35510 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 216 

[Docket No. 080519680–8684–01] 

RIN 0648–AW86 

Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; U.S. Navy Training in the 

Hawaii Range Complex 

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 to take marine mammals 

incidental to training activities 

conducted within the Hawaii Range 

Complex (HRC) for the period of 

December 2008 through December 2013. 

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 July 23, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by 0648-AW86, 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. Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats only. 

Comments regarding the burden-hour 

estimates or other aspects of the 

collection-of-information requirements 

contained in this proposed rule should 

be submitted in writing to Michael 

Payne at the address above and to David 

Rostker, OMB, by e-mail at 

David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov or by fax to 

202–395–7285. 

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 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. The Navy’s Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 

for the Hawaii Range Complex was 

published on May 9, 2008, and may be 

viewed at http://www.govsupport.us/ 

hrc. NMFS participated in the 

development of the Navy’s FEIS as a 

cooperating agency under NEPA. Last, 

NMFS is preparing a Draft 

Environmental Assessment (EA) that 

analyzes the environmental effects of 

several different mitigation alternatives 

for the potential issuance of the 

proposed rule. The Draft EA will be 

posted on the following Web site as 

soon as it is complete: http:// 

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

incidental.htm. 

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) (Public Law 108– 

136) removed 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 

On June 25, 2007, NMFS received an 

application from the Navy requesting 

authorization for the take of 24 species 

of marine mammals incidental to 

upcoming Navy training activities to be 

conducted within the HRC, which 

covers 235,000 nm2 around the Main 

Hawaiian Islands (see map on page 17 

of the application), over the course of 5 

years. These training activities are 

classified as military readiness 

activities. The Navy states that these 

training activities may incidentally take 

marine mammals present within the 

HRC by exposing them to sound from 

mid-frequency or high frequency active 

sonar (MFAS/HFAS) or to underwater 

detonations at levels that NMFS 

associates with the take of marine 

mammals. The Navy requests 

authorization to take individuals of 24 

species of marine mammals by Level B 

Harassment. Further, though they do not 

anticipate it to occur, the Navy requests 

authorization to take, by injury or 

mortality, up to 10 individuals each of 

10 species over the course of the 5-year 

period (bottlenose dolphin, Kogia spp., 

melon-headed whale, pantropical 

spotted dolphin, pygmy killer whale, 

short-finned pilot whale, striped 

dolphin, and Cuvier’s, Longman’s, and 

Blainville’s beaked whale). 

Background of Navy Request 

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. Title 10, U.S. Code 

(U.S.C.) section 5062 directs the Chief of 

Naval Operations to train all naval 

forces for combat. The Chief of Naval 

Operations meets that direction, in part, 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35511 

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, 

test, and evaluation (RDT&E) of naval 

weapons systems. 

The HRC, where the Navy has, for 

more than 40 years, routinely conducted 

training and major exercises in the 

waters around the Hawaiian Islands, is 

a critical part of the Navy’s mission, 

especially as it relates to training, for 

several reasons. Centrally located in the 

Pacific Ocean between the west coast of 

the United States and the naval stations 

in the western Pacific, and surrounding 

the most isolated islands in the world, 

the HRC has the infrastructure (i.e., 

extensive existing range assets and 

training capabilities) to support a large 

number of forces in a location both 

remote and under U.S. control. The 

range surrounds the major homeport of 

Naval Station Pearl Harbor, enabling resupply and repairs to submarines and 

surface ships alike. The isolation of the 

range offers an invaluable facility on 

which to conduct missile testing and 

training. Able to link with the U.S. 

Army’s Pohakuloa Training Area, as 

well as U.S. Air Force and U.S. Marine 

Corps bases where aircraft basing and 

amphibious training may occur, the 

HRC provides a superior joint training 

environment for all the U.S. armed 

services and advanced missile testing 

capability. Among the important assets 

of the HRC is the Pacific Missile Range 

Facility (PMRF), which is the world’s 

largest instrumented, multienvironment, military test range capable 

of supporting subsurface, surface, air, 

and space training, and RDT&E. It 

consists of instrumented underwater 

ranges, controlled airspace, and a 

temporary operating area covering 2.1 

million square nautical miles (nm2) of 

ocean area. The Navy must have the 

flexibility and capacity to quickly surge 

required combat power in the event of 

a national crisis or contingency 

operation. Because of its location, 

training for sustained deployment at the 

HRC, rather than at ranges on the west 

coast, saves 10 transit days to the 

western Pacific from the west coast of 

the United States. 

The HRC complex consists of targets 

and instrumented areas, airspace, 

surface OPAREAS, and land range 

facilities. The Navy’s proposed action 

includes conducting current and 

emerging training in the HRC. Although 

the Navy plans to conduct many 

different types of RDT&E on the land, in 

the air, and in the water, as well as 

implement infrastructure improvements 

(addressed comprehensively in the 

Navy’s FEIS), this document specifically 

analyzes those activities in the HRC for 

which the Navy seeks MMPA incidental 

take authorization, i.e., those training 

activities that the Navy predicts would 

result in the generation of levels of 

sound in the water that NMFS has 

indicated are likely to result in the take 

of marine mammals (not counting 

SURTASS LFA sonar, for which the 

Navy has already obtained an MMPA 

authorization), either through the use of 

sonar (mid-frequency active sonar 

(MFAS) or high frequency active sonar 

(HFAS)) or from the use of live 

ordnance, including the detonation of 

explosives in the water. Table 1–1 in the 

Navy’s application presents a summary 

of the training and RDT&E activities that 

will occur in the HRC and indicates the 

exercise types that the Navy’s modeling 

indicated would likely result in the take 

of marine mammals. 

Description of the Specified Activities 

As mentioned above, the Navy has 

requested MMPA authorization to take 

marine mammals incidental to training 

activities in the HRC that would result 

in the generation of sound 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. 

Activities Utilizing Active Tactical 

Sonar Sources 

For this operating area (HRC), the 

training activities that utilize active 

tactical sonar sources fall into the 

category of Anti-submarine Warfare 

(ASW) exercises. This section includes 

a description of the active acoustic 

devices used in ASW exercises, as well 

as the exercise types in which these 

acoustic sources are used. 

Acoustic Sources Used for ASW 

Exercises in the HRC 

Tactical military sonars are designed 

to search for, detect, localize, classify, 

and track submarines. There are two 

types of sonars, passive and active: 

• Passive sonars only listen to 

incoming sounds and, since they do not 

emit sound energy in the water, lack the 

potential to acoustically affect the 

environment. 

• Active sonars generate and emit 

acoustic energy specifically for the 

purpose of obtaining information 

concerning a distant object from the 

received and processed reflected sound 

energy. 

Modern sonar technology includes 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 sonars 

transmit multiple preformed beams, 

listening to echoes from several 

directions simultaneously and 

providing efficient detection of both 

direction and range. 

The tactical military sonars to be 

deployed during testing and training in 

the HRC are designed to detect 

submarines in tactical training 

scenarios. This task requires the use of 

the sonar mid-frequency range (1 

kilohertz [kHz] to 10 kHz) 

predominantly, as well as one source in 

the high frequency range (above 10 kHz) 

that operates at a level high enough to 

be considered in the modeling. The high 

frequency source will contribute a 

comparatively very small amount to the 

total amount of active sonar that marine 

mammals will be exposed to during the 

Navy’s proposed activities, however, for 

this document we will refer to the 

collective high and mid-frequency sonar 

sources as MFAS/HFAS. A narrative 

description of the types of acoustic 

sources used in ASW training exercises 

is included below. Table 1 (below) 

summarizes the nominal characteristics 

of the acoustic sources used in the 

modeling to predict take of marine 

mammals. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
35512 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Surface Ship Sonars—A variety of 

surface ships participate in testing and 

training events. Some ships (e.g., aircraft 

carriers, amphibious assault ships) do 

not have any onboard active sonar 

systems, other than fathometers. Others, 

like guided missile cruisers, are 

equipped with active as well as passive 

tactical sonars for mine avoidance and 

submarine detection and tracking. 

Within Navy ASW exercises in the HRC, 

two types of hull-mounted sonar 

sources account for the majority of the 

estimated impacts to marine mammals. 

The AN/SQS–53 hull-mounted sonar, 

which has a nominal source level of 235 

decibels (dB) re 1 μPa and transmits at 

center frequencies of 2.6 kHz and 3.3 

kHz, is the Navy’s most powerful sonar 

source used in ASW exercises in the 

HRC. The AN/SQS–56 hull-mounted 

sonar has a nominal source level of 225 

dB re 1 μPa and transmits at a center 

frequency of 7.5 kHz. Sonar ping 

transmission durations were modeled as 

lasting 1 second per ping and omnidirectional, which is a conservative 

assumption that may overestimate 

potential effects. Actual ping durations 

will be less than 1 second. 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. The AN/SQS–53 and 

the AN/SQS–56 were modeled using the 

number of hours of predicted use 

(typically at two pings per minute; 

meaning an hour of sonar operation 

results in approximately 120 one-second 

pings). Based on modeling results, the 

Navy anticipates that the operation of 

these two sources will likely result in 

take of marine mammals (see Estimated 

Take of Marine Mammals Section). 

Hull-mounted sonars occasionally 

operate in a mode called ‘‘Kingfisher,’’

which is designed to better detect 

smaller objects. The Kingfisher mode 

uses the same source level and 

frequency as normal search modes, 

however, it uses a different waveform 

(designed for small objects), a shorter 

pulse length (< 1 sec), a higher pulse 

repetition rate (due to the short ranges), 

and the ping is not omnidirectional, but 

directed forward. All Kingfisher use in 

the HRC (approximately 27 hours/year) 

was modeled as AN/SQS–53, though the 

less powerful AN/SQS–56 likely 

accounts for part of the total Kingfisher 

use as well. 

Submarine Sonars—Submarine 

sonars (AN/BQQ–10, AN/BQQ–5, or 

AN/BSY–1) are used to detect and target 

enemy submarines and surface ships. 

Because they are trying to avoid being 

detected, a submarine’s use of MFAS is 

generally rare, very brief, using minimal 

power, and may be narrowly focused. 

Modeling for the AN/BQQ–10 (all three 

submarine types were modeled as AN/ 

BQQ–10, the most powerful submarine 

sonar source) assumes sonar use of two 

pings an hour (which is higher than 

typical), for one second each, at 235 dB 

re 1 μPa, and using an omni-directional 

transmission. The AN/BQQ–10 was 

modeled using the number of hours of 

predicted use (at two pings per hour). 

Based on modeling results, the Navy 

anticipates that the operation of this 

source may result in some take of 

marine mammals (see Estimated Take of 

Marine Mammals Section). 

Aircraft Sonar Systems—Aircraft 

sonar systems that would operate in the 

HRC include sonobuoys (SSQ–62) and 

dipping sonar (AN/AQS–22). A 

sonobuoy is an expendable device, 

which may be deployed by maritime 

patrol aircraft or helicopters, used for 

the detection of underwater acoustic 

energy and for conducting vertical water 

column temperature measurements. 

Most sonobuoys are passive, but some, 

like the SSQ–62, can also generate 

active acoustic signals. The SSQ–62 has 

a nominal source level of 201 dB re 1 

μPa and transmits at a center frequency 

of 8 kHz. Dipping sonar is an active or 

passive sonar device lowered on cable 

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. The AN/AQS–22 has a 

nominal source level of 217 dB re 1 μPa 

and transmits at a center frequency of 

4.1 kHz. Based on modeling results, the 

Navy anticipates that the operation of 

these two sources may result in some 

take of marine mammals (see Estimated 

Take of Marine Mammals Section). 

Torpedoes—Torpedoes are the 

primary ASW weapon used by surface 

ships, aircraft, and submarines. The 

guidance systems of these weapons can 

be autonomous (acoustically based) or 

electronically controlled from the 

launching platform through an attached 

wire. They operate either passively, 

exploiting the emitted sound energy by 

the target, or actively, ensonifying the 

target and using the received echoes for 

guidance. We know that the MK–48 

operates in the high frequency range 

(>10 kHZ), however, the nominal source 

level and the center frequency are 

classified. Based on modeling results, 

the Navy anticipates that the operation 

of this source may result in some take 

of marine mammals (see Estimated Take 

of Marine Mammals Section). In 

addition to the HFA sonar source used 

to guide the torpedo, the MK–48 is 

discussed in the ‘‘Activities Utilizing 

Underwater Detonations’’ Section. 

Other Acoustic Sources—The Navy 

uses other acoustic sources in ASW 

exercises. However, based on 

operational characteristics (such as 

frequency and source level), the Navy 

determined that use of the following 

acoustic sources would not likely result 

in the take of marine mammals: 

• Acoustic Device Countermeasures 

(ADC)—submarine simulators that make 

sound to act as decoys to avert 

localization and/or torpedo attacks. 

• Training Targets—ASW training 

targets consisting of MK–30 and/or MK–

39 Expendable Mobile ASW Training 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3EP23JN08.001</GPH >
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35513 

Target (EMATT) 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. 

• Range pingers are active acoustic 

devices that allow inwater platforms on 

the range (e.g., submarines, target 

simulators, and exercise torpedoes) to 

be tracked by hydrophones on the 

seafloor such as those at the underwater 

instrumented range at PMRF. The range 

hydrophones are also tied in with 

transducer nodes that are capable of 

transmitting acoustic signals for a 

limited set of functions, including 

submarine warning signals, acoustic 

commands to submarine target 

simulators (acoustic command link), 

and occasional voice or data 

communications (received by 

participating ships and submarines on 

range). 

Types of ASW Exercises in the HRC 

ASW training conducted within the 

HRC involves the use of surface ships, 

submarines, aircraft, non-explosive and 

explosive exercise weapons, and other 

training-related devices. ASW training 

involves the use of active and passive 

acoustic devices with training activities 

occurring in both offshore (<12 nm (22 

km) from shore) and open ocean (>12 

nm (22 km) from shore) areas. A 

description of the different exercise 

types is provided below. Table 2 lists 

the types of ASW exercises and 

indicates the areas they are conducted 

in, the average duration of an exercise, 

the average number of exercises/per 

year, and the time of year they are 

conducted. Table 3, at the end of this 

section, indicates the total number of 

hours for each source type anticipated 

for each year for each exercise type. 

Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking 

Exercise (ASW TRACKEX)—An ASW 

TRACKEX trains aircraft, ship, and 

submarine crews in tactics, techniques, 

and procedures for search, detection, 

and tracking of submarines. No 

torpedoes are fired during a TRACKEX. 

ASW TRACKEX includes ships, fixed 

wing aircraft, helicopters, torpedo 

targets, submarines, and weapons 

recovery boats and/or helicopters. As a 

unit-level exercise, an aircraft, ship, or 

submarine is typically used versus one 

target submarine or simulated target. 

TRACKEXs can include the use of hullmounted sonar, submarines, or 

sonobuoys. No explosive ordnance is 

used in TRACKEX exercises. 

The target may be non-evading while 

operating on a specified track or it may 

be fully evasive, depending on the state 

of training of the ASW unit. Duration of 

a TRACKEX is highly dependent on the 

tracking platform and its available onstation time. A maritime patrol aircraft 

can remain on station for eight hours, 

and typically conducts tracking 

exercises that last three to six hours. An 

ASW helicopter has a much shorter onstation time, and conducts a typical 

TRACKEX in one to two hours. Surface 

ships and submarines, which measure 

their on-station time in days, conduct 

tracking exercises exceeding eight hours 

and averaging up to 18 hours. For 

modeling purposes, TRACKEX and 

TORPEX (explained in next section) 

sonar hours are averaged, resulting in a 

sonar time of 13.5 hours. 

ASW TRACKEX events are conducted 

on ranges within PMRF Warning Area 

W–188, the Hawaii Offshore Areas and/ 

or the open ocean. Whenever aircraft 

use the ranges for ASW training, range 

clearance procedures include a detailed 

visual range search for marine mammals 

and unauthorized boats and planes by 

the aircraft releasing the inert torpedoes, 

range safety boats/aircraft, and range 

controllers. TRACKEXs can include the 

use of hull-mounted sonar, submarines, 

or sonobuoys, which can result in the 

take of marine mammals. 

Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo 

Exercises (ASW TORPEX)—AntiSubmarine Warfare Torpedo Exercises 

(ASW TORPEX) train crews in tracking 

and attack of submerged targets, firing 

one or more Recoverable Exercise 

Torpedoes. TORPEX targets used in the 

Offshore Areas include submarines, 

MK–30 ASW training targets, and MK–

39 Expendable Mobile ASW Training 

Targets. The target may be non-evading 

while operating on a specified track, or 

it may be fully evasive, depending on 

the training requirements. Submarines 

periodically conduct torpedo firing 

training exercises within the Hawaii 

Offshore OPAREA. Typical duration of 

a submarine TORPEX event is 22.7 

hours, while air and surface ASW 

platform TORPEX events are 

considerably shorter. For modeling 

purposes, TRACKEX and TORPEX sonar 

hours are averaged resulting in a sonar 

time of 13.5 hours. TORPEXs can 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3EP23JN08.002</GPH>
35514 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

include the use of hull-mounted sonar, 

submarines, sonobuoys, or MK–48 

torpedoes (inert), which can result in 

the take of marine mammals. 

Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC)—

RIMPAC is a multi-threat maritime 

exercise where submarines, surface 

ships, and aircraft from the U.S. and 

other countries conduct many different 

exercise events, including ASW against 

opposition submarine targets to improve 

coordination and interoperability of 

combined, bilateral and joint forces of 

participating nations. RIMPAC occurs 

during the summer over a 1-month 

period every other year (currently in 

even numbered years). Submarine 

targets include real submarines, targets 

that simulate the operations of an actual 

submarine including those described 

previously under TORPEX, and virtual 

submarines interjected into the training 

events by exercise controllers. ASW 

training events are complex and highly 

variable. For RIMPAC, the primary 

event involves a Surface Action Group 

(SAG), consisting of one to five surface 

ships equipped with sonar, with one or 

more helicopters, and a P–3 aircraft 

searching for one or more submarines. 

There will be approximately four to 

eight SAGs for a typical RIMPAC. For 

the purposes of analysis, each SAG 

event is counted as an ASW training 

activity. One or more ASW events may 

occur simultaneously within the HRC. 

There will be approximately 44 ASW 

training events during a typical 

RIMPAC, with an average event length 

of approximately 12 hours (ranging from 

2–24 hours). 

In addition to including potential 

training with of all of the acoustic 

sources mentioned previously, RIMPAC 

includes training events that involve 

underwater detonations (described in 

the next section: Activities Utilizing 

Underwater Detonations), including 

Sinking Exercise, Air-to-Surface 

Gunnery Exercise, Surface-to-Surface 

Gunnery Exercise, Naval Surface Fire 

Support, Air-to-Surface Missile 

Exercise, Surface-to-Surface Missile 

Exercise, Bombing Exercise, Mine 

Neutralization Exercise, and IEER/EER 

Exercise. Both the use of the acoustic 

sources as well as the underwater 

detonations could result in the take of 

marine mammals. These exercises 

involving underwater detonations do 

not overlap in space and time with 

sonar exercises. Explosives from 

RIMPAC have been included in the 

training events described in the next 

Section. 

Undersea Warfare Exercise 

(USWEX)—Carrier Strike Groups (CSGs) 

and Expeditionary Strike Groups (ESGs) 

that deploy from the west coast of the 

United States will experience realistic 

submarine combat conditions and assess 

submarine warfare training capabilities 

postures in the HRC prior to their 

deployment to real world operations 

elsewhere. As a combined force, 

submarines, surface ships, and aircraft 

will conduct ASW against opposition 

submarine targets, which include real 

submarines, targets that simulate the 

operations of an actual submarine, and 

virtual submarines interjected into the 

training events by exercise controllers. 

USWEX training events are complex 

and highly variable. The primary event 

involves from one to five surface ships 

equipped with sonar, with one or more 

helicopters, and a P–3 aircraft searching 

for one or more submarines. A total of 

five exercises using MFAS/HFAS, 

lasting three to four days each, could 

occur throughout the year for USWEX. 

In addition to the use of hull-mounted 

sonar (AN/SQS–53 and AN/SQS–56), 

submarine sonar, helicopter dipping 

sonar, and sonobuoys, USWEX includes 

training events that involve underwater 

detonations as described in the next 

section (Activities Utilizing Underwater 

Detonations), including Air-to-Surface 

Gunnery Exercise, Air-to-Surface 

Missile Exercise, and Bombing Exercise. 

Both the use of the acoustic sources as 

well as the underwater detonations 

could result in the take of marine 

mammals. These exercises utilizing 

underwater detonations do not overlap 

in space and time with sonar exercises. 

Explosives from USWEX have been 

included in the training events 

described in the next section. 

Multiple Strike Group Exercise—A 

Multiple Strike Group Exercise consists 

of events that involve Navy assets 

engaging in a schedule of events battle 

scenario, with U.S. forces (blue forces) 

pitted against a notional opposition 

force (red force). Participants use and 

build upon previously gained training 

skill sets to maintain and improve the 

proficiency needed for a missioncapable, deployment-ready unit. The 

exercise would occur over a 5-day to 10- 

day period at any time during the year. 

As described above for USWEX, as a 

combined force, submarines, surface 

ships, and aircraft will conduct ASW 

against opposition submarine targets. 

In addition to the use of hull-mounted 

sonar (AN/SQS–53 and AN/SQS–56), 

submarine sonar, helicopter dipping 

sonar, and sonobuoys , the Multiple 

Strike Group Exercise includes training 

events that involve underwater 

detonations as described in the next 

Section (Activities Utilizing Underwater 

Detonations), including Sinking 

Exercise, Air-to-Surface Missile 

Exercise, Mine Neutralization Exercise, 

and EER/IEER Exercise. Both the use of 

the acoustic sources as well as the 

underwater detonations could result in 

the take of marine mammals. These 

exercises utilizing underwater 

detonations do not overlap in space and 

time with sonar exercises. Explosives 

from the Multiple Strike Group Exercise 

have been included in the events 

described in the next Section. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35515 

Activities Utilizing Underwater 

Detonations 

Underwater detonation activities can 

occur at various depths depending on 

the activity (sinking exercise [SINKEX] 

and mine neutralization), but may also 

include activities which may have 

detonations at or just below the surface 

(SINKEX, gunnery exercise [GUNEX], or 

missile exercise [MISSILEX]). When the 

weapons hit the target except for live 

torpedo shot, 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, 76mm 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, Table A–7 (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 4. 

