varying 

degrees) may impact the population, 

species, or stock (specifically through 

effects on annual rates of recruitment or 

survival). 

(d) An increased knowledge of the 

affected species, 

(e) An increase in our understanding 

of the effectiveness of certain mitigation 

and monitoring measures, 

(f) A better understanding and record 

of the manner in which the authorized 

entity complies with the incidental take 

authorization, 

(g) An increase in the probability of 

detecting marine mammals, both within 

the safety zone (thus allowing for more 

effective implementation of the 

mitigation) and in general to better 

achieve the above goals. 

Proposed Monitoring Plan for the MIRC 

The Navy has submitted a draft 

Monitoring Plan for the MIRC which 

may be viewed at NMFS’ Web site: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental.htm#applications. The plan 

may be modified or supplemented based 

on comments or new information 

received from the public during the 

public comment period. A summary of 

the primary components of the plan 

follows. 

The draft Monitoring Plan for MIRC 

has been designed as a collection of 

focused ‘‘studies’’ (described fully in the 

MIRC draft Monitoring Plan) to gather 

data that will allow the Navy to address 

the following questions: 

(a) Are marine mammals exposed to 

MFAS/HFAS, especially at levels 

associated with adverse effects (i.e., 

based on NMFS’ criteria for behavioral 

harassment, TTS, or PTS)? If so, at what 

levels are they exposed? 

(b) If marine mammals are exposed to 

MFAS/HFAS in the MIRC Range 

Complex, do they redistribute 

geographically as a result of continued 

exposure? If so, how long does the 

redistribution last? 

(c) If marine mammals are exposed to 

MFAS/HFAS, what are their behavioral 

responses to various levels? 

(d) What are the behavioral responses 

of marine mammals that are exposed to 

explosives at specific levels? 

(e) Is the Navy’s suite of mitigation 

measures for MFAS/HFAS (e.g., 

measures agreed to by the Navy through 

permitting) effective at preventing TTS, 

injury, and mortality of marine 

mammals? 

Data gathered in these studies will be 

collected by qualified, professional 

marine mammal biologists that are 

experts in their field. They will use a 

combination of the following methods 

to collect data: 

• Contracted third party vessel 

surveys. 

• Passive acoustic monitoring. 

• Marine mammal observers on Navy 

ships. 

• Shore-based monitoring. 

In the four proposed study designs 

(all of which cover multiple years), the 

above methods will be used separately 

or in combination to monitor marine 

mammals in different combinations 

before, during, and after training 

activities utilizing MFAS/HFAS. 

This monitoring plan has been 

designed to gather data on all species of 

marine mammals that are observed in 

the MIRC, however, where appropriate 

priority will be given to ESA-listed 

species, beaked whales and other deepdiving species (Kogia, melon-headed 

whales, and false-killer whales). The 

Plan recognizes that deep-diving and 

cryptic species of marine mammals such 

as beaked whales have a low probability 

of detection (Barlow and Gisiner, 2006). 

Therefore, methods will be utilized to 

attempt to address this issue (e.g., 

passive acoustic monitoring). 

In addition to the Monitoring Plan for 

MIRC, by the end of 2009, the Navy will 

have completed an Integrated 

Comprehensive Monitoring Program 

(ICMP) Plan. The ICMP will provide the 

overarching structure and coordination 

that will, over time, compile data from 

both range specific monitoring plans 

(such as AFAST, the Hawaii Range 

Complex, the Southern California Range 

Complex, and the Northwest Training 

Range Complex) as well as Navy funded 

research and development (R&D) 

studies. The primary objectives of the 

ICMP are to: 

• Coordinate monitoring and 

assessment of the effects of Navy 

activities on protected species; 

• Ensure data collected at multiple 

locations is collected in a manner that 

allows comparison between and among 

different geographic locations; 

• Assess the efficacy and 

practicability of monitoring and 

mitigation techniques; and 

• Add to the overall knowledge base 

on potential behavioral and 

physiological effects to marine species 

from Navy activities. 

More information about the ICMP 

may be found in the draft Monitoring 

Plan for MIRC. 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53840 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Monitoring Workshop 

The Navy, with guidance and support 

from NMFS, will convene a Monitoring 

Workshop, including marine mammal 

and acoustic experts as well as other 

interested parties, in 2011. The 

Monitoring Workshop participants will 

review the monitoring results from the 

first two years of monitoring pursuant to 

this MIRC rule as well as monitoring 

results from other Navy rules and LOAs 

(e.g., the Southern California Range 

Complex (SOCAL), Hawaii Range 

Complex (HRC), etc.). The Monitoring 

Workshop participants would provide 

their individual recommendations to the 

Navy and NMFS on the monitoring 

plan(s) after also considering the current 

science (including Navy research and 

development) and working within the 

framework of available resources and 

feasibility of implementation. NMFS 

and the Navy would then analyze the 

input from the Monitoring Workshop 

participants and determine the best way 

forward from a national perspective. 

Subsequent to the Monitoring 

Workshop, modifications would be 

applied to monitoring plans as 

appropriate. 

Past Monitoring in the MIRC Study Area 

NMFS has received one monitoring 

report addressing MFAS use in the 

MIRC. The data contained in the After 

Action Report (AAR) have been 

considered in developing mitigation and 

monitoring measures for the proposed 

activities contained in this rule. The 

Navy’s AAR may be viewed at: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental.htm. NMFS has reviewed this 

report and has summarized the results, 

as related to marine mammal 

observations, below. 

Valiant Shield 07 

Valiant Shield 07 (VS 07) was 

conducted from August 6, 2007 through 

August 13, 2007. The ASW training 

conducted during the VS 07 involved 

ships, submarines, aircraft, nonexplosive exercise weapons, and other 

training related devices and occurred in 

the Western Pacific ocean waters south 

of the Mariana Islands portion of the 

MIRC (see Figure A–1, Appendix A). 

MFAS-equipped platforms participating 

in VS07 include Ticonderoga-class 

guided missile cruisers (CG), and 

Arleigh Burke-class guided missile 

destroyers (DDG) surface combatants 

with AN/SQS–53C sonar, and 

associated aviation assets (SH–60B/F/R 

with AN/AQS–13F or AQS–22 dipping 

sonar, and AN/SSQ–62B/C/D/E 

Directional Command Activated 

Sonobuoy System—DICASS), and P–3 

Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) (DICASS 

sonobuoy). 

During VS07, 1,208 hours of MFAS 

time was reported from all sources 

including hull-mounted 53C, helicopter 

dipping sonar, and DICASS sonobuoys. 

Table A–2 contains a complete list of 

VS07 marine mammal visual sightings 

made by U.S. Navy lookouts and watch 

teams based on standardized reporting 

protocols. There were a total of 25 

marine mammal sightings for an 

estimated 235 animals during VS07. As 

in other U.S. Navy exercise after action 

reports, the majority of animals sighted 

were dolphins and porpoises since these 

species often occur in large schools. For 

VS07, this was again true with six 

dolphin sightings accounting for 196 

animals or 83% of the total estimated 

number of animals (196 of 235). 

None of the watchstanders reported 

any sort of ‘‘observed effect’’ on the 

marine mammals that were observed in 

the ten instances when the sonar was 

on. 

Post-Exercise Aerial Marine Mammal 

Survey 

Immediately following the exercise, 

an aerial marine mammal survey was 

conducted from 13–17 August 2007. 

This effort represents one of the first 

summer time marine mammal surveys 

for the waters south of the Marianas, 

and was conducted by experienced, 

independent civilian scientists and crew 

using NMFS-approved survey protocols. 

The first survey day involved 

circumnavigating the islands of Guam 

and Rota to detect any stranded or near 

stranded marine mammals. None were 

detected on or near coastlines. 

Subsequent line-transect surveys 

encompassed approximately 2,352 km 

(1270 nautical miles) of linear effort, 

with transect grids distributed randomly 

throughout a 163,300 km2 (63,050 

miles2) area. A total of 8 sightings were 

recorded during the five-day period 

including seven cetacean and one 

unidentified turtle species. Cetacean 

species sighted included a Bryde’s 

whale (Balaenoptera edeni), a Cuvier’s 

beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris), 

spotted dolphins (Stenella attenuata), 

pygmy or dwarf sperm whale (Kogia 

spp.), rough-toothed dolphins (Steno 

bredanensis) and two sightings of 

unidentified dolphin species. No 

unusual behavior was detected. More 

information regarding the findings of 

these aerial surveys may be found in 

Appendix B of the VS 07 Monitoring 

report, which is posted on the NMFS 

Web site, at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

pr/permits/incidental.htm. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53841 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP20OC09.007</GPH>
53842 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

General Conclusions Drawn From 

Review of Monitoring Reports 

Because NMFS has received only one 

monitoring report from sonar training in 

the MIRC Study Area, it is difficult to 

draw biological conclusions. However, 

NMFS can draw some general 

conclusions from the content of the 

monitoring reports: 

(a) Data from watchstanders is 

generally useful to indicate the presence 

or absence of marine mammals within 

the safety zones (and sometimes 

without) and to document the 

implementation of mitigation measures, 

but does not provide useful speciesspecific information or behavioral data. 

Data gathered by independent observers 

can provide very valuable information 

at a level of detail not possible with 

watchstanders (such as data gathered by 

independent, biologist monitors in 

Hawaii and submitted to NMFS in a 

monitoring report, which indicated the 

presence of sub-adult sei whales in the 

Hawaiian Islands in fall, potentially 

indicating the use of the area for 

breeding). 

(b) Though it is by no means 

conclusory, it is worth noting that no 

instances of obvious behavioral 

disturbance were observed by the Navy 

watchstanders. Of course, these 

observations only cover the animals that 

were at the surface (or slightly below in 

the case of aerial surveys) and within 

the distance that the observers can see 

with the big-eye binoculars or from the 

aircraft. 

(c) NMFS and the Navy need to more 

carefully designate what information 

should be gathered during monitoring, 

as some reports contain different 

information, making cross-report 

comparisons difficult. This issue is 

currently being considered in the 

development of the ICMP. 

Adaptive Management 

The final regulations governing the 

take of marine mammals incidental to 

Navy training exercises in the MIRC will 

contain an adaptive management 

component. Our understanding of the 

effects of MFAS/HFAS and explosives 

on marine mammals is still in its 

relative infancy, and yet the science in 

this field is evolving fairly quickly. 

These circumstances make the inclusion 

of an adaptive management component 

both valuable and necessary within the 

context of 5-year regulations for 

activities that have been associated with 

marine mammal mortality in certain 

circumstances and locations (though not 

the MIRC in the Navy’s over 60 years of 

use of the area for sonar testing and 

training). The use of adaptive 

management will allow NMFS to 

consider new information from different 

sources to determine (with input from 

the Navy regarding practicability) on an 

annual basis if mitigation or monitoring 

measures should be modified (including 

additions or deletions) if new data 

suggest that such modifications are 

appropriate for subsequent annual 

LOAs. 

Following are some of the possible 

sources of applicable data: 

• Results from the Navy’s monitoring 

from the previous year (either from 

MIRC or other locations). 

• Findings of the Workshop that the 

Navy will convene in 2011 to analyze 

monitoring results to date, review 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP20OC09.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53843 

current science, and recommend 

modifications, as appropriate to the 

monitoring protocols to increase 

monitoring effectiveness. 

• Compiled results of Navy funded 

research and development (R&D) studies 

(presented pursuant to the ICMP, which 

is discussed elsewhere in this 

document). 

• Results from specific stranding 

investigations (either from MIRC or 

other locations, and involving 

coincident MFAS/HFAS or explosives 

training or not involving coincident 

use). 

• Results from the Long Term 

Prospective Study described above. 

• Results from general marine 

mammal and sound research. 

• Any information which reveals that 

marine mammals may have been taken 

in a manner, extent or number not 

authorized by these regulations or 

subsequent Letters of Authorization. 

Mitigation measures could be 

modified, added, or deleted if new 

information suggests that such 

modifications would have a reasonable 

likelihood of accomplishing the goals of 

mitigation laid out in this proposed rule 

and if the measures are practicable. 

NMFS would also coordinate with the 

Navy to modify, add, or delete the 

existing monitoring requirements if the 

new data suggest that the addition of (or 

deletion of) a particular measure would 

more effectively accomplish the goals of 

monitoring laid out in this proposed 

rule. The reporting requirements 

associated with this proposed rule are 

designed to provide NMFS with 

monitoring data from the previous year 

to allow NMFS to consider the data and 

issue annual LOAs. NMFS and the Navy 

will meet annually, prior to LOA 

issuance, to discuss the monitoring 

reports, Navy R&D developments, and 

current science and whether mitigation 

or monitoring modifications are 

appropriate. 

Reporting 

In order to issue an ITA for an 

activity, Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

‘‘requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such 

taking’’. Effective reporting is critical 

both to compliance as well as ensuring 

that the most value is obtained from the 

required monitoring. Proposed reporting 

requirements may be modified, 

removed, or added based on information 

or comments received during the public 

comment period. Currently, there are 

several different reporting requirements 

pursuant to these proposed regulations: 

General Notification of Injured or Dead 

Marine Mammals 

Navy personnel will ensure that 

NMFS is notified immediately (see 

Communication Plan) or as soon as 

clearance procedures allow if an 

injured, stranded, or dead marine 

mammal is found during or shortly 

after, and in the vicinity of, any Navy 

training exercise utilizing MFAS, HFAS, 

or underwater explosive detonations. 

The Navy will 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 MIRC 

Stranding Response Plan contains more 

specific reporting requirements for 

specific circumstances. 

In the event that an injured, stranded, 

or dead marine mammal is found by the 

Navy that is not in the vicinity of, or 

found during or shortly after MFAS, 

HFAS, or underwater explosive 

detonations, the Navy will report the 

same information as listed above as 

soon as operationally feasible and 

clearance procedures allow. 

General Notification of a Ship Strike 

In the event of a ship strike by any 

Navy vessel, at any time or place, the 

Navy shall do the following: 

• Immediately report to NMFS the 

species identification (if known), 

location (lat/long) of the animal (or the 

strike if the animal has disappeared), 

and whether the animal is alive or dead 

(or unknown). 

• Report to NMFS as soon as 

operationally feasible the size and 

length of animal, an estimate of the 

injury status (e.g., dead, injured but 

alive, injured and moving, unknown, 

etc.), vessel class/type and operational 

status. 

• Report to NMFS the vessel length, 

speed, and heading as soon as feasible. 

• Provide NMFS a photo or video, if 

equipment is available. 

Annual MIRC Monitoring Plan Report 

The Navy shall submit a report 

annually on November 15 describing the 

implementation and results (through 

September 15 of the same year) of the 

MIRC Monitoring Plan, described above. 

Data collection methods will be 

standardized across range complexes to 

allow for comparison in different 

geographic locations. Although 

additional information will also be 

gathered, the marine mammal observers 

(MMOs) collecting marine mammal data 

pursuant to the MIRC Monitoring Plan 

shall, at a minimum, provide the same 

marine mammal observation data 

required in the MFAS/HFAS major 

Training Exercises section of the Annual 

MIRC Exercise Report referenced below. 

The MIRC Monitoring Plan Report 

may be provided to NMFS within a 

larger report that includes the required 

Monitoring Plan Reports from multiple 

Range Complexes. 

Annual MIRC Exercise Report 

The Navy will submit an Annual 

MIRC Report on November 15 of every 

year (covering data gathered through 

September 15). This report shall contain 

the subsections and information 

indicated below. 

MFAS/HFAS Major Training Exercises 

This section shall contain the 

following information for the following 

Coordinated and Strike Group exercises, 

which for simplicity will be referred to 

as major training exercises for reporting 

(MTERs): Joint Multi-strike Group 

Exercises; Joint Expeditionary Exercises; 

and Marine Air Ground Task Force 

MIRC: 

(a) Exercise Information (for each 

MTER): 

(i) Exercise designator. 

(ii) Date that exercise began and 

ended. 

(iii) Location. 

(iv) Number and types of active 

sources used in the exercise. 

(v) Number and types of passive 

acoustic sources used in exercise. 

(vi) Number and types of vessels, 

aircraft, etc., participating in exercise. 

(vii) Total hours of observation by 

watchstanders. 

(viii) Total hours of all active sonar 

source operation. 

(ix) Total hours of each active sonar 

source (along with explanation of how 

hours are calculated for sources 

typically quantified in alternate way 

(buoys, torpedoes, etc.)). 

(x) Wave height (high, low, and 

average during exercise). 

(b) Individual marine mammal 

sighting info (for each sighting in each 

MTER): 

(i) Location of sighting. 

(ii) Species (if not possible— 

indication of whale/dolphin/pinniped). 

(iii) Number of individuals. 

(iv) Calves observed (y/n). 

(v) Initial Detection Sensor. 

(vi) Indication of specific type of 

platform observation made from 

(including, for example, what type of 

surface vessel, i.e., FFG, DDG, or CG). 

(vii) Length of time observers 

maintained visual contact with marine 

mammal(s). 

(viii) Wave height (in feet). 

(ix) Visibility. 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53844 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(x) Sonar source in use (y/n). 

(xi) Indication of whether animal is 

<200yd, 200–500yd, 500–1000yd, 1000– 

2000yd, or >2000yd from sonar source 

in (x) above. 

(xiii) Mitigation Implementation— 

Whether operation of sonar sensor was 

delayed, or sonar was powered or shut 

down, and how long the delay was. 

(xiv) If source in use (x) is 

hullmounted, true bearing of animal 

from ship, true direction of ship’s travel, 

and estimation of animal’s motion 

relative to ship (opening, closing, 

parallel). 

(xv) Observed behavior— 

Watchstanders shall report, in plain 

language and without trying to 

categorize in any way, the observed 

behavior of the animals (such as animal 

closing to bow ride, paralleling course/ 

speed, floating on surface and not 

swimming, etc.). 

(c) An evaluation (based on data 

gathered during all of the MTERs) of the 

effectiveness of mitigation measures 

designed to avoid exposing marine 

mammals to MFAS. This evaluation 

shall identify the specific observations 

that support any conclusions the Navy 

reaches about the effectiveness of the 

mitigation. 

ASW Summary 

This section shall include the 

following information as summarized 

from non-major training exercises (unitlevel exercises, such as TRACKEXs): 

(a) Total Hours—Total annual hours 

of each type of sonar source (along with 

explanation of how hours are calculated 

for sources typically quantified in 

alternate way (buoys, torpedoes, etc.)). 

(b) Cumulative Impacts—To the 

extent practicable, the Navy, in 

coordination with NMFS, shall develop 

and implement a method of annually 

reporting non-major training (i.e., ULT) 

utilizing hull-mounted sonar. The report 

shall present an annual (and seasonal, 

where practicable) depiction of nonmajor training exercises geographically 

across MIRC. The Navy shall include (in 

the MIRC annual report) a brief annual 

progress update on the status of the 

development of an effective and 

unclassified method to report this 

information until an agreed-upon (with 

NMFS) method has been developed and 

implemented. 

Sonar Exercise Notification 

The Navy shall submit to the NMFS 

Office of Protected Resources (specific 

contact information to be provided in 

LOA) either an electronic (preferably) or 

verbal report within fifteen calendar 

days after the completion of any MTER 

indicating: 

(1) Location of the exercise. 

(2) Beginning and end dates of the 

exercise. 

(3) Type of exercise. 

Improved Extended Echo-Ranging 

System (IEER)/Advanced Extended 

Echo-Ranging System (AEER) Summary 

This section shall include an annual 

summary of the following IEER and 

AEER information: 

(i) Total number of IEER and AEER 

events conducted in MIRC Study Area. 

(ii) Total expended/detonated rounds 

(buoys). 

(iii) Total number of self-scuttled 

IEER rounds. 

Sinking Exercises (SINKEXs) 

This section shall include the 

following information for each SINKEX 

completed that year: 

(a) Exercise information: 

(i) Location 

(ii) Date and time exercise began and 

ended 

(iii) Total hours of observation by 

watchstanders before, during, and after 

exercise 

(iv) Total number and types of rounds 

expended/explosives detonated 

(v) Number and types of passive 

acoustic sources used in exercise 

(vi) Total hours of passive acoustic 

search time 

(vii) Number and types of vessels, 

aircraft, etc., participating in exercise 

(viii) Wave height in feet (high, low 

and average during exercise) 

(ix) Narrative description of sensors 

and platforms utilized for marine 

mammal detection and timeline 

illustrating how marine mammal 

detection was conducted 

(b) Individual marine mammal 

observation during SINKEX (by Navy 

lookouts) information: 

(i) Location of sighting 

(ii) Species (if not possible— 

indication of whale/dolphin/pinniped) 

(iii) Number of individuals 

(iv) Calves observed (y/n) 

(v) Initial detection sensor 

(vi) Length of time observers 

maintained visual contact with marine 

mammal 

(vii) Wave height 

(viii) Visibility 

(ix) Whether sighting was before, 

during, or after detonations/exercise, 

and how many minutes before or after 

(x) Distance of marine mammal from 

actual detonations (or target spot if not 

yet detonated)—use four categories to 

define distance: (1) The modeled injury 

threshold radius for the largest 

explosive used in that exercise type in 

that OPAREA (426 m for SINKEX in 

MIRC); (2) the required exclusion zone 

(1 nm for SINKEX in MIRC); (3) the 

required observation distance (if 

different than the exclusion zone (2 nm 

for SINKEX in MIRC); and (4) greater 

than the required observed distance. For 

example, in this case, the observer 

would indicate if < 426 m, from 426 m– 

1 nm, from 1 nm–2 nm, and > 2 nm. 

(xi) Observed behavior— 

Watchstanders will report, in plain 

language and without trying to 

categorize in any way, the observed 

behavior of the animals (such as animal 

closing to bow ride, paralleling course/ 

speed, floating on surface and not 

swimming etc.), including speed and 

direction. 

(xii) Resulting mitigation 

implementation—Indicate whether 

explosive detonations were delayed, 

ceased, modified, or not modified due to 

marine mammal presence and for how 

long. 

(xiii) If observation occurs while 

explosives are detonating in the water, 

indicate munitions type in use at time 

of marine mammal detection. 

Explosives Summary 

The Navy is in the process of 

improving the methods used to track 

explosive use to provide increased 

granularity. To the extent practicable, 

the Navy will provide the information 

described below for all of their 

explosive exercises. Until the Navy is 

able to report in full the information 

below, they will provide an annual 

update on the Navy’s explosive tracking 

methods, including improvements from 

the previous year. 

(a) Total annual number of each type 

of explosive exercise (of those identified 

as part of the ‘‘specified activity’’ in this 

final rule) conducted in MIRC 

(b) Total annual expended/detonated 

rounds (missiles, bombs, etc.) for each 

explosive type 

MIRC 5-Yr Comprehensive Report 

The Navy shall submit to NMFS a 

draft report that analyzes and 

summarizes all of the multi-year marine 

mammal information gathered during 

ASW and explosive exercises for which 

annual reports are required (Annual 

MIRC Exercise Reports and MIRC 

Monitoring Plan Reports). This report 

will be submitted at the end of the 

fourth year of the rule (November 2013), 

covering activities that have occurred 

through July15, 2014. 

