32398 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

Subsistence Mitigation Measures 

Statoil plans to introduce the 

following mitigation measures, plans 

and programs to potentially affected 

subsistence groups and communities. 

These measures, plans, and programs 

have been effective in past seasons of 

work in the Arctic and were developed 

in past consultations with these 

communities. These measures, plans, 

and programs will be implemented by 

Statoil during its 2010 open water 

marine seismic survey in the Chukchi 

Sea to monitor and mitigate potential 

impacts to subsistence users and 

resources. The mitigation measures 

Statoil has adopted and will implement 

during 2010 are listed and discussed 

below. 

Statoil will not be entering the 

Chukchi Sea until early August, so there 

will be no potential conflict with spring 

bowhead whale or beluga subsistence 

whaling in the polynya zone. Statoil’s 

seismic survey area is ∼100 mi (∼ 161 

km) northwest of Wainwright which 

reduces the potential impact to 

subsistence hunting activities occurring 

along the Chukchi Sea coast. 

The communication center in 

Wainwright will be jointly funded by 

Statoil and other operators, and Statoil 

will routinely call the communication 

center according to the established 

protocol while in the Chukchi Sea. 

Statoil plans to have one major crew 

change which will take place in Nome, 

AK, and will not involve the use of 

helicopters. Statoil does have a 

contingency plan for a potential transfer 

of a small number of crew via ship-toshore vessel at Wainwright. If this 

should become necessary, the 

Wainwright communications center will 

be contacted to determine the 

appropriate vessel route and timing to 

avoid potential conflict with subsistence 

users. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Preliminary Determination 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that Statoil’s proposed 2010 open water 

marine seismic survey in the Chukchi 

Sea will not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence uses. This preliminary 

determination is supported by 

information contained in this document 

and Statoil’s draft POC. Statoil has 

adopted a spatial and temporal strategy 

for its Chukchi Sea operations that 

should minimize impacts to subsistence 

hunters. Statoil will enter the Chukchi 

Sea far offshore, so as to not interfere 

with July hunts in the Chukchi Sea 

villages. After the close of the July 

beluga whale hunts in the Chukchi Sea 

villages, very little whaling occurs in 

Wainwright, Point Hope, and Point Lay. 

Although the fall bowhead whale hunt 

in Barrow will occur while Statoil is 

still operating (mid- to late September to 

October), Barrow is approximately 150 

mi (241 km) east of the eastern 

boundary of the proposed marine 

seismic survey site. Based on these 

factors, Statoil’s Chukchi Sea seismic 

survey is not expected to interfere with 

the fall bowhead harvest in Barrow. In 

recent years, bowhead whales have 

occasionally been taken in the fall by 

coastal villages along the Chukchi coast, 

but the total number of these animals 

has been small. 

Adverse impacts are not anticipated 

on sealing activities since the majority 

of hunts for seals occur in the winter 

and spring, when Statoil will not be 

operating. Additionally, most sealing 

activities occur much closer to shore 

than Statoil’s proposed marine seismic 

survey area. 

Based on the measures described in 

Statoil’s Draft POC, the proposed 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

(described earlier in this document), 

and the project design itself, NMFS has 

determined preliminarily that there will 

not be an unmitigable adverse impact on 

subsistence uses from Statoil’s open 

water marine seismic survey in the 

Chukchi Sea. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

There are three marine mammal 

species listed as endangered under the 

ESA with confirmed or possible 

occurrence in the proposed project area: 

the bowhead, humpback, and fin 

whales. NMFS’ Permits, Conservation 

and Education Division has initiated 

consultation with NMFS’ Protected 

Resources Division under section 7 of 

the ESA on the issuance of an IHA to 

Statoil under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA for this activity. Consultation 

will be concluded prior to a 

determination on the issuance of an 

IHA. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

NMFS is currently preparing an 

Environmental Assessment, pursuant to 

NEPA, to determine whether or not this 

proposed activity may have a significant 

effect on the human environment. This 

analysis will be completed prior to the 

issuance or denial of the IHA. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to 

authorize the take of marine mammals 

incidental to Statoil’s 2010 open water 

seismic survey in the Chukchi Sea, 

Alaska, provided the previously 

mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements are incorporated. 

Dated: June 2, 2010. 

James H. Lecky, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13753 Filed 6–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XT25 

Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental 

to Specified Activities; U.S. Marine 

Corps Training Exercises at Air Station 

Cherry Point 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received an 

application from the U.S. Marine Corps 

(USMC) requesting authorization to take 

marine mammals incidental to various 

training exercises at Marine Corps Air 

Station (MCAS) Cherry Point Range 

Complex, North Carolina. The USMC’s 

activities are considered military 

readiness activities pursuant to the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), as amended by the National 

Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 

Fiscal Year 2004. Pursuant to the 

MMPA, NMFS is requesting comments 

on its proposal to issue an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to the 

USMC to take bottlenose dolphins 

(Tursiops truncatus), by Level B 

harassment only, from specified 

activities. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than July 8, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on the 

application should be addressed to 

Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, 

Conservation and Education Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910–3225. The mailbox address for 

providing e-mail comments is 

PR1.0648–XT25@noaa.gov. NMFS is not 

responsible for e-mail comments sent to 

addresses other than the one provided 

here. Comments sent via e-mail, 

including all attachments, must not 

exceed a 10-megabyte file size. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32399 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and may 

be posted to http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

pr/permits/incidental.htm 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. 

A copy of the application containing 

a list of the references used in this 

document may be obtained by writing to 

the address specified above, telephoning 

the contact listed below (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or 

visiting the Internet at: http:// 

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

incidental.htm. The following 

associated document is also available at 

the same Internet address: 

Environmental Assessment MCAS 

Cherry Point Range Operations (USMC 

2009). Documents cited in this notice 

may also be viewed, by appointment, 

during regular business hours, at the 

aforementioned address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jaclyn Daly, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 713–2289. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA 

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

Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of marine mammals 

by U.S. citizens who engage in a 

specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) 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 for incidental takings 

may 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 

certain 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.’’ 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 

established an expedited process by 

which citizens of the United States can 

apply for an authorization to 

incidentally take small numbers of 

marine mammals by harassment. 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day 

time limit for NMFS review of an 

application followed by a 30-day public 

notice and comment period on any 

proposed authorizations for the 

incidental harassment of marine 

mammals. Within 45 days of the close 

of the comment period, NMFS must 

either issue or deny the authorization. 

The NDAA (Pub. L. 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 August 6, 2009, NMFS received an 

application from the USMC requesting 

an IHA for the harassment of Atlantic 

bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops 

truncatus) incidental to air-to-surface 

and surface-to-surface training exercises 

conducted around two bombing targets 

(BTs) within southern Pamlico Sound, 

North Carolina, at MCAS Cherry Point. 

NMFS requested additional information 

regarding the specified activities and 

received responses from the USMC on 

October 29, 2009, completing the 

application. 

Weapon delivery training would 

occur at two BTs: Brant Island Target 

(BT–9) and Piney Island Bombing Range 

(BT–11). Training at BT–9 would 

involve air-to-surface (from aircraft to 

in-water targets) and surface-to-surface 

(from vessels to in-water targets) warfare 

training, including bombing, strafing, 

special (laser systems) weapons; surface 

fires using non-explosive and explosive 

ordnance; and mine laying exercises 

(inert). Training at BT–11 would involve 

air-to-surface exercises to provide 

training in the delivery of conventional 

(non-explosive) and special (laser 

systems) weapons. Surface-to-surface 

training by small military watercraft 

would also be executed here. The types 

of ordnances proposed for use at BT–9 

and BT–11 include small arms, large 

arms, bombs, rockets, missiles, and 

pyrotechnics. All munitions used at BT– 

11 are inert, practice rounds. No live 

firing occurs at BT–11. Training for any 

activity may occur year-round. Active 

sonar is not a component of these 

specified training exercises; therefore, 

discussion of marine mammal 

harassment from active sonar operations 

is not included within this notice. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

The USMC is requesting authorization 

to harass bottlenose dolphins from 

ammunition firing conducted at two 

BTs within MCAS Cherry Point. The 

BTs are located at the convergence of 

the Neuse River and Pamlico Sound, 

North Carolina. BT–9 is a water-based 

target located approximately 52 km (28 

nautical miles [nm]) northeast of MCAS 

Cherry Point. The BT–9 target area 

ranges in depth from 1.2 m to 6.1 m, 

with the shallow areas concentrated 

along the Brandt Island Shoal (which 

runs down the middle of the restricted 

area in a northwest to southeast 

orientation). The target itself consists of 

three ship hulls grounded on Brant 

Island Shoals, located approximately 4.8 

km (3 miles [mi]) southeast of Goose 

Creek Island. Inert (non-explosive) 

ordnance up to 454 kilograms (kg) 

(1,000 lbs) and live (explosive) ordnance 

up to 45.4 kg (100 lbs) TNT equivalent, 

including ordnance released during 

strafing, are authorized for use at this 

target range. The target is defined by a 

6 statute-mile (SM) diameter prohibited 

area designated by the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Wilmington District (33 

CFR 334.420). Non-military vessels are 

not permitted within the prohibited 

area, which is delineated by large signs 

located on pilings surrounding the 

perimeter of the BT. BT–9 also provides 

a mining exercise area; however, all 

mine exercises are simulation only and 

do not involve detonations. BT–9 

standard operating procedures limit live 

ordnance deliveries to a maximum 

explosive weight of 100 lbs TNT 

equivalent. Based on 2007 data, the 

USMC would conduct approximately 

1,539 aircraft-based and 165 vesselbased sorties, annually, at BT–9. The 

standard sortie consists of two aircraft 

per bombing run or an average of two 

and maximum of six vessels. 

BT–11 is a 50.6 square kilometers (sq 

km) (19.5 square miles [sq mi]) complex 

of land- and water-based targets on 

Piney Island. The BT–11 target area 

ranges in depth from 0.3 m along the 

shoreline to 3.1 m in the center of 

Rattan Bay (BA 2001). The in-water 

stationary targets of BT–11 consist of a 

barge and patrol (PT) boat located in 

roughly the center of Rattan Bay. The 

barge target is approximately 135 ft by 

40 ft in dimension. The PT boat is 

approximately 110 ft by 35 ft in 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32400 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

dimension. Water depths in the center 

of Rattan Bay are estimated as 2.4 to 3 

m (8 to 10 ft) with bottom depths 

ranging from 0.3 to 1.5 m (1 to 5 ft) 

adjacent to the shoreline of Piney 

Island. A shallow ledge, with substrate 

expected to be hard-packed to hard 

bottom, surrounds Piney Island. No live 

firing occurs at BT–11; all munitions 

used are inert, non-explosive practice 

rounds. Only 36 percent of all 

munitions fired at BT–11 occur over 

water; the remaining munitions are fired 

to land based targets on Piney Island. 

Based on 2007 data, the USMC would 

conduct approximately 6,727 aircraftbased and 51 vessel-based sorties, 

annually, at BT–11. 

All inert and live-fire exercises at 

MCAS Cherry Point ranges are 

conducted so that all ammunition and 

other ordnances strike and/or fall on the 

land or water based target or within the 

existing danger zones or water restricted 

areas. A danger zone is a defined water 

area that is closed to the public on an 

intermittent or full-time basis for use by 

military forces for hazardous operations 

such as target practice and ordnance 

firing. A water restricted area is a 

defined water area where public access 

is prohibited or limited in order to 

provide security for Government 

property and/or to protect the public 

from the risks of injury or damage that 

could occur from the government’s use 

of that area (33 CFR 334.2). Surface 

danger zones are designated areas of 

rocket firing, target practice, or other 

hazardous operations (33 CFR 334.420). 

The surface danger zone (prohibited 

area) for BT–9 is a 4.8 km radius 

centered on the south side of Brant 

Island Shoal. The surface danger zone 

for BT–11 is a 2.9 km radius centered 

on a barge target in Rattan Bay. 

According to the application, the 

USMC is requesting take of marine 

mammals incidental to specified 

activities at MCAS Cherry Point Range 

Complex, located within Pamlico 

Sound, North Carolina. These activities 

include gunnery; mine laying; bombing; 

or rocket exercises and are classified 

into two categories here based on 

delivery method: (1) Surface-to-surface 

gunnery and (2) air-to-surface bombing. 

Exercises may occur year round, day or 

night (approximately 15 percent of 

training occurs at night). 

Surface-to-Surface Gunnery Exercises 

Surface-to-surface fires are fires from 

boats at sea to targets at sea. These can 

be direct (targets are within sight) or 

indirect (targets are not within sight). 

Gunnery exercise employing only direct 

fire is the only category of surface-tosurface activity currently conducted 

within the MCAS Cherry Point BTs. An 

average of two and maximum of six 

small boats (24–85 ft), or fleet of boats, 

typically operated by Special Boat Team 

personnel, use a machine gun to attack 

and disable or destroy a surface target 

that simulates another ship, boat, 

swimmer, floating mine or near shore 

land targets. Vessels travel between 0– 

20 kts with an average of two vessels 

actually conducting surface-to-surface 

firing activities. Typical munitions are 

7.62 millimeter (mm) or .50 caliber (cal) 

machine guns; and/or 40 mm Grenade 

machine guns. This exercise is usually 

a live-fire exercise, but at times blanks 

may be used so that the boat crews can 

practice their ship handling skills. The 

goal of training is to hit the targets; 

however, some munitions may bounce 

off the targets and land in the water or 

miss the target entirely. Additionally, 

G911 Concussion hand grenades (inert 

and live) are used; however, these are 

not aimed at targets, as the goal is to 

learn how to throw them into the water. 

The estimated amount of munitions 

expended at BT–9 and BT–11 during 

this training can be found in Table 1 

below. In 2007, a total of 216 boat 

sorties were conducted at BT–9 and BT– 

11 year round with equal distribution of 

training effort throughout the seasons. 

Live fires constitute approximately 90 

percent of all surface-to-surface gunnery 

events. The majority of sorties 

originated and practiced at BT–9 as no 

live fire is conducted at BT–11. The 

USMC has indicated a comparable 

number of sorties would occur 

throughout the IHA timeframe. There is 

no specific schedule associated with the 

use of ranges by the small boat teams. 

However, exercises tend to be scheduled 

for 5-day blocks with exercises at 

various times throughout that 

timeframe. There is no specific time of 

year or month training occurs as 

variables such as deployment status, 

range availability, and completion of 

crew specific training requirements 

influence schedules. 