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 5 at the end of this 

section. 

Sinking Exercise (SINKEX)—In a 

SINKEX, a specially prepared, 

deactivated vessel is deliberately sunk 

using multiple weapons systems. The 

exercise provides training to ship and 

submarine and aircraft crews in 

delivering both live and inert ordnance 

on a real target. These target vessels are 

remediated to standards set by the 

Environmental Protection Agency. 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 four to eight hours over one to two 

days. SINKEXs typically occur only 

once or twice a year in the HRC. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3EP23JN08.003</GPH> EP23JN08.004</GPH>
35516 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Underwater detonation of several 

different explosive types could result in 

the take of marine mammals. Some or 

all of the following weapons may be 

employed in a SINKEX: Three 

HARPOON surface-to-surface and air-tosurface missiles; two to eight air-tosurface Maverick missiles; two to four 

MK–82 General Purpose Bombs; two 

Hellfire air-to-surface missiles; one 

SLAM-ER air-to-surface missile; twohundred and fifty rounds for a 5-inch 

gun; and one MK–48 heavyweight 

submarine-launched torpedo. 

Surface-to-Surface Gunnery Exercise 

(S-S GUNEX)—Surface gunnery 

exercises (GUNEX) take place in the 

open ocean to provide gunnery practice 

for Navy and Coast Guard ship crews. 

GUNEX training events conducted in 

the Offshore OPAREA involve 

stationary targets such as a MK–42 

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 S-S GUNEX lasts 

approximately two to four hours, 

depending on target services and 

weather conditions. Detonation of the 

live 5-inch and 76-mm rounds could 

result in the take of marine mammals. 

Naval Surface Fire Support Exercise—

Navy surface combatants conduct fire 

support exercise (FIREX) training events 

at PMRF on a virtual range against 

‘‘Fake Island’’, located on Barking Sands 

Tactical Underwater Range (BARSTUR). 

Fake Island is unique in that it is a 

virtual landmass simulated in three 

dimensions. Ships conducting FIREX 

training against targets on the island are 

given the coordinates and elevation of 

targets. PMRF is capable of tracking 

fired rounds to an accuracy of 30 feet 

(9.1 m). Detonation of the live 5-inch 

and 76-mm rounds fired into ocean 

during this exercise could result in the 

take of marine mammals. 

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 can take place 

without the release of a live weapon 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, nor does it contain any 

explosives or propellant. The event 

requires a laser-safe 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 one to 16 fixed wing 

aircraft with air-to-surface missiles and 

anti-radiation missiles (electromagnetic 

radiation source seeking missiles). 

When a high-speed anti-radiation 

missile (HARM) is used, the exercise is 

called a HARMEX. Targets include 

SEPTARs, ISTTs, and decommissioned 

ship hulks. Detonation of live ordnance 

could result in the take of marine 

mammals. 

Surface-to-Surface Missile Exercise 

(S–S MISSILEX)—Surface-to-surface 

missile exercise (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. Engagement is 

usually with Harpoon missiles or 

Standard missiles in the surface-tosurface 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 four 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 surfaceto-surface mode. S–S MISSILEX 

activities are conducted within PMRF 

Warning area W–188. Each exercise 

typically lasts five hours, though future 

S–S MISSILEXs could range from four 

to 35 hours. Missile detonation could 

result in the take of marine mammals. 

Bombing Exercise (BOMBEX)—Fixedwing aircraft conduct BOMBEX events 

against stationary targets (MK–42 FAST 

or MK–58 smoke buoy) at sea. An 

aircraft will clear the area, deploy a 

smoke buoy or other floating target, and 

then set up a racetrack pattern, dropping 

on the target with each pass. At PMRF, 

a range boat might be used to deploy the 

target for an aircraft to attack. A 

BOMBEX may involve either live or 

inert ordnance. Underwater detonation 

of live ordnance could result in the take 

of marine mammals. 

Mine Neutralization—Mine 

Neutralization events involve 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 subsurface assets. Tactics 

for neutralization of ground or bottom 

mines involve a 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 open 

ocean areas will be detonated at the 

surface. Inert dummy mines are used in 

the exercises. The total net explosive 

weight used against each mine ranges 

from less than one pound to 20 pounds 

(0.5 to 9.1 kg). Mine neutralization 

training takes place offshore in Puuloa 

Underwater Range, Lima Landing, Naval 

Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility, 

MCBH, MCTAB, Barters Point Range, 

Ewa Training Minefield; and in openocean areas. Detonation of live ordnance 

could result in the take of marine 

mammals. 

All demolition activities are 

conducted in accordance with current 

Navy directives and approved standard 

operating procedures. Before any 

explosive is detonated, divers are 

transported a safe distance away from 

the explosive. Standard practices for 

tethered mines in Hawaiian waters 

require ground mine explosive charges 

to be suspended 10 feet (3.0 m) below 

the surface of the water. 

EER/IEER AN/SSQ–110A—The 

Extended Echo Ranging and Improved 

Extended Echo Ranging (EER/IEER) 

Systems are air-launched 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, would 

generate a ‘‘ping’’ (small detonation) 

and the passive AN/SSQ–101 ADAR 

Sonobuoy would ‘‘listen’’ 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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35517 

and accurately detect submerged 

submarines. The expendable and 

commandable sonobuoy pairs are 

dropped from a fixed-wing aircraft into 

the ocean in a predetermined pattern 

(array) with a few buoys covering a very 

large area. 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 generating a 

‘‘ping’’. There is only one detonation in 

the pattern of buoys at a time. 

Detonation of the buoys could result in 

the take of marine mammals. 

Air-to-Surface Gunnery Exercise (A–S 

GUNEX)—Air-to-Surface GUNEX events 

are conducted by rotary-wing aircraft 

against stationary targets (Floating at-sea 

Target [FAST] and smoke buoy). Rotarywing aircraft involved in this training 

activity would include a single SH–60 

using either 7.62-mm or .50-caliber 

door-mounted machine guns. A typical 

A–S GUNEX will last approximately 

one hour and involve the expenditure of 

approximately 400 rounds of 50-caliber 

or 7.62-mm ammunition. Due to the use 

of small, inert rounds, A–S GUNEXs are 

not expected to result in the take of 

marine mammals. 

Additional information on the Navy’s 

proposed activities may be found in the 

LOA Application and the FEIS (Section 

2 and Appendices D, E, and J). 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activities 

There are 27 marine mammal species 

with possible or confirmed occurrence 

in the HRC. As indicated in Table 6, 

there are 25 cetacean species (7 

mysticetes and 18 odontocetes) and two 

pinnipeds. Table 6 also includes the 

estimated abundance, estimated group 

size, and estimated probability of 

detection (based on Barlow 2006) of the 

species that occur in the HRC. Seven 

marine mammal species listed as 

federally endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) occur in 

the HRC: the humpback whale, North 

Pacific right whale, sei whale, fin whale, 

blue whale, sperm whale, and Hawaiian 

monk seal. The most abundant marine 

mammals appear to be dwarf sperm 

whales, striped dolphins, and Fraser’s 

dolphins. The most abundant large 

whales are sperm whales. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3EP23JN08.005</GPH>
35518 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3EP23JN08.006</GPH><FNP>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35519 

The Navy has compiled information 

on the abundance, behavior, status and 

distribution, and vocalizations of 

marine mammal species in the 

Hawaiian waters from peer reviewed 

literature, the Navy Marine Resource 

Assessment, NMFS Stock Assessment 

Reports, and marine mammal surveys 

using acoustics or visual observations 

from aircraft or ships. This information 

may be viewed in the Navy’s LOA 

application and/or the Navy’s FEIS for 

the HRC (see Availability). Additional 

information is available in NMFS Stock 

Assessment Reports, which may be 

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

pr/sars/species.htm. 

Based on their rare occurrence in the 

HRC, the Navy and NMFS do not 

anticipate any effects to Blue whales, 

North Pacific right whales, or Northern 

elephant seals and, therefore, they are 

not addressed further in this document. 

Important Reproductive Areas 

Because the consideration of areas 

where marine mammals are known to 

selectively breed or calve are important 

to both the negligible impact finding 

necessary for the issuance of an MMPA 

authorization and the need for NMFS to 

put forth the means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 

grounds, and other areas of similar 

significance, we are emphasizing 

important reproductive areas within this 

section. Little is known about the 

breeding and calving behaviors of many 

of the marine mammals that occur in the 

HRC. Some delphinid species have 

calving peaks once or twice a year, but 

give birth throughout their ranges. The 

mysticete species that may occur in the 

HRC are generally thought to migrate 

from higher to lower latitudes to breed 

and calve in the winter. With one 

notable exception, no breeding or 

calving areas have been identified in the 

HRC for the species that occur there. 

However, the main Hawaiian Islands 

constitute one of the world’s most 

important habitats for the endangered 

humpback whale. Nearly two-thirds of 

the entire North Pacific population of 

humpback whales migrates to Hawaii 

each winter to engage in breeding, 

calving and nursing activities important 

for the survival of their species. The 

available sighting information and the 

known preferred breeding habitat 

(shallow water) indicates that 

humpback whale densities are much 

higher (up to almost four whales/square 

mile) in certain areas and that 

humpback mothers and calves are 

concentrated within the 200-m isobath. 

The Hawaiian Humpback Whale 

National Marine Sanctuary worked with 

Dr. Joe Mobley to compile a figure that 

generally illustrates humpback whale 

survey data collected between 1993 and 

2003 and indicates areas of high and 

low density (Mobley 2004, Figure 1). 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
35520 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3EP23JN08.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35521 

A 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 

sonar 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, 30 dB is a 1,000-fold 

increase). Humans perceive a 10-dB 

increase in noise as a doubling of sound 

level, or a 10 dB decrease in noise as a 

halving of sound level. 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: 1 μPa) 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 and ultrasonic 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’’; airguns are an example of 

a broadband sound source and 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, 

anatomical modeling, and other data, 

Southall et al. (2007) designate 

‘‘functional hearing groups’’ 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 developed for each group. 

More specific data is available for 

certain species (Table 17). The 

functional groups and the associated 

frequencies are indicated below: 

• 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 

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. 

• Pinnipeds in Air: Functional 

hearing is estimated to occur between 

approximately 75 Hz and 30 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 away from its source, its 

loudness decreases as the distance 

traveled (propagates) 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. As a result, it is important 

not to confuse source levels and 

received levels when discussing the 

loudness of sound in the ocean. 

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 sonar 

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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
35522 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

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 μPa2s. 

SEL = SPL + 10log(duration in seconds) 

As applied to tactical sonar, 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 

Exposure to MFAS/HFAS 

The Navy has requested authorization 

for the take of marine mammals that 

may occur incidental to training 

activities in the HRC utilizing MFAS/ 

HFAS or underwater explosives. The 

Navy has analyzed other Navy activities 

in the HRC, both ongoing and proposed, 

and in consultation with NMFS as a 

cooperating agency for the HRC EIS, has 

determined that take of marine 

mammals incidental to other Navy 

activities is unlikely and, therefore, has 

not requested authorization for take of 

marine mammals that might occur 

incidental to any other activities. 

Therefore, NMFS will analyze the 

potential effects on marine mammals 

from MFAS/HFAS and underwater 

detonations, but not from other 

activities. 

For the purposes of MMPA 

authorizations, NMFS’s effects 

assessments have three primary 

purposes: (1) To put forth the 

permissible methods of taking within 

the context of MMPA Level B 

Harassment (behavioral harassment), 

Level A Harassment (injury), and 

mortality (i.e., identify the number and 

types of take that will occur); (2) to 

determine 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 (3) 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 HRC, so this 

determination is inapplicable for the 

HRC). 

More specifically, for activities 

involving active tactical sonar or 

underwater detonations, NMFS’s 

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 

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. 

In its April 14, 2008, Biological 

Opinion of the U.S. Navy’s proposal to 

conduct four training exercises in the 

Cherry Point, Virginia Capes, and 

Jacksonville, Range Complexes NMFS 

presented 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, which may then affect 

the reproduction and/or survival of 

those individuals. 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 (available at: http:// 

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

incidental.htm). This conceptual 

framework may also be used to describe 

the responses and pathways for nonendangered and non-threatened species 

and is included in this document for 

reference (Figure 2). 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35523 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3EP23JN08.008</GPH>
35524 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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. For continuous 

sounds, exposures of equal energy (the 

same SEL) will lead to approximately 

equal effects. For intermittent sounds, 

less TS will occur than from a 

continuous exposure with the same 

energy (some recovery will occur 

between 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 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 is 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 interpreting 

environmental cues for purposes such 

as predator avoidance and prey capture. 

Depending on the degree (dB), duration, 

and frequency range of TTS, and the 

context in which it is experienced, TTS 

can have effects on marine mammals 

ranging from discountable to serious 

(similar to those discussed in auditory 

masking, below). For example, a marine 

mammal may be able to readily 

compensate for a brief, relatively small 

amount of TTS in a non-critical 

frequency range that takes place during 

a time when the animal is traveling 

through the open ocean, where ambient 

noise is lower and there are not as many 

competing sounds present. 

Alternatively, a larger amount and 

longer duration of TTS sustained during 

time when communication is critical for 

successful mother/calf interactions 

could have more serious impacts. 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 

because it is a long term 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). 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 sonar pings would be long enough to 

drive bubble growth to any substantial 

size, if such a phenomenon occurs. 

Recent work conducted by Crum et al. 

(2005) demonstrated the possibility of 

rectified diffusion for short duration 

signals, but at sound exposure levels 

and tissue saturations levels that are 

improbable to occur in a diving marine 

mammal. 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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35525 

another hypothesis (decompression 

sickness) has 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. 

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). 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. 

However, Jepson et al. (2003, 2005) and 

Fernandez et al. (2004, 2005) concluded 

that in vivo bubble formation, which 

may be exacerbated by deep, longduration, repetitive dives may explain 

why beaked whales appear to be 

particularly vulnerable to sonar 

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 to, 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. 

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 high 

frequency 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 high 

frequencies these cetaceans use to 

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

communication (Zaitseva et al., 1980). 

As mentioned previously, the 

functional hearing ranges of mysticetes, 

odontocetes, and pinnipeds all 

encompass the frequencies of the sonar 

sources used in the Navy’s training 

exercises. Additionally, almost all 

species vocal repertoires span across the 

frequencies of the sonar 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. However, due to the pulse length 

and duty cycle of the MFAS/HFAS 

signal, masking is unlikely to occur as 

a result of exposure to MFAS/HFAS 

during the training exercises in the 

HRC. 

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 it 

drops 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 are more important 

than detecting a vocalization 

(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 vocal adjustments to their 

vocalizations to increase the signal-tonoise ratio, active space, and 

recognizability of their vocalizations in 

the face of temporary changes in 

background noise (Brumm et al., 2004; 

Patricelli et al., 2006). Vocalizing 

animals will 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 (see Biological Opinion). 

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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
35526 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 

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 function, 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. 

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 midfrequency and low-frequency 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 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 

cetaceans 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 cetaceans 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), 

we also assume that stress responses are 

likely to 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. 

Exposure of marine mammals to sound 

sources can result in (but is not limited 

to) 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; habitat 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35527 

abandonment (temporary or permanent); 

and, in severe cases, panic, flight, 

stampede, or stranding, potentially 

resulting in death (Southall et al., 2007). 

Many different variables can 

influence an animals perception of and 

response to (nature and magnitude) an 

acoustic event. An animals prior 

experience with a sound type effects 

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 effect 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. 

There are few empirical studies of 

avoidance responses of free-living 

cetaceans to mid-frequency sonars. 

Much more information is available on 

the avoidance responses of free-living 

cetaceans to other acoustic sources, like 

seismic airguns and low frequency 

sonar, than mid-frequency active sonar. 

Richardson et al., (1995) noted that 

avoidance reactions are the most 

obvious manifestations of disturbance in 

marine mammals. 

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 man-made 

sound with the goal of proposing 

exposure criteria for certain effects. This 

compilation of literature is very 

valuable, though Southall et al. note 

that not all data is 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. 

In the Southall et al., (2007) report, for 

the purposes of analyzing responses of 

marine mammals to anthropogenic 

sound and developing critieria, the 

authors differentiate between single 

pulse sounds, multiple pulse sounds, 

and non-pulse sounds. MFAS/HFAS 

sonar is considered a non-pulse sound. 

Southall et al., (2007) summarize the 

reports associated with low and midfrequency cetacean and pinniped 

responses to non-pulse sounds (there 

are no high frequency cetaceans in 

Hawaii) in Appendix C of their report 

(incorporated by reference and 

summarized in the three paragraphs 

below). 

The reports 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, low 

frequency M-sequences (sine wave with 

multiple phase reversals) playback, low 

frequency active sonar playback, drill 

ships, Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean 

Climate (ATOC) source, and non-pulse 

playbacks. These reports generally 

indicate no (or very limited) responses 

to received levels in the 90 to 120 dB 

re: 1 Pa 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, 

though, few of the laboratory or field 

datasets had common conditions, 

behavioral contexts or sound sources, so 

it is not surprising that responses differ. 

The reports 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. were unable to 

come to a clear conclusion regarding 

these reports. 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 

responded at lower levels in the field). 

The reports that address the responses 

of pinnipeds in water 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: 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 and 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 

of 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). 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
35528 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

In Table 7 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. 

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 (see 

Figure 2). There is little marine mammal 

data quantitatively relating the exposure 

of marine mammals to sound to effects 

on reproduction or survival, though data 

exists for terrestrial species to which we 

can draw comparisons for marine 

mammals. 

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 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- 

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. 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 × 103kJ/ 

min), and spent energy fleeing or acting 

aggressively toward hikers (White et al. 

1999). 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3EP23JN08.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35529 

On a related note, many animals 

perform vital functions, such as feeding, 

resting, traveling, and socializing, on a 

diel cycle (24-hr cycle). Substantive 

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 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 

stranding 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 the 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 

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 

during attempts to identify relationships 

between those stranding events and 

military 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 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 associated with the use of 

mid-frequency sonar, one of those seven 

had been associated with the use of lowfrequency sonar, and the remaining 

stranding event had been associated 

with the use of seismic airguns. 

Most of the stranding events reviewed 

by the International Whaling 

Commission involved beaked whales. A 

mass stranding of Cuvier’s beaked 

whales in the eastern Mediterranean Sea 

occurred in 1996 (Frantzis, 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 maneuvers 

that were using sonar. 

Between 1960 and 2006, 48 strandings 

(68 percent) involved beaked whales, 3 

(4 percent) involved dolphins, and 14 

(20 percent) involved other whale 

species. Cuvier’s beaked whales were 

involved in the greatest number of these 

events (48 or 68 percent), followed by 

sperm whales (7 or 10 percent), and 

Blainville’s and Gervais’ beaked whales 

(4 each or 6 percent). Naval activities 

that might have involved active sonar 

are reported to have coincided with 9 

(13 percent) or 10 (14 percent) of those 

stranding events. Between the mid1980s and 2003 (the period reported by 

the International Whaling Commission), 

we identified reports of 44 mass 

cetacean stranding events of which at 

least 7 were coincident with naval 

exercises that were using mid-frequency 

sonar. 

Strandings Associated With MFAS 

Over the past 12 years, there have 

been five stranding events coincident 

with military mid-frequency sonar use 

that are believed to most likely have 

been caused by exposure to the sonar: 

Greece (1996); the Bahamas (2000); 

Madeira (2000); Canary Islands (2002); 

and Spain (2006). 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 midfrequency sonar and resulting in 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. 

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 sonar tests with signals of 

600 Hz and 3 kHz and rms SPL of 228 

and 226 dB re: 1 μPa, 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 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 was compiled, and many 

potential causes were examined 

including major pollution events, 

important tectonic activity, unusual 

physical or meteorological events, 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
35530 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 not 

consistent 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 (Frantzis, 2004). 

It was determined that 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 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). The 

analysis of this stranding event 

provided support for, but no clear 

evidence for, the cause-and-effect 

relationship of 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 sonar 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), 7 

animals died on the beach (5 Cuvier’s 

beaked whales, 1 Blainville’s beaked 

whale, and the spotted dolphin) and the 

other 10 were returned to the water 

alive (though their fate is unknown). 

Necropsies were performed on five 

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 

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 midfrequency sonar 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 mid-frequency 

sonars aboard U.S. Navy ships that were 

in use during the sonar exercise in 

question were the most plausible source 

of this acoustic or impulse trauma. 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 sonars. The investigation team 

concluded that the cause of this 

stranding event was the confluence of 

the Navy mid-frequency sonar and these 

contributory factors working together, 

and further recommended that the Navy 

avoid operating mid-frequency sonar 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 presence of surface ducts, steep 

bathymetry, and/or constricted channels 

added to the operation of mid-frequency 

sonar in the presence of cetaceans 

(especially beaked whales and, 

potentially, deep divers) may increase 

the likelihood of producing a sound 

field with the potential to cause 

cetaceans to strand, and therefore, 

suggests the need for increased vigilance 

while operating MFAS/HFAS. 

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 fisherman, but 

did not come ashore (Woods Hole 

Oceanographic Institution, 2005). Joint 

NATO amphibious training 

peacekeeping exercises involving 

participants from 17 countries and 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 quite 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 fathoms (1000–6000 m) 

occurring across a relatively short 

horizontal distance (Freitas, 2004); 

multiple ships were operating around 

Madeira, though it is not known if MFA 

sonar 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 

landmasses separated by less than 35 

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

in length, or in an embayment. Exercises 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35531 

involving multiple ships employing 

MFA 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 MFA sonar 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). 

The association of NATO MFA sonar 

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 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 the 

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; Fernandez 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 May 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 MFA sonar 

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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
35532 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

Weather patterns and bathymetry that 

have been associated with mass 

strandings elsewhere were not found to 

occur in this instance. 

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. 

Global reports of these types of events 

or sightings are of great interest to the 

scientific community and continuing 

efforts to enhance reporting in island 

nations will contribute to our increased 

understanding of animal behavior and 

potential causes of stranding events. 