Comprehensive National ASW Report 

By June, 2014, the Navy shall submit 

a draft National Report that analyzes, 

compares, and summarizes the active 

sonar data gathered (through January 1, 

2014) from the watchstanders and 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53845 

pursuant to the implementation of the 

Monitoring Plans for the Northwest 

Training Range Complex, the Southern 

California Range Complex, the Atlantic 

Fleet Active Sonar Training, the Hawaii 

Range Complex, the Mariana Islands 

Range Complex, and the Gulf of Alaska. 

The Navy shall respond to NMFS 

comments and requests for additional 

information or clarification on the MIRC 

Range Complex Comprehensive Report, 

the Comprehensive National ASW 

report, the Annual MIRC Range 

Complex Exercise Report, or the Annual 

MIRC Range Complex Monitoring Plan 

Report (or the multi-Range Complex 

Annual Monitoring Plan Report, if that 

is how the Navy chooses to submit the 

information) if submitted within 3 

months of receipt. These reports will be 

considered final after the Navy has 

adequately addressed NMFS’ comments 

or provided the requested information, 

or three months after the submittal of 

the draft if NMFS does not comment by 

then. 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 

As mentioned previously, one of the 

main purposes of NMFS’ effects 

assessments is to identify the 

permissible methods of taking, meaning: 

The nature of the take (e.g., resulting 

from anthropogenic noise vs. from ship 

strike, etc.); the regulatory level of take 

(i.e., mortality vs. Level A or Level B 

harassment) and the amount of take. In 

the Potential Effects of Exposure of 

Marine Mammal to MFAS/HFAS and 

Underwater Detonations section, NMFS 

identified the lethal responses, physical 

trauma, sensory impairment (permanent 

and temporary threshold shifts and 

acoustic masking), physiological 

responses (particular stress responses), 

and behavioral responses that could 

potentially result from exposure to 

MFAS/HFAS or underwater explosive 

detonations. In this section, we will 

relate the potential effects to marine 

mammals from MFAS/HFAS and 

underwater detonation of explosives to 

the MMPA statutory definitions of Level 

A and Level B Harassment and attempt 

to quantify the effects that might occur 

from the specific training activities that 

the Navy is proposing in the MIRC. 

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 

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 and those 

that are laid out quantitatively in the 

regulatory text, 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. 

Definition of Harassment 

As mentioned previously, with 

respect to military readiness activities, 

Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA defines 

‘‘harassment’’ as: (i) Any act that injures 

or has the significant potential to injure 

a marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild [Level A Harassment]; 

or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely 

to disturb a marine mammal or marine 

mammal stock in the wild by causing 

disruption of natural behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering, to a point where 

such behavioral patterns are abandoned 

or significantly altered [Level B 

Harassment]. 

Level B Harassment 

Of the potential effects that were 

described in the Potential Effects of 

Exposure of Marine Mammal to MFAS/ 

HFAS and Underwater Detonations 

Section, the following are the types of 

effects that fall into the Level B 

Harassment category: 

Behavioral Harassment—Behavioral 

disturbance that rises to the level 

described in the definition above, when 

resulting from exposures to MFAS/ 

HFAS or underwater detonations (or 

another stressor), is considered Level B 

Harassment. Louder sounds (when other 

factors are not considered) are generally 

expected to elicit a stronger response. 

Some of the lower level physiological 

stress responses discussed in the 

Potential Effects of Exposure of Marine 

Mammal to MFAS/HFAS and 

Underwater Detonations Section: Stress 

Section will also likely co-occur with 

the predicted harassments, although 

these responses are more difficult to 

detect and fewer data exist relating 

these responses to specific received 

levels of sound. When Level B 

Harassment is predicted based on 

estimated behavioral responses, those 

takes may have a stress-related 

physiological component as well. 

In the effects section above, we 

described the Southall et al. (2007) 

severity scaling system and listed some 

examples of the three broad categories 

of behaviors: (0–3: Minor and/or brief 

behaviors); 4–6 (Behaviors with higher 

potential to affect foraging, 

reproduction, or survival); 7–9 

(Behaviors considered likely to affect 

the aforementioned vital rates). 

Generally speaking, MMPA Level B 

Harassment, as defined in this 

document, would include the behaviors 

described in the 7–9 category, and a 

subset, dependent on context and other 

considerations, of the behaviors 

described in the 4–6 categories. 

Behavioral harassment would not 

typically include behaviors ranked 0–3 

in Southall et al. (2007). 

Acoustic Masking and 

Communication Impairment—The 

severity or importance of an acoustic 

masking event can vary based on the 

length of time that the masking occurs, 

the frequency of the masking signal 

(which determines which sounds are 

masked, which may be of varying 

importance to the animal), and other 

factors. Some acoustic masking would 

be considered Level B Harassment, if it 

can disrupt natural behavioral patterns 

by interrupting or limiting the marine 

mammal’s receipt or transmittal of 

important information or environmental 

cues. 

TTS—As discussed previously, TTS 

can disrupt behavioral patterns by 

inhibiting an animal’s ability to 

communicate with conspecifics and 

interpret other environmental cues 

important for predator avoidance and 

prey capture. However, depending on 

the degree (elevation of threshold in 

dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and 

frequency range of TTS, and the context 

in which it is experienced, TTS can 

have effects on marine mammals 

ranging from discountable to serious 

(similar to those discussed in auditory 

masking). For example, a marine 

mammal may be able to readily 

compensate for a brief, relatively small 

amount of TTS in a non-critical 

frequency range that takes place during 

a time when the animal is traveling 

through the open ocean, where ambient 

noise is lower and there are not as many 

competing sounds present. 

Alternatively, a larger amount and 

longer duration of TTS sustained during 

a time when communication is critical 

for successful mother/calf interactions 

could have more serious impacts if it 

were in the same frequency band as the 

necessary vocalizations and of a severity 

that it impeded communication. 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53846 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

The following physiological 

mechanisms are thought to play a role 

in inducing auditory fatigue: Effects to 

sensory hair cells in the inner ear that 

reduce their sensitivity, modification of 

the chemical environment within the 

sensory cells, residual muscular activity 

in the middle ear, displacement of 

certain inner ear membranes, increased 

blood flow, and post-stimulatory 

reduction in both efferent and sensory 

neural output. Ward (1997) suggested 

that when these effects result in TTS 

rather than PTS, they are within the 

normal bounds of physiological 

variability and tolerance and do not 

represent a physical injury. 

Additionally, Southall et al. (2007) 

indicate that although PTS is a tissue 

injury, TTS is not, because the reduced 

hearing sensitivity following exposure 

to intense sound results primarily from 

fatigue, not loss, of cochlear hair cells 

and supporting structures and is 

reversible. Accordingly, NMFS classifies 

TTS (when resulting from exposure to 

either MFAS/HFAS or underwater 

detonations) as Level B Harassment, not 

Level A Harassment (injury). 

Level A Harassment 

Of the potential effects that were 

described in the Potential Effects of 

Exposure of Marine Mammals to MFAS/ 

HFAS and Underwater Detonations 

Section, following are the types of 

effects that fall into the Level A 

Harassment category: 

PTS—PTS (resulting from either 

exposure to MFAS/HFAS or explosive 

detonations) is irreversible and 

considered an injury. PTS results from 

exposure to intense sounds that cause a 

permanent loss of inner or outer 

cochlear hair cells or exceed the elastic 

limits of certain tissues and membranes 

in the middle and inner ears and result 

in changes in the chemical composition 

of the inner ear fluids. Although PTS is 

considered an injury, the effects of PTS 

on the fitness of an individual can vary 

based on the degree of TTS and the 

frequency band that it is in. 

Tissue Damage Due to Acoustically 

Mediated Bubble Growth—A few 

theories suggest ways in which gas 

bubbles become enlarged through 

exposure to intense sounds (MFAS/ 

HFAS) to the point where tissue damage 

results. In rectified diffusion, exposure 

to a sound field would cause bubbles to 

increase in size. A short duration of 

active sonar pings (such as that which 

an animal exposed to MFAS would be 

most likely to encounter) would not 

likely be long enough to drive bubble 

growth to any substantial size. 

Alternately, bubbles could be 

destabilized by high-level sound 

exposures such that bubble growth then 

occurs through static diffusion of gas 

out of the tissues. The degree of 

supersaturation and exposure levels 

observed to cause microbubble 

destabilization are unlikely to occur, 

either alone or in concert because of 

how close an animal would need to be 

to the sound source to be exposed to 

high enough levels, especially 

considering the likely avoidance of the 

sound source and the required 

mitigation. Still, possible tissue damage 

from either of these processes would be 

considered an injury or, potentially, 

mortality. 

Tissue Damage Due to Behaviorally 

Mediated Bubble Growth—Several 

authors suggest mechanisms in which 

marine mammals could behaviorally 

respond to exposure to MFAS/HFAS by 

altering their dive patterns in a manner 

(unusually rapid ascent, unusually long 

series of surface dives, etc.) that might 

result in unusual bubble formation or 

growth ultimately resulting in tissue 

damage (emboli, etc.). In this scenario, 

the rate of ascent would need to be 

sufficiently rapid to compromise 

behavioral or physiological protections 

against nitrogen bubble formation. 

There is considerable disagreement 

among scientists as to the likelihood of 

this phenomenon (Piantadosi and 

Thalmann, 2004; Evans and Miller, 

2003). Although it has been argued that 

the tissue effects observed from recent 

beaked whale strandings are consistent 

with gas emboli and bubble-induced 

tissue separations (Jepson et al., 2003; 

Fernandez et al., 2005, Tyack et al., 

2006), nitrogen bubble formation as the 

cause of the traumas has not been 

verified. If tissue damage does occur by 

this phenomenon, it would be 

considered an injury or, potentially, 

mortality. 

Physical Disruption of Tissues 

Resulting From Explosive Shock 

Wave—Physical damage of tissues 

resulting from a shock wave (from an 

explosive detonation) is classified as an 

injury. Blast effects are greatest at the 

gas-liquid interface (Landsberg, 2000) 

and gas-containing organs, particularly 

the lungs and gastrointestinal tract, are 

especially susceptible (Goertner, 1982; 

Hill 1978; Yelverton et al., 1973). Nasal 

sacs, larynx, pharynx, trachea, and 

lungs may be damaged by compression/ 

expansion caused by the oscillations of 

the blast gas bubble (Reidenberg and 

Laitman, 2003). Severe damage (from 

the shock wave) to the ears can include 

tympanic membrane rupture, fracture of 

the ossicles, damage to the cochlea, 

hemorrhage, and cerebrospinal fluid 

leakage into the middle ear. 

Vessel Strike, Ordnance Strike, 

Entanglement—Although not 

anticipated (or authorized) to occur, 

vessel strike, ordnance strike, or 

entanglement in materials associated 

with the specified action are considered 

Level A Harassment or mortality. 

Acoustic Take Criteria 

For the purposes of an MMPA 

incidental take authorization, three 

types of take are identified: Level B 

Harassment; Level A Harassment; and 

mortality (or serious injury leading to 

mortality). The categories of marine 

mammal responses (physiological and 

behavioral) that fall into the two 

harassment categories were described in 

the previous section. 

Because the physiological and 

behavioral responses of the majority of 

the marine mammals exposed to MFAS/ 

HFAS and underwater detonations 

cannot be detected or measured 

(because, e.g., not all responses are 

visible external to animal, a portion of 

exposed animals are underwater, many 

animals are located many miles from 

observers and covering very large area, 

etc.) and because NMFS must authorize 

take prior to the impacts to marine 

mammals, a method is needed to 

estimate the number of individuals that 

will be taken, pursuant to the MMPA, 

based on the proposed action. To this 

end, NMFS developed acoustic criteria 

that estimate at what received level 

(when exposed to MFAS/HFAS or 

explosive detonations) Level B 

Harassment, Level A Harassment, and 

mortality (for explosives) of marine 

mammals would occur. The acoustic 

criteria for MFAS/HFAS and 

Underwater Detonations (IEER) are 

discussed below. 

MFAS/HFAS Acoustic Criteria 

Because relatively few applicable data 

exist to support acoustic criteria 

specifically for HFAS and because such 

a small percentage of the active sonar 

pings that marine mammals will likely 

be exposed to incidental to this activity 

come from a HFAS source (the vast 

majority come from MFAS sources), 

NMFS will apply the criteria developed 

for the MFAS to the HFAS as well. 

NMFS utilizes three acoustic criteria 

to assess impacts from MFAS/HFAS: 

PTS (injury—Level A Harassment), TTS 

(Level B Harassment), and behavioral 

harassment (Level B Harassment). 

Because there is related quantitative 

data, the TTS criterion is a valuable tool 

for more specifically identifying the 

likely impacts to marine mammals from 

MFAS/HFAS, plus the PTS criteria are 

extrapolated from it. However, TTS is 

simply a subset of level B Harassment— 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53847 

the likely ultimate effects of which are 

not anticipated to necessarily be any 

more severe than the behavioral impacts 

that would be expected to occur at the 

same received levels. Because the TTS 

and PTS criteria are derived similarly 

and the PTS criteria are extrapolated 

from the TTS data, the TTS and PTS 

acoustic criteria will be presented first, 

before the behavioral criteria. 

For more information regarding these 

criteria, please see the Navy’s DEIS for 

MIRC. 

Level B Harassment Threshold (TTS) 

As mentioned above, behavioral 

disturbance, acoustic masking, and TTS 

are all considered Level B Harassment. 

Marine mammals would usually be 

behaviorally disturbed at lower received 

levels than those at which they would 

likely sustain TTS, so the levels at 

which behavioral disturbances are likely 

to occur are considered the onset of 

Level B Harassment. The behavioral 

responses of marine mammals to sound 

are variable, context specific, and, 

therefore, difficult to quantify (see Risk 

Function section, below). Conversely, 

TTS is a physiological effect that has 

been studied and quantified in 

laboratory conditions. Because data 

exist to support an estimate of the 

received levels at which marine 

mammals will incur TTS, NMFS uses an 

acoustic criterion to estimate the 

number of marine mammals that might 

sustain TTS. TTS is a subset of Level B 

Harassment. 

A number of investigators have 

measured TTS in marine mammals. 

These studies measured hearing 

thresholds in trained marine mammals 

before and after exposure to intense 

sounds. The existing cetacean TTS data 

are summarized in the following bullets. 

• Schlundt et al. (2000) reported the 

results of TTS experiments conducted 

with 5 bottlenose dolphins and 2 

belugas exposed to 1-second tones. This 

paper also includes a reanalysis of 

preliminary TTS data released in a 

technical report by Ridgway et al. 

(1997). At frequencies of 3, 10, and 20 

kHz, sound pressure levels (SPLs) 

necessary to induce measurable 

amounts (6 dB or more) of TTS were 

between 192 and 201 dB re 1 μPa (EL 

= 192 to 201 dB re 1 μPa2-s). The mean 

exposure SPL and EL for onset-TTS 

were 195 dB re 

1 μPa and 195 dB re 1 μPa2-s, 

respectively. 

• Finneran et al. (2001, 2003, 2005) 

described TTS experiments conducted 

with bottlenose dolphins exposed to 3- 

kHz tones with durations of 1, 2, 4, and 

8 seconds. Small amounts of TTS (3 to 

6 dB) were observed in one dolphin 

after exposure to ELs between 190 and 

204 dB re 1 μPa2-s. These results were 

consistent with the data of Schlundt et 

al. (2000) and showed that the Schlundt 

et al. (2000) data were not significantly 

affected by the masking sound used. 

These results also confirmed that, for 

tones with different durations, the 

amount of TTS is best correlated with 

the exposure EL rather than the 

exposure SPL. 

• Nachtigall et al. (2003) measured 

TTS in a bottlenose dolphin exposed to 

octave-band sound centered at 7.5 kHz. 

Nachtigall et al. (2003a) reported TTSs 

of about 11 dB measured 10 to 15 

minutes after exposure to 30 to 50 

minutes of sound with SPL 179 dB re 

1 μPa (EL about 213 dB re μPa2-s). No 

TTS was observed after exposure to the 

same sound at 165 and 171 dB re 1 μPa. 

Nachtigall et al. (2004) reported TTSs of 

around 4 to 8 dB 5 minutes after 

exposure to 30 to 50 minutes of sound 

with SPL 160 dB re 1 μPa (EL about 193 

to 195 dB re 1 μPa2-s). The difference in 

results was attributed to faster postexposure threshold measurement—TTS 

may have recovered before being 

detected by Nachtigall et al. (2003). 

These studies showed that, for longduration exposures, lower sound 

pressures are required to induce TTS 

than are required for short-duration 

tones. 

• Finneran et al. (2000, 2002) 

conducted TTS experiments with 

dolphins and belugas exposed to 

impulsive sounds similar to those 

produced by distant underwater 

explosions and seismic waterguns. 

These studies showed that, for very 

short-duration impulsive sounds, higher 

sound pressures were required to 

induce TTS than for longer-duration 

tones. 

• Finneran et al. (2007) conducted 

TTS experiments with bottlenose 

dolphins exposed to intense 20 kHz 

fatiguing tone. Behavioral and auditory 

evoked potentials (using sinusoidal 

amplitude modulated tones creating 

auditory steady state response [AASR]) 

were used to measure TTS. The 

fatiguing tone was either 16 (mean = 193 

re 1μPa, SD = 0.8) or 64 seconds (185– 

186 re 1μPa) in duration. TTS ranged 

from 19–33dB from behavioral 

measurements and 40–45dB from ASSR 

measurements. 

• Kastak et al. (1999a, 2005) 

conducted TTS experiments with three 

species of pinnipeds, California sea lion, 

northern elephant seal and a Pacific 

harbor seal, exposed to continuous 

underwater sounds at levels of 80 and 

95 dB sensation level at 2.5 and 3.5 kHz 

for up to 50 minutes. Mean TTS shifts 

of up to 12.2 dB occurred with the 

harbor seals showing the largest shift of 

28.1 dB. Increasing the sound duration 

had a greater effect on TTS than 

increasing the sound level from 80 to 95 

dB. 

Some of the more important data 

obtained from these studies are onsetTTS levels (exposure levels sufficient to 

cause a just-measurable amount of TTS) 

often defined as 6 dB of TTS (for 

example, Schlundt et al., 2000) and the 

fact that energy metrics (sound exposure 

levels (SEL), which include a duration 

component) better predict when an 

animal will sustain TTS than pressure 

(SPL) alone. NMFS’ TTS criterion 

(which indicates the received level at 

which onset TTS (>6dB) is induced) for 

MFAS/HFAS and cetaceans is 195 dB re 

1 μPa2-s (based on mid-frequency 

cetaceans—no published data exist on 

auditory effects of noise in low- or highfrequency cetaceans (Southall et al. 

(2007)). 

A detailed description of how this 

TTS criterion was derived from the 

results of the above studies may be 

found in Chapter 3 of Southall et al. 

(2007), as well as the Navy’s MIRC LOA 

application. 

Level A Harassment Threshold (PTS) 

For acoustic effects, because the 

tissues of the ear appear to be the most 

susceptible to the physiological effects 

of sound, and because threshold shifts 

tend to occur at lower exposures than 

other more serious auditory effects, 

NMFS has determined that PTS is the 

best indicator for the smallest degree of 

injury that can be measured. Therefore, 

the acoustic exposure associated with 

onset-PTS is used to define the lower 

limit of the Level A harassment. 

PTS data do not currently exist for 

marine mammals and are unlikely to be 

obtained due to ethical concerns. 

However, PTS levels for these animals 

may be estimated using TTS data from 

marine mammals and relationships 

between TTS and PTS that have been 

discovered through study of terrestrial 

mammals. NMFS uses the following 

acoustic criterion for injury of 

cetaceans: 215 dB re 1 μPa2-s (based on 

mid-frequency cetaceans—no published 

data exist on auditory effects of noise in 

low- or high-frequency cetaceans 

(Southall et al. (2007)). 

This criterion is based on a 20 dB 

increase in SEL over that required for 

onset-TTS. Extrapolations from 

terrestrial mammal data indicate that 

PTS occurs at 40 dB or more of TS, and 

that TS growth occurs at a rate of 

approximately 1.6 dB TS per dB 

increase in EL. There is a 34-dB TS 

difference between onset-TTS (6 dB) 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53848 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

and onset-PTS (40 dB). Therefore, an 

animal would require approximately 

20dB of additional exposure (34 dB 

divided by 1.6 dB) above onset-TTS to 

reach PTS. A detailed description of 

how TTS criteria were derived from the 

results of the above studies may be 

found in Chapter 3 of Southall et al. 

(2007), as well as the Navy’s MIRC LOA 

application. Southall et al. (2007) 

recommend a precautionary dual 

criteria for TTS (230 dB re 1 μPa (SPL 

peak pressure) in addition to 215 dB re 

1 μPa2-s (SEL)) to account for the 

potentially damaging transients 

embedded within non-pulse exposures. 

However, in the case of MFAS/HFAS, 

the distance at which an animal would 

receive 215 dB (SEL) is farther from the 

source (i.e., more conservative) than the 

distance at which they would receive 

230 dB (SPL peak pressure) and 

therefore, it is not necessary to consider 

230 dB peak. 

We note here that behaviorally 

mediated injuries (such as those that 

have been hypothesized as the cause of 

some beaked whale strandings) could 

potentially occur in response to 

received levels lower than those 

believed to directly result in tissue 

damage. As mentioned previously, data 

to support a quantitative estimate of 

these potential effects (for which the 

exact mechanism is not known and in 

which factors other than received level 

may play a significant role) do not exist. 

However, based on the number of years 

(more than 60) and number of hours of 

MFAS per year that the U.S. (and other 

countries) has operated compared to the 

reported (and verified) cases of 

associated marine mammal strandings, 

NMFS believes that the probability of 

these types of injuries is very low. 

Level B Harassment Risk Function 

(Behavioral Harassment) 

In 2006, NMFS issued the first MMPA 

authorization to allow the take of 

marine mammals incidental to MFAS 

(to the Navy for the Rim of the Pacific 

Exercises (RIMPAC)). For that 

authorization, NMFS used 173 dB SEL 

as the criterion for the onset of 

behavioral harassment (Level B 

Harassment). This type of single number 

criterion is referred to as a step function, 

in which (in this example) all animals 

estimated to be exposed to received 

levels above 173 db SEL would be 

predicted to be taken by Level B 

Harassment and all animals exposed to 

less than 173dB SEL would not be taken 

by Level B Harassment. As mentioned 

previously, marine mammal behavioral 

responses to sound are highly variable 

and context specific (affected by 

differences in acoustic conditions; 

differences between species and 

populations; differences in gender, age, 

reproductive status, or social behavior; 

or the prior experience of the 

individuals), which does not support 

the use of a step function to estimate 

behavioral harassment. 