A number of different types of boats 

are used during surface-to-surface 

exercises depending on the unit using 

the boat and their mission and include 

versions of Small Unit River Craft, 

Combat Rubber Raiding Craft, Rigid 

Hull Inflatable Boats, Patrol Craft. They 

are inboard or outboard, diesel or 

gasoline engines with either propeller or 

water jet propulsion. Boat crews 

approach, at a maximum of 20 kts, and 

engage targets simulating other boats, 

swimmers, floating mines, or near shore 

land targets with 7.62 mm or .50 cal 

machine guns; 40 mm grenade machine 

guns; or M3A2 Concussion hand 

grenades (approximately 200, 800, 10, 

and 10 rounds respectively). Vessels 

typically travel in linear paths and do 

not operate erratically. Other vessels 

may be located within the BTs; 

however, these are support craft and do 

not participate in munitions 

expenditures. The purpose of the 

support craft is to remotely control High 

Speed Maneuvering Surface Targets 

(HSMSTs) or to conduct maintenance 

on electronic equipment located in the 

towers at BT–9. Support craft are 

typically anchored or tied to marker 

pilings during HSMST operations or 

tied to equipment towers. When 

underway, vessels do not typically 

travel faster than 12–18 kts or in an 

erratic manner. 

TABLE 1—TYPE AND AMOUNT OF MUNITIONS EXPENDED AT BT–9 AND BT–11 DURING SURFACE-TO-SURFACE EXERCISES

Range Annual No. 

of sorties 1 Munitions type 

Munitions 

expended 

annually 

BT–9 ........................... 165 5.56 mm .................................................................................................................................. 1,468 

7.62 mm .................................................................................................................................. 218,500 

.50 cal ..................................................................................................................................... 166,900 

40 mm Grenade—Inert ........................................................................................................... 15,734 

40 mm Grenade—Live (HE) ................................................................................................... 9,472

G911 Grenade ........................................................................................................................ 144 

BT–11 ......................... 51 7.62 mm .................................................................................................................................. 44,100 

.40 cal ..................................................................................................................................... 4,600 

40 mm Grenade—Inert ........................................................................................................... 1,517 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32401 

TABLE 1—TYPE AND AMOUNT OF MUNITIONS EXPENDED AT BT–9 AND BT–11 DURING SURFACE-TO-SURFACE

EXERCISES—Continued 

Range Annual No. 

of sorties 1 Munitions type 

Munitions 

expended 

annually 

40 mm Illumination—Inert ....................................................................................................... 9 

1Sorties are from FY 2007 CURRS data. 

Air-to-Surface 

Air-to-surface training involves 

ordnance delivered from aircraft and 

aimed at targets on the water’s surface 

or on land in the case of BT–11. A 

description of the types of targets used 

at MCAS Cherry Point is provided in the 

section on BTs above. There are four 

types of air-to-surface activities 

conducted within the MCAS Cherry 

Point BTs: Mine laying; bombing; 

gunnery or rocket exercises which are 

carried out via fixed wing or rotary wing 

aircraft. 

Mine Laying Exercises 

Mine Warfare (MIW) includes the 

strategic, operational, and tactical use of 

mines and mine countermine measures. 

MIW is divided into two basic 

subdivisions: (a) The laying of mines to 

degrade the enemy’s capabilities to 

wage land, air, and maritime warfare, 

and (b) the countering of enemy-laid 

mines to permit friendly maneuver or 

use of selected land or sea areas (DoN, 

2007). MCAS Cherry Point would only 

engage in mine laying exercises as 

described below. No detonations of any 

mine device are involved with this 

training. 

During mine laying, a fixed-wing or 

maritime patrol aircraft (P–3 or P–8) 

typically drops a series of about four 

inert mine shapes in an offensive or 

defensive pattern, making multiple 

passes along a pre-determined flight 

azimuth, and dropping one or more 

shapes each time. Mine simulation 

shapes include MK76, MK80 series, and 

BDU practice bombs ranging from 25 to 

2,000 pounds in weight. There is an 

attempt to fly undetected to the area 

where the mines are laid with either a 

low or high altitude tactic flight. The 

shapes are scored for accuracy as they 

enter the water and the aircrew is later 

debriefed on their performance. The 

training shapes are inert (no detonations 

occur) and expendable. Mine laying 

operations are regularly conducted in 

the water in the vicinity of BT–9. 

Bombing Exercises 

The purpose of bombing exercises is 

to train pilots in destroying or disabling 

enemy ships or boats. During training, 

fixed wing or rotary wing aircraft 

deliver bombs against surface maritime 

targets at BT–9 or BT–11, day or night, 

using either unguided or precisionguided munitions. Unguided munitions 

include MK–76 and BDU–45 inert 

training bombs, and MK–80 series of 

inert bombs (no cluster munitions 

authorized). Precision-guided munitions 

consist of laser-guided bombs (inert) 

and laser-guided training rounds (inert). 

Typically, two aircraft approach the 

target (principally BT–9) from an 

altitude of approximately 914 m (3,000 

ft) up to 4,572 m (15,000 ft) and, when 

on an established range, the aircraft 

adhere to designated ingress and egress 

routes. Typical bomb release altitude is 

914 m (3,000 ft) for unguided munitions 

or above 4,572 m (15,000 ft) and in 

excess of 1.8 km (1 nm) for precisionguided munitions. However, the lowest 

minimum altitude for ordnance delivery 

(inert bombs) would be 152 m (500 ft). 

Onboard laser designators or laser 

designators from a support aircraft or 

ground support personnel are used to 

illuminate certified targets for use when 

using laser guided weapons. Due to 

target maintenance issues, live bombs 

have not been dropped at the BT–9 

targets for the past few years although 

these munitions are authorized for use. 

For the effective IHA timeframe, no live 

bombs would be utilized. Live rockets 

and grenades; however, have been 

expended at BT–9. 

Air-to-Surface bombing exercises have 

the potential to occur on a daily basis. 

The standard sortie consists of two 

aircraft per bombing run. The frequency 

of these exercises is dependent on 

squadron level training requirements, 

deployment status, and range 

availability; therefore, there is no set 

pattern or specific time of year or month 

when this training occurs. Normal 

operating hours for the range are 0800– 

2300, Monday through Friday; however, 

the range is available for use 365 days 

per year. 

Rocket Exercises 

Rocket exercises are carried out 

similar to bombing exercises. Fixed- and 

rotary-wing aircraft crews launch 

rockets at surface maritime targets, day 

and night, to train for destroying or 

disabling enemy ships or boats. These 

operations employ 2.75-inch and 5-inch 

rockets. 

The average number of rockets 

delivered per sortie is approximately 14. 

As with the bombing exercise, there is 

no set level or pattern of amount of 

sorties conducted. 

Gunnery Exercises 

During gunnery training, fixed- and 

rotary-wing aircraft expend smaller 

munitions targeted at the BTs with the 

purpose of hitting them. However, some 

small arms may land in the water. 

Rotary wing exercises involve either 

CH–53, UH–1, CH–46, MV–22, or H–60 

rotary-wing aircraft with mounted 7.62 

mm or .50 cal machine guns. Each 

gunner expends approximately 800 

rounds of 7.62 mm and 200 rounds of 

.50 cal ammunition in each exercise. 

These may be live or inert. 

Fixed wing gunnery exercises involve 

the flight of two aircraft that begin to 

descend to the target from an altitude of 

approximately 914 meters (m) (3,000 

feet [ft]) while still several miles away. 

Within a distance of 1,219 m (4,000 ft) 

from the target, each aircraft fires a burst 

of approximately 30 rounds before 

reaching an altitude of 305 m (1,000 ft), 

then breaks off and repositions for 

another strafing run until each aircraft 

expends its exercise ordnance 

allowance of approximately 250 rounds. 

In total, about 8–12 passes are made by 

each aircraft per exercise. Typically 

these fixed wing exercise events involve 

an F/A–18 and AH–1 with Vulcan 

M61A1/A2, 20 mm cannon; AV–8 with 

GAU–12, 25 mm cannon. 

Munition Descriptions 

A complete list of the ordnance 

authorized for use at BT–9 and BT–11 

can be found in Tables 2 and 3, 

respectively. There are several varieties 

and net explosive weights (for live 

munition used at BT–9) can vary 

according to the variety. All practice 

bombs are inert and used to simulate the 

same ballistic properties of service type 

bombs. They are manufactured as either 

solid cast metal bodies or thin sheet 

metal containers. Since practice bombs 

contain no explosive filler, a practice 

bomb signal cartridge (smoke) is used 

for visual observation of weapon target 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32402 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

impact. Practice bombs provide a low 

cost training device for pilot and ground 

handling crews. Due to the relatively 

small amount of explosive material in 

practice bombs (small signal charge), the 

availability of ranges for training is 

greatly increased. 

When a high explosive detonates, it is 

converted almost instantly into a gas at 

very high pressure and temperature. 

Under the pressure of the gases thus 

generated, the weapon case expands and 

breaks into fragments. The air 

surrounding the casing is compressed 

and shock (blast) wave is transmitted 

into it. Typical initial values for a highexplosive weapon are 200 kilobars of 

pressure (1 bar = 1 atmosphere) and 

5,000 degrees Celsius. There are five 

types of explosive sources used at BT– 

9: 2.75′′ Rocket High Explosives, 5′′ 

Rocket High Explosives, 30 mm High 

Explosives, 40 mm High Explosives, and 

G911 grenades. No live munitions are 

used at BT–11. 

TABLE 2—DESCRIPTION OF MUNITIONS USED AT BT–9 

Ordnance Description Net explosive weight 

MK 76 Practice Bomb (inert) ....................................... 25-pound teardrop-shaped cast metal bomb, with a 

bore tube for installation of a signal cartridge.

(of signal cartridge) varies, maximum 0.083800 lbs. 

BDU 33 Practice Bomb (inert) ..................................... Air Force MK 76 practice bomb .................................. same as above. 

BDU 48 Practice Bomb (inert) ..................................... 10-pound metal cylindrical bomb body with a bore 

tube for installation of a signal cartridge.

same as above. 

BDU 45 Practice Bomb (inert) ..................................... 500-pound metal bomb either sand or water filled. 

Two signal cartridges.

(of signal cartridges) total 0.1676 

lbs. 

BDU 50 Practice Bomb (inert) ..................................... 500-pound metal bomb either sand or water filled. 

Two signal cartridges.

same as above. 

MK 81 Practice Bomb (inert) ....................................... 250-pound bomb ......................................................... 0 

MK 82 Practice Bomb (inert) ....................................... 500-pound bomb ......................................................... 0 

MK 83 Practice Bomb (inert) ....................................... 1000-pound bomb configured like BDU 45 ................ 0.1676 lbs. 

MK 84 Practice Bomb (inert) (special exception use 

only).

2000-pound bomb configured like BDU 45 ................ 0.1676 lbs. 

2.75-inch (inert) ............................................................ Unguided 2.75 inch diameter rocket ........................... 0 

5-inch Zuni (inert) ......................................................... Unguided 5 inch diameter rocket ................................ 0 

5-inch Zuni (live) .......................................................... Unguided 5-inch diameter rocket ................................ 15 lbs. 

2.75wp (inert) ............................................................... 2.75-inch rocket containing white phosphorous ......... 0 

2.75HE ......................................................................... High Explosive, 2.75 inch rocket ................................ 4.8 lbs. 

0.50 cal (inert) ..............................................................

7.62 mm (inert) ............................................................

20 mm (inert) ...............................................................

25 mm (inert) ...............................................................

30 mm (inert) ...............................................................

40 mm (inert) ...............................................................

Machine gun rounds ................................................... 0 

25 mm HE (live) ........................................................... High Explosive Incendiary, Live machine gun rounds 0.269 lbs. 

Self Protection Flare .................................................... Aerial flare ................................................................... 0 

Chaff ............................................................................. 18-pound chaff canister .............................................. 0 

LUU–2 .......................................................................... 30-pound high intensity illumination flare ................... 0 

Laser Guided Training Round (LGTR) (inert) .............. 89-pound inert training bomblet .................................. 0 

TABLE 3—DESCRIPTION OF MUNITIONS USED AT BT–11 

Ordnance Description 

MK 76 Practice Bomb ..................... 25-pound teardrop-shaped cast metal bomb body, with a bore tube for installation of a signal cartridge. 

BDU 33 Practice Bomb ................... Air Force designation for MK 76 practice bomb. 

BDU 48 Practice Bomb ................... 10-pound metal cylindrical bomb body with a bore tube for installation of a signal cartridge. 

BDU 45 Practice Bomb ................... 500-pound metal bomb body either sand or water filled. Configured with either low drag conical tail fins or 

high drag tail fins for retarded weapons delivery. Two signal cartridges installed. 

MK 81 Practice Bomb ..................... 250-pound inert bomb. 

MK 82 Practice Bomb ..................... 500-pound inert bomb. 

2.75-inch ......................................... Unguided 2.75 inch diameter rocket. 

5-inch Zuni ...................................... 5 inch diameter rocket. 

WP-2.75-inch .................................. White phosphorous 7-pound rocket. 

0.50 cal ...........................................

7.62 mm ..........................................

5.56 mm ..........................................

20 mm .............................................

30 mm .............................................

40 mm .............................................

Inert machine gun rounds. 

TOW ................................................ Wire guided 56-pound anti-tank missile. 

Self Protection Flare ....................... Aerial flare. 

SMD SAMS ..................................... 1.5-pound smoking flare. 

LUU–2 ............................................. 30-pound high-intensity illumination flare. 

Laser Guided Training Round 

(LGTR).

89-pound inert training bomblet. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32403 

The amounts of all ordnance to be 

expended at BT–9 and BT–11 (both 

surface-to-surface and air-to-surface) are 

897,932 and 1,109,955 rounds, 

respectively (see Table 4 and 5 below). 

TABLE 4—AMOUNT OF LIVE AND INERT MUNITIONS EXPENDED AT BT–9 PER YEAR

Proposed munitions 1

Proposed total 

number of 

rounds 

Proposed number of explosive rounds having an 

impact on the water 

Net explosive 

weight 

(lb) 

Small Arms Rounds Excluding .50 cal ..................... 525,610 N/A ............................................................................ N/A 

.50 Cal ...................................................................... 257,067 N/A ............................................................................ N/A 

Large Arms Rounds—Live ....................................... 12,592 30 mm HE: 3,120 ..................................................... 0.1019 

............................ 40 mm HE: 9,472 0.1199 

Large Arms Rounds—Inert ....................................... 93,024 N/A ............................................................................ N/A 

Rockets—Live ........................................................... 241 2.75′′ Rocket: 184 .....................................................