Exactly what, if any, relationship this 

event has to the simultaneous events in 

Hawai’i and whether they might be 

related to some common factor (e.g., 

there was a full moon on July 2, 2004) 

is and will likely remain unknown. 

However, these two synchronous, 

nearshore events involving a rarelysighted species are curious and may 

point to the range of potential 

contributing factors for which we lack 

detailed understanding and which the 

authors acknowledged might have 

played some role in the ‘‘confluence of 

events’’ in Hanalei Bay. 

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 widescale, 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. 

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 mid-frequency sonar (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 percent of 

the total number of stranded animals 

and see Figure 3), other beaked whales 

(including Mesoplodon europeaus, M. 

densirostris, and Hyperoodon 

ampullatus) comprise 14 percent of the 

total. Other species (Stenella 

coeruleoalba, Kogia breviceps and 

Balaenoptera acutorostrata) have 

stranded, 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 mid-frequency 

active sonar 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 sonar and some sonar 

transmissions are not associated with 

marine mammal stranding events 

despite their co-occurrence—other risk 

factors or a groupings of risk factors 

probably contribute to these stranding 

events. 

Behaviorally Mediated Responses to 

MFAS/HFAS That May Lead to 

Stranding 

Although the confluence of Navy midfrequency active tactical sonar 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 be 

injured and 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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35533 

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 two 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) and increase their oxygen 

demands as a result. 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 sonar. 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 

suggests that abnormally rapid ascents 

or premature dives in response to highintensity sonar could indirectly result in 

physical harm to the beaked whales, 

through the mechanisms described 

above (gas bubble formation or nonelimination 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 as deep as 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 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 

ascent 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 midfrequency range sonar (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). 

If marine mammals respond to a Navy 

vessel that is 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 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, b), ringed seals (Phoca hispida) 

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

bernic 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). 

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 

scientific agreement or complete lack of 

information exists regarding 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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
35534 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

introduced by decomposition before 

sampling, handling, freezing, or 

necropsy procedures affect 

interpretation of observed lesions. 

During the HRC training exercises 

there will be use of multiple sonar units 

in an area where three species of beaked 

whale species may be present. A surface 

duct may be present in a limited area for 

a limited period of time. Although most 

of the ASW training events will take 

place in the deep ocean, some will 

occur in areas of high bathymetric relief. 

However, none of the training events 

will take place in a location having a 

constricted channel with limited egress 

similar to the Bahamas (because none 

exist in the HRC). Consequently, not all 

five of the environmental factors 

believed to contribute to the Bahamas 

stranding (mid-frequency sonar, beaked 

whale presence, surface ducts, steep 

bathymetry, and constricted channels 

with limited egress) will be present 

during HRC ASW exercises. However, 

as mentioned previously, NMFS 

recommends caution when steep 

bathymetry, surface ducting conditions, 

or a constricted channel is present in 

addition to the operation of midfrequency tactical sonar and the 

presence of cetaceans (especially beaked 

whales). 

Exposure 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 

shock wave and blast noise are of most 

concern to marine animals. Depending 

on the intensity of the shock wave and 

size, location, and depth of the animal, 

an animal can be injured, killed, suffer 

non-lethal physical effects, experience 

hearing related effects with or without 

behavioral responses, or exhibit 

temporary behavioral responses or 

tolerance from hearing the blast sound. 

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 damage 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 damage its hearing by 

causing decreased sensitivity (Ketten, 

1995) (See Noise-induced Threshold 

Shift Section above). Sound-related 

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). 

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 National Defense 

Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2004 

amended the MMPA as it relates to 

military-readiness activities and the 

incidental take authorization 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 HRC LOA application 

are considered military readiness 

activities. 

NMFS reviewed the proposed HRC 

activities and the proposed HRC 

mitigation measures (which the Navy 

refers to as Protective Measures) 

presented in the Navy’s application to 

determine whether the activities and 

mitigation measures were capable of 

achieving the least practicable adverse 

effect on marine mammals. NMFS 

determined that further discussion was 

necessary regarding: (1) Humpback 

whales congregating in the winter in the 

shallow areas of the HRC in high 

densities to calve and breed; and (2) the 

potential relationship between the 

operation of MFAS/HFAS and marine 

mammal strandings. NMFS worked with 

the Navy to identify additional 

practicable and effective mitigation 

measures, which included 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 ‘‘military-readiness 

activity’’. 

NMFS and the Navy developed two 

additional mitigation measures that 

address the concerns mentioned above, 

including a humpback whale cautionary 

area and a Stranding Response Plan. 

Included below are the mitigation 

measures the Navy initially proposed 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35535 

(see ‘‘Mitigation Measures Proposed in 

the Navy’s LOA Application’’) and the 

additional measures that NMFS and the 

Navy developed (see ‘‘Additional 

Measures Developed by NMFS and the 

Navy’’ below). 

Separately, NMFS has previously 

received comments from the public 

expressing concerns regarding potential 

delays between when marine mammals 

are visually detected by watchstanders 

and when the sonar is actually powered 

or shut down. NMFS and the Navy have 

discussed this issue and determined the 

following: Naval operators and lookouts 

are aware of the potential for a very 

small delay (up to about 4 seconds) 

between detecting a marine mammal 

and powering down or shutting down 

sonar and will take the actions 

necessary to ensure that sonar is 

powered down or shut down when 

detected animals are within the 

specified distance (for example, by 

initiating shut-down when animals are 

approaching, but not quite within the 

designated distance). 

Mitigation Measures Proposed in the 

Navy’s LOA Application 

This section includes the protective 

measures proposed by the Navy and is 

taken directly from their application 

(with the exception of headings, which 

have been modified for increased clarity 

within the context of this proposed 

rule). 

Navy’s Protective Measures for MFAS/ 

HFAS 

Current protective measures 

employed by the Navy include 

applicable training of personnel and 

implementation of activity specific 

procedures resulting in minimization 

and/or avoidance of interactions with 

protected resources. 

Navy shipboard lookout(s) are highly 

qualified and experienced observers of 

the marine environment. Their duties 

require that they report all objects 

sighted in the water to the Officer of the 

Deck (e.g., trash, a periscope, a marine 

mammal) 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. 

Navy lookouts undergo extensive 

training in order to qualify as a 

watchstander. This training includes onthe-job instruction under the 

supervision of an experienced 

watchstander, followed by completion 

of the Personal Qualification Standard 

program, certifying that they have 

demonstrated the necessary skills (such 

as detection and reporting of partially 

submerged objects and night 

observation techniques). In addition to 

these requirements, many Fleet lookouts 

periodically undergo a 2-day refresher 

training course. 

The Navy includes marine species 

awareness as part of its training for its 

bridge lookout personnel on ships and 

submarines. Marine Species Awareness 

Training (MSAT) was updated in 2005, 

and the additional training materials are 

now included as required training for 

Navy lookouts. This training addresses 

the lookout’s role in environmental 

protection, laws governing the 

protection of marine species, Navy 

stewardship commitments, and general 

observation information to aid in 

avoiding interactions with marine 

species. Marine species awareness and 

training is reemphasized by the 

following means: 

• Bridge personnel on ships and 

submarines—Personnel utilize marine 

species awareness training techniques 

as standard operating procedure, they 

have available a marine species visual 

identification aid when marine 

mammals are sighted, and they receive 

updates to the current marine species 

awareness training as appropriate. 

• Aviation units—Pilots and air crew 

personnel whose airborne duties during 

Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) training 

activities include searching for 

submarine periscopes would be trained 

in marine mammal spotting. These 

personnel would also be trained on the 

details of the mitigation measures 

specific to both their platform and that 

of the surface combatants with which 

they are associated. 

• Sonar personnel on ships, 

submarines, and ASW aircraft—Both 

passive and active sonar operators on 

ships, submarines, and aircraft utilize 

protective measures relative to their 

platform. The Navy issues a Letter of 

Instruction for each Major Exercise 

which mandates specific actions to be 

taken if a marine mammal is detected, 

and these actions are standard operating 

procedure throughout the exercise. 

Implementation of these protective 

measures is required of all units. The 

activities undertaken on a Navy vessel 

or aircraft are highly controlled. The 

chain of command supervises these 

activities. Failure to follow orders can 

result in disciplinary action. 

Personnel Training 

(a) All lookouts onboard platforms 

involved in ASW training events will 

review the NMFS-approved Marine 

Species Awareness Training (MSAT) 

material prior to use of midfrequency 

active sonar. 

(b) All Commanding Officers, 

Executive Officers, and officers standing 

watch on the Bridge will have reviewed 

the MSAT material prior to a training 

event employing the use of midfrequency active sonar. 

(c) Navy lookouts will undertake 

extensive training in order to qualify as 

a watchstander in accordance with the 

Lookout Training Handbook 

(NAVEDTRA, 12968–D). 

(d) Lookout training will include onthe-job instruction under the 

supervision of a qualified, experienced 

watchstander. 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). This does not forbid 

personnel being trained as lookouts 

from being counted as those listed in 

previous measures so long as 

supervisors monitor their progress and 

performance. 

(e) 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 mitigation measures 

if marine species are spotted. 

Lookout and Watchstander 

Responsibilities 

(a) 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. 

(b) All surface ships participating in 

ASW exercises 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. 

(c) 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. 

(d) On surface vessels equipped with 

mid-frequency active sonar, pedestal 

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

will be present and in good working 

order to assist in the detection of marine 

mammals in the vicinity of the vessel. 

(e) Personnel on lookout will employ 

visual search procedures employing a 

scanning methodology in accordance 

with the Lookout Training Handbook 

(NAVEDTRA 12968–B). 

(f) After sunset and prior to sunrise, 

lookouts will employ Night Lookouts 

Techniques in accordance with the 

Lookout Training Handbook. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
35536 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

(g) 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. 

Operating Procedures 

(a) A Letter of Instruction, Mitigation 

Measures Message or Environmental 

Annex to the Operational Order will be 

issued prior to the exercise to further 

disseminate the personnel training 

requirement and general marine 

mammal mitigation measures. 

(b) Commanding Officers 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. 

(c) 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. 

(d) During mid-frequency active sonar 

training activities, personnel will utilize 

all available sensor and optical systems 

(such as Night Vision Goggles) to aid in 

the detection of marine mammals. 

(e) 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. 

(f) Aircraft with deployed sonobuoys 

will use only the passive capability of 

sonobuoys when marine mammals are 

detected within 200 yards of the 

sonobuoy. 

(g) 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. 

(h) Safety Zones—When marine 

mammals are detected by any means 

(aircraft, shipboard lookout, or 

acoustically) the Navy will ensure that 

MFAS transmission levels are limited to 

at least 6 dB below normal operating 

levels if any detected marine mammals 

are within 1,000 yards (914 m) of the 

sonar dome (the bow). 

(i) Ships and submarines will 

continue to limit maximum MFAS 

transmission levels by this 6-dB factor 

until the marine mammal has been seen 

to leave the area, has not been detected 

for 30 minutes, or the vessel has 

transited more than 2,000 yards (1828 

m) beyond the location of the last 

detection. 

(ii) The Navy will ensure that MFAS 

transmissions will be limited to at least 

10 dB below the equipment’s normal 

operating level if any detected animals 

are within 500 yards (457 m) of the 

sonar dome. Ships and submarines will 

continue to limit maximum ping levels 

by this 10-dB factor until the marine 

mammal has been seen to leave the area, 

has not been detected for 30 minutes, or 

the vessel has transited more than 2,000 

yards (1828 m) beyond the location of 

the last detection. 

(iii) The Navy will ensure that MFAS 

transmissions are ceased if any detected 

marine mammals are within 200 yards 

(183 m) of the sonar dome. MFAS will 

not resume until the marine mammal 

has been seen to leave the area, has not 

been detected for 30 minutes, or the 

vessel has transited more than 2,000 

yards (1828 m) beyond the location of 

the last detection. 

(iv) Special conditions applicable for 

dolphins and porpoises only: If, after 

conducting an initial maneuver to avoid 

close quarters with dolphins or 

porpoises, the Officer of the Deck 

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. 

(v) If the need for power-down should 

arise as detailed in ‘‘Safety Zones’’

above, 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 sonar was being 

operated). 

(i) 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. 

(j) 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. 

(k) Helicopters shall observe/survey 

the vicinity of an ASW Operation for 10 

minutes before the first deployment of 

active (dipping) sonar in the water. 

(l) Helicopters shall not dip their 

sonar within 200 yards (183 m) of a 

marine mammal and shall cease pinging 

if a marine mammal closes within 200 

yards (183 m) after pinging has begun. 

(m) Submarine sonar operators will 

review detection indicators of closeaboard marine mammals prior to the 

commencement of ASW training 

activities involving active midfrequency sonar. 

Navy’s Protective Measures for IEER 

The following are protective measures 

for use with Extended Echo Ranging/ 

Improved Extended Echo Ranging (EER/ 

IEER) given an explosive source 

generates the acoustic wave used in this 

sonobuoy. 

(a) Crews will conduct visual 

reconnaissance of the drop area prior to 

laying their intended sonobuoy pattern. 

This search should be conducted below 

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

operationally feasible and weather 

conditions permit. In dual aircraft 

training activities, crews are allowed to 

conduct coordinated area clearances. 

(b) Crews shall conduct a minimum of 

30 minutes of visual and acoustic 

monitoring of the search area prior to 

commanding the first post detonation. 

This 30-minute observation period may 

include pattern deployment time. 

(c) For any part of the briefed pattern 

where a post (source/receiver sonobuoy 

pair) will be deployed within 1,000 

yards (914 m) of observed marine 

mammal activity, deploy the receiver 

ONLY and monitor while conducting a 

visual search. When marine mammals 

are no longer detected within 1,000 

yards (914 m) of the intended post 

position, co-locate the explosive source 

sonobuoy (AN/SSQ–110A) (source) with 

the receiver. 

(d) When able, 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 

communication range of these sensors. 

(e) 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. 

(f) Visual Detection: 

(i) If marine mammals are visually 

detected within 1,000 yards (914 m) 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 resighted for 30 minutes, or are observed 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35537 

to have moved outside the 1,000 yards 

(914 m) safety buffer. 

(ii) Aircrews may shift their multistatic active search to another post, 

where marine mammals are outside the 

1,000 yards (914 m) safety buffer. 

(g) 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 1,000 yards 

(914 m) safety buffer, visually clear of 

marine mammals, is maintained around 

each post as is done during active 

search operations. 

(h) 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. 

(i) 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. 

(j) Mammal monitoring shall continue 

until out of own-aircraft sensor range. 

Navy’s Protective Measures for 

Underwater Detonations 

To ensure protection of marine 

mammals during underwater detonation 

training and Mining Laying Training, 

the operating area must be determined 

to be clear of marine mammals prior to 

detonation. Implementation of the 

following mitigation measures continue 

to ensure that marine mammals would 

not be exposed to temporary threshold 

shift (TTS), PTS or injury from physical 

contact with training mine shapes 

during Major Exercises. 

Demolitions (DEMOs) and Mine 

Countermeasure (MCM) Training (Up to 

20 lb) 

Exclusion Zones—All mine warfare 

and mine countermeasure (MCM) 

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 

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

radius around the detonation site. 

Pre-Exercise Surveys—For MCM 

training activities, pre-exercise survey 

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 or sea turtle. 

Should such an animal be present 

within the survey area, the exercise 

shall be paused until the animal 

voluntarily leaves the area. 

Post-Exercise Surveys—Surveys 

within the same radius shall also be 

conducted within 30 minutes after the 

completion of the explosive event. 

Reporting—Any evidence of a marine 

mammal that may have been injured or 

killed by the action shall be reported 

immediately to NMFS and Commander, 

Pacific Fleet and Commander, Navy 

Region Southwest, Environmental 

Director. 

Mine Laying Training—Mine Laying 

Training involves aerial drops of inert 

training shapes on floating targets. 

Aircrews are scored for their ability to 

accurately hit the target although this 

operation does not involve live 

ordnance, marine mammals have the 

potential to be injured if they are in the 

immediate vicinity of a floating target; 

therefore, the safety zone shall be clear 

of marine mammals and sea turtles 

around the target location. Pre- and 

post-surveys and reporting requirements 

outlined for underwater detonations 

shall be implemented during Mine 

Laying Training. To the maximum 

extent feasible, the Navy shall retrieve 

inert mine shapes dropped during Mine 

Laying Training. 

SINKEX, GUNEX, MISSILEX, and 

BOMBEX 

The selection of sites suitable for 

sinking exercises (SINKEXs) involves a 

balance of operational suitability, 

requirements established under the 

MPRSA permit granted to the Navy (40 

CFR 229.2), and the identification of 

areas with a low likelihood of 

encountering endangered species act 

(ESA) listed species. To meet 

operational suitability criteria, locations 

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 (3000 m) deep and 

at least 50 nm (92 km) 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. 

Although the siting of the location for 

the exercise is not regulated by a permit, 

the range clearance procedures used for 

gunnery exercise (GUNEX), missile 

exercise (MISSILEX), and bombing 

exercise (BOMBEX) are the same as 

those described immediately below for 

a SINKEX. 

The Navy has developed range 

clearance procedures to maximize the 

probability of sighting any ships or 

protected species in the vicinity of an 

exercise, which are as follows: 

(a) All weapons firing would be 

conducted during the period 1 hour 

after official sunrise to 30 minutes 

before official sunset. 

(b) Extensive range clearance training 

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 

longest-range weapon being fired for 

that event. 

(c) Prior to conducting the exercise, 

remotely sensed sea surface temperature 

maps would be reviewed. SINKEX and 

air to surface missile (ASM) Training 

activities would not be conducted 

within areas where strong temperature 

discontinuities are present, thereby 

indicating the existence of 

oceanographic fronts. These areas 

would be avoided because 

concentrations of some listed species, or 

their prey, are known to be associated 

with these oceanographic features. 

(d) An exclusion zone with a radius 

of 1.0 nm (1.8 km) would be established 

around each target. This exclusion zone 

is based on calculations using a 449 kg 

(990 lb) H6 NEW high explosive source 

detonated 5 feet (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 dB re: 1 Pa sec2 

threshold established for the WINSTON 

S. CHURCHILL (DDG 81) shock trials. 

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 

extends from the exclusion zone at 1.0 

nm (1.8 km) out an additional 0.5 nm 

(0.9 km), would be surveyed. Together, 

the zones extend out 2 nm (3.6 km) from 

the target. 

(e) A series of surveillance over-flights 

would be conducted within the 

exclusion and the safety zones, prior to 

and during the exercise, when feasible. 

Survey protocol would be as follows: 

(i) Overflights within the exclusion 

zone would be conducted in a manner 

that optimizes the surface area of the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
35538 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

water observed. This may be 

accomplished through the use of the 

Navy’s Search and Rescue (SAR) 

Tactical Aid (TACAID). The SAR 

TACAID 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. 

(ii) 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. 

(iii) 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 

any aural detection of marine mammals 

and would include this information in 

the determination of when it is safe to 

commence the exercise. 

(iv) On each day of the exercise, aerial 

surveillance of the exclusion and safety 

zones would commence two hours prior 

to the first firing. 

(v) The results of all visual, aerial, and 

acoustic searches would be reported 

immediately to the OCE (Officer 

Conducting the Exercise). No weapons 

launches or firing would commence 

until the OCE declares the safety and 

exclusion zones free of marine 

mammals. 

(vi) 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 has elapsed. After 30 

minutes, if the animal has not been resighted it would be assumed to have left 

the exclusion zone. This is based on a 

typical dive time of 30 minutes for 

traveling marine mammals. The OCE 

would determine if the marine mammal 

is in danger of being adversely affected 

by commencement of the exercise. 

(vii) During breaks in the exercise of 

30 minutes or more, the exclusion zone 

would again be surveyed for any marine 

mammals. If marine mammals are 

sighted within the exclusion zone, the 

OCE would be notified, and the 

procedure described above would be 

followed. 

(viii) Upon sinking of the vessel, a 

final surveillance of the exclusion zone 

would be monitored for two hours, or 

until sunset, to verify that no marine 

mammals were harmed. 

(f) 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 mammals 

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. 

(g) 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 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. 

(h) The exercise would not be 

conducted unless the exclusion zone 

could be adequately monitored visually. 

(i) In the unlikely event that any 

marine mammals are observed to be 

harmed in the area, a detailed 

description of the animal would be 

documented, 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. 

Additional Mitigation Measures 

Developed by NMFS and the Navy 

As mentioned above, NMFS worked 

with the Navy to identify additional 

practicable and effective mitigation 

measures to address the following two 

issues of concern: (1) Humpback whales 

congregating in the winter in the 

shallow areas of the HRC in high 

densities to calve and breed; and (2) the 

potential relationship between the 

operation of MFAS/HFAS and marine 

mammal strandings. Any mitigation 

measure prescribed by NMFS should be 

known 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, 

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) A reduction in 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.). 

NMFS and the Navy had extensive 

discussions regarding mitigation, in 

which we explored several mitigation 

options and their respective 

practicability (these alternatives and 

their practicability are analyzed in 

NMFS’ Draft Environmental Assessment 

of the Mitigation Measures to be used in 

the Issuance of the HRC LOA). 

Ultimately, NMFS and the Navy 

developed two additional measures 

(below), a humpback whale cautionary 

area and a Stranding Response Plan, 

which we believe support (or contribute 

to) the goals mentioned in 

a–e above. These measures are 

described below. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35539 

Humpback Whale Cautionary Area 

Humpback whales migrate to the 

Hawaiian Islands each winter to rear 

their calves and mate. Data indicate 

that, historically, humpbacks have 

clearly concentrated in high densities in 

certain areas around the Hawaiian 

Islands. NMFS has reviewed the Navy’s 

data on MFA sonar training in these 

dense humpback areas since June 2006 

and found it to be rare and infrequent. 

While past data is no guarantee of future 

activity, it documents a history of low 

level MFA sonar activity in dense 

humpback areas. In order to be 

successful at operational missions and 

against the threat of quiet, diesel-electric 

submarines, the Navy has, for more than 

40 years, routinely conducted antisubmarine warfare (ASW) training in 

major exercises in the waters off the 

Hawaiian Islands, including the 

Humpback Whale National Marine 

Sanctuary. During this period, no 

reported cases of harmful effects to 

humpback whales attributed to MFA 

sonar use have occurred. Coincident 

with this use of MFA sonar, abundance 

estimates reflect an annual increase in 

the humpback whales migrating to 

Hawaii (Mobely, 2001, 2004). 