Unlike step functions, acoustic risk 

continuum functions (which are also 

called ‘‘exposure-response functions,’’ 

‘‘dose-response functions,’’ or ‘‘stressresponse functions’’ in other risk 

assessment contexts) allow for 

probability of a response that NMFS 

would classify as harassment to occur 

over a range of possible received levels 

(instead of one number) and assume that 

the probability of a response depends 

first on the ‘‘dose’’ (in this case, the 

received level of sound) and that the 

probability of a response increases as 

the ‘‘dose’’ increases (see Figure 1a). In 

January, 2009, NMFS issued 3 final 

rules governing the incidental take of 

marine mammals (Navy’s Hawaii Range 

Complex, Southern California Range 

Complex, and Atlantic Fleet Active 

Sonar Training) that used a risk 

continuum to estimate the percent of 

marine mammals exposed to various 

levels of MFAS that would respond in 

a manner NMFS considers harassment. 

The Navy and NMFS have previously 

used acoustic risk functions to estimate 

the probable responses of marine 

mammals to acoustic exposures for 

other training and research programs. 

Examples of previous application 

include the Navy FEISs on the 

SURTASS LFA sonar (U.S. Department 

of the Navy, 2001c); the North Pacific 

Acoustic Laboratory experiments 

conducted off the Island of Kauai (Office 

of Naval Research, 2001), and the 

Supplemental EIS for SURTASS LFA 

sonar (U.S. Department of the Navy, 

2007d). As discussed in the Effects 

section, factors other than received level 

(such as distance from or bearing to the 

sound source) can affect the way that 

marine mammals respond; however, 

data to support a quantitative analysis of 

those (and other factors) do not 

currently exist. NMFS will continue to 

modify these criteria as new data that 

meet NMFS standards of quality become 

available and can be appropriately and 

effectively incorporated. 

The particular acoustic risk functions 

developed by NMFS and the Navy (see 

Figures 1a and 1b) estimate the 

probability of behavioral responses to 

MFAS/HFAS (interpreted as the 

percentage of the exposed population) 

that NMFS would classify as harassment 

for the purposes of the MMPA given 

exposure to specific received levels of 

MFAS/HFAS. The mathematical 

function (below) underlying this curve 

is a cumulative probability distribution 

adapted from a solution in Feller (1968) 

and was also used in predicting risk for 

the Navy’s SURTASS LFA MMPA 

authorization as well. 

R 

L B

K

L B

K

A

A =

− ⎛ −

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟

− ⎛ −

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟

−

−

1

1

2

Where: 

R = Risk (0–1.0) 

L = Received level (dB re: 

1 μPa) 

B = Basement received level = 120 dB re: 

1 μPa 

K = Received level increment above B where 

50% risk = 45 dB re: 

1 μPa 

A = Risk transition sharpness parameter = 10 

(odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 

8 (mysticetes) 

In order to use this function to 

estimate the percentage of an exposed 

population that would respond in a 

manner that NMFS classifies as Level B 

Harassment, based on a given received 

level, the values for B, K and A need to 

be identified. 

B Parameter (Basement)—The B 

parameter is the estimated received 

level below which the probability of 

disruption of natural behavioral 

patterns, such as migration, surfacing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, 

to a point where such behavioral 

patterns are abandoned or significantly 

altered approaches zero for the MFAS/ 

HFAS risk assessment. At this received 

level, the curve would predict that the 

percentage of the exposed population 

that would be taken by Level B 

Harassment approaches zero. For 

MFAS/HFAS, NMFS has determined 

that B = 120 dB. This level is based on 

a broad overview of the levels at which 

many species have been reported 

responding to a variety of sound 

sources. 

K Parameter (representing the 50 

percent Risk Point)—The K parameter is 

based on the received level that 

corresponds to 50% risk, or the received 

level at which we believe 50% of the 

animals exposed to the designated 

received level will respond in a manner 

that NMFS classifies as Level B 

Harassment. The K parameter (K = 45 

dB) is based on three data sets in which 

marine mammals exposed to midfrequency sound sources were reported 

to respond in a manner that NMFS 

would classify as Level B Harassment. 

There is widespread consensus that 

marine mammal responses to MFA 

sound signals need to be better defined 

using controlled exposure experiments 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP20OC09.009</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53849 

(Cox et al., 2006; Southall et al., 2007). 

The Navy is contributing to an ongoing 

3-Phase behavioral response study in 

the Bahamas that is expected to provide 

some initial information on beaked 

whales, the species identified as the 

most sensitive to MFAS. NMFS is 

leading this international effort with 

scientists from various academic 

institutions and research organizations 

to conduct studies on how marine 

mammals respond to underwater sound 

exposures. The results from Phase 1 of 

this study are discussed in the Potential 

Effects of Specified Activities on Marine 

Mammals section and the results from 

Phase 2 are expected to be available in 

late 2009. Phase 3 was conducted in the 

Mediterranean Sea in the summer of 

2009. Additionally, the Navy recently 

tagged whales in conjunction with the 

2008 RIMPAC exercises; however, 

analyses of these data are not yet 

complete. Until additional appropriate 

data are available, however, NMFS and 

the Navy have determined that the 

following three data sets are most 

applicable for the direct use in 

establishing the K parameter for the 

MFAS/HFAS risk function. These data 

sets, summarized below, represent the 

only known data that specifically relate 

altered behavioral responses (that NMFS 

would consider Level B Harassment) to 

exposure—at specific received levels— 

to MFAS and sources within or having 

components within the range of MFAS 

(1–10 kHz). 

Even though these data are considered 

the most representative of the proposed 

specified activities, and therefore the 

most appropriate on which to base the 

K parameter (which basically 

determines the midpoint) of the risk 

function, these data have limitations, 

which are discussed in Appendix D of 

the Navy’s DEIS for MIRC. 

1. Controlled Laboratory Experiments 

With Odontocetes (SSC Dataset)—Most 

of the observations of the behavioral 

responses of toothed whales resulted 

from a series of controlled experiments 

on bottlenose dolphins and beluga 

whales conducted by researchers at 

SSC’s facility in San Diego, California 

(Finneran et al., 2001, 2003, 2005; 

Finneran and Schlundt, 2004; Schlundt 

et al., 2000). In experimental trials 

(designed to measure TTS) with marine 

mammals trained to perform tasks when 

prompted, scientists evaluated whether 

the marine mammals still performed 

these tasks when exposed to midfrequency tones. Altered behavior 

during experimental trials usually 

involved refusal of animals to return to 

the site of the sound stimulus but also 

included attempts to avoid an exposure 

in progress, aggressive behavior, or 

refusal to further participate in tests. 

Finneran and Schlundt (2004) 

examined behavioral observations 

recorded by the trainers or test 

coordinators during the Schlundt et al. 

(2000) and Finneran et al. (2001, 2003, 

2005) experiments. These included 

observations from 193 exposure sessions 

(fatiguing stimulus level > 141 dB re 

1μPa) conducted by Schlundt et al. 

(2000) and 21 exposure sessions 

conducted by Finneran et al. (2001, 

2003, 2005). The TTS experiments that 

supported Finneran and Schlundt 

(2004) are further explained below: 

• Schlundt et al. (2000) provided a 

detailed summary of the behavioral 

responses of trained marine mammals 

during TTS tests conducted at SSC San 

Diego with 1-sec tones and exposure 

frequencies of 0.4 kHz, 3 kHz, 10 kHz, 

20 kHz and 75 kHz. Schlundt et al. 

(2000) reported eight individual TTS 

experiments. The experiments were 

conducted in San Diego Bay. Because of 

the variable ambient noise in the bay, 

low-level broadband masking noise was 

used to keep hearing thresholds 

consistent despite fluctuations in the 

ambient noise. Schlundt et al. (2000) 

reported that ‘‘behavioral alterations,’’ 

or deviations from the behaviors the 

animals being tested had been trained to 

exhibit, occurred as the animals were 

exposed to increasing fatiguing stimulus 

levels. 

• Finneran et al. (2001, 2003, 2005) 

conducted 2 separate TTS experiments 

using 1-sec tones at 3 kHz. The test 

methods were similar to that of 

Schlundt et al. (2000) except the tests 

were conducted in a pool with very low 

ambient noise level (below 50 dB re 1 

μPa2/hertz [Hz]), and no masking noise 

was used. In the first, fatiguing sound 

levels were increased from 160 to 201 

dB SPL. In the second experiment, 

fatiguing sound levels between 180 and 

200 dB SPL were randomly presented. 

Bottlenose dolphins exposed to 1- 

second (sec) intense tones exhibited 

short-term changes in behavior above 

received sound levels of 178 to 193 dB 

re 1 μPa (rms), and beluga whales did 

so at received levels of 180 to 196 dB 

and above. 

2. Mysticete Field Study (Nowacek et 

al., 2004)—The only available and 

applicable data relating mysticete 

responses to exposure to mid-frequency 

sound sources is from Nowacek et al. 

(2004). Nowacek et al. (2004) 

documented observations of the 

behavioral response of North Atlantic 

right whales exposed to alert stimuli 

containing mid-frequency components 

in the Bay of Fundy. Investigators used 

archival digital acoustic recording tags 

(DTAG) to record the behavior (by 

measuring pitch, roll, heading, and 

depth) of right whales in the presence 

of an alert signal, and to calibrate 

received sound levels. The alert signal 

was 18 minutes of exposure consisting 

of three 2-minute signals played 

sequentially three times over. The three 

signals had a 60% duty cycle and 

consisted of: (1) Alternating 1-sec pure 

tones at 500 Hz and 850 Hz; (2) a 2-sec 

logarithmic down-sweep from 4,500 Hz 

to 500 Hz; and (3) a pair of low (1,500 

Hz)-high (2,000 Hz) sine wave tones 

amplitude modulated at 120 Hz and 

each 1-sec long. The purposes of the 

alert signal were (a) to pique the 

mammalian auditory system with 

disharmonic signals that cover the 

whales’ estimated hearing range; (b) to 

maximize the signal to noise ratio 

(obtain the largest difference between 

background noise) and (c) to provide 

localization cues for the whale. The 

maximum source level used was 173 dB 

SPL. 

Nowacek et al. (2004) reported that 

five out of six whales exposed to the 

alert signal with maximum received 

levels ranging from 133 to 148 dB re 

1 μPa significantly altered their regular 

behavior and did so in identical fashion. 

Each of these five whales: (i) 

Abandoned their current foraging dive 

prematurely as evidenced by curtailing 

their ‘bottom time’; (ii) executed a 

shallow-angled, high power (i.e. 

significantly increased fluke stroke rate) 

ascent; (iii) remained at or near the 

surface for the duration of the exposure, 

an abnormally long surface interval; and 

(iv) spent significantly more time at 

subsurface depths (1–10 m) compared 

with normal surfacing periods when 

whales normally stay within 1 m (1.1 

yd) of the surface. 

3. Odontocete Field Data (Haro 

Strait—USS SHOUP)—In May 2003, 

killer whales (Orcinus orca) were 

observed exhibiting behavioral 

responses generally described as 

avoidance behavior while the U.S. Ship 

(USS) SHOUP was engaged in MFAS in 

the Haro Strait in the vicinity of Puget 

Sound, Washington. Those observations 

have been documented in three reports 

developed by Navy and NMFS (NMFS, 

2005; Fromm, 2004a, 2004b; DON, 

2003). Although these observations were 

made in an uncontrolled environment, 

the sound field that may have been 

associated with the active sonar 

operations was estimated using standard 

acoustic propagation models that were 

verified (for some but not all signals) 

based on calibrated in situ 

measurements from an independent 

researcher who recorded the sounds 

during the event. Behavioral 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53850 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

observations were reported for the group 

of whales during the event by an 

experienced marine mammal biologist 

who happened to be on the water 

studying them at the time. The 

observations associated with the USS 

SHOUP provide the only data set 

available of the behavioral responses of 

wild, non-captive animal upon actual 

exposure to AN/SQS–53 sonar. 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

(National Marine Fisheries, 2005a); U.S. 

Department of the Navy (2004b); Fromm 

(2004a, 2004b) documented 

reconstruction of sound fields produced 

by USS SHOUP associated with the 

behavioral response of killer whales 

observed in Haro Strait. Observations 

from this reconstruction included an 

approximate closest approach time 

which was correlated to a reconstructed 

estimate of received level. Observations 

from this reconstruction included an 

estimate of 169.3 dB SPL which 

represents the mean level at a point of 

closest approach within a 500 m wide 

area in which the animals were 

exposed. Within that area, the estimated 

received levels varied from 

approximately 150 to 180 dB SPL. 

Calculation of K Parameter—NMFS 

and the Navy used the mean of the 

following values to define the midpoint 

of the function: (1) The mean of the 

lowest received levels (185.3 dB) at 

which individuals responded with 

altered behavior to 3 kHz tones in the 

SSC data set; (2) the estimated mean 

received level value of 169.3 dB 

produced by the reconstruction of the 

USS SHOUP incident in which killer 

whales exposed to MFAS (range 

modeled possible received levels: 150 to 

180 dB); and (3) the mean of the 5 

maximum received levels at which 

Nowacek et al. (2004) observed 

significantly altered responses of right 

whales to the alert stimuli than to the 

control (no input signal) is 139.2 dB 

SPL. The arithmetic mean of these three 

mean values is 165 dB SPL. The value 

of K is the difference between the value 

of B (120 dB SPL) and the 50% value 

of 165 dB SPL; therefore, K=45. 

A Parameter (Steepness)—NMFS 

determined that a steepness parameter 

(A) = 10 is appropriate for odontocetes 

(except harbor porpoises) and pinnipeds 

and A = 8 is appropriate for mysticetes. 

The use of a steepness parameter of A 

= 10 for odontocetes for the MFAS/ 

HFAS risk function was based on the 

use of the same value for the SURTASS 

LFA risk continuum, which was 

supported by a sensitivity analysis of 

the parameter presented in Appendix D 

of the SURTASS/LFA FEIS (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2001c). As 

concluded in the SURTASS FEIS/EIS, 

the value of A=10 produces a curve that 

has a more gradual transition than the 

curves developed by the analyses of 

migratory gray whale studies (Malme et 

al., 1984; Buck and Tyack, 2000; and 

SURTASS LFA Sonar EIS, Subchapters 

1.43, 4.2.4.3 and Appendix D, and 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

2008). 

NMFS determined that a lower 

steepness parameter (A = 8), resulting in 

a shallower curve, was appropriate for 

use with mysticetes and MFAS/HFAS. 

The Nowacek et al. (2004) dataset 

contains the only data illustrating 

mysticete behavioral responses to a 

sound source that encompasses 

frequencies in the mid-frequency sound 

spectrum. A shallower curve (achieved 

by using A = 8) better reflects the risk 

of behavioral response at the relatively 

low received levels at which behavioral 

responses of right whales were reported 

in the Nowacek et al. (2004) data. 

Compared to the odontocete curve, this 

adjustment results in an increase in the 

proportion of the exposed population of 

mysticetes being classified as 

behaviorally harassed at lower RLs, 

such as those reported in the Novacek 

report, and is supported by the only 

representative dataset currently 

available. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53851 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Basic Application of the Risk 

Function—The risk function is used to 

estimate the percentage of an exposed 

population that is likely to exhibit 

behaviors that would qualify as 

harassment (as that term is defined by 

the MMPA applicable to military 

readiness activities, such as the Navy’s 

testing and training with MFAS) at a 

given received level of sound. For 

example, at 165 dB SPL (dB re: 1μPa 

rms), the risk (or probability) of 

harassment is defined according to this 

function as 50%, and Navy/NMFS 

applies that by estimating that 50% of 

the individuals exposed at that received 

level are likely to respond by exhibiting 

behavior that NMFS would classify as 

behavioral harassment. The risk 

function is not applied to individual 

animals, only to exposed populations. 

The data primarily used to produce 

the risk function (the K parameter) were 

compiled from four species that had 

been exposed to sound sources in a 

variety of different circumstances. As a 

result, the risk function represents a 

general relationship between acoustic 

exposures and behavioral responses that 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP20OC09.010</GPH>
53852 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

is then applied to specific 

circumstances. That is, the risk function 

represents a relationship that is deemed 

to be generally true, based on the 

limited, best-available science, but may 

not be true in specific circumstances. In 

particular, the risk function, as currently 

derived, treats the received level as the 

only variable that is relevant to a marine 

mammal’s behavioral response. 

However, we know that many other 

variables—the marine mammal’s 

gender, age, and prior experience; the 

activity it is engaged in during an 

exposure event, its distance from a 

sound source, the number of sound 

sources, and whether the sound sources 

are approaching or moving away from 

the animal—can be critically important 

in determining whether and how a 

marine mammal will respond to a sound 

source (Southall et al., 2007). The data 

that are currently available do not allow 

for incorporation of these other 

variables in the current risk functions; 

however, the risk function represents 

the best use of the data that are 

available. Additionally, although these 

other factors cannot be taken into 

consideration quantitatively in the risk 

function, NMFS considers these other 

variables qualitatively in our analysis, 

when applicable data are available. 

As more specific and applicable data 

become available for MFAS/HFAS 

sources, NMFS can use these data to 

modify the outputs generated by the risk 

function to make them more realistic. 

Ultimately, data may exist to justify the 

use of additional, alternate, or multivariate functions. For example, as 

mentioned previously, the distance from 

the sound source and whether it is 

perceived as approaching or moving 

away can affect the way an animal 

responds to a sound (Wartzok et al., 

2003). In the MIRC example, animals 

exposed to received levels between 120 

and 140 dB will likely be more that 125 

km away from a sound source 

depending on seasonal variations; those 

distances could influence whether those 

animals perceive the sound source as a 

potential threat, and their behavioral 

responses to that threat. Though there 

are data showing response of certain 

marine mammal species to midfrequency sound sources at that 

received level, NMFS does not currently 

have any data that describe the response 

of marine mammals to mid-frequency 

sounds at that distance, much less data 

that compare responses to similar sound 

levels at varying distances (much less 

for MFAS/HFAS). However, if 

applicable data meeting NMFS 

standards were to become available, 

NMFS would re-evaluate the risk 

function and to incorporate any 

additional variables into the ‘‘take’’ 

estimates. 

Explosive Detonation Criteria 

The criteria for mortality, Level A 

Harassment, and Level B Harassment 

resulting from explosive detonations 

were initially developed for the Navy’s 

Seawolf and Churchill ship-shock trials 

and have not changed. The criteria, 

which are applied to cetaceans and 

pinnipeds, are summarized in Table 7. 

Additional information regarding the 

derivation of these criteria is available 

in the Navy’s DEIS for the MIRC, the 

LOA application, and in the Navy’s 

CHURCHILL FEIS (U.S. Department of 

the Navy, 2001c). 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP20OC09.011</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53853 

Estimates of Potential Marine Mammal 

Exposure 

Estimating the take that will result 

from the proposed activities entails the 

following three general steps: (1) 

Propagation model estimates animals 

exposed to sources at different levels; 

(2) further modeling determines number 

of exposures to levels indicated in 

criteria above (i.e., number of takes); 

and (3) post-modeling corrections refine 

estimates to make them more accurate. 

More information regarding the models 

used, the assumptions used in the 

models, and the process of estimating 

take is available in Appendix A of the 

Navy’s Application. 

(1) In order to quantify the types of 

take described in previous sections that 

are predicted to result from the Navy’s 

specified activities, the Navy first uses 

a sound propagation model that predicts 

the number of animals that will be 

exposed to a range of levels of pressure 

and energy (of the metrics used in the 

criteria) from MFAS/HFAS and 

explosive detonations based on several 

important pieces of information, 

including: 

• Characteristics of the sound 

sources. 

• Active sonar source characteristics 

include: source level (with horizontal 

and vertical directivity corrections), 

source depth, center frequency, source 

directivity (horizontal/vertical beam 

width and horizontal/vertical steer 

direction), and ping spacing. 

• Explosive source characteristics 

include: the weight of an explosive, the 

type of explosive, the detonation depth, 

and number of successive explosions. 

• Transmission loss (in 9 

representative environmental provinces 

in two seasons) based on: water depth; 

sound speed variability throughout the 

water column (warm season exhibits a 

weak surface duct, cold season exhibits 

a relatively strong surface duct); bottom 

geo-acoustic properties (bathymetry); 

and wind speed. 

• The estimated density of each 

marine mammal species in the MIRC 

(see Table 4), horizontally distributed 

uniformly and vertically distributed 

according to dive profiles based on field 

data. 

(2) Next, the criteria discussed in the 

previous section are applied to the 

estimated exposures to predict the 

number of exposures that exceed the 

criteria, i.e., the number of takes by 

Level B Harassment, Level A 

Harassment, and mortality. 

(3) During the development of the EIS 

for MIRC, NMFS and the Navy 

determined that the output of the model 

could be made more realistic by 

applying post-modeling corrections to 

account for the following: 

• Acoustic footprints for active sonar 

sources must account for land masses 

(by subtracting them out). 

• Acoustic footprints for active sonar 

sources should not be added 

independently, rather, the degree to 

which the footprints from multiple 

ships participating in the same exercise 

would typically overlap needs to be 

taken into consideration. 

• Acoustic modeling should account 

for the maximum number of individuals 

of a species that could potentially be 

exposed to active sonar within the 

course of 1 day or a discrete continuous 

sonar event if less than 24 hours. 

Last, the Navy’s specified activities 

have been described based on best 

estimates of the number of MFAS/HFAS 

hours that the Navy will conduct. The 

exact number of hours may vary from 

year to year, but will not exceed the 5- 

year total indicated in Table 8 (by 

multiplying the yearly estimate by 5) by 

more than 10%. NMFS estimates that a 

10% increase in active sonar hours 

would result in approximately a 10% 

increase in the number of takes, and we 

have considered this possibility in our 

analysis. 

The Navy’s model provides a 

systematic and repeatable way of 

estimating the number of animals that 

will be taken by Level A and Level B 

Harassment. The model is based on the 

sound propagation characteristics of the 

sound sources, physical characteristics 

of the surrounding environment, and a 

uniform density of marine mammals. As 

mentioned in the previous sections, 

many other factors will likely affect how 

and the degree to which marine 

mammals are impacted both at the 

individual and species level by the 

Navy’s activity (such as social ecology 

of the animals, long term exposures in 

one area, etc.); however, in the absence 

quantitative data, NMFS has, and will 

continue, to evaluate that sort of 

information qualitatively. 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53854 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP20OC09.012</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53855 

Mortality 

Evidence from five beaked whale 

strandings, all of which have taken 

place outside the MIRC Range Complex, 

and have occurred over approximately a 

decade, suggests that the exposure of 

beaked whales to MFAS in the presence 

of certain conditions (e.g., multiple 

units using active sonar, steep 

bathymetry, constricted channels, strong 

surface ducts, etc.) may result in 

strandings, potentially leading to 

mortality. Although not all 5 of these 

physical factors believed to have 

contributed to the likelihood of beaked 

whale strandings are present, in their 

aggregate, in the MIRC, scientific 

uncertainty exists regarding what other 

factors, or combination of factors, may 

contribute to beaked whale strandings. 