5′′ Rocket: 57 ............................................................

4.8 

15.0 

Rockets—Inert .......................................................... 703 N/A ............................................................................ N/A 

Bombs and Grenades—Live .................................... 144 G911 Grenade: 144 .................................................. 0.5 

Bombs and Grenades—Inert .................................... 4,055 N/A ............................................................................ N/A 

Pyrotechnics ............................................................. 4,496 N/A ............................................................................ N/A 

Total ................................................................... 897,932 12,977 ....................................................................... N/A 

1 Munitions may be expended from aircraft or small boats. 

TABLE 5—AMOUNT OF INERT

MUNITIONS EXPENDED AT BT–11 

Proposed munitions 1

Proposed total 

number of 

rounds 2

Small Arms Rounds Excluding .50 Cal .............. 507,812 

.50 Cal .............................. 326,234 

Large Arms Rounds ......... 240,334 

Rockets ............................. 4,549 

Bombs and Grenades ...... 22,114 

Pyrotechnics ..................... 8,912 

Total ........................... 1,109,955 

1 Munitions may be expended from aircraft 

or small boats. 2 Munitions estimated using FY 2007 

CURRS data on a per sortie-operation basis. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activity 

Forty marine mammal species occur 

within the nearshore and offshore 

waters of North Carolina; however, the 

majority of these species are solely 

oceanic in distribution. Only one 

marine mammal species, the bottlenose 

dolphin, has been repeatedly sighted in 

Pamlico Sound, while an additional 

species, the endangered West Indian 

manatee (Trichechus manatus), has 

been sighted rarely (Lefebvre et al., 

2001; DoN 2003). The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service oversees management 

of the manatee; therefore, authorization 

to harass manatees would not be 

included in any NMFS’ authorization 

and will not be discussed further. 

No sightings of the endangered North 

Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena 

glacialis) or other large whales have 

been observed within Pamlico Sound or 

in vicinity of the BTs (Kenney 2006). No 

suitable habitat exists for these species 

in the shallow Pamlico Sound or BT 

vicinity; therefore, whales would not be 

affected by the specified activities and 

will not be discussed further. Other 

dolphins, such as Atlantic spotted 

(Stenella frontalis) and common 

dolphins (Delphinus delphis), are 

oceanic in distribution and do not 

venture into the shallow, brackish 

waters of southern Pamlico Sound. 

Therefore, the specified activity has the 

potential to affect one marine mammal 

species under NMFS’ jurisdiction: the 

bottlenose dolphin. 

Coastal (or nearshore) and offshore 

stocks of bottlenose dolphins in the 

Western North Atlantic can be 

distinguished by genetics, diet, blood 

characteristics, and outward appearance 

(Duffield et al., 1983; Hersh and 

Duffield, 1990; Mead and Potter, 1995; 

Curry and Smith, 1997). Initially, a 

single stock of coastal morphotype 

bottlenose dolphins was thought to 

migrate seasonally between New Jersey 

(summer months) and central Florida 

based on seasonal patterns in strandings 

during a large scale mortality event 

occurring during 1987–1988 (Scott et 

al., 1988). However, re-analysis of 

stranding data (McLellan et al., 2003) 

and extensive analysis of genetic, photoidentification, satellite telemetry, and 

stable isotope studies demonstrate a 

complex mosaic of coastal bottlenose 

dolphin stocks (NMFS 2001) which may 

be migratory or resident (they do not 

migrate and occur within an area year 

round). Four out of the seven designated 

coastal stocks may occur in North 

Carolina waters at some part of the year: 

the Northern Migratory stock (NM; 

winter); the Southern Migratory stock 

(SM; winter); the Northern North 

Carolina Estuarine stock (NNCE; 

resident, year round); and the more 

recently identified Southern North 

Carolina stock (SNC; resident, year 

round). Stable isotope depleted oxygen 

signature (hypoxic conditions routinely 

develops during summer in North 

Carolina waters) (Cortese, 2000), 

satellite telemetry, and photoidentification (NMFS, 2001) support 

stock structure analysis. Dolphins 

encountered at the BTs likely belong to 

the NNCE and SNC stock; however, this 

may not always be the case. NMFS’ 

2008 stock assessment report provides 

further detail on stock delineation. All 

stocks discussed here are considered 

depleted under the MMPA (Waring et 

al., 2007). 

NMFS provides abundance estimates 

for the four aforementioned migratory 

and resident coastal stocks in its 2008 

stock assessment report; however, these 

estimates are based solely from summer 

aerial surveys. The size of the NNCE 

stock is technically considered 

‘‘unknown’’; however, Read et al., (2003) 

provided a population estimate of 919 

(95 percent CI 730–1,190) (Waring et al., 

2009). The population estimate for the 

SNC stock is 4,818, respectively. From 

July 2004 through April 2006, the 

NMFS’ SEFSC conducted 41 aerial 

surveys to document the seasonal 

distribution and estimated density of 

sea turtles and dolphins within Core 

Sound and portions of Pamlico Sound, 

and coastal waters extending one mile 

offshore (Goodman et al., 2007). 

Pamlico Sound was divided into two 

survey areas: western (encompassing 

BT–9 and BT–11) and eastern (including 

Core Sound and the eastern portion of 

restricted air space R–5306). In total, 

281 dolphins were sighted in the 

western range. To account for animals 

likely missed during sightings (i.e., 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32404 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

those below the surface), Goodman et al. 

(2007) estimate that, in reality, 415 

dolphins were present. Densities for 

bottlenose dolphins in the western part 

of Pamlico Sound were calculated to be 

0.0272/km2 in winter; 0.2158/km2 in 

autumn; 0.0371/km2 in summer; and 

0.0946/km2 in summer (Goodman et al., 

2007). Dolphins were sighted 

throughout the entire range when mean 

sea surface temperature (SST) was 7.60 

°C to 30.82 °C, with fewer dolphins 

sighted as water temperatures increased. 

Like in Mayer (2003), dolphins were 

found in higher numbers around BT–11, 

a range where no live firing occurs. 

In 2000, Duke University Marine Lab 

(DUML), conducted a boat-based markrecapture survey throughout the 

estuaries, bays and sounds of North 

Carolina (Read et al., 2003). This 

summer survey yielded a dolphin 

density of 0.183/km2 (0.071 mi;2) based 

on an estimate of 919 dolphins for the 

northern inshore waters divided by an 

estimated 5,015 km2 (1,936 mi2) survey 

area. Additionally, from July 2002–June 

2003, the USMC supported DUML to 

conduct dolphin surveys specifically in 

and around BT–9 and BT–11. During 

these surveys, one sighting in the 

restricted area surrounding BT–9 and 

two sightings in proximity to BT–11 

were observed, as well as seven 

sightings in waters adjacent to the BTs. 

In total, 276 bottlenose dolphins were 

sighted ranging in group size from two 

to 70 animals with mean dolphin 

density in BT–11 more than twice as 

large as the density of any of the other 

areas; however, the daily densities were 

not significantly different (Maher, 2003). 

Estimated dolphin density at BT–9 and 

BT–11 based on these surveys were 

calculated to be 0.11 dolphins/km2, and 

1.23 dolphins/km2, respectively, based 

on boat surveys conducted from July 

2002 through June 2003 (excluding 

April, May, Sept. and Jan.). However, 

the USMC choose to estimate take of 

dolphins based on the higher density 

reported from the summer 2000 surveys 

(0.183/km2). Although the aerial surveys 

were conducted year round and 

therefore provide for seasonal density 

estimates, the average year-round 

density from the aerial surveys is 

0.0936, lower than the 0.183/km2

density chosen to calculate take for 

purposes of this MMPA authorization. 

Additionally, Goodman et al. (2007) 

acknowledged that boat based density 

estimates may be more accurate than the 

uncorrected estimates derived from the 

aerial surveys. 

In Pamlico Sound, bottlenose 

dolphins concentrate in shallow water 

habitats along shorelines, and few, if 

any, individuals are present in the 

central portions of the sounds (Gannon, 

2003; Read et al., 2003a, 2003b). The 

dolphins utilize shallow habitats, such 

as tributary creeks and the edges of the 

Neuse River, where the bottom depth is 

less than 3.5 m (Gannon, 2003). Finescale distribution of dolphins seems to 

relate to the presence of topography or 

vertical structure, such as the steeplysloping bottom near the shore and 

oyster reefs, which may be used to 

facilitate prey capture (Gannon, 2003). 

Results of a passive acoustic monitoring 

effort conducted from 2006–2007 by 

Duke University researchers validated 

this information. Vocalizations of 

dolphins in the BT–11 vicinity were 

higher in August and September than 

vocalization detection at BT–9, an open 

water area (Read et al., 2007). 

Additionally, detected vocalizations of 

dolphins were more frequent at night for 

the BT–9 area and during early morning 

hours at BT–11. 

Unlike migrating whales which 

display strong temporal foraging and 

mating/birthing periods, many 

bottlenose dolphins in Pamlico Sound 

are residents and mate year round. 

However, dolphins in the southeast U.S. 

do display some reproductive 

seasonality. Based on neonate stranding 

records, sighting data, and births by 

known females, the populations of 

dolphins that frequent the North 

Carolina estuarine waters have calving 

peaks in spring but calving continues 

throughout the summer and is followed 

by a smaller number of fall births 

(Thayer et al., 2003). 

Bottlenose dolphins can typically 

hear within a broad frequency range of 

0.04 to 160 kHz (Au, 1993; Turl, 1993). 

Electrophysiological experiments 

suggest that the bottlenose dolphin 

brain has a dual analysis system: one 

specialized for ultrasonic clicks and 

another for lower-frequency sounds, 

such as whistles (Ridgway, 2000). 

Scientists have reported a range of 

highest sensitivity between 25 and 70 

kHz, with peaks in sensitivity at 25 and 

50 kHz (Nachtigall et al., 2000). Recent 

research on the same individuals 

indicates that auditory thresholds 

obtained by electrophysiological 

methods correlate well with those 

obtained in behavior studies, except at 

some lower (10 kHz) and higher (80 and 

100 kHz) frequencies (Finneran and 

Houser, 2006). 

Sounds emitted by bottlenose 

dolphins have been classified into two 

broad categories: pulsed sounds 

(including clicks and burst-pulses) and 

narrow-band continuous sounds 

(whistles), which usually are frequency 

modulated. Clicks have a dominant 

frequency range of 110 to 130 kiloHertz 

(kHz) and a source level of 218 to 228 

dB re 1 μPa (peak-to-peak) (Au, 1993) 

and 3.4 to 14.5 kHz at 125 to 173 dB re 

1 μPa (peak-to-peak) (Ketten, 1998). 

Whistles are primarily associated with 

communication and can serve to 

identify specific individuals (i.e., 

signature whistles) (Caldwell and 

Caldwell, 1965; Janik et al., 2006). Up to 

52 percent of whistles produced by 

bottlenose dolphin groups with mothercalf pairs can be classified as signature 

whistles (Cook et al., 2004). Sound 

production is also influenced by group 

type (single or multiple individuals), 

habitat, and behavior (Nowacek, 2005). 

Bray calls (low-frequency vocalizations; 

majority of energy below 4 kHz), for 

example, are used when capturing fish, 

specifically sea trout (Salmo trutta) and 

Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), in some 

regions (i.e., Moray Firth, Scotland) 

(Janik, 2000). Additionally, whistle 

production has been observed to 

increase while feeding (AcevedoGutie ́rrez and Stienessen, 2004; Cook et 

al., 2004). 

Potential Effects on Marine Mammals 

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]. 

According the application, the USMC 

has concluded that harassment to 

marine mammals may occur incidental 

to munitions firing noise and pressure at 

the BTs. These military readiness 

activities would result in increased 

noise levels, explosions, and munition 

debris within bottlenose dolphin 

habitat. NMFS also considered the 

potential for harassment from vessel and 

aircraft operation. The USMC’s and 

NMFS’ analysis of potential impacts 

from these factors are outlined below. 

Anthropogenic Sound 

Marine mammals respond to various 

types of anthropogenic sounds 

introduced in the ocean environment. 

Responses are highly variable and 

depend on a suite of internal and 

external factors which in turn results in 

varying degrees of significance (NRC, 

2003; Southall et al., 2007). Internal 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32405 

factors include: (1) Individual hearing 

sensitivity, activity pattern, and 

motivational and behavioral state (e.g., 

feeding, traveling) at the time it receives 

the stimulus; (2) past exposure of the 

animal to the noise, which may lead to 

habituation or sensitization; (3) 

individual noise tolerance; and (4) 

demographic factors such as age, sex, 

and presence of dependent offspring. 

External factors include: (1) Nonacoustic characteristics of the sound 

source (e.g., if it is moving or 

stationary); (2) environmental variables 

(e.g., substrate) which influence sound 

transmission; and (3) habitat 

characteristics and location (e.g., open 

ocean vs. confined area). To determine 

whether an animal perceives the sound, 

the received level, frequency, and 

duration of the sound are compared to 

ambient noise levels and the species’ 

hearing sensitivity range. That is, if the 

frequency of an introduced sound is 

outside of the species’ frequency 

hearing range, it can not be heard. 

Similarly, if the frequency is on the 

upper or lower end of the species 

hearing range, the sound must be louder 

in order to be heard. 

Marine mammal responses to 

anthropogenic noise are typically subtle 

and can include visible and acoustic 

reactions such as avoidance, altered 

dive patterns and cessation of preexposure activities and vocalization 

reactions such as increasing or 

decreasing call rates or shifting call 

frequency. Responses can also be 

unobservable, such as stress hormone 

production and auditory trauma or 

fatigue. It is not always known how 

these behavioral and physiological 

responses relate to significant effects 

(e.g., long-term effects or individual/ 

population consequences); however, 

individuals and populations can be 

monitored to provide some insight into 

the consequences of exposing marine 

mammals to noise. For example, 

Haviland-Howell et al (2007) compared 

sighting rates of bottlenose dolphins 

within the Wilmington, NC stretch of 

the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway 

(ICW) on weekends, when recreational 

vessel traffic was high, to weekdays, 

when vessel traffic was relatively 

minimal. The authors found that 

dolphins were less often sighted in the 

ICW during times of increased boat 

traffic (i.e., on weekends) and theorized 

that because vessel noise falls within 

the frequencies of dolphin 

communication whistles and primary 

energy of most fish vocalizations, the 

continuous vessel traffic along that 

stretch of the ICW could result in social 

and foraging impacts. However, the 

extent to which these impacts affect 

individual health and population 

structure is unknown. 