NMFS and the Navy explored ways of 

affecting the least practicable impact 

(which includes a consideration of 

practicality of implementation and 

impacts to training fidelity) to 

humpbacks from exposure to MFA 

sonar. Proficiency in ASW requires that 

sailors gain and maintain expert skills 

and experience in operating MFA sonar 

in myriad marine environments. 

Exclusion zones or restricted areas are 

impracticable and adversely impact 

MFA sonar training fidelity. The 

Hawaiian Islands, including areas in 

which humpback whales concentrate, 

contain unique bathymetric features the 

Navy needs to ensure sailors gain 

critical skills and experience by training 

in littoral waters. Sound propagates 

differently in shallow water. No two 

shallow water areas are the same. Each 

shallow water area provides a unique 

training experience that could be critical 

to address specific future training and 

assessment requirements. Given the 

finite littoral areas in the Hawaiian 

Islands area, maintaining the possibility 

of using all shallow water training areas 

is required to ensure sailors receive the 

necessary training to develop and 

maintain critical MFA sonar skills. In 

real world events, crew members will be 

working in these types of areas and 

these are the types of areas where the 

adversary’s quiet diesel-electric 

submarines will be operating. Without 

the critical ASW training in a variety of 

different near-shore environments, 

crews will not have the skills and varied 

experience needed to successfully 

operate MFA sonar in these types of 

waters, negatively affecting vital 

military readiness. 

The Navy recognizes the significance 

of the Hawaiian Islands for humpback 

whales. The Navy has designated a 

humpback whale cautionary area 

(described below), which consists of a 

5-km buffer zone around an area that 

has been identified as having one of the 

highest concentrations of humpback 

whales during the critical winter 

months. The Navy has agreed that 

training exercises in the humpback 

whale cautionary area will require a 

much higher level of clearance than is 

normal practice in planning and 

conducting MFA sonar training. Should 

national security needs require MFA 

sonar training and testing in the 

cautionary area between December 15 

and April 15, it shall be personally 

authorized by the Commander, U.S. 

Pacific Fleet (CPF). The CPF shall base 

such authorization on the unique 

characteristics of the area from a 

military readiness perspective, taking 

into account the importance of the area 

for humpback whales and the need to 

minimize adverse impacts on humpback 

whales from MFA sonar whenever 

practicable. Approval at this level for 

this type of activity is extraordinary. 

CPF is a four-star Admiral and the 

highest ranking officer in the United 

States Pacific Fleet. This case-by-case 

authorization cannot be delegated and 

represents the Navy’s commitment to 

fully consider and balance mission 

requirements with environmental 

stewardship. Further, CPF will provide 

specific direction on required mitigation 

prior to operational units transiting to 

and training in the cautionary area. This 

process will ensure the decisions to 

train in this area are made at the highest 

level in the Pacific Fleet, heighten 

awareness of humpback activities in the 

cautionary area, and serve to 

reemphasize that mitigation measures 

are to be scrupulously followed. The 

Navy will provide NMFS with advance 

notification of any such activities. 

Stranding Response Plan for Major Navy 

Training Exercises in the HRC 

NMFS and the Navy have developed 

a draft Stranding Response Plan for 

Major Exercises in the HRC (available at: 

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

incidental.htm). Pursuant to 50 CFR 

Section 216.105, the plan will be 

included as part of (attached to) the 

Navy’s MMPA Letter of Authorization 

(LOA), which indicates the conditions 

under which the Navy is authorized to 

take marine mammals pursuant to 

training activities involving MFAS or 

explosives in the Hawaii Range 

Complex (HRC). 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 Hawaii 

Range Complex (HRC) during a major 

training exercise (MTE) (see glossary 

below). As mentioned above, NMFS 

considers all plausible causes within the 

course of a stranding investigation and 

this plan in no way presumes that any 

strandings in the HRC 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 HRC 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 or explosive detonations (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—


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
35540 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

defined in the plan) occurs during a 

major exercise in the HRC, 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 (26 km) 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 

(14 nm) (26 km) is the distance at which 

sound from the sonar source is 

anticipated to attenuate to 

approximately 140–145 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 

(NMFS Protected Resources HQ—senior 

administrators) 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 intends to 

investigate any strandings that occur 

during major training exercises in the 

HRC. 

Mitigation Conclusions 

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 any 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 MFAS/HFAS 6 dB when a 

marine mammal is detected within 1000 

yd (.914 km), powerdown 4 more dB (or 

10 dB total) when a marine mammal is 

detected within 500 yd (.457 km), and 

cease MFAS/HFAS transmissions when 

a marine mammal is detected within 

200 yd (.183 km). 

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 

source at which an animal would 

receive a level of 215 dB SEL (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 10 m (10.9 yd) 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 the model 

did not predict any animals (see Table 

15) would be exposed to a 215 dB SEL 

of MFAS/HFAS and animals would 

likely avoid approaching a source 

transmitting at that level at that 

distance. 

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 range of distances 

from the source at which an animal 

would receive 195 dB SEL (the TTS 

threshold) is from 110–165 m (120–180 

yd) from the source. 

• 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 be able to shutdown or 

powerdown to avoid exposing these 

species to levels associated with TTS. 

• However, more cryptic, deep-diving 

species (beaked whales and Kogia sp.) 

are less likely to be visually detected 

and could potentially be exposed to 

levels of MFAS/HFAS expected to cause 

TTS. Additionally, the Navy’s bowriding mitigation exception for dolphins 

may sometimes allow dolphins to be 

exposed to levels of MFAS/HFAS likely 

to result in TTS. 

Underwater Explosives 

The Navy utilizes exclusion zones 

(wherein explosive detonation will not 

begin/continue if animals are within the 

zone) for explosive exercises. Table 8 

indicates 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 

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. 

• Animals would need to be within 

less than 1023 m (1118 yd) (large 

explosives) or 305 m (334 yd) (smaller 

charges) from the source to be injured. 

• Unlike for 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 only 3 animals 

would be exposed to levels associated 

with injury (though for the reasons 

above, NMFS does not believe they will 

be exposed) to those levels). 

• When the implementation of the 

exclusion zones (i.e., not starting or 

continuing to detonate explosives if an 

animal is detected within the exclusion 

zone) is combined with the above 

bullets, NMFS believes that the Navy’s 

mitigation will be effective for avoiding 

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: 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35541 

• Very few animals were predicted to 

be exposed to explosive levels that 

would result in TTS—and for the 

reasons 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 sp.) 

are less likely to be visually detected 

and could potentially be exposed to 

explosive levels expected to cause TTS. 

• Additionally, for two of the 

explosive types (MK–84 and MK–48), 

though the distance to the presuure 

threshold is within the exclusion zone, 

the distance at which an animal would 

be expected to receive SEL levels 

associated with TTS (182 dB SEL) is 

larger than the exclusion zone, which 

means that for those two explosive 

types, any species could potentially be 

exposed to levels associated with TTS if 

it was detected in the limited area 

outside of the exclusion zone, but inside 

the distance to 182 dB SEL. 

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. The 

Humpback Whale Cautionary Area is 

intended to reduce the number and 

intensity of potential humpback 

exposures to MFAS/HFAS. 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the Navy’s proposed mitigation 

measures (from the LOA application), 

along with the Humpback Whale 

Cautionary Area and the Stranding 

Response Plan (and when the Adaptive 

Management (see Adaptive Management 

below) component is taken into 

consideration) 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. 

These mitigation measures may be 

refined, modified, removed, or added to 

prior to the issuance of the final rule 

based on the comments and information 

received during the public comment 

period. 

Research and Conservation Measures 

for Marine Mammals 

The Navy is working towards a better 

understanding of marine mammals and 

sound in ways that are not directly 

related to the MMPA process. The Navy 

highlights some of those ways in the 

section below. Further, NMFS is 

working on a long-term stranding study 

that will be supported by the Navy by 

way of a funding and information 

sharing component (see below). 

Navy’s Conservation Measures 

The Navy will continue to fund 

ongoing marine mammal research in the 

Hawaiian Islands. Results of 

conservation efforts by the Navy in 

other locations will also be used to 

support efforts in the Hawaiian Islands. 

The Navy is coordinating both short and 

long term monitoring/studies of marine 

mammals on various established ranges 

and operating areas to determine the 

response of marine mammals to Navy 

sound sources and the effectiveness of 

mitigation measures: 

• Coordinating with NMFS to 

conduct surveys within the selected 

Hawaiian Islands Operating Area as part 

of a baseline monitoring program. 

• Implementing a long-term 

monitoring program of marine mammal 

populations in the Hawaiian Islands 

Operating Area, including evaluation of 

trends. 

• Implementing a marine mammal 

monitoring program in the HRC during 

training exercises. 

• Continuing Navy research and Navy 

contribution to university/external 

research to improve the state of the 

science regarding marine species 

biology and acoustic effects. 

• Sharing data with NMFS and via 

the literature for research and 

development efforts. 

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 for 

and record the types of pathologies and 

diseases and investigate the relationship 

with potential causal factors (e.g., sonar, 

seismic, weather). The study will not be 

a true ‘‘cohort’’ study, because we will 

be unable to quantify or estimate 

specific 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 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, 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3EP23JN08.010</GPH>
35542 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 

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 Section 

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 the probability of 

detecting marine mammals, both within 

the safety zone (thus allowing for more 

effective implementation of the 

mitigation) and in general to generate 

more data to contribute to the analyses 

mentioned below. 

(b) An increase in our understanding 

of how many marine mammals are 

likely to be exposed to levels of MFAS 

(or explosives or other stimuli) that we 

associate with specific adverse effects, 

such as behavioral harassment, TTS, or 

PTS. 

(c) An increase in our understanding 

of how marine mammals respond to 

MFAS (at specific received levels), 

explosives, or other stimuli expected to 

result in take and how anticipated 

adverse effects on 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) 

through any of the following methods: 

• Behavioral observations in the 

presence of MFAS compared to 

observations in the absence of sonar 

(need to be able to accurately predict 

received level and report bathymetric 

conditions, distance from source, and 

other pertinent information. 

• Physiological measurements in the 

presence of MFAS compared to 

observations in the absence of sonar 

(need to be able to accurately predict 

received level and report bathymetric 

conditions, distance from source, and 

other pertinent information), and/or 

• Pre-planned and thorough 

investigation of stranding events that 

occur coincident to naval activities. 

• Distribution and/or abundance 

comparisons in times or areas with 

concentrated MFAS versus times or 

areas without MFAS. 

(d) An increased knowledge of the 

effected species. 

(e) An increase in our understanding 

of the effectiveness of certain mitigation 

and monitoring measures. 

Proposed Monitoring Plan for the HRC 

The Navy has submitted a draft 

Monitoring Plan for the HRC, which 

may be viewed at NMFS’ Web site: 

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

incidental.htm. NMFS and the Navy 

have worked together on the 

development of this plan in the months 

preceding the publication of this 

proposed rule; however, we are still 

refining the plan and anticipate that it 

will contain more details by the time it 

is finalized in advance of the issuance 

of the final rule. Additionally, 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 the HRC 

has been designed as a collection of 

focused ‘‘studies’’ (described fully in the 

HRC Monitoring Plan) to gather data 

that will allow the Navy to address the 

following questions: 

(a) Are marine mammals exposed to 

mid-frequency active sonar (MFAS), 

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 in the HRC, 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, 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 and explosives (e.g., 

PMAP, major exercise measures agreed 

to by the Navy through permitting) 

effective at avoiding 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: 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35543 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3EP23JN08.011</GPH><FNP>
35544 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

In addition to the Monitoring Plan for 

the HRC, by the end of 2009, the Navy 

will have completed an Integrated 

Comprehensive Monitoring Program 

(ICMP). The ICMP will provide the 

overarching structure and coordination 

that will, over time, compile data from 

both range specific monitoring plans 

(such as HRC, the Atlantic Fleet Active 

Sonar Training Range (AFAST), or the 

Southern California Range Complex) as 

well as Navy funded research and 

development (R&D) studies. The 

primary objectives of the ICMP are: 

• To monitor Navy training events, 

particularly those involving midfrequency sonar and underwater 

detonations, for compliance with the 

terms and conditions of ESA Section 7 

consultations or MMPA authorizations; 

• To collect data to support 

estimating the number of individuals 

exposed to sound levels above current 

regulatory thresholds; 

• To assess the efficacy of the Navy’s 

current marine species mitigation; 

• To add to the knowledgebase on 

potential behavioral and physiological 

effects to marine species from midfrequency active sonar and underwater 

detonations; and, 

• To assess the practicality and 

effectiveness of a number of mitigation 

tools and techniques (some not yet in 

use). 

More information about the ICMP 

may be found in the draft Monitoring 

Plan for the HRC. 

Past Monitoring in the HRC 

Since RIMPAC 2006, which was the 

first Navy training activity utilizing 

MFAS to receive an MMPA 

authorization and an incidental take 

statement pursuant to the ESA, NMFS 

has received four monitoring reports 

(one covering two exercises) addressing 

MFAS use in the HRC, including the 

RIMPAC after action report (AAR). The 

Navy’s AARs may be viewed at: 

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

incidental.htm. For three of the 

exercises, the reports describe 

observations by the watchstanders (who 

are involved in the training exercise) 

only. For two of the exercises (RIMPAC 

and the most recent USWEX), 

independent marine mammal observers 

were used to collect data before, during, 

and after the exercises. NMFS has 

reviewed these reports and has 

summarized the results, as related to 

marine mammal observations, below. 

RIMPAC 2006 

During the RIMPAC exercises in July 

2006, the Navy operated MFAS hullmounted sonar for 472 hours. They 

operated active sonobuoys for 115 hours 

and helicopter dipping sonar for 110 

hours, however, these sources do not 

ping continuously and put far less 

sound in the water per hour than hullmounted sonar. A map in the AAR 

showing the locations of the marine 

mammal sightings indicates that the 

exercises covered a very large area, both 

to the north and south of the islands, 

with the majority of the sightings of 

marine mammals occurring in the open 

ocean (not near shore). 

Observations by Exercise 

Participants—Table 10 summarizes the 

marine mammals sighted by exercise 

participants and whether or not sonar 

was shut down. The Navy indicates in 

its report that no evidence of behavioral 

effects was observed. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35545 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Observations by Marine Mammal 

Observers—The Navy contracted marine 

mammal observers to conduct aerial 

surveys, and their summary and 

conclusions of the monitoring are 

described here. A total of six aerial 

surveys of marine mammals were 

performed on dates corresponding with 

scheduled dates for ‘‘choke point’’

maneuvers of the RIMPAC exercises. 

Three surveys were performed in the 

vicinity of the Kaulakahi Channel 

(between Kauai and Niihau) (July 16, 17 

and 20) and three were performed in the 

Alenuihaha Channel (between Hawaii 

and Maui) (July 24–26). The mission of 

the surveys was to detect, locate and 

identify all marine mammal species in 

the target areas using methods 

consistent with modern distance 

sampling theory. Marine mammals were 

sighted on four of the six surveys, 

comprising a total of 13 groups. All 

sightings consisted of small- to mediumsized odontocetes (toothed cetaceans), 

including one sighting each of 

bottlenose dolphins, spotted dolphins, 

Cuvier’s beaked whale, false killer 

whale, unidentified beaked whale and 

eight sightings of unidentified delphinid 

species. Encounter rates of odontocete 

sightings (sightings/km surveyed) in this 

series were identical to those seen 

during earlier survey series (1993–03), 

though at different times of the year. No 

unusual observations (e.g., sightings of 

unusual behavior or aggregations, near 

strandings, or stranded or dead animals) 

were noted during the total of 

approximately 18 hrs. of survey effort. 

USWEX 06–04 

During this three-day exercise, which 

was conducted from September 19–21, 

2006 and in which the hours of sonar 

use were not reported, no marine 

mammals were sighted by the exercise 

participants. 

USWEX 07–02 

This exercise was conducted from 

April 10–11, 2007 and involved 5 

MFAS-equipped ships, one non-MFAS 

equipped ship, and 8–12 helicopters. 

Other participating units representing 

support and opposition forces, which 

did not utilize sonar, included 2 

submarines and 3 MFA-equipped ships. 

During the exercise, 265.5 hours of 

sonar use were reported. 

No marine mammals were sighted by 

the participants during the exercise. 

USWEX 07–03 

This exercise was conducted from 

April 17–18, 2007, and involved 3 

MFAS-equipped ships, 3 non-MFAS 

equipped ships, and 6 helicopters. 

Other participating units representing 

support and opposition forces, which 

did not utilize sonar, included 2 

submarines and 2 MFA-equipped ships. 

During this exercise 50.1 hours of sonar 

use were reported. 

One large whale was sighted by Navy 

watchstanders at a distance of 

approximately 300 yds when MFAS was 

not operating. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3EP23JN08.012</GPH>
35546 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

USWEX 08–1 

USWEX 08–1 was conducted from 

November 13–15, 2007, and involved 3 

MFAS-equipped ships, several other 

non-MFAS-equipped ships, and 2–4 

helicopters with dipping sonar. During 

the exercise, a total of 77 hours of MFAS 

time was reported from all sources, 

including hull-mounted, helicopter 

dipping, and DICASS sonobuoys. The 

exercise was primarily conducted to the 

Northeast (extending far out to sea) of 

Oahu (a map is available in the AAR). 

Observations by Exercise Participants 

There were no sightings of marine 

mammals within 2000 yds by Navy 

personnel engaged in the training 

during USWEX 08–01. Sea states were 

high during some of the exercise period, 

which may have limited sightings of 

smaller marine mammals. 

Observations of Marine Mammal 

Observers 

Aerial Survey 

A pre- and post-exercise aerial survey 

was conducted by a civilian science 

crew from 1 to 12 November and 15 to 

17 November. The purpose of these 

surveys was to detect, locate, and 

identify all marine mammals and sea 

turtles observed within a 2384 mi2

(6175 km2) grid (to the east and 

northeast of Oahu); and during 

circumnavigation of the islands of Oahu 

and Molokai. Over 17 hours of survey 

time was conducted, involving a linear 

distance of approximately 1,701 nm 

(3150 km). There were 26 marine 

mammal sightings (six at sea with the 

remaining 20 observed nearshore), 

including short-finned pilot whales, 

Hawaiian spinner dolphins, bottlenose 

dolphins, Hawaiian monk seals, and 

three unidentified species (Stenella sp., 

dolphin and baleen whale) (see Table 

11). Time was spent characterizing 

behavior at the time of the sightings and 

no indications of distressed or unusual 

behavior were documented. 

Additionally, there were no 

observations of any stranded or floating 

dead marine mammals. More 

information regarding the findings of 

these aerial surveys may be found in 

Appendix B of the USWEX 08–01 

Monitoring report, which is posted on 

the NMFS Web site, at: http:// 

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

incidental.htm. 

Vessel Survey 

A civilian science-based research 

vessel conducted a visual monitoring 

survey for cetaceans and sea turtles from 

November 11–17, 2007. The purpose of 

these surveys was to monitor, identify, 

and report surface behavior of marine 

mammals observed before, during, and 

after the scheduled training exercise; 

particularly any injured or harmed 

marine mammals and/or unusual 

behavior or changes in behavior, 

distribution and numbers of animals. 

Another goal was to attempt to remain 

within view of any opportunistically 

encountered Navy vessels while 

conducting surveys and focal follows 

sessions. The effort was focused in the 

same designated survey box as the aerial 

survey team, to the east and northeast of 

Oahu. A total of 66 hours and 

approximately 911 km (492 nm) were 

visually surveyed over seven days with 

a total of eight cetacean groups sighted. 

Line surveys were conducted over 817 

km (441 nm) (with 105 km (57 nm) 

while Navy vessels were within view) 

and animals were focally followed for a 

total of approximately 63 km (34 nm). 

None of the whales followed during the 

focal sessions exhibited any notable 

evasive or disturbance behavior related 

to the observation vessel or as defined 

under the MMPA. No injured or dead 

whales were detected. 

A summary of the marine mammals 

sighted and their associated behaviors 

(including those that occurred during 

four focal follows) is presented in Table 

12. The observers documented the first 

occurrence of Bryde’s whale near the 

main Hawaiian islands, previous 

verified sightings have only occurred in 

the leeward Northwestern chain of the 

Hawaiian Islands. A Navy vessel was 

operating MFAS at approximately the 

same time as the Bryde’s whale focal 

follow, at approximately 50 nm (93 km) 

away. Post exercise modeling predicted 

that the Bryde’s whale may have been 

exposed to received levels of up to 

141dB (SPL), though, as mentioned 

previously, no unusual behaviors were 

observed. 

The vessel survey report, which is 

included in Appendix C of the Navy’s 

AAR, and available at: http:// 

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

incidental.htm, draws some conclusions 

regarding the efficacy of certain 

monitoring techniques and makes 

recommendations for future monitoring 

plans. The Navy has taken this 

information into consideration in 

developing the monitoring plan for the 

HRC that is proposed here. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3EP23JN08.013</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35547 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

General Conclusions Drawn From 

Review of Monitoring Reports 

Because NMFS has received relatively 

few monitoring reports from sonar 

training in the HRC, and even fewer that 

have utilized independent aerial or 

vessel-based observers, it is too early to 

draw any biological conclusions. 

However, NFMS can draw some general 

conclusions from the content of the 

monitoring reports: 

(a) The data gathered by independent 

observers contains far more detail than 

the data gathered by watchstanders. 

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 species’ specific 

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 the presence of 

sub-adult sei whales in the Hawaiian 

islands in fall, potentially indicating the 

use of the area for breeding. 

(b) More marine mammal sightings 

per hour of effort were reported by 

independent observers than by Navy 

watchstanders. Out of approximately 

1100 hours of sonar operation, the Navy 

watchstanders reported 30 sightings of 

marine mammals. Out of approximately 

100 hours of observation, the 

independent observers reported 47 

sightings of marine mammals (if the 

observations and hours that were 

specifically near shore or in channels 

are removed (likely higher density of 

marine mammals), the independent 

observers had 14 sightings in 80 hours 

of effort: 6 sightings in 14 hours of aerial 

and 8 sightings in 66 hours of vesselbased). There are a couple of possible 

explanations for this: 

(i) MFAS was likely operating in 

much closer proximity to and for a 

significantly larger percentage of the 

time when watchstanders were 

reporting marine mammal sightings as 

compared to when independent 

observers were reporting them. Marine 

mammals may have been avoiding the 

sonar source and therefore been present 

in lower numbers immediately around 

the watchstanders (usually on the same 

platform as the sonar source itself), or 

within the distance that the 

watchstanders could easily detect them. 