Accordingly, to allow for scientific 

uncertainty regarding contributing 

causes of beaked whale strandings and 

the exact behavioral or physiological 

mechanisms that can lead to the 

ultimate physical effects (stranding and/ 

or death), the Navy has requested 

authorization for (and NMFS is 

proposing authorizing) take, by injury or 

mortality. Although the Navy has 

requested take by injury or mortality of 

10 beaked whales over the course of the 

5-yr regulations, the Navy’s model did 

not predict injurious takes of beaked 

whales and neither NMFS, nor the Navy 

anticipates that marine mammal 

strandings or mortality will result from 

the operation of MFAS during Navy 

exercises within the MIRC. 

Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat 

The Navy’s proposed training 

exercises could potentially affect marine 

mammal habitat through the 

introduction of pressure, sound, and 

expendable materials into the water 

column, which in turn could impact 

prey species of marine mammals, or 

cause bottom disturbance or changes in 

water quality. Each of these components 

was considered in the MIRC DEIS and 

was determined by the Navy to have no 

significant or long term effect on marine 

mammal habitat. Based on the 

information below and the supporting 

information included in the Navy’s 

DEIS, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the MIRC training 

activities will not have significant or 

long term impacts on marine mammal 

habitat. Unless the sound source or 

explosive detonation is stationary and/ 

or continuous over a long duration in 

one area, the effects of the introduction 

of sound into the environment are 

generally considered to have a less 

severe impact on marine mammal 

habitat than the physical alteration of 

the habitat. Marine mammals may be 

temporarily displaced from areas where 

Navy training is occurring, but the area 

will likely be utilized again after the 

activities have ceased. A summary of 

the conclusions are included in 

subsequent sections. 

Effects on Food Resources 

Fish 

The Navy’s DEIS includes a detailed 

discussion of the effects of active sonar 

on marine fish. In summary, studies 

have indicated that acoustic 

communication and orientation of fish 

may be restricted by anthropogenic 

sound in their environment. However, 

the vast majority of fish species studied 

to date are hearing generalists and 

cannot hear sounds above 500 to 1,500 

Hz (0.5 to 1.5 kHz) (depending upon the 

species). Therefore, these fish species 

are not likely to be affected behaviorally 

from higher frequency sounds such as 

MFAS/HFAS. Moreover, even those 

marine species that may hear above 1.5 

kHz, such as a few sciaenids and the 

clupeids (and relatives), have relatively 

poor hearing above 1.5 kHz as compared 

to their hearing sensitivity at lower 

frequencies, so it is likely that the fish 

will only actually hear the sounds if the 

fish and source were fairly close to one 

another. Finally, since the vast majority 

of sounds that are of biological 

relevance to fish are below 1 kHz (e.g., 

Zelick et al., 1999; Ladich and Popper, 

2004), even if a fish detects a mid- or 

high-frequency sound, these sounds will 

not likely mask detection of lower 

frequency biologically relevant sounds. 

Thus, based on the available 

information, a reasonable conclusion is 

that there will be few, and more likely 

no, impacts on the behavior of fish from 

active sonar. 

Though mortality has been shown to 

occur in one species, a hearing 

specialist, as a result of exposure to nonimpulsive sources, the available 

evidence does not suggest that 

exposures such as those anticipated 

from MFAS/HFAS would result in 

significant fish mortality on a 

population level. The mortality that was 

observed was considered insignificant 

in light of natural daily mortality rates. 

Experiments have shown that exposure 

to loud sound can result in significant 

threshold shifts in certain fish that are 

classified as hearing specialists (but not 

those classified as hearing generalists). 

Threshold shifts are temporary, and 

considering the best available data, no 

data exist that demonstrate any longterm negative effects on marine fish 

from underwater sound associated with 

active sonar activities. Further, while 

fish may respond behaviorally to midfrequency sources, this behavioral 

modification is only expected to be brief 

and not biologically significant. 

There are currently no wellestablished thresholds for estimating 

effects to fish from explosives other than 

mortality models. Fish that are located 

in the water column, in proximity to the 

source of detonation could be injured, 

killed, or disturbed by the impulsive 

sound and possibly temporarily leave 

the area. Continental Shelf Inc. (2004) 

summarized a few studies conducted to 

determine effects associated with 

removal of offshore structures (e.g., oil 

rigs) in the Gulf of Mexico. Their 

findings revealed that at very close 

range, underwater explosions are lethal 

to most fish species regardless of size, 

shape, or internal anatomy. For most 

situations, cause of death in fishes has 

been massive organ and tissue damage 

and internal bleeding. At longer range, 

species with gas-filled swimbladders 

(e.g., snapper, cod, and striped bass) are 

more susceptible than those without 

swimbladders (e.g., flounders, eels). 

Studies also suggest that larger fishes 

are generally less susceptible to death or 

injury than small fishes. Moreover, 

elongated forms that are round in cross 

section are less at risk than deep-bodied 

forms; and orientation of fish relative to 

the shock wave may affect the extent of 

injury. Open water pelagic fish (e.g., 

mackerel) also seem to be less affected 

than reef fishes. The results of most 

studies are dependent upon specific 

biological, environmental, explosive, 

and data recording factors. 

The huge variations in the fish 

population, including numbers, species, 

sizes, and orientation and range from 

the detonation point, make it very 

difficult to accurately predict mortalities 

at any specific site of detonation. Most 

fish species experience a large number 

of natural mortalities, especially during 

early life-stages, and any small level of 

mortality caused by the MIRC training 

exercises involving explosives will 

likely be insignificant to the population 

as a whole. 

Invertebrates 

Very little is known about sound 

detection and use of sound by 

invertebrates (see Budelmann 1992a, b, 

Popper et al., 2001 for reviews). The 

limited data show that some crabs are 

able to detect sound, and there has been 

the suggestion that some other groups of 

invertebrates are also able to detect 

sounds. In addition, cephalopods 

(octopus and squid) and decapods 

(lobster, shrimp, and crab) are thought 

to sense low-frequency sound 

(Budelmann, 1992b). Packard et al. 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53856 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(1990) reported sensitivity to sound 

vibrations between 1–100 Hz for three 

species of cephalopods. McCauley et al. 

(2000) found evidence that squid 

exposed to seismic airguns show a 

behavioral response including inking. 

However, these were caged animals, and 

it is not clear how unconfined animals 

may have responded to the same signal 

and at the same distances used. In 

another study, Wilson et al. (2007) 

played back echolocation clicks of killer 

whales to two groups of squid (Loligo 

pealeii) in a tank. The investigators 

observed no apparent behavioral effects 

or any acoustic debilitation from 

playback of signals up to 199 to 226 dB 

re 1 μPa. It should be noted, however, 

that the lack of behavioral response by 

the squid may have been because the 

animals were in a tank rather than being 

in the wild. In another report on squid, 

Guerra et al. (2004) claimed that dead 

giant squid turned up around the time 

of seismic airgun operations off of 

Spain. The authors suggested, based on 

analysis of carcasses, that the damage to 

the squid was unusual when compared 

to other dead squid found at other 

times. However, the report presents 

conclusions based on a correlation to 

the time of finding of the carcasses and 

seismic testing, but the evidence in 

support of an effect of airgun activity 

was totally circumstantial. Moreover, 

the data presented showing damage to 

tissue is highly questionable since there 

was no way to differentiate between 

damage due to some external cause (e.g., 

the seismic airgun) and normal tissue 

degradation that takes place after death, 

or due to poor fixation and preparation 

of tissue. To date, this work has not 

been published in peer reviewed 

literature, and detailed images of the 

reportedly damaged tissue are also not 

available. 

In summary, baleen whales feed on 

the aggregations of krill and small 

schooling fish, while toothed whales 

feed on epipelagic, mesopelagic, and 

bathypelagic fish and squid. As 

summarized above and in the MIRC EIS/ 

OEIS in more detail, potential impacts 

to marine mammal food resources 

within the MIRC is negligible given both 

lack of hearing sensitivity to midfrequency sonar, the very geographic 

and spatially limited scope of most 

Navy at sea activities including 

underwater detonations, and the high 

biological productivity of these 

resources. No short or long term effects 

to marine mammal food resources from 

Navy activities are anticipated within 

the MIRC. 

Military Expendable Material 

Marine mammals are subject to 

entanglement in expended materials, 

particularly anything incorporating 

loops or rings, hooks and lines, or sharp 

objects. Most documented cases of 

entanglements occur when whales 

encounter the vertical lines of fixed 

fishing gear. This section summarizes 

the potential effects of expended 

materials on marine mammals. Detailed 

discussion of military expendable 

material is contained within the MIRC 

EIS. 

The Navy endeavors to recover 

expended training materials. 

Notwithstanding, it is not possible to 

recover all training materials, and some 

may be encountered by marine 

mammals in the waters of the MIRC. 

Debris related to military activities that 

is not recovered generally sinks; the 

amount that might remain on or near the 

sea surface is low, and the density of 

such expendable materials in the MIRC 

would be very low. Types of training 

materials that might be encountered 

include: Parachutes of various types 

(e.g., those employed by personnel or on 

targets, flares, or sonobuoys); torpedo 

guidance wires, torpedo ‘‘flex hoses;’’ 

cable assemblies used to facilitate target 

recovery; sonobuoys; and EMATT. 

Entanglement in military expendable 

material was not cited as a source of 

injury or mortality for any marine 

mammals recorded in a large marine 

mammal and sea turtle stranding 

database for California waters, an area 

with much higher density of marine 

mammals. Therefore as discussed in the 

MIRC EIS, expendable material is highly 

unlikely to directly affect marine 

mammal species or potential habitat 

within the MIRC. 

NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation 

is working with the Navy to better 

identify the potential risks of expended 

materials from the Navy activities as 

they relate to Essential Fish Habitat. 

These effects are indirectly related to 

marine mammal habitat, but based on 

the extent of the likely effects described 

in the Navy’s DEIS, NMFS’ Office of 

Protected Resources has preliminarily 

determined that they will not result in 

significant impacts to marine mammal 

habitat. The EFH discussions between 

Navy and NMFS’ Office of Habitat 

Conservation will further inform the 

marine mammal habitat analysis in the 

final rule. 

Water Quality 

The MIRC EIS/OEIS analyzed the 

potential effects to water quality from 

sonobuoy, ADCs, and Expendable 

Mobile Acoustic Training Target 

(EMATT) batteries; explosive packages 

associated with the explosive source 

sonobuoy (AN/SSQ–110A), and Otto 

Fuel (OF) II combustion byproducts 

associated with torpedoes. Expendable 

bathythermographs do not have 

batteries and were not included in the 

analysis. In addition, sonobuoys were 

not analyzed since, once scuttled, their 

electrodes are largely exhausted during 

use and residual constituent dissolution 

occurs more slowly than the releases 

from activated seawater batteries. As 

such, only the potential effects of 

batteries and explosions on marine 

water quality in and surrounding the 

sonobuoy training area were completed. 

The Navy determined that there would 

be no significant effect to water quality 

from seawater batteries, lithium 

batteries, and thermal batteries 

associated with scuttled sonobuoys. 

ADCs and EMATTs use lithium sulfur 

dioxide batteries. The constituents in 

the battery react to form soluble 

hydrogen gas and lithium dithionite. 

The hydrogen gas eventually enters the 

atmosphere and the lithium hydroxide 

dissociates, forming lithium ions and 

hydroxide ions. The hydroxide is 

neutralized by the hydronium formed 

from hydrolysis of the acidic sulfur 

dioxide, ultimately forming water. 

Sulfur dioxide, a gas that is highly 

soluble in water, is the major reactive 

component in the battery. The sulfur 

ioxide ionizes in the water, forming 

bisulfite (HSO3) that is easily oxidized 

to sulfate in the slightly alkaline 

environment of the ocean. Sulfur is 

present as sulfate in large quantities 

(i.e., 885 milligrams per liter [mg/L]) in 

the ocean. Thus, it was determined that 

there would be no significant effect to 

water quality from lithium sulfur 

batteries associated with scuttled ADCs 

and EMATTs. 

Only a very small percentage of the 

available hydrogen fluoride explosive 

product in the explosive source 

sonobuoy (AN/SSQ–110A) is expected 

to become solubilized prior to reaching 

the surface and the rapid dilution would 

occur upon mixing with the ambient 

water. As such, it was determined that 

there would be no significant effect to 

water quality from the explosive 

product associated with the explosive 

source sonobuoy (AN/SSQ–110A). 

OF II is combusted in the torpedo 

engine and the combustion byproducts 

are exhausted into the torpedo wake, 

which is extremely turbulent and causes 

rapid mixing and diffusion. Combustion 

byproducts include carbon dioxide, 

carbon monoxide, water, hydrogen gas, 

nitrogen gas, ammonia, hydrogen 

cyanide, and nitrogen oxides. All of the 

byproducts, with the exception of 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53857 

hydrogen cyanide, are below the EPA 

water quality criteria. Hydrogen cyanide 

is highly soluble in seawater and dilutes 

below the EPA criterion within 6.3 m 

(20.7 ft) of the torpedo. Therefore, it was 

determined there would be no 

significant effect to water quality as a 

result of OF II. 

Analysis and Negligible Impact 

Determination 

Pursuant to NMFS’ regulations 

implementing the MMPA, an applicant 

is required to estimate the number of 

animals that will be ‘‘taken’’ by the 

specified activities (i.e., takes by 

harassment only, or takes by 

harassment, injury, and/or death). This 

estimate informs the analysis that NMFS 

must perform to determine whether the 

activity will have a ‘‘negligible impact’’ 

on the affected species or stock. Level B 

(behavioral) harassment occurs at the 

level of the individual(s) and does not 

assume any resulting population-level 

consequences, though there are known 

avenues through which behavioral 

disturbance of individuals can result in 

population-level effects (for example: 

pink-footed geese (Anser 

brachyrhynchus) in undisturbed habitat 

gained body mass and had about a 46- 

percent reproductive success compared 

with geese in disturbed habitat (being 

consistently scared off the fields on 

which they were foraging) which did 

not gain mass and has a 17-percent 

reproductive success). A negligible 

impact finding is based on the lack of 

likely adverse effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number 

of Level B harassment takes, alone, is 

not enough information on which to 

base an impact determination. In 

addition to considering estimates of the 

number of marine mammals that might 

be ‘‘taken’’ through behavioral 

harassment, 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 of estimated Level A 

Harassment takes, the number of 

estimated mortalities, and effects on 

habitat. Generally speaking, and 

especially with other factors being 

equal, the Navy and NMFS anticipate 

more severe effects from takes resulting 

from exposure to higher received levels 

(though this is in no way a strictly linear 

relationship throughout species, 

individuals, or circumstances) and less 

severe effects from takes resulting from 

exposure to lower received levels. 

The Navy’s specified activities have 

been described based on best estimates 

of the number of MFAS/HFAS hours 

that the Navy will conduct. The exact 

number of hours (or torpedoes, or pings, 

whatever unit the source is estimated 

in) may vary from year to year, but will 

not exceed the 5-year total indicated in 

Table 8 (by multiplying the yearly 

estimate by 5) by more than 10%. NMFS 

estimates that a 10-percent increase in 

active sonar hours (torpedoes, pings, 

etc.) would result in approximately a 

10-percent increase in the number of 

takes, and we have considered this 

possibility and the effect of the 

additional active sonar use in our 

analysis. 

Taking the above into account, 

considering the sections discussed 

below, and dependent upon the 

implementation of the proposed 

mitigation measures, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that Navy 

training exercises utilizing MFAS/HFAS 

and underwater detonations will have a 

negligible impact on the marine 

mammal species and stocks present in 

the MIRC Range Complex. 

Behavioral Harassment 

As discussed in the Potential Effects 

of Exposure of Marine Mammals to 

MFAS/HFAS and illustrated in the 

conceptual framework, marine 

mammals can respond to MFAS/HFAS 

in many different ways, a subset of 

which qualify as harassment (see 

Behavioral Harassment Section). One 

thing that the 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. For MFAS/HFAS, 

the Navy provided information (Table 9) 

estimating the percentage of the total 

takes that will occur within the 10-dB 

bins (without considering mitigation or 

avoidance) that are within the received 

levels considered in the risk continuum 

and for TTS and PTS. This table applies 

specifically to AN/SQS–53C hullmounted active sonar (the most 

powerful source), with less powerful 

sources the percentages would increase 

slightly in the lower received levels and 

correspondingly decrease in the higher 

received levels. As mentioned above, 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. 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53858 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Because the Navy has only been 

monitoring specifically to discern the 

effects of MFAS/HFAS on marine 

mammals since approximately 2006, 

and because of the overall data gap 

regarding the effects of MFAS/HFAS on 

marine mammals, not a lot is known 

regarding how marine mammals in the 

MIRC will respond to MFAS/HFAS. For 

the one major exercise (Valiant Shield, 

2007) for which NMFS has received a 

monitoring report, no instances of 

obvious behavioral disturbance were 

observed by the Navy watchstanders in 

the 25 marine mammal sightings of 235 

animals. The Navy has also submitted 

reports from more than 60 major 

exercises conducted in the Southern 

California Range Complex, the Hawaii 

Range Complex, and off the Atlantic 

Coast, that similarly indicate no 

observed behavioral disturbance 

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 (especially those 

more cryptic, deep-diving species, such 

as beaked whales or Kogia spp.) 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. 

In addition to the monitoring that will 

be required pursuant to these 

regulations and any corresponding 

LOAs, which is specifically designed to 

help us better understand how marine 

mammals respond to sound, the Navy 

and NMFS have developed, funded, and 

begun conducting a controlled exposure 

experiment with beaked whales in the 

Bahamas (results of first year discussed 

in previous sections, 2008 results not 

yet available). Separately, the Navy and 

NMFS conducted an opportunistic 

tagging experiment with several species 

of marine mammals in the area of the 

2008 Rim of the Pacific training 

exercises in the HRC, for which the 

results are still being analyzed. 

Diel Cycle 

As noted previously, many animals 

perform vital functions, such as feeding, 

resting, traveling, and socializing on a 

diel cycle (24-hr 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). 

In the previous section, we discussed 

the fact that potential behavioral 

responses to MFAS/HFAS that fall into 

the category of harassment could range 

in severity. By definition, takes by 

behavioral harassment involve the 

disturbance of a marine mammal or 

marine mammal stock in the wild by 

causing disruption of natural behavioral 

patterns (such as migration, surfacing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering) 

to a point where such behavioral 

patterns are abandoned or significantly 

altered. These reactions would, 

however, be more of a concern if they 

were expected to last over 24 hours or 

be repeated in subsequent days. As 

indicated in table 2, with the exception 

of the major exercises (either 1 multistrike group exercise annually, or 1 Joint 

Expeditionary exercise and 1–4 

MAGTFs annually), which last 

approximately 10 days, the rest of the 

sonar exercises conducted in the MIRC 

are 8 hours in duration or shorter. 

Additionally, vessels with hull-mounted 

active sonar are typically moving at 

speeds of 10–14 knots, which would 

make it unlikely that the same animal 

could remain in the immediate vicinity 

of the ship for the entire duration of the 

exercise. Animals are not expected to be 

exposed to MFAS/HFAS at levels or for 

a duration likely to result in a 

significant response that would then last 

for more than one day or on successive 

days. With the exception of SINKEXs, 

the planned explosive exercises are also 

of a short duration (1–6 hours). 

Although explosive exercises may 

sometimes be conducted in the same 

general areas repeatedly, because of 

their short duration and the fact that 

they are in the open ocean and animals 

can easily move away, it is similarly 

unlikely that animals would be exposed 

for long, continuous amounts of time. 

Although SINKEXs may last for up to 48 

hours, only 2 are planned annually, they 

are stationary and conducted in deep, 

open water (where fewer marine 

mammals would typically be expected 

to be randomly encountered), and they 

have a rigorous monitoring and 

shutdown protocol, all of which make it 

unlikely that individuals would be 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP20OC09.013</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53859 

exposed to the exercise for extended 

periods or in consecutive days. 

TTS 

NMFS and the Navy have estimated 

that approximately 1300 individual 

marine mammals (totaled from all 

affected species), may sustain some 

level of TTS from MFAS/HFAS 

annually. 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. Table 8 indicates the estimated 

number of animals that might sustain 

TTS from exposure to MFAS/HFAS. 

The TTS sustained by an animal is 

primarily classified by three 

characteristics: 

• Frequency—Available data (of midfrequency hearing specialists exposed to 

mid to 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 c 

octave above). The more MF powerful 

sources used (the two hull-mounted 

MFAS sources and the DICASS 

sonobuoys) 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). TTS from explosives 

would be broadband. Tables 5a and 5b 

summarize the vocalization data for 

each species. 

• Degree of the shift (i.e., how many 

dB is the sensitivity of the hearing 

reduced by)—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 (≤ 6 dB) is 195 dB 

(SEL), which might be received at 

distances of up to 140 m from the most 

powerful MFAS source, the AN/SQS–53 

(the maximum ranges to TTS from other 

sources would be less, as modeled for 

MIRC). 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 watchstanders and the 

nominal speed of an active sonar vessel 

(10–12 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-sec exposure to a 20 kHz 

source (MFAS emits a 1-s ping 2 times/ 

minute). 

• 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), though in one 

study (Finneran et al. (2007)), recovery 

took 4 days. 

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 freeswimming marine mammals in the field 

are likely to be exposed during MFAS/ 

HFAS training exercises in MIRC, it is 

unlikely that marine mammals would 

ever sustain a TTS from MFAS that 

alters their sensitivity by more than 20 

dB for more than a few days (and the 

majority would be far less severe 

because of short duration of the majority 

of the exercises and the speed of a 

typical vessel), if that. 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 (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 level) 

would not usually span the entire 

frequency range of one vocalization 

type, much less span all types of 

vocalizations (see Tables 5a and 5b). If 

impaired, marine mammals would 

typically be aware of their impairment 

and implement behaviors to compensate 

for it (see Communication Impairment 

Section), though these compensations 

may incur energetic costs. 

Acoustic Masking or Communication 

Impairment 

Table 5 is also informative regarding 

the nature of the masking or 

communication impairment that could 

potentially occur from MFAS (again, 

center frequencies are 3.5 and 7.5 kHz 

for the two types of hull-mounted active 

sonar). However, 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 pings last on average 

one second and occur about once every 

24–30 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 10s of micro seconds. 

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 24 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, which 

overlaps with some marine mammal 

vocalizations, however, it would likely 

not mask the entirety of any particular 

vocalization or communication series 

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. 