A full assessment of marine mammal 

responses and disturbances when 

exposed to anthropogenic sound can be 

found in NMFS’ proposed rulemaking 

for the Navy Cherry Point Range 

Complex (74 FR 11057, March 16, 

2009). In summary, sound exposure may 

result in physiological impacts, stress 

responses, and behavioral responses 

which could affect proximate or 

ultimate life functions. Proximate life 

history functions are the functions that 

the animal is engaged in at the time of 

acoustic exposure. The ultimate life 

functions are those that enable an 

animal to contribute to the population 

(or stock, or species, etc.). 

I. Physiology-Hearing Threshold Shift 

In mammals, high-intensity sound 

may rupture the eardrum, damage the 

small bones in the middle ear, or over 

stimulate the electromechanical hair 

cells that convert the fluid motions 

caused by sound into neural impulses 

that are sent to the brain. Lower level 

exposures may cause a loss of hearing 

sensitivity, termed a threshold shift (TS) 

(Miller, 1974). Incidence of TS may be 

either permanent, referred to as 

permanent threshold shift (PTS), or 

temporary, referred to as temporary 

threshold shift (TTS). The amplitude, 

duration, frequency, and 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, 

generally, so does the amount of TS and 

recovery time. Human non-impulsive 

noise exposure guidelines are based on 

exposures of equal energy (the same 

SEL) producing equal amounts of 

hearing impairment regardless of how 

the sound energy is distributed in time 

(NIOSH 1998). Until recently, previous 

marine mammal TTS studies have also 

generally supported this equal energy 

relationship (Southall et al., 2007). 

Three newer studies, two by Mooney et 

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

dolphin either exposed to playbacks of 

Navy MFAS or octave-band noise (4–8 

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

a single California sea lion exposed to 

airborne octave-band noise (centered at 

2.5 kHz), concluded that for all noise 

exposure situations the equal energy 

relationship may not be the best 

indicator to predict TTS onset levels. 

Generally, with sound exposures of 

equal energy, those that were quieter 

(lower sound pressure level [SPL]) with 

longer duration were found to induce 

TTS onset more than those of louder 

(higher SPL) and shorter duration (more 

similar to noise from AS Cherry Point 

exercises). 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). 

Additionally, though TTS is temporary, 

very prolonged exposure to sound 

strong enough to elicit TTS, or shorterterm exposure to sound levels well 

above the TTS threshold, can cause 

PTS, at least in terrestrial mammals 

(Kryter, 1985). However, these studies 

highlight the inherent complexity of 

predicting TTS onset in marine 

mammals, as well as the importance of 

considering exposure duration when 

assessing potential impacts. 

PTS consists of non-recoverable 

physical damage to the sound receptors 

in the ear, which can include total or 

partial deafness, or an impaired ability 

to hear sounds in specific frequency 

ranges; PTS is considered Level A 

harassment. TTS is recoverable and is 

considered to result from temporary, 

non-injurious impacts to hearing-related 

tissues; TTS is considered Level B 

harassment. 

Permanent Threshold Shift 

Auditory trauma represents direct 

mechanical injury to hearing related 

structures, including tympanic 

membrane rupture, disarticulation of 

the middle ear ossicles, and trauma to 

the inner ear structures such as the 

organ of Corti and the associated hair 

cells. Auditory trauma is irreversible 

and considered to be an injury that 

could result in PTS. 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. In some cases, 

there can be total or partial deafness 

across all frequencies, whereas in other 

cases, the animal has an impaired 

ability to hear sounds in specific 

frequency ranges. There is no empirical 

data for onset of PTS in any marine 

mammal, and therefore, PTS- onset 

must be estimated from TTS-onset 

measurements and from the rate of TTS 

growth with increasing exposure levels 

above the level eliciting TTS-onset. PTS 

is presumed to be likely if the hearing 

threshold is reduced by ≥ 40 dB (i.e., 40 

dB of TTS). Relationships between TTS 

and PTS thresholds have not been 

studied in marine mammals, but are 

assumed to be similar to those in 

humans and other terrestrial mammals. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32406 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

Temporary Threshold Shift 

TTS is the mildest form of hearing 

impairment that can occur during 

exposure to a loud sound (Kryter, 1985). 

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 as 

Level B Harassment, not Level A 

Harassment (injury); however, NMFS 

does not consider the onset of TTS to be 

the lowest level at which Level B 

Harassment may occur (see III. Behavior 

section below). 

Southall et al. (2007) considers a 6 dB 

TTS (i.e., baseline hearing thresholds 

are elevated by 6 dB) sufficient to be 

recognized as an unequivocal deviation 

and thus a sufficient definition of TTS 

onset. TTS in bottlenose dolphin 

hearing have been experimentally 

induced. For example, Finneran et al. 

(2002) exposed a trained captive 

bottlenose dolphin to a seismic 

watergun simulator with a single 

acoustic pulse. No TTS was observed in 

the dolphin at the highest exposure 

condition (peak: 207 kPa [30psi]; peakto-peak: 228 dB re: 1 microPa; SEL: 188 

dB re 1 microPa2-s). Schludt et al. 

(2000) demonstrated temporary shifts in 

masked hearing thresholds in five 

bottlenose dolphins occurring generally 

between 192 and 201 dB rms (192 and 

201 dB SEL) after exposure to intense, 

non-pulse, 1–s tones at, 3kHz, 10kHz, 

and 20 kHz. TTS onset occurred at mean 

sound exposure level of 195 dB rms 

(195 dB SEL). At 0.4 kHz, no subjects 

exhibited threshold shifts after SPL 

exposures of 193dB re: 1 microPa (192 

dB re: 1 microPa2-s). In the same study, 

at 75 kHz, one dolphin exhibited a TTS 

after exposure at 182 dB SPL re: 1 

microPa but not at higher exposure 

levels. Another dolphin experienced no 

threshold shift after exposure to 

maximum SPL levels of 193 dB re: 1 

microPa at the same frequency. 

Frequencies of explosives used at MCAS 

Cherry Point range from 1–25 kHz; the 

range where dolphin TTS onset 

occurred at 195 dB rms in the Schludt 

et al. (2000) study. 

Preliminary research indicates that 

TTS and recovery after noise exposure 

are frequency dependent and that an 

inverse relationship exists between 

exposure time and sound pressure level 

associated with exposure (Mooney et 

al., 2005; Mooney, 2006). For example, 

Nachtigall et al. (2003) measured TTS in 

a bottlenose dolphin and found an 

average 11 dB shift following a 30 

minute net exposure to OBN at a 7.5 

kHz center frequency (max SPL of 179 

dB re: 1 microPa; SEL: 212- 214 dB re:1 

microPa2-s). No TTS was observed after 

exposure to the same duration and 

frequency noise with maximum SPLs of 

165 and 171 dB re:1 microPa. After 50 

minutes of exposure to the same 7.5 kHz 

frequency OBN, Natchigall et al. (2004) 

measured a 4 -8 dB shift (max SPL: 

160dB re 1microPa; SEL: 193–195 dB 

re:1 microPa2-s). Finneran et al. (2005) 

concluded that a sound exposure level 

of 195 dB re 1 μPa2-s is a reasonable 

threshold for the onset of TTS in 

bottlenose dolphins exposed to midfrequency tones. 

II. Stress Response 

An acoustic source is considered a 

potential stressor if, by its action on the 

animal, via auditory or non-auditory 

means, it may produce a stress response 

in the animal. Here, the stress response 

will refer to an increase in energetic 

expenditure that results from exposure 

to the stressor and which is 

predominantly characterized by either 

the stimulation of the sympathetic 

nervous system (SNS) or the 

hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) 

axis (Reeder and Kramer, 2005). The 

SNS response to a stressor is immediate 

and acute and is characterized by the 

release of the catecholamine 

neurohormones norepinephrine and 

epinephrine (i.e., adrenaline). These 

hormones produce elevations in the 

heart and respiration rate, increase 

awareness, and increase the availability 

of glucose and lipids for energy. The 

HPA response is ultimately defined by 

increases in the secretion of the 

glucocorticoid steroid hormones, 

predominantly cortisol in mammals. 

The presence and magnitude of a stress 

response in an animal depends on a 

number of factors. These include the 

animal’s life history stage (e.g., neonate, 

juvenile, adult), the environmental 

conditions, reproductive or 

developmental state, and experience 

with the stressor. Not only will these 

factors be subject to individual 

variation, but they will also vary within 

an individual over time. The stress 

response may or may not result in a 

behavioral change, depending on the 

characteristics of the exposed animal. 

However, provided a stress response 

occurs, we assume that some 

contribution is made to the animal’s 

allostatic load. Any immediate effect of 

exposure that produces an injury is 

assumed to also produce a stress 

response and contribute to the allostatic 

load. Allostasis is the ability of an 

animal to maintain stability through 

change by adjusting its physiology in 

response to both predictable and 

unpredictable events (McEwen and 

Wingfield, 2003). If the acoustic source 

does not produce tissue effects, is not 

perceived by the animal, or does not 

produce a stress response by any other 

means, we assume that the exposure 

does not contribute to the allostatic 

load. Additionally, without a stress 

response or auditory masking, it is 

assumed that there can be no behavioral 

change. 

III. Behavior 

Changes in marine mammal behavior 

in response to anthropogenic noise may 

include altered travel directions, 

increased swimming speeds, changes in 

dive, surfacing, respiration and feeding 

patterns, and changes in vocalizations. 

As described above, lower level 

physiological stress responses could 

also co-occur with altered behavior; 

however, stress responses are more 

difficult to detect and fewer data exist 

relative to specific received levels of 

sound. 

Acoustic Masking 

Anthropogenic noise can interfere 

with, or mask, detection of acoustic 

signals such as communication calls, 

echolocation, and environmental 

sounds important to marine mammals. 

Southall et al. (2007) defines auditory 

masking as the partial or complete 

reduction in the audibility of signals 

due to the presence of interfering noise 

with the degree of masking depending 

on the spectral, temporal, and spatial 

relationships between signals and 

masking noise, as well as the respective 

received levels. Masking of sender 

communication space can be considered 

as the amount of change in a sender’s 

communication space caused by the 

presence of other sounds, relative to a 

pre-industrial ambient noise condition 

(Clark et al., in press). 

Unlike auditory fatigue, which always 

results in a stress response because the 

sensory tissues are being stimulated 

beyond their normal physiological 

range, masking may or may not result in 

a stress response, depending on the 

degree and duration of the masking 

effect. Masking may also result in a 

unique circumstance where an animal’s 

ability to detect other sounds is 

compromised without the animal’s 

knowledge. This could conceivably 

result in sensory impairment and 

subsequent behavior change; in this 

case, the change in behavior is the lack 

of a response that would normally be 

made if sensory impairment did not 

occur. For this reason, masking also may 

lead directly to behavior change without 

first causing a stress response. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32407 

Projecting noise into the marine 

environment which causes 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. To compensate for 

masking, marine mammals, including 

bottlenose dolphins, are known to 

increase their levels of vocalization as a 

function of background noise by 

increasing call repetition and 

amplitude, shifting calls higher 

frequencies, and/or changing the 

structure of call content (Lesage et al., 

1999; Scheifele et al., 2005; McIwem, 

2006). 

While it may occur temporarily, 

NMFS does not expect auditory masking 

to result in detrimental impacts to an 

individual’s or population’s survival, 

fitness, or reproductive success. 

Dolphins are not confined to the BT 

ranges; allowing for movement out of 

area to avoid masking impacts. The 

USMC would also conduct visual 

sweeps of the area before any training 

exercise and implement training delay 

mitigation measures if a dolphin is 

sighted within designated zones (see 

Proposed Mitigation Measures section 

below). As discussed previously, the 

USMC has been working with DUML to 

collect baseline information on dolphins 

in Pamlico Sound, specifically dolphin 

abundance and habitat use around the 

BTs. The USMC has also recently 

accepted a DUML proposal to 

investigate methods of dolphin acoustic 

detection around the BTs. NMFS would 

encourage the USMC to expand acoustic 

investigations to include the impacts of 

training exercises on vocalization 

properties (e.g., call content, duration, 

frequency) and masking (e.g., 

communication and foraging 

impairment) of the affected population 

of dolphins in Pamlico Sound. 

Assessment of Marine Mammal Impacts 

From Explosive Ordnances 

MCAS Cherry Point plans to use five 

types of explosive sources during its 

training exercises: 2.75′′ Rocket High 

Explosives, 5′′ Rocket High Explosives, 

30 mm High Explosives, 40 mm High 

Explosives, and G911 grenades. The 

underwater explosions from these 

weapons 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. 

In general, potential impacts from 

explosive detonations can range from 

brief effects (such as short term 

behavioral disturbance), tactile 

perception, physical discomfort, slight 

injury of the internal organs and the 

auditory system, to death of the animal 

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

Young, 1984; DoN, 2001). 

Explosives produce significant 

acoustic energy across several frequency 

decades of bandwidth (i.e., broadband). 

Propagation loss is sufficiently sensitive 

to frequency as to require model 

estimates at several frequencies over 

such a wide band. The effects of an 

underwater explosion on a marine 

mammal depend on many factors, 

including the size, type, and depth of 

both the animal and the explosive 

charge; the depth of the water column; 

and the standoff distance between the 

charge and the animal, as well as the 

sound propagation properties of the 

environment. The net explosive weight 

(or NEW) of an explosive is the weight 

of TNT required to produce an 

equivalent explosive power. The 

detonation depth of an explosive is 

particularly important due to a 

propagation effect known as surfaceimage interference. For sources located 

near the sea surface, a distinct 

interference pattern arises from the 

coherent sum of the two paths that 

differ only by a single reflection from 

the pressure-release surface. As the 

source depth and/or the source 

frequency decreases, these two paths 

increasingly, destructively interfere 

with each other, reaching total 

cancellation at the surface (barring 

surface-reflection scattering loss). USMC 

conservatively estimates that all 

explosives would detonate at a 1.2 m 

(3.9 ft) water depth. This is the worst 

case scenario as the purpose of training 

is to hit the target, resulting in an in-air 

explosion. 

The firing sequence for some of the 

munitions consists of a number of rapid 

bursts, often lasting a second or less. 