Alternatively, MFAS was not 

necessarily operating in the immediate 

vicinity of the independent observers, 

and even when so, the source was at 

least a few miles away. 

(ii) Because of their experience and 

training, independent vessel-based 

marine mammal observers may see a 

higher percentage of the animals at the 

surface than the Navy watchstanders 

(0.12 sightings/hour versus 0.03 

sightings/hour, respectively). 

(c) Though it is by no means 

conclusory, it is worth noting that no 

instances of obvious behavioral 

disturbance were observed either by the 

Navy watchstanders or the independent 

observers (and a portion of the 

independent observations were reported 

within the vicinity of operating MFAS) 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3EP23JN08.014</GPH>
35548 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

in the 1200+ hours of effort in which 77 

sightings of marine mammals were 

made. Though 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. 

(d) 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. For example, 

some reports indicate marine mammals 

seen within the safety zones, while 

others indicate marine mammals 

detected within any distance. 

Adaptive Management 

Adaptive Management was addressed 

above in the context of the Stranding 

Response Plan because that Section will 

be a stand-alone document. More 

specifically, the final regulations 

governing the take of marine mammals 

incidental to Navy training exercises in 

the HRC will contain an adaptive 

management component. Our 

understanding of the effects of MFAS/ 

HFAS 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 HRC). The use of adaptive 

management will give NMFS the ability 

to consider new data from different 

sources to determine (in coordination 

with the Navy), on an annual basis if 

new or modified mitigation or 

monitoring measures 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 the 

HRC or other locations). 

• Results from specific stranding 

investigations (either from the HRC or 

other locations, and involving 

coincident MFAS training or not 

involving coincident use). 

• Results from the Long Term 

Prospective Study described below. 

• Results from general marine 

mammal and sound research (funded by 

the Navy (described below) or 

otherwise). 

Mitigation measures could be 

modified or added if new data suggests 

that such modifications would have a 

reasonable likelihood of reducing 

adverse effects to marine mammals and 

if the measures were practicable. NMFS 

could also coordinate with the Navy to 

modify or add to the existing monitoring 

requirements if the new data suggest 

that the addition of a particular measure 

would likely fill in a specifically 

important data gap. 

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. Some of the 

reporting requirements are still in 

development and the final rule may 

contain additional details not contained 

in the proposed rule. Additionally, 

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 (regional stranding coordinator) 

is notified immediately (or as soon as 

clearance procedures allow) if an 

injured or dead marine mammal is 

found during or shortly after, and in the 

vicinity of, any Navy training 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 Stranding 

Response Plan contains more specific 

reporting requirements for specific 

circumstances. 

SINKEX, GUNEX, MISSILEX, BOMBEX, 

and IEER 

A yearly report detailing the 

exercise’s timeline, the time the surveys 

commenced and terminated, amount, 

and types of all ordnance expended, and 

the results of survey efforts for each 

event will be submitted to NMFS. 

MFAS Mitigation/Navy Watchstanders 

The Navy will submit an After Action 

Report to the Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, within 120 days of 

the completion of a Major Training 

Exercise (RIMPAC, USWEX, and Multi 

Strike Group). For other ASW exercises 

(TRACKEX and TORPEX), the Navy will 

submit a yearly summary report. These 

reports will, at a minimum, include the 

following information: 

• The estimated number of hours of 

sonar operation, broken down by source 

type. 

• If possible, the total number of 

hours of observation effort (including 

observation time when sonar was not 

operating). 

• A report of all marine mammal 

sightings (at any distance—not just 

within a particular distance) to include, 

when possible and to the best of their 

ability, and if not classified: 

Æ Species. 

Æ Number of animals sighted. 

Æ Location of marine mammal 

sighting. 

Æ Distance of animal from any 

operating sonar sources. 

Æ Whether animal is fore, aft, port, 

starboard. 

Æ Direction animal is moving in 

relation to source (away, towards, 

parallel). 

Æ Any observed behaviors of marine 

mammals. 

• The status of any sonar sources 

(what sources were in use) and whether 

or not they were powered down or shut 

down as a result of the marine mammal 

observation. 

• The platform that the marine 

mammals were sighted from. 

Monitoring Report 

Although the draft Monitoring Plan 

for the HRC contains a general 

description of the monitoring that the 

Navy plans to conduct (and that NMFS 

has analyzed) in the HRC, the detailed 

analysis and reporting protocols that 

will be used for the Hawaii monitoring 

plan are still being refined at this time. 

The draft HRC Monitoring plan may be 

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

pr/permits/incidental.htm. Standard 

marine species sighting forms will be 

used by Navy lookouts and biologists to 

standardize data collection and data 

collection methods will be standardized 

across ranges to allow for comparison in 

different geographic locations. Reports 

of the required monitoring will be 

submitted to NMFS on an annual basis 

as well as in the form of a multi-year 

report that compiles all five years worth 

of monitoring data (reported at end of 

fourth year of rule—in future rules will 

include the last year of the prior rule). 

HRC Comprehensive Report 

The Navy will 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 individual 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35549 

reports are required in § 216.175 (d–f). 

This report will be submitted at the end 

of the fourth year of the rule (November 

2012), covering activities that have 

occurred through June 1, 2012. The 

Navy will respond to NMFS comments 

on the draft comprehensive report if 

submitted within 3 months of receipt. 

The report will be considered final after 

the Navy has addressed NMFS’

comments, or three months after the 

submittal of the draft if NMFS does not 

comment by then. 

Comprehensive National ASW Report 

The Navy will submit a draft 

Comprehensive National ASW Report 

that analyzes, compares, and 

summarizes the data gathered from the 

watchstanders and pursuant to the 

implementation of the Monitoring Plans 

for the HRC, the Atlantic Fleet active 

Sonar Training (AFAST), and the 

Southern California (SOCAL) Range 

Complex. The Navy will respond to 

NMFS comments on the draft 

comprehensive report if submitted 

within 3 months of receipt. The report 

will be considered final after the Navy 

has addressed NMFS’ comments, or 

three months after the submittal of the 

draft if NMFS does not comment by 

then. 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 

As mentioned previously, for the 

purposes of MMPA authorizations, 

NMFS’ effects assessments have two 

primary purposes (in the context of the 

HRC LOA, where subsistence 

communities are not present): (1) To put 

forth the permissible methods of taking 

within the context of MMPA Level B 

Harassment (behavioral harassment), 

Level A Harassment (injury), and 

mortality (i.e., identify the number and 

types of take that will occur); and (2) to 

determine 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). 

In the Potential Effects of Exposure of 

Marine Mammal to MFAS/HFAS and 

Underwater Detonations section, NMFS’

analysis 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 regulatory 

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 HRC. 

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, 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, is 

considered Level B Harassment. 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 does not include 

behaviors ranked 0–3 in Southall et al., 

(2007). 

Acoustic Masking and 

Communication Impairment—Acoustic 

masking is considered Level B 

Harassment as 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 effect how an animal behaves in 

response to the environment, including 

conspecifics, predators, and prey. 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 Mammal to MFAS/ 

HFAS and Underwater Detonations 

Section, following are the types of 

effects that fall into the Level A 

Harassment category: 

PTS—PTS (resulting either from 

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. 

Acoustically Mediated Bubble 

Growth—A few theories suggest ways in 

which gas bubbles become enlarged 

through exposure to intense sounds 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
35550 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

(MFAS/HFAS) to the point where tissue 

damage results. In rectified diffusion, 

exposure to a sound field would cause 

bubbles to increase in size. Alternately, 

bubbles could be destabilized by highlevel sound exposures such that bubble 

growth then occurs through static 

diffusion of gas out of the tissues. Tissue 

damage from either of these processes 

would be considered an injury. 

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.) 

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 gascontaining 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. 

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 (not all 

responses visible external to animal, 

portion of exposed animals underwater 

(so not visible), many animals 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 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 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 

for MFAS/HFAS: PTS (injury—Level A 

Harassment), TTS (Level B Harassment), 

and behavioral harassment (Level B 

Harassment). Because the TTS and PTS 

criteria are derived similarly and the 

PTS criteria was 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 FEIS for 

the HRC. 

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 disturbance is 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). TTS is a 

physiological effect that has been 

studied and quantified in laboratory 

conditions. Because data that support an 

estimate of at what received levels 

marine mammals will TTS exist, NMFS 

also uses an acoustic criteria to estimate 

the number of marine mammals that 

might sustain TTS incidental to a 

specific activity (in addition to the 

behavioral criteria). 

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. 

• Kastak et al. (1999a, 2005) 

conducted TTS experiments with three 

species of pinnipeds, California sea lion, 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35551 

northern elephant seal and a Pacific 

harbor seal, exposed to continuous 

underwater sounds at levels of 80 and 

95 dB SPL 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 criteria (which 

indicate the received level at which 

onset TTS (>6dB) is induced) for MFAS/ 

HFAS are as follows: 

• Cetaceans—195 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)). 

• Pinnipeds (monk seals)—204 dB re 

1 μPa2-s (based on data from elephant 

seals, which are the most closely related 

to the monk seal). 

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 HRC 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 criteria for injury: 

• 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)). 

• Pinnipeds (monk seals)—224 dB re 

1 μPa2-s (based on data from elephant 

seals, which are the most closely related 

to the monk seal). 

These criteria are 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) 

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 HRC LOA 

application. Southall et al. (2007) 

recommend a precautionary dual 

criteria for TTS (230 dB re 1 μPa (SPL) 

in addition to 215 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 (SEL) is 

farther from the source than the distance 

at which they would receive 230 (SPL) 

and therefore, it is not necessary to 

consider 230 dB. 

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 40) 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 only 

MMPA authorization that has, as yet, 

authorized the take of marine mammals 

incidental to MFAS. For that 

authorization, NMFS used 173 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 SEL would be predicted to be taken 

by Level B Harassment and all animals 

exposed to less than 173 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 3a). 

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 

becomes available. 

The particular acoustic risk functions 

developed by NMFS and the Navy (see 

Figures 3a and b) 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 

MFA sonar. 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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
35552 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

the Navy’s SURTASS LFA MMPA 

authorization as well. 

R

L B

=

1−  −



 





−  −



 





−

−

K

L B

K

A

A

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 percent risk = 45 dB re: 1 μPa 

A = Risk transition sharpness parameter = 10 

(odontocetes) 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 percent risk, or the 

received level at which we believe 50 

percent 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 datasets in 

which marine mammals exposed to 

mid-frequency 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 (Cox et al., 2006; 

Southall et al., 2007). The Navy is 

contributing to an ongoing 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. Additionally, the Navy plans 

to tag whales in conjunction with the 

2008 RIMPAC exercises. Until 

additional data is 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 to MFAS sources. 

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 J of 

the Navy’s FEIS for the HRC. 

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 performed these 

tasks when exposed to mid-frequency 

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 

1Pa) 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 percent 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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3EP23JN08.000</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35553 

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 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 

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 (which ranged 

from 150 to 180 dB) at an approximate 

whale location with a mean value of 

169.3 dB SPL. 

Calculation of K Paramenter—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 MFA sonar (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 percent 

value of 165 dB SPL; therefore, K=45. 

A Parameter (Steepness)—NMFS 

determined that a steepness parameter 

(A)=10 is appropriate for odontocetes 

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 midfrequency sound source. 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 the proportion of 

the exposed population of mysticetes 

being classified as behaviorally harassed 

at lower RLs, such as those reported in 

and is supported by the only dataset 

currently available. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
35554 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

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 MFA sonar) at 

a given received level of sound. For 

example, at 165 dB SPL (dB re: 1 μPa 

rms), the risk (or probability) of 

harassment is defined according to this 

function as 50 percent, and Navy/NMFS 

applies that by estimating that 50 

percent 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 

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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3EP23JN08.015</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35555 

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. 

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 HRC example, animals 

exposed to received levels between 120 

and 130 dB may be more than 65 

nautical miles (131,651 yards (120,381 

m)) from a sound source (Table 16); 

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 marine 

mammal responses to sound sources at 

that received level, NMFS does not 

currently have any data that describe 

the response of marine mammals to 

sounds at that distance, much less data 

that compare responses to similar sound 

levels at varying distances (much less 

for MFAS/HFAS). However, if data were 

to become available, NMFS would reevaluate 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 

Sea Wolf and Churchill ship-shock trials 

and have not changed since other 

MMPA authorizations issued for 

explosive detonations. The criteria, 

which are applied to cetaceans and 

pinnipeds, are summarized in Table 13. 

Additional information regarding the 

derivation of these criteria is available 

in the Navy’s FEIS for the HRC and in 

the Navy’s CHURCHILL FEIS (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2001c). 

Take Calculations 

Estimating the take that will result 

from the proposed activities entails the 

following four steps: Propagation model 

estimates animals exposed to sources at 

different levels; further modeling 

determines number of exposures to 

levels indicated in criteria above (i.e., 

number of takes); post-modeling 

corrections refine estimates to make 

them more accurate; mitigation is taken 

into consideration. More information 

regarding the models used, the 

assumptions used in the models, and 

the process of estimating take is 

available in Appendix J of the Navy’s 

FEIS for the HRC. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3EP23JN08.016</GPH>
35556 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3EP23JN08.017</GPH><FNP>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35557 

(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. 

Æ 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. 

Æ Explosive source characteristics 

include: The weight of an explosive, the 

type of explosive, the detonation depth, 

number of successive explosions. 

• Transmission loss (in 20 

representative environmental provinces 

across 8 sonar modeling areas) based on: 

Water depth; sound speed variability 

throughout the water column (presume 

surface duct is present in HRC); bottom 

geo-acoustic properties (bathymetry); 

and wind speed. 

• The density of each marine 

mammal species in the HRC (see Table 

14), 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 the HRC, 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 sonar 

sources must account for land masses 

(by subtracting them out). 

• Acoustic footprints for 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 sonar within the course of 1 

day or a discreet continuous sonar event 

if less than 24 hours. 

(4) Mitigation measures are taken into 

consideration. For example, in some 

cases the raw modeled numbers of 

exposures to levels predicted to result in 

Level A Harassment from exposure to 

sonar might indicate that 1 fin whale 

would be exposed to levels of sonar 

anticipated to result in PTS—However, 

a fin whale would need to be within 

approximately 10 m of the source vessel 

in order to be exposed to these levels. 

Because of the mitigation measures 

(watchstanders and shutdown zone), 

size of fin whales, and nature of fin 

whale behavior, it is highly unlikely 

that a fin whale would be exposed to 

those levels, and therefore the Navy 

would not request authorization for 

Level A Harassment of 1 fin whale. 

Table 15 contains the Navy’s estimated 

take estimates. 

(5) 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 3 (by 

multiplying the yearly estimate by 5) by 

more than 10 percent. NMFS estimates 

that a 10-percent increase in sonar hours 

would result in approximately a 10 

percent increase in the number of takes, 

and we have considered this possibility 

in our analysis. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
35558 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3EP23JN08.018</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35559 

Mortality 

Evidence from five beaked whale 

strandings, all of which have taken 

place outside the HRC, and have 

occurred over approximately a decade, 

suggests that the exposure of beaked 

whales to mid-frequency sonar in the 

presence of certain conditions (e.g., 

multiple units using tactical sonar, steep 

bathymetry, constricted channels, strong 

surface ducts, etc.) may result in 

strandings, potentially leading to 

mortality. Although these physical 

factors believed to contribute to the 

likelihood of beaked whale strandings 

are not present, in their aggregate, in the 

Hawaiian Islands, 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 take, by serious injury 

or mortality, of 10 individuals of each 

of the following species over the course 

of the five-year rule: bottlenose dolphin, 

Kogia spp., melon-headed whale, 

pantropical spotted dolphin, pygmy 

killer whale, short-finned pilot whale, 

striped dolphin, Cuvier’s, Longman’s, 

and Blainville’s beaked whales. Neither 

NMFS nor the Navy anticipates that 

marine mammal strandings or mortality 

will result from the operation of midfrequency sonar during Navy exercises 

within the HRC. 

‘‘Take’’ Interpretation 

For explosive detonations, a ‘‘take’’

(as reported in the take table and 

proposed to be authorized), is very 

simply, an instance of exposure of a 

marine mammal to levels above those 

indicated in the criteria. Every separate 

take does necessarily represent effects to 

a separate animal, some of the takes may 

be takes that occur to the same animal, 

either within one day and one exercise, 

or on different days from different 

exercise types. 

For MFAS/HFAS, TTS and PTS takes 

can be described the same as the 

explosive detonation takes described 

above. Alternately, for behavioral 

harassment a take is slightly different 

from that described above. Within the 

context of exposure to continuous ASW 

within exercises that last less than 24 

hrs (they typically last less than 16 hrs), 

one behavioral harassment take might 

include more than one exposure to 

MFAS/HFAS levels above those 

identified on the risk continuum within 

the 11–16-hr. Then, however, the 

estimated numbers of take (in the take 

table) represent instances of take. Again, 

every separate take does necessarily 

represent effects to a separate animal, 

some animals may be taken (which, as 

mentioned above, may include multiple 

exposures within one day) more than 

one time on different days as a result of 

exposure to different exercises. 

Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat 

There are no areas within the HRC 

that are specifically considered as 

important physical habitat for marine 

mammals. The nearshore areas in and 

around the Hawaiian Humpback Whale 

National Marine Sanctuary contain very 

important breeding and calving habitat 

for the humpback whale, however 

effects in this area have been analyzed 

previously in this document in the 

context of the whales themselves. 

Additionally, in 2007, the Navy only 

conducted sonar training in the areas 

where humpback whales are known to 

be densest for a total of approximately 

30–40 hours. 

The prey of marine mammals are 

considered part of their habitat. The 

Navy’s FEIS for the HRC contains a 

detailed discussion of the potential 

effects to fish from MFAS/HFAS and 

explosive detonations. Below is a 

summary of conclusions regarding those 

effects. 

Effects on Fish From MFAS/HFAS 

The extent of data, and particularly 

scientifically peer-reviewed data, on the 

effects of high intensity sounds on fish 

is limited. In considering the available 

literature, the vast majority of fish 

species studied to date are hearing 

generalists and cannot hear sounds 

above 500 to 1,500 Hz (depending upon 

the species), and, therefore, behavioral 

effects on these species from higher 

frequency sounds are not likely. 

Moreover, even those fish 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. 

Therefore, even among the species that 

have hearing ranges that overlap with 

some mid- and high-frequency sounds, 

it is likely that the fish will only 

actually hear the sounds if the fish and 

source are very close to one another. 

And, 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 highfrequency sound, these sounds will not 

mask detection of lower frequency 

biologically relevant sounds. Based on 

the above information, there will likely 

be few, if any, behavioral impacts on 

fish. 

Alternatively, it is possible that very 

intense mid- and high-frequency 

signals, and particularly explosives, 

could have a physical impact on fish, 

resulting in damage to the swim bladder 

and other organ systems. However, even 

these kinds of effects have only been 

shown in a few cases in response to 

explosives, and only when the fish has 

been very close to the source. Such 

effects have never been indicated in 

response to any Navy sonar. Moreover, 

at greater distances (the distance clearly 

would depend on the intensity of the 

signal from the source) there appears to 

be little or no impact on fish, and 

particularly no impact on fish that do 

not have a swim bladder or other air 

bubble that would be affected by rapid 

pressure changes. 

Effects on Fish From Explosive 

Detonations 

Underwater detonations are possible 

during SINKEX, EER/IEER, A–S 

MISSILEX, S–S MISSILEX, BOMBEX, 

S–S GUNEX, and NSFS. The weapons 

used in most missile and Live Fire 

Exercises pose little risk to fish unless 

the fish were near the surface at the 

point of impact. Machine guns (50 

caliber) and close-in weapons systems 

(anti-missile systems) fire exclusively 

non-explosive ammunition. The same 

applies to larger weapons firing inert 

ordnance for training (e.g., 5-inch guns 

and 76-mm guns). The rounds pose an 

extremely low risk of a direct hit and 

potential to directly affect a marine 

species. Target area clearance 

procedures will again reduce this risk. 

A SINKEX uses a variety of live fire 

weapons. These rounds pose a risk only 

at the point of impact. 

Several factors determine a fish’s 

susceptibility to harm from underwater 

detonations. Most injuries in fish 

involve damage to air-or gas-containing 

organs (i.e., the swim bladder). Fish 

with swim bladders are vulnerable to 

effects of explosives, while fish without 

swim bladders are much more resistant 

(Yelverton, 1981; Young, 1991). 

Research has focused on the effects on 

the swim bladder from underwater 

detonations but not the ears of fish 

(Edds-Walton and Finneran, 2006). 

For underwater demolition training, 

the effects on fish from a given amount 

of explosive depend on location, season, 

and many other factors. O’Keeffe (1984) 

provides charts that allow estimation of 

the potential effect on swim-bladder fish 

using a damage prediction method 

developed by Goertner (1982). 

O’Keeffe’s parameters include the size 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
35560 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

of the fish and its location relative to the 

explosive source, but are independent of 

environmental conditions (e.g., depth of 

fish, explosive shot, frequency content). 

Based on O’Keeffe’s parameters, 

potential impacts on fish from 

underwater demolition detonations 

would be negligible. A small number of 

fish are expected to be injured by 

detonation of explosive, and some fish 

located in proximity to the initial 

detonations can be expected to die. 