PTS, Injury, or Mortality 

The Navy’s model estimated that one 

pantropical dolphin and one sperm 

whale would be exposed to levels of 

MFAS/HFAS that would result in PTS. 

This estimate does not take into 

consideration either the mitigation 

measures, the likely avoidance 

behaviors of some of the animals 

exposed, the distance from the sonar 

dome of a surface vessel within which 

an animal would have to be exposed to 

incur PTS (10 m), and the nominal 

speed of a surface vessel engaged in 

ASW exercises. NMFS believes that 

many marine mammals would 

deliberately avoid exposing themselves 

to the received levels of active sonar 

necessary to induce injury by moving 

away from or at least modifying their 

path to avoid a close approach. 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53860 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Additionally, in the unlikely event that 

an animal approaches the sonar vessel 

at a close distance, NMFS believes that 

the mitigation measures (i.e., shutdown/ 

powerdown zones for MFAS/HFAS) 

would typically ensure that animals 

would be not be exposed to injurious 

levels of sound. As discussed 

previously, the Navy utilizes both aerial 

(when available) and passive acoustic 

monitoring (during all ASW exercises) 

in addition to watchstanders on vessels 

to detect marine mammals for 

mitigation implementation and 

indicated that they are capable of 

effectively monitoring a 1000-meter 

(1093-yd) safety zone at night using 

night vision goggles, infrared cameras, 

and passive acoustic monitoring. 

If a marine mammal is able to 

approach a surface vessel within the 

distance necessary to incur PTS, the 

likely speed of the vessel (nominal 10– 

12 knots) would make it very difficult 

for the animal to remain in range long 

enough to accumulate enough energy to 

result in more than a mild case of PTS. 

As mentioned previously and in relation 

to TTS, the likely consequences to the 

health of an individual that incurs PTS 

can range from mild to more serious 

dependent upon the degree of PTS and 

the frequency band it is in, and many 

animals are able to compensate for the 

shift, although it may include energetic 

costs. While NMFS believes it is very 

unlikely that a pantropical dolphin or 

sperm whale will incur PTS from 

exposure to MFAS/HFAS, the Navy has 

requested authorization to take one each 

by Level A Harasssment and therefore, 

NMFS has considered this possibility in 

our analysis. 

As discussed previously, marine 

mammals (especially beaked whales) 

could potentially respond to MFAS at a 

received level lower than the injury 

threshold in a manner that indirectly 

results in the animals stranding. The 

exact mechanisms of this potential 

response, behavioral or physiological, 

are not known. When naval exercises 

have been associated with strandings in 

the past, it has typically been when 

three or more vessels are operating 

simultaneously, in the presence of a 

strong surface duct, and in areas of 

constricted channels, semi-enclosed 

areas, and/or steep bathymetry. While 

these features certainly do not define 

the only factors that can contribute to a 

stranding, and while they need not all 

be present in their aggregate to increase 

the likelihood of a stranding, it is worth 

noting that they are not all present in 

the MIRC, which does have a strong 

surface duct present much of the time, 

but does not have bathymetry or 

constricted channels of the type that 

have been present in the sonarassociated strandings. Additionally, 

based on the number of occurrences 

where strandings have been definitively 

associated with military active sonar 

versus the number of hours of active 

sonar training that have been 

conducted, we suggest that the 

probability is small that this will occur. 

Additionally, an active sonar shutdown 

protocol for strandings involving live 

animals milling in the water minimizes 

the chances that these types of events 

turn into mortalities. Though NMFS 

does not expect it to occur, because of 

the uncertainty surrounding the 

mechanisms that link exposure to 

MFAS to stranding (especially in beaked 

whales), NMFS is proposing to 

authorize the injury or mortality of 10 

beaked whales over the course of the 5- 

yr regulations. 

60 Years of Navy Training Exercises 

Using MFAS/HFAS in the MIRC Range 

Complex 

The Navy has been conducting 

MFAS/HFAS training exercises in the 

MIRC Range Complex for over 60 years. 

Although limited monitoring 

specifically in conjunction with training 

exercises to determine the effects of 

active sonar and explosives on marine 

mammals has not been conducted by 

the Navy in the past in the MIRC and 

the symptoms indicative of potential 

acoustic trauma were not as well 

recognized prior to the mid-nineties, 

people have been collecting stranding 

data in the MIRC Range Complex for 

approximately 4 years. Though not all 

dead or injured animals are expected to 

end up on the shore (some may be eaten 

or float out to sea), one might expect 

that if marine mammals were being 

harmed by the Navy training exercises 

with any regularity, more evidence 

would have been detected. 

Species-Specific Analysis 

In the discussions below, the 

‘‘acoustic analysis’’ refers to the Navy’s 

analysis, which includes the use of 

several models and other applicable 

calculations as described in the 

Estimates of Potential Marine Mammal 

Exposure section. The numbers 

predicted by the ‘‘acoustic analysis’’ are 

based on a uniform and stationary 

distribution of marine mammals and do 

not take into consideration the 

implementation of mitigation measures 

or potential avoidance behaviors of 

marine mammals, and therefore, are 

likely overestimates of potential 

exposures to the indicated thresholds 

(PTS, TTS, behavioral harassments). 

Blue Whale (MMPA Depleted/ESAListed) 

Acoustic analysis predicts that 130 

exposures of blue whales to MFAS/ 

HFAS at levels likely to result in Level 

B harassment will occur, and that 0 

exposures to explosives will occur. This 

estimate represents the total number of 

takes and not necessarily the number of 

individuals taken, as a single individual 

may be taken multiple times over the 

course of a year. These Level B takes are 

anticipated to be primarily in the form 

of behavioral disturbance as described 

in the Definition of Harassment: Level B 

Harassment section, although two TTS 

takes are also estimated. However, it is 

unlikely that any blue whales will incur 

TTS because of: the distance within 

which they would have to approach the 

MFAS source (approximately 140 m for 

the most powerful source for TTS), the 

fact that many animals will likely avoid 

active sonar sources to some degree, and 

the likelihood that Navy monitors 

would detect these animals prior to an 

approach within this distance (given 

their large size, average group size (2– 

3), and pronounced vertical blow) and 

implement active sonar powerdown or 

shutdown. Of note, blue whale 

vocalizations are in the 12 to 400 Hz 

range with dominant energy in the 12 to 

25 Hz range, which suggests that blue 

whale hearing may be more sensitive in 

this frequency range. Thus, frequencies 

in the MFAS range (1–10 kHz) are 

predicted to lie closer to the periphery 

of their hearing, which suggests that 

adverse impacts resulting from exposure 

to MFAS may be fewer than modeled. 

Blue whales have not actually been 

seen in the MIRC and the most 

appropriate population estimate is the 

one for the North Pacific, which 

estimates a minimum of 3,300 whales. 

Like most baleen whales, blue whales 

would most likely feed in the north in 

the summer and head southward 

(potentially MIRC) in the cooler months. 

Relative to the population size, this 

activity is anticipated to result only in 

a limited number of level B harassment 

takes. The MIRC activities are not 

expected to occur in an area/time of 

specific importance for reproduction, 

feeding, or other known critical 

behaviors. The blue whales’ large size 

and detectability makes it unlikely that 

these animals would be exposed to the 

higher levels of sound expected to result 

in more severe effects. Consequently, 

the activities are not expected to 

adversely impact rates of recruitment or 

survival of blue whales. Based on the 

general information contained in the 

Negligible Impact Analysis section and 

this species-specific summary of the 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53861 

effects of the takes, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the 

Navy’s specified activities will have a 

negligible impact on this species. 

Fin Whale (MMPA Depleted/ESAListed) 

Acoustic analysis predicts that 182 

exposures of fin whales to MFAS/HFAS 

at sound levels likely to result in Level 

B harassment will occur, and that 0 

exposures to explosives will occur. This 

estimate represents the total number of 

takes and not necessarily the number of 

individuals taken, as a single individual 

may be taken multiple times over the 

course of a year. These Level B takes are 

anticipated to be primarily in the form 

of behavioral disturbance as described 

in the Definition of Harassment: Level B 

Harassment section, although two TTS 

takes are also estimated. However, it is 

unlikely that any fin whales will incur 

TTS because of: The distance within 

which they would have to approach the 

MFAS source (approximately 140 m for 

the most powerful source for TTS), the 

fact that many animals will likely avoid 

active sonar sources to some degree, and 

the likelihood that Navy monitors 

would detect these animals prior to an 

approach within this distance (given 

their large size, average group size (3), 

and pronounced vertical blow) and 

implement active sonar powerdown or 

shutdown. Of note, fin whale 

vocalizations are in the 15–750 Hz range 

with the majority below 70 Hz, which 

suggests that fin whale hearing may be 

more sensitive in this frequency range. 

Thus, frequencies in the MFAS range 

(1–10 kHz) are predicted to lie closer to 

the periphery of their hearing, which 

suggests that adverse impacts resulting 

from exposure to MFAS may be fewer 

than modeled. 

Fin whales have not actually been 

seen in the MIRC and the most 

appropriate population estimate is the 

one for the North Pacific, which 

estimates 14,620–18,630 whales. 

Relative to the population size, this 

activity is anticipated to result only in 

a limited number of level B harassment 

takes. In the northern hemisphere, fin 

whales migrate seasonally from high 

Arctic feeding areas in the summer to 

low latitude breeding and calving areas 

in the winter. The MIRC activities are 

not expected to occur in an area/time of 

specific importance for reproduction, 

feeding, or other known critical 

behaviors. The fin whales’ large size and 

detectability makes it unlikely that these 

animals would be exposed to the higher 

levels of sound expected to result in 

more severe effects. Consequently, the 

activities are not expected to adversely 

impact rates of recruitment or survival 

of fin whales. Based on the general 

information contained in the Negligible 

Impact Analysis section and this 

species-specific summary of the effects 

of the takes, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the Navy’s specified 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on this species. 

Sei Whale (MMPA Depleted/ESAListed) 

Acoustic analysis predicts that 325 

exposures of sei whales to MFAS/HFAS 

at sound levels likely to result in Level 

B harassment will occur, and that 0 

exposures to explosives will occur. This 

estimate represents the total number of 

takes and not necessarily the number of 

individuals taken, as a single individual 

may be taken multiple times over the 

course of a year. These Level B takes are 

anticipated to be primarily in the form 

of behavioral disturbance as described 

in the Definition of Harassment: Level B 

Harassment section, although six TTS 

takes are also estimated. However, it is 

unlikely that any sei whales will incur 

TTS because of: The distance within 

which they would have to approach the 

MFAS source (approximately 140 m for 

the most powerful source for TTS), the 

fact that many animals will likely avoid 

active sonar sources to some degree, and 

the likelihood that Navy monitors 

would detect these animals prior to an 

approach within this distance (given 

their large size, average group size (3), 

and pronounced vertical blow) and 

implement active sonar powerdown or 

shutdown. 

The most appropriate population 

estimate for the sei whale is the one for 

the North Pacific, which estimates 9,110 

whales. Relative to the population size, 

this activity is anticipated to result only 

in a limited number of level B 

harassment takes. Sei whales are 

generally thought to feed in the summer 

in the north and spend winters in warm 

temperate or sub-tropical areas. The 

MIRC activities are not expected to 

occur in an area/time of specific 

importance for reproduction, feeding, or 

other known critical behaviors. The sei 

whales’ large size and detectability 

makes it unlikely that these animals 

would be exposed to the higher levels 

of sound expected to result in more 

severe effects. Consequently, the 

activities are not expected to adversely 

impact rates of recruitment or survival 

of sei whales. Based on the general 

information contained in the Negligible 

Impact Analysis section and this 

species-specific summary of the effects 

of the takes, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the Navy’s specified 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on this species. 

Humpback Whale (MMPA Depleted/ 

ESA-Listed) 

Acoustic analysis predicts that 804 

exposures of humpback whales to 

MFAS/HFAS at sound levels likely to 

result in Level B harassment will occur. 

This estimate represents the total 

number of takes and not necessarily the 

number of individuals taken, as a single 

individual may be taken multiple times 

over the course of a year. These Level 

B takes are anticipated to be primarily 

in the form of behavioral disturbance as 

described in the Definition of 

Harassment: Level B Harassment 

section, although ten TTS takes are also 

estimated. However, it is unlikely that 

any humpback whales will incur TTS 

because of: the distance within which 

they would have to approach the MFAS 

source (approximately 140 m for the 

most powerful source for TTS), the fact 

that many animals will likely avoid 

active sonar sources to some degree, and 

the likelihood that Navy monitors 

would detect these animals prior to an 

approach within this distance (given 

their large size and gregarious nature) 

and implement active sonar powerdown 

or shutdown. 

The acoustic analysis further predicts 

that 1 humpback whale would be 

exposed to levels of pressure and/or 

energy from explosive detonations that 

would result in Level B harassment by 

TTS. NMFS believes that this is unlikely 

because of: (1) The distance within 

which they would have to approach the 

explosive source; and, (2) the likelihood 

that Navy monitors would, during preor during exercises monitoring, detect 

these large, gregarious animals prior to 

an approach within this distance and 

require a delay of the exercise. 

The current estimate for the North 

Pacific is 18,302 humpback whales. 

Relative to the population size, this 

activity is anticipated to result only in 

a limited number of level B harassment 

takes. Humpback whales are generally 

thought to feed in the summer in the 

north and spend winters in warm 

temperate or sub-tropical areas. The 

MIRC activities are not expected to 

occur in an area/time of specific 

importance for reproduction, feeding, or 

other known critical behaviors. The 

humpback whales’ large size and 

detectability makes it unlikely that these 

animals would be exposed to the higher 

levels of sound expected to result in 

more severe effects. Consequently, the 

activities are not expected to adversely 

impact rates of recruitment or survival 

of humpback whales. Based on the 

general information contained in the 

Negligible Impact Analysis section and 

this species-specific summary of the 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53862 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

effects of the takes, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the 

Navy’s specified activities will have a 

negligible impact on this species. 

Bryde’s Whale 

Acoustic analysis predicts that 457 

exposures of Bryde’s whales to MFAS/ 

HFAS at sound levels likely to result in 

Level B harassment will occur, and that 

0 exposures to explosives will occur. 

This estimate represents the total 

number of takes and not necessarily the 

number of individuals taken, as a single 

individual may be taken multiple times 

over the course of a year. These Level 

B takes are anticipated to be primarily 

in the form of behavioral disturbance as 

described in the Definition of 

Harassment: Level B Harassment 

section, although 8 TTS takes are also 

estimated. However, it is unlikely that 

any fin whales will incur TTS because 

of: the distance within which they 

would have to approach the MFAS 

source (approximately 140 m for the 

most powerful source for TTS), the fact 

that many animals will likely avoid 

active sonar sources to some degree, and 

the likelihood that Navy monitors 

would detect these animals prior to an 

approach within this distance (given 

their large size and pronounced blow) 

and implement active sonar powerdown 

or shutdown. 

Bryde’s whales are found worldwide 

in tropical and temperate waters. There 

are no current estimates of Bryde’s 

whale in the Pacific but based on the 

MISTCS survey, abundance in MIRC is 

about 233 animals. Historical records 

show a consistent presence of Bryde’s 

whales in the MIRC. Bryde’s whales 

have been sighted with calves several 

times, but no regularly used 

reproductive areas have been identified. 

The Bryde’s whales’ large size and 

detectability makes it unlikely that these 

animals would be exposed to the higher 

levels of sound expected to result in 

more severe effects. Consequently, the 

activities are not expected to adversely 

impact rates of recruitment or survival 

of Bryde’s whales. Based on the general 

information contained in the Negligible 

Impact Analysis section and this 

species-specific summary of the effects 

of the takes, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the Navy’s specified 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on this species. 

Minke Whale 

Acoustic analysis predicts that 445 

exposures of Minke whales to MFAS/ 

HFAS at sound levels likely to result in 

Level B harassment will occur, and that 

0 exposures to explosives will occur. 

This estimate represents the total 

number of takes and not necessarily the 

number of individuals taken, as a single 

individual may be taken multiple times 

over the course of a year. These Level 

B takes are anticipated to be primarily 

in the form of behavioral disturbance as 

described in the Definition of 

Harassment: Level B Harassment 

section, although 7 TTS takes are also 

estimated. It is somewhat unlikely that 

any fin whales will incur TTS because 

of: the distance within which they 

would have to approach the MFAS 

source (approximately 140 m for the 

most powerful source for TTS) and the 

fact that many animals will likely avoid 

active sonar sources to some degree. 

However, Minke whales are relatively 

cryptic at surface, making visual 

detection more difficult, although they 

are often detected acoustically. 

Minke whales are found in the North 

Atlantic and North Pacific from tropical 

to polar waters, although there are no 

current estimates of Minke whales in 

the Pacific. Minke whales were the most 

frequently detected species of baleen 

whales in the MISTCS (acoustically, not 

visually). The MIRC activities are not 

expected to occur in an area/time of 

specific importance for reproduction, 

feeding, or other known critical 

behaviors. Consequently, the activities 

are not expected to adversely impact 

rates of recruitment or survival of Minke 

whales. Based on the general 

information contained in the Negligible 

Impact Analysis section and this 

species-specific summary of the effects 

of the takes, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the Navy’s specified 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on this species. 

Sperm Whale (MMPA Depleted/ESAListed) 

Acoustic analysis predicts that 817 

exposures of sperm whales to MFAS/ 

HFAS at sound levels likely to result in 

Level B harassment will occur. This 

estimate represents the total number of 

takes and not necessarily the number of 

individuals taken, as a single individual 

may be taken multiple times over the 

course of a year. These Level B takes are 

anticipated to be primarily in the form 

of behavioral disturbance as described 

in the Definition of Harassment: Level B 

Harassment section, although 10 TTS 

takes and 1 PTS (Level A Harassment) 

are also estimated and proposed for 

authorization. However, it is unlikely 

that any sperm whales will incur TTS 

or PTS because of: The distance within 

which they would have to approach the 

MFAS source (approximately 140 m for 

the most powerful source for TTS and 

10 m for PTS), the fact that many 

animals will likely avoid active sonar 

sources to some degree, and the 

likelihood that Navy monitors would 

detect these animals prior to an 

approach within this distance (given 

their large size, pronounced blow, and 

mean group size of 7). 

The acoustic analysis further predicts 

that 9 sperm whales would be exposed 

to levels of pressure and/or energy from 

explosive detonations that would result 

in Level B harassment by TTS. NMFS 

believes that this is unlikely because of: 

(1) The distance within which they 

would have to approach the explosive 

source; and, (2) the likelihood that Navy 

monitors would, during pre- or during 

exercises monitoring, detect these 

animals for the reasons indicated above. 

Sperm whales occur throughout all 

ocean basins from equatorial to polar 

waters. Sperm whales are found 

throughout the North Pacific, but there 

are no current estimates of sperm whale 

abundance in the North Pacific, but 

based on the MISTCS survey, 

abundance in MIRC is about 705 

animals. The sperm whale was the most 

frequently sighted cetacean in the 

MISTCS and was acoustically detected 

3 times more often than it was visually 

detected. Sperm whales are present 

year-round in MIRC and have been 

sighted with calves, although no 

regularly used reproductive areas have 

been identified. The Sperm whales’ 

large size and detectability makes it 

unlikely that these animals would be 

exposed to the higher levels of sound 

expected to result in more severe effects. 

Consequently, the activities are not 

expected to adversely impact rates of 

recruitment or survival of sperm whales. 

Based on the general information 

contained in the Negligible Impact 

Analysis section and this speciesspecific summary of the effects of the 

takes, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the Navy’s specified 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on this species. 

Pygmy and Dwarf Sperm Whale 

Because of their similarity of 

appearance and cryptic behavior, these 

two species are difficult to differentiate 

in the field and are considered together. 

Acoustic analysis predicts that 6,677 

exposures of pygmy or dwarf sperm 

whales to MFAS/HFAS at sound levels 

likely to result in Level B harassment 

will occur. This estimate represents the 

total number of takes and not 

necessarily the number of individuals 

taken, as a single individual may be 

taken multiple times over the course of 

a year. These Level B takes are 

anticipated to be primarily in the form 

of behavioral disturbance as described 

in the Definition of Harassment: Level B 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53863 

Harassment section, although 103 TTS 

takes are also estimated. NMFS believes 

that it is unlikely that this number of 

pygmy or dwarf sperm whales will 

incur TTS because of the distance 

within which they would have to 

approach the MFAS source 

(approximately 140 m for the most 

powerful source for TTS) and the fact 

that many animals will likely avoid 

active sonar sources to some degree. 

However, the likelihood that Navy 

monitors would detect most of these 

animals at the surface prior to an 

approach within this distance is low 

because of their small size, nongregarious nature, and cryptic behavior 

and profile. As mentioned above and 

indicated in Table 5, some pygmy or 

dwarf sperm whale vocalizations might 

overlap with the MFAS/HFAS TTS 

frequency range (2–20 kHz) (although 

most of their vocalizations are 

anticipated to be in a higher frequency 

range), which could potentially 

temporarily decrease an animal’s 

sensitivity to the calls of conspecifics or 

returning echolocation signals. 

However, as noted previously, NMFS 

does not anticipate TTS of a long 

duration or severe degree to occur as a 

result of exposure to MFAS/HFAS. 

The acoustic analysis further predicts 

that 6 pygmy or dwarf sperm whales 

would be exposed to levels of pressure 

and/or energy from explosive 

detonations that would result in Level B 

harassment by TTS, and 20 could be 

exposed to levels associated with 

behavioral disturbance. 

Pygmy and dwarf sperm whales occur 

in tropical and temperate latitudes 

worldwide, although there are no 

current estimates of these whales in the 

Pacific or MIRC. The MIRC activities are 

not expected to occur in an area/time of 

specific importance for reproduction, 

feeding, or other known critical 

behaviors. Consequently, the activities 

are not expected to adversely impact 

rates of recruitment or survival of dwarf 

or pygmy sperm whales. Based on the 

general information contained in the 

Negligible Impact Analysis section and 

this species-specific summary of the 

effects of the takes, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the 

Navy’s specified activities will have a 

negligible impact on this species. 

Beaked Whales 

Acoustic analysis predicts that 770 

Blainville’s beaked whales, 3,611 

Cuvier’s beaked whales, 430 Ginkgotoothed beaked whales, and 206 

Longman’s beaked whales will be 

exposed to MFAS/HFAS at sound levels 

likely to result in Level B harassment. 

This estimate represents the total 

number of takes and not necessarily the 

number of individuals taken, as a single 

individual may be taken multiple times 

over the course of a year. These Level 

B takes are anticipated to be primarily 

in the form of behavioral disturbance as 

described in the Definition of 

Harassment: Level B Harassment 

section, although 12, 44, 7, and 2 

(respectively) TTS takes are also 

estimated. NMFS believes that it is 

unlikely that this number of beaked 

whales will incur TTS because of the 

distance within which they would have 

to approach the MFAS source 

(approximately 140 m for the most 

powerful source for TTS) and the fact 

that many animals will likely avoid 

active sonar sources to some degree. 

However, the likelihood that Navy 

monitors would detect most of these 

animals at the surface prior to an 

approach within this distance is low 

because of their deep-diving behavior 

and cryptic profile. As mentioned above 

and indicated in Table 5, some beaked 

whale vocalizations might overlap with 

the MFAS/HFAS TTS frequency range 

(2–20 kHzge), which could potentially 

temporarily decrease an animal’s 

sensitivity to the calls of conspecifics or 

returning echolocation signals. 

However, as noted previously, NMFS 

does not anticipate TTS of a long 

duration or severe degree to occur as a 

result of exposure to MFAS/HFAS. 

The acoustic analysis further predicts 

that 4 Cuvier’s beaked whales would be 

exposed to levels of pressure and/or 

energy from explosive detonations that 

would result in Level B harassment by 

TTS, and 14 could be exposed to levels 

associated with behavioral disturbance. 

Cuvier’s and Blainville’s beaked 

whales are widespread throughout 

tropical and temperate latitudes 

worldwide, while Ginkgo-toothed and 

Longman’s beaked whales are not well 

known, but thought to occur in the 

tropical and temperate waters of the 

Indo-Pacific. No abundance estimates 

are available for any of these species. 

The MIRC activities are not expected to 

occur in an area/time of specific 

importance for reproduction, feeding, or 

other known critical behaviors. 

Consequently, the activities are not 

expected to adversely impact rates of 

recruitment or survival of beaked 

whales. Based on the general 

information contained in the Negligible 

Impact Analysis section and this 

species-specific summary of the effects 

of the takes, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the Navy’s specified 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on this species. 

Social Pelagic Species (False/Pygmy 

Killer Whale, Killer Whale, ShortFinned Pilot Whale, and Melon-Headed 

Whale) 

Acoustic analysis predicts that 1289 

false killer whales, 230 killer whales, 

2854 melon-headed whales, 160 pygmy 

killer whales, and 2274 short-finned 

pilot whales will be exposed to MFAS/ 

HFAS at sound levels likely to result in 

Level B harassment. This estimate 

represents the total number of takes and 

not necessarily the number of 

individuals taken, as a single individual 

may be taken multiple times over the 

course of a year. These Level B takes are 

anticipated to be primarily in the form 

of behavioral disturbance as described 

in the Definition of Harassment: Level B 

Harassment section, although 23, 4, 46, 

2, and 36 (respectively) TTS takes are 

also estimated. However, it is unlikely 

that many individuals of these species 

will incur TTS because of: The distance 

within which they would have to 

approach the MFAS source 

(approximately 140 m for the most 

powerful source for TTS), the fact that 

many animals will likely avoid active 

sonar sources to some degree, and the 

likelihood that Navy monitors would 

detect these animals prior to an 

approach within this distance (given 

their gregarious nature and large group 

size) and implement active sonar 

powerdown or shutdown. As mentioned 

above and indicated in Table 5, 

vocalizations of these species might 

overlap with the MFAS/HFAS TTS 

frequency range (2–20 kHz), which 

could potentially temporarily decrease 

an animal’s sensitivity to the calls of 

conspecifics or returning echolocation 

signals. However, as noted previously, 

NMFS does not anticipate TTS of a long 

duration or severe degree to occur as a 

result of exposure to MFAS/HFAS. 

The acoustic analysis further predicts 

that 2 melon-headed whales would be 

exposed to levels of pressure and/or 

energy from explosive detonations that 

would result in Level B harassment by 

TTS, and 6 could be exposed to levels 

associated with behavioral disturbance. 

NMFS believes that this is unlikely 

because of: (1) The distance within 

which they would have to approach the 

explosive source; and, (2) the likelihood 

that Navy monitors would, during preor during exercises monitoring, detect 

these large-grouped gregarious animals 

prior to an approach within this 

distance and require a delay of the 

exercise. 

These species all have large ranges, 

primarily tropical (melon-headed and 

pygmy killer whales) and tropical/ 

temperate (false killer and short-finned 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53864 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

pilot whales), although the killer whale 

is more abundant at higher latitudes. 

Abundance estimates are only available 

from the MISTCS and only for 3 species 

(melon-headed whales—2455, shortfinned pilot whale—909, and false killer 

whale—637). The MIRC activities are 

not expected to occur in an area/time of 

specific importance for reproduction, 

feeding, or other known critical 

behaviors. Consequently, the activities 

are not expected to adversely impact 

rates of recruitment or survival of these 

social pelagic whales. Based on the 

general information contained in the 

Negligible Impact Analysis section and 

this species-specific summary of the 

effects of the takes, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the 

Navy’s specified activities will have a 

negligible impact on these species. 

Dolphins 

Acoustic analysis predicts that 

individuals of all 8 of the dolphin 

species present in the MIRC will be 

exposed to MFAS/HFAS at sound levels 

likely to result in Level B harassment 

some number of times (see Table 8). 

These estimates represent the total 

number of takes and not necessarily the 

number of individuals taken, as a single 

individual may be taken multiple times 

over the course of a year. These Level 

B takes are anticipated to be primarily 

in the form of behavioral disturbance as 

described in the Definition of 

Harassment: Level B Harassment 

section, although some number of TTS 

takes are also estimated for all species 

and one PTS take is predicted for a 

pantropical spotted dolphin. However, 

it is unlikely that many individuals of 

these species will incur TTS because of: 

the distance within which they would 

have to approach the MFAS source 

(approximately 140 m for the most 

powerful source for TTS), the fact that 

many animals will likely avoid active 

sonar sources to some degree, and the 

likelihood that Navy monitors would 

detect these animals prior to an 

approach within this distance (given 

their gregarious nature and large group 

size) and implement active sonar 

powerdown or shutdown. However, the 

Navy’s proposed mitigation has a 

provision that allows the Navy to 

continue operation of MFAS if the 

animals are clearly bow-riding even 

after the Navy has initially maneuvered 

to try and avoid closing with the 

animals. Since these animals sometimes 

bow-ride they could potentially be 

exposed to levels associated with TTS 

as they approach or depart from bowriding. As mentioned above and 

indicated in Table 5, vocalizations of 

these species might overlap with the 

MFAS/HFAS TTS frequency range (2– 

20 kHz), which could potentially 

temporarily decrease an animal’s 

sensitivity to the calls of conspecifics or 

returning echolocation signals. 

However, as noted previously, NMFS 

does not anticipate TTS of a long 

duration or severe degree to occur as a 

result of exposure to MFAS/HFAS. 

The acoustic analysis further predicts 

that several individuals of several 

species of dolphins would be exposed to 

levels of pressure and/or energy from 

explosive detonations that would result 

in Level B harassment by TTS or 

behavioral harassment. NMFS believes 

that this is unlikely because of: (1) The 

distance within which they would have 

to approach the explosive source; and, 

(2) the likelihood that Navy monitors 

would, during pre- or during exercises 

monitoring, detect these large-grouped 

gregarious animals prior to an approach 

within this distance and require a delay 

of the exercise. 

These species all have large ranges, 

primarily tropical and tropical/ 

temperate. Abundance estimates are 

only available from the MISTCS and 

only for 5 species (bottlenose dolphin— 

122, pantropical spotted dolphin— 

12,981, rough-toothed dolphin—166, 

spinner dolphin—1803, and striped 

dolphin—3531). Three species were 

sighted with calves during the MISTCS, 

bottlenose dolphins, Risso’s dolphins, 

and striped dolphins, however, no areas 

of regular use for breeding or calving 

have been identified. 

Spinner dolphins, which rest 

primarily during the day in relatively 

large groups, are known to consistently 

use certain areas (usually Bays) for this 

function. Because of this, they are a 

regular target for whalewatching boats 

or other members of the public 

interested in viewing or interacting with 

them, which could potentially put them 

at increased energetic risk if their 

resting cycles are repeatedly interrupted 

in a significant manner. There are 

several resting areas for spinner 

dolphins in the MIRC Study Area: Agat 

Bay, Bile/Tougan Bay, and Double Reef. 

These areas usually occur in clear, calm, 

shallow waters sheltered from 

prevailing tradewinds. NMFS and the 

Navy considered spinner dolphin 

resting areas in relation to areas where 

the Navy plans to conduct training 

activities, including the Agat Bay 

UNDET areas. The outermost edge of the 

resting areas extends out approximately 

.5 nm (900m) from shore, which is 4 nm 

(7.4km) away from the Agat Bay UNDET 

area. The estimated threshold range for 

TTS exposure from explosives ordnance 

used in the Agat Bay UNDET area is 

approximately .3nm (500m). Therefore, 

explosive activities conducted at this 

site are not expected to impact resting 

spinner dolphins. Unlike the UNDET 

areas for MIW, there are no areas 

specifically designated for ASW and 

SUW exercises. They are, however, all 

conducted at least 3nm (5.6km) away 

from shore and can occur anywhere 

throughout the 500,000nm 2 MIRC 

Study Area. The Agat Bay, Bile/Tougan, 

and Double Reef resting areas extend 

aproximately .5nm, .4nm, and .3nm 

from shore. The TTS threshold distance 

for MFA ranges from 0 to 140m from the 

source and, therefore, spinner dolphins 

resting in these Bays are not expected to 

be exposed to levels associated with 

TTS. The received SPL level at 2.5nm 

(4.6km), is between 160 and 170dB and 

there could be potential for some 

behavioral impacts if spinner dophins 

were resting in the area when ASW was 

conducted at the closest possible spot, 

however, due to the large size of the 

MIRC study area (over 500,000nm2), the 

probability that ASW training activities 

would be conducted in close proximity 

to any of the recognized resting areas 

when spinner dolphins are present is 

very low. 

The MIRC activities are not expected 

to occur in an area/time of specific 

importance for reproduction, feeding, or 

other known critical behaviors. 

Consequently, the activities are not 

expected to adversely impact rates of 

recruitment or survival of dolphins. 

Based on the general information 

contained in the Negligible Impact 

Analysis section and this speciesspecific summary of the effects of the 

takes, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the Navy’s specified 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on these species. 

Preliminary Determination 

Negligible Impact 

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 

preliminarily finds that the total taking 

from Navy training exercises utilizing 

MFAS/HFAS and underwater 

explosives in the MIRC will have a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stocks. NMFS has proposed 

regulations for these exercises that 

prescribe the means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact on marine 

mammals and their habitat and set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of that taking. 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53865 

Subsistence Harvest of Marine 

Mammals 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the issuance of 5-year regulations 

and subsequent LOAs for Navy training 

exercises in the MIRC would not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the affected species or 

stocks for subsistence use. 

As noted above, NMFS will consider 

all comments, suggestions and/or 

concerns submitted by the public during 

the proposed rulemaking comment 

period to help inform our final decision, 

particularly with respect to our 

negligible impact determination and the 

proposed mitigation and monitoring 

measures. 

ESA 

There are five marine mammal 

species and two sea turtle species that 

are listed as endangered under the ESA 

with confirmed or possible occurrence 

in the study area: humpback whale, sei 

whale, fin whale, blue whale, sperm 

whale, hawksbill sea turtle and 

leatherback sea turtle. An additional 

three species of sea turtles are also listed 

as threatened under the ESA: green sea 

turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, and olive 

ridley sea turtle. The Navy has begun 

consultation with NMFS and the 

USFWS pursuant to section 7 of the 

ESA, and NMFS will also consult 

internally on the issuance of LOAS 

under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA 

for MIRC activities. Consultation will be 

concluded prior to a determination on 

the issuance of the final rule and an 

LOA. 

NEPA 

NMFS has participated as a 

cooperating agency on the Navy’s Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 

for the MIRC, which was published on 

January 30, 2008. The Navy’s DEIS is 

posted on NMFS’ Web site: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental.htm#applications. NMFS 

intends to adopt the Navy’s Final EIS 

(FEIS), if adequate and appropriate. 

Currently, we believe that the adoption 

of the Navy’s FEIS will allow NMFS to 

meet its responsibilities under NEPA for 

the issuance of an LOA for MIRC. If the 

Navy’s FEIS is deemed not to be 

adequate, NMFS would supplement the 

existing analysis to ensure that we 

comply with NEPA prior to the issuance 

of the final rule or LOA. 

Classification 

This action does not contain any 

collection of information requirements 

for purposes of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has determined that this proposed rule 

is significant for purposes of Executive 

Order 12866. 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, the Chief Counsel for Regulation of 

the Department of Commerce has 

certified to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration that this proposed rule, 

if adopted, would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The 

Regulatory Flexibility Act requires 

Federal agencies to prepare an analysis 

of a rule’s impact on small entities 

whenever the agency is required to 

publish a notice of proposed 

rulemaking. However, a Federal agency 

may certify, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605 

(b), that the action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The Navy is the sole entity that will be 

affected by this rulemaking, not a small 

governmental jurisdiction, small 

organization or small business, as 

defined by the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (RFA). Any requirements imposed 

by a Letter of Authorization issued 

pursuant to these regulations, and any 

monitoring or reporting requirements 

imposed by these regulations, will be 

applicable only to the Navy. NMFS does 

not expect the issuance of these 

regulations or the associated LOAs to 

result in any impacts to small entities 

pursuant to the RFA. Because this 

action, if adopted, would directly affect 

the Navy and not a small entity, NMFS 

concludes the action would not result in 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 218 

Exports, Fish, Imports, Incidental 

take, Indians, Labeling, Marine 

mammals, Navy, Penalties, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Seafood, Transportation. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Administrator for Regulatory 

Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

For reasons set forth in the preamble, 

50 CFR part 218 is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 218—REGULATIONS 

GOVERNING THE TAKING AND 

IMPORTING OF MARINE MAMMALS 

1. The authority citation for part 218 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. 

Subparts D–K [Added and Reserved] 

2. Subparts D–K are added to part 218 

and reserved. 

3. Subpart L is added to part 218 to 

read as follows: 

Subpart L—Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; U.S. Navy’s Mariana Islands 

Range Complex (MIRC) 

Sec. 

218.100 Specified activity and geographical 

area. 

218.101 [Reserved] 

218.102 Permissible methods of taking. 

218.103 Prohibitions. 

218.104 Mitigation. 

218.105 Requirements for monitoring and 

reporting. 

218.106 Applications for Letters of 

Authorization. 

218.107 Letters of Authorization. 

218.108 Renewal of Letters of Authorization 

and adaptive management. 

218.109 Modifications to Letters of 

Authorization. 

Subpart L—Taking and Importing 

Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy’s Mariana 

Islands Range Complex (MIRC) 

§ 218.100 Specified activity and 

geographical area. 

(a) Regulations in this subpart apply 

only to the U.S. Navy for the taking of 

marine mammals that occurs in the area 

outlined in paragraph (b) of this section 

and that occur incidental to the 

activities described in paragraph (c) of 

this section. 

(b) The taking of marine mammals by 

the Navy is only authorized if it occurs 

within the Mariana Islands Range 

Complex (MIRC) Study Area (as 

depicted in Figure 1–1 in the Navy’s 

application for MIRC), which is 

bounded by a pentagon with the 

following five corners: 16°46′29.3376′′ 

N. lat., 138°00′59.835′′ E. long.; 

20°02′24.8094′′ N. lat., 140°10′13.8642′′ 

E. long.; 20° 3′ 27.5538′′ N. lat., 149° 17′ 

41.0388′′ E. long.; 7° 0′ 30.0702′′ N. lat., 

149° 16′ 14.8542’’E. long; and 6° 59′ 

24.633′′ N. lat, 138° 1′ 29.7228′′ E. long. 

(c) The taking of marine mammals by 

the Navy is only authorized if it occurs 

incidental to the following activities 

within the designated amounts of use: 

(1) The use of the following midfrequency active sonar (MFAS) sources, 

high frequency active sonar (HFAS) 

sources for U.S. Navy anti-submarine 

warfare (ASW), in the amounts and in 

the locations indicated below (± 10%): 

(i) AN/SQS–53 (hull-mounted active 

sonar)—up to 10865 hours over the 

course of 5 years (an average of 2173 

hours per year), with no more than 10% 

of this use in the winter; 

(ii) AN/SQS–56 (hull-mounted active 

sonar)—up to 705 hours over the course 

of 5 years (an average of 141 hours per 

year); 

(iii) AN/SSQ–62 (Directional 

Command Activated Sonobuoy System 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53866 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(DICASS) sonobuoys)—up to 8270 

sonobuoys over the course of 5 years (an 

average of 1654 sonobuoys per year) 

(iv) AN/AQS–22 (helicopter dipping 

sonar)—up to 2960 hours over the 

course of 5 years (an average of 592 

hours per year); 

(v) AN/BQQ–10 (submarine hullmounted sonar)—up to 60 hours over 

the course of 5 years (an average of 12 

hours per year); 

(vi) MK–48, MK–46, or MK–54 

(torpedoes)—up to 200 torpedoes over 

the course of 5 years (an average of 40 

torpedoes per year); 

(vii) AN/SSQ–110 (IEER)—up to 530 

buoys deployed over the course of 5 

years (an average of 106 per year); 

(viii) AN/SSQ–125 (AEER)—up to 530 

buoys deployed over the course of 5 

years (an average of 106 per year); 

(ix) Range Pingers—up to 1400 hours 

over the course of 5 years (an average of 

280 hours per year); and 

(x) PUTR Transponder—up to 1400 

hours over the course of 5 years (an 

average of 280 hours per year). 

(2) The detonation of the underwater 

explosives indicated in paragraph 

(c)(2)(i) of this section conducted as part 

of the training events indicated in 

paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section: 

(i) Underwater Explosives: 

(A) 5′′ Naval Gunfire (9.5 lbs); 

(B) 76 mm rounds (1.6 lbs); 

(C) Maverick (78.5 lbs); 

(D) Harpoon (448 lbs); 

(E) MK–82 (238 lbs); 

(F) MK–83 (574 lbs); 

(G) MK–84 (945 lbs); 

(H) MK–48 (851 lbs); 

(I) Demolition Charges (10 lbs); 

(J) AN/SSQ–110A (IEER explosive 

sonobuoy—5 lbs); 

(K) Hellfire (16.5lbs); 

(L) GBU 38/32/31. 

(ii) Training Events: 

(A) Gunnery Exercises (S–S 

GUNEX)—up to 60 exercises over the 

course of 5 years (an average of 12 per 

year); 

(B) Bombing Exercises (BOMBEX)— 

up to 20 exercises over the course of 5 

years (an average of 4 per year); 

(C) Sinking Exercises (SINKEX)—up 

to 10 exercises over the course of 5 years 

(an average of 2 per year); 

(D) Extended Echo Ranging and 

Improved Extended Echo Ranging (EER/ 

IEER) Systems—up to 530 deployments 

over the course of 5 years (an average of 

106 per year); 

(E) Demolitions—up to 50 over the 

course of 5 years (an average of 10 per 

year); and 

(F) Missile exercises (A–S 

MISSILEX)—up to 10 exercises over the 

course of 5 years (an average of 2 per 

year). 

§ 218.101 [Reserved] 

§ 218.102 Permissible methods of taking. 

(a) Under Letters of Authorization 

issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 and 

218.107 of this chapter, the Holder of 

the Letter of Authorization (hereinafter 

‘‘Navy’’) may incidentally, but not 

intentionally, take marine mammals 

within the area described in 

§ 218.100(b), provided the activity is in 

compliance with all terms, conditions, 

and requirements of these regulations 

and the appropriate Letter of 

Authorization. 

(b) The incidental take of marine 

mammals under the activities identified 

in § 218.100(c) is limited to the 

following species, by the indicated 

method of take and the indicated 

number of times (estimated based on the 

authorized amounts of sound source 

operation): 

(1) Level B Harassment (+/¥10% of 

the take estimate indicated below): 

(i) Mysticetes: 

(A) Humpback whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae)—4025 (an average of 805 

annually); 

(B) Fin whale (Balaenoptera 

physalus)—910 (an average of 182 

annually); 

(C) Blue whale (Balaenoptera 

musculus)—650 (an average of 130 

annually); 

(D) Sei whale (Balaenoptera 

borealis)—1625 (an average of 325 

annually); 

(E) Minke whale (Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata)—2225 (an average of 445 

annually); 

(F) Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera 

edeni)—2285 (an average of 457 

annually); and 

(G) Unidentified Baleanopterid 

whales—360 (an average of 72 annually) 

(ii) Odontocetes: 

(A) Sperm whales (Physeter 

macrocephalus)—4130 (an average of 

826 annually); 

(B) Killer whale (Orcinus orca)—1150 

(an average of 230 annually); 

(C) Pygmy or dwarf sperm whales 

(Kogia breviceps or Kogia sima)—33515 

(an average of 6703 annually); 

(D) Blainville’s beaked whales 

(Mesoplodon densirostris);—3850 (an 

average of 770 annually); 

(E) Cuvier’s beaked whales (Ziphius 

cavirostris)—18135 (an average of 3627 

annually); 

(F) Ginkgo-toothed beaked whales 

(Mesoplodon ginkgodens)—2150 (an 

average of 430 annually); 

(G) Longman’s beaked whale 

(Indopacetus pacificus)—1030 (an 

average of 206 annually); 

(H) Short-finned pilot whale 

(Globicephala macrorynchus)—11370 

(an average of 2274 annually); 

(I) Melon-headed whale 

(Peponocephala electra)—14310 (an 

average of 2862 annually) 

(J) Pygmy killer whale (Feresa 

attenuata)—800 (an average of 160 

annually); 

(K) False killer whale (Pseudorca 

crassidens)—6445 (an average of 1289 

annually); 

(L) Striped dolphin (Stenella 

coeruleoalba)—44280 (an average of 

8856 annually); 

(M) Short-beaked common dolphin 

(Delphinus delphis)—4715 (an average 

of 943 annually); 

(N) Risso’s dolphin (Grampus 

griseus)—33855 (an average of 6771 

annually); 

(O) Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops 

truncates)—855 (an average of 171 

annually); 

(P) Fraser’s dolphin (Lagenodelphis 

hosei)—23065 (an average of 4613 

annually); 

(Q) Pantropical spotted dolphin 

(Stenella attenuata)—162465 (an 

average of 32493 annually); 

(R) Rough-toothed dolphin (Steno 

bredanensis)—1205 (an average of 241 

annually); 

(S) Spinner dolphin (Stenella 

longirostris)—10715 (an average of 2143 

annually); and 

(T) Unidentified delphinid—7690 (an 

average of 1538 annually). 

(2) Level A Harassment: 

(i) Sperm whale—5 (an average of 1 

annually); 

(ii) Pantropical spotted dolphin—5 

(an average of 1 annually); 

(3) Level A Harassment and/or 

mortality of no more than 10 beaked 

whales (total), of any of the species 

listed in § 218.102(c)(1)(ii)(D) through 

(G) over the course of the 5-year 

regulations. 

§ 218.103 Prohibitions. 

No person in connection with the 

activities described in § 218.100 may: 

(a) Take any marine mammal not 

specified in § 218.102(c); 

(b) Take any marine mammal 

specified in § 218.102(c) other than by 

incidental take as specified in 

§ 218.102(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3); 

(c) Take a marine mammal specified 

in § 218.102(c) if such taking results in 

more than a negligible impact on the 

species or stocks of such marine 

mammal; or 

(d) Violate, or fail to comply with, the 

terms, conditions, and requirements of 

these regulations or a Letter of 

Authorization issued under §§ 216.106 

and 218.107 of this chapter. 

§ 218.104 Mitigation. 

(a) When conducting training and 

utilizing the sound sources or 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53867 

explosives identified in § 218.100(c), the 

mitigation measures contained in a 

Letter of Authorization issued under 

§§ 216.106 and 218.107 of this chapter 

must be implemented. These mitigation 

measures include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Personnel Training: 

(i) All commanding officers (COs), 

executive officers (XOs), lookouts, 

Officers of the Deck (OODs), junior 

OODs (JOODs), maritime patrol aircraft 

aircrews, and Anti-submarine Warfare 

(ASW)/Mine Warfare (MIW) helicopter 

crews shall complete the NMFSapproved Marine Species Awareness 

Training (MSAT) by viewing the U.S. 

Navy MSAT digital versatile disk (DVD). 

All bridge lookouts shall complete both 

parts one and two of the MSAT; part 

two is optional for other personnel. 

(ii) Navy lookouts shall undertake 

extensive training in order to qualify as 

a watchstander in accordance with the 

Lookout Training Handbook (Naval 

Education and Training Command 

[NAVEDTRA] 12968–D). 

(iii) Lookout training shall include onthe-job instruction under the 

supervision of a qualified, experienced 

lookout. Following successful 

completion of this supervised training 

period, lookouts shall complete the 

Personal Qualification Standard 

Program, certifying that they have 

demonstrated the necessary skills (such 

as detection and reporting of partially 

submerged objects). Personnel being 

trained as lookouts can be counted 

among required lookouts as long as 

supervisors monitor their progress and 

performance. 

(iv) Lookouts shall be trained in the 

most effective means to ensure quick 

and effective communication within the 

command structure in order to facilitate 

implementation of protective measures 

if marine species are spotted. 

(v) All lookouts onboard platforms 

involved in ASW training events will 

review the NMFS-approved Marine 

Species Awareness Training material 

prior to use of mid-frequency active 

sonar. 

(vi) All COs, XOs, and officers 

standing watch on the bridge will have 

reviewed the Marine Species Awareness 

Training material prior to a training 

event employing the use of MFAS/ 

HFAS. 

(2) General Operating Procedures (for 

all training types): 

(i) Prior to major exercises, a Letter of 

Instruction, Mitigation Measures 

Message or Environmental Annex to the 

Operational Order shall be issued to 

further disseminate the personnel 

training requirement and general marine 

species protective measures. 

(ii) COs shall make use of marine 

species detection cues and information 

to limit interaction with marine 

mammals to the maximum extent 

possible consistent with safety of the 

ship. 

(iii) While underway, surface vessels 

shall have at least two lookouts with 

binoculars; surfaced submarines shall 

have at least one lookout with 

binoculars. Lookouts already posted for 

safety of navigation and man-overboard 

precautions may be used to fill this 

requirement. As part of their regular 

duties, lookouts will watch for and 

report to the OOD the presence of 

marine mammals. 

(iv) On surface vessels equipped with 

a multi-function active sensor, pedestal 

mounted ‘‘Big Eye’’ (20x110) binoculars 

shall be properly installed and in good 

working order to assist in the detection 

of marine mammals in the vicinity of 

the vessel. 

(v) Personnel on lookout shall employ 

visual search procedures employing a 

scanning methodology in accordance 

with the Lookout Training Handbook 

(NAVEDTRA 12968–D). 

(vi) After sunset and prior to sunrise, 

lookouts shall employ Night Lookouts 

Techniques in accordance with the 

Lookout Training Handbook 

(NAVEDTRA 12968–D). 

(vii) While in transit, naval vessels 

shall be alert at all times, use extreme 

caution, and proceed at a ‘‘safe speed’’, 

which means the speed at which the CO 

can maintain crew safety and 

effectiveness of current operational 

directives, so that the vessel can take 

action to avoid a collision with any 

marine mammal. 

(viii) When marine mammals have 

been sighted in the area, Navy vessels 

shall increase vigilance and take all 

reasonable actions to avoid collisions 

and close interaction of naval assets and 

marine mammals. Such action may 

include changing speed and/or direction 

and are dictated by environmental and 

other conditions (e.g., safety, weather). 

(ix) Navy aircraft participating in 

exercises at-sea shall conduct and 

maintain surveillance for marine 

mammals as long as it does not violate 

safety constraints or interfere with the 

accomplishment of primary operational 

duties. 

(x) All marine mammal detections 

shall be immediately reported to 

assigned Aircraft Control Unit for 

further dissemination to ships in the 

vicinity of the marine species as 

appropriate when it is reasonable to 

conclude that the course of the ship will 

likely result in a closing of the distance 

to the detected marine mammal. 

(3) Operating Procedures (for Antisubmarine Warfare Operations): 

(i) On the bridge of surface ships, 

there shall always be at least three 

people on watch whose duties include 

observing the water surface around the 

vessel. 

(ii) All surface ships participating in 

ASW training events shall have, in 

addition to the three personnel on 

watch noted in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this 

section, at least two additional 

personnel on watch as lookouts at all 

times during the exercise. 

(iii) Personnel on lookout and officers 

on watch on the bridge will have at least 

one set of binoculars available for each 

person to aid in the detection of marine 

mammals. 

(iv) Personnel on lookout shall be 

responsible for reporting all objects or 

anomalies sighted in the water 

(regardless of the distance from the 

vessel) to the Officer of the Deck, since 

any object or disturbance (e.g., trash, 

periscope, surface disturbance, 

discoloration) in the water may be 

indicative of a threat to the vessel and 

its crew or indicative of a marine 

mammal that may need to be avoided. 

(v) All personnel engaged in passive 

acoustic sonar operation (including 

aircraft, surface ships, or submarines) 

shall monitor for marine mammal 

vocalizations and report the detection of 

any marine mammal to the appropriate 

watch station for dissemination and 

appropriate action. 

(vi) During mid-frequency active 

sonar operations, personnel shall utilize 

all available sensor and optical systems 

(such as night vision goggles) to aid in 

the detection of marine mammals. 

(vii) Aircraft with deployed 

sonobuoys shall use only the passive 

capability of sonobuoys when marine 

mammals are detected within 200 yds 

(183 m) of the sonobuoy. 

(viii) Helicopters shall observe/survey 

the vicinity of an ASW exercise for 10 

minutes before the first deployment of 

active (dipping) sonar in the water. 

(ix) Helicopters shall not dip their 

sonar within 200 yards of a marine 

mammal and shall cease pinging if a 

marine mammal closes within 200 yards 

after pinging has begun. 

(x) Safety Zones—When marine 

mammals are detected by any means 

(aircraft, shipboard lookout, or 

acoustically) within or closing to inside 

1,000 yds (914 m) of the sonar dome 

(the bow), the ship or submarine shall 

limit active transmission levels to at 

least 6 decibels (dB) below normal 

operating levels for that source (i.e., 

limit to at most 229 dB for AN/SQS–53C 

and 219 for AN/SQS–56C, etc.). 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53868 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(A) Ships and submarines shall 

continue to limit maximum 

transmission levels by this 6-dB factor 

until the animal has been seen to leave 

the 1000-yd exclusion zone, has not 

been detected for 30 minutes, or the 

vessel has transited more than 2,000 yds 

(1829 m) beyond the location of the last 

detection. 

(B) Should a marine mammal be 

detected within or closing to inside 500 

yds (457 m) of the sonar dome, active 

sonar transmissions shall be limited to 

at least 10 dB below the equipment’s 

normal operating level (i.e., limit to at 

most 225 dB for AN/SQS–53C and 215 

for AN/SQS–56C, etc.). Ships and 

submarines shall continue to limit 

maximum ping levels by this 10-dB 

factor until the animal has been seen to 

leave the 500-yd exclusion zone (at 

which point the 6-dB powerdown 

applies until the animal leaves the 1000- 

yd exclusion zone), has not been 

detected for 30 minutes, or the vessel 

has transited more than 2,000 yds (1829 

m) beyond the location of the last 

detection. 

(C) Should the marine mammal be 

detected within or closing to inside 200 

yds (183 m) of the sonar dome, active 

sonar transmissions shall cease. Sonar 

shall not resume until the animal has 

been seen to leave the 200-yd exclusion 

zone (at which point the 10-dB or 6-dB 

powerdowns apply until the animal 

leaves the 500-yd or 1000-yd exclusion 

zone, respectively), has not been 

detected for 30 minutes, or the vessel 

has transited more than 2,000 yds (1829 

m) beyond the location of the last 

detection. 

(D) Special conditions applicable for 

dolphins and porpoises only: If, after 

conducting an initial maneuver to avoid 

close quarters with dolphins or 

porpoises, the OOD concludes that 

dolphins or porpoises are deliberately 

closing to ride the vessel’s bow wave, no 

further mitigation actions are necessary 

while the dolphins or porpoises 

continue to exhibit bow wave riding 

behavior. 

(xi) Prior to start up or restart of active 

sonar, operators will check that the 

Safety Zone radius around the sound 

source is clear of marine mammals. 

(xii) Active sonar levels (generally)— 

Navy shall operate active sonar at the 

lowest practicable level, not to exceed 

235 dB, except as required to meet 

tactical training objectives. 

(xiii) Submarine sonar operators will 

review detection indicators of closeaboard marine mammals prior to the 

commencement of ASW training events 

involving MFAS. 

(xiv) If the need for power-down 

should arise (as detailed in 

§ 218.114(a)(3)(x)) when the Navy was 

operating a hull-mounted or submounted source above 235 db 

(infrequent), the Navy shall follow the 

requirements as though they were 

operating at 235 dB—the normal 

operating level (i.e., the first powerdown will be to 229 dB, regardless of at 

what level above 235 dB active sonar 

was being operated). 

(4) Operating Procedures for 

Underwater Detonations (up to 10-lb 

charges): 

(i) Exclusion Zones—All demolitions 

and ship mine countermeasures training 

exercises involving the use of explosive 

charges must include exclusion zones 

for marine mammals to prevent physical 

and/or acoustic effects to those species. 

These exclusion zones shall extend in a 

700-yard arc radius around the 

detonation site. Should a marine 

mammal be present within the the 

surveillance area, the explosive event 

shall not be started until the animal 

leaves the area. 

(ii) Pre-Exercise Surveys—For 

Demolition and Ship Mine 

Countermeasures Operations, preexercise surveys shall be conducted 

within 30 minutes prior to the 

commencement of the scheduled 

explosive event. The survey may be 

conducted from the surface, by divers, 

and/or from the air, and personnel shall 

be alert to the presence of any marine 

mammal. Should such an animal be 

present within the survey area, the 

explosive event shall not be started until 

the animal voluntarily leaves the area. 

The Navy will ensure the area is clear 

of marine mammals for a full 30 

minutes prior to initiating the explosive 

event. Personnel will record any marine 

mammal observations during the 

exercise as well as measures taken if 

species are detected within the 

exclusion zone. 

(iii) Post-Exercise Surveys—Surveys 

within the same exclusion zone radius 

shall also be conducted within 30 

minutes after the completion of the 

explosive event. 

(iv) Reporting—If there is evidence 

that a marine mammal may have been 

stranded, injured or killed by the action, 

Navy training activities shall be 

immediately suspended and the 

situation immediately reported by the 

participating unit to the Officer in 

Charge of the Exercise (OCE), who will 

follow Navy procedures for reporting 

the incident to Commander, Pacific 

Fleet, Commander, Navy Region 

Northwest, Environmental Director, and 

the chain-of-command. The situation 

shall also be reported to NMFS (see 

Stranding Plan for details). 

(5) Sinking Exercise: 

(i) All weapons firing shall be 

conducted during the period 1 hour 

after official sunrise to 30 minutes 

before official sunset. 

(ii) An exclusion zone with a radius 

of 1.0 nm (1.9 km) will be established 

around each target. An additional buffer 

of 0.5 nm (0.9 km) will be added to 

account for errors, target drift, and 

animal movements. Additionally, a 

safety zone, which will extend beyond 

the buffer zone by an additional 0.5 nm 

(0.9 km), would be surveyed. Together, 

the zones extend out 2 nm (3.7 km) from 

the target. 

(iii) A series of surveillance overflights shall be conducted within the 

exclusion and the safety zones, prior to 

and during the exercise, when feasible. 

Survey protocol shall be as follows: 

(A) Overflights within the exclusion 

zone shall be conducted in a manner 

that optimizes the surface area of the 

water observed. This may be 

accomplished through the use of the 

Navy’s Search and Rescue Tactical Aid, 

which provides the best search altitude, 

ground speed, and track spacing for the 

discovery of small, possibly dark objects 

in the water based on the environmental 

conditions of the day. These 

environmental conditions include the 

angle of sun inclination, amount of 

daylight, cloud cover, visibility, and sea 

state. 

(B) All visual surveillance activities 

shall be conducted by Navy personnel 

trained in visual surveillance. At least 

one member of the mitigation team will 

have completed the Navy’s marine 

mammal training program for lookouts. 

(C) In addition to the overflights, the 

exclusion zone shall be monitored by 

passive acoustic means, when assets are 

available. This passive acoustic 

monitoring would be maintained 

throughout the exercise. Additionally, 

passive sonar onboard submarines may 

be utilized to detect any vocalizing 

marine mammals in the area. The OCE 

will be informed of any aural detection 

of marine mammals and will include 

this information in the determination of 

when it is safe to commence the 

exercise. 

(D) On each day of the exercise, aerial 

surveillance of the exclusion and safety 

zones shall commence 2 hours prior to 

the first firing. 

(E) The results of all visual, aerial, 

and acoustic searches shall be reported 

immediately to the OCE. No weapons 

launches or firing may commence until 

the OCE declares the safety and 

exclusion zones free of marine 

mammals. 

(F) If a marine mammal is observed 

within the exclusion zone, firing will be 

delayed until the animal is re-sighted 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53869 

outside the exclusion zone, or 30 

minutes have elapsed. After 30 minutes, 

if the animal has not been re-sighted it 

can be assumed to have left the 

exclusion zone. The OCE will determine 

if the marine mammal is in danger of 

being adversely affected by 

commencement of the exercise. 

(G) During breaks in the exercise of 30 

minutes or more, the exclusion zone 

shall again be surveyed for any marine 

mammal. If marine mammals are 

sighted within the exclusion zone or 

buffer zone, the OCE shall be notified, 

and the procedure described above shall 

be followed. 

(H) Upon sinking of the vessel, a final 

surveillance of the exclusion zone shall 

be monitored for 2 hours, or until 

sunset, to verify that no marine 

mammals were harmed. 

(iv) Aerial surveillance shall be 

conducted using helicopters or other 

aircraft based on necessity and 

availability. The Navy has several types 

of aircraft capable of performing this 

task; however, not all types are available 

for every exercise. For each exercise, the 

available asset best suited for 

identifying objects on and near the 

surface of the ocean shall be used. These 

aircraft shall be capable of flying at the 

slow safe speeds necessary to enable 

viewing of marine vertebrates with 

unobstructed, or minimally obstructed, 

downward and outward visibility. The 

exclusion and safety zone surveys may 

be cancelled in the event that a 

mechanical problem, emergency search 

and rescue, or other similar and 

unexpected event preempts the use of 

one of the aircraft onsite for the 

exercise. 

(v) Every attempt shall be made to 

conduct the exercise in sea states that 

are ideal for marine mammal sighting, 

Beaufort Sea State 3 or less. In the event 

of a 4 or above, survey efforts shall be 

increased within the zones. This shall 

be accomplished through the use of an 

additional aircraft, if available, and 

conducting tight search patterns. 

(vi) The exercise shall not be 

conducted unless the exclusion zone 

and the buffer zone could be adequately 

monitored visually. Should low cloud 

cover or surface visibility prevent 

adequate visual monitoring as described 

previously, the exercise would be 

delayed until conditions improved, and 

all of the above monitoring criteria 

could be met. 

(vii) In the event that any marine 

mammals are observed to be harmed in 

the area, a detailed description of the 

animal shall be taken, the location 

noted, and if possible, photos taken of 

the marine mammal. This information 

shall be provided to NMFS via the 

Navy’s regional environmental 

coordinator for purposes of 

identification (see the draft Stranding 

Plan for detail). 

(viii) An after action report detailing 

the exercise’s time line, the time the 

surveys commenced and terminated, 

amount, and types of all ordnance 

expended, and the results of survey 

efforts for each event shall be submitted 

to NMFS. 

(6) Surface-to-Surface Gunnery (up to 

5-inch Explosive Rounds). 

(i) For exercises using targets towed 

by a vessel, target-towing vessels shall 

maintain a trained lookout for marine 

mammals when feasible. If a marine 

mammal is sighted in the vicinity, the 

tow vessel will immediately notify the 

firing vessel, which will suspend the 

exercise until the area is clear. 

(ii) A 600 yard (585 m) radius buffer 

zone will be established around the 

intended target. 

(iii) From the intended firing position, 

trained lookouts will survey the buffer 

zone for marine mammals prior to 

commencement and during the exercise 

as long as practicable. Due to the 

distance between the firing position and 

the buffer zone, lookouts are only 

expected to visually detect breaching 

whales, whale blows, and large pods of 

dolphins and porpoises. 

(iv) The exercise will be conducted 

only when the buffer zone is visible and 

marine mammals are not detected 

within it. 

(7) Surface-to-Surface Gunnery (nonexplosive rounds) 

(i) A 200-yd (183 m) radius buffer 

zone shall be established around the 

intended target. 

(ii) From the intended firing position, 

trained lookouts shall survey the buffer 

zone for marine mammals prior to 

commencement and during the exercise 

as long as practicable. 

(iii) If available, target towing vessels 

shall maintain a lookout (unmanned 

towing vessels will not have a lookout 

available). If a marine mammal is 

sighted in the vicinity of the exercise, 

the tow vessel shall immediately notify 

the firing vessel in order to secure 

gunnery firing until the area is clear. 

(iv) The exercise shall be conducted 

only when the buffer zone is visible and 

marine mammals are not detected 

within the target area and the buffer 

zone. 

(8) Surface-to-Air Gunnery (Explosive 

and Non-explosive Rounds). 

(i) Vessels will orient the geometry of 

gunnery exercises in order to prevent 

debris from falling in the area of sighted 

marine mammals. 

(ii) Vessels will expedite the attempt 

to recover of any parachute deploying 

aerial targets to reduce the potential for 

entanglement of marine mammals. 

(iii) Target towing aircraft shall 

maintain a lookout if feasible. If a 

marine mammal is sighted in the 

vicinity of the exercise, the tow aircraft 

will immediately notify the firing vessel 

in order to secure gunnery firing until 

the area is clear. 

(9) Air-to-Surface Gunnery (Explosive 

and Non-explosive Rounds). 

(i) A 200 yard (183 m) radius buffer 

zone will be established around the 

intended target. 

(ii) If surface vessels are involved, 

lookout(s) will visually survey the 

buffer zone for marine mammals to and 

during the exercise. 

(iii) Aerial surveillance of the buffer 

zone for marine mammals will be 

conducted prior to commencement of 

the exercise. Aerial surveillance altitude 

of 500 feet to 1,500 feet (152–456 m) is 

optimum. Aircraft crew/pilot will 

maintain visual watch during exercises. 

Release of ordnance through cloud 

cover is prohibited; aircraft must be able 

to actually see ordnance impact areas. 

(iv) The exercise will be conducted 

only if marine mammals are not visible 

within the buffer zone. 

(10) Small Arms Training (Grenades, 

Explosive and Non-explosive Rounds)— 

Lookouts will visually survey for marine 

mammals. Weapons will not be fired in 

the direction of known or observed 

marine mammals. 

(11) Air-to-Surface At-sea Bombing 

Exercises (explosive bombs and 

rockets): 

(i) If surface vessels are involved, 

trained lookouts shall survey for marine 

mammals. Ordnance shall not be 

targeted to impact within 1,000 yds (914 

m) of known or observed marine 

mammals. 

(ii) A 1,000 yd (914 m) radius buffer 

zone shall be established around the 

intended target. 

(iii) Aircraft shall visually survey the 

target and buffer zone for marine 

mammals prior to and during the 

exercise. The survey of the impact area 

shall be made by flying at 1,500 ft (152 

m) or lower, if safe to do so, and at the 

slowest safe speed. When safety or other 

considerations require the release of 

weapons without the releasing pilot 

having visual sight of the target area, a 

second aircraft, the ‘‘wingman,’’ will 

clear the target area and perform the 

clearance and observation functions 

required before the dropping plane may 

release its weapons. Both planes must 

have direct communication to assure 

immediate notification to the dropping 

plane that the target area may have been 

fouled by encroaching animals or 

people. The clearing aircraft will assure 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53870 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

it has visual site of the target area at a 

maximum height of 1500 ft. The 

clearing plane will remain within visual 

sight of the target until required to clear 

the area for safety reasons. Survey 

aircraft shall employ most effective 

search tactics and capabilities. 

(iv) The exercise will be conducted 

only if marine mammals are not visible 

within the buffer zone. 

(12) Air-to-Surface At-Sea Bombing 

Exercises (Non-explosive Bombs and 

Rockets). 

(i) If surface vessels are involved, 

trained lookouts will survey for marine 

mammals. Ordnance shall not be 

targeted to impact within 1,000 yards 

(914 m) of known or observed marine 

mammals. 

(ii) A 1,000 yard (914 m) radius buffer 

zone will be established around the 

intended target. 

(iii) Aircraft will visually survey the 

target and buffer zone for marine 

mammals prior to and during the 

exercise. The survey of the impact area 

will be made by flying at 1,500 feet (152 

m) or lower, if safe to do so, and at the 

slowest safe speed. When safety or other 

considerations require the release of 

weapons without the releasing pilot 

having visual sight of the target area, a 

second aircraft, the ‘‘wingman,’’ will 

clear the target area and perform the 

clearance and observation functions 

required before the dropping plane may 

release its weapons. Both planes must 

have direct communication to assure 

immediate notification to the dropping 

plane that the target area may have been 

fouled by encroaching animals or 

people. The clearing aircraft will assure 

it has visual site of the target area at a 

maximum height of 1500 ft. The 

clearing plane will remain within visual 

sight of the target until required to clear 

the area for safety reasons. Survey 

aircraft shall employ most effective 

search tactics and capabilities. 

(iv) The exercise will be conducted 

only if marine mammals are not visible 

within the buffer zone. 

(13) Air-to-Surface Missile Exercises 

(explosive and non-explosive): 

(i) Aircraft will visually survey the 

target area for marine mammals. Visual 

inspection of the target area will be 

made by flying at 1,500 (457 m) feet or 

lower, if safe to do so, and at slowest 

safe speed. Firing or range clearance 

aircraft must be able to actually see 

ordnance impact areas. 

(ii) Explosive ordnance shall not be 

targeted to impact within 1,800 yds 

(1646 m) of sighted marine mammals. 

(14) Aircraft Training Activities 

Involving Non-Explosive Devices: Nonexplosive devices such as some 

sonobuoys, inert bombs, and Mining 

Training Activities involve aerial drops 

of devices that have the potential to hit 

marine mammals if they are in the 

immediate vicinity of a floating target. 

The exclusion zone (200 yd), therefore, 

shall be clear of marine mammals and 

around the target location. Pre- and 

post-surveillance and reporting 

requirements outlined for underwater 

detonations shall be implemented 

during Mining Training Activities. 

(15) Extended Echo Ranging/ 

Improved Extended Echo Ranging (EER/ 

IEER): 

(i) Crews shall conduct visual 

reconnaissance of the drop area prior to 

laying their intended sonobuoy pattern. 

This search shall be conducted at an 

altitude below 457 m (500 yd) at a slow 

speed, if operationally feasible and 

weather conditions permit. In dual 

aircraft operations, crews are allowed to 

conduct coordinated area clearances. 

(ii) Crews shall conduct a minimum 

of 30 minutes of visual and aural 

monitoring of the search area prior to 

commanding the first post detonation. 

This 30-minute observation period may 

include pattern deployment time. 

(iii) For any part of the briefed pattern 

where a post (source/receiver sonobuoy 

pair) will be deployed within 914 m 

(1,000 yd) of observed marine mammal 

activity, the Navy shall deploy the 

receiver ONLY and monitor while 

conducting a visual search. When 

marine mammals are no longer detected 

within 914 m (1,000 yd) of the intended 

post position, the Navy shall co-locate 

the explosive source sonobuoy (AN/ 

SSQ–110A) (source) with the receiver. 

(iv) When operationally feasible, Navy 

crews shall conduct continuous visual 

and aural monitoring of marine mammal 

activity. This is to include monitoring of 

own-aircraft sensors from first sensor 

placement to checking off station and 

out of RF range of these sensors. 

(v) Aural Detection—If the presence of 

marine mammals is detected aurally, 

then that shall cue the Navy aircrew to 

increase the diligence of their visual 

surveillance. Subsequently, if no marine 

mammals are visually detected, then the 

crew may continue multi-static active 

search. 

(vi) Visual Detection—If marine 

mammals are visually detected within 

914 m (1,000 yd) of the explosive source 

sonobuoy (AN/SSQ–110A) intended for 

use, then that payload shall not be 

detonated. Aircrews may utilize this 

post once the marine mammals have not 

been re-sighted for 30 minutes, or are 

observed to have moved outside the 914 

m (1,000 yd) safety buffer. Aircrews may 

shift their multi-static active search to 

another post, where marine mammals 

are outside the 914 m (1,000 yd) safety 

buffer. 

(vii) Aircrews shall make every 

attempt to manually detonate the 

unexploded charges at each post in the 

pattern prior to departing the operations 

area by using the ‘‘Payload 1 Release’’ 

command followed by the ‘‘Payload 2 

Release’’ command. Aircrews shall 

refrain from using the ‘‘Scuttle’’ 

command when two payloads remain at 

a given post. Aircrews will ensure that 

a 914 m (1,000 yd) safety buffer, visually 

clear of marine mammals, is maintained 

around each post as is done during 

active search operations. 

(viii) Aircrews shall only leave posts 

with unexploded charges in the event of 

a sonobuoy malfunction, an aircraft 

system malfunction, or when an aircraft 

must immediately depart the area due to 

issues such as fuel constraints, 

inclement weather, and in-flight 

emergencies. In these cases, the 

sonobuoy will self-scuttle using the 

secondary or tertiary method. 

(ix) The Navy shall ensure all 

payloads are accounted for. Explosive 

source sonobuoys (AN/SSQ–110A) that 

can not be scuttled shall be reported as 

unexploded ordnance via voice 

communications while airborne, then 

upon landing via naval message. 

(x) Mammal monitoring shall 

continue until out of own-aircraft sensor 

range. 

(16) The Navy shall abide by the letter 

of the ‘‘Stranding Response Plan for 

Major Navy Training Exercises in the 

MIRC’’ (available at: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental.htm), which is incorporated 

herein by reference, to include the 

following measures: 

(i) Shutdown Procedures—When an 

Uncommon Stranding Event (USE— 

defined in § 216.271) occurs during a 

Major Training Exercise (MTE) (as 

defined in the Stranding Plan, meaning 

including Multi-strike group exercises, 

Joint Expeditionary exercises, and 

Marine Air Ground Task Force exercises 

in the MIRC), the Navy shall implement 

the procedures described below. 

(A) The Navy shall implement a 

Shutdown (as defined in the Stranding 

Response Plan for MIRC) when advised 

by a NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources Headquarters Senior Official 

designated in the MIRC Stranding 

Communication Protocol that a USE (as 

defined in the Stranding Response Plan 

for MIRC) involving live animals has 

been identified and that at least one live 

animal is located in the water. NMFS 

and Navy shall communicate, as 

needed, regarding the identification of 

the USE and the potential need to 

implement shutdown procedures. 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53871 

(B) Any shutdown in a given area 

shall remain in effect in that area until 

NMFS advises the Navy that the 

subject(s) of the USE at that area die or 

are euthanized, or that all live animals 

involved in the USE at that area have 

left the area (either of their own volition 

or herded). 

(C) If the Navy finds an injured or 

dead marine mammal floating at sea 

during an MTE, the Navy shall notify 

NMFS immediately or as soon as 

operational security considerations 

allow. 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(s) is/are dead), location, time of 

first discovery, observed behaviors (if 

alive), and photo or video of the animals 

(if available). Based on the information 

provided, NMFS shall determine if, and 

advise the Navy whether a modified 

shutdown is appropriate on a case-bycase basis. 

(D) In the event, following a USE, 

that: (a) Qualified individuals are 

attempting to herd animals back out to 

the open ocean and animals are not 

willing to leave, or (b) animals are seen 

repeatedly heading for the open ocean 

but turning back to shore, NMFS and 

the Navy shall coordinate (including an 

investigation of other potential 

anthropogenic stressors in the area) to 

determine if the proximity of MFAS/ 

HFAS activities or explosive 

detonations, though farther than 14 nm 

from the distressed animal(s), is likely 

decreasing the likelihood that the 

animals return to the open water. If so, 

NMFS and the Navy shall further 

coordinate to determine what measures 

are necessary to further minimize that 

likelihood and implement those 

measures as appropriate. 

(ii) Within 72 hours of NMFS 

notifying the Navy of the presence of a 

USE, the Navy shall provide available 

information to NMFS (per the MIRC 

Communication Protocol) regarding the 

location, number and types of acoustic/ 

explosive sources, direction and speed 

of units using MFAS/HFAS, and marine 

mammal sightings information 

associated with training activities 

occurring within 80 nm (148 km) and 72 

hours prior to the USE event. 

Information not initially available 

regarding the 80 nm (148 km), 72 hours, 

period prior to the event shall be 

provided as soon as it becomes 

available. The Navy shall provide NMFS 

investigative teams with additional 

relevant unclassified information as 

requested, if available. 

(iii) Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA)—The Navy and NMFS shall 

develop a MOA, or other mechanism, 

that will establish a framework whereby 

the Navy can (and provide the Navy 

examples of how they can best) assist 

NMFS with stranding investigations in 

certain circumstances. 

(b) [Reserved] 

§ 218.105 Requirements for monitoring 

and reporting. 

(a) General notification of injured or 

dead marine mammals. Navy personnel 

shall ensure that NMFS is notified 

immediately ((see Communication Plan) 

or as soon as clearance procedures 

allow) if an injured, stranded, or dead 

marine mammal is found during or 

shortly after, and in the vicinity of, any 

Navy training exercise utilizing MFAS, 

HFAS, or underwater explosive 

detonations. The Navy will 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 of the animals 

(if available). In the event that an 

injured, stranded, or dead marine 

mammal is found by the Navy that is 

not in the vicinity of, or during or 

shortly after, MFAS, HFAS, or 

underwater explosive detonations, the 

Navy will report the same information 

as listed above as soon as operationally 

feasible and clearance procedures allow. 

(b) General notification of ship strike. 

In the event of a ship strike by any Navy 

vessel, at any time or place, the Navy 

shall do the following: 

(1) Immediately report to NMFS the 

species identification (if known), 

location (lat/long) of the animal (or the 

strike if the animal has disappeared), 

and whether the animal is alive or dead, 

or whether its status is unknown. 

(2) Report to NMFS as soon as 

operationally feasible the size and 

length of animal, an estimate of the 

injury status (ex., dead, injured but 

alive, injured and moving, unknown, 

etc.), vessel class/type and operational 

status. 

(3) Report to NMFS the vessel length, 

speed, and heading as soon as feasible. 

(4) Provide NMFS a photo or video of 

the animal(s), if equipment is available 

(c) The Navy must conduct all 

monitoring and/or research required 

under the Letter of Authorization 

including abiding by the MIRC 

Monitoring Plan. (http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental.htm#applications) 

(d) Report on monitoring required in 

paragraph (c) of this section. The Navy 

shall submit a report annually on 

November 15 describing the 

implementation and results (through 

June 1 of the same year) of the 

monitoring required in paragraph (c) of 

this section. Navy will standardize data 

collection methods across ranges to 

allow for comparison in different 

geographic locations. 

(e) Sonar exercise notification. The 

Navy shall submit to the NMFS Office 

of Protected Resources (specific contact 

information to be provided in LOA) 

either an electronic (preferably) or 

verbal report within fifteen calendar 

days after the completion of any MTER 

indicating: 

(1) Location of the exercise; 

(2) Beginning and end dates of the 

exercise; and 

(3) Type of exercise. 

(f) Annual MIRC Report. The Navy 

will submit an Annual Exercise MIRC 

Report on November 15 of every year 

(covering data gathered through 

September 15). This report shall contain 

the subsections and information 

indicated below. 

(1) MFAS/HFAS Major Training 

Exercises—This section shall contain 

the following information for the 

following Coordinated and Strike Group 

exercises, which for simplicity will be 

referred to as major training exercises 

for reporting (MTERs): Joint Multi-strike 

Group Exercises; Joint Expeditionary 

Exercises; and Marine Air Ground Task 

Force MIRC: 

(i) Exercise Information (for each 

MTER): 

(A) Exercise designator; 

(B) Date that exercise began and 

ended; 

(C) Location; 

(D) Number and types of active 

sources used in the exercise; 

(E) Number and types of passive 

acoustic sources used in exercise; 

(F) Number and types of vessels, 

aircraft, etc., participating in exercise; 

(G) Total hours of observation by 

watchstanders; 

(H) Total hours of all active sonar 

source operation; 

(I) Total hours of each active sonar 

source (along with explanation of how 

hours are calculated for sources 

typically quantified in alternate way 

(buoys, torpedoes, etc.)); and 

(J) Wave height (high, low, and 

average during exercise). 

(ii) Individual marine mammal 

sighting info (for each sighting in each 

MTER): 

(A) Location of sighting; 

(B) Species (if not possible— 

indication of whale/dolphin/pinniped); 

(C) Number of individuals; 

(D) Calves observed (y/n); 

(E) Initial Detection Sensor; 

(F) Indication of specific type of 

platform observation made from 

(including, for example, what type of 

surface vessel, i.e., FFG, DDG, or CG); 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53872 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(G) Length of time observers 

maintained visual contact with marine 

mammal(s); 

(H) Wave height (in feet); 

(I) Visibility; 

(J) Sonar source in use (y/n); 

(K) Indication of whether animal is 

<200yd, 200–500yd, 500–1000yd, 1000– 

2000yd, or >2000yd from sonar source 

in § 218.104(a)(3)(x); 

(L) Mitigation Implementation— 

Whether operation of sonar sensor was 

delayed, or sonar was powered or shut 

down, and how long the delay was; 

(M) If source in use in 

§ 218.104(a)(3)(x) is hullmounted, true 

bearing of animal from ship, true 

direction of ship’s travel, and estimation 

of animal’s motion relative to ship 

(opening, closing, parallel); and 

(N) Observed behavior— 

Watchstanders shall report, in plain 

language and without trying to 

categorize in any way, the observed 

behavior of the animals (such as animal 

closing to bow ride, paralleling course/ 

speed, floating on surface and not 

swimming, etc.). 

(iii) An evaluation (based on data 

gathered during all of the MTERs) of the 

effectiveness of mitigation measures 

designed to avoid exposing marine 

mammals to MFAS. This evaluation 

shall identify the specific observations 

that support any conclusions the Navy 

reaches about the effectiveness of the 

mitigation. 

(2) ASW Summary—This section 

shall include the following information 

as summarized from non-major training 

exercises (unit-level exercises, such as 

TRACKEXs): 

(i) Total Hours—Total annual hours of 

each type of sonar source (along with 

explanation of how hours are calculated 

for sources typically quantified in 

alternate way (buoys, torpedoes, etc.)) 

(ii) Cumulative Impacts—To the 

extent practicable, the Navy, in 

coordination with NMFS, shall develop 

and implement a method of annually 

reporting non-major training (i.e., ULT) 

utilizing hull-mounted sonar. The report 

shall present an annual (and seasonal, 

where practicable) depiction of nonmajor training exercises geographically 

across MIRC. The Navy shall include (in 

the MIRC annual report) a brief annual 

progress update on the status of the 

development of an effective and 

unclassified method to report this 

information until an agreed-upon (with 

NMFS) method has been developed and 

implemented. 

(3) Sinking Exercises (SINKEXs)— 

This section shall include the following 

information for each SINKEX completed 

that year: 

(i) Exercise Info: 

(A) Location; 

(B) Date and time exercise began and 

ended; 

(C) Total hours of observation by 

watchstanders before, during, and after 

exercise; 

(D) Total number and types of rounds 

expended/explosives detonated; 

(E) Number and types of passive 

acoustic sources used in exercise; 

(F) Total hours of passive acoustic 

search time; 

(G) Number and types of vessels, 

aircraft, etc., participating in exercise; 

(H) Wave height in feet (high, low and 

average during exercise); and 

(I) Narrative description of sensors 

and platforms utilized for marine 

mammal detection and timeline 

illustrating how marine mammal 

detection was conducted. 

(ii) Individual marine mammal 

observation during SINKEX (by Navy 

lookouts) information: 

(A) Location of sighting; 

(B) Species (if not possible— 

indication of whale/dolphin/pinniped); 

(C) Number of individuals; 

(D) Calves observed (y/n); 

(E) Initial detection sensor; 

(F) Length of time observers 

maintained visual contact with marine 

mammal; 

(G) Wave height; 

(H) Visibility; 

(I) Whether sighting was before, 

during, or after detonations/exercise, 

and how many minutes before or after; 

(J) Distance of marine mammal from 

actual detonations (or target spot if not 

yet detonated)—use four categories to 

define distance: 

(1) The modeled injury threshold 

radius for the largest explosive used in 

that exercise type in that OPAREA (TBD 

m for SINKEX in MIRC); 

(2) The required exclusion zone (1 nm 

for SINKEX in MIRC); 

(3) The required observation distance 

(if different than the exclusion zone (2 

nm for SINKEX in MIRC); and 

(4) Greater than the required observed 

distance. For example, in this case, the 

observer shall indicate if < TBD m, from 

426 m–1 nm, from 1 nm–2 nm, and > 

2 nm. 

(K) Observed behavior— 

Watchstanders will report, in plain 

language and without trying to 

categorize in any way, the observed 

behavior of the animals (such as animal 

closing to bow ride, paralleling course/ 

speed, floating on surface and not 

swimming etc.), including speed and 

direction. 

(L) Resulting mitigation 

implementation—Indicate whether 

explosive detonations were delayed, 

ceased, modified, or not modified due to 

marine mammal presence and for how 

long. 

(M) If observation occurs while 

explosives are detonating in the water, 

indicate munitions type in use at time 

of marine mammal detection. 

(4) Improved Extended Echo-Ranging 

System (IEER) Summary: 

(i) Total number of IEER events 

conducted in MIRC; 

(ii) Total expended/detonated rounds 

(buoys); and 

(iii) Total number of self-scuttled 

IEER rounds. 

(5) Explosives Summary—The Navy is 

in the process of improving the methods 

used to track explosive use to provide 

increased granularity. To the extent 

practicable, the Navy shall provide the 

information described below for all of 

their explosive exercises. Until the Navy 

is able to report in full the information 

below, they will provide an annual 

update on the Navy’s explosive tracking 

methods, including improvements from 

the previous year. 

(i) Total annual number of each type 

of explosive exercise (of those identified 

as part of the ‘‘specified activity’’ in this 

final rule) conducted in MIRC; and 

(ii) Total annual expended/detonated 

rounds (missiles, bombs, etc.) for each 

explosive type. 

(g) MIRC 5-Yr Comprehensive Report. 

The Navy shall submit to NMFS a draft 

report that analyzes and summarizes all 

of the multi-year marine mammal 

information gathered during ASW and 

explosive exercises for which annual 

reports are required (Annual MIRC 

Exercise Reports and MIRC Monitoring 

Plan Reports). This report will be 

submitted at the end of the fourth year 

of the rule (November 2013), covering 

activities that have occurred through 

July 15, 2014. 

(h) Comprehensive National ASW 

Report. By June, 2014, the Navy shall 

submit a draft National Report that 

analyzes, compares, and summarizes the 

active sonar data gathered (through 

January 1, 2014) from the watchstanders 

and pursuant to the implementation of 

the Monitoring Plans for the Northwest 

Training Range Complex, the Southern 

California Range Complex, the Atlantic 

Fleet Active Sonar Training, the Hawaii 

Range Complex, the Marianas Islands 

Range Complex, and the Gulf of Alaska. 

§ 218.106 Applications for Letters of 

Authorization. 

To incidentally take marine mammals 

pursuant to these regulations, the U.S. 

Citizen (as defined by § 216.103 of this 

chapter) conducting the activity 

identified in § 218.100(c) (i.e., the Navy) 

must apply for and obtain either an 

initial Letter of Authorization in 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53873 

accordance with § 218.107 or a renewal 

under § 218.108. 

§ 218.107 Letters of Authorization. 

(a) A Letter of Authorization, unless 

suspended or revoked, will be valid for 

a period of time not to exceed the period 

of validity of this subpart, but must be 

renewed annually subject to annual 

renewal conditions in § 218.108. 

(b) Each Letter of Authorization shall 

set forth: 

(1) Permissible methods of incidental 

taking; 

(2) Means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact on the 

species, its habitat, and on the 

availability of the species for 

subsistence uses (i.e., mitigation); and 

(3) Requirements for mitigation, 

monitoring and reporting. 

(c) Issuance and renewal of the Letter 

of Authorization shall be based on a 

determination that the total number of 

marine mammals taken by the activity 

as a whole will have no more than a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stock of marine mammal(s). 

§ 218.108 Renewal of Letters of 

Authorization and adaptive management. 

(a) A Letter of Authorization issued 

under § 216.106 and § 218.177 of this 

chapter or the activity identified in 

§ 218.170(c) will be renewed annually 

upon: 

(1) Notification to NMFS that the 

activity described in the application 

submitted under § 218.246 will be 

undertaken and that there will not be a 

substantial modification to the 

described work, mitigation or 

monitoring undertaken during the 

upcoming 12 months; 

(2) Receipt of the monitoring reports 

and notifications within the indicated 

timeframes required under § 218.105(b) 

through (j); and 

(3) A determination by the NMFS that 

the mitigation, monitoring and reporting 

measures required under § 218.104 and 

the Letter of Authorization issued under 

§§ 216.106 and 218.107 of this chapter, 

were undertaken and will be undertaken 

during the upcoming annual period of 

validity of a renewed Letter of 

Authorization. 

(b) If a request for a renewal of a 

Letter of Authorization issued under 

§§ 216.106 and 216.248 of this chapter 

indicates that a substantial 

modification, as determined by NMFS, 

to the described work, mitigation or 

monitoring undertaken during the 

upcoming season will occur, the NMFS 

will provide the public a period of 30 

days for review and comment on the 

request. Review and comment on 

renewals of Letters of Authorization are 

restricted to: 

(1) New cited information and data 

indicating that the determinations made 

in this document are in need of 

reconsideration, and 

(2) Proposed changes to the mitigation 

and monitoring requirements contained 

in these regulations or in the current 

Letter of Authorization. 

(c) A notice of issuance or denial of 

a renewal of a Letter of Authorization 

will be published in the Federal 

Register. 

(d) Adaptive Management—NMFS 

may modify or augment the existing 

mitigation or monitoring measures (after 

consulting with the Navy regarding the 

practicability of the modifications) if 

doing so creates a reasonable likelihood 

of more effectively accomplishing the 

goals of mitigation and monitoring set 

forth in the preamble of these 

regulations. Below are some of the 

possible sources of new data that could 

contribute to the decision to modify the 

mitigation or monitoring measures: 

(1) Results from the Navy’s 

monitoring from the previous year 

(either from the MIRC Study Area or 

other locations). 

(2) Findings of the Monitoring 

Workshop that the Navy will convene in 

2011. 

(3) Compiled results of Navy funded 

research and development (R&D) studies 

(presented pursuant to the Integrated 

Comprehensive Monitoring Plan). 

(4) Results from specific stranding 

investigations (either from the MIRC 

Study Area or other locations, and 

involving coincident MFAS/HFAS or 

explosives training or not involving 

coincident use). 

(5) Results from the Long Term 

Prospective Study described in the 

preamble to these regulations. 

(6) Results from general marine 

mammal and sound research (funded by 

the Navy (described below) or 

otherwise). 

§ 218.109 Modifications to Letters of 

Authorization. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, no substantive 

modification (including withdrawal or 

suspension) to the Letter of 

Authorization by NMFS, issued 

pursuant to §§ 216.106 and 218.107 of 

this chapter and subject to the 

provisions of this subpart, shall be made 

until after notification and an 

opportunity for public comment has 

been provided. For purposes of this 

paragraph, a renewal of a Letter of 

Authorization under § 218.108, without 

modification (except for the period of 

validity), is not considered a substantive 

modification. 

(b) If the Assistant Administrator 

determines that an emergency exists 

that poses a significant risk to the wellbeing of the species or stocks of marine 

mammals specified in § 218.100(b), a 

Letter of Authorization issued pursuant 

to §§ 216.106 and 218.107 of this 

chapter may be substantively modified 

without prior notification and an 

opportunity for public comment. 

Notification will be published in the 

Federal Register within 30 days 

subsequent to the action. 

[FR Doc. E9–24837 Filed 10–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2