The maximum firing time is 10–15 

second bursts. Due to the tight spacing 

in time, each burst can be treated as a 

single detonation. For the energy 

metrics, the impact area of a burst is 

computed using a source energy 

spectrum that is the source spectrum for 

a single detonation scaled by the 

number of rounds in a burst. For the 

pressure metrics, the impact area for a 

burst is the same as the impact area of 

a single round. For all metrics, the 

cumulative impact area of an event 

consisting of a certain number of bursts 

is merely the product of the impact area 

of a single burst and the number of 

bursts, as would be the case if the bursts 

are sufficiently spaced in time or 

location as to insure that each burst is 

affecting a different set of marine 

wildlife. 

Physical damage of tissues resulting 

from a shock wave (from an explosive 

detonation) is classified as an injury. 

Blast effects are greatest at the gas-liquid 

interface (Landsberg, 2000) and gas 

containing organs, particularly the lungs 

and gastrointestinal tract, are especially 

susceptible to damage (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. 

Non-lethal injury includes slight 

injury to internal organs and the 

auditory system; however, delayed 

lethality can be a result of individual or 

cumulative sublethal injuries (DoN, 

2001). Immediate lethal injury would be 

a result of massive combined trauma to 

internal organs as a direct result of 

proximity to the point of detonation 

(DoN, 2001). Exposure to distance 

explosions could result only in 

behavioral changes. Masked underwater 

hearing thresholds in two bottlenose 

dolphins and one beluga whale have 

been measured before and after 

exposure to impulsive underwater 

sounds with waveforms resembling 

distant signatures of underwater 

explosions (Finneran et al., 2000). The 

authors found no temporary shifts in 

masked-hearing thresholds (MTTSs), 

defined as a 6–dB or larger increase in 

threshold over pre-exposure levels, had 

been observed at the highest impulse 

level generated (500 kg at 1.7 km, peak 

pressure 70 kPa); however, disruptions 

of the animals’ trained behaviors began 

to occur at exposures corresponding to 

5 kg at 9.3 km and 5 kg at 1.5 km for 

the dolphins and 500 kg at 1.9 km for 

the beluga whale. 

Generally, the higher the level of 

impulse and pressure level exposure, 

the more severe the impact to an 

individual. While, in general, dolphins 

could endure injury or mortality if 

within very close proximity to in-water 

explosion, monitoring and mitigation 

measures employed by the USMC before 

and during training exercises, as would 

be required under any ITA issued, are 

designed to avoid any firing if a marine 

mammal is sighted within designated 

BT zones (see Proposed Mitigation and 

Monitoring section below). No marine 

mammal injury or death has been 

attributed to the specified activities 

described in the application. As such, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32408 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

and due to implementation of the 

proposed mitigation and monitoring 

measures, bottlenose dolphin injury or 

mortality is not anticipated nor would 

any be authorized. 

Inert Ordnances 

The potential risk to marine mammals 

from non-explosive ordnance entails 

two possible sources of impacts: 

Elevated sound levels or the ordnance 

physically hitting an animal. The latter 

is discussed below in the Munition 

Presence section below. The USMC 

provided information that the noise 

fields generated in water by the firing of 

non-explosive ordnance indicate that 

the energy radiated is about 1 to 2 

percent of the total kinetic energy of the 

impact. This energy level (and likely 

peak pressure levels) is well below the 

TTS-energy threshold, even at 1–m from 

the impact and is not expected to be 

audible to marine mammals. As such, 

the noise generated by the in-water 

impact of non-explosive ordnance will 

not result in take of marine mammals. 

Training Debris 

In addition to behavioral and 

physiological impacts from live fire and 

ammunition testing, NMFS has 

preliminarily analyzed impacts from 

presence of munition debris in the 

water, as described in the USMC’s 

application and 2009 EA. These impacts 

include falling debris, ingestion of 

expended ordnance, and entanglement 

in parachute debris. 

Ingestion of marine debris by marine 

mammals can cause digestive tract 

blockages or damage the digestive 

system (Gorzelany, 1998; Stamper et al., 

2006). Debris could be either the 

expended ordnance or non-munition 

related products such as chaff and self 

protection flares. Expended ordnance 

would be small and sink to the bottom. 

Chaff is composed of either aluminum 

foil or aluminum-coated glass fibers 

designed to act as a visual smoke screen; 

hiding the aircraft from enemy radar. 

Chaff also serves as a decoy for radar 

detection, allowing aircraft to maneuver 

or egress from the area. The foil type 

currently used is no longer 

manufactured, although it remains in 

the inventory and is used primarily by 

B–52 bombers. Both types of chaff are 

cut into dipoles ranging in length from 

0.3 to over 2.0 inches. The aluminum 

foil dipoles are 0.45 mils (0.00045 

inches) thick and 6 to 8 mils wide. The 

glass fiber dipoles are generally 1 mil 

(25.4 microns) in diameter, including 

the aluminum coating. Chaff is packed 

into about 4-ounce bundles. The major 

components of chaff are silica, 

aluminum, and stearic acid; all 

naturally prevalent in the environment. 

Based on the dispersion 

characteristics of chaff, concentrations 

around the BTs would be low. For 

example, Hullar et al. (1999) calculated 

that a 4.97-mile by 7.46-mile area (37.1 

km2) would be affected by deployment 

of a single cartridge containing 150 

grams of chaff; however, concentration 

would only be about 5.4 grams per 

square nautical mile. This corresponds 

to fewer than 179,000 fibers per square 

nautical mile or fewer than 0.005 fibers 

per square foot. 

Self-protection flares are deployed to 

mislead or confuse heat-sensitive or 

heat-seeking anti-aircraft systems. The 

flares are magnesium pellets that, when 

ignited, burn for a short period of time 

(less than 10 seconds) at 2,000 degrees 

Fahrenheit. Air-deployed LUU–2 highintensity illumination flares are used to 

illuminate targets, enhancing a pilot’s 

ability to see targets while using Night 

Vision Goggles. The LUU–2B Flare has 

a light output rating of 1.8 × 10(6) 

candlepower and at 1,000 feet altitude 

illuminates a circle on the ground of 500 

meters. The LUU–2 is housed in a pod 

or canister and is deployed by ejection. 

The mechanism has a timer on it that 

deploys the parachute and ignites the 

flare candle. The flare candle burns 

magnesium at high temperature, 

emitting an intense bright white light. 

The LUU–2 has a burn time of 

approximately 5 minutes while 

suspended from a parachute. The 

pyrotechnic candle consumes the flare 

housing, reducing flare weight, which in 

turn slows the rate of fall during the last 

2 minutes of burn time. At candle 

burnout an explosive bolt is fired, 

releasing one parachute support cable, 

which causes the parachute to collapse. 

Ingestion of debris by dolphins is not 

likely, as dolphins typically eat fish and 

other moving prey items. NMFS 

solicited information on evidence of 

debris ingestion from two marine 

mammal veterinarians who have 

performed many necropsies on the 

protected species of North Carolina’s 

waters. In their experience, no 

necropsies of bottlenose dolphins have 

revealed evidence of munition, 

parachute, or chaff ingestion (pers. 

comm., Drs. C. Harms and D. Rostein, 

November 14, 2009). However, it was 

noted evidence of chaff ingestion would 

be difficult to detect. In the chance that 

dolphins do ingest chaff, the filaments 

are so fine they would likely pass 

through the digestive system without 

complication. However, if the chaff is 

durable enough, it might act as a linear 

foreign body. In such case, the intestines 

bunch up on the line restricting 

movement of the line resulting in an 

obstruction. The peristalsis on an 

immovable thin line can cause intestinal 

lacerations and perforations (pers. 

comm., C. Harms, November 14, 2009. 

This is a well known complication in 

cats when they ingest thread and which 

occurs occasionally with sea turtles 

ingesting fishing line. The longevity of 

chaff filaments, based upon dispersion 

rates, is unclear. Chaff exposed to 

synthetic seawater and aqueous 

environments in the pH range of 4–10 

exhibited varying levels of degradation 

suggesting a short lifespan for the outer 

aluminum coating (Farrell and 

Siciliano, 1998). The underlying 

filament is a flexible silica core and 

composed of primarily silica dioxide. 

While no studies have been conducted 

to evaluate the effects of chaff ingestion 

on marine mammals, the effects are 

expected to be negligible based upon 

chaff concentration in the environment, 

size of fibers, and available toxicity data 

on fiberglass and aluminum. Given that 

the size of chaff fibers are no more than 

2 inches long, tidal flushing reduces 

concentration in the environment, and 

chaff degradation rate, the chance of 

chaff ingestions is unlikely; however, if 

swallowed, impacts would be 

negligible. 

Given that there is no evidence that 

dolphins ingest military debris; 

dolphins in the Sound forage on moving 

prey suspended in the water column 

while expended munition would sink; 

the property and dispersion 

characteristics of chaff make potential 

for ingestion discountable; and that 

Pamlico Sound is a tidal body of water 

with continuing flushing, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the 

presence of training debris would not 

have an effect on dolphins in Pamlico 

Sound. 

Although sometimes large, expended 

parachutes (e.g., those from the flares) 

are flimsy and structurally simple and 

NMFS has determined that the 

probability of entanglement with a 

dolphin is low. There are no known 

reports of live or stranded dolphins 

entangled in parachute gear; fishing gear 

is usually the culprit of reported 

entanglements. The NMFS’ Marine 

Mammal Stranding Network (Network) 

has established protocol for reporting 

marine mammals in peril. Should any 

injured, stranded or entangled marine 

mammal be observed by USMC 

personnel during training exercises, the 

sighting would be reported to the 

Network within 24 hours of the 

observation. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32409 

Vessel and Aircraft Presence 

The marine mammals most vulnerable 

to vessel strikes are slow-moving and/or 

spend extended periods of time at the 

surface in order to restore oxygen levels 

within their tissues after deep dives 

(e.g., right whales, fin whales, sperm 

whales). Smaller marine mammals such 

as bottlenose dolphins (the only marine 

mammal that would be encountered at 

the BTs) are agile and move more 

quickly through the water, making them 

less susceptible to ship strikes. NMFS is 

not aware of any vessel strikes of 

bottlenose dolphins in Pamlico Sound. 

Therefore, NMFS does not anticipate 

that USMC vessels engaged in the 

specified activity would strike any 

marine mammals and no take from ship 

strike would be authorized in the 

proposed IHA. 

Behaviorally, marine mammals may 

or may not respond to the operation of 

vessels and associated noise. Responses 

to vessels vary widely among marine 

mammals in general, but also among 

different species of small cetaceans. 

Responses may include attraction to the 

vessel (Richardson et al., 1995); altering 

travel patterns to avoid vessels 

(Constantine, 2001; Nowacek et al., 

2001; Lusseau, 2003, 2006); relocating to 

other areas (Allen and Read, 2000); 

cessation of feeding, resting, and social 

interaction (Baker et al., 1983; Bauer 

and Herman, 1986; Hall, 1982; Krieger 

and Wing, 1984; Lusseau, 2003; 

Constantine et al., 2004); abandoning 

feeding, resting, and nursing areas 

(Jurasz and Jurasz 1979; Dean et al., 

1985; Glockner-Ferrari and Ferrari 1985, 

1990; Lusseau, 2005; Norris et al., 1985; 

Salden, 1988; Forest, 2001; Morton and 

Symonds, 2002; Courbis, 2004; Bejder, 

2006); stress (Romano et al., 2004); and 

changes in acoustic behavior (Van Parijs 

and Corkeron, 2001). However, in some 

studies marine mammals display no 

reaction to vessels (Watkins 1986; 

Nowacek et al., 2003) and many 

odontocetes show considerable 

tolerance to vessel traffic (Richardson et 

al., 1995). Dolphins may actually reduce 

the energetic cost of traveling by riding 

the bow or stern waves of vessels 

(Williams et al., 1992; Richardson et al., 

1995). 

Dolphins within Pamlico Sound are 

continually exposed to recreational, 

commercial, and military vessels. 

Richardson et al. (1995) addresses in 

detail three responses that marine 

mammals may experience when 

exposed to anthropogenic activities: 

Tolerance; habituation; and 

sensitization. More recent publications 

provide variations on these themes 

rather than new data (NRC 2003). 

Marine mammals are often seen in 

regions with much human activity; thus, 

certain individuals or populations 

exhibit some tolerance of anthropogenic 

noise and other stimuli. Animals will 

tolerate a stimulus they might otherwise 

avoid if the benefits in terms of feeding, 

mating, migrating to traditional habitats, 

or other factors outweigh the negative 

aspects of the stimulus (NRC, 2003). In 

many cases, tolerance develops as a 

result of habituation. The NRC (2003) 

defines habituation as a gradual waning 

of behavioral responsiveness over time 

as animals learn that a repeated or 

ongoing stimulus lacks significant 

consequences for the animals. 

Contrarily, sensitization occurs when an 

animal links a stimulus with some 

degree of negative consequence and as 

a result increases responsiveness to that 

human activity over time (Richardson et 

al., 1995). For example, seals and 

whales are known to avoid previously 

encountered vessels involved in 

subsistence hunts (Walker, 1949; Ash 

1962; Terhune, 1985) and bottlenose 

dolphins that had previously been 

captured and released from a 7.3 m boat 

involved in health studies were 

documented to flee when that boat 

approached closer than 400 m, whereas 

dolphins that had not been involved in 

the capture did not display signs of 

avoidance of the vessel (Irvine et al., 

1981). Because dolphins in Pamlico 

Sound are continually exposed to vessel 

traffic that does not present immediate 

danger to them, it is likely animals are 

both tolerant and habituated to vessels. 

The specified activities also involve 

aircraft, which marine mammals are 

known to react (Richardson et al., 1995). 

Aircraft produce noise at frequencies 

that are well within the frequency range 

of cetacean hearing and also produce 

visual signals such as the aircraft itself 

and its shadow (Richardson et al., 1995, 

Richardson & Wu ̈rsig, 1997). A major 

difference between aircraft noise and 

noise caused by other anthropogenic 

sources is that the sound is generated in 

the air, transmitted through the water 

surface and then propagates underwater 

to the receiver, diminishing the received 

levels to significantly below what is 

heard above the water’s surface. Sound 

transmission from air to water is greatest 

in a sound cone 26 degrees directly 

under the aircraft. 

Reactions of odontocetes to aircraft 

have been reported less often than those 

of pinnipeds. Responses to aircraft 

include diving, slapping the water with 

pectoral fins or tail fluke, or swimming 

away from the track of the aircraft 

(Richardson et al., 1995). The nature 

and degree of the response, or the lack 

thereof, are dependent upon nature of 

the flight (e.g., type of aircraft, altitude, 

straight vs. circular flight pattern). 