However, the overall impacts on water 

column habitat would be localized and 

transient. As training begins, the natural 

reaction of fish in the vicinity would be 

to leave the area. When training events 

are completed, the fish stock would be 

expected to return to the area. 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 

Determination 

EFH is defined as ‘‘those waters and 

substrates necessary to fish for 

spawning, breeding, feeding or growth 

to maturity.’’ Adverse effects on EFH are 

defined further as ‘‘any impact that 

reduces the quality and/or quantity of 

EFH’’ and may include ‘‘site specific or 

habitat-wide impacts, including 

individual, cumulative or synergistic 

consequences of actions’’, as well as 

direct or indirect physical, chemical, or 

biological alterations of the waters or 

substrate and loss of, or injury to, 

benthic organisms, prey species and 

their habitat, and other ecosystem 

components, if such modifications 

reduce the quality and/or quantity of 

EFH. The HRC is located in an area that 

has been identified as essential fish 

habitat under the following Western 

Pacific Regional Fishery Management 

Council (WPRFMC) Fishery 

Management Plans (FMPs): Pelagics 

(eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults), 

Bottomfish (eggs, larvae, juveniles, and 

adults), Crustaceans (eggs, larvae, 

juveniles, and adults), Coral Reef 

Ecosystem (eggs, larvae, juveniles, and 

adults) and Precious Corals. 

The Navy does not anticipate 

permanent, adverse impacts on EFH 

components since training activities are 

conducted to avoid potential impacts; 

however, there are temporary 

unavoidable impacts associated with 

several training activities that may 

result in temporary and localized 

impacts. In addition, a single operation 

may potentially have multiple effects on 

EFH. The current and proposed training 

activities in the HRC have the potential 

to result in the following impacts: 

• Physical disruption of open ocean 

habitat. 

• Physical destruction or adverse 

modification of benthic habitats. 

• Alteration of water or sediment 

quality from debris or discharge. 

• Cumulative impacts. 

Each impact and operation associated 

with those impacts are discussed in a 

separate document, Essential Fish 

Habitat and Coral Reef Assessment for 

the Hawaii Range Complex EIS/OEIS 

(U.S. Department of the Navy, 2007b) 

and a summary for each proposed 

activity is provided. Potential impacts 

on FMP species include direct and 

indirect effects from sonar and shock 

waves (see discussion above and EFH 

document, U.S. Department of the Navy, 

2007a). Numerous training activities 

may affect benthic habitats from debris, 

and there may also be temporary 

impacts on water quality from increased 

turbidity or release of materials. 

However, due to the mitigation 

measures implemented to protect 

sensitive habitats, and the localized and 

temporary impacts of the Proposed 

Action, the Navy concluded that the 

potential impact of the Proposed Action 

and alternatives on EFH for the five 

major FMPs and their associated 

management units would be minimal. 

Additional detail is provided in the 

Navy’s FEIS on effects on EFH. 

NMFS reviewed the Navy’s Essential 

Fish Habitat and Coral Reef Assessment 

for the Hawaii Range Complex EIS/OEIS 

(2007) in accordance with the Fish and 

Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 

Section 662(a)), the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (MSA) (16 U.S.C. Section 

1855(b)(2)), the Coral Reef Executive 

Order 13089, and NMFS’’ essential fish 

habitat (EFH) regulations (50 CFR 

600.905–930). 

The Navy proposed the following 

mitigation measures to minimize 

impacts to EFH: conducting training 

activities in open ocean away from 

sensitive EFH, avoiding areas of live 

coral during inshore training activities, 

and restricting amphibious landing to 

specific areas of designated beaches. 

NMFS concurred that it is unlikely that 

the proposed project would have 

adverse impacts to EFH for the various 

WPRFMC FMPs, provided the proposed 

mitigation measures were implemented 

to protect EFH in the area of operation. 

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 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.), or any of the other 

variables mentioned in the first 

paragraph (if known), as well as the 

number and nature of estimated Level A 

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 may vary from year to 

year, but will not exceed the 5-year total 

indicated in Table 3 (by multiplying the 

yearly estimate by 5) by more than 10 

percent. NMFS estimates that a 10 

percent increase in sonar hours would 

result in approximately a 10 percent 

increase in the number of takes, and we 

have considered this possibility in our 

analysis. 

Taking the above into account, and 

considering the sections discussed 

below, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that Navy training exercises 

utilizing MFAS/HFAS and underwater 

detonations will have a negligible 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35561 

impact on the marine mammal species 

and stocks present in the HRC. 

Behavioral Harassment 

As discussed in the Potential Effects 

of Exposure of Marine Mammals to 

MFAS/HFAS and Underwater 

Detonations Section and illustrated in 

the conceptual framework (Figure 2), 

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 the source to 

one extent or another. Although an 

animal that avoids the sound source 

might 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 16) 

estimating what percentage of the total 

takes 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. 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. 

Because the Navy has only been 

monitoring specifically to discern the 

effects of MFAS/HFAS on marine 

mammals since 2006, and because of the 

overall datagap regarding the effects 

MFAS/HFAS on marine mammals, not 

a lot is known regarding, specifically, 

how marine mammals in the Hawaiian 

Islands will respond to MFAS/HFAS. 

For the five MTEs for which NMFS has 

received a monitoring report, no 

instances of obvious behavioral 

disturbance were observed either by the 

Navy watchstanders or the independent 

observers (and a portion of the 

independent observations were reported 

within the vicinity of operating MFAS) 

in the 1,200+ hours of effort in which 

77 sightings of marine mammals were 

made. One cannot conclude from these 

results that marine mammals were not 

harassed from MFAS/HFAS, as certainly 

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 sp.) 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, which in the case of the 

watchstanders observations were the 

ones closest to the source and likely 

exposed to the highest levels, 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 this LOA, 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. 

Diel Cycle 

As noted previously, many animals 

perform vital functions, such as feeding, 

resting, traveling, and socializing, a diel 

cycle (24-hr cycle). Substantive 

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). 

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, the 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, which 

is not expected. Because of the need to 

train in a large variety of situations, the 

Navy does not typically conduct 

successive MTEs or other ASW 

exercises in the same locations (with the 

exception of the Navy’s permanent 

instrumented ranges, such as PMRF 

located off Kaui). Within one multi-day 

exercise, the participants could 

potentially stay in one general area for 

multiple days, but the area would 

typically cover something like 5000 mi2. 

Separately, the average length of ASW 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3EP23JN08.019</GPH>
35562 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

exercises (times of continuous sonar 

use) is approximately 12–16 hours and 

the vessels involved are typically 

moving at a speed of 10–12 knots. When 

this is combined with the fact that the 

majority of the cetaceans in the HRC 

would not likely remain in an area for 

successive days (especially an area in 

waters deeper than 2000 m, which is 

where the majority of the exercises take 

place), it is unlikely that animal would 

be exposed to MFAS/HFAS at levels 

likely to result in a substantive response 

that would then be carried on for more 

than one day or on successive days. 

TTS 

NMFS and the Navy have estimated 

that individuals of a few species of 

marine mammals may sustain some 

level of TTS (from MFAS or explosives). 

As mentioned previously, TTS can last 

from a few minutes to days, be of 

varying degree, and occur across various 

frequency bandwidths. Table 15 

indicates the estimated number of 

animals that might sustain TTS from 

exposure to MFAS or explosives (fewer 

are likely to have TTS from explosives). 

TTS 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 of the source up 

to one octave higher than the source 

(with the maximum at 1⁄2 octave above). 

The two hull-mounted MFAS sources 

(from which the TTS was modeled) 

have center frequencies of 3.5 and 7.5 

kHz, which suggests that TTS induced 

by either of these sources would be in 

a frequency band somewhere between 

approximately 2 and 20 kHz. Tables 17a 

and b 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 

(SEL), which might be received at 

distances of up to 120 m from the MFAS 

source. 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 a sonar vessel (15 

knots). Of all 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 only pings 2 times/ 

minute). 

• Duration of TTS (Recovery time)— 

see above. Of all TTS laboratory studies, 

some using exposures of almost an hour 

in duration or up to 217 SEL, almost all 

recovered within in 1 day (or less, often 

in minutes), though in one study 

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

4 days. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35563 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3EP23JN08.020</GPH>
35564 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3EP23JN08.021</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35565 

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, it is unlikely 

that marine mammals would 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). Additionally (see 

Tables 17a and 17b), though the 

frequency range of TTS that marine 

mammals might sustain would overlap 

with some of their vocalization types, 

this frequency range of TTS would not 

usually span the entire frequency range 

of one vocalization type, much less span 

all types of vocalizations. It is worth 

noting that TTS from MFAS could 

potentially result in reduced sensitivity 

to the vocalizations of killer whales 

(potential predators). However, if 

impaired, marine mammals would 

typically be aware of their impairment 

and implement behaviors to compensate 

for it (see Communication Impairment 

Section). 

Acoustic Masking or Communication 

Impairment 

Table 17 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). 

However, masking only occurs during 

the time of the signal (and potential 

secondary arrivals of indirect rays), 

versus TTS, which occurs continuously 

for its duration. MFAS/HFAS pings last 

for about one second and occur about 

once every 24–30 seconds for hullmounted sources. 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. 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 of the 

pulse length and duty cycle of the 

MFAS signal. 

PTS, Injury, or Mortality 

No animals were predicted (through 

modeling) to be exposed to levels of 

MFAS/HFAS that would result in direct 

physical injury. Further, NMFS believes 

that many marine mammals would 

deliberately avoid exposing themselves 

to the received necessary to induce 

injury levels (i.e., approaching to within 

approximately 10 m (10.9 yd) (of the 

source) by moving away from or at least 

modifying their path to avoid a close 

approach. Last, 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/HFA) further ensure that animals 

would be not be exposed to injurious 

levels of sound. The Navy has 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. 

The Navy’s model estimated that 3 

animals (one humpback whale, one 

spotted dolphin, and one striped 

dolphin) would be exposed to explosive 

detonations at levels that would result 

in injury—however, those estimates do 

not consider mitigation measures. 

Surveillance during the exercises for 

which injury was estimated (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. Because of the 

behavior and visibility of these species 

and the two hours of monitoring that 

occurs prior to detonation, NMFS does 

not think that any animals will be 

exposed to levels of sound or pressure 

that will result in injury from explosive 

detonations. 

As discussed previously, marine 

mammals 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, 

behavioral or physiological are not 

known. However, based on the number 

of occurrences where strandings have 

been definitively associated with 

military sonar versus the number of 

hours of sonar that have been 

conducted, we suggest that the 

probability is small that this will occur. 

Additionally, proposed monitoring of 

shorelines before and after major 

exercises combined with a shutdown 

protocol for live, in water, strandings 

minimize the chances that live milling 

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 total individuals of each 

of these species each over the course of 

the 5-yr rule: bottlenose dolphin, Kogia 

spp., melon-headed whale, pantropical 

spotted dolphin, pygmy killer whale, 

short-finned pilot whale, striped 

dolphin, and Cuvier’s, Longman’s, and 

Blainville’s beaked whale. 

Resident Populations/Additional 

Management Units 

Studies of several odontocete species 

within the HRC suggest 

demographically isolated populations 

might exist within the EEZ and that 

some species show site-fidelity. Though 

only one stock is designated for the 

HRC, both genetic testing and analysis 

of movement suggest that a 

demographically isolated inshore 

population of false killer whales exists 

within the Hawaiian EEZ and that 

individuals from the offshore 

(genetically separate) Eastern North 

Pacific population are also seen 

regularly within the Hawaii EEZ. 

Results from Baird et al.’s, (in press) 

analysis of interisland movements of 

bottlenose dolphins suggest that within 

the main Hawaiian Islands there are as 

many as four discrete populations 

corresponding to the four main island 

groupings (Nihau/Kaui, Oahu, 4- 

island:Molokai/Lanai/Maui/Kaho’olawe, 

Hawaii). McSweeney et al. (2007) 

analyzed a 21-yr photographic record of 

Cuvier’s and Blainville’s beaked whales 

and found evidence of long-term (15-yr), 

multi-season site-fidelity on the west 

side of Hawaii. 

If the nature of the Navy’s training 

exercises was such that they were 

disproportionately conducting sonar in 

a certain fairly large area that largely 

overlapped with a particular 

demographically isolated population, 

stock, or resident population, additional 

analysis might be needed to determine 

what additional impacts might occur. 

However, due to the Navy’s need to 

train in a variety of bathymetric 

conditions and in the vicinity of a 

variety of other resources throughout 

the Main Hawaiian Islands, the location 

of the Navy’s training exercises are 

highly variable, with the exception of 

the Navy’s ranges (PMRF, etc.). 

40 Years of Navy Training Exercises 

Using MFAS/HFAS in the HRC 

The Navy has been conducting 

MFAS/HFAS training exercises in the 

HRC for over 40 years. During this time, 

NMFS found that sonar was a plausible, 

if not likely, contributor to one milling/ 

stranding event that occurred in Hanalei 

Bay (see Stranding section: Hanalei), 

though the cause of the event was not 

definitively determined. Though 

monitoring specifically to determine the 

effects of sonar on marine mammals was 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
35566 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

not being conducted prior to 2006 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 Hawaii for 25 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 sonar with any 

regularity, more evidence would have 

been detected over the 40-yr period. 

Similarly, though population trends are 

not available for the vast majority of the 

cetacean stocks in the HRC, data 

indicate that humpback whale numbers 

are generally increasing both in Hawaii 

(7 percent rate of increase between 1993 

and 2007: Mobley, 2004) and in 

Southeast Alaska (Caretta et al., 2007), 

where the majority of the Hawaii 

humpback whales feed over the 

summer. 

Species Conclusions 

Mysticetes (Except Humpback Whale) 

Bryde’s whales, fin whales, sei 

whales, and Minke whales are not 

expected to be encountered very often 

in the HRC. 64 instances each of 

behavioral harassment of Bryde’s and 

Minke whales, and 46 instances each of 

behavioral harassment of fin and sei 

whales are estimated to result from 

exposure to MFAS/HFAS (though this 

number does not take the potential 

avoidance of the sound source into 

consideration). When the numbers of 

behavioral takes are compared to the 

estimated abundance and if one 

assumes that each ‘‘take’’ happens to a 

separate animal, less than 20 percent of 

each of these Hawaiian stocks would be 

behaviorally harassed during the course 

of a year (each animal one time per 

year). No areas of specific importance 

for reproduction or feeding for these 

species have been identified in the HRC. 

The modeling indicates that these 

species will not be exposed to levels 

associated with TTS or any type of 

injury as a result of the Navy’s action. 

Further, NMFS believes that many 

marine mammals would avoid exposing 

themselves to the received levels 

necessary to induce injury (i.e., avoid 

getting as close to the vessel as they 

would need to: within approximately 10 

m) by moving away from or at least 

modifying their path to avoid a close 

approach. Last, NMFS believes that the 

mitigation measures, including range 

clearance procedures for explosives and 

shutdown/exclusion zones for MFAS/ 

HFAS and explosives would be effective 

at avoiding injurious exposures to 

animals that approach the safety zone, 

especially in the case of these large 

animals. 

Sperm Whales 

The modeling estimates that 767 

instances of sperm whale behavioral 

harassment will occur as a result of 

MFAS/HFAS training (758—though this 

number does not take the potential 

avoidance of the sound source into 

consideration) or underwater 

detonations (9). When the numbers of 

behavioral takes are compared to the 

estimated abundance and if one 

assumes that each ‘‘take’’ happens to a 

separate animal (and each animal one 

time per year), less than 11 percent of 

the sperm whale stock would be 

behaviorally harassed during the course 

of a year. More likely, slightly fewer 

animals are harassed and a subset are 

taken more than one time per year. No 

areas of specific importance for 

reproduction or feeding for sperm 

whales have been identified in the HRC. 

The Navy’s model predicted that 9 

sperm whales might be exposed to 

received levels of MFAS expected to 

cause TTS. However, due to the large 

size of an individual, large average 

group size, and pronounced blow of the 

sperm whale and the distance within 

which TTS levels are expected to occur, 

watchstanders will very likely detect 

these whales in time to shut down and 

prevent their exposures to levels of 

MFAS associated with TTS. 

The model also predicted that some 

animals might experience TTS as a 

result of exposure to explosive 

detonations. For the same reasons listed 

above, NMFS anticipates that the Navy 

watchstanders would detect these 

species and implement the mitigation to 

avoid exposure. However, two of the 

largest explosives (MK–84s and MK–

48s) used in the training exercises have 

a range to TTS that is larger than the 

exclusion zone (see Table 8), which 

means that in the types of exercises that 

utilize these explosives, it is possible 

that animals could experience TTS as a 

result of being exposed beyond 1 nm 

(1.9 km) from the explosion. Therefore, 

we estimate TTS could still occur 

incidental to exercise types that utilize 

the two largest explosive types these 

explosives (the Navy provided NMFS 

with take estimates broken down to the 

exercise level), which results in an 

estimate of 4 sperm whales taken by 

TTS from explosive detonations. 

The modeling indicates that sperm 

whales will not be exposed to levels 

associated with any type of injury or 

death as a result of the Navy’s action. 

Further, NMFS believes that many 

marine mammals would deliberately 

avoid exposing themselves to MFAS/ 

HFAS at the received levels necessary to 

induce injury (and avoid getting as close 

to the vessel as they would need to: 

within approximately 10 m (10.9 yd)) by 

moving away from or at least modifying 

their path to avoid a close approach. 

Last, NMFS believes that the mitigation 

measures would be effective at avoiding 

injurious exposures to animal that 

approached within the safety zone, 

especially in the case of these large 

animals. 

Cryptic, Deep Diving Species 

The modeling predicts that the 

following numbers of behavioral 

harassments (Level B Harassment) of the 

associated species will occur: 2074 

(dwarf sperm whales), 846 (pygmy 

sperm whales), 1136 (Cuvier’s beaked 

whales), 104 (Longmans’s beaked 

whales), and 349 (Blainvilles beaked 

whales). When the numbers of 

behavioral takes are compared to the 

estimated abundance and if one 

assumes that each ‘‘take’’ happens to a 

separate animal (one time per year), less 

than 13 percent of each of these stocks 

would be behaviorally harassed during 

the course of a year. More likely, fewer 

individuals would be taken, but a subset 

would be taken more than one time per 

year. No areas of specific importance for 

reproduction or feeding for these 

species have been identified in the HRC. 

The Navy’s model predicted that the 

following number of each of the species 

would sustain TTS (Level B 

Harassment) from exposure to MFAS: 35 

(dwarf sperm whales), 14 (pygmy sperm 

whales), 5 (Cuvier’s beaked whales), 1 

(Longmans’s beaked whales), and 6 

(Blainvilles beaked whales). Though 

some of these predicted takes might be 

avoided if the animals avoided the 

source or if they were sighted by the 

watchstanders, because the species are 

all deep divers that are cryptic at the 

surface, we will assume that they 

actually sustain the TTS takes that are 

modeled. As mentioned above, some 

beaked whale vocalizations might 

overlap with the MFAS/HFAS TTS 

frequency range (2–20 kHz), but the 

limited information for Kogia sp. 

indicates that their echolocation clicks 

are at a much higher frequency and that 

their maximum hearing sensitivity is 

between 90 and 150 kHz. It is worth 

noting that TTS in the range induced by 

MFAS would reduce sensitivity in the 

band that killer whales click and 

echolocate in. However, as noted 

previously, NMFS does not anticipate 

TTS of a long duration or severe degree 

to occur as a result of exposure to MFA/ 

HFAS. The model also predicted TTS 

takes from explosive detonations: 13 

(dwarf sperm whales), 5 (pygmy sperm 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35567 

whales), 8 (Cuvier’s beaked whales), and 

2 (Blainvilles beaked whales). 

The modeling indicates that none of 

these species would be injured as a 

result of the Navy’s action. Further, 

NMFS believes that many marine 

mammals would deliberately avoid 

exposing themselves to the received 

MFAS/HFAS levels necessary to induce 

injury (and avoid getting as close to the 

vessel as they would need to: within 

approximately 10 m (10.9 yd)) by 

moving away from or at least modifying 

their path to avoid a close approach. 

Last, NMFS believes that the mitigation 

measures would be effective at avoiding 

injurious exposures (which would only 

occur within approximately 10 m (10.9 

yd) of the vessel) if an animal did 

happen to approach that closely. 

Although NMFS does not expect 

mortality of any of these five species to 

occur as a result of the MFAS/HFAS 

training exercises (see Mortality 

paragraph above), because we intend to 

authorize mortality, we consider the 10 

potential mortalities of each of these 

species over the course of 5 years in our 

negligible impact determination. 

Social Pelagic Species 

The modeling predicts that the 

following numbers of behavioral 

harassments of the associated species 

will occur: 46 (false killer whales), 46 

(killer whales), 192 (Pygmy killer 

whales), 1753 (short-finned pilot 

whales), and 583 (melon-headed 

whales). When the numbers of 

behavioral takes are compared to the 

estimated abundance and if one 

assumes that each ‘‘take’’ happens to a 

separate animal, less than 22 percent of 

each of these stocks would be 

behaviorally harassed during the course 

of a year (one time per animal). More 

likely, fewer individuals would be taken 

and a small subset would be harassed 

more than one time per year. No areas 

of specific importance for reproduction 

or feeding for these species have been 

identified in the HRC. 

The Navy’s model predicted that 

these species might be exposed to 

received levels of MFAS expected to 

cause TTS. However, because of the 

average group size, large animal size, 

and the distance from the vessel in 

which TTS levels are expected to occur 

(120–160m), watchstanders will very 

likely detect these whales in time to 

shut down and prevent their exposures 

to levels of MFAS associated with TTS. 

The model also predicted that melonheaded whales and short-finned pilot 

whales might experience TTS as a result 

of explosive detonations. For the same 

reasons listed above, NMFS anticipates 

that the Navy watchstanders would 

detect these species and implement the 

mitigation to avoid exposure. However, 

two of the largest explosives (MK–84s 

and MK–48s) used in the training 

exercises have a range to TTS that is 

larger than the exclusion zone (see 

Table 8), which means that in the types 

of exercises that utilize these explosives, 

it is possible that animals could 

experience TTS as a result of being 

exposed beyond 1 nm from the 

explosion. Therefore, we estimate TTS 

takes could still occur incidental to 

exercise types that utilize two largest 

explosive types (the Navy provided 

NMFS with take estimates broken down 

to the exercise level), which results in 

the following estimates of take from 

explosive detonations: 1 short-finned 

pilot whale. 

As mentioned previously, TTS from 

MFAS is anticipated to occur primarily 

in the 2–20 kHz range. If any 

individuals of these species were to 

experience TTS from MFAS/HFAS, the 

information in Table 7 indicates that the 

TTS would likely overlap with some of 

the vocalizations of conspecifics, and 

not with others. However, as noted 

previously, NMFS does not anticipate 

TTS of a long duration or severe degree 

to occur as a result of exposure to MFA/ 

HFAS. 

The modeling indicates that none of 

these species would be injured as a 

result of the Navy’s action. Further, 

NMFS believes that many marine 

mammals would deliberately avoid 

exposing themselves to the received 

levels necessary to induce injury (and 

avoid getting as close to the vessel as 

they would need to: Within 

approximately 10 m (10.9 yd)) by 

moving away from or at least modifying 

their path to avoid a close approach. 

Last, NMFS believes that the mitigation 

measures would be effective at avoiding 

injurious exposures (which would only 

occur within approximately 10 m (10.9 

yd) of the vessel) if an animal did 

happen to approach that closely. 

Although NMFS does not expect 

mortality of any of these three species 

to occur as a result of the MFAS/HFAS 

training exercises (see Mortality 

paragraph above), because we intend to 

authorize mortality, we consider the 10 

total potential mortalities (over the 

course of 5 years) of melon-headed 

whales, pygmy killer whales, and shortfinned pilot whales in our negligible 

impact determination. 

Dolphins 

The modeling predicts that the 

following numbers of behavioral 

harassments of the associated species 

will occur: 716 (bottlenose dolphins), 

486 (Risso’s dolphins), 1055 (roughtoothed dolphin), 1222 (Fraser’s 

dolphin), and 2144 (pantropical spotted 

dolphin), 412 (spinner dolphin), and 

3128 (striped dolphin). When the 

numbers of behavioral takes are 

compared to the estimated abundance 

and if one assumes that each ‘‘take’’

happens to a separate animal (one time 

per year), 12–24 percent of each of these 

stocks would be behaviorally harassed 

during the course of a year. More likely, 

slightly fewer individuals are harassed, 

but a subset are harassed more than one 

time during the course of the year. No 

areas of specific importance for 

reproduction or feeding for these 

species have been identified in the HRC, 

though several bays have been 

identified as important resting areas for 

spinner dolphins (the Navy conducts 

the majority of exercises in water deeper 

than 2000 m). 

The Navy’s model predicted that a 

certain number of individuals of these 

dolphin species would sustain TTS as a 

result of exposure to MFAS. Though the 

group size and behavior of these species 

makes it likely that watchstanders 

would detect them and implement 

shutdown if appropriate, the proposed 

mitigation has a provision that allows 

them 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 and they would be close 

enough to sustain TTS, we estimate that 

half of the number of animals modeled 

for MFAS/HFAS TTS might actually 

sustain TTS: 9 (bottlenose dolphins), 5 

(Risso’s dolphins), 9 (rough-toothed 

dolphin), 10 (Fraser’s dolphin), and 25 

(pantropical spotted dolphin), 4 

(spinner dolphin), and 37 (striped 

dolphin). As mentioned above, many of 

the recorded dolphin vocalizations 

overlap with the MFAS/HFAS TTS 

frequency range (2–20kHz), however, as 

noted above, NMFS does not anticipate 

TTS of a serious degree or extended 

duration to occur. It is worth noting that 

TTS is in the range induced by MFAS 

would reduce sensitivity in the band 

that killer whales click and echolocate 

in. 

The model also predicted that 

individuals of this species would 

experience TTS from explosives. For the 

same reasons listed above, NMFS 

anticipates that the Navy watchstanders 

would detect these species and 

implement the mitigation to avoid 

exposure. However, as mentioned in the 

Social Pelagic Section, the range to TTS 

for the two largest explosives is larger 

than the exclusion zone (see Table 8), 

and therefore NMFS anticipates that 

TTS might not be entirely avoided 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
35568 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

during those exercises, which results in 

the following predicted TTS takes from 

explosives: 2 (rough-toothed dolphin), 3 

(Fraser’s dolphin), 1 (spinner dolphin), 

and 2 (striped dolphin). 

The modeling indicates that none of 

these species would be injured as a 

result of exposure to MFAS/HFAS. 

Further, NMFS believes that many 

marine mammals would deliberately 

avoid exposing themselves to the 

received levels necessary to induce 

injury (and avoid getting as close to the 

vessel as they would need to: within 

approximately 10 m (10.9 yd)) by 

moving away from or at least modifying 

their path to avoid a close approach. 

Last, NMFS believes that the mitigation 

measures would be effective at avoiding 

injurious exposures (which would only 

occur within approximately 10 m (10.9 

yd) of the vessel) if an animal did 

happen to approach that closely. 

The model predicted that one 

pantropical spotted dolphin and one 

striped dolphin would be exposed to 

injurious levels of energy or pressure 

from an explosive detonation. However, 

as stated previously, the relatively small 

area in which an animal would have to 

be to be injured (12–1023 m) and the 

visibility of these species, coupled with 

the 1862-m (2036-yd) exclusion zone 

(no explosives detonated if animals are 

in there), which is surveyed up to 2 

hours in advance of the exercise by 

vessel-based observers, as well as aerial 

and passive acoustic means (when 

available), support the determination 

that individuals of these species will not 

likely be injured by explosive 

detonations. 

Although NMFS does not expect 

mortality of any of these species to 

occur as a result of the MFAS/HFAS 

training exercises (see Mortality 

paragraph above), because we intend to 

authorize mortality, we must consider 

the 10 total potential mortalities (over 

the course of 5 years) of bottlenose 

dolphin, pantropical spotted dolphins, 

and striped dolphins in our negligible 

impact determination. 

Monk Seals 

The modeling predicts 104 instances 

of behavioral harassments of monk 

seals. When the number of behavioral 

takes is compared to the estimated 

abundance and if one assumes that each 

‘‘take’’ happens to a separate animal, 

approximately 8.3 percent of the stock 

would be behaviorally harassed during 

the course of a year. More likely, a 

smaller number of individuals would be 

harassed, and a subset would be 

harassed more than one time. More than 

likely, also, the 77 animals that reside 

in the main Hawaiian Islands would be 

the animals harassed. No areas of 

specific importance for reproduction or 

feeding for these species have been 

identified in waters of the HRC. 

The Navy’s model predicted that 

monk seals might be exposed to 

received levels of MFAS expected to 

cause TTS 3 times. Monk seals generally 

forage at depths of less than 100 m (109 

yd), but occasionally dive to depths of 

over 500 m (546 yd). The majority of 

ASW training in the HRC, however, 

takes place in waters 4 to 8 times deeper 

than even this known (500-m (546-yd)) 

maximum and it is very rare for ASW 

training to take place in waters as 

shallow as 100 m (109 yd) in depth. So, 

generally, monk seals are less likely to 

be in the vicinity of ASW activities, and 

we believe that watchstanders are likely 

to spot the seals before they could close 

within the distance necessary to sustain 

TTS, which would be less than 100 m 

(109 yd). For these reasons we do not 

believe that any monk seals will 

experience TTS. 

The Navy’s model also predicted that 

3 monk seals might be exposed to 

explosive levels that would result in the 

TTS. However, because of the likelihood 

of spotting these animals within the 

distance necessary to avoid TTS and 

implementing the exclusion zone (i.e., 

not detonating explosives) and the fact 

that the TTS takes that were modeled 

were not incidental to exercises using 

the two largest explosives, NMFS does 

not anticipate that any monk seals will 

experience TTS. 

The model-estimates that individuals 

of this species would not be injured as 

a result of the Navy’s action. Further, 

NMFS believes that monk seals would 

deliberately avoid exposing themselves 

to the received levels necessary to 

induce injury (and avoid getting as close 

to the vessel as they would need to: 

within approximately 10 m (10.9 yd)) by 

moving away from or at least modifying 

their path to avoid a close approach. 

Last, NMFS believes that the mitigation 

measures would be effective at avoiding 

injurious exposures (which would only 

occur within approximately 10 m (10.9 

yd) of the vessel) if an animal did 

happen to approach that closely. 

Humpback Whales 

The modeling estimates that 9,682 

instances of humpback whale 

behavioral harassment would occur as a 

result of Navy training. This may be an 

overestimate. The Hawaiian Humpback 

Whale National Marine Sanctuary 

worked with Dr. Joe Mobley to compile 

a figure that illustrates 10 years worth 

of humpback density data (Figure 2). 

This map generally shows the 

distribution of humpbacks throughout 

the Main Hawaiian Islands over 10 years 

and clearly depicts several ‘‘hot spots’’

where the density (on average—over 4 

surveys) far exceeds the density 

elsewhere in the HRC (high density 

areas are up to 3.8 animals/square mile 

(Mobley, pers. comm)). However, the 

Navy applied a uniform distribution of 

humpback whales within 25 km (46.3 

nm) of shore to estimate take in their 

model. Additionally, the Navy has 

indicated that, historically, they have 

conducted a very small amount of 

MFAS/HFAS transmissions in the dense 

humpback areas (they estimate 

approximately 30 hours of hullmounted sonar were conducted in these 

areas in 2007), although they cannot 

commit to any particular levels of 

MFAS/HFAS use in the areas in the 

future because of the need for flexibility 

in training (every area has different 

characteristics and exercise participants 

need to be exposed to a large variety of 

training scenarios). 

As described in the monk seal section, 

the Navy has indicated that the majority 

of ASW training in the HRC takes place 

in waters 2000–4000 m (2187–4374 yd) 

deep and it is very rare for ASW training 

to take place in waters as shallow as 100 

m (109 yd) in depth. Based on the 

bathymetry of the islands and the map 

of the densest areas of humpbacks, this 

means that the majority of the exercises 

are 2–15 km (1–8 nm), or farther, out 

from the densest areas of humpbacks, 

which would suggest, based on table 16, 

that the majority of behavioral takes of 

humpbacks would occur at received 

levels less than 150–160 dB. This 

suggests that the overall potential 

severity of the effects is likely less than 

one would anticipate if humpbacks 

were not selectively using the 

shallower, inshore areas and the Navy 

were not conducting the majority of 

their exercises in deeper areas. 

Additionally, the Navy has designated a 

cautionary area in the Maui Basin (see 

Mitigation) which the Navy recognizes 

as an area of importance to humpback 

whales. As noted above, the Navy has 

agreed that training exercises in the 

humpback whale cautionary area will 

require a much higher level of clearance 

than is normal practice in planning and 

conducting MFA sonar training. Any 

determination by the Commander, 

Pacific Fleet, to conduct training 

exercises in the cautionary area will be 

based on the unique characteristics of 

the area from a military readiness 

perspective, taking into account the 

importance of the area for humpback 

whales. The model results suggest that 

each humpback whale in the HRC may 

be harassed somewhere between 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35569 

approximately 1 and 3 times per year, 

though more than likely some will not 

be harassed at all and a subset will be 

harassed more than 3 times/year. 

However, as mentioned previously, the 

estimated takes do not factor in the fact 

that a portion of the animals will likely 

avoid the sound to some degree. 

The Navy’s model predicted that 199 

humpback whales might be exposed to 

received levels of MFAS expected to 

cause TTS. However, due to the large 

size and social behavior of humpback 

whales and the distance within which 

TTS levels are expected to occur, 

watchstanders will very likely detect 

these whales in time to shut down and 

prevent their exposures to levels of 

MFAS associated with TTS. If TTS were 

to occur in some humpbacks, 

desensitization at the frequencies of 

humpback vocalizations could occur 

due to the MFAS/HFAS TTS frequency 

range (2–20 kHz), however, as noted 

above, NMFS does not anticipate TTS of 

serious degree or extended duration to 

occur. Additionally of note, recent 

measurements of humpback whale calf 

calls, which were measured at 

frequencies of 140Hz to 4 kHz, with a 

mean frequency of 220 Hz, suggest that 

if a humpback did have TTS from 

MFAS exposure, it would not overlap 

with the majority of the range of the call 

that a calf might make, suggesting that 

the temporary impairment would not 

increase the risk of cow/calf separation. 

The model also predicted that TTS 

takes from explosives that might occur. 

For the same reasons listed above, 

NMFS anticipates that the Navy 

watchstanders would detect these 

species and implement the mitigation to 

avoid exposure. However, as mentioned 

in the Social Pelagic Section, the range 

to TTS for the two largest explosives is 

larger than the exclusion zone (see 

Table 8), and therefore NMFS 

anticipates that TTS might not be 

entirely avoided during those exercises, 

which results in 4 predicted TTS takes 

of humpbacks from explosive 

detonations. 

The modeling indicates that 

humpback whales will not be exposed 

to levels associated with any type of 

injury as a result of exposure to MFAS/ 

HFAS. Further, NMFS believes that 

many marine mammals would avoid 

exposing themselves to the received 

levels necessary to induce injury (and 

avoid getting as close to the vessel as 

they would need to: within 

approximately 10 m (10.9 yd)) by 

moving away from or at least modifying 

their path to avoid a close approach. 

Also, NMFS believes that the mitigation 

measures would be effective at avoiding 

injurious exposures to animal that 

approached within the safety zone, 

especially in the case of these large 

animals. 

The model predicts that 1 humpback 

would be injured by an explosive 

detonation. However, as stated 

previously, the relatively small area 

within which an animal would have to 

be present at a particular moment to be 

injured (12 to 1023 m (13 to 1119 yd)) 

and the visibility of these species, 

coupled with the 1862-m (2036-yd) 

exclusion zone (no explosives detonated 

if animals are in there), which is 

surveyed up to 2 hours in advance of 

the exercise by vessel-based observers, 

as well as aerial and passive acoustic 

means (when available), support the 

determination that no humpback whales 

will be injured by explosive 

detonations. 

Last, as mentioned above, humpback 

whale numbers are reported to be 

increasing both in Hawaii and in 

Alaska, where the majority of the 

Hawaii humpback whales feed in the 

summer. 

Subsistence Harvest of Marine 

Mammals 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the issuance of an LOA for Navy 

training exercises in the HRC would not 

have an unmitigable adverse impact on 

the availability of the affected species or 

stocks for subsistence use, since there 

are no such uses in the specified area. 

ESA 

There are seven marine mammal 

species and five sea turtle species that 

are listed as endangered under the ESA 

with confirmed or possible occurrence 

in the study area: humpback whale, 

North Pacific right whale, sei whale, fin 

whale, blue whale, sperm whale, and 

Hawaiian monk seal, loggerhead sea 

turtle, the green sea turtle, hawksbill sea 

turtle, leatherback sea turtle, and olive 

ridley sea turtle. The Navy has begun 

consultation with NMFS pursuant to 

section 7 of the ESA, and NMFS will 

also consult internally on the issuance 

of an LOA under section 101(a)(5)(A) of 

the MMPA for training exercises in the 

HRC. 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 Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 

for the Hawaii Range Complex, which 

was published on May 9th, 2008. 

Additionally, NMFS is preparing a Draft 

Environmental Assessment (EA) tiered 

off the Navy’s FEIS that analyzes the 

environmental effects of several 

different mitigation alternatives for the 

potential issuance of the HRC proposed 

rule and LOA. The Draft EA will be 

posted on NMFS’ Web site as soon as it 

is complete: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

pr/permits/incidental.htm. The Navy’s 

FEIS is also posted on NMFS website. 

NMFS intends to adopt the Navy’s 

FEIS, if adequate and appropriate, and 

we believe that the Navy’s FEIS and 

NMFS’ final EA will allow NMFS to 

meet its responsibilities under NEPA for 

the issuance of an LOA for training 

activities in the HRC. If the Navy’s FEIS 

were not adequate, NMFS would 

supplement the existing analysis and 

documents to ensure that we comply 

with NEPA prior to the issuance of the 

final rule or LOA. 

Preliminary Determination 

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 

measures, NMFS preliminarily finds 

that the total taking from Navy training 

exercises utilizing MFAS/HFAS and 

underwater explosives in the HRC will 

have a negligible impact on the affected 

species or stocks. NMFS has proposed 

regulations for these exercises that 

prescribe the means of affecting the least 

practicable adverse impact on marine 

mammals and their habitat and set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of that taking. 

Classification 

This action does not contain a 

collection of information requirement 

for purposes of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

Pursuant to the procedures 

established to implement section 6 of 

Executive Order 12866, the Office of 

Management and Budget has 

determined that this proposed rule is 

significant. 

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 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. section 

605 (b), that the action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
35570 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

The Navy is the 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. 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. 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 216 

Exports, Fish, Imports, Incidental 

take, Indians, Labeling, Marine 

mammals, Navy, Penalties, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Seafood, Sonar, Transportation. 

Dated: June 13, 2008. 

Samuel D. Rauch III 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For reasons set forth in the preamble, 

50 CFR part 216 is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 216—REGULATIONS 

GOVERNING THE TAKING AND 

IMPORTING OF MARINE MAMMALS 

1. The authority citation for part 216 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2. Subpart P is added to part 216 to 

read as follows: 

Subpart P—Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to U.S. Navy Training in the 

Hawaii Range Complex (HRC) 

Sec. 

216.170 Specified activity and specified 

geographical region. 

216.171 Effective dates and definitions. 

216.172 Permissible methods of taking. 

216.173 Prohibitions. 

216.174 Mitigation. 

216.175 Requirements for monitoring and 

reporting. 

216.176 Applications for Letters of 

Authorization. 

216.177 Letters of Authorization. 

216.178 Renewal of Letters of 

Authorization. 

216.179 Modifications to Letters of 

Authorization. 

Table 1 to Part 216, Subpart P—Summary of 

Monitoring Effort Proposed in 

Monitoring Plan for Hawaii Range 

Complex 

Subpart P—Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to U.S. Navy Training in the 

Hawaii Range Complex (HRC) 

§ 216.170 Specified activity and specified 

geographical region. 

(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 Hawaii Operational Area, 

which extends from 16 to 43o N. lat. 

and from 150–179° degrees W. 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) and high 

frequency active sonar (HFAS) sources 

for U.S. Navy anti-submarine warfare 

(ASW) training in the amounts 

indicated below (± 10 percent): 

(i) AN/SQS–53 (hull-mounted 

sonar)—up to 6420 hours over the 

course of 5 years (an average of 1284 

hours per year) 

(ii) AN/SQS–56 (hull-mounted 

sonar)—up to 1915 hours over the 

course of 5 years (an average of 383 

hours per year) 

(iii) AN/AQS–22 (helicopter dipping 

sonar)—up to 5050 dips over the course 

of 5 years (an average of 1010 dips per 

year) 

(iv) SSQ–62 (sonobuoys)—up to 

12115 sonobuoys over the course of 

5 years (an average of 2423 sonobuoys 

per year) 

(v) MK–48 (torpedoes)—up to 1565 

topedoes over the course of 5 years (an 

average of 313 torpedoes per year) 

(vi) AN/BQQ–10 (submarine mounted 

sonar)—up to 1,000 hours over the 

course of 5 years (an average of 200 per 

year) 

(2) The detonation of the underwater 

explosives indicated in paragraph 

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

of the training exercises 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 (20 lbs) 

(J) EER/IEER (5 lbs) 

(ii) Training Events: 

(A) Mine Neutralization—up to 310 

exercises over the course of 5 years (an 

average of 62 per year). 

(B) Air-to-Surface MISSILEX—up to 

180 exercises over the course of 5 years 

(an average of 36 per year). 

(C) Surface-to-Surface MISSILEX—up 

to 35 exercises over the course of 5 years 

(an average of 7 per year). 

(D) BOMBEX—up to 180 exercises 

over the course of 5 years (an average of 

35 per year). 

(E) SINKEX—up to 30 exercises over 

the course of 5 years (an average of 6 per 

year). 

(F) Surface-to-Surface GUNEX—up to 

345 exercises over the course of 5 years 

(an average of 69 per year). 

(G) Naval Surface Fire Support—up to 

110 exercises over the course of 5 years 

(an average of 22 per year). 

§ 216.171 Effective dates and definitions. 

(a) Regulations in this subpart become 

effective upon issuance of the final rule. 

(b) The following definitions are 

utilized in this subpart: 

(1) Uncommon Stranding Event 

(USE)—A stranding event that takes 

place during a major training exercise 

and involves any one of the following: 

(i) Two or more individuals of any 

cetacean species (not including mother/ 

calf pairs, unless of species of concern 

listed in next bullet) found dead or live 

on shore within a two day period and 

occurring on same shore lines or facing 

shorelines of different islands. 

(ii) A single individual or mother/calf 

pair of any of the following marine 

mammals of concern: Beaked whale of 

any species, kogia sp., Risso’s dolphin, 

melon-headed whale, pilot whales, 

humpback whales, sperm whales, blue 

whales, fin whales, sei whales, or monk 

seal. 

(iii) A group of 2 or more cetaceans 

of any species exhibiting indicators of 

distress. 

(2) Shutdown—The cessation of 

MFAS operation or detonation of 

explosives within 14 nm of any live, in 

the water animal involved in a USE. 

§ 216.172 Permissible methods of taking. 

(a) Under Letters of Authorization 

issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 and 

216.177, the Holder of the Letter of 

Authorization may incidentally, but not 

intentionally, take marine mammals 

within the area described in 

§ 216.170(b), provided the activity is in 

compliance with all terms, conditions, 

and requirements of these regulations 

and the appropriate Letter of 

Authorization. 

(b) The activities identified in 

§ 216.170(c) must be conducted in a 

manner that minimizes, to the greatest 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35571 

extent practicable, any adverse impacts 

on marine mammals and their habitat. 

(c) The incidental take of marine 

mammals under the activities identified 

in § 216.170 (c) is limited to the 

following species, by the indicated 

method of take the indicated number of 

times: 

(1) Level B Harassment (+/¥10 

percent): 

(i) Mysticetes: 

(A) Humpback whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae)—9893. 

(B) Minke whale (Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata)—64. 

(C) Sei whale (Balaenoptera 

borealis)—46. 

(D) Fin whale (Balaenoptera 

physalus)—46. 

(E) Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera 

edeni)—64. 

(ii) Odontocetes: 

(A) Sperm whales (Physeter 

macrocephalus)—781. 

(B) Pygmy sperm whales (Kogia 

breviceps)—865. 

(C) Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima)—

2122. 

(D) Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius 

cavirostris)—1149. 

(E) Blainville’s beaked whale 

(Mesoplodon densirostris)—357. 

(F) Longman’s beaked whale 

(Indopacetus pacificus)—105. 

(G) Rough-toothed dolphin (Steno 

bredanensis)—1077. 