Wu ̈rsig et al. (1998) assessed the 

responses of cetaceans to aerial surveys 

in the northcentral and western Gulf of 

Mexico using a DeHavilland Twin Otter 

fixed-wing airplane. The plane flew at 

an altitude of 229 m at 204 km/hr. A 

minimum of 305 m straight line 

distance from the cetaceans was 

maintained. Water depth was 100– 

1000m. Bottlenose dolphins most 

commonly responded by diving 

(48percent), while 14percent responded 

by moving away. Other species (e.g., 

beluga whale, sperm whale) show 

considerable variation in reactions to 

aircraft but diving or swimming away 

from the aircraft are the most common 

reactions to low flights (less than 

500 m). 

Anticipated Effects on Habitat 

Detonations of live ordnance would 

result in temporary modification to 

water properties. As described above, an 

underwater explosion from these 

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. However, these would be 

temporary and not expected to last more 

than a few seconds. Because dolphins 

are not expected to be in the area during 

live firing, due to monitoring and 

mitigation measure implementation, 

they would not be subject to any short 

term habitat alterations. 

Similarly, no long term impacts with 

regard to hazardous constituents are 

expected to occur. MCAS Cherry Point 

has an active Range Environmental 

Vulnerability Assessment (REVA) 

program in place to monitor impacts to 

habitat from its activities. One goal of 

REVA is to determine the horizontal and 

vertical concentration profiles of heavy 

metals, explosives constituents, 

perchlorate nutrients, and dissolved 

salts in the sediment and seawater 

surrounding BT–9 and BT–11. The 

preliminary results of the sampling 

indicate that explosive constituents 

(e.g., trinitrotoluene (TNT), 

cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine (RDX), 

and hexahydro-trinitro-triazine (HMX), 

as described in Hazardous Constituents 

[Subchapter 3.2.7.2] of the MCAS 

Cherry Point Range Operations EA), 

were not detected in any sediment or 

water sample surrounding the BTs. 

Metals were not present above toxicity 

screening values. Perchlorate was 

detected in a few sediment samples 

above the detection limit (0.21 ppm), 

but below the reporting limit (0.6 ppm). 

The ongoing REVA would continue to 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32410 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

evaluate potential munitions constituent 

migration from operational range areas 

to off-range areas and MCAS Cherry 

Point. 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an incidental take 

authorization (ITA) under Section 

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

set forth the ‘‘permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to such activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact on such 

species or stock and its habitat, paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 

grounds, and areas of similar 

significance.’’ The NDAA of 2004 

amended the MMPA as it relates to 

military-readiness activities and the ITA 

process such that ‘‘least practicable 

adverse impact’’ shall include 

consideration of personnel safety, 

practicality of implementation, and 

impact on the effectiveness of the 

military readiness activity. The training 

activities described in the USMC’s 

application are considered military 

readiness activities. 

NMFS has carefully evaluated the 

applicant’s proposed mitigation 

measures and considered a range of 

other measures in the context of 

ensuring that NMFS prescribes the 

means of effecting the least practicable 

adverse impact on the affected marine 

mammal species and stocks and their 

habitat. Our evaluation of potential 

measures included consideration of the 

following factors in relation to one 

another: (1) The manner in which, and 

the degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure is 

expected to minimize adverse impacts 

to marine mammals; (2) the proven or 

likely efficacy of the specific measure to 

minimize adverse impacts as planned; 

(3) the practicability of the measure for 

applicant implementation, including 

consideration of personnel safety, 

practicality of implementation, and 

impact on the effectiveness of the 

military readiness activity. NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the 

proposed mitigation measures provide 

the means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impacts on marine 

mammals species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance while also 

considering personnel safety, 

practicality of implementation, and 

impact on the effectiveness of the 

military readiness activity. 

The USMC, in collaboration with 

NMFS, has worked to identify potential 

practicable and effective mitigation 

measures, which include 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’’. These proposed mitigation 

measures are listed below. 

(1) Range Sweeps: The VMR–1 

squadron, stationed at MCAS Cherry 

Point, includes three specially equipped 

HH–46D helicopters. The primary 

mission of these aircraft, known as 

PEDRO, is to provide search and rescue 

for downed 2d Marine Air Wing 

aircrews. On-board are a pilot, co-pilot, 

crew chief, search and rescue swimmer, 

and a medical corpsman. Each crew 

member has received extensive training 

in search and rescue techniques, and is 

therefore particularly capable at spotting 

objects floating in the water. 

PEDRO crew would conduct a range 

sweep the morning of each exercise day 

prior to the commencement of range 

operations. The primary goal of the preexercise sweep is to ensure that the 

target area is clear of fisherman, other 

personnel, and protected species. The 

sweep is flown at 100–300 meters above 

the water surface, at airspeeds between 

60–100 knots. The path of the sweep 

runs down the western side of BT–11, 

circles around BT–9 and then continues 

down the eastern side of BT–9 before 

leaving. The sweep typically takes 20– 

30 minutes to complete. The Pedro crew 

is able to communicate directly with 

range personnel and can provide 

immediate notification to range 

operators. The Pedro aircraft would 

remain in the area of a sighting until 

clear if possible or as mission 

requirements dictate. 

If marine mammals are sighted during 

a range sweep, sighting data will be 

collected and entered into the U.S. 

Marine Corps sighting database, webinterface, or report generator and this 

information would be relayed to the 

training Commander. Sighting data 

includes the following (collected to the 

best of the observer’s ability): (1) 

Species identification; (2) group size; (3) 

the behavior of marine mammals (e.g., 

milling, travel, social, foraging); (4) 

location and relative distance from the 

BT; (5) date, time and visual conditions 

(e.g., Beaufort sea state, weather) 

associated with each observation; (6) 

direction of travel relative to the BT; 

and (7) duration of the observation. 

(2) Cold Passes: All aircraft 

participating in an air-to-surface 

exercise would be required to perform a 

‘‘cold pass’’ immediately prior to 

ordnance delivery at the BTs both day 

and night. That is, prior to granting a 

‘‘First Pass Hot’’ (use of ordnance), pilots 

would be directed to perform a low, 

cold (no ordnance delivered) first pass 

which serves as a visual sweep of the 

targets prior to ordnance delivery to 

determine if unauthorized civilian 

vessels or personnel, or protected 

species, are present. The cold pass is 

conducted with the aircraft (helicopter 

or fixed-winged) flying straight and 

level at altitudes of 200–3,000 feet over 

the target area. The viewing angle is 

approximately 15 degrees. A blind spot 

exists to the immediate rear of the 

aircraft. Based upon prevailing 

visibility, a pilot can see more than one 

mile forward upon approach. The 

aircrew and range personnel make every 

attempt to ensure clearance of the area 

via visual inspection and remotely 

operated camera operations (see 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

section below). The Range Controller 

may deny or approve the First Pass Hot 

clearance as conditions warrant. 

(3) Delay of Exercises: An active range 

would be considered ‘‘fouled’’ and not 

available for use if a marine mammal is 

present within 1,000 yards (914 m) of 

the target area at BT–9 or anywhere 

within Rattan Bay (BT–11). Therefore, if 

a marine mammal is sighted within 

1,000 yards (914 m) of the target at BT– 

9 or anywhere within Rattan Bay at BT– 

11 during the cold pass or from range 

camera detection, training would be 

delayed until the marine mammal 

moves beyond and on a path away from 

1,000 yards (914 m) from the BT–9 

target or out of Rattan Bay at BT–11. 

This mitigation applies to both air-tosurface and surface-to-surface exercises. 

(4) Range Camera Use: To increase 

the safety of persons or property near 

the targets, Range Operation and Control 

personnel monitor the target area 

through tower mounted safety and 

surveillance cameras. The remotely 

operated range cameras are high 

resolution and, according to range 

personnel, allow a clear visual of a duck 

floating near the target. The cameras 

allow viewers to see animals at the 

surface and breaking the surface, but not 

underwater. 

A new, enhanced camera system has 

been purchased and will be installed on 

BT–11 towers 3 and 7, and on both 

towers at BT–9. The new camera system 

has night vision capabilities with 

resolution levels near those during 

daytime. Lenses on the camera system 

have focal lengths of 40 mm to 2,200 

mm (56x), with view angles of 18°10′ 

and 13°41′, respectively. The field of 

view when zoomed in on the Rattan Bay 

targets will be 23′ wide by 17′ high, and 

on the mouth of Rattan Bay itself 87′ 

wide by 66′ high. 

Again, in the event that a marine 

mammal is sighted within 1,000 yards 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32411 

(914 m) of the BT–9 target, or anywhere 

within Rattan Bay, the target is declared 

fouled. Operations may commence in 

the fouled area after the animal(s) have 

moved 1,000 yards (914 m) from the 

BT–9 target and/or out of Rattan Bay. 

(4) Vessel Operation: All vessels used 

during training operations would abide 

by the NMFS’ Southeast Regional 

Viewing Guidelines designed to prevent 

harassment to marine mammals (http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/education/ 

southeast/). 

(5) Stranding Network Coordination: 

The USMC shall coordinate with the 

local NMFS Stranding Coordinator for 

any unusual marine mammal behavior 

and any stranding, beached live/dead, 

or floating marine mammals that may 

occur at any time during training 

activities or within 24 hours after 

completion of training. 

Proposed Monitoring and 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’’. The MMPA implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) 

indicate that requests for incidental take 

authorizations must include the 

suggested means of accomplishing the 

necessary monitoring and reporting that 

will result in increased knowledge of 

the species and of the level of taking or 

impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present. Monitoring measures 

prescribed by NMFS should accomplish 

one or more of the following general 

goals: (a) An increase in our 

understanding of how many marine 

mammals are likely to be exposed to 

munition noise and explosions that we 

associate with specific adverse effects, 

such as behavioral harassment, TTS, or 

PTS; (b) an increase in our 

understanding of how individual 

marine mammals respond (behaviorally 

or physiologically) to gunnery and 

bombing exercises (at specific received 

levels) expected to result in take; (c) an 

increase in our understanding of how 

anticipated takes of individuals (in 

different ways and to varying degrees) 

may impact the population, species, or 

stock (specifically through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival); 

(d) an increased knowledge of the 

affected species; (e) an increase in our 

understanding of the effectiveness of 

certain mitigation and monitoring 

measures; (f) a better understanding and 

record of the manner in which the 

authorized entity complies with the 

incidental take authorization; (g) an 

increase in the probability of detecting 

marine mammals, both within the safety 

zone (thus allowing for more effective 

implementation of the mitigation) and 

in general to better achieve the above 

goals. 

Proposed Monitoring 

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 

expected to be present within the action 

area are as follows: 

(1) Marine Mammal Observer 

Training: Pilots, operators of small 

boats, and other personnel monitoring 

for marine mammals would be required 

to take the Marine Species Awareness 

Training (Version 2.), maintained and 

promoted by the Department of the 

Navy. This training will make personnel 

knowledgeable of marine mammals, 

protected species, and visual cues 

related to the presence of marine 

mammals and protected species. 

(2) Weekly and Post-Exercise 

Monitoring: Post-exercise monitoring 

shall be conducted concomitant to the 

next regularly scheduled pre-exercise 

sweep. Weekly monitoring events 

would include a maximum of five preexercise and four post-exercise sweeps. 

The maximum number of days that 

would elapse between pre- and postexercise monitoring events would be 

approximately 3 days, and would 

normally occur on weekends. If marine 

mammals are observed during this 

monitoring, sighting data identical to 

those collected by PEDRO crew would 

be recorded. 

(3) Long-term Monitoring: The USMC 

has awarded DUML duties to obtain 

abundance, group dynamics (e.g., group 

size, age census), behavior, habitat use, 

and acoustic data on the bottlenose 

dolphins which inhabit Pamlico Sound, 

specifically those around BT–9 and BT– 

11. DUML began conducting boat-based 

surveys and passive acoustic monitoring 

of bottlenose dolphins in Pamlico 

Sound in 2000 (Read et al., 2003) and 

specifically at BT–9 and BT–11 in 2003 

(Mayer, 2003). To date, boat-based 

surveys indicate that bottlenose 

dolphins may be resident to Pamlico 

Sound and use BT restricted areas on a 

frequent basis. Passive acoustic 

monitoring (PAM) is providing more 

detailed insight into how dolphins use 

the two ranges, by monitoring for their 

vocalizations year-round, regardless of 

weather conditions or darkness. In 

addition to these surveys, DUML 

scientists are testing a real-time passive 

acoustic monitoring system at BT–9 that 

will allow automated detection of 

bottlenose dolphin whistles, providing 

yet another method of detecting 

dolphins prior to training operations. 

Although it is unlikely this PAM system 

would be active for purposes of 

implementing mitigation measures 

before an exercise prior to expiration of 

the proposed IHA, it would be 

operational for future MMPA incidental 

take authorizations. 

(4) Reporting: The USMC would 

submit a report to NMFS within 90 days 

after expiration of the IHA or, if a 

subsequent incidental take 

authorization is requested, within 120 

days prior to expiration of the IHA. The 

report would summarize the type and 

amount of training exercises conducted, 

all marine mammal observations made 

during monitoring, and if mitigation 

measures were implemented. The report 

would also address the effectiveness of 

the monitoring plan in detecting marine 

mammals. 

Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment 

The following provides the USMC’s 

model for take of dolphins from 

explosives (without consideration of 

mitigation and the conservative 

assumption that all explosives would 

land in the water and not on the targets 

or land) and potential for direct hits and 

NMFS’ analysis of potential harassment 

from small vessel and aircraft 

operations. 

Acoustic Take Criteria 

For the purposes of an MMPA 

incidental take authorization, three 

levels 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 harassment 

categories were described previously in 

this notice. A method to estimate the 

number of individuals that will be 

taken, pursuant to the MMPA, based on 

the proposed action has been derived. 

To this end, NMFS uses acoustic criteria 

that estimate at what received level 

Level B harassment, Level A 

harassment, and mortality of marine 

mammals would occur. The acoustic 

criteria for underwater detonations are 

comprehensively explained in NMFS’ 

recent proposed rule Federal Register 

notice to the U.S. Navy (74 FR 11057, 

March 16, 2009) and are summarized 

here: 

Criteria and thresholds for estimating 

the exposures from a single explosive 

activity on marine mammals were 

established for the Seawolf Submarine 

Shock Test Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) (‘‘Seawolf’’) and 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32412 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

subsequently used in the USS Winston 

S. Churchill (DDG 81) Ship Shock FEIS 

(‘‘Churchill’’) (DoN, 1998 and 2001). 

NMFS adopted these criteria and 

thresholds in its final rule on the 

unintentional taking of marine animals 

occurring incidental to the shock testing 

which involved large explosives (65 FR 

77546; December 12, 2000). Because no 

large explosives (≤ 1000 lbs NEW) 

would be used at Cherry Point during 

the specified activities, a revised 

acoustic criterion for small underwater 

explosions (i.e., 23 pounds per square 

inch [psi] instead of previous acoustic 

criteria of 12 psi for peak pressure over 

all exposures) has been established to 

predict onset of TTS. 

I.1. Thresholds and Criteria for Injurious 

Physiological Impacts 

I.1.a. Single Explosion 

For injury, NMFS uses dual criteria, 

eardrum rupture (i.e. tympanicmembrane injury) and onset of slight 

lung injury, to indicate the onset of 

injury. The threshold for tympanicmembrane (TM) rupture corresponds to 

a 50 percent rate of rupture (i.e., 50 

percent of animals exposed to the level 

are expected to suffer TM rupture). This 

value is stated in terms of an Energy 

Flux Density Level (EL) value of 1.17 

inch pounds per square inch (in-lb/in2), 

approximately 205 dB re 1 microPa2- 

sec. 

The threshold for onset of slight lung 

injury is calculated for a small animal 

(a dolphin calf weighing 26.9 lbs), and 

is given in terms of the ‘‘Goertner 

modified positive impulse,’’ indexed to 

13 psi-msec (DoN, 2001). This threshold 

is conservative since the positive 

impulse needed to cause injury is 

proportional to animal mass, and 

therefore, larger animals require a 

higher impulse to cause the onset of 

injury. This analysis assumed the 

marine species populations were 100 

percent small animals. The criterion 

with the largest potential impact range 

(most conservative), either TM rupture 

(energy threshold) or onset of slight lung 

injury (peak pressure), will be used in 

the analysis to determine Level A 

exposures for single explosive events. 

For mortality, NMFS uses the 

criterion corresponding to the onset of 

extensive lung injury. This is 

conservative in that it corresponds to a 

1 percent chance of mortal injury, and 

yet any animal experiencing onset 

severe lung injury is counted as a lethal 

exposure. For small animals, the 

threshold is given in terms of the 

Goertner modified positive impulse, 

indexed to 30.5 psi-msec. Since the 

Goertner approach depends on 

propagation, source/animal depths, and 

animal mass in a complex way, the 

actual impulse value corresponding to 

the 30.5 psi-msec index is a complicated 

calculation. To be conservative, the 

analysis used the mass of a calf dolphin 

(at 26.9 lbs) for 100 percent of the 

populations. 

I.1.b. Multiple Explosions 

For multiple explosions, the Churchill 

approach had to be extended to cover 

multiple sound events at the same 

training site. For multiple exposures, 

accumulated energy over the entire 

training time is the natural extension for 

energy thresholds since energy 

accumulates with each subsequent shot 

(detonation); this is consistent with the 

treatment of multiple arrivals in 

Churchill. For positive impulse, it is 

consistent with the Churchill final rule 

to use the maximum value over all 

impulses received. 

I.2. Thresholds and Criteria for NonInjurious Physiological Effects 

To determine the onset of TTS (noninjurious harassment)—a slight, 

recoverable loss of hearing sensitivity, 

there are dual criteria: an energy 

threshold and a peak pressure 

threshold. The criterion with the largest 

potential impact range (most 

conservative), either the energy or peak 

pressure threshold, will be used in the 

analysis to determine Level B TTS 

exposures. The thresholds for each 

criterion are described below. 

I.2.a. Single Explosion—TTS-Energy 

Threshold 

The TTS energy threshold for 

explosives is derived from the Space 

and Naval Warfare Systems Center 

(SSC) pure-tone tests for TTS (Schlundt 

et al., 2000; Finneran and Schlundt, 

2004). The pure-tone threshold (192 dB 

as the lowest value) is modified for 

explosives by (a) interpreting it as an 

energy metric, (b) reducing it by 10 dB 

to account for the time constant of the 

mammal ear, and (c) measuring the 

energy in 1/3-octave bands, the natural 

filter band of the ear. The resulting 

threshold is 182 dB re 1 microPa2-sec in 

any 1/3-octave band. 

I.2.b. Single Explosion—TTS-Peak 

Pressure Threshold 

The second threshold applies to all 

species and is stated in terms of peak 

pressure at 23 psi (about 225 dB re 1 

microPa). This criterion was adopted for 

Precision Strike Weapons (PSW) Testing 

and Training by Eglin Air Force Base in 

the Gulf of Mexico (NMFS, 2005). It is 

important to note that for small shots 

near the surface (such as in this 

analysis), the 23-psi peak pressure 

threshold generally will produce longer 

impact ranges than the 182-dB energy 

metric. Furthermore, it is not unusual 

for the TTS impact range for the 23-psi 

pressure metric to actually exceed the 

without-TTS (behavioral change 

without onset of TTS) impact range for 

the 177-dB energy metric. 

I.3. Thresholds and Criteria for 

Behavioral Effects 

I.3.a. Single Explosion 

For a single explosion, to be 

consistent with Churchill, TTS is the 

criterion for Level B harassment. In 

other words, because behavioral 

disturbance for a single explosion is 

likely to be limited to a short-lived 

startle reaction, use of the TTS criterion 

is considered sufficient protection and 

therefore behavioral effects (Level B 

behavioral harassment without onset of 

TTS) are not expected for single 

explosions. 

I.3.b. Multiple Explosions—Without 

TTS 

For multiple explosions, the Churchill 

approach had to be extended to cover 

multiple sound events at the same 

training site. For multiple exposures, 

accumulated energy over the entire 

uninterrupted firing time is the natural 

extension for energy thresholds since 

energy accumulates with each 

subsequent shot (detonation); this is 

consistent with the treatment of 

multiple arrivals in Churchill. Because 

multiple explosions could occur within 

a discrete time period, a new acoustic 

criterion-behavioral disturbance without 

TTS is used to account for behavioral 

effects significant enough to be judged 

as harassment, but occurring at lower 

noise levels than those that may cause 

TTS. 

The threshold is based on test results 

published in Schlundt et al. (2000), with 

derivation following the approach of the 

Churchill FEIS for the energy-based TTS 

threshold. The original Schlundt et al. 

(2000) data and the report of Finneran 

and Schlundt (2004) are the basis for 

thresholds for behavioral disturbance 

without TTS. During this study, 

instances of altered behavior sometimes 

began at lower exposures than those 

causing TTS; however, there were many 

instances when subjects exhibited no 

altered behavior at levels above the 

onset-TTS levels. Regardless of 

reactions at higher or lower levels, all 

instances of altered behavior were 

included in the statistical summary. The 

behavioral disturbance without TTS 

threshold for tones is derived from the 

SSC tests, and is found to be 5 dB below 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32413 

the threshold for TTS, or 177 dB re 1 

microPa2-sec maximum energy flux 

density level in any 1/3-octave band at 

frequencies above 100 Hz for cetaceans. 

II. Summary of Thresholds and Criteria 

for Impulsive Sounds 

The effects, criteria, and thresholds 

used in the assessment for impulsive 

sounds are summarized in Table 6. The 

criteria for behavioral effects without 

physiological effects used in this 

analysis are based on use of multiple 

explosives from live, explosive firing at 

BT–9 only; no live firing occurs at BT– 

11. 

TABLE 6—EFFECTS, CRITERIA, AND THRESHOLDS FOR IMPULSIVE SOUNDS

Effect Criteria Metric Threshold Effect 

Mortality ........................ Onset of Extensive 

Lung Injury.

Goertner modified positive impulse ..................... indexed to 30.5 psimsec (assumes 100 

percent small animal 

at 26.9 lbs).

Mortality. 

Injurious Physiological .. 50 percent Tympanic 

Membrane Rupture.

Energy flux density .............................................. 1.17 in-lb/in2 (about 205 

dB re 1 microPa2- 

sec).

Level A. 

Injurious Physiological .. Onset Slight Lung Injury Goertner modified positive impulse ..................... indexed to 13 psi-msec

(assumes 100 percent small animal at 

26.9 lbs).

Level A. 

Non-injurious Physiological.TTS ............................... Greatest energy flux density level in any 1/3-octave band (> 100 Hz for toothed whales and > 

10 Hz for baleen whales)—for total energy 

over all exposures.

182 dB re 1 microPa2- 

sec.

Level B. 

Non-injurious Physiological.TTS ............................... Peak pressure over all exposures ....................... 23 psi ............................ Level B. 

Non-injurious Behavioral Multiple Explosions 

Without TTS.

Greatest energy flux density level in any 1/3-octave (> 100 Hz for toothed whales and > 10 

Hz for baleen whales)—for total energy over 

all exposures (multiple explosions only).

177 dB re 1 microPa2- 

sec.

Level B. 

Take From Explosives 

The USMC conservatively modeled 

that all explosives would detonate at a 

1.2 m (3.9 ft) water depth despite the 

training goal of hitting the target, 

resulting in an above water or on land 

explosion. For sources that are 

detonated at shallow depths, it is 

frequently the case that the explosion 

may breech the surface with some of the 

acoustic energy escaping the water 

column. The source levels presented in 

the table above have not been adjusted 

for possible venting nor does the 

subsequent analysis take this into 

account. Properties of explosive sources 

used at BT–9, including NEW, peak onethird-octave (OTO) source level, the 

approximate frequency at which the 

peak occurs, and rounds per burst are 

described in Table 7. Distances to NMFS 

harassment threshold levels from these 

sources are outlined in Table 8. 

TABLE 7—SOURCE WEIGHTS AND PEAK SOURCE LEVELS

Source type NEW Peak OTO SL Frequency of peak OTO SL Rounds per 

burst 

2.75′′ Rocket ............................ 4.8 lbs ..................................... 223.9 dB re: 1μPa .................. ∼ 1500 Hertz (Hz) .................... 1 

5′′ Rocket ................................. 15.0 lbs ................................... 228.9 dB re: 1μPa .................. ∼ 1000 Hz ................................ 1 

30 mm ..................................... 0.1019 lbs ............................... 212.1 dB re: 1μPa .................. ∼ 2500 Hz ................................ 30 

40 mm ..................................... 0.1199 lbs ............................... 227.8 dB re: 1μPa .................. ∼ 1100 Hz ................................ 5 

G911 Grenade ......................... 0.5 ........................................... 213.9 dB re: 1 μPa ................. ∼ 2500 Hz ................................ 1 

TABLE 8—DISTANCES TO NMFS HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS FROM EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCES

Behavioral disturbance 

(177 dB energy) 

TTS 

(23 psi) 

Level A 

(13 psi-msec) 

Mortality 

(31 psi-ms) 

2.75′′ Rocket HE .................... N/A ........................................ 172 m (564 ft) ....................... 47 m (154 ft) ......................... 27 m (89 ft). 

5′′ Rocket HE ......................... N/A ........................................ 255 m (837 ft) ....................... 61 m (200 ft) ......................... 39 m (128 ft). 

30 mm HE .............................. 209 m (686 ft) ....................... N/A ........................................ 10 m (33 ft) ........................... 5 m (16 ft). 

40 mm HE .............................. 144 m (472 ft) ....................... N/A ........................................ 10 m (33 ft) ........................... 5 m (16 ft). 

G911 Grenade ....................... N/A ........................................ 83 m (272 ft) ......................... 21 m (33 ft) ........................... 10 m (33 ft). 

To calculate take, the distances to 

which animals may be harassed were 

considered along with dolphin density. 

The density estimate from Read et al 

(2003) was used to calculate take from 

munition firing. As described in the 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activity section 

above, this density, 0.183/km2, was 

derived from boat based surveys in 2000 

which covered all inland North Carolina 

waters. Note that estimated density of 

dolphins at BT–9 and BT–11, 

specifically, were calculated to be 0.11 

dolphins/km2, and 1.23 dolphins/km2


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32414 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

respectively (Maher 2003), based on 

boat surveys conducted from July 2002 

through June 2003 (excluding April, 

May, Sept. and Jan.). However, the 

USMC chose to estimate take of 

dolphins based on the higher density 

reported from the summer 2000 surveys 

(0.183/km2). Additionally, take 

calculations for munition firing are 

based on 100 percent water detonation, 

although the goal of training is to hit the 

targets, and no pre-exercise monitoring 

or mitigation. Therefore, take estimates 

can be considered conservative. 

Based on dolphin density and amount 

of munitions expended, there is very 

low potential for Level A harassment 

and mortality and monitoring and 

mitigation measures are anticipated to 

further negate this potential. 

Accordingly, NMFS is not proposing to 

issue these levels of take. As portrayed 

in Table 8 above, the largest harassment 

zone (Level B) is within 209 m of a 

detonation in water; however, the 

USMC has implemented a 1000 m ‘‘foul’’ 

zone for BT–9 and anywhere within 

Raritan Bay for BT–11. In total, from 

firing of explosive ordnances, the USMC 

is requesting, and NMFS is proposing to 

issue, the incidental take of 25 

bottlenose dolphins from Level B 

harassment (Table 9). 

TABLE 9—NUMBER OF DOLPHINS POTENTIALLY TAKEN FROM EXPOSURE TO EXPLOSIVES BASED ON THRESHOLD CRITERIA

Ordnance type 

Level B— 

behavioral 

(177dB re 1 

microPa2-s) 

Level B—TTS 

(23 psi) 

Level A— 

Injurious 

(205 dB re 1 

microPa2-s or 13 

psi) 

Mortality 

(30.5 psi) 

2.75′′ Rocket HE .................................................................... N/A 4.97 0 .17 0.06 

5′′ Rocket HE ......................................................................... N/A 3.39 0 .09 0.03 

30 mm HE .............................................................................. 2.55 N/A 0 .05 0.00 

40 mm HE .............................................................................. 12.60 N/A 0 .16 0.01 

G911 Grenade ....................................................................... N/A 0.87 0 .03 0.01 

Total ................................................................................ 15.15 9.23 0 .5 0.11 

Take From Direct Hit 

The potential risk of a direct hit to an 

animal in the target area is estimated to 

be so low it is discountable. A Range Air 

Installation Compatible Use Zone 

(RAICUZ) study generated the surface 

area or footprints of weapon impact 

areas associated with air-to-ground 

ordnance delivery (USMC 2001). 