(H) Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops 

truncatus)—734. 

(I) Pan-tropical dolphins (Stenella 

attenuata)—2199. 

(J) Spinner dolphins (Stenella 

longirostris)—421. 

(K) Striped dolphins (Stenella 

coeruleoalba).—3209. 

(L) Risso’s dolphin (Grampus 

griseus)—497. 

(M) Melon-headed whale 

(Peponocephala electra)—597. 

(N) Fraser’s dolphin (Lagenodelphis 

hosei)—1247. 

(O) Pygmy killer whale (Feresa 

attenuata)—196. 

(P) False killer whale (Pseudorca 

crassidens)—46. 

(Q) Killer whale (Orcinus orca)—46. 

(R) Short-finned pilot whale 

(Globicephala macrorynchus)—1,798. 

(iii) Pinnipeds: Hawaiian monk seal 

(Monachus schauinslandi)—110. 

(2) Level A Harassment and/or 

mortality of no more than 10 

individuals total of each of the species 

listed below over the course of the 5- 

year regulations: Bottlenose dolphin 

(Tursiops truncatus), Pygmy and Dwarf 

sperm whales (Kogia breviceps and 

sima), Melon-headed whale 

(Peponocephala electra), Pantropical 

spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata), 

Pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata), 

Short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala 

macrorynchus), Striped dolphin 

(Stenella coeruleoalba), and Cuvier’s 

beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris), 

Blainville’s beaked whale, (Mesoplodon 

densirostris), Longman’s beaked whale 

(Indopacetus pacificus). 

§ 216.173 Prohibitions. 

Notwithstanding takings 

contemplated in § 216.172 and 

authorized by a Letter of Authorization 

issued under §§ 216.106 and 216.177, 

no person in connection with the 

activities described in § 216.170 may: 

(a) Take any marine mammal not 

specified in § 216.172(c); 

(b) Take any marine mammal 

specified in § 216.172(c) other than by 

incidental take as specified in 

§ 216.172(c)(1) and (2); 

(c) Take a marine mammal specified 

in § 216.172(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 216.177. 

§ 216.174 Mitigation. 

(a) The activity identified in 

§ 216.170(a) must be conducted in a 

manner that minimizes, to the greatest 

extent practicable, adverse impacts on 

marine mammals and their habitats. 

When conducting training activities 

identified in § 216.170(a), the mitigation 

measures contained in the Letter of 

Authorization issued under §§ 216.106 

and 216.177 must be implemented. 

These mitigation measures include (but 

are not limited to): 

(1) Mitigation Measures for ASW 

training: (i) All lookouts onboard 

platforms involved in ASW training 

events will review the NMFS-approved 

Marine Species Awareness Training 

(MSAT) material prior to use of midfrequency active sonar. 

(ii) All Commanding Officers, 

Executive Officers, and officers standing 

watch on the Bridge will have reviewed 

the MSAT material prior to a training 

event employing the use of midfrequency active sonar. 

(iii) Navy lookouts will undertake 

extensive training in order to qualify as 

a watchstander in accordance with the 

Lookout Training Handbook 

(NAVEDTRA, 12968–B). 

(iv) Lookout training will include onthe-job instruction under the 

supervision of a qualified, experienced 

watchstander. 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). 

(v) 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 mitigation measures 

if marine species are spotted. 

(vi) 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. 

(vii) All surface ships participating in 

ASW exercises 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. 

(viii) 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. 

(ix) On surface vessels equipped with 

mid-frequency active sonar, pedestal 

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

will be present and in good working 

order. 

(x) Personnel on lookout will employ 

visual search procedures employing a 

scanning methodology in accordance 

with the Lookout Training Handbook 

(NAVEDTRA 12968–B). 

(xi) After sunset and prior to sunrise, 

lookouts will employ Night Lookouts 

Techniques in accordance with the 

Lookout Training Handbook. 

(xii) 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. 

(xiii) A Letter of Instruction, 

Mitigation Measures Message or 

Environmental Annex to the 

Operational Order will be issued prior 

to each exercise to further disseminate 

the personnel training requirement and 

general marine mammal mitigation 

measures. 

(xiv) Commanding Officers 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. 

(xv) 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. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
35572 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

(xvi) During mid-frequency active 

sonar training activities, personnel will 

utilize all available sensor and optical 

systems (such as Night Vision Goggles) 

to aid in the detection of marine 

mammals. 

(xvii) 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. 

(xviii) Aircraft with deployed 

sonobuoys will use only the passive 

capability of sonobuoys when marine 

mammals are detected within 200 yards 

(182 m) of the sonobuoy. 

(xix) 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. 

(xx) Safety Zones—When marine 

mammals are detected by any means 

(aircraft, shipboard lookout, or 

acoustically) the Navy will ensure that 

MFA transmission levels are limited to 

at least 6 dB below normal operating 

levels if any detected marine mammals 

are within 1,000, yards (914 m) of the 

sonar dome (the bow). 

(A) Ships and submarines will 

continue to limit maximum MFAS 

transmission levels by this 6-dB factor 

until the marine mammal has been seen 

to leave the area, has not been detected 

for 30 minutes, or the vessel has 

transited more than 2,000 yards (1828 

m) beyond the location of the last 

detection. 

(B) The Navy will ensure that MFAS 

transmissions will be limited to at least 

10 dB below the equipment’s normal 

operating level if any detected animals 

are within 500 yards (457 m) of the 

sonar dome. Ships and submarines will 

continue to limit maximum ping levels 

by this 10-dB factor until the marine 

mammal has been seen to leave the area, 

has not been detected for 30 minutes, or 

the vessel has transited more than 2,000 

yards (1828 m) beyond the location of 

the last detection. 

(C) The Navy will ensure that MFAS 

transmissions are ceased if any detected 

marine mammals are within 200 yards 

of the sonar dome. MFAS transmissions 

will not resume until the marine 

mammal has been seen to leave the area, 

has not been detected for 30 minutes, or 

the vessel has transited more than 2,000 

yards 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 Officer of the Deck 

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. 

(E) If the need for power-down should 

arise as detailed in ‘‘Safety Zones’’

above, 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 sonar was being 

operated). 

(xxi) 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. 

(xxii) 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. 

(xxiii) Helicopters shall observe/ 

survey the vicinity of an ASW 

Operation for 10 minutes before the first 

deployment of active (dipping) sonar in 

the water. 

(xxiv) Helicopters shall not dip their 

sonar within 200 yards (183 m) of a 

marine mammal and shall cease pinging 

if a marine mammal closes within 200 

yards (183 m) after pinging has begun. 

(xxv) Submarine sonar operators will 

review detection indicators of closeaboard marine mammals prior to the 

commencement of ASW training 

activities involving active midfrequency sonar. 

(xxvi) Humpback Whale Cautionary 

Area: An area extending 5 km (2.7 nm) 

from a line drawn from Kaunakakai on 

the island of Molokai to Kaena Point on 

the Island of Lanai; and an area 

extending 5 km (2.7 nm) from a line 

drawn from Kaunolu on the Island of 

Lanai to the most Northeastern point on 

the Island of Kahoolawe; and within a 

line drawn from Kanapou Bay on the 

Island of Kahoolawe to Kanahena Point 

on the Island of Maui and a line drawn 

from Cape Halawa on the Island of 

Molokai to Lipo Point on the Island of 

Maui, excluding the existing submarine 

operating area. 

(A) Should national security needs 

require MFA sonar training and testing 

in the cautionary area between 15 

December and 15 April, it must be 

personally authorized by the 

Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet based on 

his determination that training and 

testing in that specific area is required 

for national security purposes. This 

authorization shall be documented by 

the CPF in advance of transiting and 

training in the cautionary area, and the 

determination shall be based on the 

unique characteristics of the area from 

a military readiness perspective, taking 

into account the importance of the area 

for humpback whales and the need to 

minimize adverse impacts on humpback 

whales from MFA sonar whenever 

practicable. Further, Commander, U.S. 

Pacific Fleet will provide specific 

direction on required mitigation 

measures prior to operational units 

transiting to and training in the 

cautionary area. 

(B) The Navy will provide advance 

notification to NMFS of any such 

activities (listed in paragraph 

(a)(1)(xxvi)(A) of this section). 

(C) The Navy will include in its 

periodic reports for compliance with the 

MMPA whether or not activities 

occurred in the Humpback Cautionary 

Area above and any observed effects on 

humpback whales due to the conduct of 

these activities. 

(xxvii) The Navy will abide by the 

letter of the ‘‘Stranding Response Plan 

for Major Navy Training Exercises in the 

HRC’’ (available at: http:// 

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

incidental.htm), to include the 

following measures: 

(A) Shutdown Procedures—When an 

Uncommon Stranding Event (USE—

defined in § 216.171) occurs during a 

Major Training Exercise (MTE, 

including RIMPAC, USWEX, or MultiStrike Group Exercise) in the HRC, the 

Navy will implement the procedures 

described below. 

(1) The Navy will implement a 

Shutdown (as defined in § 216.171) 

when advised by a NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources Headquarters 

Senior Official designated in the HRC 

Stranding Communication Protocol that 

a USE involving live animals has been 

identified and that at least one live 

animal is located in the water. NMFS 

and Navy will maintain a dialogue, as 

needed, regarding the identification of 

the USE and the potential need to 

implement shutdown procedures. 

(2) Any shutdown in a given area will 

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). 

(3) If the Navy finds an injured or 

dead animal floating at sea during an 

MTE, the Navy shall notify NMFS 

immediately or as soon as operational 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35573 

security considerations allow. 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(s) is/are 

dead), location, time of first discovery, 

observed behaviors (if alive), and photo 

or video (if available). Based on the 

information provided, NMFS will 

determine if, and advise the Navy 

whether a modified shutdown is 

appropriate on a case-by-case basis. 

(4) In the event, following a USE, that: 

qualified individuals are attempting to 

herd animals back out to the open ocean 

and animals are not willing to leave, or 

animals are seen repeatedly heading for 

the open ocean but turning back to 

shore, NMFS and the Navy will 

coordinate (including an investigation 

of other potential anthropogenic 

stressors in the area) to determine if the 

proximity of MFAS training 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 

will further coordinate to determine 

what measures are necessary to further 

minimize that likelihood and 

implement those measures as 

appropriate. 

(B) Within 72 hours of NMFS 

notifying the Navy of the presence of a 

USE, the Navy will provide available 

information to NMFS (per the HRC 

Communication Protocol) regarding the 

location, number and types of acoustic/ 

explosive sources, direction and speed 

of units using MFAS, 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 will be 

provided as soon as it becomes 

available. The Navy will provide NMFS 

investigative teams with additional 

relevant unclassified information as 

requested, if available. 

(C) 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 assistance does not negatively 

affect Fleet operational commitments. 

(2) Mitigation for IEER—The 

following are protective measures for 

use with Extended Echo Ranging/ 

Improved Extended Echo Ranging (EER/ 

IEER) given an explosive source 

generates the acoustic wave used in this 

sonobuoy. 

(i) Crews will conduct visual 

reconnaissance of the drop area prior to 

laying their intended sonobuoy pattern. 

This search should be conducted below 

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

operationally feasible and weather 

conditions permit. In dual aircraft 

training activities, crews are allowed to 

conduct coordinated area clearances. 

(ii) Crews shall conduct a minimum 

of 30 minutes of visual and acoustic 

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 1,000 

yards (914 m) of observed marine 

mammal activity, deploy the receiver 

ONLY and monitor while conducting a 

visual search. When marine mammals 

are no longer detected within 1,000 

yards (914 m) of the intended post 

position, co-locate the explosive source 

sonobuoy (AN/SSQ–110A) (source) with 

the receiver. 

(iv) When able, 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 

communication range of these sensors. 

(v) 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. 

(vi) Visual Detection: 

(A) If marine mammals are visually 

detected within 1,000 yards (914 m) 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 resighted for 30 minutes, or are observed 

to have moved outside the 1,000 yards 

(914 m) safety buffer. 

(B) Aircrews may shift their multistatic active search to another post, 

where marine mammals are outside the 

1,000 yards (914 m) 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 1,000 yard (914 m) 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) 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. 

(x) Mammal monitoring shall 

continue until out of own-aircraft sensor 

range. 

(3) Mitigation for Demolitions 

(DEMOs) and Mine Countermeasure 

(MCM) Training (Up to 20 lb). (i) 

Exclusion Zones—Explosive charges 

will not be detonated if a marine 

mammal is detected within 700 yards 

(640 m) of the detonation site. 

(ii) Pre-Exercise Surveys—For MCM 

training activities, the Navy will 

conduct a pre-exercise survey 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. 

If a marine mammal is detected within 

the survey area, the exercise shall be 

suspended until the animal voluntarily 

leaves the area. 

(iii) Post-Exercise Surveys—Surveys 

within the same radius shall also be 

conducted within 30 minutes after the 

completion of the explosive event. 

(iv) Reporting—Any evidence of a 

marine mammal that may have been 

injured or killed by the action shall be 

reported immediately to NMFS. 

(v) Mine Laying Training—Though 

mine laying training operations involve 

aerial drops of inert training shapes on 

floating targets, measures 1, 2, and 3 for 

Demolitions and Mine countermeasures 

(above) will apply to mine laying 

training. To the maximum extent 

feasible, the Navy shall retrieve inert 

mine shapes dropped during Mine 

Laying Training. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
35574 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

(4) Mitigation for SINKEX, GUNEX, 

MISSILEX, and BOMBEX. (i) All 

weapons firing would be conducted 

during the period 1 hour after official 

sunrise to 30 minutes before official 

sunset. 

(ii) Extensive range clearance 

operations would be conducted in the 

hours prior to commencement of the 

exercise, ensuring that no shipping is 

located within the hazard range of the 

longest-range weapon being fired for 

that event. 

(iii) Prior to conducting the exercise, 

remotely sensed sea surface temperature 

maps would be reviewed. SINKEX and 

air to surface missile (ASM) Training 

activities would not be conducted 

within areas where strong temperature 

discontinuities are present, thereby 

indicating the existence of 

oceanographic fronts. These areas 

would be avoided because 

concentrations of some listed species, or 

their prey, are known to be associated 

with these oceanographic features. 

(iv) An exclusion zone with a radius 

of 1.0 nm (1.85 km) would be 

established around each target. This 

exclusion zone is based on calculations 

using a 449 kg H6 NEW high explosive 

source detonated 5 feet below the 

surface of the water, which yields a 

distance of 0.85 nm (1.57 km) (cold 

season) and 0.89 nm (1.64 km) (warm 

season) beyond which the received level 

is below the 182 dB re: 1 Pa sec2 

threshold established for the WINSTON 

S. CHURCHILL (DDG 81) shock trials. 

An additional buffer of 0.5 nm (0.93 km) 

would be added to account for errors, 

target drift, and animal movements. 

Additionally, a safety zone, which 

extends from the exclusion zone at 1.0 

nm (1.85 km) out an additional 0.5 nm 

(0.93 km), would be surveyed. Together, 

the zones extend out 2 nm (3.7 km) from 

the target. 

(v) A series of surveillance overflights would be conducted within the 

exclusion and the safety zones, prior to 

and during the exercise, when feasible. 

Survey protocol would be as follows: 

(A) 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 (SAR) 

Tactical Aid (TACAID). The SAR 

TACAID 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 

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. 

(C) 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 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 

any aural detection of marine mammals 

and would 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 would commence two hours prior 

to the first firing. 

(E) The results of all visual, aerial, 

and acoustic searches would be reported 

immediately to the OCE (Officer 

Conducting the Exercise). No weapons 

launches or firing would commence 

until the OCE declares the safety and 

exclusion zones free of marine 

mammals. 

(F) 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 has elapsed. After 30 

minutes, if the animal has not been resighted it would be assumed to have left 

the exclusion zone and firing would 

commence. 

(G) During breaks in the exercise of 30 

minutes or more, the exclusion zone 

would again be surveyed for any marine 

mammals. If marine mammals are 

sighted within the exclusion zone, the 

OCE would be notified, and the 

procedure described above would be 

followed. 

(H) Upon sinking of the vessel, a final 

surveillance of the exclusion zone 

would be monitored for two hours, or 

until sunset, to verify that no marine 

mammals were harmed. 

(vi) 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 mammals 

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. 

(vii) 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 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. 

(viii) The exercise would not be 

conducted unless the exclusion zone 

could be adequately monitored visually. 

(ix) In the unlikely event that any 

marine mammals are observed to be 

harmed in the area, a detailed 

description of the animal would be 

documented, the location noted, and if 

possible, photos taken. This information 

would be provided to NMFS. 

(b) [Reserved] 

§ 216.175 Requirements for monitoring 

and reporting. 

(a) The Holder of the Letter of 

Authorization issued pursuant to 

§§ 216.106 and 216.177 for activities 

described in § 216.170(b) is required to 

cooperate with the NMFS, and any other 

Federal, state or local agency monitoring 

the impacts of the activity on marine 

mammals. 

(b) As outlined in the HRC Stranding 

Communication Plan, the Holder of the 

Authorization must notify NMFS 

immediately (or as soon as clearance 

procedures allow) if the specified 

activity identified in § 216.170(b) is 

thought to have resulted in the mortality 

or injury of any marine mammals, or in 

any take of marine mammals not 

identified in § 216.170(c). 

(c) The Holder of the Letter of 

Authorization must conduct all 

monitoring and/or research required 

under the Letter of Authorization 

including abiding by the letter of the 

HRC Monitoring Plan, which requires 

the Navy implement, at a minimum, the 

monitoring activities summarized in 

Table 1 to this subpart (and described in 

more detail in the HRC Monitoring Plan, 

which may be viewed at: http:// 

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

incidental.htm). 

(d) Report from Monitoring required 

in paragraph (c) of this section—The 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35575 

Navy will submit a report annually on 

September 1 describing the 

implementation and results (through 

June 1 of the same year) of the 

monitoring required in paragraph (c) of 

this section. Standard marine species 

sighting forms will be use to standardize 

data collection and data collection 

methods will be standardized across 

ranges to allow for comparison in 

different geographic locations. 

(e) SINKEX, GUNEX, MISSILEX, 

BOMBEX, and IEER exercises—A report 

detailing the timelines of the exercises 

conducted, the time the surveys 

commenced and terminated, amount 

and types of all ordnance expended, and 

the results of survey efforts for each 

event will be submitted to NMFS yearly. 

(f) MFAS/HFAS exercises—The Navy 

will submit an After Action Report to 

the Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, within 120 days of the 

completion of any Major Training 

Exercise (RIMPAC, USWEX, and Multi 

Strike Group). For other ASW exercises 

(TRACKEX and TORPEX), the Navy will 

submit a yearly summary report. These 

reports will, at a minimum, include the 

following information: 

(1) The estimated number of hours of 

sonar operation, broken down by source 

type 

(2) If possible, the total number of 

hours of observation effort (including 

observation time when sonar was not 

operating) 

(3) A report of all marine mammal 

sightings (at any distance—not just 

within a particular distance) to include, 

when possible, and if not classified: 

(i) Species. 

(ii) Number of animals sighted. 

(iii) Geographic location of marine 

mammal sighting. 

(iv) Distance of animal from any ship 

with observers. 

(v) Whether animal is fore, aft, port, 

or starboard. 

(vi) Direction of animal movement in 

relation to boat (towards, away, 

parallel). 

(vii) Any observed behaviors of 

marine mammals. 

(4) The status of any sonar sources 

(what sources were in use) and whether 

or not they were powered down or shut 

down as a result of the marine mammal 

observation. 

(5) The platform that the marine 

mammals were sighted from. 

(g) HRC Comprehensive Report—The 

Navy will 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 individual reports 

are required in § 216.175 (d) through (f) 

of this section. This report will be 

submitted at the end of the fourth year 

of the rule (November 2012), covering 

activities that have occurred through 

June 1, 2012. 

(h) The Navy will respond to NMFS 

comments on the draft comprehensive 

report if submitted within 3 months of 

receipt. The report will be considered 

final after the Navy has addressed 

NMFS’ comments, or three months after 

the submittal of the draft if NMFS does 

not comment by then. 

(i) Comprehensive National ASW 

Report—The Navy will submit a draft 

National Report that analyzes, 

compares, and summarizes the data 

gathered from the watchstanders and 

pursuant to the implementation of the 

Monitoring Plans for the HRC, the 

Atlantic Fleet active Sonar Training 

(AFAST), and the Southern California 

(SOCAL) Range Complex. 

(j) The Navy will respond to NMFS 

comments on the draft comprehensive 

report if submitted within 3 months of 

receipt. The report will be considered 

final after the Navy has addressed 

NMFS’ comments, or three months after 

the submittal of the draft if NMFS does 

not comment by then. 

§ 216.176 Applications for Letters of 

Authorization. 

To incidentally take marine mammals 

pursuant to these regulations, the U.S. 

citizen (as defined by § 216.103) 

conducting the activity identified in 

§ 216.170(a) (the U.S. Navy) must apply 

for and obtain either an initial Letter of 

Authorization in accordance with 

§§ 216.177 or a renewal under 

§ 216.178. 

§ 216.177 Letter 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 § 216.178. 

(b) Each Letter of Authorization will 

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 will 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). 

§ 216.178 Renewal of Letters of 

Authorization. 

(a) A Letter of Authorization issued 

under § 216.106 and § 216.177 for the 

activity identified in § 216.170(c) will be 

renewed annually upon: 

(1) Notification to NMFS that the 

activity described in the application 

submitted under § 216.176 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) Timely receipt of the monitoring 

reports required under § 216.175(b); and 

(3) A determination by the NMFS that 

the mitigation, monitoring and reporting 

measures required under § 216.174 and 

the Letter of Authorization issued under 

§§ 216.106 and 216.177, 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 216.178 indicates that a 

substantial modification 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 this subpart 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. 

§ 216.179 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 216.177 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 § 216.178, without 

modification (except for the period of 

validity), is not considered a substantive 

modification. 

(b) If the Assistant Administrator 

determines that an emergency exists 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
35576 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

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

mammals specified in § 216.170(b), a 

Letter of Authorization issued pursuant 

to §§ 216.106 and 216.177 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. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 35577 

[FR Doc. 08–1371 Filed 6–17–08; 1:56 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3EP23JN08.022</GPH>