Statistically, a weapon safety footprint 

describes the area needed to contain 

99.99 percent of initial and ricochet 

impacts at the 95-percent confidence 

interval for each type of aircraft and 

ordnance utilized on the BTs. At both 

BT–9 and BT–11 the probability of 

deployed ordnance landing in the 

impact footprint is essentially 1.0, since 

the footprints were designed to contain 

99.99 percent of impacts, including 

ricochets. However, only 36 percent of 

the weapon footprint for BT–11 is over 

water in Rattan Bay, so the likelihood of 

a weapon striking an animal at the BT 

in Rattan Bay is 64 percent less. Water 

depths in Rattan Bay range from 3 m (10 

ft) in the deepest part of the bay to 0.5 

m (1.6 m) close to shore, so that nearly 

the entire habitat in Rattan Bay is 

suitable for marine mammal use (or 36 

percent of the weapon footprint). 

The estimated potential risk of a 

direct hit to an animal in the target area 

is extremely low. The probability of 

hitting a bottlenose dolphin at the BTs 

can be derived as follows: Probability = 

dolphin’s dorsal surface area * density 

of dolphins. The estimated dorsal 

surface area of a bottlenose dolphin is 

1.425 m2 (or the average length of 2.85 

m times the average body width of 0.5 

m). Thus, using Read et al. (2003)’s 

density estimate of 0.183 dolphins/km2, 

without consideration of mitigation and 

monitoring implementation, the 

probability of a dolphin being hit in the 

waters of BT–9 is 2.61 × 10¥7 and of 

BT–11 is 9.4 × 10¥8. Using the proposed 

levels of ordnance expenditures at each 

in-water BT (Tables 4 and 5) and taking 

into account that only 36 percent of the 

ordnance deployed at BT–11 is over 

water, as described in the application, 

the estimated potential number of 

ordnance strikes on a marine mammal 

per year is 0.263 at BT–9 and 0.034 at 

BT–11. It would take approximately 

three years of ordnance deployment at 

the BTs before it would be likely or 

probable that one bottlenose dolphin 

would be struck by deployed inert 

ordnance. Again, these estimates are 

without consideration to proposed 

monitoring and mitigation measures. 

Take From Vessel and Aircraft Presence 

Vessel movement is associated with 

surface-to-surface exercises, as 

described in the Specified Activities 

section above, which primarily occurs 

within BT–11. The USMC is not 

requesting takes specific to the act of 

maneuvering small boats within the 

BTs; however, NMFS has analyzed the 

potential for take from this activity. 

The potential impacts from exposure 

to vessels are described in the Vessel 

and Aircraft Presence section above. 

Interactions with vessels are not a new 

experience for bottlenose dolphins in 

Pamlico Sound. Pamlico Sound is 

heavily used by recreational, 

commercial (fishing, daily ferry service, 

tugs, etc.), and military (including the 

Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard) 

vessels year-round. The NMFS’ 

Southeast Regional Office has 

developed marine mammal viewing 

guidelines to educate the public on how 

to responsibly view marine mammals in 

the wild and avoid causing a take 

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

education/southeast). The guidelines 

recommend that vessels should remain 

a minimum of 50 yards from a dolphin, 

operate vessels in a predictable manner, 

avoid excessive speed or sudden 

changes in speed or direction in the 

vicinity of animals, and not to pursue, 

chase, or separate a group of animals. 

The USMC would abide by these 

guidelines to the fullest extent 

practicable. The USMC would not 

engage in high speed exercises should a 

marine mammal be detected within the 

immediate area of the BTs prior to 

training commencement and would 

never closely approach, chase, or pursue 

dolphins. Detection of marine mammals 

would be facilitated by personnel 

monitoring on the vessels and those 

marking success rate of target hits and 

monitoring of remote camera on the BTs 

(see Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

section). 

Based on the description of the action, 

the other activities regularly occurring 

in the area, the species that may be 

exposed to the activity and their 

observed behaviors in the presence of 

vessel traffic, and the implementation of 

measures to avoid vessel strikes, NMFS 

believes it is unlikely that the operation 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32415 

of vessels during surface-to-surface 

maneuvers will result in the take of any 

marine mammals, in the form of either 

behavioral harassment or injury. 

Aircraft would move swiftly through 

the area and would typically fly 

approximately 914 m from the water’s 

surface before dropping unguided 

munitions and above 4,572 m for 

precision-guided munition bombing. 

While the aircraft may approach as low 

as 152 m (500 ft) to drop a bomb this 

is not the norm and would never been 

done around marine mammals. Regional 

whale watching guidelines advise 

aircraft to maintain a minimum altitude 

of 300 m (1,000 ft) above all marine 

mammals, including small odontocetes, 

and to not circle or hover over the 

animals to avoid harassment. NMFS’ 

approach regulations limit aircraft from 

flying below 300 m (1,000 ft) over a 

humpback whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae) in Hawaii, a known 

calving ground, and limit aircraft from 

flying over North Atlantic right whales 

closer than 460 m (1509 ft). Given 

USMC aircraft would not fly below 300 

m on the approach, would not engage in 

hovering or circling the animals, and 

would not drop to the minimal altitude 

of 152 m if a marine mammal is in the 

area, NMFS believes it is unlikely that 

the operation of aircraft, as described 

above, will result in take of bottlenose 

dolphins in Pamlico Sound. 

Negligible Impact and Small Numbers 

Analysis and 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. 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.’’ 

A negligible impact finding is based on 

the lack of likely adverse effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(i.e., population-level effects). An 

estimate of the number and manner of 

takes, alone, is not enough information 

on which to base a negligible impact 

determination. NMFS must also 

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. 

The USMC has been conducting 

gunnery and bombing training exercises 

at BT–9 and BT–11 for years and, to 

date, no dolphin injury or mortality has 

been attributed these military training 

exercises. The USMC has a history of 

notifying the NMFS stranding network 

when any injured or stranded animal 

comes ashore or is spotted by personnel 

on the water. Therefore, stranded 

animals have been examined by 

stranding responders, further 

confirming that it is unlikely training 

contributes to marine mammal injuries 

or deaths. Due to the implementation of 

the aforementioned mitigation 

measures, no take by Level A 

harassment or serious injury or 

mortality is anticipated nor would any 

be authorized in the IHA. NMFS is 

proposing; however, to authorize 25 

Level B harassment takes associated 

with training exercises. 

The USMC has proposed a 1000-yard 

(914 m) safety zone around BT–9 

despite the fact that the distance to 

NMFS explosive Level B harassment 

threshold is 228 yards (209 m). They 

also would consider an area fouled if 

any dolphins are spotted within Raritan 

Bay (where BT–11 is located). The Level 

B harassment takes allowed for in the 

IHA would be of very low intensity and 

would likely result in dolphins being 

temporarily behaviorally affected by 

bombing or gunnery exercises. In 

addition, takes may be attributed to 

animals not using the area when 

exercises are occurring; however, this is 

difficult to calculate. Instead, NMFS 

looks to if the specified activities occur 

during and within habitat important to 

vital life functions to better inform its 

negligible impact determination. 

Read et al. (2003) concluded that 

dolphins rarely occur in open waters in 

the middle of North Carolina sounds 

and large estuaries, but instead are 

concentrated in shallow water habitats 

along shorelines. However, no specific 

areas have been identified as vital 

reproduction or foraging habitat. 

Scientific boat based surveys conducted 

throughout Pamlico Sound conclude 

that dolphins use the areas around the 

BTs more frequently than other portions 

of Pamlico Sound (Maher, 2003) despite 

the USMC actively training in a manner 

identical to the specified activities 

described here for years. 

As described in the Affected Species 

section of this notice, bottlenose 

dolphin stock segregation is complex 

with stocks overlapping throughout the 

coastal and estuarine waters of North 

Carolina. It is not possible for the USMC 

to determine to which stock any 

individual dolphin taken during 

training activities belong as this can 

only be accomplished through genetic 

testing. However, it is likely that many 

of the dolphins encountered would 

belong to the NNCE or SNC stock. These 

stocks have a population estimate of 919 

and 4,818, respectively. NMFS is 

proposing to authorize 25 takes of 

bottlenose dolphins in total; therefore, 

this number represents 2.72 and 0 

percent, respectively, of those 

populations. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

mitigation and monitoring measures, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that the 

specified USMC AS Cherry Point BT–9 

and BT–11 training activities will result 

in the incidental take of marine 

mammals, by Level B harassment only, 

and that the total taking from will have 

a negligible impact on the affected 

species or stocks. 

Subsistence Harvest of Marine 

Mammals 

Marine mammals are not taken for 

subsistence use within Pamlico Sound; 

therefore, issuance of an IHA to the 

USMC for MCAS Cherry Point training 

exercises would not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the affected species or 

stocks for subsistence use. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

No ESA-listed marine mammals are 

known to occur within the action area. 

Therefore, there is no requirement for 

NMFS to consult under Section 7 of the 

ESA on the issuance of an IHA under 

section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA. 

However, ESA-listed sea turtles may be 

present within the action area. 

On September 27, 2002, NMFS issued 

a Biological Opinion (BiOp) on Ongoing 

Ordnance Delivery at Bombing Target 9 

(BT–9) and Bombing Target 11 (BT–11) 

at Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry 

Point, North Carolina. The BiOp 

concluded that that the USMC’s 

proposed action will not result in 

adverse impacts to any ESA-listed 

marine mammals and is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the endangered green turtle (Chelonia 

mydas), leatherback turtle (Dermochelys 

coriacea), Kemp’s ridley turtle 

(Lepidochelys kempii), or threatened 

loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta). No 

critical habitat has been designated for 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32416 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

these species in the action area; 

therefore, none will be affected. On 

April 9, 2009, the USMC requested 

subsequent Section 7 consultation as the 

aforementioned BiOp was written in 

2002. That consultation request is 

currently being examined by NMFS’ 

Endangered Species Division. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

On February 11, 2009, the USMC 

issued a Finding of No Significant 

Impact for its Environmental 

Assessment (EA) on MCAS Cherry Point 

Range Operations. Based on the analysis 

of the EA, the USMC determined that 

the proposed action will not have a 

significant impact on the human 

environment. If adequate and 

appropriate, NMFS intends to adopt the 

USMC’s EA to allow NMFS to meet its 

responsibilities under NEPA for the 

issuance of an IHA. If the USMC’s EA 

is not adequate, NMFS will supplement 

the existing analysis and documents to 

ensure that we comply with NEPA prior 

to the issuance of the IHA. 

Dated: June 1, 2010. 

James H. Lecky, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13748 Filed 6–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Defense Science Board 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Notice of advisory committee 

meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board 

Task Force on the Survivability of DoD 

Systems and Assets to Electromagnetic 

Pulse (EMP) and other Nuclear Weapons 

Effects will meet in closed session on 

July 15 and 16, 2010, at Fort Belvoir, 

Virginia. The Task Force will receive, 

review and discuss presentations on: 

findings and recommendations of the 

Congressional EMP Commission, the 

Defense Science Board Threat 

Reduction Advisory Committee (TRAC) 

Task Force findings, recommendations 

and progress; implementation to date of 

DoD Instruction 3150.09; the SECDEF 

2009 Report to Congress on EMP 

Survivability; 2010 Strategic Test 

Resource Management Center Plan for 

Nuclear Weapons Effects test & 

evaluation resources; DTRA–NNSA 

MOU and Joint Program Plan; DoD 

component updates; and discussion of 

future activities. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on July 

15 and 16, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

(DTRA), Defense Threat Reduction 

Center Building, Brittigan Conference 

Room, 1252, 8725 John J. Kingman 

Road, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060– 

6201. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LTC 

Karen Walters, USA, Defense Science 

Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 

3B888A, Washington, DC 20301–3140, 

via e-mail at karen.walters@osd.mil, or 

via phone at (703) 571–0082. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

mission of the Defense Science Board is 

to advise the Secretary of Defense and 

the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on 

scientific and technical matters as they 

affect the perceived needs of the 

Department of Defense. At these 

meetings, the Defense Science Board 

Task Force will act as an independent 

sounding board to the Joint IED 

organization by providing feedback at 

quarterly intervals; and develop 

strategic and operational plans, 

examining the goals, process and 

substance of the plans. 

The task force’s findings and 

recommendations, pursuant to 41 CFR 

102–3.140 through 102–3.165, will be 

presented and discussed by the 

membership of the Defense Science 

Board prior to being presented to the 

Government’s decision maker. 

Pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.120 and 

102–3.150, the Designated Federal 

Officer for the Defense Science Board 

will determine and announce in the 

Federal Register when the findings and 

recommendations of the July 15–16, 

2010, meeting are deliberated by the 

Defense Science Board. 

Interested persons may submit a 

written statement for consideration by 

the Defense Science Board. Individuals 

submitting a written statement must 

submit their statement to the Designated 

Federal Official (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT), at any point, 

however, if a written statement is not 

received at least 10 calendar days prior 

to the meeting, which is the subject of 

this notice, then it may not be provided 

to or considered by the Defense Science 

Board. The Designated Federal Official 

will review all timely submissions with 

the Defense Science Board Chairperson, 

and ensure they are provided to 

members of the Defense Science Board 

before the meeting that is the subject of 

this notice. 

Dated: June 3, 2010. 

Mitchell S. Bryman, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13770 Filed 6–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket ID: DOD–2010–OS–0075] 

Privacy Act of 1974; System of 

Records 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Notice to amend a system of 

records. 

SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of 

Defense is proposing to amend a system 

of records notice in its existing 

inventory of records systems subject to 

the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), 

as amended. 

DATES: The changes will be effective on 

July 8, 2010, unless comments are 

received that would result in a contrary 

determination. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and title, 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Federal Docket Management 

System Office, 1160 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–1160. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this Federal Register 

document. The general policy for 

comments and other submissions from 

members of the public is to make these 

submissions available for public 

viewing on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov as they are 

received without change, including any 

personal identifiers or contact 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Cindy Allard at (703) 588–6830. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office 

of the Secretary of Defense systems of 

records notices subject to the Privacy 

Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as 

amended, have been published in the 

Federal Register and are available from 

the Chief, OSD/JS Privacy Office, 

Freedom of Information Directorate, 

Washington Headquarters Services, 

1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 

20301–1155. 

The specific changes to the records 

system being amended is set forth below 

followed by the notice, as amended, 

published in its entirety. The proposed 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES