60754 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 216 

[Docket No. 0080724897–8900–01] 

RIN 0648–AW90 

Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; U.S. Navy’s Atlantic Fleet 

Active Sonar Training (AFAST) 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for 

authorization to take marine mammals 

incidental to training activities 

conducted off the U.S. Atlantic Coast 

and in the Gulf of Mexico for the period 

of January 2009 through January 2014. 

Pursuant to the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is 

proposing regulations to govern that 

take and requesting information, 

suggestions, and comments on these 

proposed regulations. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than November 13, 

2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by 0648–AW90, by any one of 

the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Hand delivery or mailing of paper, 

disk, or CD–ROM comments should be 

addressed to Michael Payne, Chief, 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 

East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910–3225. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

NMFS will accept anonymous 

comments Enter N/A in the required 

fields, if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolie 

Harrison, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, (301) 713–2289, ext. 166. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability 

A copy of the Navy’s application may 

be obtained by writing to the address 

specified above (See ADDRESSES), 

telephoning the contact listed above (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or 

visiting the Internet at: http:// 

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

incidental.htm. The Navy’s Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 

for AFAST was published on February 

15, 2008, and may be viewed at 

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

incidental.htm. NMFS is participating 

in the development of the Navy’s EIS as 

a cooperating agency under NEPA. 

Background 

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

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

the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) 

to allow, upon request, the incidental, 

but not intentional taking of marine 

mammals by U.S. citizens, who engage 

in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) during periods of 

not more than five consecutive years 

each if certain findings are made and 

regulations are issued or, if the taking is 

limited to harassment, notice of a 

proposed authorization is provided to 

the public for review. 

Authorization shall be granted if 

NMFS finds that the taking will have a 

negligible impact on the species or 

stock(s), will not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of the 

species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, 

and if the permissible methods of taking 

and requirements pertaining to the 

mitigation, monitoring and reporting of 

such taking are set forth. NMFS has 

defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR 

216.103 as: 

‘‘an impact resulting from the specified 

activity that cannot be reasonably expected 

to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely 

affect the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’ 

The National Defense Authorization 

Act of 2004 (NDAA) (Pub. L. 108–136) 

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 February 4, 2008, NMFS received 

an application from the Navy requesting 

authorization for the take of individuals 

of 40 species of marine mammals 

incidental to upcoming Navy training 

activities, maintenance, and research, 

development, testing, and evaluation 

(RDT&E) activities to be conducted 

within the AFAST Study Area, which 

extends east from the Atlantic Coast of 

the U.S. to 45° W. long. and south from 

the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Coasts 

to approximately 23° N. lat., but not 

encompassing the Bahamas (see Figure 

1–1 in the Navy’s Application), over the 

course of 5 years. These training 

activities are classified as military 

readiness activities. The Navy states, 

and NMFS concurs, that these training 

activities may incidentally take marine 

mammals present within the AFAST 

Study Area by exposing them to sound 

from mid-frequency or high frequency 

active sonar (MFAS/HFAS) or to 

employment of the improved extended 

echo ranging (IEER) system. The IEER 

consists of an explosive source 

sonobuoy (AN/SSQ–110A) and an air 

deployable active receiver (ADAR) 

sonobuoy (AN/SSQ–101). The Navy 

requests authorization to take 

individuals of 40 species of marine 

mammals by Level B Harassment. 

Further, though they do not anticipate it 

to occur, the Navy requests 

authorization to take, by injury or 

mortality, up to 10 beaked whales over 

the course of the 5-yr regulations. 

Background of Navy Request 

The purpose of the Navy’s proposed 

action is to provide mid- and highfrequency active sonar and IEER system 

training for U.S. Navy Atlantic Fleet 

ship, submarine, and aircraft crews, as 

well as to conduct RDT&E activities to 

support the requirements of the Fleet 

Readiness Training Plan (FRTP) and 

stay proficient in anti-submarine 

warfare (ASW) and mine warfare (MIW) 

skills. The FRTP is the Navy’s training 

cycle that requires naval forces to build 

up in preparation for operational 

deployment and to maintain a high level 

of proficiency and readiness while 

deployed. All phases of the FRTP 

training cycle are needed to meet Title 

10 requirements. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60755 

The Navy’s need for training and 

RDT&E is found in Title 10 of the 

United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 

5062 (10 U.S.C. 5062). Title 10 U.S.C. 

5062 requires the Navy to be 

‘‘organized, trained, and equipped 

primarily for prompt and sustained 

combat incident to operations at sea.’’ 

The current and emerging training and 

RDT&E activities addressed in the 

AFAST Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS)/Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS) 

are conducted in fulfillment of this legal 

requirement. 

The RDT&E activities addressed in the 

AFAST EIS/OEIS are those RDT&E 

activities that are substantially similar 

to training, involving existing systems 

or systems with similar operating 

parameters. 

Description of Specified Activities 

Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) 

Training 

The Navy explains that potential 

adversary nations are investing heavily 

in submarine technology, including 

designs for nuclear attack submarines, 

strategic ballistic missile submarines, 

and modern diesel electric submarines. 

In addition, the modern diesel electric 

submarine is the most cost-effective 

platform for the delivery of several types 

of weapons, including torpedoes, longrange antiship cruise missiles, land 

attack missiles, and a variety of antiship 

mines. Since submarines are inherently 

covert and can operate independently of 

escort vessels, submarines can be used 

to conduct intrusive operations in 

sensitive areas and can be inserted early 

in the mission without being detected. 

The inability to detect a hostile 

submarine before it can launch a missile 

or a torpedo is a critical vulnerability 

that puts U.S. forces and merchant 

mariners at risk and, ultimately, 

threatens U.S. national security. 

Because Navy personnel ultimately 

fight as trained, a training environment 

that matches the conditions of actual 

combat is necessary. Sailors must also 

train using the combat tools (e.g., active 

sonar) that would be used during a 

conflict. A complicating factor facing 

the Navy today is the nature of the 

littoral waters where submarines can 

operate. These littoral regions are 

frequently confined, congested water 

and air space, which makes 

identification of allies, adversaries, and 

neutral parties more challenging than in 

deeper waters. Since an adversary 

equipped with modern, quiet 

submarines has the potential to deny all 

Department of Defense (DoD) forces 

access to strategic areas of the world, the 

value of active sonar training has broad 

effects for all DoD forces. 

Mine Warfare (MIW) Training 

The use of naval mines is one of the 

simplest ways for enemies to damage 

ships and disrupt shipping lanes. Over 

the past 60 years, at least 14 U.S. ships, 

including two in the last decade alone, 

have been damaged or sunk by mines as 

a result of relatively small-scale mine 

laying operations. Furthermore, since 

more than 90 percent of military 

equipment used in international 

operations travels by sea, mines have 

the potential to either delay land and 

sea military operations by denying 

access to shallow-water areas, or 

prevent the delivery of military 

equipment altogether. 

Today, the Navy can expect to 

encounter a wide spectrum of naval 

mines, from traditional, low technology 

mines, to technologically advanced 

systems. For instance, mines can have 

irregular shapes, sound-absorbent 

coatings, and nonmagnetic material 

composition, which increase their 

resistance to countermeasures and 

reduce their maintenance requirements. 

This means that mines can stay active 

in the water longer, are harder to find 

and are more difficult to neutralize 

(disarm with the use of 

countermeasures). More advanced 

mines are designed with remote 

controls, improved sensors, and counter 

countermeasures that further complicate 

efforts to identify, classify, and 

neutralize them. In addition to 

improved mine technology, the 

underwater acoustic conditions often 

present in shallow waters require the 

use of specialized technology to 

successfully detect, avoid, and 

neutralize mines (DON, 2006a). 

Training on MIW sonar is crucial 

because mines are a proven and costeffective technology that is continually 

improving to make them more lethal, 

reliable, and difficult to detect. Because 

mines do not emit sound, active sonar 

technology, rather than passive, 

provides the warfighter with the 

capability to quickly and accurately 

detect, classify, and neutralize mines in 

small, crowded, shallow-water 

environments. These MIW capabilities 

are essential to ensuring the U.S.’s 

maritime dominance and protecting the 

Navy’s ability to operate on both land 

and sea, including delivery of military 

equipment. 

As indicated above, the Navy has 

requested MMPA authorization to take 

marine mammals incidental to training 

activities in the AFAST Study Area that 

would generate sound in the water at or 

above levels that NMFS has determined 

will likely result in take (see Acoustic 

Take Criteria Section), either through 

the use of MFAS/HFAS or the 

employment of the IEER system, which 

includes explosive sonobuoys. Below 

we discuss the types of sound sources 

the Navy would utilize and the specific 

exercise types they would use them in. 

Acoustic Sources Used for ASW and 

MIW Exercises in AFAST 

There are two types of sonars, passive 

and active: 

• Passive sonars only listen to 

incoming sounds and, since they do not 

emit sound energy in the water, lack the 

potential to acoustically affect the 

environment. 

• Active sonars generate and emit 

acoustic energy specifically for the 

purpose of obtaining information 

concerning a distant object from the 

received and processed reflected sound 

energy. 

Modern sonar technology includes a 

multitude of sonar sensor and 

processing systems. In concept, the 

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

the arrival of the reflected echoes from 

the target object to determine range. 

More sophisticated active sonar can 

emit an omni-directional ping and then 

rapidly scan a steered receiving beam to 

provide directional, as well as range, 

information. Even more advanced 

sonars transmit multiple preformed 

beams and listen to echoes from several 

directions simultaneously to provide 

efficient detection of both direction and 

range. 

The tactical sonars to be deployed 

during testing and training in the 

AFAST Study Area are designed to 

detect submarines and mines in tactical 

training scenarios. These tasks require 

the use of the sonar mid-frequency 

range (1 kilohertz [kHz] to 10 kHz) 

predominantly, as well as a few sources 

in the high frequency range (above 10 

kHz). For this document we will refer to 

the collective high and mid-frequency 

sonar sources as MFAS/HFAS. A 

narrative description of the types of 

acoustic sources used in ASW and MIW 

training exercises is included below. 

Table 1 (below) summarizes the 

nominal characteristics of the acoustic 

sources used in the modeling to predict 

take of marine mammals as well as the 

estimated annual operation time. 

Acoustic systems that typically operate 

at frequencies above 200kHz were not 

analyzed because they are outside the 

upper hearing limits of almost all 

marine mammals and attenuate rapidly 

due to their extremely high frequencies. 

In addition, systems that were found 

to have similar acoustic output 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60756 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

parameters (i.e., frequency, power, 

deflection angles) were compared. The 

system with the largest acoustic 

footprint was modeled as representative 

of those similar systems that have a 

smaller acoustic footprint. An example 

of this representative modeling is the 

AN/AQS–22 for the AN/AQS–13. 

Surface Ship Sonars—A variety of 

surface ships operate the AN/SQS–53 

and AN/SQS–56 hull-mounted MFAS 

during ASW sonar training exercises, 

currently including 10 guided missile 

cruisers (CG) (AN/SQS–53), 26 guided 

missile destroyers (DDG) (AN/SQS–53), 

and 18 fast frigates (FFG) (AN/SQS 56) 

on the east coast. 

About half of the U.S. Navy ships do 

not have any onboard tactical sonar 

systems. Within the AFAST Study Area, 

these two types of hull-mounted sonar 

sources account for the majority of the 

estimated impacts to marine mammals. 

The AN/SQS–53 hull-mounted sonar, 

which has a nominal source level of 235 

decibels (dB) re 1 μPa and transmits at 

a center frequency 3.5 kHz, is the Navy’s 

most powerful sonar source used in 

ASW exercises in the AFAST Study 

Area. 

Hull-mounted sonars occasionally 

operate in a mode called ‘‘Kingfisher’’, 

which is designed to better detect 

smaller objects. The Kingfisher mode 

uses the same source level and 

frequency as normal search modes, 

however, it uses a different waveform 

(designed for small objects), a shorter 

pulse length (< 1 sec), a higher pulse 

repetition rate (due to the short ranges), 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP14OC08.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60757 

and the ping is not omnidirectional, but 

directed forward. 

Submarine Sonars—Tactical 

submarines (i.e., 29 nuclear powered 

attack submarines (SSN) on the east 

coast) equipped with BQQ–5 or BQQ–10 

hull-mounted MFA sonars, are used to 

detect and target enemy submarines and 

surface ships. A submarine’s mission 

revolves around its stealth; therefore, 

MFAS are used very infrequently since 

the pinging of the MFAS also identifies 

the location of the submarine. Note that 

the BQQ–10 is the more predominant 

system, and that the system is identified 

throughout the remainder of this 

document with the understanding that 

the BQQ–5 and BQQ–10 are similar in 

those operational parameters with a 

potential to affect marine mammals. In 

addition, Seawolf Class attack 

submarines, Virginia Class attack 

submarines, Los Angeles Class attack 

submarines, and Ohio Class nuclear 

guided missile submarines also have the 

AN/BQS–15, a sonar that uses both midand high-frequency for under-ice 

navigation and mine-hunting. 

Aircraft Sonar Systems—Aircraft 

sonar systems that would operate in the 

AFAST Study Area include sonobuoys 

(AN/SSQ–62 and AN/SSQ–110A) and 

dipping sonar (AN/AQS–13 or AN/ 

AQS–22). 

• Sonobuoys, deployed by both 

helicopter and fixed-wing Maritime 

Patrol aircraft (MPA), are expendable 

devices that are either tonal (active), 

impulsive (explosive), or listening 

(passive). The Navy uses a tonal 

sonobuoy called a Directional 

Command-Activated sonobuoy System 

(DICASS AN/SQQ–62) and a sonobuoy 

system called an IEER system, which 

consists of an explosive source 

sonobuoy (AN/SSQ–110A) and a 

passive receiver sonobuoy (AN/SSQ– 

101). The Navy also uses a passive 

sonobuoy called a Directional 

Frequency Analysis and Recording 

(DIFAR). Passive listening sonobuoys 

such as DIFAR (AN/SSQ–53) are 

deployed from helicopters or maritime 

patrol aircraft and do not emit active 

sonar. These systems are used for the 

detection and tracking of submarine 

threats. 

• Dipping active/passive sonars, 

present on helicopters, are recoverable 

devices that are lowered via a cable to 

detect or maintain contact with 

underwater targets. The Navy uses the 

AN/AQS–13 and AN/AQS–22 dipping 

sonars. Helicopters can be based ashore 

or aboard a ship. 

Torpedoes—Torpedoes are the 

primary ASW weapons used by surface 

ships, aircraft, and submarines. The 

guidance systems of these weapons can 

be autonomous or electronically 

controlled from the launching platform 

through an attached wire. The 

autonomous guidance systems are 

acoustically based. They operate either 

passively by listening for sound 

generated by the target, or actively by 

pinging the target and using the echoes 

for guidance. All torpedoes to be used 

during ASW activities are recoverable 

and nonexplosive. The majority of 

torpedo firings occurring during AFAST 

activities are air slugs (dry fire) or 

shapes (i.e., solid masses resembling the 

weight and shape of a torpedo). 

Acoustic Device Countermeasures 

(ADC)—Several types of 

countermeasure devices could be 

deployed during Fleet training 

exercises, including the Acoustic Device 

Countermeasure MK–1, MK–2, MK–3, 

MK–4, and the AN/SLQ–25A (NIXIE). 

Countermeasure devices act as decoys to 

avert localization and torpedo attacks. 

Countermeasures may be towed or free 

floating sources. 

Training Targets—ASW training 

targets are used to simulate target 

submarines. They are equipped with 

one or more of the following devices: (1) 

Acoustic projectors emanating sounds to 

simulate submarine acoustic signatures, 

(2) echo repeaters to simulate the 

characteristics of the echo of a particular 

sonar signal reflected from a specific 

type of submarine, and (3) magnetic 

sources to trigger magnetic detectors. 

The Navy uses the Expendable Mobile 

Acoustic Training Target (EMATT) and 

the MK–30 acoustic training targets 

(recovered) during ASW sonar training 

exercises. 

Types of ASW and MIW Exercises in the 

AFAST Study Area 

ASW and MIW training is conducted 

to meet deployment certification 

requirements as directed in the FRTP. 

The U.S. Navy Atlantic Fleet meets 

these requirements by conducting 

training activities prior to deployment 

of forces. The FRTP requires Basic Unit 

Level Training (ULT), Intermediate, and 

Sustainment Training. The Navy meets 

these requirements during Independent 

ULT, Coordinated ULT, and Strike 

Group Training. At the beginning of the 

cycle, basic combat skills are learned 

and practiced during basic Independent 

ULT activities, which include training 

and sonar maintenance activities that 

each individual unit is required to 

accomplish in order to become certified 

prior to deploying or to maintain 

proficiency. Basic skills are then refined 

during Coordinated ULT activities, 

which concentrate on warfare team 

training and initial multiunit 

operations. During this phase, vessels 

and aircraft begin to develop warfare 

skills in coordination with other units 

while continuing to maintain unit 

proficiency. Strike Group Training 

continues to develop and refine warfare 

skills and command and control 

procedures using progressively more 

difficult, complex, and large scale 

exercises conducted at an increasing 

tempo. This training provides the 

warfighter with the skills necessary to 

function as part of a coordinated 

fighting force in a hostile environment 

with the capacity to accomplish 

multiple missions. 

Additionally, RDT&E activities are 

conducted to develop new technologies 

and to ensure their effectiveness prior to 

implementation. Maintenance activities 

are conducted pier side and during 

transit to training exercise locations. 

Active sonar maintenance is required to 

ensure the sonar system is operating 

properly before engaging in the training 

exercise or when the sonar systems are 

suspected of performing below optimal 

levels. 

Because the Navy conducts many 

different types of Independent ULT, 

Coordinated ULT, Strike Group training, 

maintenance, and RDT&E active sonar 

events, the Navy grouped similar events 

to form representative scenarios. Note 

that specific training event names and 

other details do occasionally change as 

required to meet the current operational 

needs. Table 2 lists the types of ASW, 

MIW, and maintenance exercises and 

indicates: The nature of the exercise, the 

areas the exercises are conducted in and 

the area they span, the average duration 

of an exercise, the average number of 

exercises/per year, and the sound 

sources that are used in the exercises. 

Table 1 indicates the total number of 

hours for each source type anticipated 

for each year for each exercise type. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60758 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP14OC08.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60759 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP14OC08.002</GPH>
60760 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP14OC08.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60761 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP14OC08.004</GPH>
60762 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

The Navy’s AFAST EIS and LOA 

application were designed specifically 

to cover active sonar training because 

the need for operational flexibility, a 

variety of training scenarios, as well as 

proximity to multiple ports, airfields, 

and bases along the eastern seaboard in 

these exercises has long necessitated 

that the exercises be conducted outside 

of the boundaries of any one Operating 

Areas (OPAREA). Alternately, exercises 

utilizing explosive detonations are 

typically conducted within a particular 

OPAREA, and as such are being 

addressed separately within EISs and 

LOA requests for the various applicable 

OPAREAs. With the exception of the 

Extended Echo Ranging and Improved 

Extended Echo Ranging (IEER) system, 

the AFAST proposed authorization does 

not contain any explosive sources, only 

MFAS and HFAS. The IEER is included 

in AFAST because it is most often used 

in ASW exercises. The IEER Systems are 

air-launched ASW systems used in 

conducting ‘‘large area’’ searches for 

submarines. These systems are made up 

of airborne avionics ASW acoustic 

processing and sonobuoy types that are 

deployed in pairs. The IEER System’s 

active sonobuoy component, the AN/ 

SSQ–110A Sonobuoy, would generate a 

‘‘ping’’ (small detonation, as opposed to 

a sonar signal) and the passive AN/ 

SSQ–101 ADAR Sonobuoy would 

‘‘listen’’ for the return echo of the ping 

that has been bounced off the surface of 

a submarine. These sonobuoys are 

designed to provide underwater 

acoustic data necessary for naval 

aircrews to quickly and accurately 

detect submerged submarines. The 

expendable and commandable 

sonobuoy pairs are dropped from a 

fixed-wing aircraft into the ocean in a 

predetermined pattern (array) with a 

few buoys covering a very large area. 

Upon command from the aircraft, the 

bottom payload is released to sink to a 

designated operating depth. A second 

command is required from the aircraft to 

cause the second payload to release and 

detonate generating a ‘‘ping’’. There is 

only one detonation in the pattern of 

buoys at a time. 

Additional information on the Navy’s 

proposed activities may be found in the 

LOA Application and the Navy’s 

AFAST DEIS. 

AFAST Study Area 

Figure 1–1 in the Navy’s application, 

which may be viewed at: http:// 

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

incidental.htm, depicts the AFAST 

Study Area, which extends east from the 

Atlantic Coast of the U.S. to 45° W. long. 

and south from the Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico Coasts to approximately 23° N. 

lat., but not encompassing the Bahamas 

(see Figure 1–1 in the Navy’s 

Application). The Navy’s Atlantic Fleet 

trains in a series of OPAREAs along the 

U.S. East Coast and in the Gulf of 

Mexico. Due to the size of the battle 

space needed for effective conduct of 

activities, training and testing also occur 

seaward of these OPAREAs. The 

OPAREAs include the Northeast 

OPAREA, the Virginia Capes 

(VACAPES) OPAREA, the Cherry Point 

(CHPT) OPAREA, the Jacksonville/ 

Charleston (JAX/CHASN) OPAREA, and 

the Gulf of Mexico (GOMEX) OPAREA. 

The locations of the OPAREAs and the 

shoreward/seaward boundary of the 

Study Area are depicted in Figure 1–1 

of the Navy’s application. Note that the 

Northeast and Gulf of Mexico OPAREAs 

encompass a series of OPAREAs. The 

Northeast OPAREA includes the Boston, 

Atlantic City, and Narragansett Bay 

OPAREAs. The GOMEX OPAREAs 

includes the Pensacola, Panama City, 

Corpus Christi, New Orleans, and Key 

West OPAREAs. For the purposes of this 

document, an OPAREA includes the 

existing OPAREA, as well as adjacent 

shoreward and seaward areas. Table 3 

summarizes the typical number of 

events per year by OPAREA. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60763 

For the purposes of the proposed 

action that is the subject of this Letter 

of Authorization (LOA) request, active 

sonar activities would occur year-round 

throughout the Study Area. Active sonar 

activities would occur in locations that 

maximize active sonar opportunities 

and meet applicable operational 

requirements associated with a specific 

active sonar activity. Below we provide 

additional detail (beyond Tables 2 and 

3), where available (i.e., the advance 

detail is available and the information is 

not classified), regarding where certain 

active sonar training, research, 

development, test, and evaluation 

(RDT&E), and maintenance activities 

would occur. 

ASW Training Areas 

ASW activities for all platforms could 

occur within and adjacent to existing 

East Coast OPAREAS beyond 22.2 km 

(12 NM) with the exception of sonar 

dipping activities. However, most ASW 

training involving submarines or 

submarine targets would occur in waters 

greater than 183 m (600 ft) deep due to 

safety concerns about running aground 

at shallower depths. ASW active sonar 

activities occurring in specific locations 

are discussed below. 

Helicopter ASW ULT Areas—This 

activity would be conducted in the 

waters of the East Coast OPAREAs 

typically near fleet concentration areas 

while embarked on a surface ship. 

Helicopter ASW ULT events are also 

conducted by helicopters deployed from 

shore-based Jacksonville, Florida, units. 

These helicopter units use established 

sonar dipping areas offshore Mayport 

(Jacksonville), Florida, which are 

located in territorial waters and within 

the southeast North Atlantic right whale 

(NARW) critical habitat. This is the only 

area where helicopter ASW ULT could 

occur within 22 km (12 NM) of shore. 

Southeastern Anti-Submarine Warfare 

Integrated Training (SEASWITI) Areas— 

This training exercise generally occurs 

in deep water off the coast of 

Jacksonville, Florida. 

Group Sail Areas—These events 

typically take place within and seaward 

of the VACAPES, CHPT, and JAX/ 

CHASN OPAREAs. 

Submarine Command Course (SCC) 

Operations Areas—This training 

exercise typically occurs in the JAX/ 

CHASN and Northeast OPAREAs in 

deep ocean areas. 

Strike Group Training Areas—These 

events typically take place within and 

seaward of the VACAPES, CHPT, and 

JAX/CHASN OPAREAs, although an 

event could occasionally be conducted 

in the GOMEX OPAREA. 

Torpedo Exercise (TORPEX) Areas— 

TORPEXs can occur anywhere within 

and adjacent to East Coast and GOMEX 

OPAREAs. The exception is in the 

Northeast OPAREA where the North 

Atlantic right whale critical habitat is 

located. TORPEX areas that meet 

current operational requirements for 

proximity to torpedo and target recovery 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP14OC08.005</GPH>
60764 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

support facilities in the Northeast were 

established during previous 

consultations. Therefore, TORPEX 

activities in the northeast North Atlantic 

right whale critical habitat are limited to 

these established areas. Most torpedo 

activities would occur near torpedo 

recovery support facilities in the 

Northeast or GOMEX OPAREAs. 

MIW Training Areas 

MIW Training could occur in 

territorial or non-territorial waters. 

Independent and Coordinated MIW ULT 

activities would be conducted within 

and adjacent to the Pensacola and 

Panama City OPAREAs in the northern 

Gulf of Mexico and off the east coast of 

Texas in the Corpus Christi OPAREA. 

The Squadron Exercise (RONEX) or 

GOMEX Exercise would be conducted 

in both deep and shallow water training 

areas. 

Object Detection/Navigational 

Training Areas—Surface Ship training 

would be conducted primarily in the 

shallow water port entrance and exit 

lanes for Norfolk, Virginia, and 

Mayport, Florida. The transit lane 

servicing Mayport, Florida crosses 

through the southeast North Atlantic 

right whale critical habitat. Submarine 

training would occur primarily in the 

established submarine transit lanes 

entering/exiting Groton, Connecticut; 

Norfolk, Virginia; and Kings Bay, 

Georgia. The transit lane servicing Kings 

Bay, Georgia crosses through the 

southeast North Atlantic right whale 

critical habitat. 

Maintenance Areas 

Maintenance activities could occur in 

homeports located in territorial waters, 

or in the open ocean during transit in 

non-territorial waters. 

RDT&E Areas 

For RDT&E activities included in this 

analysis, active sonar activities occur in 

similar locations as representative 

training events. 

National Marine Sanctuaries 

At present, the Navy does not conduct 

active sonar activities in the Stellwagen 

Bank, USS Monitor, Gray’s Reef, Flower 

Garden Banks, and Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuaries. The Navy 

would, as appropriate, comply with the 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act and 

any applicable regulations if it is 

determined that an active sonar activity 

may occur in or near these sanctuaries, 

and would ensure that naval activities 

be carried out in a manner that avoids 

to the maximum extent practicable any 

adverse impacts on sanctuary resources 

and qualities. Although activities in the 

Sanctuaries are not planned or 

anticipated, NMFS’ analysis, for 

purposes of the MMPA considers the 

effects on marine mammals of the 

Navy’s conducting activities in the 

biologically important areas that occur 

in or near Sanctuaries. 

North Atlantic Right Whale (NARW) 

Critical Habitat 

NMFS designated three areas in June 

1994 as critical habitat for the western 

North Atlantic population of the North 

Atlantic right whale. They include the 

following: 

1. Coastal Florida and Georgia 

(Sebastian Inlet, FL to the Altamaha 

River, GA), 

2. Great South Channel (east of Cape 

Cod), and 

3. Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod 

Bay. 

The Navy proposes to conduct two 

types of activities in the NARW critical 

habitat. Approximately 84 of the 115 

helicopter dipping sonar exercises (2-4 

hours each) conducted annually in the 

CHASN/JAX OPAREA would occur in 

the designated near-shore training area, 

which fans out approximately 10 miles 

from Mayport. Part of the near-shore 

shore training area overlaps the NARW 

critical habitat. However, historically, 

only maintenance of helicopter dipping 

sonars occured (approximately 30 

events) in the portion of the training 

area that overlaps with NARW critical 

habitat. Tactical training with helicopter 

dipping sonar does not typically occur 

in the NARW critical habitat area at any 

time of the year. The critical habitat area 

is used on occasion for post 

maintenance operational checks and 

equipment testing due to its proximity 

to shore. In addition, the Navy would 

conduct approximately 40 ship object 

detection/navigational sonar training 

exercises (1–2 hours each) and 57 

submarine object detection/navigational 

sonar training exercises (1–2 hours 

each) annually while entering/exiting 

port at Mayport, FL and Kings Bay, GA, 

respectively (within approximately 1 

mile of the shore). These two activities 

could occur year round. No other active 

sonar activities would occur in the 

southeast critical habitat. 

In the northeastern critical habitat, the 

Navy would conduct TORPEX activities. 

These activities would be conducted in 

August, September, and October as 

prescribed in a prior Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) Section 7 

consultation with NMFS. Water depths 

in this area are less than the optimal 

depth for most ASW activities. 

In summary, currently active sonar 

training does not occur in North 

Atlantic right whale critical habitat with 

the exception of object detection and 

navigation off shore Mayport, Florida 

and Kings Bay, Georgia; helicopter AntiSubmarine Warfare (ASW) offshore 

Mayport, Florida; and torpedo exercises 

(TORPEXs) in the northeast critical 

habitat during August, September, and 

October. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activities 

There are 43 marine mammal species 

with possible or confirmed occurrence 

in the AFAST Study Area. As indicated 

in Table 4, there are 36 cetacean species 

(7 mysticetes and 29 odontocetes), six 

pinnipeds, and one sirenian (manatee). 

Six marine mammal species listed as 

federally endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 

under the jurisdiction of NMFS occur in 

the AFAST Study Area: The North 

Atlantic right whale, humpback whale, 

sei whale, fin whale, blue whale, and 

sperm whale. Manatees are managed by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

will not be addressed further here. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60765 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP14OC08.006</GPH>
60766 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

The Navy has compiled information 

on the abundance, behavior, status and 

distribution, and vocalizations of 

marine mammal species in the AFAST 

Study Area waters from peer reviewed 

literature, the Navy Marine Resource 

Assessments, NMFS Stock Assessment 

Reports, and marine mammal surveys 

using acoustics or visual observations 

from aircraft or ships. This information 

may be viewed in the Navy’s LOA 

application and/or the Navy’s EIS for 

AFAST (see Availability). Additional 

information is available in NMFS Stock 

Assessment Reports, which may be 

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

pr/sars/species.htm. 

Neither the beluga whale nor ringed 

seals have stocks designated in the 

Northwest Atlantic Ocean or the Gulf of 

Mexico. The St. Lawrence estuary is at 

the southern limit of the distribution of 

the beluga whale (Lesage and Kingsley, 

1998). Beluga distribution does not 

include the Gulf of Mexico or the 

southeastern Atlantic Coast and they are 

considered extralimital in the Northeast. 

The ringed seal has a circumpolar 

distribution throughout the Arctic 

Ocean, Hudson Bay, and Baltic and 

Bering seas (Reeves et al., 2002b) and is 

expected only as far south as 

Newfoundland (Frost and Lowry, 1981). 

Based on their rare occurrence in the 

AFAST study area, the Navy and NMFS 

do not anticipate any take of ringed 

seals or beluga whales, and, therefore, 

they are not addressed further in this 

document. 

Important Areas 

Because the consideration of areas 

where marine mammals are known to 

selectively breed or calve/pup are 

important to both the negligible impact 

finding necessary for the issuance of an 

MMPA authorization and the need for 

NMFS to put forth the means of 

effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and other 

areas of similar significance, we are 

emphasizing known important 

reproductive and feeding areas within 

this section. 

Little is known about the breeding 

and calving behaviors of many of the 

marine mammals that occur in the 

AFAST Study Area. For rorquals 

(humpback whale, minke whale, 

Bryde’s whale, sei whale, fin whale, and 

blue whale) and sperm whales, mating 

is generally thought to occur in tropical 

and sub-tropical waters between midwinter and mid-summer in deep offshore waters. Delphinids (Melon-headed 

Whale, Killer Whale, Pygmy Killer 

Whale, False Killer Whale, Pilot Whale, 

Common Dolphin, Atlantic Spotted 

Dolphin, Clymene Dolphin, Pantropical 

Spotted Dolphin, Spinner Dolphin, 

Striped Dolphin, Rough-toothed 

Dolphin, Common Bottlenose Dolphin, 

Risso’s Dolphin, Fraser’s Dolphin, 

Atlantic White-sided Dolphin, Whitebeaked Dolphin) may mate within any 

area of their distribution throughout the 

year. For pinnipeds, mating and 

pupping typically occurs in coastal 

waters near northeast rookeries. With 

one notable exception, no specific 

breeding or calving/pupping areas have 

been identified in the AFAST Study 

Area for the species that occur there. 

However, critical habitat has been 

designated, pursuant to the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), for the North 

Atlantic right whale. 

North Atlantic Right Whale 

Most North Atlantic right whale 

sightings follow a well-defined seasonal 

migratory pattern through several 

consistently utilized habitats (Winn et 

al., 1986). It should be noted, however, 

that some individuals may be sighted in 

these habitats outside the typical time of 

year and that migration routes are 

poorly known (there may be a regular 

offshore component). The population 

migrates as two separate components, 

although some whales may remain in 

the feeding grounds throughout the 

winter (Winn et al., 1986; Kenney et al., 

2001). Pregnant females and some 

juveniles migrate from the feeding 

grounds to the calving grounds off the 

southeastern United States in late fall to 

winter. The cow-calf pairs return 

northward in late winter to early spring. 

The majority of the right whale 

population leaves the feeding grounds 

for unknown habitats in the winter but 

returns to the feeding grounds 

coinciding with the return of the cowcalf pairs. Some individuals as well as 

cow-calf pairs can be seen through the 

fall and winter on the feeding grounds 

with feeding being observed (e.g., Sardi 

et al., 2005). 

During the spring through early 

summer, North Atlantic right whales are 

found on feeding grounds off the 

northeastern United States and Canada. 

Individuals may be found in Cape Cod 

Bay in February through April (Winn et 

al., 1986; Hamilton and Mayo, 1990) 

and in the Great South Channel east of 

Cape Cod in April through June (Winn 

et al., 1986; Kenney et al., 1995). Right 

whales are found throughout the 

remainder of summer and into fall (June 

through November) on two feeding 

grounds in Canadian waters (Gaskin, 

1987 and 1991), with peak abundance in 

August, September, and early October. 

The majority of summer/fall sightings of 

mother/calf pairs occur east of Grand 

Manan Island (Bay of Fundy), although 

some pairs might move to other 

unknown locations (Schaeff et al., 

1993). Jeffreys Ledge appears to be 

important habitat for right whales, with 

extended whale residences; this area 

appears to be an important fall feeding 

area for right whales and an important 

nursery area during summer (Weinrich 

et al., 2000). The second feeding area is 

off the southern tip of Nova Scotia in 

the Roseway Basin between Browns, 

Baccaro, and Roseway banks (Mitchell 

et al., 1986; Gaskin, 1987; Stone et al., 

1988; Gaskin, 1991). The Cape Cod Bay 

and Great South Channel feeding 

grounds are formally designated as 

critical habitats under the ESA (Silber 

and Clapham, 2001). 

During the winter (as early as 

November and through March), North 

Atlantic right whales may be found in 

coastal waters off North Carolina, 

Georgia, and northern Florida (Winn et 

al., 1986). The waters off Georgia and 

northern Florida are the only known 

calving ground for western North 

Atlantic right whales; it is formally 

designated as a critical habitat under the 

ESA. Calving occurs from December 

through March (Silber and Clapham, 

2001). On 1 January 2005, the first 

observed birth on the calving grounds 

was reported (Zani et al., 2005). The 

majority of the population is not 

accounted for on the calving grounds, 

and not all reproductively active 

females return to this area each year 

(Kraus et al., 1986a). 

The coastal waters of the Carolinas are 

suggested to be a migratory corridor for 

the right whale (Winn et al., 1986). The 

Southeast U.S. Coast Ground, consisting 

of coastal waters between North 

Carolina and northern Florida, was 

mainly a winter and early spring 

(January-March) right whaling ground 

during the late 1800s (Reeves and 

Mitchell, 1986). The whaling ground 

was centered along the coasts of South 

Carolina and Georgia (Reeves and 

Mitchell, 1986). An examination of 

sighting records from all sources 

between 1950 and 1992 found that 

wintering right whales were observed 

widely along the coast from Cape 

Hatteras, North Carolina, to Miami, 

Florida (Kraus et al., 1993). Sightings off 

the Carolinas were comprised of single 

individuals that appeared to be 

transients (Kraus et al., 1993). These 

observations are consistent with the 

hypothesis that the coastal waters of the 

Carolinas are part of a migratory 

corridor for the right whale (Winn et al., 

1986). Knowlton et al. (2002) analyzed 

sightings data collected in the midAtlantic from northern Georgia to 

southern New England and found that 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60767 

the majority of right whale sightings 

occurred within approximately 56 km 

(30 NM) from shore. Until better 

information is available on the right 

whale’s migratory corridor, it has been 

recommended that management 

considerations are needed for the 

coastal areas along the mid-Atlantic 

migratory corridor within 65 km (35 

NM) from shore (Knowlton, 1997). 

Critical habitat for the North Atlantic 

population of the North Atlantic right 

whale exists in portions of the JAX/ 

CHASN and Northeast OPAREAs 

(Figures 4–1 and 4–2 of the Navy’s 

Application). The following three areas 

occur in U.S. waters and were 

designated by NMFS as critical habitat 

in June 1994 (NMFS, 2005): 

• Coastal Florida and Georgia 

(Sebastian Inlet, Florida, to the 

Altamaha River, Georgia), 

• The Great South Channel, east of 

Cape Cod, and 

• Cape Cod and Massachusetts Bays. 

The northern critical habitat areas 

serve as feeding and nursery grounds, 

while the southern area from the midGeorgia coast extending southward 

along Florida serves as calving grounds. 

The waters off Georgia and northern 

Florida are the only known calving 

ground for western North Atlantic right 

whales. A large portion of this habitat 

lies within the coastal waters of the 

JAX/CHASN OPAREA. The physical 

features correlated with the distribution 

of right whales in the southern critical 

habitat area provide an optimum 

environment for calving. For example, 

the bathymetry of the inner and 

nearshore middle shelf area minimizes 

the effect of strong winds and offshore 

waves, limiting the formation of large 

waves and rough water. The average 

temperature of critical habitat waters is 

cooler during the time right whales are 

present due to a lack of influence by the 

Gulf Stream and cool freshwater runoff 

from coastal areas. The water 

temperatures may provide an optimal 

balance between offshore waters that are 

too warm for nursing mothers to 

tolerate, yet not too cool for calves that 

may only have minimal fatty insulation. 

On the calving grounds, the 

reproductive females and calves are 

expected to be concentrated near the 

critical habitat in the JAX/CHASN 

OPAREA from December through April. 

Humpback Whale 

In the North Atlantic Ocean, 

humpbacks are found from spring 

through fall on feeding grounds that are 

located from south of New England to 

northern Norway (NMFS, 1991). The 

Gulf of Maine is one of the principal 

summer feeding grounds for humpback 

whales in the North Atlantic. The 

largest numbers of humpback whales 

are present from mid-April to midNovember. Feeding locations off the 

northeastern United States include 

Stellwagen Bank, Jeffreys Ledge, the 

Great South Channel, the edges and 

shoals of Georges Bank, Cashes Ledge, 

Grand Manan Banks, the banks on the 

Scotian Shelf, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, 

and the Newfoundland Grand Banks 

(CETAP, 1982; Whitehead, 1982; 

Kenney and Winn, 1986; Weinrich et 

al., 1997). Distribution in this region has 

been largely correlated to prey species 

and abundance, although behavior and 

bottom topography are factors in 

foraging strategy (Payne et al., 1986; 

Payne et al., 1990b). Humpbacks 

typically return to the same feeding 

areas each year. Feeding most often 

occurs in relatively shallow waters over 

the inner continental shelf and 

sometimes in deeper waters. Large 

multi-species feeding aggregations 

(including humpback whales) have been 

observed over the shelf break on the 

southern edge of Georges Bank (CETAP, 

1982; Kenney and Winn, 1987) and in 

shelf break waters off the U.S. midAtlantic coast (Smith et al., 1996). 

Sperm Whale 

The region of the Mississippi River 

Delta (Desoto Canyon) has been 

recognized for high densities of sperm 

whales and appears to represent an 

important calving and nursery area for 

these animals (Townsend, 1935; Collum 

and Fritts, 1985; Mullin et al., 1994a; 

Wursig et al., 2000; Baumgartner et al., 

2001; Davis et al., 2002; Mullin et al., 

2004; Jochens et al., 2006). Sperm 

whales typically exhibit a strong affinity 

for deep waters beyond the continental 

shelf, though in the area of the 

Mississippi Delta they also occur on the 

outer continental shelf break. 

Marine Mammal Density Estimates 

Density estimates for cetaceans were 

either modeled for each region 

(Northeast, Southeast, and GOMEX) 

using available line-transect survey data 

or derived in order of preference: (1) 

Through spatial models using linetransect survey data provided by NMFS; 

(2) using abundance estimates from 

Mullin and Fulling (2003), Fulling et al. 

(2003), and/or Mullin and Fulling 

(2004); (3) or based on the cetacean 

abundance estimates found in the most 

current NOAA stock assessment report 

(SAR) (Waring et al., 2007). The Navy 

derived the densities the following way 

for each area: 

• Northeast OPAREAs: The 

traditional line-transect methods used 

in the preliminary Northeast NODE 

(DON, 2006c) and abundance estimates 

from the North Atlantic Right Whale 

Consortium (NARWC, 2006). Density 

estimates for pinnipeds in these 

OPAREAs were derived from abundance 

estimates found in the NOAA stock 

assessment report (Waring et al., 2007) 

or from the scientific literature (Barlas, 

1999). 

• Southeast OPAREAs: Abundance 

estimates found in the NOAA stock 

assessment report (Waring et al., 2007) 

or in Mullin and Fulling (2003). 

• Gulf of Mexico OPAREAs: 

Abundance estimates found in the 

NOAA stock assessment report (Waring 

et al., 2007) based on Mullin and 

Fulling (2004). 

Using the indicated data, the Navy 

was able to estimate densities for most 

species, by OPAREA (and sometimes in 

greater detail—like for the area around 

Mayport) and by season. 

The detailed density estimate 

methods and results may be viewed in 

the Navy OPAREA Density Estimates 

(NODE) for the Northeast OPAREAS 

report (DON, 2007e), the NODE for the 

Southeast OPAREAS report (DON, 

2007f), and the NODE for the GOMEX 

OPAREA report (DON, 2007g), which 

are available at: http:// 

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

incidental.htm. NMFS has also posted a 

summary of the density estimates on our 

Web site: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

permits/incidental.htm. 

Brief Background on Sound 

An understanding of the basic 

properties of underwater sound is 

necessary to comprehend many of the 

concepts and analyses presented in this 

document. A summary is included 

below. 

Sound is a wave of pressure variations 

propagating through a medium (for the 

sonar considered in this proposed rule, 

the medium is marine water). Pressure 

variations are created by compressing 

and relaxing the medium. Sound 

measurements can be expressed in two 

forms: intensity and pressure. Acoustic 

intensity is the average rate of energy 

transmitted through a unit area in a 

specified direction and is expressed in 

watts per square meter (W/m2). Acoustic 

intensity is rarely measured directly, it 

is derived from ratios of pressures; the 

standard reference pressure for 

underwater sound is 1 microPascal 

(μPa); for airborne sound, the standard 

reference pressure is 20 μPa (Richardson 

et al., 1995). 

Acousticians have adopted a 

logarithmic scale for sound intensities, 

which is denoted in decibels (dB). 

Decibel measurements represent the 

ratio between a measured pressure value 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60768 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

and a reference pressure value (in this 

case 1 μPa or, for airborne sound, 20 

μPa.). The logarithmic nature of the 

scale means that each 10 dB increase is 

a ten-fold increase in power (e.g., 20 dB 

is a 100-fold increase, 30 dB is a 1,000- 

fold increase). Humans perceive a 10-dB 

increase in noise as a doubling of sound 

level, or a 10 dB decrease in noise as a 

halving of sound level. The term ‘‘sound 

pressure level’’ implies a decibel 

measure and a reference pressure that is 

used as the denominator of the ratio. 

Throughout this document, NMFS uses 

1 microPascal (denoted re: 1μPa) as a 

standard reference pressure unless 

noted otherwise. 

It is important to note that decibels 

underwater and decibels in air are not 

the same and cannot be directly 

compared. To estimate a comparison 

between sound in air and underwater, 

because of the different densities of air 

and water and the different decibel 

standards (i.e., reference pressures) in 

water and air, a sound with the same 

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

would be approximately 63 dB quieter 

in air. Thus a sound that is 160 dB loud 

underwater would have the same 

approximate effective intensity as a 

sound that is 97 dB loud in air. 

Sound frequency is measured in 

cycles per second, or Hertz (abbreviated 

Hz), and is analogous to musical pitch; 

high-pitched sounds contain high 

frequencies and low-pitched sounds 

contain low frequencies. Natural sounds 

in the ocean span a huge range of 

frequencies: from earthquake noise at 5 

Hz to harbor porpoise clicks at 150,000 

Hz (150 kHz). These sounds are so low 

or so high in pitch that humans cannot 

even hear them; acousticians call these 

infrasonic (typically below 20 Hz) and 

ultrasonic (typically above 20,000 Hz) 

sounds, respectively. A single sound 

may be made up of many different 

frequencies together. Sounds made up 

of only a small range of frequencies are 

called ‘‘narrowband’’, and sounds with 

a broad range of frequencies are called 

‘‘broadband’’; explosives are an example 

of a broadband sound source and 

tactical sonars are an example of a 

narrowband sound source. 

When considering the influence of 

various kinds of sound on the marine 

environment, it is necessary to 

understand that different kinds of 

marine life are sensitive to different 

frequencies of sound. Based on available 

behavioral data, audiograms derived 

using auditory evoked potential (AEP) 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data, Southall et al. (2007) 

designate ‘‘functional hearing groups’’ 

for marine mammals and estimate the 

lower and upper frequencies of 

functional hearing of the groups. 

Further, the frequency range in which 

each groups hearing is estimated as 

being most sensitive is represented in 

the flat part of the M-weighting 

functions developed for each group. 

More specific data is available for 

certain species (Table 13a and b). The 

functional groups and the associated 

frequencies are indicated below: 

• Low frequency cetaceans (13 

species of mysticetes): functional 

hearing is estimated to occur between 

approximately 7 Hz and 22 kHz; 

• Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 

species of dolphins, six species of larger 

toothed whales, and 19 species of 

beaked and bottlenose whales): 

functional hearing is estimated to occur 

between approximately 150 Hz and 160 

kHz; 

• High frequency cetaceans (eight 

species of true porpoises, six species of 

river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana, 

and four species of cephalorhynchids): 

functional hearing is estimated to occur 

between approximately 200 Hz and 180 

kHz; 

• Pinnipeds in Water: functional 

hearing is estimated to occur between 

approximately 75 Hz and 75 kHz, with 

the greatest sensitivity between 

approximately 700 Hz and 20 kHz. 

Because ears adapted to function 

underwater are physiologically different 

from human ears, comparisons using 

decibel measurements in air would still 

not be adequate to describe the effects 

of a sound on a whale. When sound 

travels away from its source, its 

loudness decreases as the distance 

traveled (propagates) by the sound 

increases. Thus, the loudness of a sound 

at its source is higher than the loudness 

of that same sound a kilometer distant. 

Acousticians often refer to the loudness 

of a sound at its source (typically 

measured one meter from the source) as 

the source level and the loudness of 

sound elsewhere as the received level. 

For example, a humpback whale three 

kilometers from an airgun that has a 

source level of 230 dB may only be 

exposed to sound that is 160 dB loud, 

depending on how the sound propagates 

(in this example, it is spherical 

spreading). As a result, it is important 

not to confuse source levels and 

received levels when discussing the 

loudness of sound in the ocean or its 

impacts on the marine environment. 

As sound travels from a source, its 

propagation in water is influenced by 

various physical characteristics, 

including water temperature, depth, 

salinity, and surface and bottom 

properties that cause refraction, 

reflection, absorption, and scattering of 

sound waves. Oceans are not 

homogeneous and the contribution of 

each of these individual factors is 

extremely complex and interrelated. 

The physical characteristics that 

determine the sound’s speed through 

the water will change with depth, 

season, geographic location, and with 

time of day (as a result, in actual sonar 

operations, crews will measure oceanic 

conditions, such as sea water 

temperature and depth, to calibrate 

models that determine the path the 

sonar signal will take as it travels 

through the ocean and how strong the 

sound signal will be at a given range 

along a particular transmission path). As 

sound travels through the ocean, the 

intensity associated with the wavefront 

diminishes, or attenuates. This decrease 

in intensity is referred to as propagation 

loss, also commonly called transmission 

loss. 

Metrics Used in This Document 

This section includes a brief 

explanation of the two sound 

measurements (sound pressure level 

(SPL) and sound exposure level (SEL)) 

frequently used in the discussions of 

acoustic effects in this document. 

SPL 

Sound pressure is the sound force per 

unit area, and is usually measured in 

micropascals (μPa), where 1 Pa is the 

pressure resulting from a force of one 

newton exerted over an area of one 

square meter. SPL is expressed as the 

ratio of a measured sound pressure and 

a reference level. The commonly used 

reference pressure level in underwater 

acoustics is 1 μPa, and the units for 

SPLs are dB re: 1 μPa. 

SPL (in dB) = 20 log (pressure / 

reference pressure) 

SPL is an instantaneous measurement 

and can be expressed as the peak, the 

peak-peak, or the root mean square 

(rms). Root mean square, which is the 

square root of the arithmetic average of 

the squared instantaneous pressure 

values, is typically used in discussions 

of the effects of sounds on vertebrates 

and all references to SPL in this 

document refer to the root mean square. 

SPL does not take the duration of a 

sound into account. SPL is the 

applicable metric used in the risk 

continuum, which is used to estimate 

behavioral harassment takes (see Level 

B Harassment Risk Function (Behavioral 

Harassment) Section). 

SEL 

SEL is an energy metric that integrates 

the squared instantaneous sound 

pressure over a stated time interval. The 

units for SEL are dB re: 1 μPa2¥s. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60769 

SEL = SPL + 10 log (duration in 

seconds) 

As applied to tactical sonar, the SEL 

includes both the SPL of a sonar ping 

and the total duration. Longer duration 

pings and/or pings with higher SPLs 

will have a higher SEL. If an animal is 

exposed to multiple pings, the SEL in 

each individual ping is summed to 

calculate the total SEL. The total SEL 

depends on the SPL, duration, and 

number of pings received. The 

thresholds that NMFS uses to indicate at 

what received level the onset of 

temporary threshold shift (TTS) and 

permanent threshold shift (PTS) in 

hearing are likely to occur are expressed 

in SEL. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals 

Exposure to MFAS/HFAS 

The Navy has requested authorization 

for the take of marine mammals that 

may occur incidental to training 

activities in the AFAST Study Area 

utilizing MFAS/HFAS or the IEER 

system, which includes an explosive 

sonobuoy. The Navy has analyzed the 

potential impacts to marine mammals 

from AFAST, including ship strike, 

entanglement in or direct strike by 

expended materials, ship noise, and 

others, and in consultation with NMFS 

as a cooperating agency for the AFAST 

EIS, has determined that take of marine 

mammals incidental to these nonacoustic components of AFAST is 

unlikely (see the Navy’s LOA 

application and March addendum to the 

application) and, therefore, has not 

requested authorization for take of 

marine mammals that might occur 

incidental to these non-acoustic 

components. In this document, NMFS 

analyzes the potential effects on marine 

mammals from exposure to MFAS/ 

HFAS and underwater detonations from 

the IEER. 

For the purpose of MMPA 

authorizations, NMFS’ effects 

assessments serve three primary 

purposes: (1) To put forth the 

permissible methods of taking within 

the context of MMPA Level B 

Harassment (behavioral harassment), 

Level A Harassment (injury), and 

mortality (i.e., identify the number and 

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

determine whether the specified activity 

will have a negligible impact on the 

affected species or stocks of marine 

mammals (based on the likelihood that 

the activity will adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival); 

and (3) to determine whether the 

specified activity will have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

subsistence uses (however, there are no 

subsistence communities that would be 

affected in the AFAST Study Area, so 

this determination is inapplicable for 

AFAST). 

More specifically, for activities 

involving active tactical sonar or 

underwater detonations, NMFS’ 

analysis will identify the probability of 

lethal responses, physical trauma, 

sensory impairment (permanent and 

temporary threshold shifts and acoustic 

masking), physiological responses 

(particular stress responses), behavioral 

disturbance (that rises to the level of 

harassment), and social responses that 

would be classified as behavioral 

harassment or injury and/or would be 

likely to adversely affect the species or 

stock through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival. In this section, 

we will focus qualitatively on the 

different ways that MFAS/HFAS and 

underwater explosive detonations 

(IEER) may affect marine mammals 

(some of which NMFS would not 

classify as harassment). Then, in the 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 

Section, NMFS will relate the potential 

effects to marine mammals from MFAS/ 

HFAS and underwater detonation of 

explosives to the MMPA regulatory 

definitions of Level A and Level B 

Harassment and attempt to quantify 

those effects. 

In its April 14, 2008, Biological 

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

conduct four training exercises in the 

Cherry Point, Virginia Capes, and 

Jacksonville Range Complexes NMFS 

presented a conceptual model of the 

potential responses of endangered and 

threatened species upon being exposed 

to active sonar and the pathways by 

which those responses might affect the 

fitness of individual animals that have 

been exposed, which may then affect 

the reproduction and/or survival of 

those individuals. Literature supporting 

the framework, with examples drawn 

from many taxa (both aquatic and 

terrestrial) was included in the 

‘‘Application of this Approach’’ and 

‘‘Response Analyses’’ sections of that 

document (available at: http:// 

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

incidental.htm). This conceptual 

framework may also be used to describe 

the responses and pathways for nonendangered and non-threatened species 

and is included in the Biological 

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

conduct four training exercises in the 

Cherry Point, Virginia Capes, and 

Jacksonville Range Complexes. 

Direct Physiological Effects 

Based on the literature, there are two 

basic ways that MFAS/HFAS might 

directly result in physical trauma or 

damage: noise-induced loss of hearing 

sensitivity (more commonly-called 

‘‘threshold shift’’) and acoustically 

mediated bubble growth. Separately, an 

animal’s behavioral reaction to an 

acoustic exposure might lead to 

physiological effects that might 

ultimately lead to injury or death, which 

is discussed later in the Stranding 

section. 

Threshold Shift (Noise-Induced Loss of 

Hearing) 

When animals exhibit reduced 

hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds must be 

louder for an animal to recognize them) 

following exposure to a sufficiently 

intense sound, it is referred to as a 

noise-induced threshold shift (TS). An 

animal can experience temporary 

threshold shift (TTS) or permanent 

threshold shift (PTS). TTS can last from 

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

recovery), occurs in specific frequency 

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

a temporary loss of hearing sensitivity 

between the frequencies of 1 and 10 

kHz), and can be of varying amounts (for 

example, an animal’s hearing sensitivity 

might be reduced by only 6 dB or 

reduced by 30 dB). PTS is permanent 

(i.e., there is no recovery), but also 

occurs in a specific frequency range and 

amount as mentioned above for TTS. 

The following physiological 

mechanisms are thought to play a role 

in inducing auditory TSs: Effects to 

sensory hair cells in the inner ear that 

reduce their sensitivity, modification of 

the chemical environment within the 

sensory cells, residual muscular activity 

in the middle ear, displacement of 

certain inner ear membranes, increased 

blood flow, and post-stimulatory 

reduction in both efferent and sensory 

neural output (Southall et al., 2007). 

The amplitude, duration, frequency, 

temporal pattern, and energy 

distribution of sound exposure all affect 

the amount of associated TS and the 

frequency range in which it occurs. As 

amplitude and duration of sound 

exposure increase, so, generally, does 

the amount of TS, along with the 

recovery time. For continuous sounds, 

exposures of equal energy (the same 

SEL) will lead to approximately equal 

effects. For intermittent sounds, less TS 

will occur than from a continuous 

exposure with the same energy (some 

recovery will occur between 

intermittent exposures) (Kryter et al., 

1966; Ward, 1997). For example, one 

short but loud (higher SPL) sound 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60770 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

exposure may induce the same 

impairment as one longer but softer 

sound, which in turn may cause more 

impairment than a series of several 

intermittent softer sounds with the same 

total energy (Ward, 1997). Additionally, 

though TTS is temporary, very 

prolonged exposure to sound strong 

enough to elicit TTS, or shorter-term 

exposure to sound levels well above the 

TTS threshold, can cause PTS, at least 

in terrestrial mammals (Kryter, 1985) 

(although in the case of MFAS/HFAS, 

animals are not expected to be exposed 

to levels high enough or durations long 

enough to result in PTS). 

PTS is considered auditory injury 

(Southall et al., 2007). Irreparable 

damage to the inner or outer cochlear 

hair cells may cause PTS, however, 

other mechanisms are also involved, 

such as exceeding the elastic limits of 

certain tissues and membranes in the 

middle and inner ears and resultant 

changes in the chemical composition of 

the inner ear fluids (Southall et al., 

2007). 

Although the published body of 

scientific literature contains numerous 

theoretical studies and discussion 

papers on hearing impairments that can 

occur with exposure to a loud sound, 

only a few studies provide empirical 

information on the levels at which 

noise-induced loss in hearing sensitivity 

occurs in nonhuman animals. For 

cetaceans, published data are limited to 

the captive bottlenose dolphin and 

beluga (Finneran et al., 2000, 2002b, 

2005a; Schlundt et al., 2000; Nachtigall 

et al., 2003, 2004). For pinnipeds in 

water, data are limited to Kastak et al.’s 

measurement of TTS in one harbor seal, 

one elephant seal, and one California 

sea lion. 

Marine mammal hearing plays a 

critical role in communication with 

conspecifics, and interpretation of 

environmental cues for purposes such 

as predator avoidance and prey capture. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

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

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious (similar to those discussed in 

auditory masking, below). For example, 

a marine mammal may be able to readily 

compensate for a brief, relatively small 

amount of TTS in a non-critical 

frequency range that takes place during 

a time when the animal is traveling 

through the open ocean, where ambient 

noise is lower and there are not as many 

competing sounds present. 

Alternatively, a larger amount and 

longer duration of TTS sustained during 

time when communication is critical for 

successful mother/calf interactions 

could have more serious impacts. Also, 

depending on the degree and frequency 

range, the effects of PTS on an animal 

could range in severity, although it is 

considered generally more serious 

because it is a permanent condition. Of 

note, reduced hearing sensitivity as a 

simple function of development and 

aging has been observed in marine 

mammals, as well as humans and other 

taxa (Southall et al., 2007), so we can 

infer that strategies exist for coping with 

this condition to some degree, though 

likely not without cost. There is no 

empirical evidence that exposure to 

MFAS/HFAS can cause PTS in any 

marine mammals; instead the 

probability of PTS has been inferred 

from studies of TTS (see Richardson et 

al., 1995). 

Acoustically Mediated Bubble Growth 

One theoretical cause of injury to 

marine mammals is rectified diffusion 

(Crum and Mao, 1996), the process of 

increasing the size of a bubble by 

exposing it to a sound field. This 

process could be facilitated if the 

environment in which the ensonified 

bubbles exist is supersaturated with gas. 

Repetitive diving by marine mammals 

can cause the blood and some tissues to 

accumulate gas to a greater degree than 

is supported by the surrounding 

environmental pressure (Ridgway and 

Howard, 1979). The deeper and longer 

dives of some marine mammals (for 

example, beaked whales) are 

theoretically predicted to induce greater 

supersaturation (Houser et al., 2001b). If 

rectified diffusion were possible in 

marine mammals exposed to high-level 

sound, conditions of tissue 

supersaturation could theoretically 

speed the rate and increase the size of 

bubble growth. Subsequent effects due 

to tissue trauma and emboli would 

presumably mirror those observed in 

humans suffering from decompression 

sickness. 

It is unlikely that the short duration 

of sonar pings would be long enough to 

drive bubble growth to any substantial 

size, if such a phenomenon occurs. 

However, an alternative but related 

hypothesis has also been suggested: 

Stable bubbles could be destabilized by 

high-level sound exposures such that 

bubble growth then occurs through 

static diffusion of gas out of the tissues. 

In such a scenario the marine mammal 

would need to be in a gassupersaturated state for a long enough 

period of time for bubbles to become of 

a problematic size. 

Yet another hypothesis 

(decompression sickness) has 

speculated that rapid ascent to the 

surface following exposure to a startling 

sound might produce tissue gas 

saturation sufficient for the evolution of 

nitrogen bubbles (Jepson et al., 2003; 

Fernandez et al., 2005). In this scenario, 

the rate of ascent would need to be 

sufficiently rapid to compromise 

behavioral or physiological protections 

against nitrogen bubble formation. 

Collectively, these hypotheses can be 

referred to as ‘‘hypotheses of 

acoustically mediated bubble growth.’’ 

Although theoretical predictions 

suggest the possibility for acoustically 

mediated bubble growth, there is 

considerable disagreement among 

scientists as to its likelihood (Piantadosi 

and Thalmann, 2004; Evans and Miller, 

2003). Crum and Mao (1996) 

hypothesized that received levels would 

have to exceed 190 dB in order for there 

to be the possibility of significant 

bubble growth due to supersaturation of 

gases in the blood (i.e., rectified 

diffusion). More recent work conducted 

by Crum et al. (2005) demonstrated the 

possibility of rectified diffusion for 

short duration signals, but at SELs and 

tissue saturation levels that are highly 

improbable to occur in diving marine 

mammals. To date, Energy Levels (ELs) 

predicted to cause in vivo bubble 

formation within diving cetaceans have 

not been evaluated (NOAA, 2002b). 

Although it has been argued that 

traumas from some recent beaked whale 

strandings are consistent with gas 

emboli and bubble-induced tissue 

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

no conclusive evidence of this. 

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

Fernandez et al. (2004, 2005) concluded 

that in vivo bubble formation, which 

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

why beaked whales appear to be 

particularly vulnerable to sonar 

exposures. Further investigation is 

needed to further assess the potential 

validity of these hypotheses. More 

information regarding hypotheses that 

attempt to explain how behavioral 

responses to MFAS/HFAS can lead to 

strandings is included in the 

Behaviorally Mediated Bubble Growth 

Section, after the summary of 

strandings. 

Acoustic Masking 

Marine mammals use acoustic signals 

for a variety of purposes, which differ 

among species, but include 

communication between individuals, 

navigation, foraging, reproduction, and 

learning about their environment (Erbe 

and Farmer, 2000, Tyack, 2000). 

Masking, or auditory interference, 

generally occurs when sounds in the 

environment are louder than and of a 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60771 

similar frequency to, auditory signals an 

animal is trying to receive. Masking is 

a phenomenon that affects animals that 

are trying to receive acoustic 

information about their environment, 

including sounds from other members 

of their species, predators, prey, and 

sounds that allow them to orient in their 

environment. Masking these acoustic 

signals can disturb the behavior of 

individual animals, groups of animals, 

or entire populations. 

The extent of the masking interference 

depends on the spectral, temporal, and 

spatial relationships between the signals 

an animal is trying to receive and the 

masking noise, in addition to other 

factors. In humans, significant masking 

of tonal signals occurs as a result of 

exposure to noise in a narrow band of 

similar frequencies. As the sound level 

increases, though, the detection of 

frequencies above those of the masking 

stimulus decreases also. This principle 

is expected to apply to marine mammals 

as well because of common 

biomechanical cochlear properties 

across taxa. 

Richardson et al. (1995b) argued that 

the maximum radius of influence of an 

industrial noise (including broadband 

low frequency sound transmission) on a 

marine mammal is the distance from the 

source to the point at which the noise 

can barely be heard. This range is 

determined by either the hearing 

sensitivity of the animal or the 

background noise level present. 

Industrial masking is most likely to 

affect some species’ ability to detect 

communication calls and natural 

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

Richardson et al., 1995). 

The echolocation calls of toothed 

whales are subject to masking by high 

frequency sound. Human data indicate 

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

masking). Studies on captive 

odontocetes by Au et al. (1974, 1985, 

1993) indicate that some species may 

use various processes to reduce masking 

effects (e.g., adjustments in echolocation 

call intensity or frequency as a function 

of background noise conditions). There 

is also evidence that the directional 

hearing abilities of odontocetes are 

useful in reducing masking at the highfrequencies these cetaceans use to 

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

communicate (Zaitseva et al., 1980). 

As mentioned previously, the 

functional hearing ranges of mysticetes, 

odontocetes, and pinnipeds underwater 

all encompass the frequencies of the 

sonar sources used in the Navy’s MFAS/ 

HFAS training exercises. Additionally, 

in almost all species, vocal repertoires 

span across the frequencies of these 

sonar sources used by the Navy. The 

closer the characteristics of the masking 

signal to the signal of interest, the more 

likely masking is to occur. For hullmounted sonar—which accounts for the 

largest part of the takes of marine 

mammals (because of the source 

strength and number of hours it’s 

conducted), the pulse length and duty 

cycle of the MFAS/HFAS signal (∼ 1 

second pulse twice a minute) makes it 

less likely that masking will occur as a 

result. 

Impaired Communication 

In addition to making it more difficult 

for animals to perceive acoustic cues in 

their environment, anthropogenic sound 

presents separate challenges for animals 

that are vocalizing. When they vocalize, 

animals are aware of environmental 

conditions that affect the ‘‘active space’’ 

of their vocalizations, which is the 

maximum area within which their 

vocalizations can be detected before it 

drops to the level of ambient noise 

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

Lohr et al., 2003). Animals are also 

aware of environment conditions that 

affect whether listeners can discriminate 

and recognize their vocalizations from 

other sounds, which is more important 

than simply detecting that a 

vocalization is occurring (Brenowitz, 

1982; Brumm et al., 2004; Dooling, 

2004, Marten and Marler, 1977; 

Patricelli et al., 2006). Most animals that 

vocalize have evolved with an ability to 

make adjustments to their vocalizations 

to increase the signal-to-noise ratio, 

active space, and recognizability/ 

distinguishability of their vocalizations 

in the face of temporary changes in 

background noise (Brumm et al., 2004; 

Patricelli et al., 2006). Vocalizing 

animals can make one or more of the 

following adjustments to their 

vocalizations: Adjust the frequency 

structure; adjust the amplitude; adjust 

temporal structure; or adjust temporal 

delivery (see Biological Opinion). 

Many animals will combine several of 

these strategies to compensate for high 

levels of background noise. 

Anthropogenic sounds that reduce the 

signal-to-noise ratio of animal 

vocalizations, increase the masked 

auditory thresholds of animals listening 

for such vocalizations, or reduce the 

active space of an animal’s vocalizations 

impair communication between 

animals. Most animals that vocalize 

have evolved strategies to compensate 

for the effects of short-term or temporary 

increases in background or ambient 

noise on their songs or calls. Although 

the fitness consequences of these vocal 

adjustments remain unknown, like most 

other trade-offs animals must make, 

some of these strategies probably come 

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

example, vocalizing more loudly in 

noisy environments may have energetic 

costs that decrease the net benefits of 

vocal adjustment and alter a bird’s 

energy budget (Brumm, 2004; Wood and 

Yezerinac, 2006). Shifting songs and 

calls to higher frequencies may also 

impose energetic costs (Lambrechts, 

1996). 

Stress Responses 

Classic stress responses begin when 

an animal’s central nervous system 

perceives a potential threat to its 

homeostasis. That perception triggers 

stress responses regardless of whether a 

stimulus actually threatens the animal; 

the mere perception of a threat is 

sufficient to trigger a stress response 

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

Seyle, 1950). Once an animal’s central 

nervous system perceives a threat, it 

mounts a biological response or defense 

that consists of a combination of the 

four general biological defense 

responses: Behavioral responses, 

autonomic nervous system responses, 

neuroendocrine responses, or immune 

response. 

In the case of many stressors, an 

animal’s first and most economical (in 

terms of biotic costs) response is 

behavioral avoidance of the potential 

stressor or avoidance of continued 

exposure to a stressor. An animal’s 

second line of defense to stressors 

involves the sympathetic part of the 

autonomic nervous system and the 

classical ‘‘fight or flight’’ response 

which includes the cardiovascular 

system, the gastrointestinal system, the 

exocrine glands, and the adrenal 

medulla to produce changes in heart 

rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal 

activity that humans commonly 

associate with ‘‘stress.’’ These responses 

have a relatively short duration and may 

or may not have significant long-term 

effect on an animal’s welfare. 

An animal’s third line of defense to 

stressors involves its neuroendocrine or 

sympathetic nervous systems; the 

system that has received the most study 

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

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

some reptiles). Unlike stress responses 

associated with the autonomic nervous 

system, virtually all neuro-endocrine 

functions that are affected by stress— 

including immune competence, 

reproduction, metabolism, and 

behavior—are regulated by pituitary 

hormones. Stress-induced changes in 

the secretion of pituitary hormones have 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60772 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

been implicated in failed reproduction 

(Moberg, 1987; Rivier, 1995) and altered 

metabolism (Elasser et al., 2000), 

reduced immune competence (Blecha, 

2000) and behavioral disturbance. 

Increases in the circulation of 

glucocorticosteroids (cortisol, 

corticosterone, and aldosterone in 

marine mammals; see Romano et al., 

2004) have been equated with stress for 

many years. 

The primary distinction between 

stress (which is adaptive and does not 

normally place an animal at risk) and 

distress is the biotic cost of the 

response. During a stress response, an 

animal uses glycogen stores that can be 

quickly replenished once the stress is 

alleviated. In such circumstances, the 

cost of the stress response would not 

pose a risk to the animal’s welfare. 

However, when an animal does not have 

sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the 

energetic costs of a stress response, 

energy resources must be diverted from 

other biotic function, which impairs 

those functions that experience the 

diversion. For example, when mounting 

a stress response diverts energy away 

from growth in young animals, those 

animals may experience stunted growth. 

When mounting a stress response 

diverts energy from a fetus, an animal’s 

reproductive success and its fitness will 

suffer. In these cases, the animals will 

have entered a pre-pathological or 

pathological state which is called 

‘‘distress’’ (sensu Seyle 1950) or 

‘‘allostatic loading’’ (sensu McEwen and 

Wingfield, 2003). This pathological state 

will last until the animal replenishes its 

biotic reserves sufficient to restore 

normal function. 

Relationships between these 

physiological mechanisms, animal 

behavior, and the costs of stress 

responses have also been documented 

fairly well through controlled 

experiment; because this physiology 

exists in every vertebrate that has been 

studied, it is not surprising that stress 

responses and their costs have been 

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

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

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

2004; Lankford et al., 2005; Reneerkens 

et al., 2002; Thompson and Hamer, 

2000). Although no information has 

been collected on the physiological 

responses of marine mammals to 

exposure to anthropogenic sounds, 

studies of other marine animals and 

terrestrial animals would lead us to 

expect some marine mammals to 

experience physiological stress 

responses and, perhaps, physiological 

responses that would be classified as 

‘‘distress’’ upon exposure to high 

frequency, mid-frequency and lowfrequency sounds. 

For example, Jansen (1998) reported 

on the relationship between acoustic 

exposures and physiological responses 

that are indicative of stress responses in 

humans (for example, elevated 

respiration and increased heart rates). 

Jones (1998) reported on reductions in 

human performance when faced with 

acute, repetitive exposures to acoustic 

disturbance. Trimper et al. (1998) 

reported on the physiological stress 

responses of osprey to low-level aircraft 

noise while Krausman et al. (2004) 

reported on the auditory and physiology 

stress responses of endangered Sonoran 

pronghorn to military overflights. Smith 

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

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

goldfish) that accompanied short- and 

long-term hearing losses. Welch and 

Welch (1970) reported physiological 

and behavioral stress responses that 

accompanied damage to the inner ears 

of fish and several mammals. 

Hearing is one of the primary senses 

marine mammals use to gather 

information about their environment 

and to communicate with conspecifics. 

Although empirical information on the 

relationship between sensory 

impairment (TTS, PTS, and acoustic 

masking) on marine mammals remains 

limited, it seems reasonable to assume 

that reducing an animal’s ability to 

gather information about its 

environment and to communicate with 

other members of its species would be 

stressful for animals that use hearing as 

their primary sensory mechanism. 

Therefore, we assume that acoustic 

exposures sufficient to trigger onset PTS 

or TTS would be accompanied by 

physiological stress responses because 

terrestrial animals exhibit those 

responses under similar conditions 

(NRC, 2003). More importantly, marine 

mammals might experience stress 

responses at received levels lower than 

those necessary to trigger onset TTS. 

Based on empirical studies of the time 

required to recover from stress 

responses (Moberg, 2000), we also 

assume that stress responses are likely 

to persist beyond the time interval 

required for animals to recover from 

TTS and might result in pathological 

and pre-pathological states that would 

be as significant as behavioral responses 

to TTS. 

Behavioral Disturbance 

Behavioral responses to sound are 

highly variable and context-specific. 

Many different variables can influence 

an animal’s perception of and response 

to (nature and magnitude) an acoustic 

event. An animal’s prior experience 

with a sound or sound source effects 

whether it is less likely (habituation) or 

more likely (sensitization) to respond to 

certain sounds in the future (animals 

can also be innately pre-disposed to 

respond to certain sounds in certain 

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

the sound itself, the perceived nearness 

of the sound, bearing of the sound 

(approaching vs. retreating), similarity 

of a sound to biologically relevant 

sounds in the animal’s environment 

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

conspecifics), and familiarity of the 

sound may effect the way an animal 

responds to the sound (Southall et al., 

2007). Individuals (of different age, 

gender, reproductive status, etc.) among 

most populations will have variable 

hearing capabilities, and differing 

behavioral sensitivities to sounds that 

will be affected by prior conditioning, 

experience, and current activities of 

those individuals. Often, specific 

acoustic features of the sound and 

contextual variables (i.e., proximity, 

duration, or recurrence of the sound or 

the current behavior that the marine 

mammal is engaged in or its prior 

experience), as well as entirely separate 

factors such as the physical presence of 

a nearby vessel, may be more relevant 

to the animal’s response than the 

received level alone. 

Exposure of marine mammals to 

sound sources can result in (but is not 

limited to) the following observable 

responses: Increased alertness; 

orientation or attraction to a sound 

source; vocal modifications; cessation of 

feeding; cessation of social interaction; 

alteration of movement or diving 

behavior; habitat abandonment 

(temporary or permanent); and, in 

severe cases, panic, flight, stampede, or 

stranding, potentially resulting in death 

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

marine mammal responses to 

anthropogenic sound was first 

conducted by Richardson and others in 

1995. A more recent review (Nowacek et 

al., 2007) addresses studies conducted 

since 1995 and focuses on observations 

where the received sound level of the 

exposed marine mammal(s) was known 

or could be estimated. The following 

sub-sections provide examples of 

behavioral responses that provide an 

idea of the variability in behavioral 

responses that would be expected given 

the differential sensitivities of marine 

mammal species to sound and the wide 

range of potential acoustic sources to 

which a marine mammal may be 

exposed. Estimates of the types of 

behavioral responses that could occur 

for a given sound exposure should be 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60773 

determined from the literature that is 

available for each species, or 

extrapolated from closely related 

species when no information exists. 

Flight Response—A flight response is 

a dramatic change in normal movement 

to a directed and rapid movement away 

from the perceived location of a sound 

source. Relatively little information on 

flight responses of marine mammals to 

anthropogenic signals exist, although 

observations of flight responses to the 

presence of predators have occurred 

(Connor and Heithaus, 1996). Flight 

responses have been speculated as being 

a component of marine mammal 

strandings associated with sonar 

activities (Evans and England, 2001). 

Response to Predator—Evidence 

suggests that at least some marine 

mammals have the ability to 

acoustically identify potential predators. 

For example, harbor seals that reside in 

the coastal waters off British Columbia 

are frequently targeted by certain groups 

of killer whales, but not others. The 

seals discriminate between the calls of 

threatening and non-threatening killer 

whales (Deecke et al., 2002), a capability 

that should increase survivorship while 

reducing the energy required for 

attending to and responding to all killer 

whale calls. The occurrence of masking 

or hearing impairment provides a means 

by which marine mammals may be 

prevented from responding to the 

acoustic cues produced by their 

predators. Whether or not this is a 

possibility depends on the duration of 

the masking/hearing impairment and 

the likelihood of encountering a 

predator during the time that predator 

cues are impeded. 

Diving—Changes in dive behavior can 

vary widely. They may consist of 

increased or decreased dive times and 

surface intervals as well as changes in 

the rates of ascent and descent during a 

dive. Variations in dive behavior may 

reflect interruptions in biologically 

significant activities (e.g., foraging) or 

they may be of little biological 

significance. Variations in dive behavior 

may also expose an animal to 

potentially harmful conditions (e.g., 

increasing the chance of ship-strike) or 

may serve as an avoidance response that 

enhances survivorship. The impact of a 

variation in diving resulting from an 

acoustic exposure depends on what the 

animal is doing at the time of the 

exposure and the type and magnitude of 

the response. 

Nowacek et al. (2004) reported 

disruptions of dive behaviors in foraging 

North Atlantic right whales when 

exposed to an alerting stimulus, an 

action, they noted, that could lead to an 

increased likelihood of ship strike. 

However, the whales did not respond to 

playbacks of either right whale social 

sounds or vessel noise, highlighting the 

importance of the sound characteristics 

in producing a behavioral reaction. 

Conversely, Indo-Pacific humpback 

dolphins have been observed to dive for 

longer periods of time in areas where 

vessels were present and/or 

approaching (Ng and Leung, 2003). In 

both of these studies, the influence of 

the sound exposure cannot be 

decoupled from the physical presence of 

a surface vessel, thus complicating 

intepretations of the relative 

contribution of each stimulus to the 

response. Indeed, the presence of 

surface vessels, their approach and 

speed of approach, seemed to be 

significant factors in the response of the 

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Ng 

and Leung, 2003). Low frequency 

signals of the Acoustic Thermometry of 

Ocean Climate (ATOC) sound source 

were not found to affect dive times of 

humpback whales in Hawaiian waters 

(Frankel and Clark, 2000) or to overtly 

affect elephant seal dives (Costa et al., 

2003). They did, however, produce 

subtle effects that varied in direction 

and degree among the individual seals, 

illustrating the equivocal nature of 

behavioral effects and consequent 

difficulty in defining and predicting 

them. 

Due to past incidents of beaked whale 

strandings associated with sonar 

operations, feedback paths are provided 

between avoidance and diving and 

indirect tissue effects. This feedback 

accounts for the hypothesis that 

variations in diving behavior and/or 

avoidance responses can possibly result 

in nitrogen tissue supersaturation and 

nitrogen off-gassing, possibly to the 

point of deleterious vascular bubble 

formation (Jepson et al., 2003). 

Foraging—Disruption of feeding 

behavior can be difficult to correlate 

with anthropogenic sound exposure, so 

it is usually inferred by observed 

displacement from known foraging 

areas, the appearance of secondary 

indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment 

plumes), or changes in dive behavior. 

Noise from seismic surveys was not 

found to impact the feeding behavior in 

western grey whales off the coast of 

Russia (Yazvenko et al., 2007) and 

sperm whales engaged in foraging dives 

did not abandon dives when exposed to 

distant signatures of seismic airguns 

(Madsen et al., 2006). Balaenopterid 

whales exposed to moderate lowfrequency signals similar to the ATOC 

sound source demonstrated no variation 

in foraging activity (Croll et al., 2001), 

whereas five out of six North Atlantic 

right whales exposed to an acoustic 

alarm interrupted their foraging dives 

(Nowacek et al., 2004). Although the 

received sound pressure level at the 

animals was similar in the latter two 

studies, the frequency, duration, and 

temporal pattern of signal presentation 

were different. These factors, as well as 

differences in species sensitivity, are 

likely contributing factors to the 

differential response. A determination 

of whether foraging disruptions incur 

fitness consequences will require 

information on or estimates of the 

energetic requirements of the 

individuals and the relationship 

between prey availability, foraging effort 

and success, and the life history stage of 

the animal. 

Breathing—Variations in respiration 

naturally vary with different behaviors 

and variations in respiration rate as a 

function of acoustic exposure can be 

expected to co-occur with other 

behavioral reactions, such as a flight 

response or an alteration in diving. 

However, respiration rates in and of 

themselves may be representative of 

annoyance or an acute stress response. 

Mean exhalation rates of gray whales at 

rest and while diving were found to be 

unaffected by seismic surveys 

conducted adjacent to the whale feeding 

grounds (Gailey et al., 2007). Studies 

with captive harbor porpoises showed 

increased respiration rates upon 

introduction of acoustic alarms 

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

2006a) and emissions for underwater 

data transmission (Kastelein et al., 

2005). However, exposure of the same 

acoustic alarm to a striped dolphin 

under the same conditions did not elicit 

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

again highlighting the importance in 

understanding species differences in the 

tolerance of underwater noise when 

determining the potential for impacts 

resulting from anthropogenic sound 

exposure. 

Social relationships—Social 

interactions between mammals can be 

affected by noise via the disruption of 

communication signals or by the 

displacement of individuals. Disruption 

of social relationships therefore depends 

on the disruption of other behaviors 

(e.g., caused avoidance, masking, etc.) 

and no specific overview is provided 

here. However, social disruptions must 

be considered in context of the 

relationships that are affected. Longterm disruptions of mother/calf pairs or 

mating displays have the potential to 

affect the growth and survival or 

reproductive effort/success of 

individuals, respectively. 

Vocalizations (also see Masking 

Section)—Vocal changes in response to 

anthropogenic noise can occur across 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60774 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

the repertoire of sound production 

modes used by marine mammals, such 

as whistling, echolocation click 

production, calling, and singing. 

Changes may result in response to a 

need to compete with an increase in 

background noise or may reflect an 

increased vigilance or startle response. 

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

whales have been observed to increase 

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

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

to the overlap in frequencies between 

the whale song and the low-frequency 

active sonar. A similar compensatory 

effect for the presence of low frequency 

vessel noise has been suggested for right 

whales; right whales have been 

observed to shift the frequency content 

of their calls upward while reducing the 

rate of calling in areas of increased 

anthropogenic noise (Parks et al., 2007). 

Killer whales off the northwestern coast 

of the United States have been observed 

to increase the duration of primary calls 

once a threshold in observing vessel 

density (e.g., whale watching) was 

reached, which has been suggested as a 

response to increased masking noise 

produced by the vessels (Foote et al., 

2004). In contrast, both sperm and pilot 

whales potentially ceased sound 

production during the Heard Island 

feasibility test (Bowles et al., 1994), 

although it cannot be absolutely 

determined whether the inability to 

acoustically detect the animals was due 

to the cessation of sound production or 

the displacement of animals from the 

area. 

Avoidance—Avoidance is the 

displacement of an individual from an 

area as a result of the presence of a 

sound. Richardson et al. (1995) noted 

that avoidance reactions are the most 

obvious manifestations of disturbance in 

marine mammals. It is qualitatively 

different from the flight response, but 

also differs in the magnitude of the 

response (i.e., directed movement, rate 

of travel, etc.). Oftentimes avoidance is 

temporary, and animals return to the 

area once the noise has ceased. Longer 

term displacement is possible, however, 

which can lead to changes in abundance 

or distribution patterns of the species in 

the affected region if they do not 

become acclimated to the presence of 

the sound (Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder 

et al., 2006; Teilmann et al., 2006). 

Acute avoidance responses have been 

observed in captive porpoises and 

pinnipeds exposed to a number of 

different sound sources (Kastelein et al., 

2001; Finneran et al., 2003; Kastelein et 

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

term avoidance of seismic surveys, low 

frequency emissions, and acoustic 

deterrants has also been noted in wild 

populations of odontocetes (Bowles et 

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

al., 2000; Morton and Symonds, 2002) 

and to some extent in mysticetes (Gailey 

et al., 2007), while longer term or 

repetitive/chronic displacement for 

some dolphin groups and for manatees 

has been suggested to be due to the 

presence of chronic vessel noise 

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

Orientation—A shift in an animal’s 

resting state or an attentional change via 

an orienting response represent 

behaviors that would be considered 

mild disruptions if occurring alone. As 

previously mentioned, the responses 

may co-occur with other behaviors; for 

instance, an animal may initially orient 

toward a sound source, and then move 

away from it. Thus, any orienting 

response should be considered in 

context of other reactions that may 

occur. 

There are few empirical studies of 

avoidance responses of free-living 

cetaceans to mid-frequency sonars. 

Much more information is available on 

the avoidance responses of free-living 

cetaceans to other acoustic sources, 

such as seismic airguns and low 

frequency tactical sonar, than midfrequency active sonar. 

Behavioral Responses (Southall et al. 

(2007)) 

Southall et al. (2007) reports the 

results of the efforts of a panel of experts 

in acoustic research from behavioral, 

physiological, and physical disciplines 

that convened and reviewed the 

available literature on marine mammal 

hearing and physiological and 

behavioral responses to human-made 

sound with the goal of proposing 

exposure criteria for certain effects. This 

peer-reviewed compilation of literature 

is very valuable, though Southall et al. 

(2007) note that not all data are equal, 

some have poor statistical power, 

insufficient controls, and/or limited 

information on received levels, 

background noise, and other potentially 

important contextual variables—such 

data were reviewed and sometimes used 

for qualitative illustration but were not 

included in the quantitative analysis for 

the criteria recommendations. All of the 

studies considered, however, contain an 

estimate of the received sound level 

when the animal exhibited the indicated 

response. 

In the Southall et al. (2007) 

publication, for the purposes of 

analyzing responses of marine mammals 

to anthropogenic sound and developing 

criteria, the authors differentiate 

between single pulse sounds, multiple 

pulse sounds, and non-pulse sounds. 

MFAS/HFAS sonar is considered a nonpulse sound. Southall et al. (2007) 

summarize the studies associated with 

low-frequency, mid-frequency, and 

high-frequency cetacean and pinniped 

responses to non-pulse sounds, based 

strictly on received level, in Appendix 

C of their article (incorporated by 

reference and summarized in the three 

paragraphs below). 

The studies that address responses of 

low frequency cetaceans to non-pulse 

sounds include data gathered in the 

field and related to several types of 

sound sources (of varying similarity to 

MFAS/HFAS) including: Vessel noise, 

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

multiple phase reversals) playback, 

tactical low-frequency active sonar 

playback, drill ships, Acoustic 

Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC) 

source, and non-pulse playbacks. These 

studies generally indicate no (or very 

limited) responses to received levels in 

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

increasing likelihood of avoidance and 

other behavioral effects in the 120 to 

160 dB range. As mentioned earlier, 

though, contextual variables play a very 

important role in the reported responses 

and the severity of effects is not linear 

when compared to received level. Also, 

few of the laboratory or field datasets 

had common conditions, behavioral 

contexts or sound sources, so it is not 

surprising that responses differ. 

The studies that address responses of 

mid-frequency cetaceans to non-pulse 

sounds include data gathered both in 

the field and the laboratory and related 

to several different sound sources (of 

varying similarity to MFAS/HFAS) 

including: Pingers, drilling playbacks, 

ship and ice-breaking noise, vessel 

noise, Acoustic Harassment Devices 

(AHDs), Acoustic Deterrent Devices 

(ADDs), MFAS, and non-pulse bands 

and tones. Southall et al. (2007) were 

unable to come to a clear conclusion 

regarding the results of these studies. In 

some cases, animals in the field showed 

significant responses to received levels 

between 90 and 120 dB, while in other 

cases these responses were not seen in 

the 120 to 150 dB range. The disparity 

in results was likely due to contextual 

variation and the differences between 

the results in the field and laboratory 

data (animals typically responded at 

lower levels in the field). 

The studies that address responses of 

high frequency cetaceans to non-pulse 

sounds include data gathered both in 

the field and the laboratory and related 

to several different sound sources (of 

varying similarity to MFAS/HFAS) 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60775 

including: Pingers, AHDs, and various 

laboratory non-pulse sounds. All of 

these data were collected from harbor 

porpoises. Southall et al. (2007) 

concluded that the existing data 

indicate that harbor porpoises are likely 

sensitive to a wide range of 

anthropogenic sounds at low received 

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

exposures. All recorded exposures 

above 140 dB induced profound and 

sustained avoidance behavior in wild 

harbor porpoises (Southall et al., 2007). 

Rapid habituation was noted in some 

but not all studies. There is no data to 

indicate whether other high frequency 

cetaceans are as sensitive to 

anthropogenic sound as harbor 

porpoises are. 

The studies that address the responses 

of pinnipeds in water to non-pulse 

sounds include data gathered both in 

the field and the laboratory and related 

to several different sound sources (of 

varying similarity to MFAS/HFAS) 

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

communication; underwater drilling, 

and construction noise. Few studies 

exist with enough information to 

include them in the analysis. The 

limited data suggested that exposures to 

non-pulse sounds between 90 and 140 

dB generally do not result in strong 

behavioral responses in pinnipeds in 

water, but no data exist at higher 

received levels. 

In addition to summarizing the 

available data, the authors of Southall et 

al. (2007) developed a severity scaling 

system with the intent of ultimately 

being able to assign some level of 

biological significance to a response. 

Following is a summary of their scoring 

system; a comprehensive list of the 

behaviors associated with each score 

may be found in the report: 

• 0–3 (Minor and/or brief behaviors) 

includes, but is not limited to: no 

response; minor changes in speed or 

locomotion (but with no avoidance); 

individual alert behavior; minor 

cessation in vocal behavior; minor 

changes in response to trained behaviors 

(in laboratory). 

• 4–6 (Behaviors with higher 

potential to affect foraging, 

reproduction, or survival) includes, but 

is not limited to: moderate changes in 

speed, direction, or dive profile; brief 

shift in group distribution; prolonged 

cessation or modification of vocal 

behavior (duration > duration of sound), 

minor or moderate individual and/or 

group avoidance of sound; brief 

cessation of reproductive behavior; or 

refusal to initiate trained tasks (in 

laboratory). 

• 7–9 (Behaviors considered likely to 

affect the aforementioned vital rates) 

includes, but is not limited to: Extensive 

or prolonged aggressive behavior; 

moderate, prolonged or significant 

separation of females and dependent 

offspring with disruption of acoustic 

reunion mechanisms; long-term 

avoidance of an area; outright panic, 

stampede, stranding; threatening or 

attacking sound source (in laboratory). 

In Table 5 we have summarized the 

scores that Southall et al. (2007) 

assigned to the papers that reported 

behavioral responses of low-frequency 

cetaceans, mid-frequency cetaceans, and 

pinnipeds in water to non-pulse sounds. 

This table is included simply to 

summarize the findings of the studies 

and opportunistic observations (all of 

which were capable of estimating 

received level) that Southall et al. (2007) 

compiled in the effort to develop 

acoustic criteria. 

Potential Effects of Behavioral 

Disturbance 

The different ways that marine 

mammals respond to sound are 

sometimes indicators of the ultimate 

effect that exposure to a given stimulus 

will have on the well-being (survival, 

reproduction, etc.) of an animal (see 

Figure 1). There is little marine mammal 

data quantitatively relating the exposure 

of marine mammals to sound to effects 

on reproduction or survival, though data 

exists for terrestrial species to which we 

can draw comparisons for marine 

mammals. 

Attention is the cognitive process of 

selectively concentrating on one aspect 

of an animal’s environment while 

ignoring other things (Posner, 1994). 

Because animals (including humans) 

have limited cognitive resources, there 

is a limit to how much sensory 

information they can process at any 

time. The phenomenon called 

‘‘attentional capture’’ occurs when a 

stimulus (usually a stimulus that an 

animal is not concentrating on or 

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

attention. This shift in attention can 

occur consciously or unconsciously (for 

example, when an animal hears sounds 

that it associates with the approach of 

a predator) and the shift in attention can 

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

Once a stimulus has captured an 

animal’s attention, the animal can 

respond by ignoring the stimulus, 

assuming a ‘‘watch and wait’’ posture, 

or treat the stimulus as a disturbance 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP14OC08.007</GPH>
60776 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

and respond accordingly, which 

includes scanning for the source of the 

stimulus or ‘‘vigilance’’ (Cowlishaw et 

al., 2004). 

Vigilance is normally an adaptive 

behavior that helps animals determine 

the presence or absence of predators, 

assess their distance from conspecifics, 

or to attend cues from prey (Bednekoff 

and Lima, 1998; Treves, 2000). Despite 

those benefits, however, vigilance has a 

cost of time: when animals focus their 

attention on specific environmental 

cues, they are not attending to other 

activities such a foraging. These costs 

have been documented best in foraging 

animals, where vigilance has been 

shown to substantially reduce feeding 

rates (Saino, 1994; Beauchamp and 

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

Animals will spend more time being 

vigilant, which may translate to less 

time foraging or resting, when 

disturbance stimuli approach them 

more directly, remain at closer 

distances, have a greater group size (for 

example, multiple surface vessels), or 

when they co-occur with times that an 

animal perceives increased risk (for 

example, when they are giving birth or 

accompanied by a calf). Most of the 

published literature, however, suggests 

that direct approaches will increase the 

amount of time animals will dedicate to 

being vigilant. For example, bighorn 

sheep and Dall’s sheep dedicated more 

time to being vigilant, and less time 

resting or foraging, when aircraft made 

direct approaches over them (Frid, 2001; 

Stockwell et al., 1991). 

Several authors have established that 

long-term and intense disturbance 

stimuli can cause population declines 

by reducing the body condition of 

individuals that have been disturbed, 

followed by reduced reproductive 

success, reduced survival, or both (Daan 

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

1983). For example, Madsen (1994) 

reported that pink-footed geese (Anser 

brachyrhynchus) in undisturbed habitat 

gained body mass and had about a 46- 

percent reproductive success rate 

compared with geese in disturbed 

habitat (being consistently scared off the 

fields on which they were foraging) 

which did not gain mass and has a 17 

percent reproductive success rate. 

Similar reductions in reproductive 

success have been reported for mule 

deer (Odocoileus hemionus) disturbed 

by all-terrain vehicles (Yarmoloy et al., 

1988), caribou disturbed by seismic 

exploration blasts (Bradshaw et al., 

1998), caribou disturbed by lowelevation military jet-fights (Luick et al., 

1996), and caribou disturbed by lowelevation jet flights (Harrington and 

Veitch, 1992). Similarly, a study of elk 

(Cervus elaphus) that were disturbed 

experimentally by pedestrians 

concluded that the ratio of young to 

mothers was inversely related to 

disturbance rate (Phillips and 

Alldredge, 2000). 

The primary mechanism by which 

increased vigilance and disturbance 

appear to affect the fitness of individual 

animals is by disrupting an animal’s 

time budget and, as a result, reducing 

the time they might spend foraging and 

resting (which increases an animal’s 

activity rate and energy demand). For 

example, a study of grizzly bears (Ursus 

horribilis) reported that bears disturbed 

by hikers reduced their energy intake by 

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

min), and spent energy fleeing or acting 

aggressively toward hikers (White et al., 

1999). 

On a related note, many animals 

perform vital functions, such as feeding, 

resting, traveling, and socializing, on a 

diel cycle (24-hr cycle). Substantive 

behavioral reactions to noise exposure 

(such as disruption of critical life 

functions, displacement, or avoidance of 

important habitat) are more likely to be 

significant if they last more than one 

diel cycle or recur on subsequent days 

(Southall et al., 2007). Consequently, a 

behavioral response lasting less than 

one day and not recurring on 

subsequent days is not considered 

particularly severe unless it could 

directly affect reproduction or survival 

(Southall et al., 2007). 

Stranding and Mortality 

When a live or dead marine mammal 

swims or floats onto shore and becomes 

‘‘beached’’ or incapable of returning to 

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

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

2002; Geraci and Lounsbury, 2005; 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

2007p). The legal definition for a 

stranding within the United States is 

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

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

States; or (ii) in waters under the 

jurisdiction of the United States 

(including any navigable waters); or (B) 

a marine mammal is alive and is (i) on 

a beach or shore of the United States 

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

on a beach or shore of the United States 

and, although able to return to the 

water, is in need of apparent medical 

attention; or (iii) in the waters under the 

jurisdiction of the United States 

(including any navigable waters), but is 

unable to return to its natural habitat 

under its own power or without 

assistance.’’ (16 U.S.C. 1421h). 

Marine mammals are known to strand 

for a variety of reasons, such as 

infectious agents, biotoxicosis, 

starvation, fishery interaction, ship 

strike, unusual oceanographic or 

weather events, sound exposure, or 

combinations of these stressors 

sustained concurrently or in series. 

However, the cause or causes of most 

strandings are unknown (Geraci et al., 

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

Best, 1982). Numerous studies suggest 

that the physiology, behavior, habitat 

relationships, age, or condition of 

cetaceans may cause them to strand or 

might pre-dispose them the strand when 

exposed to another phenomenon. These 

suggestions are consistent with the 

conclusions of numerous other studies 

that have demonstrated that 

combinations of dissimilar stressors 

commonly combine to kill an animal or 

dramatically reduce its fitness, even 

though one exposure without the other 

does not produce the same result 

(Chroussos, 2000; Creel, 2005; DeVries 

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

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

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

2004). 

Several sources have published lists 

of mass stranding events of cetaceans 

during attempts to identify relationships 

between those stranding events and 

military sonar (Hildebrand, 2004; IWC, 

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

based on a review of stranding records 

between 1960 and 1995, the 

International Whaling Commission 

(2005) identified ten mass stranding 

events of Cuvier’s beaked whales that 

had been reported and one mass 

stranding of four Baird’s beaked whale 

(Berardius bairdii). The IWC concluded 

that, out of eight stranding events 

reported from the mid-1980s to the 

summer of 2003, seven had been 

coincident with the use of tactical midfrequency sonar, one of those seven had 

been associated with the use of tactical 

low-frequency sonar, and the remaining 

stranding event had been associated 

with the use of seismic airguns. 

Most of the stranding events reviewed 

by the International Whaling 

Commission involved beaked whales. A 

mass stranding of Cuvier’s beaked 

whales in the eastern Mediterranean Sea 

occurred in 1996 (Franzis, 1998) and 

mass stranding events involving 

Gervais’ beaked whales, Blainville’s 

beaked whales, and Cuvier’s beaked 

whales occurred off the coast of the 

Canary Islands in the late 1980s 

(Simmonds and Lopez-Jurado, 1991). 

The stranding events that occurred in 

the Canary Islands and Kyparissiakos 

Gulf in the late 1990s and the Bahamas 

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

been associated with naval maneuvers 

involving the use of tactical sonar. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60777 

Between 1960 and 2006, 48 strandings 

(68 percent) involved beaked whales, 3 

(4 percent) involved dolphins, and 14 

(20 percent) involved whale species. 

Cuvier’s beaked whales were involved 

in the greatest number of these events 

(48 or 68 percent), followed by sperm 

whales (7 or 10 percent), and 

Blainville’s and Gervais’ beaked whales 

(4 each or 6 percent). Naval activities 

that might have involved active sonar 

are reported to have coincided with 9 

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

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

the International Whaling Commission), 

we identified reports of 44 mass 

cetacean stranding events of which at 

least 7 were coincident with naval 

exercises that were using mid-frequency 

sonar. 

Strandings Associated With MFAS 

Over the past 12 years, there have 

been five stranding events coincident 

with military mid-frequency sonar use 

in which exposure to sonar is believed 

to have been a contributing factor: 

Greece (1996); the Bahamas (2000); 

Madeira (2000); Canary Islands (2002); 

and Spain (2006). A number of other 

stranding events coincident with the 

operation of mid-frequency sonar 

including the death of beaked whales or 

other species (minke whales, dwarf 

sperm whales, pilot whales) have been 

reported, however, the majority have 

not been investigated to the degree 

necessary to determine the cause of the 

stranding. 

Greece (1996) 

Twelve Cuvier’s beaked whales 

stranded atypically (in both time and 

space) along a 38.2-kilometer strand of 

the coast of the Kyparissiakos Gulf on 

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

From May 11 through May 15, the 

NATO research vessel Alliance was 

conducting sonar tests with signals of 

600 Hz and 3 kHz and source levels of 

228 and 226 dB re: 1μPa, respectively 

(D’Amico and Verboom, 1998; D’Spain 

et al., 2006). The timing and the location 

of the testing encompassed the time and 

location of the whale strandings 

(Frantzis, 1998). 

Necropsies of eight of the animals 

were performed but were limited to 

basic external examination and 

sampling of stomach contents, blood, 

and skin. No ears or organs were 

collected, and no histological samples 

were preserved. No apparent 

abnormalities or wounds were found 

(Frantzis, 2004). Examination of photos 

of the animals, taken soon after their 

death, revealed that the eyes of at least 

four of the individuals were bleeding. 

Photos were taken soon after their death 

(Frantzis, 2004). Stomach contents 

contained the flesh of cephalopods, 

indicating that feeding had recently 

taken place (Frantzis, 1998). 

All available information regarding 

the conditions associated with this 

stranding event were compiled, and 

many potential causes were examined 

including major pollution events, 

prominent tectonic activity, unusual 

physical or meteorological events, 

magnetic anomalies, epizootics, and 

conventional military activities 

(International Council for the 

Exploration of the Sea, 2005a). 

However, none of these potential causes 

coincided in time or space with the 

mass stranding, or could explain its 

characteristics (International Council for 

the Exploration of the Sea, 2005a). The 

robust condition of the animals, plus the 

recent stomach contents, is inconsistent 

with pathogenic causes (Frantzis, 2004). 

In addition, environmental causes can 

be ruled out as there were no unusual 

environmental circumstances or events 

before or during this time period and 

within the general proximity (Frantzis, 

2004). 

It was determined that because of the 

rarity of this mass stranding of Cuvier’s 

beaked whales in the Kyparissiakos Gulf 

(first one in history), the probability for 

the two events (the military exercises 

and the strandings) to coincide in time 

and location, while being independent 

of each other, was extremely low 

(Frantzis, 1998). However, because full 

necropsies had not been conducted, and 

no abnormalities were noted, the cause 

of the strandings could not be precisely 

determined (Cox et al., 2006). The 

analysis of this stranding event 

provided support for, but no clear 

evidence for, the cause-and-effect 

relationship of tactical sonar training 

activities and beaked whale strandings 

(Cox et al., 2006). 

Bahamas (2000) 

NMFS and the Navy prepared a joint 

report addressing the multi-species 

stranding in the Bahamas in 2000, 

which took place within 24 hours of 

U.S. Navy ships using MFAS as they 

passed through the Northeast and 

Northwest Providence Channels on 

March 15–16, 2000. The ships, which 

operated both AN/SQS–53C and AN/ 

SQS–56, moved through the channel 

while emitting sonar pings 

approximately every 24 seconds. Of the 

17 cetaceans that stranded over a 36-hr 

period (Cuvier’s beaked whales, 

Blainville’s beaked whales, Minke 

whales, and a spotted dolphin), seven 

animals died on the beach (5 Cuvier’s 

beaked whales, 1 Blainville’s beaked 

whale, and the spotted dolphin), while 

the other 10 were returned to the water 

alive (though their ultimate fate is 

unknown). 

Necropsies were performed on five of 

the stranded beaked whales. All five 

necropsied beaked whales were in good 

body condition, showing no signs of 

infection, disease, ship strike, blunt 

trauma, or fishery related injuries, and 

three still had food remains in their 

stomachs. Auditory structural damage 

was discovered in four of the whales, 

specifically bloody effusions or 

hemorrhaging around the ears. Bilateral 

intracochlear and unilateral temporal 

region subarachnoid hemorrhage, with 

blood clots in the lateral ventricles, 

were found in two of the whales. Three 

of the whales had small hemorrhages in 

their acoustic fats (located along the jaw 

and in the melon). 

A comprehensive investigation was 

conducted and all possible causes of the 

stranding event were considered, 

whether they seemed likely at the outset 

or not. Based on the way in which the 

strandings coincided with ongoing 

naval activity involving tactical MFAS 

use, in terms of both time and 

geography, the nature of the 

physiological effects experienced by the 

dead animals, and the absence of any 

other acoustic sources, the investigation 

team concluded that MFAS aboard U.S. 

Navy ships that were in use during the 

sonar exercise in question were the most 

plausible source of this acoustic or 

impulse trauma to beaked whales. This 

sound source was active in a complex 

environment that included the presence 

of a surface duct, unusual and steep 

bathymetry, a constricted channel with 

limited egress, intensive use of multiple, 

active sonar units over an extended 

period of time, and the presence of 

beaked whales that appear to be 

sensitive to the frequencies produced by 

these sonars. The investigation team 

concluded that the cause of this 

stranding event was the confluence of 

the Navy MFAS and these contributory 

factors working together, and further 

recommended that the Navy avoid 

operating MFAS in situations where 

these five factors would be likely to 

occur. This report does not conclude 

that all five of these factors must be 

present for a stranding to occur, nor that 

beaked whales are the only species that 

could potentially be affected by the 

confluence of the other factors. Based on 

this, NMFS believes that the operation 

of MFAS in situations where surface 

ducts exist, or in marine environments 

defined by steep bathymetry and/or 

constricted channels may increase the 

likelihood of producing a sound field 

with the potential to cause cetaceans 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60778 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

(especially beaked whales) to strand, 

and therefore, suggests the need for 

increased vigilance while operating 

MFAS in these areas, especially when 

beaked whales (or potentially other 

deep divers) are likely present. 

Madeira, Spain (2000) 

From May 10–14, 2000, three Cuvier’s 

beaked whales were found atypically 

stranded on two islands in the Madeira 

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

A fourth animal was reported floating in 

the Madeiran waters by fisherman but 

did not come ashore (Woods Hole 

Oceanographic Institution, 2005). Joint 

NATO amphibious training 

peacekeeping exercises involving 

participants from 17 countries 80 

warships, took place in Portugal during 

May 2–15, 2000. 

The bodies of the three stranded 

whales were examined post mortem 

(Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 

2005), though only one of the stranded 

whales was fresh enough (24 hours after 

stranding) to be necropsied (Cox et al., 

2006). Results from the necropsy 

revealed evidence of hemorrhage and 

congestion in the right lung and both 

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

also evidence of intercochlear and 

intracranial hemorrhage similar to that 

which was observed in the whales that 

stranded in the Bahamas event (Cox et 

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

trauma, and no major fractures (Woods 

Hole Oceanographic Institution, 2005). 

The cranial sinuses and airways were 

found to be clear with little or no fluid 

deposition, which may indicate good 

preservation of tissues (Woods Hole 

Oceanographic Institution, 2005). 

Several observations on the Madeira 

stranded beaked whales, such as the 

pattern of injury to the auditory system, 

are the same as those observed in the 

Bahamas strandings. Blood in and 

around the eyes, kidney lesions, pleural 

hemorrhages, and congestion in the 

lungs are particularly consistent with 

the pathologies from the whales 

stranded in the Bahamas, and are 

consistent with stress and pressure 

related trauma. The similarities in 

pathology and stranding patterns 

between these two events suggest that a 

similar pressure event may have 

precipitated or contributed to the 

strandings at both sites (Woods Hole 

Oceanographic Institution, 2005). 

Even though no definitive causal link 

can be made between the stranding 

event and naval exercises, certain 

conditions may have existed in the 

exercise area that, in their aggregate, 

may have contributed to the marine 

mammal strandings (Freitas, 2004): 

Exercises were conducted in areas of at 

least 547 fathoms (1,000 m) depth near 

a shoreline where there is a rapid 

change in bathymetry on the order of 

547 to 3,281 (1,000—6,000 m) fathoms 

occurring across a relatively short 

horizontal distance (Freitas, 2004); 

multiple ships were operating around 

Madeira, though it is not known if MFA 

sonar was used, and the specifics of the 

sound sources used are unknown (Cox 

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

took place in an area surrounded by 

landmasses separated by less than 35 

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

in length, or in an embayment. Exercises 

involving multiple ships employing 

MFA near land may produce sound 

directed towards a channel or 

embayment that may cut off the lines of 

egress for marine mammals (Freitas, 

2004). 

Canary Islands, Spain (2002) 

The southeastern area within the 

Canary Islands is well known for 

aggregations of beaked whales due to its 

ocean depths of greater than 547 

fathoms (1,000 m) within a few hundred 

meters of the coastline (Fernandez et al., 

2005). On September 24, 2002, 14 

beaked whales were found stranded on 

Fuerteventura and Lanzarote Islands in 

the Canary Islands (International 

Council for Exploration of the Sea, 

2005a). Seven whales died, while the 

remaining seven live whales were 

returned to deeper waters (Fernandez et 

al., 2005). Four beaked whales were 

found stranded dead over the next 3 

days either on the coast or floating 

offshore. These strandings occurred 

within near proximity of an 

international naval exercise that utilized 

MFAS and involved numerous surface 

warships and several submarines. 

Strandings began about 4 hours after the 

onset of MFA sonar activity 

(International Council for Exploration of 

the Sea, 2005a; Fernandez et al., 2005). 

Eight Cuvier’s beaked whales, one 

Blainville’s beaked whale, and one 

Gervais’ beaked whale were necropsied, 

six of them within 12 hours of stranding 

(Fernandez et al., 2005). No pathogenic 

bacteria were isolated from the carcasses 

(Jepson et al., 2003). The animals 

displayed severe vascular congestion 

and hemorrhage especially around the 

tissues in the jaw, ears, brain, and 

kidneys, displaying marked 

disseminated microvascular 

hemorrhages associated with 

widespread fat emboli (Jepson et al., 

2003; International Council for 

Exploration of the Sea, 2005a). Several 

organs contained intravascular bubbles, 

although definitive evidence of gas 

embolism in vivo is difficult to 

determine after death (Jepson et al., 

2003). The livers of the necropsied 

animals were the most consistently 

affected organ, which contained 

macroscopic gas-filled cavities and had 

variable degrees of fibrotic 

encapsulation. In some animals, 

cavitary lesions had extensively 

replaced the normal tissue (Jepson et al., 

2003). Stomachs contained a large 

amount of fresh and undigested 

contents, suggesting a rapid onset of 

disease and death (Fernandez et al., 

2005). Head and neck lymph nodes 

were enlarged and congested, and 

parasites were found in the kidneys of 

all animals (Fernandez et al., 2005). 

The association of NATO MFA sonar 

use close in space and time to the 

beaked whale strandings, and the 

similarity between this stranding event 

and previous beaked whale mass 

strandings coincident with sonar use, 

suggests that a similar scenario and 

causative mechanism of stranding may 

be shared between the events. Beaked 

whales stranded in this event 

demonstrated brain and auditory system 

injuries, hemorrhages, and congestion in 

multiple organs, similar to the 

pathological findings of the Bahamas 

and Madeira stranding events. In 

addition, the necropsy results of Canary 

Islands stranding event lead to the 

hypothesis that the presence of 

disseminated and widespread gas 

bubbles and fat emboli were indicative 

of nitrogen bubble formation, similar to 

what might be expected in 

decompression sickness (Jepson et al., 

2003; Fernandez et al., 2005). 

Spain (2006) 

The Spanish Cetacean Society 

reported an atypical mass stranding of 

four beaked whales that occurred 

January 26, 2006, on the southeast coast 

of Spain, near Mojacar (Gulf of Vera) in 

the Western Mediterranean Sea. 

According to the report, two of the 

whales were discovered the evening of 

January 26 and were found to be still 

alive. Two other whales were 

discovered during the day on January 

27, but had already died. The fourth 

animal was found dead on the afternoon 

of January 27, a few kilometers north of 

the first three animals. From January 

25–26, 2006, Standing North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization (NATO) Response 

Force Maritime Group Two (five of 

seven ships including one U.S. ship 

under NATO Operational Control) had 

conducted active sonar training against 

a Spanish submarine within 50 nm (93 

km) of the stranding site. 

Veterinary pathologists necropsied 

the two male and two female Cuvier’s 

beaked whales. According to the 

pathologists, the most likely primary 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60779 

cause of this type of beaked whale mass 

stranding event was anthropogenic 

acoustic activities, most probably antisubmarine MFAS used during the 

military naval exercises. However, no 

positive acoustic link was established as 

a direct cause of the stranding. Even 

though no causal link can be made 

between the stranding event and naval 

exercises, certain conditions may have 

existed in the exercise area that, in their 

aggregate, may have contributed to the 

marine mammal strandings (Freitas, 

2004): exercises were conducted in 

areas of at least 547 fathoms (1000 m) 

depth near a shoreline where there is a 

rapid change in bathymetry on the order 

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

occurring across a relatively short 

horizontal distance (Freitas, 2004); 

multiple ships (in this instance, five) 

were operating MFAS in the same area 

over extended periods of time (in this 

case, 20 hours) in close proximity; 

Exercises took place in an area 

surrounded by landmasses, or in an 

embayment. Exercises involving 

multiple ships employing MFA sonar 

near land may have produced sound 

directed towards a channel or 

embayment that may have cut off the 

lines of egress for the affected marine 

mammals (Freitas, 2004). 

Association Between Mass Stranding 

Events and Exposure to MFAS 

Several authors have noted 

similarities between some of these 

stranding incidents: they occurred in 

islands or archipelagoes with deep 

water nearby, several appeared to have 

been associated with acoustic 

waveguides like surface ducting, and 

the sound fields created by ships 

transmitting MFAS (Cox et al., 2006, 

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

beaked whales have been the most 

common species involved in these 

stranding events (81 percent of the total 

number of stranded animals), other 

beaked whales (including Mesoplodon 

europeaus, M. densirostris, and 

Hyperoodon ampullatus) comprise 14 

percent of the total. Other species 

(Stenella coeruleoalba, Kogia breviceps 

and Balaenoptera acutorostrata) have 

stranded, but in much lower numbers 

and less consistently than beaked 

whales. 

Based on the evidence available, 

however, we cannot determine whether 

(a) Cuvier’s beaked whale is more prone 

to injury from high-intensity sound than 

other species, (b) their behavioral 

responses to sound makes them more 

likely to strand, or (c) they are more 

likely to be exposed to MFAS than other 

cetaceans (for reasons that remain 

unknown). Because the association 

between active sonar exposures and 

marine mammals mass stranding events 

is not consistent—some marine 

mammals strand without being exposed 

to sonar and some sonar transmissions 

are not associated with marine mammal 

stranding events despite their cooccurrence—other risk factors or a 

grouping of risk factors probably 

contribute to these stranding events. 

Behaviorally Mediated Responses to 

MFAS That May Lead to Stranding 

Although the confluence of Navy 

MFAS with the other contributory 

factors noted in the report was 

identified as the cause of the 2000 

Bahamas stranding event, the specific 

mechanisms that led to that stranding 

(or the others) are not understood, and 

there is uncertainty regarding the 

ordering of effects that led to the 

stranding. It is unclear whether beaked 

whales were directly injured by sound 

(acoustically mediated bubble growth, 

addressed above) prior to stranding or 

whether a behavioral response to sound 

occurred that ultimately caused the 

beaked whales to be injured and strand. 

Although causal relationships 

between beaked whale stranding events 

and active sonar remain unknown, 

several authors have hypothesized that 

stranding events involving these species 

in the Bahamas and Canary Islands may 

have been triggered when the whales 

changed their dive behavior in a startled 

response to exposure to active sonar or 

to further avoid exposure (Cox et al., 

2006, Rommel et al., 2006). These 

authors proposed three mechanisms by 

which the behavioral responses of 

beaked whales upon being exposed to 

active sonar might result in a stranding 

event. These include: gas bubble 

formation caused by excessively fast 

surfacing; remaining at the surface too 

long when tissues are supersaturated 

with nitrogen; or diving prematurely 

when extended time at the surface is 

necessary to eliminate excess nitrogen. 

More specifically, beaked whales that 

occur in deep waters that are in close 

proximity to shallow waters (for 

example, the ‘‘canyon areas’’ that are 

cited in the Bahamas stranding event; 

see D’Spain and D’Amico, 2006), may 

respond to active sonar by swimming 

into shallow waters to avoid further 

exposures and strand if they were not 

able to swim back to deeper waters. 

Second, beaked whales exposed to 

active sonar might alter their dive 

behavior. Changes in their dive behavior 

might cause them to remain at the 

surface or at depth for extended periods 

of time which could lead to hypoxia 

directly by increasing their oxygen 

demands or indirectly by increasing 

their energy expenditures (to remain at 

depth) and increase their oxygen 

demands as a result. If beaked whales 

are at depth when they detect a ping 

from an active sonar transmission and 

change their dive profile, this could lead 

to the formation of significant gas 

bubbles, which could damage multiple 

organs or interfere with normal 

physiological function (Cox et al., 2006; 

Rommel et al., 2006; Zimmer and 

Tyack, 2007). Baird et al. (2005) found 

that slow ascent rates from deep dives 

and long periods of time spent within 

50 m of the surface were typical for both 

Cuvier’s and Blainville’s beaked whales, 

the two species involved in mass 

strandings related to naval sonar. These 

two behavioral mechanisms may be 

necessary to purge excessive dissolved 

nitrogen concentrated in their tissues 

during their frequent long dives (Baird 

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

suggests that abnormally rapid ascents 

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

physical harm to the beaked whales, 

through the mechanisms described 

above (gas bubble formation or nonelimination of excess nitrogen). 

Because many species of marine 

mammals make repetitive and 

prolonged dives to great depths, it has 

long been assumed that marine 

mammals have evolved physiological 

mechanisms to protect against the 

effects of rapid and repeated 

decompressions. Although several 

investigators have identified 

physiological adaptations that may 

protect marine mammals against 

nitrogen gas supersaturation (alveolar 

collapse and elective circulation; 

Kooyman et al., 1972; Ridgway and 

Howard, 1979), Ridgway and Howard 

(1979) reported that bottlenose dolphins 

(Tursiops truncatus) that were trained to 

dive repeatedly had muscle tissues that 

were substantially supersaturated with 

nitrogen gas. Houser et al. (2001) used 

these data to model the accumulation of 

nitrogen gas within the muscle tissue of 

other marine mammal species and 

concluded that cetaceans that dive deep 

and have slow ascent or descent speeds 

would have tissues that are more 

supersaturated with nitrogen gas than 

other marine mammals. Based on these 

data, Cox et al. (2006) hypothesized that 

a critical dive sequence might make 

beaked whales more prone to stranding 

in response to acoustic exposures. The 

sequence began with (1) very deep (to 

depths as deep as 2 kilometers) and long 

(as long as 90 minutes) foraging dives 

with (2) relatively slow, controlled 

ascents, followed by (3) a series of 

‘‘bounce’’ dives between 100 and 400 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60780 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

meters in depth (also see Zimmer and 

Tyack, 2007). They concluded that 

acoustic exposures that disrupted any 

part of this dive sequence (for example, 

causing beaked whales to spend more 

time at surface without the bounce dives 

that are necessary to recover from the 

deep dive) could produce excessive 

levels of nitrogen supersaturation in 

their tissues, leading to gas bubble and 

emboli formation that produces 

pathologies similar to decompression 

sickness. 

Recently, Zimmer and Tyack (2007) 

modeled nitrogen tension and bubble 

growth in several tissue compartments 

for several hypothetical dive profiles 

and concluded that repetitive shallow 

dives (defined as a dive where depth 

does not exceed the depth of alveolar 

collapse, approximately 72 m for 

Ziphius), perhaps as a consequence of 

an extended avoidance reaction to sonar 

sound, could pose a risk for 

decompression sickness and that this 

risk should increase with the duration 

of the response. Their models also 

suggested that unrealistically rapid 

ascent rates of ascent from normal dive 

behaviors are unlikely to result in 

supersaturation to the extent that bubble 

formation would be expected. Tyack et 

al. (2006) suggested that emboli 

observed in animals exposed to midfrequency range sonar (Jepson et al., 

2003; Fernandez et al., 2005) could stem 

from a behavioral response that involves 

repeated dives shallower than the depth 

of lung collapse. Given that nitrogen gas 

accumulation is a passive process (i.e. 

nitrogen is metabolically inert), a 

bottlenose dolphin was trained to 

repetitively dive a profile predicted to 

elevate nitrogen saturation to the point 

that nitrogen bubble formation was 

predicted to occur. However, inspection 

of the vascular system of the dolphin via 

ultrasound did not demonstrate the 

formation of asymptomatic nitrogen gas 

bubbles (Houser et al., 2007). 

If marine mammals respond to a Navy 

vessel that is transmitting active sonar 

in the same way that they might 

respond to a predator, their probability 

of flight responses should increase 

when they perceive that Navy vessels 

are approaching them directly, because 

a direct approach may convey detection 

and intent to capture (Burger and 

Gochfeld, 1981, 1990; Cooper, 1997, 

1998). The probability of flight 

responses should also increase as 

received levels of active sonar increase 

(and the ship is, therefore, closer) and 

as ship speeds increase (that is, as 

approach speeds increase). For example, 

the probability of flight responses in 

Dall’s sheep (Ovis dalli dalli) (Frid 

2001a, b), ringed seals (Phoca hispida) 

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

bernic nigricans) and Canada geese (B. 

canadensis) increased as a helicopter or 

fixed-wing aircraft approached groups 

of these animals more directly (Ward et 

al., 1999). Bald eagles (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus) perched on trees 

alongside a river were also more likely 

to flee from a paddle raft when their 

perches were closer to the river or were 

closer to the ground (Steidl and 

Anthony, 1996). 

Despite the many theories involving 

bubble formation (both as a direct cause 

of injury (see Acoustically Mediated 

Bubble Growth Section) and an indirect 

cause of stranding (See Behaviorally 

Mediated Bubble Growth Section), 

Southall et al. (2007) summarizes that 

there is either scientific disagreement or 

a lack of information regarding each of 

the following important points: (1) 

Received acoustical exposure conditions 

for animals involved in stranding 

events; (2) pathological interpretation of 

observed lesions in stranded marine 

mammals; (3) acoustic exposure 

conditions required to induce such 

physical trauma directly; (4) whether 

noise exposure may cause behavioral 

reactions (such as atypical diving 

behavior) that secondarily cause bubble 

formation and tissue damage; and (5) 

the extent the post mortem artifacts 

introduced by decomposition before 

sampling, handling, freezing, or 

necropsy procedures affect 

interpretation of observed lesions. 

During AFAST exercises there will be 

use of multiple sonar units in areas 

where six species of beaked whale 

species may be present. A surface duct 

may be present in a limited area for a 

limited period of time. Although most of 

the ASW training events will take place 

in the deep ocean, some will occur in 

areas of high bathymetric relief. 

However, none of the training events 

will take place in a location having a 

constricted channel with limited egress 

similar to the Bahamas (because none 

exist in the AFAST Study Area). 

Consequently, not all five of the 

environmental factors believed to 

contribute to the Bahamas stranding 

(mid-frequency sonar, beaked whale 

presence, surface ducts, steep 

bathymetry, and constricted channels 

with limited egress) will be present 

during AFAST exercises. However, as 

mentioned previously, NMFS 

recommends caution when steep 

bathymetry, surface ducting conditions, 

or a constricted channel is present when 

mid-frequency tactical sonar is 

employed and cetaceans (especially 

beaked whales) are present. 

IEER (Underwater Detonation of Small 

Explosive Charges) 

IEER includes the underwater 

detonation of small (4.1 lb) charges. 

Underwater detonations send a shock 

wave and blast noise through the water 

and can release gaseous by-products, 

create an oscillating bubble, or cause a 

plume of water to shoot up from the 

water surface (IEER charges do not 

cause a plume because of their relatively 

small size). The shock wave and 

accompanying noise are of most concern 

to marine animals. Depending on the 

intensity of the shock wave and size, 

location, and depth of the animal, an 

animal can be injured, killed, suffer 

non-lethal physical effects, experience 

hearing related effects with or without 

behavioral responses, or exhibit 

temporary behavioral responses or 

tolerance from hearing the blast sound. 

Generally, exposures to higher levels of 

impulse and pressure levels would 

result in greater impacts to an 

individual animal. Animals would need 

to be very close to the smaller 

explosives used in the IEER exercises to 

be exposed to levels of pressure or 

sound that would likely result in the 

more severe effects discussed here. 

Injuries resulting from a shock wave 

take place at boundaries between tissues 

of different densities. Different 

velocities are imparted to tissues of 

different densities, and this can lead to 

their physical disruption. Blast effects 

are greatest at the gas-liquid interface 

(Landsberg, 2000). Gas-containing 

organs, particularly the lungs and 

gastrointestinal tract, are especially 

susceptible (Goertner, 1982; Hill, 1978; 

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

sacs, larynx, pharynx, trachea, and 

lungs may be damaged by compression/ 

expansion caused by the oscillations of 

the blast gas bubble (Reidenberg and 

Laitman, 2003). Intestinal walls can 

bruise or rupture, with subsequent 

hemorrhage and escape of gut contents 

into the body cavity. Less severe 

gastrointestinal tract injuries include 

contusions, petechiae (small red or 

purple spots caused by bleeding in the 

skin), and slight hemorrhaging 

(Yelverton et al., 1973). 

Because the ears are the most 

sensitive to pressure, they are the organs 

most sensitive to injury (Ketten, 2000). 

Sound-related damage associated with 

blast noise can be theoretically distinct 

from injury from the shock wave, 

particularly farther from the explosion. 

If an animal is able to hear a noise, at 

some level it can damage its hearing by 

causing decreased sensitivity (Ketten, 

1995) (See Noise-induced Threshold 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60781 

Shift Section above). Sound-related 

trauma can be lethal or sublethal. Lethal 

impacts are those that result in 

immediate death or serious debilitation 

in or near an intense source and are not, 

technically, pure acoustic trauma 

(Ketten, 1995). Sublethal impacts 

include hearing loss, which is caused by 

exposures to perceptible sounds. Severe 

damage (from the shock wave) to the 

ears includes tympanic membrane 

rupture, fracture of the ossicles, damage 

to the cochlea, hemorrhage, and 

cerebrospinal fluid leakage into the 

middle ear. Moderate injury implies 

partial hearing loss due to tympanic 

membrane rupture and blood in the 

middle ear. Permanent hearing loss also 

can occur when the hair cells are 

damaged by one very loud event, as well 

as by prolonged exposure to a loud 

noise or chronic exposure to noise. The 

level of impact from blasts depends on 

both an animal’s location and, at outer 

zones, on its sensitivity to the residual 

noise (Ketten, 1995). 

There have been fewer studies 

addressing the behavioral effects of 

explosives on marine mammals than 

MFAS/HFAS. However, though the 

nature of the sound waves emitted from 

an explosion are different (in shape and 

rise time) from MFAS/HFAS, we still 

anticipate the same sorts of behavioral 

responses (see Exposure to MFAS/ 

HFAS: Behavioral Disturbance Section) 

to result from repeated explosive 

detonations (a smaller range of likely 

less severe responses (i.e., not rising to 

the level of MMPA harassment) would 

be expected to occur as a result of 

exposure to a single explosive 

detonation that was not powerful 

enough or close enough to the animal to 

cause TTS or injury). 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an incidental take 

authorization (ITA) under Section 

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

set forth the ‘‘permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to such activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact on such 

species or stock and its habitat, paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 

grounds, and areas of similar 

significance.’’ The NDAA of 2004 

amended the MMPA as it relates to 

military readiness activities and the 

incidental take authorization process 

such that ‘‘least practicable adverse 

impact’’ shall include consideration of 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the ‘‘military readiness 

activity’’. The training activities 

described in the AFAST application are 

considered military readiness activities. 

NMFS reviewed the proposed AFAST 

activities and the proposed AFAST 

mitigation measures presented in the 

Navy’s application to determine 

whether the activities and mitigation 

measures were capable of achieving the 

least practicable adverse effect on 

marine mammals. NMFS determined 

that further discussion was necessary 

regarding: (1) general minimization of 

marine mammal impacts; (2) 

minimization of impacts within the 

southeastern NARW critical habitat; and 

(3) the potential relationship between 

the operation of MFAS/HFAS and 

marine mammal strandings. NMFS 

worked with the Navy to identify 

additional practicable and effective 

mitigation measures, which included a 

careful balancing of the likely benefit of 

any particular measure to the marine 

mammals with the likely effect of that 

measure on personnel safety, 

practicality of implementation, and 

impact on the ‘‘military readiness 

activity’’. 

NMFS and the Navy developed 

additional mitigation measures that 

address the concerns mentioned above, 

including the development of Planning 

Awareness Areas (PAAs), additional 

minimization of impacts in the 

southeastern NARW critical habitat, and 

a Stranding Response Plan. Included 

below are the mitigation measures the 

Navy initially proposed (see ‘‘Mitigation 

Measures Proposed in the Navy’s LOA 

Application’’) and the additional 

measures that NMFS and the Navy 

developed (see ‘‘Additional Measures 

Developed by NMFS and the Navy’’ 

below). 

Separately, NMFS has previously 

received comments from the public 

expressing concerns regarding potential 

delays between when marine mammals 

are visually detected by watchstanders 

and when the tactical sonar is actually 

powered or shut down. NMFS and the 

Navy have discussed this issue and 

determined the following: Naval 

operators and lookouts are aware of the 

potential for a very small delay (up to 

about 4 seconds) between detecting a 

marine mammal and powering down or 

shutting down the tactical sonar and 

will take the actions necessary to ensure 

that sonar is powered down or shut 

down when detected animals are within 

the specified powerdown or shutdown 

zone (for example, by initiating 

shutdown when animals are 

approaching, but not quite within the 

designated distance). 

Mitigation Measures Proposed in the 

Navy’s LOA Application 

This section includes the protective 

measures proposed by the Navy and is 

taken directly from their application 

(with the exception of headings, which 

have been modified for increased clarity 

within the context of this proposed 

rule). 

Navy’s Protective Measures for MFAS/ 

HFAS 

Current protective measures 

employed by the Navy include 

applicable training of personnel and 

implementation of activity specific 

procedures resulting in minimization 

and/or avoidance of interactions with 

protected resources. 

Navy shipboard lookout(s) are highly 

qualified and experienced marine 

observers. At all times, the shipboard 

lookouts are required to sight and 

report, to the Officer of the Deck, all 

objects found in the water. Objects (e.g., 

trash, periscope) or disturbances (e.g., 

surface disturbance, discoloration) in 

the water may indicate a threat to the 

vessel and its crew. Navy lookouts 

undergo extensive training to qualify as 

a watchstander. This training includes 

on-the-job instruction under the 

supervision of an experienced 

watchstander, followed by completion 

of the Personal Qualification Standard 

(PQS) program, certifying that they have 

demonstrated the necessary skills to 

detect and report partially submerged 

objects. In addition to these 

requirements, many watchstanders 

periodically undergo a two-day 

refresher training course. 

For the past few years, the Navy has 

implemented marine mammal spotter 

training for its bridge lookout personnel 

on ships and submarines. This training 

has been revamped and updated as the 

Marine Species Awareness Training 

(MSAT) and is provided to all 

applicable units. The lookout training 

program incorporates MSAT, which 

addresses the lookout’s role in 

environmental protection, laws 

governing the protection of marine 

species, Navy stewardship 

commitments, and general observation 

information including more detailed 

information for spotting marine 

mammals. MSAT has been reviewed by 

NMFS and acknowledged as suitable 

training. MSAT would also be provided 

to the following personnel: 

• Bridge personnel on ships and 

submarines—Personnel would continue 

to use the current marine mammal 

spotting training and any updates. 

• Aviation units—Pilots and air crew 

personnel whose airborne duties during 

ASW training activities include 

searching for submarine periscopes 

would be trained in marine mammal 

spotting. These personnel would also be 

trained on the details of the mitigation 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60782 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

measures specific to both their platform 

and that of the surface combatants with 

which they are associated. 

• Sonar personnel on ships, 

submarines, and ASW aircraft—Both 

passive and active sonar operators on 

ships, submarines, and aircraft utilize 

protective measures relative to their 

platform. The Navy issues a Letter of 

Instruction for each Major Exercise 

which mandates specific actions to be 

taken if a marine mammal is detected, 

and these actions are standard operating 

procedure throughout the exercise. 

The following procedures would be 

implemented to maximize the ability of 

operators to recognize instances when 

marine mammals are in the vicinity. 

Personnel Training 

(a) All lookouts onboard platforms 

involved in ASW training events will 

review the NMFS-approved MSAT 

material prior to use of active sonar. 

(b) All Commanding Officers, 

Executive Officers, and officers standing 

watch on the bridge will have reviewed 

the MSAT material prior to a training 

event employing the use of MFAS. 

(c) Navy lookouts will undertake 

extensive training in order to qualify as 

a watchstander in accordance with the 

Lookout Training Handbook 

(NAVEDTRA, 12968–D). 

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

supervision of a qualified, experienced 

watchstander. Following successful 

completion of this supervised training 

period, lookouts will complete the 

Personal Qualification Standard 

program, certifying that they have 

demonstrated the necessary skills (such 

as detection and reporting of partially 

submerged objects). This does not forbid 

personnel being trained as lookouts 

from being counted as those listed in 

previous measures so long as 

supervisors monitor their progress and 

performance. 

(e) Lookouts would be trained to 

quickly and effectively communicate 

within the command structure in order 

to facilitate implementation of 

protective measures if marine species 

are spotted. 

Lookout and Watchstander 

Responsibilities 

(a) On the bridge of surface ships, 

there will always be at least three 

people on watch whose duties include 

observing the water surface around the 

vessel. 

(b) All surface ships participating in 

ASW exercises will, in addition to the 

three personnel on watch noted 

previously, have at all times during the 

exercise at least two additional 

personnel on watch as lookouts. 

(c) Personnel on lookout and officers 

on watch on the bridge will have at least 

one set of binoculars available for each 

person to aid in the detection of marine 

mammals. 

(d) On surface vessels equipped with 

mid-frequency active sonar, pedestal 

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

will be present and in good working 

order to assist in the detection of marine 

mammals in the vicinity of the vessel. 

(e) Personnel on lookout will employ 

visual search procedures employing a 

scanning methodology in accordance 

with the Lookout Training Handbook 

(NAVEDTRA 12968–D). 

(f) Surface lookouts would scan the 

water from the ship to the horizon and 

be responsible for all contacts in their 

sector. In searching the assigned sector, 

the lookout would always start at the 

forward part of the sector and search aft 

(toward the back). To search and scan, 

the lookout would hold the binoculars 

steady so the horizon is in the top third 

of the field of vision and direct the eyes 

just below the horizon. The lookout 

would scan for approximately five 

seconds in as many small steps as 

possible across the field seen through 

the binoculars. They would search the 

entire sector in approximately fivedegree steps, pausing between steps for 

approximately five seconds to scan the 

field of view. At the end of the sector 

search, the glasses would be lowered to 

allow the eyes to rest for a few seconds, 

and then the lookout would search back 

across the sector with the naked eye. 

(g) After sunset and prior to sunrise, 

lookouts will employ Night Lookouts 

Techniques in accordance with the 

Lookout Training Handbook. 

(h) At night, lookouts would not 

sweep the horizon with their eyes 

because eyes do not see well when they 

are moving. Lookouts would scan the 

horizon in a series of movements that 

would allow their eyes to come to 

periodic rests as they scan the sector. 

When visually searching at night, they 

would look a little to one side and out 

of the corners of their eyes, paying 

attention to the things on the outer 

edges of their field of vision. 

(i) Personnel on lookout will be 

responsible for informing the Officer of 

the Deck of all objects or anomalies 

sighted in the water (regardless of the 

distance from the vessel), since any 

object or disturbance (e.g., trash, 

periscope, surface disturbance, 

discoloration) in the water may be 

indicative of a threat to the vessel and 

its crew or indicative of a marine 

species that may need to be avoided as 

warranted. 

Operating Procedures 

(a) Commanding Officers will make 

use of marine species detection cues 

and information to limit interaction 

with marine species to the maximum 

extent possible consistent with safety of 

the ship. 

(b) All personnel engaged in passive 

acoustic sonar operation (including 

aircraft, surface ships, or submarines) 

will monitor for marine mammal 

vocalizations and report the detection of 

any marine mammal to the appropriate 

watch station for dissemination and 

appropriate action. The Navy can detect 

sounds within the human hearing range 

due to an operator listening to the 

incoming sounds. Passive acoustic 

detection systems are used during all 

ASW activities. 

(c) Units shall use trained lookouts to 

survey for marine mammals prior to 

commencement and during the use of 

active sonar. 

(d) During operations involving sonar, 

personnel will utilize all available 

sensor and optical systems (such as 

Night Vision Goggles) to aid in the 

detection of marine mammals. 

(e) Navy aircraft participating in 

exercises at sea will conduct and 

maintain, when operationally feasible 

and safe, surveillance for marine species 

of concern as long as it does not violate 

safety constraints or interfere with the 

accomplishment of primary operational 

duties. 

(f) Aircraft with deployed sonobuoys 

will use only the passive capability of 

sonobuoys when marine mammals are 

detected within 200 yards (183 m) of the 

sonobuoy. 

(g) Marine mammal detections will be 

immediately reported to assigned 

Aircraft Control Unit (if participating) 

for further dissemination to ships in the 

vicinity of the marine species. This 

action would occur when it is 

reasonable to conclude that the course 

of the ship will likely close the distance 

between the ship and the detected 

marine mammal. 

(h) Safety Zones—When marine 

mammals are detected by any means 

(aircraft, shipboard lookout, or 

acoustically) the Navy will ensure that 

sonar transmission levels are limited to 

at least 6 dB below normal operating 

levels if any detected marine mammals 

are within 1000 yards (914 m) of the 

sonar dome (the bow). 

(i) Ships and submarines will 

continue to limit maximum 

transmission levels by this 6-dB factor 

until the marine mammal has been seen 

to leave the area, has not been detected 

for 30 minutes, or the vessel has 

transited more than 2,000 yards (1828 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60783 

m) beyond the location of the last 

detection. 

(ii) Should a marine mammal be 

detected within or closing to inside 457 

m (500 yd) of the sonar dome, active 

sonar transmissions would be limited to 

at least 10 dB below the equipment’s 

normal operating level. Ships and 

submarines will continue to limit 

maximum ping levels by this 10-dB 

factor until the marine mammal has 

been seen to leave the area, has not been 

detected for 30 minutes, or the vessel 

has transited more than 2000 yards 

(1828 m) beyond the location of the last 

detection. 

(iii) Should the marine mammal be 

detected within or closing to inside 183 

m (200 yd) of the sonar dome, active 

sonar transmissions would cease. Sonar 

will not resume until the marine 

mammal has been seen to leave the area, 

has not been detected for 30 minutes, or 

the vessel has transited more than 2,000 

yards (1828 m) beyond the location of 

the last detection. 

(iv) If the need for power-down 

should arise as detailed in ‘‘Safety 

Zones’’ above, Navy shall follow the 

requirements as though they were 

operating at 235 dB—the normal 

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

what level above 235 sonar was being 

operated). 

(i) Prior to start up or restart of active 

sonar, operators will check that the 

Safety Zone radius around the sound 

source is clear of marine mammals. 

(j) Sonar levels (generally)—Navy will 

operate active sonar at the lowest 

practicable level, not to exceed 235 dB, 

except as required to meet tactical 

training objectives. 

(k) Helicopters shall observe/survey 

the vicinity of an ASW Operation for 10 

minutes before the first deployment of 

active (dipping) sonar in the water. 

(l) Helicopters shall not dip their 

active sonar within 200 yards (183 m) of 

a marine mammal and shall cease 

pinging if a marine mammal closes 

within 200 yards (183 m) after pinging 

has begun. 

(m) Submarine sonar operators will 

review detection indicators of closeaboard marine mammals prior to the 

commencement of ASW training 

activities involving active MFAS. 

(n) If, after conducting an initial 

maneuver to avoid close quarters with 

dolphins, the ship concludes that 

dolphins are deliberately closing in on 

the ship to ride the vessel’s bow wave, 

no further mitigation actions would be 

necessary because dolphins are out of 

the main transmission axis of the active 

sonar while in the shallow-wave area of 

the vessel bow. 

Additional Mitigation for TORPEXs in 

the Northeast NARW Critical Habitat 

TORPEXs in locations other than the 

Northeast will utilize the measures 

described above. TORPEXs conducted 

in the five TORPEX training areas off of 

Cape Cod, which may occur in right 

whale critical habitat, will implement 

the following measures. 

(a) All torpedo-firing operations shall 

take place during daylight hours. 

(b) During the conduct of each test, 

visual surveys of the test area shall be 

conducted by all vessels and aircraft 

involved in the exercise to detect the 

presence of marine mammals. 

Additionally, trained observers shall be 

placed on the submarine, spotter 

aircraft, and the surface support vessel. 

All participants will be required to 

report sightings of any marine 

mammals, including negative reports, 

prior to torpedo firings. Reporting 

requirements will be outlined in the test 

plans and procedures written for each 

individual exercise, and will be 

emphasized as part of pre-exercise 

briefings conducted with all 

participants. 

(c) Observers shall receive NMFSapproved training in field identification, 

distribution, and relevant behaviors of 

marine mammals of the western north 

Atlantic. Currently, this training is 

provided by a professor at the 

University of Rhode Island, Graduate 

School of Oceanography. Observers 

shall fill out Standard Sighting Forms 

and the data will be housed at the Naval 

Undersea Warfare Center Division 

Newport (NUWCDIVNPT). Any 

sightings of North Atlantic right whales 

shall be immediately communicated to 

the Sighting Advisory System (SAS). All 

platforms shall have onboard a copy of 

• The Guide to Marine Mammals and 

Turtles of the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico (Wynne and Schwartz 1999). 

• The NMFS Critical Sightings 

Program placard. 

• Right Whales, Guidelines to 

Mariners placard. 

(d) In addition to the visual 

surveillance discussed above, dedicated 

aerial surveys shall be conducted 

utilizing a fixed-wing aircraft. An 

aircraft with an overhead wing (i.e., 

Cessna Skymaster or similar) will be 

used to facilitate a clear view of the test 

area. Two trained observers, in addition 

to the pilot, shall be embarked on the 

aircraft. Surveys will be conducted at an 

approximate altitude of 1000 ft (305 m) 

flying parallel track lines at a separation 

of 1 nmi (1.85 km), or as necessary to 

facilitate good visual coverage of the sea 

surface. While conducting surveillance, 

the aircraft shall maintain an 

approximate speed of 100 knots (185 

km/hr). Since factors that affect 

visibility are highly dependent on the 

specific time of day of the survey, the 

flight operator will have the flexibility 

to adjust the flight pattern to reduce 

glare and improve visibility. The entire 

test site will be surveyed initially, but 

once preparations are being made for an 

actual test launch, survey effort will be 

concentrated over the vicinity of the 

individual test location. Further, for 

approximately ten minutes immediately 

prior to launch, the aircraft will 

racetrack back and forth between the 

launch vessel and the target vessel. 

(e) Commencement of an individual 

torpedo test scenario shall not occur 

until observers from all vessels and 

aircraft involved in the exercise have 

reported to the Officer in Tactical 

Command (OTC) and the OTC has 

declared that the range is clear of 

marine mammals. Should protected 

animals be present within or seen 

moving toward the test area, the test 

shall be either delayed or moved as 

required to avoid interference with the 

animals. 

(f) The TORPEX will be suspended if 

the Beaufort Sea State exceeds 3 or if 

visibility precludes safe operations. 

(g) Vessel speeds: 

• During transit through the North 

Atlantic right whale critical habitat, 

surface vessels and submarines shall 

maintain a speed of no more than 10 

knots (19 km/hr) while not actively 

engaged in the exercise procedures. 

• During TORPEX operations, a firing 

vessel will likely not exceed 10 knots. 

When a submarine is used as a target, 

vessel speeds would not likely exceed 

18 knots. However, on occasion, when 

surface vessels are used as targets, the 

vessel may exceed 18 kts in order to 

fully test the functionality of the 

torpedoes. This increased speed would 

occur for a short period of time (e.g., 10– 

15 minutes) to evade the torpedo when 

fired upon. 

(h) In the event of an animal strike, or 

if an animal is discovered that appears 

to be in distress, a report will 

immediately be promulgated through 

the appropriate Navy chain of 

Command (see Stranding Plan for 

additional details). 

Potential Mitigation Under Development 

The Navy is working to develop the 

capability to detect, identify, and 

localize vocalizing marine mammals 

using the installed sensors. Based on the 

current status of acoustic monitoring 

science, it is not yet possible to use 

installed systems as a mitigation tools; 

however, as this science develops, it 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60784 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

will be incorporated into the AFAST 

mitigation plan as appropriate. 

The Navy is also actively engaged in 

acoustic monitoring research involving 

a variety of methodologies (e.g., 

underwater gliders); to date, none of the 

methodologies have been developed to 

the point where they could be used as 

an actual mitigation tool. The Navy will 

continue to coordinate passive 

monitoring and detection research 

specific to the proposed use of active 

sonar. As technology and methodologies 

become available, their applicability 

and viability will be evaluated for 

incorporation into this mitigation plan. 

Navy’s Protective Measures for IEER 

(a) Crews will conduct visual 

reconnaissance of the drop area prior to 

laying their intended sonobuoy pattern. 

This search should be conducted below 

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

operationally feasible and weather 

conditions permit. In dual aircraft 

training activities, crews are allowed to 

conduct coordinated area clearances. 

(b) Crews shall conduct a minimum of 

30 minutes of visual and acoustic 

monitoring of the search area prior to 

commanding the first post detonation. 

This 30-minute observation period may 

include pattern deployment time. 

(c) For any part of the briefed pattern 

where a post (source/receiver sonobuoy 

pair) will be deployed within 1,000 

yards (914 m) of observed marine 

mammal activity, deploy the receiver 

ONLY and monitor while conducting a 

visual search. When marine mammals 

are no longer detected within 1,000 

yards (914 m) of the intended post 

position, co-locate the explosive source 

sonobuoy (AN/SSQ–110A) (source) with 

the receiver. 

(d) When able, crews will conduct 

continuous visual and aural monitoring 

of marine mammal activity. This is to 

include monitoring of own-aircraft 

sensors from first sensor placement to 

checking off station and out of 

communication range of these sensors. 

(e) Aural Detection: If the presence of 

marine mammals is detected aurally, 

then that should cue the aircrew to 

increase the diligence of their visual 

surveillance. Subsequently, if no marine 

mammals are visually detected, then the 

crew may continue multi-static active 

search. 

(f) Visual Detection: If marine 

mammals are visually detected within 

1,000 yards (914 m) of the explosive 

source sonobuoy (AN/SSQ–110A) 

intended for use, then that payload shall 

not be detonated. Aircrews may utilize 

this post once the marine mammals 

have not been re-sighted for 30 minutes, 

or are observed to have moved outside 

the 1,000 yards (914 m) safety buffer. 

Aircrews may also shift their multistatic active search to another post, 

where marine mammals are outside the 

1,000 yards (914 m) safety buffer. 

(g) Aircrews shall make every attempt 

to manually detonate the unexploded 

charges at each post in the pattern prior 

to departing the operations area by 

using the ‘‘Payload 1 Release’’ command 

followed by the ‘‘Payload 2 Release’’ 

command. Aircrews shall refrain from 

using the ‘‘Scuttle’’ command when two 

payloads remain at a given post. 

Aircrews will ensure that a 1,000 yard 

(914 m) safety buffer, visually clear of 

marine mammals, is maintained around 

each post as is done during active 

search operations. 

(h) Aircrews shall only leave posts 

with unexploded charges in the event of 

a sonobuoy malfunction, an aircraft 

system malfunction, or when an aircraft 

must immediately depart the area due to 

issues such as fuel constraints, 

inclement weather, and in-flight 

emergencies. In these cases, the 

sonobuoy will self-scuttle using the 

secondary or tertiary method. 

(i) Ensure all payloads are accounted 

for. Explosive source sonobuoys (AN/ 

SSQ–110A) that cannot be scuttled shall 

be reported as unexploded ordnance via 

voice communications while airborne, 

then upon landing via naval message. 

(j) Marine mammal monitoring shall 

continue until out of own-aircraft sensor 

range. 

Mitigation Measures Related to Vessel 

Transit and North Atlantic Right 

Whales 

Mid-Atlantic, Offshore of the Eastern 

United States 

For purposes of these measures, the 

Mid-Atlantic is defined broadly to 

include ports south and east of Block 

Island Sound southward to South 

Carolina. The procedure described 

below would be established as 

mitigation measures for Navy vessel 

transits during North Atlantic right 

whale migratory seasons near ports 

located off the western North Atlantic, 

offshore of the eastern United States. 

The mitigation measures would apply to 

all Navy vessel transits, including those 

vessels that would transit to and from 

East Coast ports and OPAREAs. 

Seasonal migration of right whales is 

generally described as occurring from 

October 15 through April 30, when right 

whales migrate between feeding 

grounds farther north and calving 

grounds farther south. 

NMFS has identified ports located in 

the western Atlantic Ocean, offshore of 

the southeastern United States, where 

vessel transit during right whale 

migration is of highest concern for 

potential ship strike. The ports include 

the Hampton Roads entrance to the 

Chesapeake Bay, which includes the 

concentration of Atlantic Fleet vessels 

in Norfolk, Virginia. Navy vessels are 

required to use extreme caution and 

operate at a slow, safe speed consistent 

with mission and safety during the 

months indicated in Table 6 and within 

a 37 km (20 NM) arc (except as noted) 

of the specified reference points. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP14OC08.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60785 

During the indicated months, Navy 

vessels would practice increased 

vigilance with respect to avoidance of 

vessel-whale interactions along the midAtlantic coast, including transits to and 

from any mid-Atlantic ports not 

specifically identified above. All surface 

units transiting within 56 km (30 NM) 

of the coast in the mid-Atlantic would 

ensure at least two watchstanders are 

posted, including at least one lookout 

that has completed required MSAT 

training. Furthermore, Navy vessels 

would not knowingly approach any 

whale head on and would maneuver to 

keep at least 457 m (1,500 ft) away from 

any observed whale, consistent with 

vessel safety. 

Southeast Atlantic, Offshore of the 

Eastern United States 

For purposes of these measures, the 

southeast encompasses sea space from 

Charleston, South Carolina, southward 

to Sebastian Inlet, Florida, and from the 

coast seaward to 148 km (80 NM) from 

shore. The mitigation measures 

described in this section were 

developed specifically to protect the 

North Atlantic right whale during its 

calving season (Typically from 

December 1st through March 31st). 

During this period, North Atlantic right 

whales give birth and nurse their calves 

in and around a federally designated 

critical habitat off the coast of Georgia 

and Florida. This critical habitat is the 

area from 31–15N to 30–15N extending 

from the coast out to 28 km (15 NM), 

and the area from 28–00N to 30–15N 

from the coast out to 9 km (5 NM). All 

mitigation measures that apply to the 

critical habitat also apply to an 

associated area of concern which 

extends 9 km (5 NM) seaward of the 

designated critical boundaries. 

Prior to transiting or training in the 

critical habitat or associated area of 

concern, ships will contact Fleet Area 

Control and Surveillance Facility, 

Jacksonville, to obtain latest whale 

sighting and other information needed 

to make informed decisions regarding 

safe speed and path of intended 

movement. Subs shall contact 

Commander, Submarine Group Ten for 

similar information. 

Specific mitigation measures related 

to activities occurring within the critical 

habitat or associated area of concern 

include the following: 

• When transiting within the critical 

habitat or associated area of concern, 

vessels will exercise extreme caution 

and proceed at a slow safe speed. The 

speed will be the slowest safe speed that 

is consistent with mission, training and 

operations. 

• Speed reductions (adjustments) are 

required when a whale is sighted by a 

vessel or when the vessel is within 9 km 

(5 NM) of a reported new sighting less 

then 12 hours old. 

• Additionally, circumstances could 

arise where, in order to avoid North 

Atlantic right whale(s), speed 

reductions could mean vessel must 

reduce speed to a minimum at which it 

can safely keep on course or vessels 

could come to an all stop. 

• Vessels will avoid head-on 

approaches to North Atlantic right 

whale(s) and will maneuver to maintain 

at least 457 m (500 yd) of separation 

from any observed whale if deemed safe 

to do so. These requirements do not 

apply if a vessel’s safety is threatened, 

such as when change of course would 

create an imminent and serious threat to 

person, vessel, or aircraft, and to the 

extent vessels are restricted in the 

ability to maneuver. 

• Ships shall not transit through the 

critical habitat or associated area of 

concern in a North-South direction. 

• Ship, surfaced submarines, and 

aircraft will report any whale sightings 

to Fleet Area Control and Surveillance 

Facility, Jacksonville, by most 

convenient and fast means. Sighting 

report will include the time, latitude/ 

longitude, direction of movement and 

number and description of whale (i.e., 

adult/calf). 

Northeast Atlantic, Offshore of the 

Eastern United States 

Prior to transiting the Great South 

Channel or Cape Cod Bay critical habitat 

areas, ships will obtain the latest right 

whale sightings and other information 

needed to make informed decisions 

regarding safe speed. The Great South 

Channel critical habitat is defined by 

the following coordinates: 41–00 N, 69– 

05 W; 41–45 N, 69–45 W; 42–10 N, 68– 

31 W; 41–38 N, 68–13 W. The Cape Cod 

Bay critical habitat is defined by the 

following coordinates: 42–04.8 N, 70–10 

W; 42–12 N, 70–15 W; 42–12 N, 70–30 

W; 41–46.8 N, 70–30 W. 

Ships, surfaced subs, and aircraft will 

report any North Atlantic right whale 

sightings (if the whale is identifiable as 

a right whale) off the northeastern U.S. 

to Patrol and Reconnaissance Wing 

(COMPATRECONWING). The report 

will include the time of sighting, lat/ 

long, direction of movement (if 

apparent) and number and description 

of the whale(s). In addition, vessels or 

aircraft that observe whale carcasses 

will record the location and time of the 

sighting and report this information as 

soon as possible to the cognizant 

regional environmental coordinator. All 

whale strikes must be reported. Report 

will include the date, time, and location 

of the strike; vessel course and speed; 

operations being conducted by the 

vessel; weather conditions, visibility, 

and sea state; description of the whale; 

narrative of incident; and indication of 

whether photos/videos were taken. 

Units are encouraged to take photos 

whenever possible. See AFAST 

Stranding Plan for additional detail. 

Specific mitigation measures related 

to activities occurring within the critical 

habitat or associated area of concern 

include the following: 

• Vessels will avoid head-on 

approaches to North Atlantic right 

whale(s) and will maneuver to maintain 

at least 457 m (500 yd) of separation 

from any observed whale if deemed safe 

to do so. These requirements do not 

apply if a vessel’s safety is threatened, 

such as when change of course would 

create an imminent and serious threat to 

person, vessel, or aircraft, and to the 

extent vessels are restricted in the 

ability to maneuver. 

• When transiting within the critical 

habitat or associated area of concern, 

vessels shall use extreme caution and 

operate at a safe speed so as to be able 

to avoid collisions with North Atlantic 

right whales and other marine 

mammals, and stop within a distance 

appropriate to the circumstances and 

conditions. 

• Speed reductions (adjustments) are 

required when a whale is sighted by a 

vessel or when the vessel is within 9 km 

(5 NM) of a reported new sighting less 

than one week old. 

• Ships transiting in the Cape Cod 

Bay and Great South Channel critical 

habitats will obtain information on 

recent whale sightings in the vicinity of 

the critical habitat. Any vessel operating 

in the vicinity of a North Atlantic right 

whale shall consider additional speed 

reductions as per Rule 6 of International 

Navigational Rules. 

Additional Mitigation Measures 

Developed by NMFS and the Navy 

As mentioned above, NMFS worked 

with the Navy to identify additional 

practicable and effective mitigation 

measures to address the following two 

issues of concern: (1) General 

minimization of marine mammal 

impacts; (2) minimization of impacts 

within the southeastern NARW critical 

habitat; and (3) the potential 

relationship between the operation of 

MFAS/HFAS and marine mammal 

strandings. Any mitigation measure(s) 

prescribed by NMFS should be able to 

accomplish, have a reasonable 

likelihood of accomplishing (based on 

current science), or contribute to the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60786 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

accomplishment of one or more of the 

general goals listed below: 

(a) Avoidance or minimization of 

injury or death of marine mammals 

wherever possible (goals b, c, and d may 

contribute to this goal). 

(b) A reduction in the numbers of 

marine mammals (total number or 

number at biologically important time 

or location) exposed to received levels 

of MFAS/HFAS, underwater 

detonations, or other activities expected 

to result in the take of marine mammals 

(this goal may contribute to a, above, or 

to reducing harassment takes only). 

(c) A reduction in the number of times 

(total number or number at biologically 

important time or location) individuals 

would be exposed to received levels of 

MFAS/HFAS, underwater detonations, 

or other activities expected to result in 

the take of marine mammals (this goal 

may contribute to a, above, or to 

reducing harassment takes only). 

(d) A reduction in the intensity of 

exposures (either total number or 

number at biologically important time 

or location) to received levels of MFAS/ 

HFAS, underwater detonations, or other 

activities expected to result in the take 

of marine mammals (this goal may 

contribute to a, above, or to reducing the 

severity of harassment takes only). 

(e) A reduction in adverse effects to 

marine mammal habitat, paying special 

attention to the food base, activities that 

block or limit passage to or from 

biologically important areas, permanent 

destruction of habitat, or temporary 

destruction/disturbance of habitat 

during a biologically important time. 

(f) For monitoring directly related to 

mitigation—an increase in the 

probability of detecting marine 

mammals, thus allowing for more 

effective implementation of the 

mitigation (shut-down zone, etc.). 

NMFS and the Navy had extensive 

discussions regarding mitigation, in 

which we explored several mitigation 

options and their respective 

practicability. Ultimately, NMFS and 

the Navy developed the measures listed 

below, which we believe support (or 

contribute) to the goals mentioned in a– 

e above. 

Planning Awareness Areas 

The Navy has designated several 

Planning Awareness Areas (PAAs) (see 

Figure 2) based on areas of high 

productivity that have been correlated 

with high concentrations of marine 

mammals (such as persistent 

oceanographic features like upwellings 

associated with the Gulf Stream front 

where it is deflected off the east coast 

near the Outer Banks), and areas of 

steep bathymetric contours that are 

frequented by deep diving marine 

mammals such as beaked whales and 

sperm whales. In developing the PAAs, 

U.S. Fleet Forces (USFF) was able to 

consider these factors because of 

geographic flexibility in conducting 

ASW training. USFF is not tied to a 

specific range support structure for the 

majority of the training for AFAST. 

Additionally, the topography and 

bathymetry along the East Coast and in 

the Gulf of Mexico is unique in that 

there is a wide continental shelf leading 

to the shelf break affording a wider 

range of training opportunities. 

• The Navy proposes to avoid 

planning major exercises in the 

specified planning awareness areas 

(yellow areas on map). Should national 

security require the conduct of more 

than four major exercises (COMPTUEX, 

JTFEX, SEASWITI, or similar scale 

event) in these areas (meaning all or a 

portion of the exercise) per year the 

Navy would provide NMFS with prior 

notification and include the information 

in any associated after-action or 

monitoring reports. 

• To the extent operationally feasible, 

the Navy plans to conduct no more than 

one of the four above-mentioned major 

exercises (COMPTUEX, JTFEX, 

SEASWITI or similar scale event) per 

year in the Gulf of Mexico. Based on 

operational requirements, the exercise 

area for this one exercise may include 

the De Soto Canyon. If national security 

needs require more than one major 

exercise to be conducted in the PAAs, 

which includes portions of the DeSoto 

Canyon, the Navy would provide NMFS 

with prior notification and include the 

information in any associated afteraction or monitoring reports. 

• The PAAs identified on the 

attached figure will be included in the 

Navy’s Protective Measures Assessment 

Protocol (PMAP) (implemented by the 

Navy for use in the protection of the 

marine environment) for unit level 

situational awareness (i.e., exercises 

other than COMPTUEX, JTFEX, 

SEASWITI). The goal of PMAP is to 

raise awareness in the fleet and ensure 

common sense and informed oversight 

are injected into planning processes for 

testing and training evolutions. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60787 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP14OC08.009</GPH>
60788 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Helicopter Dipping Sonar in NARW 

Critical Habitat 

Helicopter Dipping Sonar is one of the 

two activity types that has been 

identified as planned to occur in the 

southern North Atlantic right whale 

(NARW) critical habitat. Historically, 

only maintenance of helicopter dipping 

sonars occurs within a portion of the 

NARW critical habitat. Tactical training 

with helicopter dipping sonar does not 

typically occur in the NARW critical 

habitat area at any time of the year. The 

critical habitat area is used on occasion 

for post maintenance operational checks 

and equipment testing due to its 

proximity to shore. Unless otherwise 

dictated by national security needs, the 

Navy will minimize helicopter dipping 

sonar maintenance within the SE right 

whale critical habitat from November 

15–April 15. 

Object Detection Exercises in NARW 

Critical Habitat 

Object detection training 

requirements are another type of activity 

that have been identified as planned to 

occur in the southern North Atlantic 

right whale (NARW) critical habitat. The 

Navy recognizes the significance of the 

NARW calving area and has explored 

ways of affecting the least practicable 

impact (which includes a consideration 

of practicality of implementation and 

impacts to training fidelity) to right 

whales. Navy units will incorporate data 

from the Early Warning System (EWS) 

into exercise pre-planning efforts. As 

NMFS is aware, USFF contributes more 

than $150,000 annually for aerial 

surveys that support the EWS, a 

communication network that assists 

afloat commands to avoid interactions 

with right whales. Fleet Area Control 

and Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville 

(FACSFACJAX) houses the Whale 

Fusion Center, which disseminates the 

latest right whale sighting information 

to Navy ships, submarines, and aircraft. 

Through the Fusion Center, 

FACSFACJAX coordinates ship and 

aircraft movement into the right whale 

critical habitat and the surrounding 

operating areas based on season, water 

temperature, weather conditions, and 

frequency of whale sightings and 

provides right whale reports to ships, 

submarines and aircraft, including coast 

guard vessels and civilian shipping. All 

sighting data is maintained on a Web 

site, http://www.facsfacjax.navy.mil. 

The Navy proposes to: 

• Reduce the time spent conducting 

object detection exercises in the NARW 

critical habitat. 

• Prior to conducting surface ship 

object detection exercises in the SE right 

whale critical habitat during the time of 

November 15–April 15, ships will 

contact FACSFACJAX to obtain the 

latest right whale sighting information. 

FACSFACJAX will advise ships of all 

reported whale sightings in the vicinity 

of the critical habitat and AAOC. To the 

extent operationally feasible, ships will 

avoid conducting training in the vicinity 

of recently sighted right whales. Ships 

will maneuver to maintain at least 500 

yards separation from any observed 

whale, consistent with the safety of the 

ship. 

Stranding Response Plan for Major 

Navy Training Exercises in the AFAST 

Study Area 

NMFS and the Navy have developed 

a draft Stranding Response Plan for 

Major Exercises in the AFAST Study 

Area (available at: http:// 

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

incidental.htm). Pursuant to 50 CFR 

Section 216.105, the plan will be 

included as part of (attached to) the 

Navy’s MMPA Letter of Authorization 

(LOA), which contains the conditions 

under which the Navy is authorized to 

take marine mammals pursuant to 

training activities involving MFAS/ 

HFAS or explosives (IEER) in the 

AFAST Study Area. The Stranding 

Response plan is specifically intended 

to outline the applicable requirements 

the authorization is conditioned upon in 

the event that a marine mammal 

stranding is reported in the AFAST 

Study Area during a major training 

exercise (MTE) (see glossary below). As 

mentioned above, NMFS considers all 

plausible causes within the course of a 

stranding investigation and this plan in 

no way presumes that any strandings in 

the AFAST Study Area are related to, or 

caused by, Navy training activities, 

absent a determination made in a Phase 

2 Investigation as outlined in Paragraph 

7 of this plan, indicating that MFAS or 

explosive detonation in the AFAST 

Study Area were a cause of the 

stranding. This plan is designed to 

address the following three issues: 

• Mitigation—When marine 

mammals are in a situation that can be 

defined as a stranding (see glossary of 

plan), they are experiencing 

physiological stress. When animals are 

stranded, and alive, NMFS believes that 

exposing these compromised animals to 

additional known stressors would likely 

exacerbate the animal’s distress and 

could potentially cause its death. 

Regardless of the factor(s) that may have 

initially contributed to the stranding, it 

is NMFS’ goal to avoid exposing these 

animals to further stressors. Therefore, 

when live stranded cetaceans are in the 

water and engaged in what is classified 

as an Uncommon Stranding Event (USE) 

(see glossary of plan), the shutdown 

component of this plan is intended to 

minimize the exposure of those animals 

to MFAS and explosive detonations, 

regardless of whether or not these 

activities may have initially played a 

role in the event. 

• Monitoring—This plan will 

enhance the understanding of how 

MFAS/HFAS or IEER (as well as other 

environmental conditions) may, or may 

not, be associated with marine mammal 

injury or strandings. Additionally, 

information gained from the 

investigations associated with this plan 

may be used in the adaptive 

management of mitigation or monitoring 

measures in subsequent LOAs, if 

appropriate. 

• Compliance—The information 

gathered pursuant to this protocol will 

inform NMFS’ decisions regarding 

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

and C) of the MMPA. 

The Stranding Response Plan has 

several components: 

Shutdown Procedures—When an 

uncommon stranding event (USE— 

defined in the plan) occurs during a 

major exercise in the AFAST Study 

Area, and a live cetacean(s) is in the 

water exhibiting indicators of distress 

(defined in the plan), NMFS will advise 

the Navy that they should cease MFAS/ 

HFAS operation and explosive 

detonations within 14 nm (26 km) in the 

Atlantic and 17 nm (29 km) in the Gulf 

of Mexico of the live animal involved in 

the USE (NMFS and the Navy will 

maintain a dialogue, as needed, 

regarding the identification of the USE 

and the potential need to implement 

shutdown procedures). These distances 

(14 and 17 nm) (26 and 29 km) are the 

approximate distances at which sound 

from the sonar sources are anticipated to 

attenuate to 145 dB (SPL). The risk 

function predicts that less than 1 

percent of the animals exposed to sonar 

at this level (mysticete or odontocete) 

would respond in a manner that NMFS 

considers Level B Harassment. The 

following special shutdown provisions 

for right whales are also included: (1) 

The Navy will automatically cease sonar 

operation (without waiting for the 

notification from NMFS) within 14 or 17 

nm (Atlantic or GOM, respectively) of 

an injured or entangled right whale 

found at sea during an MTE; and (2) The 

Navy will alert NMFS immediately if a 

dead right whale is found at sea during 

an MTE and increase vigilance in the 

area of the whale. 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)— 

The Navy and NMFS will develop an 

MOA, or other mechanism consistent 

with federal fiscal law requirements 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60789 

(and all other applicable laws), that 

allows the Navy to assist NMFS with the 

Phase 1 and 2 Investigations of USEs 

through the provision of in-kind 

services, such as (but not limited to) the 

use of plane/boat/truck for transport of 

stranding responders or animals, use of 

Navy property for necropsies or burial, 

or assistance with aerial surveys to 

discern the extent of a USE. The Navy 

may assist NMFS with the 

Investigations by providing one or more 

of the in-kind services outlined in the 

MOA, when available and logistically 

feasible and when the provision does 

not negatively affect Fleet operational 

commitments. 

Communication Protocol—Effective 

communication is critical to the 

successful implementation of this 

Stranding Response Plan. Very specific 

protocols for communication, including 

identification of the Navy personnel 

authorized to implement a shutdown 

and the NMFS personnel authorized to 

advise the Navy of the need to 

implement shutdown procedures 

(NMFS Protected Resources HQ—senior 

administrators) and the associated 

phone trees, etc. are currently in 

development and will be refined and 

finalized for the Stranding Response 

Plan prior to the issuance of a final rule 

(and updated yearly). 

Stranding Investigation—The 

Stranding Response Plan also outlines 

the way that NMFS plans to investigate 

any strandings (providing staff and 

resources are available) that occur 

during major training exercises in the 

AFAST Study Area. 

Mitigation Conclusions 

NMFS believes that the range 

clearance procedures and shutdown/ 

safety zone/exclusion zone measures the 

Navy has proposed will enable the Navy 

to avoid injuring any marine mammals 

and will enable them to minimize the 

numbers of marine mammals exposed to 

levels associated with TTS for the 

following reasons: 

MFAS/HFAS 

The Navy’s standard protective 

measures indicate that they will ensure 

powerdown of MFAS/HFAS by 6 dB 

when a marine mammal is detected 

within 1000 yd (914 km), powerdown of 

4 more dB (or 10 dB total) when a 

marine mammal is detected within 500 

yd (457 km), and will cease MFAS/ 

HFAS transmissions when a marine 

mammal is detected within 200 yd (183 

km). 

PTS/Injury—NMFS believes that the 

proposed mitigation measures will 

allow the Navy to avoid exposing 

marine mammals to received levels of 

MFAS/HFAS sound that would result in 

injury for the following reasons: 

• The estimated distance from the 

most powerful source at which an 

animal would receive a level of 215 dB 

SEL (threshold for PTS/injury/Level A 

Harassment) is approximately 10 m 

(10.9 yd). 

• NMFS believes that the probability 

that a marine mammal would approach 

within 10 m (10.9 yd) of the sonar dome 

(to the sides or below) without being 

seen by the watchstanders (who would 

then activate a shutdown if the animal 

was within 200 yd (183 m) is very low, 

especially considering that animals 

would likely avoid approaching a 

source transmitting at that level at that 

distance. 

• The model predicted that some 

animals would be exposed to levels 

associated with injury, however, the 

model does not consider the mitigation 

or likely avoidance behaviors and 

NMFS believes that injury is unlikely 

when those factors are considered. 

TTS—NMFS believes that the 

proposed mitigation measures will 

allow the Navy to minimize exposure of 

marine mammals to received levels of 

MFAS/HFAS sound associated with 

TTS for the following reasons: 

• The estimated range of maximum 

distances from the most powerful source 

at which an animal would receive 195 

dB SEL (the TTS threshold) is from 

approximately 275–500 m (301–547 yd) 

from the source in most operating 

environments. 

• Based on the size of the animals, 

average group size, behavior, and 

average dive time, NMFS believes that 

the probability that Navy watchstanders 

will visually detect mysticetes or sperm 

whales, dolphins, and social pelagic 

species (pilot whales, melon-headed 

whales, etc.) at some point within the 

1000-yd (914 km) safety zone before 

they are exposed to the TTS threshold 

levels is high, which means that the 

Navy would be able to shutdown or 

powerdown to avoid exposing these 

species to sound levels associated with 

TTS. 

• However, more cryptic (animals 

that are difficult to detect and observe), 

deep-diving species (beaked whales and 

Kogia sp.) are less likely to be visually 

detected and could potentially be 

exposed to levels of MFAS/HFAS 

expected to cause TTS. Additionally, 

the Navy’s bow-riding mitigation 

exception for dolphins may sometimes 

allow dolphins to be exposed to levels 

of MFAS/HFAS likely to result in TTS. 

IEER 

The Navy utilizes a 1000-yd exclusion 

zone (wherein explosive detonation will 

not occur if animals are within the zone) 

for the IEER and they begin observations 

at least 30 minutes before any 

detonations. Based on the explosive 

criteria (see Acoustic Take Criteria 

Section), a marine mammal would need 

to be within 24–78 m of the explosive 

sonobuoy detonation to be exposed to 

levels that could cause death, within 

79–179 m to be exposed to levels that 

could cause injury, and within 209–348 

m to be exposed to levels that could 

result in TTS (the maximum range 

varies with acoustic propagation 

environment). 

Mortality and Injury—Though the 

model predicted that 3 animals would 

be exposed to levels that would result 

in PTS (0 mortality), NMFS believes that 

the mitigation measures will allow the 

Navy to avoid exposing marine 

mammals to underwater detonations 

from IEER that would result in injury or 

mortality for the following reasons: 

• Surveillance (including aerial and 

passive acoustic) begins two hours 

before the exercise and extends 1000-yd 

from the charges. 

• Animals would need to approach 

within less than approximately 24–78 m 

of the source unnoticed to be exposed 

to the mortality threshold (we note here 

that this threshold is conservatively 

based on the exposure of a dolphin 

calf—most marine mammals are much 

larger and effects to these larger animals 

would likely be less severe). 

Additionally, the model predicted no 

exposures to levels associated with 

mortality. 

• Animals would need to approach 

within less than approximately 79–179 

m of the sonobuoy to be injured 

• Unlike for sonar, an animal would 

need to be present at the exact moment 

of the explosion(s). 

TTS–NMFS believes that the 

proposed mitigation measures will 

allow the Navy to minimize the 

exposure of marine mammals to 

underwater detonations that would 

result in TTS for the following reasons: 

• 31 animals were predicted to be 

exposed to explosive levels that would 

result in TTS, however, for the same 

reasons as above (i.e., surveillance and 

close approach to source), NMFS 

believes that most modeled TTS takes 

can be avoided, especially dolphins, 

mysticetes and sperm whales, and social 

pelagic species. 

• However, more cryptic, deep-diving 

species (beaked whales and Kogia sp.) 

are less likely to be visually detected 

and could potentially be exposed to 

explosive levels expected to cause TTS. 

The Stranding Response Plan will 

minimize the probability of distressed 

live-stranded animals responding to the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60790 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

proximity of sonar in a manner that 

further stresses them or increases the 

potential likelihood of mortality. 

The incorporation of the Navy’s 

proposed PAAs into their planning 

process along with the plan not to 

conduct more than 4 major exercises 

within these areas should ultimately 

result in a reduction in the number of 

marine mammals exposed to MFAS/ 

HFAS (because these PAAs are 

anticipated to have higher densities of 

animals), a reduction in the number of 

animals exposed while engaged in 

feeding behaviors (because these areas 

are particularly productive), and an 

increased awareness of their potential 

presence when conducting activities in 

those important areas. Additionally, the 

Navy’s plan to minimize both the 

helicopter dipping and object detection 

activities within the NARW critical 

habitat during the time when the most 

calves and mothers are present should 

result in the minimization of exposure 

of cow/calf pairs to MFAS/HFAS. 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the Navy’s proposed mitigation 

measures (from the LOA application), 

along with the Planning Awareness 

Areas, the helicopter dipping and object 

detection minimization measures, and 

the Stranding Response Plan (and when 

the Adaptive Management (see Adaptive 

Management below) component is taken 

into consideration) are adequate means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impacts on marine mammals species or 

stocks and their habitat, paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 

grounds, and areas of similar 

significance, while also considering 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

These mitigation measures may be 

refined, modified, removed, or added to 

prior to the issuance of the final rule 

based on the comments and information 

received during the public comment 

period. 

Research and Conservation Measures 

for Marine Mammals 

The Navy is working towards a better 

understanding of marine mammals and 

sound in ways that are not directly 

related to the MMPA process. The Navy 

highlights some of those ways in the 

section below. Further, NMFS is 

working on a long-term stranding study 

that will be supported by the Navy by 

way of a funding and information 

sharing component (see below). 

Navy Research 

The Navy provides a significant 

amount of funding and support to 

marine research. The agency is 

providing approximately $26 million 

annually between FY07–FY09 to 

universities, research institutions, 

federal laboratories, private companies, 

and independent researchers around the 

world to study marine mammals. The 

U.S. Navy sponsors 50 percent of all 

U.S. research concerning the effects of 

human-generated sound on marine 

mammals and 50 percent of such 

research conducted both in the U.S. and 

worldwide. Major topics of Navysupported research include the 

following: 

• Better understanding of marine 

species distribution and important 

habitat areas, 

• Developing methods to detect and 

monitor marine species before and 

during training, 

• Understanding the effects of sound 

on marine mammals, sea turtles, fish, 

and seabirds, and 

• Developing tools to model and 

estimate potential effects of sound. 

This research is directly applicable to 

Atlantic Fleet training activities, 

particularly with respect to the 

investigations of the potential effects of 

underwater noise sources on marine 

mammals and other protected species. 

Proposed training activities employ 

sonar and underwater explosives, which 

introduce sound into the marine 

environment. 

The Marine Life Sciences Division of 

the Office of Naval Research currently 

coordinates six programs that examine 

the marine environment and are 

devoted solely to studying the effects of 

noise and/or the implementation of 

technology tools that will assist the 

Navy in studying and tracking marine 

mammals. The six programs are: 

1. Environmental Consequences of 

Underwater Sound, 

2. Non-Auditory Biological Effects of 

Sound on Marine Mammals, 

3. Effects of Sound on the Marine 

Environment, 

4. Sensors and Models for Marine 

Environmental Monitoring, 

5. Effects of Sound on Hearing of 

Marine Animals, and 

6. Passive Acoustic Detection, 

Classification, and Tracking of Marine 

Mammals. 

The Navy has also developed the 

technical reports referenced within this 

document, which include the Marine 

Resource Assessments and the Navy 

OPAREA Density Estimates reports. 

Furthermore, research cruises by the 

NMFS and by academic institutions 

have received funding from the U.S. 

Navy. For instance, the ONR 

contributed financially to the Sperm 

Whale Seismic Survey (SWSS) in the 

Gulf of Mexico, coordinated by Texas 

A&M. The goals of the SWSS are to 

examine effects of the oil and gas 

industry on sperm whales and what 

mitigations would be employed to 

minimize adverse effects to the species. 

All of this research helps in 

understanding the marine environment 

and the effects that may arise from the 

use of underwater noise in the Gulf of 

Mexico and western North Atlantic 

Ocean. 

The Navy has sponsored several 

workshops to evaluate the current state 

of knowledge and potential for future 

acoustic monitoring of marine 

mammals. The workshops brought 

together acoustic experts and marine 

biologists from the Navy and other 

research organizations to present data 

and information on current acoustic 

monitoring research efforts and to 

evaluate the potential for incorporating 

similar technology and methods on 

instrumented ranges. However, acoustic 

detection, identification, localization, 

and tracking of individual animals still 

requires a significant amount of research 

effort to be considered a reliable method 

for marine mammal monitoring. The 

Navy supports research efforts on 

acoustic monitoring and will continue 

to investigate the feasibility of passive 

acoustics as a potential mitigation and 

monitoring tool. 

Overall, the Navy will continue to 

fund ongoing marine mammal research, 

and is planning to coordinate long-term 

monitoring/studies of marine mammals 

on various established ranges and 

OPAREAS. The Navy will continue to 

research and contribute to university/ 

external research to improve the state of 

the science regarding marine species 

biology and acoustic effects. These 

efforts include mitigation and 

monitoring programs; data sharing with 

NMFS and via the literature for research 

and development efforts; and future 

research as described previously. 

Long-Term Prospective Study 

Apart from this proposed rule, NMFS, 

with input and assistance from the Navy 

and several other agencies and entities, 

will perform a longitudinal 

observational study of marine mammal 

strandings to systematically observe for 

and record the types of pathologies and 

diseases and investigate the relationship 

with potential causal factors (e.g., 

tactical sonar, seismic, weather). The 

study will not be a true ‘‘cohort’’ study, 

because we will be unable to quantify or 

estimate specific sonar or other sound 

exposures for individual animals that 

strand. However, a cross-sectional or 

correlational analysis, a method of 

descriptive rather than analytical 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60791 

epidemiology, can be conducted to 

compare population characteristics, e.g., 

frequency of strandings and types of 

specific pathologies between general 

periods of various anthropogenic 

activities and non-activities within a 

prescribed geographic space. In the 

long-term study, we will more fully and 

consistently collect and analyze data on 

the demographics of strandings in 

specific locations and consider 

anthropogenic activities and physical, 

chemical, and biological environmental 

parameters. This approach in 

conjunction with true cohort studies 

(tagging animals, measuring received 

sounds, and evaluating behavior or 

injuries) in the presence of activities 

and non-activities will provide critical 

information needed to further define the 

impacts of MTEs and other 

anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic 

stressors. In coordination with the Navy 

and other federal and non-federal 

partners, the comparative study will be 

designed and conducted for specific 

sites during intervals of the presence of 

anthropogenic activities such as sonar 

transmission or other sound exposures 

and absence to evaluate demographics 

of morbidity and mortality, lesions 

found, and cause of death or stranding. 

Additional data that will be collected 

and analyzed in an effort to control 

potential confounding factors include 

variables such as average sea 

temperature (or just season), 

meteorological or other environmental 

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

activities, etc. All efforts will be made 

to include appropriate controls (i.e., no 

tactical sonar or no seismic); 

environmental variables may complicate 

the interpretation of ‘‘control’’ 

measurements. The Navy and NMFS 

along with other partners are evaluating 

mechanisms for funding this study. 

Monitoring 

In order to issue an ITA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

‘‘requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such 

taking’’. The MMPA implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR Section 

216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for 

LOAs must include the suggested means 

of accomplishing the necessary 

monitoring and reporting that will result 

in increased knowledge of the species 

and of the level of taking or impacts on 

populations of marine mammals that are 

expected to be present. 

Monitoring measures prescribed by 

NMFS should accomplish one or more 

of the following general goals: 

(a) An increase in the probability of 

detecting marine mammals, both within 

the safety zone (thus allowing for more 

effective implementation of the 

mitigation) and in general to generate 

more data to contribute to the analyses 

mentioned below. 

(b) An increase in our understanding 

of how many marine mammals are 

likely to be exposed to levels of MFAS/ 

HFAS (or explosives or other stimuli) 

that we associate with specific adverse 

effects, such as behavioral harassment, 

TTS, or PTS. 

(c) An increase in our understanding 

of how marine mammals respond to 

MFAS/HFAS (at specific received 

levels), explosives, or other stimuli 

expected to result in take and how 

anticipated adverse effects on 

individuals (in different ways and to 

varying degrees) may impact the 

population, species, or stock 

(specifically through effects on annual 

rates of recruitment or survival) through 

any of the following methods: 

• Behavioral observations in the 

presence of MFAS/HFAS compared to 

observations in the absence of sonar 

(need to be able to accurately predict 

received level and report bathymetric 

conditions, distance from source, and 

other pertinent information. 

• Physiological measurements in the 

presence of MFAS/HFAS compared to 

observations in the absence of tactical 

sonar (need to be able to accurately 

predict received level and report 

bathymetric conditions, distance from 

source, and other pertinent 

information). 

• Pre-planned and thorough 

investigation of stranding events that 

occur coincident to naval activities. 

• Distribution and/or abundance 

comparisons in times or areas with 

concentrated MFAS/HFAS versus times 

or areas without MFAS/HFAS. 

(d) An increased knowledge of the 

affected species. 

(e) An increase in our understanding 

of the effectiveness of certain mitigation 

and monitoring measures. 

Proposed Monitoring Plan for the 

AFAST Study Area 

The Navy has submitted a draft 

Monitoring Plan for AFAST, which may 

be viewed at NMFS’ Web site: http:// 

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

incidental.htm. NMFS and the Navy 

have worked together on the 

development of this plan in the months 

preceding the publication of this 

proposed rule; however, we are still 

refining the plan and anticipate that it 

will contain more details by the time it 

is finalized in advance of the issuance 

of the final rule. Additionally, the plan 

may be modified or supplemented based 

on comments or new information 

received from the public during the 

public comment period. A summary of 

the primary components of the plan 

follows. 

The draft Monitoring Plan for AFAST 

has been designed as a collection of 

focused ‘‘studies’’ (described fully in the 

AFAST Monitoring Plan) to gather data 

that will allow the Navy to address the 

following questions: 

(a) Are marine mammals exposed to 

MFAS, especially at levels associated 

with adverse effects (i.e., based on 

NMFS’ criteria for behavioral 

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

levels are they exposed? 

(b) If marine mammals are exposed to 

MFAS in the AFAST Study Area, do 

they redistribute geographically as a 

result of continued exposure? If so, how 

long does the redistribution last? 

(c) If marine mammals are exposed to 

MFAS, what are their behavioral 

responses to various levels? 

(d) Is the Navy’s suite of mitigation 

measures for MFAS (e.g., measures 

agreed to by the Navy through 

permitting) effective at avoiding TTS, 

injury, and mortality of marine 

mammals? 

Data gathered in these studies will be 

collected by qualified, professional 

marine mammal biologists that are 

experts in their field. They will use a 

combination of the following methods 

to collect data: 

• Contracted vessel and aerial 

surveys. 

• Passive acoustics. 

• Marine mammal observers on Navy 

ships. 

In the four proposed study designs 

(all of which cover multiple years), the 

above methods will be used separately 

or in combination to monitor marine 

mammals in different combinations 

before, during, and after training 

activities utilizing MFAS/HFAS. Table 7 

contains a summary of the monitoring 

effort that is planned for each study in 

each year. 

This monitoring plan has been 

designed to gather data on all species of 

marine mammals that are observed in 

the AFAST study area. The Plan 

recognizes that deep-diving and cryptic 

species of marine mammals such as 

beaked whales have a low probability of 

detection (Barlow and Gisiner, 2006). 

Therefore, methods will be utilized to 

attempt to address this issue (e.g., 

passive acoustic monitoring). 

North Atlantic right whales will also 

be given particular attention during 

monitoring in the AFAST study area, 

although monitoring methods will be 

the same for all species. Within the 

AFAST study area, the Northwestern 

Atlantic provides unique breeding and 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60792 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

calving habitat for North Atlantic right 

whales, and as a result, critical habitat 

has been designated for one calving 

ground (off Georgia and northern 

Florida) and two feeding areas (Cape 

Cod Bay and the Great South Channel). 

North Atlantic right whales will be 

given particular attention in the form of 

focal follows (e.g., collect behavioral 

data using the Big Eyes binoculars, and 

observe the behavior of any animals that 

are seen) when observed. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP14OC08.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60793 

In addition to the Monitoring Plan for 

AFAST, by the end of 2009, the Navy 

will have completed an Integrated 

Comprehensive Monitoring Program 

(ICMP). The ICMP will provide the 

overarching structure and coordination 

that will, over time, compile data from 

both range specific monitoring plans 

(such as AFAST, the Hawaii Range 

complex, and the Southern California 

Range Complex) as well as Navy funded 

research and development (R&D) 

studies. The primary objectives of the 

ICMP are: 

• To monitor Navy training events, 

particularly those involving midfrequency sonar and underwater 

detonations, for compliance with the 

terms and conditions of ESA Section 7 

consultations or MMPA authorizations; 

• To collect data to support 

estimating the number of individuals 

exposed to sound levels above current 

regulatory thresholds; 

• To assess the efficacy of the Navy’s 

current marine species mitigation; 

• To add to the knowledge base on 

potential behavioral and physiological 

effects to marine species from midfrequency active sonar and underwater 

detonations; and 

• To assess the practicality and 

effectiveness of a number of mitigation 

tools and techniques (some not yet in 

use). 

More information about the ICMP 

may be found in the draft Monitoring 

Plan for AFAST. 

Past Monitoring in the AFAST Study 

Area 

NMFS has received four total 

monitoring reports addressing MFAS 

use off the Atlantic Coast or in the Gulf 

of Mexico. The data contained in the 

After Action Reports (AAR) have been 

considered in developing mitigation and 

monitoring measures for the proposed 

activities contained in this rule. The 

Navy’s AAR may be viewed at: http:// 

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

incidental.htm. NMFS has reviewed 

these reports and has summarized the 

results, as related to marine mammal 

observations, below. 

ESG COMPTUEX 08–01 

The USS Nassau Expeditionary Strike 

Group COMPTUEX 08–01 was 

conducted from November 28, 2007 

through December 14, 2007. The ASW 

training conducted during the ESG 

COMPTUEX involved ships, 

submarines, aircraft, non-explosive 

exercise weapons, and other training 

related devices and occurred within 

portions of the Cherry Point and 

Charleston/Jacksonville Operating Areas 

(OPAREAS; see Figure A–1, Appendix 

A). MFA sonar equipped ships that 

participated in ESG COMPTUEX 08–01 

included Ticonderoga-class guided 

missile cruisers (CG), Arleigh Burkeclass guided missile destroyers (DDG), 

and Oliver Hazard Perry-class guided 

missile frigates (FFG). The surface 

combatants employed ANSQS–53C/ 

ANSQS 56 sonar, and the associated 

aviation assets employed SH–60B/F/R 

with AN/AQS–13F or AQS–22 dipping 

sonar and AN/SSQ–62B1C/D/E 

Directional Command Activated 

Sonobuoy System (DICASS). The MFA 

sonar equipped submarines that 

participated were SSNs with AN/BQQ– 

5 sonar. 

During ESG COMPTUEX 08–01, 141– 

161 hours of MFAS and 38–46 DICASS 

sonobuoy usage was reported. 

Navy lookouts did not report any 

sightings of marine mammals during 

ESG COMPTUEX 08–01. 

Combined CSG COMPTUEX/JTFEX 07– 

01 

USS TRUMAN 07–1 CSG 

COMPTUEX/JTFEX was conducted 

from July 2–August 1, 2007 and 

involved a Carrier Strike Group. Ships 

assigned to this CSG included: two nonMFAS-equipped ships, and five MFASequipped ships and one submarine. 

Other participating U.S. Navy units 

representing support and opposition 

forces included one submarine and four 

MFAS-equipped ships. France 

participated with three MFAS-equipped 

ships. Allied nations participating in the 

exercise were also provided the 

mitigation measures in Appendix B and 

the MSAT. There were two ASW SH–60 

helicopters and two ASW P–3 Maritime 

Patrol Aircraft also participating. 

During USS Truman 07–1 CSG 

COMPTUEX/JTFEX MFAS was only 

used during carefully planned exercise 

events and for only a small subset of any 

given exercise time frame. During this 

exercise, 340–355 hours of hullmounted MFAS, 50–65 hours of dipping 

sonar, and use of 170 DICASS 

sonobuoys were reported. 

There were 49 total sighting events 

and three passive detections. An 

estimated 374–416 marine mammals 

and four sea turtles were observed 

during USS Truman 07–1 CSG 

COMPTUEX/JTFEX (See Table 8). There 

were two sighting events occurring 

during active sonar use. The first 

occurred with the observing ship 

observing five dolphins while using 

MFAS and a second ship was active 

within the vicinity of this sighting. The 

second occurred with the observing ship 

sighting two pilot whales while not 

active, but a second ship was active at 

a distance which could have had an 

influence on the sighted marine 

mammals. On four instances, vessels 

maneuvered to avoid the path of a 

marine mammal or increase the distance 

between the ship and animal. 

None of the watchstanders reported 

any sort of ‘‘observed effect’’ on the 

marine mammals that were observed in 

the two instances when the sonar was 

on. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60794 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP14OC08.011</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60795 

ESG COMPTUEX 07–01 

This exercise was conducted in 

October 2006 in two large areas seaward 

of the shelf break off the coasts of North 

and South Carolina. The types of ASW 

training conducted during ESG 

COMPTUEX07–1 involved the use of 

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

training related devices. Exercise 

planning estimated use of 114 hours of 

MFA sonar and 118 DICASS sonobuoys. 

Actual use was 101.4 hours of MFA 

sonar and 35 DICASS sonobuoys. 

There was one marine mammal 

sighting during the exercise. A surface 

ship sighted approximately 12 

‘‘dolphins’’ ‘‘playing’’ within 1,000 yds. 

The group was engaged in the combined 

battle problem, with ships 

intermittently active and passive. All 

units shut down MFAS for 

approximately 2 hours. 

None of the watchstanders reported 

any sort of ‘‘observed effect’’ on the 

marine mammals that were observed, 

either with or without the operation of 

sonar. 

JTFEX 06–02 

This exercise was conducted from 

July 21–29, 2006, largely within the 

Cherry Point OPAREA, off the shelf 

break of North Carolina. The types of 

ASW training conducted during JTFEX 

06–2 involved the use of ships, 

submarines, aircraft, non-explosive 

exercise weapons, and other training 

related devices. In addition to the JTFEX 

major exercise, a precursor event three 

days prior to the exercise was included 

in the analysis due to the temporal 

proximity of the exercise. The precursor 

event estimated sonar use was 22.5 

hours of surface vessel MFAS and 36 

DICASS sonobuoys. The planned 

exercise, exclusive of the precursor 

events, was estimated at 200–225 hours 

of SQS–53C MFAS, 100–125 hours of 

surface vessel SQS–56 MFAS and 50 

DICASS sonobuoys used. In reality, 108 

hours of MFA sonar and less than 50 

sonobuoys were used for both the 

precursor events and the JTFEX 06–2 

exercise. 

During the exercise, all surface vessels 

and aircraft participating in ASW events 

were involved in the visual surveillance 

for marine mammals. There were 29 

instances when marine mammals 

(individuals or pods) were detected, all 

by surface vessel exercise participants. 

MFAS was shut down seven times by 

exercise participants due to the detected 

marine mammals as detailed in Table 9. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP14OC08.012</GPH>
60796 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

These 29 marine mammal detections 

by exercise participants totaled 120 

quantified marine mammals, and 10 

sightings of multiple animals, or ‘‘pods’’ 

that could not be quantified. Assuming 

each pod consisted of at least four 

animals; the estimated total number of 

marine mammals detected was 160 

animals. Of those detections when sonar 

was active (7 of the 29 in Table 9), 18 

animals were quantified, and 4 reports 

were of multiple animals that could not 

be quantified. Using the described 

estimating procedure, approximately 34 

marine mammals were in the vicinity of 

surface ships during MFAS use periods. 

In only one instance (see Table 9) were 

the animals present within a range 

requiring power reduction. In two 

instances described in Table 9, 12 

dolphins (sighting 27 (8 animals) and 

sighting 29 (estimated 4 animals)) were 

sighted closing on the ship and later 

engaged in bow riding. In these 

instances, sonar was shutdown at a 

range of 3,000 yards. 

None of the watchstanders reported 

any sort of ‘‘observed effect’’ on the 

marine mammals that were observed, 

either with or without the operation of 

MFAS. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60797 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP14OC08.013</GPH>
60798 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

General Conclusions Drawn From 

Review of Monitoring Reports 

Because NMFS has received relatively 

few monitoring reports from sonar 

training in the AFAST Study Area, and 

none that have utilized independent 

aerial or vessel-based observers (though 

they will be required by this LOA (see 

Monitoring)), it is difficult to draw 

biological conclusions. However, NMFS 

can draw some general conclusions 

from the content of the monitoring 

reports: 

(a) Data from watchstanders is 

generally useful to indicate the presence 

or absence of marine mammals within 

the safety zones (and sometimes 

without) and to document the 

implementation of mitigation measures, 

but does not provide useful species 

specific information or behavioral data. 

Data gathered by independent observers 

can provide very valuable information 

at a level of detail not possible with 

watchstanders (such as data gathered by 

independent, biologist monitors in 

Hawaii and submitted to NMFS in a 

monitoring report, which indicated the 

presence of sub-adult sei whales in the 

Hawaiian Islands in fall, potentially 

indicating the use of the area for 

breeding). 

(b) Though it is by no means 

conclusory, it is worth noting that no 

instances of obvious behavioral 

disturbance were observed by the Navy 

watchstanders. Though of course, these 

observations only cover the animals that 

were at the surface (or slightly below in 

the case of aerial surveys) and within 

the distance that the observers can see 

with the big-eye binoculars or from the 

aircraft. 

(c) NMFS and the Navy need to more 

carefully designate what information 

should be gathered during monitoring, 

as some reports contain different 

information, making cross-report 

comparisons difficult. 

Adaptive Management 

Adaptive Management was addressed 

above in the context of the Stranding 

Response Plan because that Section will 

be a stand-alone document. More 

specifically, the final regulations 

governing the take of marine mammals 

incidental to Navy training exercises in 

the AFAST Study Area will contain an 

adaptive management component. Our 

understanding of the effects of MFAS/ 

HFAS and explosives on marine 

mammals is still in its relative infancy, 

and yet the science in this field is 

evolving fairly quickly. These 

circumstances make the inclusion of an 

adaptive management component both 

valuable and necessary within the 

context of 5-year regulations for 

activities that have been associated with 

marine mammal mortality in certain 

circumstances and locations (though not 

the AFAST Study Area). The use of 

adaptive management will give NMFS 

the ability to consider new data from 

different sources to determine (in 

coordination with the Navy), on an 

annual basis if new or modified 

mitigation or monitoring measures are 

appropriate for subsequent annual 

LOAs. Following are some of the 

possible sources of applicable data: 

• Results from the Navy’s monitoring 

from the previous year (either from the 

AFAST Study Area or other locations) 

• Results from specific stranding 

investigations (either from the AFAST 

Study Area or other locations, and 

involving coincident MFAS/HFAS of 

explosives training or not involving 

coincident use) 

• Results from the Long Term 

Prospective Study described below 

• Results from general marine 

mammal and sound research (funded by 

the Navy (described below) or 

otherwise) 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP14OC08.014</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60799 

Mitigation measures could be 

modified or added if new data suggests 

that such modifications would have a 

reasonable likelihood of reducing 

adverse effects to marine mammals and 

if the measures are practicable. NMFS 

could also coordinate with the Navy to 

modify or add to the existing monitoring 

requirements if the new data suggest 

that the addition of a particular measure 

would likely fill in a specifically 

important data gap. 

Reporting 

In order to issue an ITA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

‘‘requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such 

taking’’. Effective reporting is critical 

both to compliance as well as ensuring 

that the most value is obtained from the 

required monitoring. Some of the 

reporting requirements are still in 

development and the final rule may 

contain additional details not contained 

in the proposed rule. Additionally, 

proposed reporting requirements may be 

modified, removed, or added based on 

information or comments received 

during the public comment period. 

Currently, there are several different 

reporting requirements pursuant to 

these proposed regulations: 

General Notification of Injured or Dead 

Marine Mammals 

Navy personnel will ensure that 

NMFS (regional stranding coordinator) 

is notified immediately (or as soon as 

clearance procedures allow) if an 

injured or dead marine mammal is 

found during or shortly after, and in the 

vicinity of, any Navy training exercise 

utilizing MFAS, HFAS, or underwater 

explosive detonations. The Navy will 

provide NMFS with species or 

description of the animal (s), the 

condition of the animal(s) (including 

carcass condition if the animal is dead), 

location, time of first discovery, 

observed behaviors (if alive), and photo 

or video (if available). The AFAST 

Stranding Response Plan contains more 

specific reporting requirements for 

specific circumstances. 

IEER 

A yearly report detailing the number 

of exercises along with the hours of 

associated marine mammal survey and 

associated marine mammal sightings, 

number of times employment was 

delayed by sightings, and the number of 

total detonated charges and self-scuttled 

charges will be submitted to NMFS. 

MFAS/HFAS Mitigation/Navy 

Watchstanders 

The Navy will submit an After Action 

Report to the Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, within 120 days of 

the completion of a Major Training 

Exercise (SEASWITI, COMPTUEX, 

JTFEX, but not Group Sails). For other 

ASW exercises the Navy will submit a 

yearly summary report. These reports 

will, at a minimum, include the 

following information: 

• The estimated number of hours of 

sonar operation, broken down by source 

type. 

• If possible, the total number of 

hours of observation effort (including 

observation time when sonar was not 

operating). 

• A report of all marine mammal 

sightings (at any distance—not just 

within a particular distance) to include, 

when possible and to the best of their 

ability, and if not classified: 

• Species or animal type. 

• Number of animals sighted. 

• Location of marine mammal 

sighting. 

• Distance of animal from any 

operating sonar sources. 

• Whether animal is fore, aft, port, 

starboard. 

• Direction animal is moving in 

relation to source (away, towards, 

parallel). 

• Any observed behaviors of marine 

mammals. 

• The status of any sonar sources 

(what sources were in use) and whether 

or not they were powered down or shut 

down as a result of the marine mammal 

observation. 

• The platform that the marine 

mammals were sighted from. 

Monitoring Report 

Although the draft Monitoring Plan 

for AFAST contains a general 

description of the monitoring that the 

Navy plans to conduct (and that NMFS 

has analyzed) in the AFAST Study Area, 

the detailed analysis and reporting 

protocols that will be used for the 

AFAST monitoring plan are still being 

refined at this time. The draft AFAST 

Monitoring plan may be viewed at: 

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

incidental.htm. Standard marine species 

sighting forms will be used by Navy 

lookouts and biologists to standardize 

data collection and data collection 

methods will be standardized across 

ranges to allow for comparison in 

different geographic locations. Reports 

of the required monitoring will be 

submitted to NMFS on an annual basis 

as well as in the form of a multi-year 

report that compiles all five years worth 

of monitoring data (reported at end of 

fourth year of rule—in future rules will 

include the last year of the prior rule). 

AFAST Comprehensive Report 

The Navy will submit to NMFS a draft 

report that analyzes and summarizes all 

of the multi-year marine mammal 

information gathered during ASW and 

IEER exercises for which individual 

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

This report will be submitted at the end 

of the fourth year of the rule (December 

2012), covering activities that have 

occurred through June 1, 2012. The 

Navy will respond to NMFS comments 

on the draft comprehensive report if 

submitted within 3 months of receipt. 

The report will be considered final after 

the Navy has addressed NMFS’ 

comments, or three months after the 

submittal of the draft if NMFS does not 

comment by then. 

Comprehensive National ASW Report 

The Navy will submit a draft 

Comprehensive National ASW Report 

that analyzes, compares, and 

summarizes the data gathered from the 

watchstanders and pursuant to the 

implementation of the Monitoring Plans 

for AFAST, the Hawaii Range Complex, 

the Southern California (SOCAL) Range 

Complex, and the Marianas range 

Complex. The Navy will respond to 

NMFS comments on the draft 

comprehensive report if submitted 

within 3 months of receipt. The report 

will be considered final after the Navy 

has addressed NMFS’ comments, or 

three months after the submittal of the 

draft if NMFS does not comment by 

then. 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 

As mentioned previously, for the 

purposes of MMPA authorizations, 

NMFS’ effects assessments have two 

primary purposes (in the context of the 

AFAST LOA, where subsistence 

communities are not present): (1) To put 

forth the permissible methods of taking 

within the context of MMPA Level B 

Harassment (behavioral harassment), 

Level A Harassment (injury), and 

mortality (i.e., identify the number and 

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

determine whether the specified activity 

will have a negligible impact on the 

affected species or stocks of marine 

mammals (based on the likelihood that 

the activity will adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival). 

In the Potential Effects of Exposure of 

Marine Mammal to MFAS/HFAS and 

Underwater Detonations section, NMFS’ 

analysis identified the lethal responses, 

physical trauma, sensory impairment 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60800 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

(permanent and temporary threshold 

shifts and acoustic masking), 

physiological responses (particular 

stress responses), and behavioral 

responses that could potentially result 

from exposure to MFAS/HFAS or 

underwater explosive detonations. In 

this section, we will relate the potential 

effects to marine mammals from MFAS/ 

HFAS and underwater detonation of 

explosives to the MMPA regulatory 

definitions of Level A and Level B 

Harassment and attempt to quantify the 

effects that might occur from the 

specific training activities that the Navy 

is proposing in the AFAST Study Area. 

Definition of Harassment 

As mentioned previously, with 

respect to military readiness activities, 

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

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

or has the significant potential to injure 

a marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild [Level A Harassment]; 

or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely 

to disturb a marine mammal or marine 

mammal stock in the wild by causing 

disruption of natural behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering, to a point where 

such behavioral patterns are abandoned 

or significantly altered [Level B 

Harassment]. 

Level B Harassment 

Of the potential effects that were 

described in the Potential Effects of 

Exposure of Marine Mammal to MFAS/ 

HFAS and Underwater Detonations 

Section, the following are the types of 

effects that fall into the Level B 

Harassment category: 

Behavioral Harassment—Behavioral 

disturbance that rises to the level 

described in the definition above, when 

resulting from exposures to MFAS/ 

HFAS or underwater detonations, is 

considered Level B Harassment. Some 

of the lower level physiological stress 

responses discussed in the Potential 

Effects of Exposure of Marine Mammal 

to MFAS/HFAS and Underwater 

Detonations Section: Stress Section will 

also likely co-occur with the predicted 

harassments, although these responses 

are more difficult to detect and fewer 

data exist relating these responses to 

specific received levels of sound. When 

Level B Harassment is predicted based 

on estimated behavioral responses, 

those takes may have a stress-related 

physiological component as well. 

In the effects section above, we 

described the Southall et al. (2007) 

severity scaling system and listed some 

examples of the three broad categories 

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

behaviors); 4–6 (Behaviors with higher 

potential to affect foraging, 

reproduction, or survival); 7–9 

(Behaviors considered likely to affect 

the aforementioned vital rates). 

Generally speaking, MMPA Level B 

Harassment, as defined in this 

document, would include the behaviors 

described in the 7–9 category, and a 

subset, dependent on context and other 

considerations, of the behaviors 

described in the 4–6 categories. 

Behavioral harassment does not 

generally include behaviors ranked 0–3 

in Southall et al. (2007). 

Acoustic Masking and 

Communication Impairment—Acoustic 

masking is considered Level B 

Harassment as it can disrupt natural 

behavioral patterns by interrupting or 

limiting the marine mammal’s receipt or 

transmittal of important information or 

environmental cues. 

TTS—As discussed previously, TTS 

can effect how an animal behaves in 

response to the environment, including 

conspecifics, predators, and prey. The 

following physiological mechanisms are 

thought to play a role in inducing 

auditory fatigue: effects to sensory hair 

cells in the inner ear that reduce their 

sensitivity, modification of the chemical 

environment within the sensory cells, 

residual muscular activity in the middle 

ear, displacement of certain inner ear 

membranes, increased blood flow, and 

post-stimulatory reduction in both 

efferent and sensory neural output. 

Ward (1997) suggested that when these 

effects result in TTS rather than PTS, 

they are within the normal bounds of 

physiological variability and tolerance 

and do not represent a physical injury. 

Additionally, Southall et al. (2007) 

indicate that although PTS is a tissue 

injury, TTS is not, because the reduced 

hearing sensitivity following exposure 

to intense sound results primarily from 

fatigue, not loss, of cochlear hair cells 

and supporting structures and is 

reversible. Accordingly, NMFS classifies 

TTS (when resulting from exposure to 

either MFAS/HFAS or underwater 

detonations) as Level B Harassment, not 

Level A Harassment (injury). 

Level A Harassment 

Of the potential effects that were 

described in the Potential Effects of 

Exposure of Marine Mammals to MFAS/ 

HFAS and Underwater Detonations 

Section, following are the types of 

effects that fall into the Level A 

Harassment category: 

PTS—PTS (resulting either from 

exposure to MFAS/HFAS or explosive 

detonations) is irreversible and 

considered an injury. PTS results from 

exposure to intense sounds that cause a 

permanent loss of inner or outer 

cochlear hair cells or exceed the elastic 

limits of certain tissues and membranes 

in the middle and inner ears and result 

in changes in the chemical composition 

of the inner ear fluids. 

Tissue Damage due to Acoustically 

Mediated Bubble Growth—A few 

theories suggest ways in which gas 

bubbles become enlarged through 

exposure to intense sounds (MFAS/ 

HFAS) to the point where tissue damage 

results. In rectified diffusion, exposure 

to a sound field would cause bubbles to 

increase in size. A short duration of 

sonar pings (such as that which an 

animal exposed to MFAS would be most 

likely to encounter) would not likely be 

long enough to drive bubble growth to 

any substantial size. Alternately, 

bubbles could be destabilized by highlevel sound exposures such that bubble 

growth then occurs through static 

diffusion of gas out of the tissues. The 

degree of supersaturation and exposure 

levels observed to cause microbubble 

destabilization are unlikely to occur, 

either alone or in concert because of 

how close an animal would need to be 

to the sound source to be exposed to 

high enough levels, especially 

considering the likely avoidance of the 

sound source and the required 

mitigation. Still, possible tissue damage 

from either of these processes would be 

considered an injury. 

Tissue Damage due to Behaviorally 

Mediated Bubble Growth—Several 

authors suggest mechanisms in which 

marine mammals could behaviorally 

respond to exposure to MFAS/HFAS by 

altering their dive patterns in a manner 

(unusually rapid ascent, unusually long 

series of surface dives, etc.) that might 

result in unusual bubble formation or 

growth ultimately resulting in tissue 

damage (emboli, etc.) In this scenario, 

the rate of ascent would need to be 

sufficiently rapid to compromise 

behavioral or physiological protections 

against nitrogen bubble formation. 

There is considerable disagreement 

among scientists as to the likelihood of 

this phenomenon (Piantadosi and 

Thalmann, 2004; Evans and Miller, 

2003). Although it has been argued that 

traumas from recent beaked whale 

strandings are consistent with gas 

emboli and bubble-induced tissue 

separations (Jepson et al., 2003; 

Fernandez et al., 2005), nitrogen bubble 

formation as the cause of the traumas 

has not been verified. If tissue damage 

does occur by this phenomenon, it 

would be considered an injury. 

Physical Disruption of Tissues 

Resulting from Explosive Shock Wave— 

Physical damage of tissues resulting 

from a shock wave (from an explosive 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60801 

detonation) is classified as an injury. 

Blast effects are greatest at the gas-liquid 

interface (Landsberg, 2000) and gascontaining organs, particularly the lungs 

and gastrointestinal tract, are especially 

susceptible (Goertner, 1982; Hill 1978; 

Yelverton et al., 1973). Nasal sacs, 

larynx, pharynx, trachea, and lungs may 

be damaged by compression/expansion 

caused by the oscillations of the blast 

gas bubble (Reidenberg and Laitman, 

2003). Severe damage (from the shock 

wave) to the ears can include tympanic 

membrane rupture, fracture of the 

ossicles, damage to the cochlea, 

hemorrhage, and cerebrospinal fluid 

leakage into the middle ear. 

Acoustic Take Criteria 

For the purposes of an MMPA 

incidental take authorization, three 

types of take are identified: Level B 

Harassment; Level A Harassment; and 

mortality (or serious injury leading to 

mortality). The categories of marine 

mammal responses (physiological and 

behavioral) that fall into the two 

harassment categories were described in 

the previous section. 

Because the physiological and 

behavioral responses of the majority of 

the marine mammals exposed to MFAS/ 

HFAS and underwater detonations 

cannot be detected or measured (not all 

responses visible external to animal, 

portion of exposed animals underwater 

(so not visible), many animals located 

many miles from observers and covering 

very large area, etc.) and because NMFS 

must authorize take prior to the impacts 

to marine mammals, a method is needed 

to estimate the number of individuals 

that will be taken, pursuant to the 

MMPA, based on the proposed action. 

To this end, NMFS developed acoustic 

criteria that estimate at what received 

level (when exposed to MFAS/HFAS or 

explosive detonations) Level B 

Harassment, Level A Harassment, and 

mortality (for explosives) of marine 

mammals would occur. The acoustic 

criteria for MFAS/HFAS and 

Underwater Detonations (IEER) are 

discussed below. 

MFAS/HFAS Acoustic Criteria 

Because relatively few applicable data 

exist to support acoustic criteria 

specifically for HFAS and because such 

a small percentage of the sonar pings 

that marine mammals will likely be 

exposed to incidental to this activity 

come from a HFAS source (the vast 

majority come from MFAS sources), 

NMFS will apply the criteria developed 

for the MFAS to the HFAS as well. 

NMFS utilizes three acoustic criteria 

for MFAS/HFAS: PTS (injury—Level A 

Harassment), TTS (Level B Harassment), 

and behavioral harassment (Level B 

Harassment). Because the TTS and PTS 

criteria are derived similarly and the 

PTS criteria was extrapolated from the 

TTS data, the TTS and PTS acoustic 

criteria will be presented first, before 

the behavioral criteria. 

For more information regarding these 

criteria, please see the Navy’s FEIS for 

AFAST. 

Level B Harassment Threshold (TTS) 

As mentioned above, behavioral 

disturbance, acoustic masking, and TTS 

are all considered Level B Harassment. 

Marine mammals would usually be 

behaviorally disturbed at lower received 

levels than those at which they would 

likely sustain TTS, so the levels at 

which behavioral disturbance are likely 

to occur is considered the onset of Level 

B Harassment. The behavioral responses 

of marine mammals to sound are 

variable, context specific, and, therefore, 

difficult to quantify (see Risk Function 

section, below). Alternately, TTS is a 

physiological effect that has been 

studied and quantified in laboratory 

conditions. Because data exist to 

support an estimate of at what received 

levels marine mammals will incur TTS, 

NMFS uses an acoustic criteria to 

estimate the number of marine 

mammals that might sustain TTS. TTS 

is a subset of Level B Harassment (along 

with sub-TTS behavioral harassment) 

and we are not specifically required to 

estimate those numbers; however, the 

more specifically we can estimate the 

affected marine mammal responses, the 

better the analysis. 

A number of investigators have 

measured TTS in marine mammals. 

These studies measured hearing 

thresholds in trained marine mammals 

before and after exposure to intense 

sounds. The existing cetacean TTS data 

are summarized in the following bullets. 

• Schlundt et al. (2000) reported the 

results of TTS experiments conducted 

with 5 bottlenose dolphins and 2 

belugas exposed to 1-second tones. This 

paper also includes a reanalysis of 

preliminary TTS data released in a 

technical report by Ridgway et al. 

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

kHz, sound pressure levels (SPLs) 

necessary to induce measurable 

amounts (6 dB or more) of TTS were 

between 192 and 201 dB re 1 μPa (EL 

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

exposure SPL and EL for onset-TTS 

were 195 dB re 1 μPa and 195 dB re 1 

μPa2¥s, respectively. 

• Finneran et al. (2001, 2003, 2005) 

described TTS experiments conducted 

with bottlenose dolphins exposed to 3- 

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

8 seconds. Small amounts of TTS (3 to 

6 dB) were observed in one dolphin 

after exposure to ELs between 190 and 

204 dB re 1 μPa2¥s. These results were 

consistent with the data of Schlundt et 

al. (2000) and showed that the Schlundt 

et al. (2000) data were not significantly 

affected by the masking sound used. 

These results also confirmed that, for 

tones with different durations, the 

amount of TTS is best correlated with 

the exposure EL rather than the 

exposure SPL. 

• Nachtigall et al. (2003) measured 

TTS in a bottlenose dolphin exposed to 

octave-band sound centered at 7.5 kHz. 

Nachtigall et al. (2003a) reported TTSs 

of about 11 dB measured 10 to 15 

minutes after exposure to 30 to 50 

minutes of sound with SPL 179 dB re 

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

TTS was observed after exposure to the 

same sound at 165 and 171 dB re 1 μPa. 

Nachtigall et al. (2004) reported TTSs of 

around 4 to 8 dB 5 minutes after 

exposure to 30 to 50 minutes of sound 

with SPL 160 dB re 1 μPa (EL about 193 

to 195 dB re 1 μPa2¥s). The difference 

in results was attributed to faster postexposure threshold measurement—TTS 

may have recovered before being 

detected by Nachtigall et al. (2003). 

These studies showed that, for longduration exposures, lower sound 

pressures are required to induce TTS 

than are required for short-duration 

tones. 

• Finneran et al. (2000, 2002) 

conducted TTS experiments with 

dolphins and belugas exposed to 

impulsive sounds similar to those 

produced by distant underwater 

explosions and seismic waterguns. 

These studies showed that, for very 

short-duration impulsive sounds, higher 

sound pressures were required to 

induce TTS than for longer-duration 

tones. 

• Finneran et al. (2007) conducted 

TTS experiments with bottlenose 

dolphins exposed to intense 20 kHz 

fatiguing tone. Behavioral and auditory 

evoked potentials (using sinusoidal 

amplitude modulated tones creating 

auditory steady state response [AASR]) 

were used to measure TTS. The 

fatiguing tone was either 16 (mean = 193 

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

186 re 1μPa) in duration. TTS ranged 

from 19–33db from behavioral 

measurements and 40–45dB from ASSR 

measurements. 

• Kastak et al. (1999a, 2005) 

conducted TTS experiments with three 

species of pinnipeds, California sea lion, 

northern elephant seal and a Pacific 

harbor seal, exposed to continuous 

underwater sounds at levels of 80 and 

95 dB sensation level at 2.5 and 3.5 kHz 

for up to 50 minutes. Mean TTS shifts 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60802 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

of up to 12.2 dB occurred with the 

harbor seals showing the largest shift of 

28.1 dB. Increasing the sound duration 

had a greater effect on TTS than 

increasing the sound level from 80 to 95 

dB. 

Some of the more important data 

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

cause a just-measurable amount of TTS) 

often defined as 6 dB of TTS (for 

example, Schlundt et al., 2000) and the 

fact that energy metrics (sound exposure 

levels (SEL), which include a duration 

component) better predict when an 

animal will sustain TTS than pressure 

(SPL) alone. NMFS’ TTS criteria (which 

indicate the received level at which 

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

HFAS are as follows: 

• Cetaceans—195 dB re 1 μPa2¥s 

(based on mid-frequency cetaceans—no 

published data exist on auditory effects 

of noise in low- or high-frequency 

cetaceans (Southall et al. (2007)) 

• Pinnipeds—183 dB re 1 μPa2¥s 

A detailed description of how TTS 

criteria were derived from the results of 

the above studies may be found in 

Chapter 3 of Southall et al. (2007), as 

well as the Navy’s AFAST LOA 

application. 

Level A Harassment Threshold (PTS) 

For acoustic effects, because the 

tissues of the ear appear to be the most 

susceptible to the physiological effects 

of sound, and because threshold shifts 

tend to occur at lower exposures than 

other more serious auditory effects, 

NMFS has determined that PTS is the 

best indicator for the smallest degree of 

injury that can be measured. Therefore, 

the acoustic exposure associated with 

onset-PTS is used to define the lower 

limit of the Level A harassment. 

PTS data do not currently exist for 

marine mammals and are unlikely to be 

obtained due to ethical concerns. 

However, PTS levels for these animals 

may be estimated using TTS data from 

marine mammals and relationships 

between TTS and PTS that have been 

discovered through study of terrestrial 

mammals. NMFS uses the following 

acoustic criteria for injury: 

• Cetaceans—215 dB re 1 μPa2¥s 

(based on mid-frequency cetaceans—no 

published data exist on auditory effects 

of noise in low- or high-frequency 

cetaceans (Southall et al. (2007)) 

• Pinnipeds—203 dB re 1 μPa2¥s) 

These criteria are based on a 20 dB 

increase in SEL over that required for 

onset-TTS. Extrapolations from 

terrestrial mammal data indicate that 

PTS occurs at 40 dB or more of TS, and 

that TS growth occurs at a rate of 

approximately 1.6 dB TS per dB 

increase in EL. There is a 34-dB TS 

difference between onset-TTS (6 dB) 

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

animal would require approximately 20 

dB of additional exposure (34 dB 

divided by 1.6 dB) above onset-TTS to 

reach PTS. A detailed description of 

how TTS criteria were derived from the 

results of the above studies may be 

found in Chapter 3 of Southall et al. 

(2007), as well as the Navy’s AFAST 

LOA application. Southall et al. (2007) 

recommend a precautionary dual 

criteria for TTS (230 dB re 1 μPa (SPL 

peak pressure) in addition to 215 dB re 

1 μPa2¥s (SEL)) to account for the 

potentially damaging transients 

embedded within non-pulse exposures. 

However, in the case of MFAS/HFAS, 

the distance at which an animal would 

receive 215 dB (SEL) is farther from the 

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

distance at which they would receive 

230 dB (SPL peak pressure) and 

therefore, it is not necessary to consider 

230 dB peak. 

We note here that behaviorally 

mediated injuries (such as those that 

have been hypothesized as the cause of 

some beaked whale strandings) could 

potentially occur in response to 

received levels lower than those 

believed to directly result in tissue 

damage. As mentioned previously, data 

to support a quantitative estimate of 

these potential effects (for which the 

exact mechanism is not known and in 

which factors other than received level 

may play a significant role) do not exist. 

However, based on the number of years 

(more than 40) and number of hours of 

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

countries) has operated compared to the 

reported (and verified) cases of 

associated marine mammal strandings, 

NMFS believes that the probability of 

these types of injuries is very low. 

Level B Harassment Risk Function 

(Behavioral Harassment) 

In 2006, NMFS issued the only 

MMPA authorization that has, as yet, 

authorized the take of marine mammals 

incidental to MFAS. For that 

authorization, NMFS used 173 dB SEL 

as the criterion for the onset of 

behavioral harassment (Level B 

Harassment). This type of single number 

criterion is referred to as a step function, 

in which (in this example) all animals 

estimated to be exposed to received 

levels above 173 db SEL would be 

predicted to be taken by Level B 

Harassment and all animals exposed to 

less than 173 dB SEL would not be 

taken by Level B Harassment. As 

mentioned previously, marine mammal 

behavioral responses to sound are 

highly variable and context specific 

(affected by differences in acoustic 

conditions; differences between species 

and populations; differences in gender, 

age, reproductive status, or social 

behavior; or the prior experience of the 

individuals), which does not support 

the use of a step function to estimate 

behavioral harassment. 

Unlike step functions, acoustic risk 

continuum functions (which are also 

called ‘‘exposure-response functions,’’ 

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

assessment contexts) allow for 

probability of a response that NMFS 

would classify as harassment to occur 

over a range of possible received levels 

(instead of one number) and assume that 

the probability of a response depends 

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

received level of sound) and that the 

probability of a response increases as 

the ‘‘dose’’ increases (see Figure 3a). 

The Navy and NMFS have previously 

used acoustic risk functions to estimate 

the probable responses of marine 

mammals to acoustic exposures for 

other training and research programs. 

Examples of previous application 

include the Navy FEISs on the 

SURTASS LFA sonar (U.S. Department 

of the Navy, 2001c); the North Pacific 

Acoustic Laboratory experiments 

conducted off the Island of Kauai (Office 

of Naval Research, 2001), the 

Supplemental EIS for SURTASS LFA 

sonar (U.S. Department of the Navy, 

2007d) and the FEIS for the Navy’s 

Hawaii Range Complex (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2008). As 

discussed in the Effects section, factors 

other than received level (such as 

distance from or bearing to the sound 

source) can affect the way that marine 

mammals respond; however, data to 

support a quantitative analysis of those 

(and other factors) do not currently 

exist. NMFS will continue to modify 

these criteria as new data become 

available. 

The particular acoustic risk functions 

developed by NMFS and the Navy (see 

Figures 3a and b) estimate the 

probability of behavioral responses to 

MFAS/HFAS (interpreted as the 

percentage of the exposed population) 

that NMFS would classify as harassment 

for the purposes of the MMPA given 

exposure to specific received levels of 

MFAS/HFAS. The mathematical 

function (below) underlying this curve 

is a cumulative probability distribution 

adapted from a solution in Feller (1968) 

and was also used in predicting risk for 

the Navy’s SURTASS LFA MMPA 

authorization as well. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60803 

R

L B

K

L B

K

A

A =

−  −



 





−  −



 





−

−

1

1

2

Where: 

R = Risk (0–1.0) 

L = Received level (dB re: 1 μPa) 

B = Basement received level = 120 dB re: 1 

μPa 

K = Received level increment above B where 

50 percent risk = 45 dB re: 1 μPa 

A = Risk transition sharpness parameter = 10 

(odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 8 

(mysticetes) 

In order to use this function to 

estimate the percentage of an exposed 

population that would respond in a 

manner that NMFS classifies as Level B 

Harassment, based on a given received 

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

be identified. 

B Parameter (Basement)—The B 

parameter is the estimated received 

level below which the probability of 

disruption of natural behavioral 

patterns, such as migration, surfacing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, 

to a point where such behavioral 

patterns are abandoned or significantly 

altered approaches zero for the MFAS/ 

HFAS risk assessment. At this received 

level, the curve would predict that the 

percentage of the exposed population 

that would be taken by Level B 

Harassment approaches zero. For 

MFAS/HFAS, NMFS has determined 

that B = 120 dB. This level is based on 

a broad overview of the levels at which 

many species have been reported 

responding to a variety of sound 

sources. 

K Parameter (representing the 50 

percent Risk Point)—The K parameter is 

based on the received level that 

corresponds to 50 percent risk, or the 

received level at which we believe 50 

percent of the animals exposed to the 

designated received level will respond 

in a manner that NMFS classifies as 

Level B Harassment. The K parameter (K 

= 45 dB) is based on three datasets in 

which marine mammals exposed to 

mid-frequency sound sources were 

reported to respond in a manner that 

NMFS would classify as Level B 

Harassment. There is widespread 

consensus that marine mammal 

responses to MFA sound signals need to 

be better defined using controlled 

exposure experiments (Cox et al., 2006; 

Southall et al., 2007). The Navy is 

contributing to an ongoing behavioral 

response study in the Bahamas that is 

expected to provide some initial 

information on beaked whales, the 

species identified as the most sensitive 

to MFAS. NMFS is leading this 

international effort with scientists from 

various academic institutions and 

research organizations to conduct 

studies on how marine mammals 

respond to underwater sound 

exposures. Additionally, the Navy plans 

to tag whales in conjunction with the 

2008 RIMPAC exercises. Until 

additional data are available, however, 

NMFS and the Navy have determined 

that the following three data sets are 

most applicable for the direct use in 

establishing the K parameter for the 

MFAS/HFAS risk function. These data 

sets, summarized below, represent the 

only known data that specifically relate 

altered behavioral responses (that NMFS 

would consider Level B Harassment) to 

exposure—at specific received levels— 

to MFA sonar and sources within or 

having components within the range of 

MFAS (1–10 kHz). 

Even though these data are considered 

the most representative of the proposed 

specified activities, and therefore the 

most appropriate on which to base the 

K parameter (which basically 

determines the midpoint) of the risk 

function, these data have limitations, 

which are discussed in Appendix J of 

the Navy’s FEIS for AFAST. 

1. Controlled Laboratory Experiments 

with Odontocetes (SSC Dataset)—Most 

of the observations of the behavioral 

responses of toothed whales resulted 

from a series of controlled experiments 

on bottlenose dolphins and beluga 

whales conducted by researchers at 

SSC’s facility in San Diego, California 

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

Finneran and Schlundt, 2004; Schlundt 

et al., 2000). In experimental trials 

(designed to measure TTS) with marine 

mammals trained to perform tasks when 

prompted, scientists evaluated whether 

the marine mammals still performed 

these tasks when exposed to midfrequency tones. Altered behavior 

during experimental trials usually 

involved refusal of animals to return to 

the site of the sound stimulus, but also 

included attempts to avoid an exposure 

in progress, aggressive behavior, or 

refusal to further participate in tests. 

Finneran and Schlundt (2004) 

examined behavioral observations 

recorded by the trainers or test 

coordinators during the Schlundt et al. 

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

2005) experiments. These included 

observations from 193 exposure sessions 

(fatiguing stimulus level > 141 dB re 1 

μPa) conducted by Schlundt et al. 

(2000) and 21 exposure sessions 

conducted by Finneran et al. (2001, 

2003, 2005). The TTS experiments that 

supported Finneran and Schlundt 

(2004) are further explained below: 

• Schlundt et al. (2000) provided a 

detailed summary of the behavioral 

responses of trained marine mammals 

during TTS tests conducted at SSC San 

Diego with 1-sec tones and exposure 

frequencies of 0.4 kHz, 3 kHz, 10 kHz, 

20 kHz and 75 kHz. Schlundt et al. 

(2000) reported eight individual TTS 

experiments. The experiments were 

conducted in San Diego Bay. Because of 

the variable ambient noise in the bay, 

low-level broadband masking noise was 

used to keep hearing thresholds 

consistent despite fluctuations in the 

ambient noise. Schlundt et al. (2000) 

reported that ‘‘behavioral alterations,’’ 

or deviations from the behaviors the 

animals being tested had been trained to 

exhibit, occurred as the animals were 

exposed to increasing fatiguing stimulus 

levels. 

• Finneran et al. (2001, 2003, 2005) 

conducted 2 separate TTS experiments 

using 1-sec tones at 3 kHz. The test 

methods were similar to that of 

Schlundt et al. (2000) except the tests 

were conducted in a pool with very low 

ambient noise level (below 50 dB re 1 

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

was used. In the first, fatiguing sound 

levels were increased from 160 to 201 

dB SPL. In the second experiment, 

fatiguing sound levels between 180 and 

200 dB SPL were randomly presented. 

Bottlenose dolphins exposed to 1- 

second (sec) intense tones exhibited 

short-term changes in behavior above 

received sound levels of 178 to 193 dB 

re 1 μPa (rms), and beluga whales did 

so at received levels of 180 to 196 dB 

and above. 

2. Mysticete Field Study (Nowacek et 

al., 2004)—The only available and 

applicable data relating mysticete 

responses to exposure to mid-frequency 

sound sources is from Nowacek et al. 

(2004). Nowacek et al. (2004) 

documented observations of the 

behavioral response of North Atlantic 

right whales exposed to alert stimuli 

containing mid-frequency components 

in the Bay of Fundy. Investigators used 

archival digital acoustic recording tags 

(DTAG) to record the behavior (by 

measuring pitch, roll, heading, and 

depth) of right whales in the presence 

of an alert signal, and to calibrate 

received sound levels. The alert signal 

was 18 minutes of exposure consisting 

of three 2-minute signals played 

sequentially three times over. The three 

signals had a 60 percent duty cycle and 

consisted of: (1) Alternating 1-sec pure 

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

logarithmic down-sweep from 4,500 Hz 

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

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

amplitude modulated at 120 Hz and 

each 1-sec long. The purposes of the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP14OC08.053</MATH>
60804 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

alert signal were (a) to pique the 

mammalian auditory system with 

disharmonic signals that cover the 

whales’ estimated hearing range; (b) to 

maximize the signal to noise ratio 

(obtain the largest difference between 

background noise) and (c) to provide 

localization cues for the whale. The 

maximum source level used was 173 dB 

SPL. 

Nowacek et al. (2004) reported that 

five out of six whales exposed to the 

alert signal with maximum received 

levels ranging from 133 to 148 dB re 1 

μPa significantly altered their regular 

behavior and did so in identical fashion. 

Each of these five whales: (i) 

Abandoned their current foraging dive 

prematurely as evidenced by curtailing 

their ‘‘bottom time’’; (ii) executed a 

shallow-angled, high power (i.e., 

significantly increased fluke stroke rate) 

ascent; (iii) remained at or near the 

surface for the duration of the exposure, 

an abnormally long surface interval; and 

(iv) spent significantly more time at 

subsurface depths (1–10 m) compared 

with normal surfacing periods when 

whales normally stay within 1 m (1.1 

yd) of the surface. 

3. Odontocete Field Data (Haro 

Strait—USS SHOUP)—In May 2003, 

killer whales (Orcinus orca) were 

observed exhibiting behavioral 

responses generally described as 

avoidance behavior while the U.S. Ship 

(USS) SHOUP was engaged in MFAS in 

the Haro Strait in the vicinity of Puget 

Sound, Washington. Those observations 

have been documented in three reports 

developed by Navy and NMFS (NMFS, 

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

2003). Although these observations were 

made in an uncontrolled environment, 

the sound field that may have been 

associated with the sonar operations 

was estimated using standard acoustic 

propagation models that were verified 

(for some but not all signals) based on 

calibrated in situ measurements from an 

independent researcher who recorded 

the sounds during the event. Behavioral 

observations were reported for the group 

of whales during the event by an 

experienced marine mammal biologist 

who happened to be on the water 

studying them at the time. The 

observations associated with the USS 

SHOUP provide the only data set 

available of the behavioral responses of 

wild, non-captive animal upon actual 

exposure to AN/SQS–53 sonar. 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

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

Department of the Navy (2004b); Fromm 

(2004a, 2004b) documented 

reconstruction of sound fields produced 

by USS SHOUP associated with the 

behavioral response of killer whales 

observed in Haro Strait. Observations 

from this reconstruction included an 

approximate closest approach time 

which was correlated to a reconstructed 

estimate of received level. Observations 

from this reconstruction included an 

estimate of 169.3 dB SPL which 

represents the mean level at a point of 

closest approach within a 500 m wide 

area which the animals were exposed. 

Within that area, the estimated received 

levels varied from approximately 150 to 

180 dB SPL. 

Calculation of K Parameter—NMFS 

and the Navy used the mean of the 

following values to define the midpoint 

of the function: (1) The mean of the 

lowest received levels (185.3 dB) at 

which individuals responded with 

altered behavior to 3 kHz tones in the 

SSC data set; (2) the estimated mean 

received level value of 169.3 dB 

produced by the reconstruction of the 

USS SHOUP incident in which killer 

whales exposed to MFA sonar (range 

modeled possible received levels: 150 to 

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

maximum received levels at which 

Nowacek et al. (2004) observed 

significantly altered responses of right 

whales to the alert stimuli than to the 

control (no input signal) is 139.2 dB 

SPL. The arithmetic mean of these three 

mean values is 165 dB SPL. The value 

of K is the difference between the value 

of B (120 dB SPL) and the 50 percent 

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

A Parameter (Steepness)—NMFS 

determined that a steepness parameter 

(A) = 10 is appropriate for odontocetes 

and pinnipeds and A = 8 is appropriate 

for mysticetes. 

The use of a steepness parameter of 

A = 10 for odontocetes for the MFAS/ 

HFAS risk function was based on the 

use of the same value for the SURTASS 

LFA risk continuum, which was 

supported by a sensitivity analysis of 

the parameter presented in Appendix D 

of the SURTASS/LFA FEIS (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2001c). As 

concluded in the SURTASS FEIS/EIS, 

the value of A = 10 produces a curve 

that has a more gradual transition than 

the curves developed by the analyses of 

migratory gray whale studies (Malme et 

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

SURTASS LFA Sonar EIS, Subchapters 

1.43, 4.2.4.3 and Appendix D, and 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

2008). 

NMFS determined that a lower 

steepness parameter (A = 8), resulting in 

a shallower curve, was appropriate for 

use with mysticetes and MFAS/HFAS. 

The Nowacek et al. (2004) dataset 

contains the only data illustrating 

mysticete behavioral responses to a 

sound source that encompasses 

frequencies in the mid-frequency sound 

spectrum. A shallower curve (achieved 

by using A = 8) better reflects the risk 

of behavioral response at the relatively 

low received levels at which behavioral 

responses of right whales were reported 

in the Nowacek et al. (2004) data. 

Compared to the odontocete curve, this 

adjustment results in an increase in the 

proportion of the exposed population of 

mysticetes being classified as 

behaviorally harassed at lower RLs, 

such as those reported in and is 

supported by the only dataset currently 

available. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60805 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP14OC08.015</GPH>
60806 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Basic Application of the Risk 

Function—The risk function is used to 

estimate the percentage of an exposed 

population that is likely to exhibit 

behaviors that would qualify as 

harassment (as that term is defined by 

the MMPA applicable to military 

readiness activities, such as the Navy’s 

testing and training with MFA sonar) at 

a given received level of sound. For 

example, at 165 dB SPL (dB re: 1μPa 

rms), the risk (or probability) of 

harassment is defined according to this 

function as 50 percent, and Navy/NMFS 

applies that by estimating that 50 

percent of the individuals exposed at 

that received level are likely to respond 

by exhibiting behavior that NMFS 

would classify as behavioral 

harassment. The risk function is not 

applied to individual animals, only to 

exposed populations. 

The data primarily used to produce 

the risk function (the K parameter) were 

compiled from four species that had 

been exposed to sound sources in a 

variety of different circumstances. As a 

result, the risk function represents a 

general relationship between acoustic 

exposures and behavioral responses that 

is then applied to specific 

circumstances. That is, the risk function 

represents a relationship that is deemed 

to be generally true, based on the 

limited, best-available science, but may 

not be true in specific circumstances. In 

particular, the risk function, as currently 

derived, treats the received level as the 

only variable that is relevant to a marine 

mammal’s behavioral response. 

However, we know that many other 

variables—the marine mammal’s 

gender, age, and prior experience; the 

activity it is engaged in during an 

exposure event, its distance from a 

sound source, the number of sound 

sources, and whether the sound sources 

are approaching or moving away from 

the animal—can be critically important 

in determining whether and how a 

marine mammal will respond to a sound 

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

that are currently available do not allow 

for incorporation of these other 

variables in the current risk functions; 

however, the risk function represents 

the best use of the data that are 

available. 

As more specific and applicable data 

become available for MFAS/HFAS 

sources, NMFS can use these data to 

modify the outputs generated by the risk 

function to make them more realistic. 

Ultimately, data may exist to justify the 

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

mentioned previously, the distance from 

the sound source and whether it is 

perceived as approaching or moving 

away can affect the way an animal 

responds to a sound (Wartzok et al., 

2003). In the AFAST example, animals 

exposed to received levels between 120 

and 130 dB may be more than 65 

nautical miles (131,651 yards (120381 

m)) from a sound source; those 

distances could influence whether those 

animals perceive the sound source as a 

potential threat, and their behavioral 

responses to that threat. Though there 

are data showing marine mammal 

responses to sound sources at that 

received level, NMFS does not currently 

have any data that describe the response 

of marine mammals to sounds at that 

distance, much less data that compare 

responses to similar sound levels at 

varying distances (much less for MFAS/ 

HFAS). However, if data were to become 

available, NMFS would re-evaluate the 

risk function and incorporate any 

additional variables into the ‘‘take’’ 

estimates. 

Harbor Porpoise Behavioral Harassment 

Criteria 

The information currently available 

regarding these inshore species that 

inhabit shallow and coastal waters 

suggests a very low threshold level of 

response for both captive and wild 

animals. Threshold levels at which both 

captive (e.g. Kastelein et al., 2000; 

Kastelein et al., 2005; Kastelein et al., 

2006, Kastelein et al., 2008) and wild 

harbor porpoises (e.g. Johnston, 2002) 

responded to sound (e.g. acoustic 

harassment devices (ADHs), acoustic 

deterrent devices (ADDs), or other nonpulsed sound sources) is very low (e.g. 

∼120 dB SPL), although the biological 

significance of the disturbance is 

uncertain. Therefore, a step function 

threshold of 120 dB SPL was used to 

estimate take of harbor porpoises 

instead of the risk functions used for 

other species (i.e., we assume for the 

purpose of estimating take that all 

harbor porpoises exposed to 120 dB or 

higher MFAS/HFAS will be taken by 

Level B behavioral harassment). 

Explosive Detonation Criteria (for IEER) 

The criteria for mortality, Level A 

Harassment, and Level B Harassment 

resulting from explosive detonations 

were initially developed for the Navy’s 

Sea Wolf and Churchill ship-shock trials 

and have not changed since other 

MMPA authorizations issued for 

explosive detonations. The criteria, 

which are applied to cetaceans and 

pinnipeds, are summarized in Table 10. 

Additional information regarding the 

derivation of these criteria is available 

in the Navy’s FEIS for the AFAST and 

in the Navy’s CHURCHILL FEIS (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2001c). 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60807 

Although NMFS does consider 

behavioral harassment that could 

potentially result from successive 

explosive detonations, such as those 

that would occur in gunnery exercises, 

because of the spatio-temporal 

separation (10–12 charges are detonated 

over the course of 2–8 hours in an area 

of up to 60 by 60 nm) of the charges 

detonated in an IEER exercises, 

behavioral harassment is considered 

unlikely. Also, the pressure wave (23 

psi) explosive TTS threshold radius is 

very close to the size of the acoustic 

energy threshold for sub-TTS 

harassment—so many of the takes that 

might have been counted as behavioral 

harassments would already have been 

captured as TTS takes anyway. 

Additionally, a 1,000-yd exclusion zone 

is utilized for the IEER exercises and the 

distance from the source at which 

animals would be exposed to the 

behavioral harassment threshold is less 

than 1,000 yds (approximately 500 yd). 

Estimates of Potential Marine Mammal 

Exposures and Takes 

Information regarding the models 

used, the assumptions used in the 

models, and the process of estimating 

take is available in the Navy’s EIS/OEIS 

for AFAST. Estimating the take that will 

result from the proposed activities 

entails the following general steps: 

(1) In order to quantify the types of 

take described in previous sections that 

are predicted to result from the Navy’s 

specified activities, the Navy first uses 

a sound propagation model that predicts 

the volume of water that will be 

ensonified to a range of levels of 

pressure and energy (of the metrics used 

in the criteria) from MFAS/HFAS and 

explosive detonations based on several 

important pieces of information, 

including: 

• Characteristics of the sound sources 

• Sonar source characteristics 

include: Source level (with 

horizontal and vertical directivity 

corrections), source depth, center 

frequency, source directivity 

(horizontal/vertical beam width and 

horizontal/vertical steer direction), 

and ping spacing 

• Explosive source characteristics 

include: The weight of an 

explosive, the type of explosive, 

and the detonation depth 

• Transmission loss (in 36 

representative environmental 

provinces) based on: Seasonal sound 

speed profiles; seabed geoacoustics; 

wind speed; and acoustics 

(2) The accumulated energy and 

maximum received sound pressure level 

within the waters in which the sonar is 

operating is sampled over a two 

dimensional grid. The zone of influence 

(ZOI) for a given threshold is estimated 

by summing the areas represented by 

each grid point for which the threshold 

is exceeded. For behavioral response, 

the percentage of animals likely to 

respond corresponding to the maximum 

received level is found, and the area of 

the grid point is multiplied by that 

percentage to find the adjusted area. 

Those adjusted areas are summed across 

all grid points to find the overall ZOI for 

a particular source. 

(3) The densities of each marine 

mammal species, which are specific to 

certain geographic areas and seasons if 

data are available, are applied to the 

summed zones of influence for a 

particular training event to determine 

how many times individuals of each 

species are exposed to levels that exceed 

the applicable criteria for injury or 

harassment. 

(4) Next, the criteria discussed in the 

previous section are applied to the 

estimated exposures to predict the 

number of exposures that exceed the 

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

Level B Harassment, Level A 

Harassment, and mortality. 

(5) Last, NMFS and the Navy consider 

the mitigation measures and modelcalculated estimates may be adjusted 

based a post-model assessment. For 

example, in some cases the raw 

modeled numbers of exposures to levels 

predicted to result in Level A 

Harassment from exposure to sonar 

might indicate that 1 fin whale would 

be exposed to levels of sonar anticipated 

to result in PTS—however, a fin whale 

would need to be within approximately 

10 m of the source vessel in order to be 

exposed to these levels. Because of the 

mitigation measures (watchstanders and 

shutdown zone), size of fin whales, and 

nature of fin whale behavior, it is highly 

unlikely that a fin whale would be 

exposed to those levels, and therefore 

the Navy would not request 

authorization for Level A Harassment of 

1 fin whale. Table 11 contains the 

Navy’s estimated take estimates. The 

‘‘takes’’ reported in the take table and 

proposed to be authorized are based on 

estimates of marine mammal exposures 

to levels above those indicated in the 

criteria. Every separate take does not 

necessarily represent a different 

individual because some individual 

marine mammals may be exposed more 

than once, either within one day and 

one exercise, or on different days from 

different exercise types. 

(6) Last, the Navy’s specified activities 

have been described based on best 

estimates of the number of MFAS/HFAS 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP14OC08.016</GPH>
60808 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

hours that the Navy will conduct. The 

exact number of hours may vary from 

year to year, but will not exceed the 5- 

year total indicated in Table 1 (by 

multiplying the yearly estimate by 5) by 

more than 10-percent. NMFS estimates 

that a 10-percent increase in sonar hours 

would result in approximately a 10- 

percent increase in the number of takes, 

and we have considered this possibility 

and the effect of this additional sonar 

use in our analysis. 

NMFS notes here that the Navy 

revised its request for incidental 

harassment (since the application was 

initially submitted and posted on 

NMFS’ Web site) based on corrections to 

the acoustic analysis that resulted in 

changes in the exposure estimates. 

During intensive quality assurance of 

the acoustic analysis calculations, the 

following errors were corrected: 

• Acoustic footprints for several of 

the sound sources were not summing 

correctly, leading to an underestimate of 

exposures. 

• Nearshore densities of several 

species of marine mammals in the 

northeast were improperly used to 

estimate offshore densities resulting in 

an overestimate of exposures. 

• Modeling of maintenance of the 

AN/BQQ–5/10 (submarine sonar) 

improperly summed footprints that 

were modeled for operations, leading to 

a significant overestimate of the number 

of marine mammal exposures. During 

operations submarines are predicted to 

ping infrequently, therefore each ping is 

added independently with no overlap 

between ping footprints. During 

maintenance the BQQ–5/10 is predicted 

to ping frequently, which leads to 

significant overlap of the ping 

footprints. 

The analysis contained in this 

proposed rule incorporates the revised 

take estimates and, thereby, the abovementioned corrections. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60809 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP14OC08.017</GPH>
60810 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Mortality 

Evidence from five beaked whale 

strandings, all of which have taken 

place outside the AFAST Study Area, 

and have occurred over approximately a 

decade, suggests that the exposure of 

beaked whales to MFAS in the presence 

of certain conditions (e.g., multiple 

units using tactical sonar, steep 

bathymetry, constricted channels, strong 

surface ducts, etc.) may result in 

strandings, potentially leading to 

mortality. Although these physical 

factors believed to contribute to the 

likelihood of beaked whale strandings 

are not present, in their aggregate, in the 

AFAST Study Area, scientific 

uncertainty exists regarding what other 

factors, or combination of factors, may 

contribute to beaked whale strandings. 

Accordingly, to allow for scientific 

uncertainty regarding contributing 

causes of beaked whale strandings and 

the exact behavioral or physiological 

mechanisms that can lead to the 

ultimate physical effects (stranding and/ 

or death), the Navy has requested 

authorization for take, by serious injury 

or mortality, of 10 beaked whales over 

the course of the 5-yr regulations. 

Neither NMFS nor the Navy anticipates 

that marine mammal strandings or 

mortality will result from the operation 

of mid-frequency sonar during Navy 

exercises within the AFAST Study Area. 

Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat 

Unless the source is stationary and/or 

continuous over a long duration in one 

area, the effects of the introduction of 

sound into the environment are 

generally considered to have a less 

severe impact on marine mammal 

habitat than the physical alteration of 

the habitat. AFAST activities primarily 

include the operation of active sonar 

sources at various locations and times 

along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 

Coasts throughout the year, although 

IEER exercises (169 2–8 hour exercises 

per year) may also include the 

detonation of several explosive 

sonobuoys, which utilize a 4.1-lb 

charge. In addition to the physical 

alteration of habitat, NMFS considers 

the effects of the action on prey species 

when analyzing the effects of the action 

on marine mammal habitat. Based on 

the information below and the 

supporting information included in the 

Navy’s DEIS, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the AFAST activities 

will not have significant or long term 

impacts on marine mammal habitat. 

However, the determination of whether 

an activity will adversely modify 

designated critical habitat is reached 

through a separate process, which 

would be completed before an MMPA 

authorization would be issued. 

Right Whale Critical Habitat 

Please see the Negligible Impact 

Determination Section for a discussion 

of the nature and extent of effects 

proposed to occur in designated right 

whale critical habitat. The NMFS 

Endangered Species Division will make 

a determination pursuant to the ESA 

regarding whether the Navy’s actions 

are likely to result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of right whale 

critical habitat prior to the issuance (if 

appropriate) of an LOA. 

Effects on Fish 

Mid-Frequency and High-Frequency 

Active Sonar 

The Navy’s DEIS (Section 4.7) 

includes a detailed discussion of the 

effects of sonar on marine fish. In 

summary, studies have indicated that 

acoustic communication and orientation 

of fish may be restricted by 

anthropogenic sound in their 

environment. However, most marine 

fish species are not expected to be able 

to detect sounds in the mid-frequency 

range of the operational sonars used in 

the Proposed Action, and therefore, the 

sound sources are not likely to mask key 

environmental sounds. The few fish 

species that have been shown to be able 

to detect mid-frequencies do not have 

their best sensitivities in the range of the 

operational sonars. Additionally, vocal 

marine fish largely communicate below 

the range of mid-frequency levels used 

in the Proposed Action. 

Though mortality has been shown to 

occur in one species, a hearing 

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

evidence does not suggest that 

exposures such as those anticipated 

from MFAS/HFAS would result in 

significant fish mortality on a 

population level. The mortality that was 

observed was considered insignificant 

in light of natural daily mortality rates. 

Experiments have shown that exposure 

to loud sound can result in significant 

threshold shifts in certain fish that are 

classified as hearing specialists (but not 

those classified as hearing generalists). 

Threshold shifts are temporary, and 

considering the best available data, no 

data exist that demonstrate any longterm negative effects on marine fish 

from underwater sound associated with 

sonar activities. Further, while fish may 

respond behaviorally to mid-frequency 

sources, this behavioral modification is 

only expected to be brief and not 

biologically significant. Based on the 

evaluation presented in the Navy’s DEIS 

and summarized here, the likelihood of 

significant effects to individual fish 

from active sonar is low. 

Explosive Detonations (IEER) 

There are currently no wellestablished thresholds for estimating 

effects to fish from explosives other than 

mortality models. Fish that are located 

in the water column, in proximity to the 

source of detonation could be injured, 

killed, or disturbed by the impulsive 

sound and possibly temporarily leave 

the area. Continental Shelf Inc. (2004) 

summarized a few studies conducted to 

determine effects associated with 

removal of offshore structures (e.g., oil 

rigs) in the Gulf of Mexico. Their 

findings revealed that at very close 

range, underwater explosions are lethal 

to most fish species regardless of size, 

shape, or internal anatomy. For most 

situations, cause of death in fishes has 

been massive organ and tissue damage 

and internal bleeding. At longer range, 

species with gas-filled swimbladders 

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

more susceptible than those without 

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

Studies also suggest that larger fishes 

are generally less susceptible to death or 

injury than small fishes. Moreover, 

elongated forms that are round in cross 

section are less at risk than deep-bodied 

forms; and orientation of fish relative to 

the shock wave may affect the extent of 

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

mackerel) also seem to be less affected 

than reef fishes. The results of most 

studies are dependent upon specific 

biological, environmental, explosive, 

and data recording factors. The Navy’s 

explosive sonobuoys that are proposed 

for use in IEER exercises are relatively 

small (4.1 lb) compared to charges used 

in many other activities, both military 

and construction-based. 

The huge variations in the fish 

population, including numbers, species, 

sizes, and orientation and range from 

the detonation point, make it very 

difficult to accurately predict mortalities 

at any specific site of detonation. 872 

explosive sonobuoys, deployed in 169 

2–8 hour exercises spread 

approximately evenly across all 

OPAREAs, are proposed to be detonated 

per year in the AFAST Study Area. Most 

fish species experience large numbers of 

natural mortalities, especially during 

early life-stages, and any small level of 

mortality caused by the AFAST 

activities involving the explosive source 

sonobuoy (AN/SSQ–110A) will likely be 

insignificant to the population as a 

whole. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60811 

Analysis and Negligible Impact 

Determination 

Pursuant to NMFS regulations 

implementing the MMPA, an applicant 

is required to estimate the number of 

animals that will be ‘‘taken’’ by the 

specified activities (i.e., takes by 

harassment only, or takes by 

harassment, injury, and/or death). This 

estimate informs the analysis that NMFS 

must perform to determine whether the 

activity will have a ‘‘negligible impact’’ 

on the affected species or stock. Level B 

(behavioral) harassment occurs at the 

level of the individual(s) and does not 

assume any resulting population-level 

consequences, though there are known 

avenues through which behavioral 

disturbance of individuals can result in 

population-level effects (for example: 

pink-footed geese (Anser 

brachyrhynchus) in undisturbed habitat 

gained body mass and had about a 46 

percent reproductive success compared 

with geese in disturbed habitat (being 

consistently scared off the fields on 

which they were foraging) which did 

not gain mass and has a 17 percent 

reproductive success). A negligible 

impact finding is based on the lack of 

likely adverse effects on annual rates of 

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

of Level B harassment takes, alone, is 

not enough information on which to 

base an impact determination. In 

addition to considering estimates of the 

number of marine mammals that might 

be ‘‘taken’’ through behavioral 

harassment, NMFS must consider other 

factors, such as the likely nature of any 

responses (their intensity, duration, 

etc.), the context of any responses 

(critical reproductive time or location, 

migration, etc.), or any of the other 

variables mentioned in the first 

paragraph (if known), as well as the 

number and nature of estimated Level A 

takes, the number of estimated 

mortalities, and effects on habitat. 

Generally speaking, and especially with 

other factors being equal, the Navy and 

NMFS anticipate more severe effects 

from takes resulting from exposure to 

higher received levels (though this is in 

no way a strictly linear relationship 

throughout species, individuals, or 

circumstances) and less severe effects 

from takes resulting from exposure to 

lower received levels. 

The Navy’s specified activities have 

been described based on best estimates 

of the number of MFAS/HFAS hours 

that the Navy will conduct. The exact 

number of hours (or torpedoes, or pings, 

whatever unit the source is estimated 

in) may vary from year to year, but will 

not exceed the 5-year total indicated in 

Table 1 (by multiplying the yearly 

estimate by 5) by more than 10 percent. 

NMFS estimates that a 10 percent 

increase in sonar hours (torpedoes, 

pings, etc.) would result in 

approximately a 10 percent increase in 

the number of takes, and we have 

considered this possibility and the effect 

of the additional sonar use in our 

analysis. 

Taking the above into account, 

considering the sections discussed 

below, and dependent upon the 

implementation of the proposed 

mitigation measures, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that Navy 

training exercises utilizing MFAS/HFAS 

and underwater detonations (IEER) will 

have a negligible impact on the marine 

mammal species and stocks present in 

the AFAST. 

Behavioral Harassment 

As discussed in the Potential Effects 

of Exposure of Marine Mammals to 

MFAS/HFAS and illustrated in the 

conceptual framework, marine 

mammals can respond to MFAS/HFAS 

in many different ways, a subset of 

which qualifies as harassment (see 

Behavioral Harassment Section). One 

thing that the take estimates do not take 

into account is the fact that most marine 

mammals will likely avoid strong sound 

sources to one extent or another. 

Although an animal that avoids the 

sound source will likely still be taken in 

some instances (such as if the avoidance 

results in a missed opportunity to feed, 

interruption of reproductive behaviors, 

etc.) in other cases avoidance may result 

in fewer instances of take than were 

estimated or in the takes resulting from 

exposure to a lower received level than 

was estimated, which could result in a 

less severe response. For MFAS/HFAS, 

the Navy provided information (Table 

12) estimating what percentage of the 

total takes that will occur within the 10– 

dB bins (without considering mitigation 

or avoidance) that are within the 

received levels considered in the risk 

continuum and for TTS and PTS. This 

table applies specifically to 53C sonar 

(the most powerful source), with less 

powerful sources the percentages would 

increase slightly in the lower received 

levels and correspondingly decrease in 

the higher received levels. As 

mentioned above, an animal’s exposure 

to a higher received level is more likely 

to result in a behavioral response that is 

more likely to adversely affect the 

health of the animals. 

As mentioned previously, the Navy 

developed planning awareness areas 

(PAAs) based on important bathymetric 

and consistent oceanographic features 

(see Mitigation). The incorporation of 

the Navy’s proposed PAAs into their 

planning process along with the plan 

not to conduct more than 4 major 

exercises within these areas should 

ultimately result in a reduction in the 

number of marine mammals exposed to 

MFAS/HFAS (because these PAAs are 

anticipated to have higher densities of 

animals), a reduction in the number of 

animals exposed while engaged in 

feeding behaviors (because these areas 

are particularly productive), and an 

increased awareness of their potential 

presence when conducting activities in 

those important areas. Additionally, the 

Navy’s plan to minimize both the 

helicopter dipping and object detection 

activities within the NARW critical 

habitat during the time when the most 

calves and mothers are present should 

result in the minimization of exposure 

of cow/calf pairs to MFAS/HFAS. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60812 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Because the Navy has only been 

monitoring specifically to discern the 

effects of MFAS/HFAS on marine 

mammals since approximately 2006, 

and because of the overall datagap 

regarding the effects MFAS/HFAS on 

marine mammals, not a lot is known 

regarding, specifically, how marine 

mammals in the AFAST Study Area will 

respond to MFAS/HFAS. For the four 

MTEs for which NMFS has received a 

monitoring report, no instances of 

obvious behavioral disturbance were 

observed by the Navy watchstanders in 

the 700+ hours of effort in which 79 

sightings of marine mammals were 

made (10 during active sonar operation). 

One cannot conclude from these results 

that marine mammals were not harassed 

from MFAS/HFAS, as a portion of 

animals within the area of concern were 

not seen (especially those more cryptic, 

deep-diving species, such as beaked 

whales or Kogia sp.) and some of the 

non-biologist watchstanders might not 

be well-qualified to characterize 

behaviors. However, one can say that 

the animals that were observed did not 

respond in any of the obviously more 

severe ways, such as panic, aggression, 

or anti-predator response. 

In addition to the monitoring that will 

be required pursuant to this LOA, which 

is specifically designed to help us better 

understand how marine mammals 

respond to sound, the Navy and NMFS 

have developed, funded, and begun 

conducting a controlled exposure 

experiment with beaked whales in the 

Bahamas. Separately, the Navy plans to 

conduct an opportunistic tagging 

experiment with beaked whales in the 

area of the 2008 Rim of the Pacific 

training exercises in the HRC. 

Diel Cycle 

As noted previously, many animals 

perform vital functions, such as feeding, 

resting, traveling, and socializing on a 

diel cycle (24-hr cycle). Substantive 

behavioral reactions to noise exposure 

(such as disruption of critical life 

functions, displacement, or avoidance of 

important habitat) are more likely to be 

significant if they last more than one 

diel cycle or recur on subsequent days 

(Southall et al., 2007). Consequently, a 

behavioral response lasting less than 

one day and not recurring on 

subsequent days is not considered 

particularly severe unless it could 

directly affect reproduction or survival 

(Southall et al., 2007). 

In the previous section, we discussed 

the fact that potential behavioral 

responses to MFAS/HFAS that fall into 

the category of harassment could range 

in severity. By definition, the takes by 

behavioral harassment involve the 

disturbance of a marine mammal or 

marine mammal stock in the wild by 

causing disruption of natural behavioral 

patterns (such as migration, surfacing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering) 

to a point where such behavioral 

patterns are abandoned or significantly 

altered. These reactions would, 

however, be more of a concern if they 

were expected to last over 24 hours or 

be repeated in subsequent days. For 

hull-mounted sonar (the highest power 

source), approximately 60% of the 

hours of source use are comprised of 

Independent Unit Level Training or 

maintenance activities that occur in 

events of 6 hours or less. Coordinated 

Unit Level Training or Strike Group 

Training events typically last more than 

one day, however, sonar use is not 

continuous and the exercises take place 

over very large areas, between 30 nm x 

30 nm areas and 180 nm x 180 nm areas 

(900–32,400 nm2). Additionally, during 

ASW exercises (times of continuous 

sonar use) vessels with hull-mounted 

sonar are typically moving at speeds of 

10–12 knots. When this is combined 

with the fact that the majority of the 

cetaceans in the AFAST study area 

would not likely remain in the same 

area for successive days (especially an 

area in waters beyond 22 km from shore 

or greater than 600 ft deep, which is 

where the majority of the exercises take 

place), it is unlikely that animals would 

be exposed to MFAS/HFAS at levels or 

for a duration likely to result in a 

substantive response that would then be 

carried on for more than one day or on 

successive days. 

TTS 

NMFS and the Navy have estimated 

that some individuals of some species of 

marine mammals may sustain some 

level of TTS from MFAS/HFAS. As 

mentioned previously, TTS can last 

from a few minutes to days, be of 

varying degree, and occur across various 

frequency bandwidths. Table 11 

indicates the estimated number of 

animals that might sustain TTS from 

exposure to MFAS/HFAS. The TTS 

sustained by an animal is primarily 

classified by three characteristics: 

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

mid to high frequency sounds—Southall 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP14OC08.018</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60813 

et al., 2007) suggest that most TTS 

occurs in the frequency range of the 

source up to one octave higher than the 

source (with the maximum TTS at 1⁄2

octave above). The two hull-mounted 

MFAS sources, the DICASS sonobuoys, 

and the helicopter dipping sonar have 

center frequencies between 3.5 and 8 

kHz and the other unidentified MF 

sources are, by definition, less than 10 

kHz, which suggests that TTS induced 

by any of these MF sources would be in 

a frequency band somewhere between 

approximately 2 and 20 kHz. There are 

far fewer hours of HF source use and the 

sounds would attenuate more quickly, 

but if an animal were to incur TTS from 

these sources, it would cover a higher 

frequency range (don’t know exactly 

because center frequencies of HF 

sources are classified). TTS from 

explosives would be broadband. Tables 

13a and b summarize the vocalization 

data for each species. 

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

dB is the sensitivity of the hearing 

reduced by)—generally, both the degree 

of TTS and the duration of TTS will be 

greater if the marine mammal is exposed 

to a higher level of energy (which would 

occur when the peak dB level is higher 

or the duration is longer). The threshold 

for the onset of TTS (> 6 dB) is 195 dB 

(SEL), which might be received at 

distances of up to 275–500 m from the 

most powerful MFAS source, the AN/ 

SQS–53 (the maximum ranges to TTS 

from other sources would be less). An 

animal would have to approach closer 

to the source or remain in the vicinity 

of the sound source appreciably longer 

to increase the received SEL, which 

would be difficult considering the 

watchstanders and the nominal speed of 

a sonar vessel (10–12 knots). Of all TTS 

studies, some using exposures of almost 

an hour in duration or up to 217 SEL, 

most of the TTS induced was 15 dB or 

less, though Finneran et al. (2007) 

induced 43 dB of TTS with a 64-sec 

exposure to a 20 kHz source (MFAS 

emits a 1-s ping 2 times/minute). 

• Duration of TTS (Recovery time)— 

see above. Of all TTS laboratory studies, 

some using exposures of almost an hour 

in duration or up to 217 SEL, almost all 

recovered within 1 day (or less, often in 

minutes), though in one study (Finneran 

et al. (2007)), recovery took 4 days. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP14OC08.019</GPH>
60814 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP14OC08.020</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60815 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP14OC08.021</GPH>
60816 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Based on the range of degree and 

duration of TTS reportedly induced by 

exposures to non-pulse sounds of 

energy higher than that to which freeswimming marine mammals in the field 

are likely to be exposed during MFAS/ 

HFAS training exercises, it is unlikely 

that marine mammals would sustain a 

TTS from MFAS that alters their 

sensitivity by more than 20 dB for more 

than a few days (and the majority would 

be far less severe). Also, for the same 

reasons discussed in the Diel Cycle 

section, and because of the short 

distance within which animals would 

need to approach the sound source, it is 

unlikely that animals would be exposed 

to the levels necessary to induce TTS in 

subsequent time periods such that their 

recovery were impeded. Additionally 

(see Tables 13a and 13b), though the 

frequency range of TTS that marine 

mammals might sustain would overlap 

with some of the frequency ranges of 

their vocalization types, the frequency 

range of TTS from MFAS (the source 

from which TTS would more likely be 

sustained because the higher source 

level and slower attenuation make it 

more likely that an animal would be 

exposed to a higher level) would not 

usually span the entire frequency range 

of one vocalization type, much less span 

all types of vocalizations. It is worth 

noting that TTS from MFAS could 

potentially result in reduced sensitivity 

to the vocalizations of killer whales 

(potential predators). If impaired, 

marine mammals would typically be 

aware of their impairment and 

implement behaviors to compensate for 

it (see Communication Impairment 

Section), though these compensations 

may incur energetic costs. 

Acoustic Masking or Communication 

Impairment 

Table 13 is also informative regarding 

the nature of the masking or 

communication impairment that could 

potentially occur from MFAS (again, 

center frequencies are 3.5 and 7.5 kHz 

for the two types of hull-mounted 

sonar). However, masking only occurs 

during the time of the signal (and 

potential secondary arrivals of indirect 

rays), versus TTS, which occurs 

continuously for its duration. Standard 

MFAS sonar pings last on average one 

second and occur about once every 24– 

30 seconds for hull-mounted sources. 

When hull-mounted sonar is used in the 

Kingfisher mode, pulse length is shorter, 

but pings are much closer together (both 

in time and space, since the vessel goes 

slower when operating in this mode). 

For the sources for which we know the 

pulse length, most are significantly 

shorter than hull-mounted sonar, on the 

order of several microseconds to 10s of 

microseconds. For hull-mounted sonar, 

though some of the vocalizations that 

marine mammals make are less than one 

second long, there is only a 1 in 24 

chance that they would occur exactly 

when the ping was received, and when 

vocalizations are longer than one 

second, only parts of them are masked. 

Alternately, when the pulses are only 

several microseconds long, the majority 

of most animals’ vocalizations would 

not be masked. Masking effects from 

MFAS/HFAS are expected to be 

minimal. If masking or communication 

impairment were to occur briefly, it 

would be in the frequency range of 

MFAS, which overlaps with some 

marine mammal vocalizations; however, 

it would likely not mask the entirety of 

any particular vocalization or 

communication series because the pulse 

length, frequency, and duty cycle of the 

MFAS/HFAS signal does not perfectly 

mimic the characteristics of any marine 

mammal’s vocalizations. 

PTS, Injury, or Mortality 

The Navy’s model estimated that the 

following numbers of individuals of the 

indicated species would be exposed to 

levels of MFAS/HFAS associated with 

the likelihood of resulting in PTS: 

bottlenose dolphin-47; pantropical 

spotted dolphin-13; Atlantic spotted 

dolphin-27; spinner dolphin-2; Clymene 

dolphin-4; striped dolphin-10; common 

dolphin-5; Risso’s dolphin-7; and pilot 

whales (long-finned and short-finned)— 

9. However, these estimates do not take 

into consideration either the mitigation 

measures or the likely avoidance 

behaviors of some of the animals 

exposed. NMFS believes that many 

marine mammals would deliberately 

avoid exposing themselves to the 

received levels necessary to induce 

injury (i.e., approaching to within 

approximately 10 m (10.9 yd) of the 

source) by moving away from or at least 

modifying their path to avoid a close 

approach. Additionally, in the unlikely 

event that an animal approaches the 

sonar vessel at a close distance, NMFS 

believes that the mitigation measures 

(i.e., shutdown/powerdown zones for 

MFAS/HFAS) further ensure that 

animals would not be exposed to 

injurious levels of sound. As discussed 

previously, the Navy utilizes both aerial 

(when available) and passive acoustic 

monitoring (during all ASW exercises) 

in addition to watchstanders on vessels 

to detect marine mammals for 

mitigation implementation and 

indicated that they are capable of 

effectively monitoring a 1000-meter 

(1,093-yd) safety zone at night using 

night vision goggles, infrared cameras, 

and passive acoustic monitoring. When 

these two points are considered, NMFS 

does not believe that any marine 

mammals will incur PTS from exposure 

to MFAS/HFAS. 

The Navy’s model estimated that 12 

total animals (dolphins) would be 

exposed to explosive detonations (from 

IEER) at levels that could result in 

injury—however, those estimates do not 

consider mitigation measures. 

Surveillance during the exercises for 

which injury was estimated (which 

includes aerial and passive acoustic 

detection methods, when available, to 

ensure clearance) begins half an hour 

before the exercise and extends to 1000 

yds (914 m) from the source. Because of 

the behavior and visibility of dolphins 

and the half hour of monitoring that 

occurs prior to detonation, NMFS does 

not think that any animals will be 

exposed to levels of sound or pressure 

that will result in injury from explosive 

detonations. 

As discussed previously, marine 

mammals could potentially respond to 

MFAS at a received level lower than the 

injury threshold in a manner that 

indirectly results in the animals 

stranding. The exact mechanisms of this 

potential response, behavioral or 

physiological, are not known. However, 

based on the number of occurrences 

where strandings have been definitively 

associated with military sonar versus 

the number of hours of sonar that have 

been conducted, we suggest that the 

probability is small that this will occur. 

Additionally, a sonar shutdown 

protocol for strandings involving live 

animals milling in the water minimizes 

the chances that these types of events 

turn into mortalities. 

Though NMFS does not expect it to 

occur, because of the uncertainty 

surrounding the mechanisms that link 

exposure to MFAS to stranding 

(especially in beaked whales), NMFS is 

proposing to authorize the injury or 

mortality of 10 beaked whales over the 

course of the 5-yr regulations. The 

Navy’s incorporation of the PAAs (some 

of which include steep bathymetry, 

certain variations of which have been 

implicated as contributing factors in 

marine mammal strandings) into 

exercise planning and their plan to not 

conduct major exercises in them could 

potentially further reduce the likelihood 

of strandings in association with MFAS 

operation. 

40 Years of Navy Training Exercises 

Using MFAS/HFAS in the AFAST Study 

Area 

The Navy has been conducting 

MFAS/HFAS training exercises in the 

AFAST Study Area for over 40 years, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60817 

and the proposed action is the ‘‘No 

Action’’ alternative in the Navy’s DEIS, 

i.e., continuing sonar operation in the 

manner and at the levels used in recent 

years. Although monitoring specifically 

in conjunction with training exercises to 

determine the effects of sonar on marine 

mammals was not being conducted by 

the Navy prior to 2006 and the 

symptoms indicative of potential 

acoustic trauma were not as well 

recognized prior to the mid-nineties, 

people have been collecting stranding 

data in the AFAST Study Area for 

approximately 30 years. Though not all 

dead or injured animals are expected to 

end up on the shore (some may be eaten 

or float out to sea), one might expect 

that if marine mammals were being 

harmed by sonar with any regularity, 

more evidence would have been 

detected over the 40-yr period. 

Model Overestimation 

When analyzing the results of the 

acoustic effects modeling to provide an 

estimate of effects, it is important to 

understand that there are limitations to 

the ecological data and to the acoustic 

model that likely result in an 

overestimation of the total exposures to 

marine mammals. NMFS considers 

these limitations qualitatively when 

analyzing effects. Specifically, the 

modeling results are likely 

overestimates for the following reasons: 

• Acoustic footprints for sonar 

sources near land are not reduced to 

account for the land mass, where marine 

mammals would not be exposed to 

underwater sound. 

• The acoustic footprint for each 

sonar source is modeled independently 

and, therefore, does not account for 

overlap it would have with other sonar 

systems used during the same active 

sonar activity (especially applicable 

during coordinated unit level training or 

strike group training). As a 

consequence, the calculated acoustic 

footprint is larger than the actual 

acoustic footprint, which can be 

significant when considering the range 

over which a behavioral effect may 

occur. 

• Acoustic exposures do not reflect 

implementation of mitigation measures, 

such as reducing sonar source levels 

when marine mammals are present. 

• In this analysis, the acoustic 

footprint is assumed to extend from the 

water surface to the ocean bottom. In 

reality, the acoustic footprint radiates 

from the source like a bubble, and a 

marine animal may be outside this 

region. 

• Marine mammal densities were 

averaged across specific active sonar 

activity areas and, therefore, are evenly 

distributed without consideration for 

animal grouping or patchiness. 

• The model also does not consider 

the likely avoidance behaviors of marine 

mammals in the proximity of an intense 

sound source. 

Species-Specific Analysis 

In the discussions below, the 

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

analysis, which includes the use of 

several models and other applicable 

calculations as described in the 

Estimates of Potential Marine Mammal 

Exposure section. The numbers 

predicted by the ‘‘acoustic analysis’’ are 

based on a uniform and stationary 

distribution of marine mammals and do 

not take into consideration the 

implementation of mitigation measures 

or potential avoidance behaviors of 

marine mammals, and therefore, are 

likely overestimates of potential 

exposures to the indicated thresholds 

(PTS, TTS, behavioral harassments). 

Consequently, NMFS has factored in the 

mitigation measures and avoidance to 

make both quantitative and qualitative 

adjustments to the take estimates 

predicted by the Navy’s ‘‘acoustic 

analysis’’. The revised take estimates 

(and proposed take authorization) 

depict a more realistic scenario than 

those adopted directly from the Navy’s 

acoustic analysis. 

Although NMFS is not required to 

identify the number of animals that will 

be taken specifically by TTS versus 

behavioral harassment (Level B 

Harassment takes include both), we 

have attempted to make more realistic 

estimates by quantitatively refining the 

Navy’s TTS estimates by modifying the 

estimate produced by the acoustic 

analysis by a specific amount if certain 

circumstances are present as described 

below: 

For MFAS/HFAS, some animals are 

likely to avoid the source to some 

degree (which could decrease the 

number exposed to TTS levels). Adding 

to that, in the following circumstances 

(discussed in more detail in the 

individual sections below) the indicated 

multipliers were applied to the TTS 

estimates predicted by the acoustic 

analysis: 

• When animals are highly visible 

(such as melon-headed whales, 

humpback whales), we assume that 

lookouts will see them in time to cease 

sonar operation before the animals are 

exposed to levels associated with TTS, 

which reach to about 140 m from the 

sonar source. In this case we estimate 0 

animals will incur TTS. 

• When animals are deep divers and 

very cryptic at the surface (such as 

beaked whales), though some may avoid 

the source, we assume that most will 

not be sighted, and therefore we 

estimated that 50–100% of the number 

predicted by the Navy’s acoustic 

analysis might actually incur TTS. 

• When animals are more likely to be 

visually detected than beaked whales, 

but less likely than the highly visible 

species, we estimate that 0–100% of the 

number of these species (sperm whales, 

some pinnipeds) predicted by the 

Navy’s acoustic analysis might actually 

incur TTS. 

• Though dolphins are highly visible, 

because the mitigation includes a 

provision to allow bow-riding, not all 

TTS take of dolphins will necessarily be 

avoided. Therefore, we estimated that 

0–50% of the number of dolphins 

predicted by the Navy’s acoustic 

analysis might actually incur TTS. 

North Atlantic Right Whale 

Acoustic analysis (here and below, 

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

process, including primarily the Navy’s 

model, that results in the take estimates 

submitted to NMFS—further analysis by 

NMFS may result in minor adjustments 

of some of the numbers) indicates that 

up to 666 exposures of North Atlantic 

right whales to sound levels likely to 

result in Level B harassment may occur. 

This estimate represents the total 

number of exposures and not 

necessarily the number of individuals 

exposed, as a single individual may be 

exposed multiple times over the course 

of a year (additionally, as mentioned 

above, the number may be an 

overestimate). Although 4 of the 

modeled Level B Harassment takes were 

predicted to be in the form of TTS, 

NMFS believes it is unlikely that any 

right whales will incur TTS because of 

the distance within which they would 

have to approach the sonar source 

(depending on conditions, within a 

range of 275–500 m for the most 

powerful source), the fact that many 

animals will likely avoid sonar sources 

to some degree, and the likelihood that 

Navy monitors would detect these 

animals prior to an approach within this 

distance and implement sonar 

powerdown or shutdown. Navy 

lookouts will likely detect a group of 

North Atlantic right whales out to 914 

m (1,000 yd) given their large size 

(Leatherwood and Reeves, 1982), 

surface behavior, pronounced blow, and 

mean group size of approximately three 

animals. The probability of trackline 

detection in Beaufort Sea States of 6 or 

less is 0.90 or 90 percent (Barlow, 2003). 

A small number (30: 20 in the SE and 

10 in the NE) of the predicted takes of 

North Atlantic right whales would 

likely occur within critical habitat for 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60818 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

the North Atlantic Right Whale, which 

has been designated in three areas: (1) 

Coastal Florida and Georgia (Sebastian 

Inlet, Florida, to the Altamaha River, 

Georgia)—calving grounds; (2) The 

Great South Channel, east of Cape 

Cod—feeding and nursery grounds; and 

(3) Cape Cod and Massachusetts Bays— 

feeding and nursery grounds. 

In the Northeast, the Navy has 

proposed to largely avoid conducting 

any training or sonar use in the critical 

habitat, with one exception. Torpedo 

exercises (a maximum of 32 MK–48 

torpedo runs at 15 minutes each or up 

to 24 lightweight MK–46 or MK–54 

torpedoes) would occur in August– 

December (when right whales are less 

likely to be present), as worked out 

during a previous section 7 

consultation. The Navy has included 

special mitigation measures for 

TORPEXs conducted in the Northeast. 

In the Southeast critical habitat, the 

Navy has also proposed to largely avoid 

conducting any training or sonar use in 

critical habitat, with two exceptions. 

Maintenance of helicopter dipping 

sonars occasionally occurs 

(approximately 30 events at 2–4 hours 

each) in the portion of the helicopter 

dipping sonar training area that overlaps 

with NARW critical habitat. In addition, 

the Navy would conduct approximately 

40 ship object detection/navigational 

sonar training exercises (1–2 hours 

each) annually while entering/exiting 

port (within approximately 1 mile of the 

shore). This activity could occur yearround (i.e., not all of them would occur 

during the time that right whales are 

concentrated in the critical habitat, 

December–April). All ASW training, 

except shore-based helicopter dipping 

sonar, occurs more than 12 nm from 

shore and usually in greater than 600 ft 

of water. 

Due to the importance of right whale 

critical habitat for reproductive 

activities and feeding, takes that occur 

in those areas would be considered 

more likely to have more potentially 

severe effects than takes that occur 

while whales are just moving through 

and not involved in reproductive or 

feeding behaviors. However, the 

estimated takes in these areas are low 

(30 total, 20 in the SE, 10 in the NE). 

Additionally, NMFS and the Navy have 

included mitigation measures to 

minimize impacts (both number and 

severity) both in the northeast and 

Southeast designated right whale 

critical habitat (see Mitigation section). 

Acoustic analysis indicates that no 

right whales will be exposed to sound 

levels likely to result in Level A 

harassment. Modeling of the explosive 

sonobuoys predicts no potential for 

injury or mortality to right whales. As 

noted previously, regardless of what the 

model predicts, NMFS believes that the 

Navy watchstanders would detect a 

right whale and implement sonar 

powerdown or shutdown well before an 

animal was able to approach within the 

distance necessary to be injured 

(approximately 10 m from a hullmounted sonar). 

Fleet Area Control and Surveillance 

Facility Jacksonville coordinates Navy 

ship and aircraft clearance into the 

Northern Right Whale Critical Habitat 

and the surrounding Operating Area 

(OPAREA) based on season, water 

temperature, weather conditions, and 

frequency of whale sightings, and 

provides Northern Right Whale sighting 

reports to ships, submarines and 

aircraft. Through coordination with the 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission (FWCC), Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources 

(GDNR), New England Aquarium Early 

Warning System (EWS) and others, Fleet 

Area Control and Surveillance Facility 

Jacksonville organized a 

communications network and reporting 

system that ensures the widest possible 

exchange and dissemination of Northern 

Right Whale sighting information to 

Department of Defense (DoD) and 

civilian shipping. 

Approximately 350 right whales, 

including about 70 mature females, are 

thought to occur in the western North 

Atlantic (Kraus et al., 2005). The most 

recent stock assessment report states 

that in a review of the photo-ID 

recapture database for October 2005, 

306 individually recognized whales 

were known to be alive during 2001 

(Waring et al., 2007). This number 

represents a minimum population size, 

and no abundance estimate with an 

associated coefficient of variation has 

been calculated for this population 

(Waring et al., 2007). Right whales are 

not normally expected to occur in the 

Gulf of Mexico. 

Based on the Navy’s modeled take 

estimates, it is possible that nearly every 

North Atlantic right whale in the stock 

might be harassed (Level B) one or two 

times during the course of one year, or 

alternately, fewer animals might be 

harassed more than one or two times per 

year. However, as discussed above, 

Coordinated Unit Level Exercises and 

Strike Group Exercises utilizing surface 

vessels (i.e., the exercises that utilize 

multiple surface vessels and last for 

multiple days) occur farther than 12 nm 

from shore and do not occur in the NE 

OPAREA at all, which means that they 

do not occur in or directly adjacent to 

the right whale critical habitat. 

Therefore, any takes that occur in the 

critical habitat would likely be short 

term and at a lower received level (hullmounted source on surface vessel is 

highest power) and would likely not 

affect annual rates of recruitment or 

survival. 

Last, in the unanticipated event that 

an injured or entangled North Atlantic 

right whale is encountered by the Navy 

at sea during training exercises, the 

Navy will cease sonar operation within 

14 nm (Atlantic) or 17 nm (Gulf of 

Mexico) of the animal in order to ensure 

that Navy activities do not add to the 

stress of an already at risk and 

weakened (regardless of the original 

cause) animal. These are the respective 

estimated distances at which a marine 

mammal would receive approximately 

145 dB SPL, the level at which the risk 

function predicts 1% of the animals 

exposed would respond in a manner 

that NMFS considers Level B 

harassment. Navy training will not 

resume in the area until the animal dies 

or swims away of its own volition. 

Humpback Whale 

Acoustic analysis indicates that up to 

4,198 exposures of humpback whales to 

sound levels likely to result in Level B 

harassment may occur. This estimate 

represents the total number of exposures 

and not necessarily the number of 

individuals exposed, as a single 

individual may be exposed multiple 

times over the course of a year. 

Although 30 of the modeled Level B 

Harassment takes were predicted to be 

in the form of TTS, NMFS believes it is 

unlikely that any humpback whales will 

incur TTS because of the distance 

within which they would have to 

approach the sonar source (depending 

on conditions, within a range of 275– 

500 m for the most powerful source), the 

fact that many animals will likely avoid 

sonar sources to some degree, and the 

likelihood that Navy monitors would 

detect these animals prior to an 

approach within this distance and 

implement sonar powerdown or 

shutdown. Navy lookouts will likely 

detect a group of humpback whales out 

to 914 m (1,000 yd) given their large size 

(Leatherwood and Reeves, 1982), 

surface behavior, and pronounced blow. 

In the North Atlantic Ocean, 

humpbacks are found from spring 

through fall on feeding grounds that are 

located from south of New England to 

northern Norway (NMFS, 1991). The 

Gulf of Maine is one of the principal 

summer feeding grounds for humpback 

whales in the North Atlantic. The 

largest numbers of humpback whales 

are present from mid-April to midNovember. Feeding locations off the 

northeastern United States include 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60819 

Stellwagen Bank, Jeffreys Ledge, the 

Great South Channel, the edges and 

shoals of Georges Bank, Cashes Ledge, 

Grand Manan Banks, the banks on the 

Scotian Shelf, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, 

and the Newfoundland Grand Banks 

(CETAP, 1982; Whitehead, 1982; 

Kenney and Winn, 1986; Weinrich et 

al., 1997). Feeding most often occurs in 

relatively shallow waters over the inner 

continental shelf and sometimes in 

deeper waters. Large multi-species 

feeding aggregations (including 

humpback whales) have been observed 

over the shelf break on the southern 

edge of Georges Bank (CETAP, 1982; 

Kenney and Winn, 1987) and in shelf 

break waters off the U.S. mid-Atlantic 

coast (Smith et al., 1996). 

Acoustic analysis indicates that no 

humpback whales will be exposed to 

sound levels likely to result in Level A 

harassment. Modeling of the explosive 

sonobuoys predicts no potential injury 

or mortality to humpback whales. 

Humpback whales in the North 

Atlantic are thought to belong to five 

different feeding stocks: Gulf of Maine, 

Gulf of St. Lawrence, Newfoundland/ 

Labrador, western Greenland, and 

Iceland. The current best estimate of 

population size for humpback whales in 

the North Atlantic, including the Gulf of 

Maine Stock, is 11,570 individuals 

(Waring et al., 2007). The best 

abundance estimate for the Gulf of 

Maine humpback stock is 902 

individuals (Waring et al., 2007). During 

the winter, most of the North Atlantic 

population of humpback whales is 

believed to migrate south to calving 

grounds in the West Indies region 

(Whitehead and Moore, 1982; Smith et 

al., 1999; Stevick et al., 2003). During 

this time individuals from the various 

feeding stocks mix through migration 

routes as well as on the feeding grounds. 

Although the population composition of 

the mid-Atlantic is apparently 

dominated by Gulf of Maine whales, the 

mixing of multiple stocks through the 

migratory season suggests that 

exposures in the Mid-Atlantic and 

Southeast are likely spread across all of 

the North Atlantic populations. 

Sufficient data to estimate the 

percentage of exposures to each stock is 

currently not available, however, the 

estimated takes are spread across the 

different OPAREAs and time such that 

focused and harmful impacts to one 

particular stock are not anticipated. 

As mentioned previously, important 

feeding areas for humpbacks are located 

in the Northeast. Stellwagen Banks 

Sanctuary contains some of this 

important area and the Navy does not 

currently plan to conduct any activities 

in this area. Additionally, the Navy has 

designated PAAs in the Northeast that 

include some of these important feeding 

areas and these areas will be considered 

in the planning of exercises. 

Sei Whale 

Acoustic analysis indicates that up to 

1,054 exposures of sei whales to sound 

levels likely to result in Level B 

harassment may occur. This estimate 

represents the total number of exposures 

and not necessarily the number of 

individuals exposed, as a single 

individual may be exposed multiple 

times over the course of a year. 

Although 2 of the modeled Level B 

Harassment takes were predicted to be 

in the form of TTS, NMFS believes it is 

unlikely that any sei whales will incur 

TTS because of the distance within 

which they would have to approach the 

sonar source (depending on conditions, 

within a range of 275–500 m for the 

most powerful source), the fact that 

many animals will likely avoid sonar 

sources to some degree, and the 

likelihood that Navy monitors would 

detect these animals prior to an 

approach within this distance and 

implement sonar powerdown or 

shutdown. Navy lookouts will likely 

detect a group of sei whales out to 914 

m (1,000 yd) given their large size 

(Leatherwood and Reeves, 1982), group 

size (3 or more), and pronounced blow. 

No areas of specific importance for 

reproduction or feeding for sei whales 

have been identified in the AFAST 

Study Area. Modeling of the explosive 

sonobuoys also predicts no potential for 

injury or mortality to sei whales. 

Sei whales in the North Atlantic 

belong to three stocks: Nova Scotia, 

Iceland-Denmark Strait, and Northeast 

Atlantic (Perry et al., 1999). The Nova 

Scotia Stock occurs in U.S. Atlantic 

waters (Waring et al., 2007). There are 

no recent abundance estimates for the 

Nova Scotia stock (Waring et al., 2007). 

Fin and Blue Whales 

There are no population estimates for 

blue whales for the Western North 

Atlantic except for the Gulf of Saint 

Lawrence (Waring et al., 2002), for 

which the estimate is 308. Blue whales 

are known to occur throughout the 

deeper waters of the Atlantic, beyond 

the U.S. EEZ (Clark 1995, Clark and 

Gagnon 2004). Comparisons can be 

made between blue and fin whales 

based on behavior, areas where they are 

typically found, and feeding habits. The 

fin whale abundance estimate is the 

most analogous representation for blue 

whale abundance within the study area. 

Therefore, the number of takes 

estimated for blue whales, as well as 

overall conclusions, should be similar to 

those estimated for fin whales. 

Acoustic analysis indicates that up to 

881 fin whales and 801 blue whales may 

be exposed to sound levels likely to 

result in Level B harassment. This 

estimate represents the total number of 

exposures and not necessarily the 

number of individuals exposed, as a 

single individual may be exposed 

multiple times over the course of a year. 

Although 2 of the modeled Level B 

Harassment takes (for fin whales) were 

predicted to be in the form of TTS, 

NMFS believes it is unlikely that any fin 

(or blue) whales will incur TTS because 

of the distance within which they 

would have to approach the sonar 

source (depending on conditions, 

within a range of 275–500 m for the 

most powerful source), the fact that 

many animals will likely avoid sonar 

sources to some degree, and the 

likelihood that Navy monitors would 

detect these animals prior to an 

approach within this distance and 

implement sonar powerdown or 

shutdown. Navy lookouts will likely 

detect a group of fin (or blue) whales out 

to 914 m (1,000 yd) given their large size 

and pronounced blow (Barlow 2003 

estimated a high rate of detection for fin 

whales: 0.90 in Beaufort sea states of 6 

or less). No areas of specific importance 

for reproduction or feeding for fin (or 

blue) whales have been identified in the 

AFAST Study Area. Also, acoustic 

analysis predicts that no fin whales will 

be exposed to sound or explosive levels 

likely to result either in Level A 

harassment or mortality. 

Fin whales are currently considered 

as a single stock in the western North 

Atlantic. The best abundance estimate 

for the Western North Atlantic stock of 

fin whales is 2,814 (Waring et al., 2007). 

Minke Whales 

Acoustic analysis indicates that up to 

414 exposures of minke whales to sound 

levels likely to result in Level B 

harassment may occur. This estimate 

represents the total number of exposures 

and not necessarily the number of 

individuals exposed, as a single 

individual may be exposed multiple 

times over the course of a year. Acoustic 

analysis indicates that 1 of the modeled 

Level B Harassment takes would be in 

the form of TTS. Though minke whales 

would have to approach the sonar 

source within a range of 275–500 m (for 

the most powerful source) to incur TTS 

and many animals will likely avoid 

sonar sources to some degree, these 

animals have relatively cryptic behavior 

and profile at the surface and therefore 

could potentially be missed by the 

lookouts at this distance. Therefore, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60820 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

NMFS thinks that one minke whale may 

incur TTS. No areas of specific 

importance for reproduction or feeding 

for minke whales have been identified 

in the AFAST Study Area. Also, 

acoustic analysis predicts that no minke 

whales will be exposed to sound or 

explosive levels likely to result either in 

Level A harassment or mortality. The 

best available abundance estimate for 

minke whales from the Canadian East 

Coast stock is 2,998 animals (Waring et 

al., 2007). The minke whale is not 

expected in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Bryde’s Whale 

Acoustic analysis indicates that up to 

34 exposures of Bryde’s whales to sound 

levels likely to result in Level B 

harassment may occur. This estimate 

represents the total number of exposures 

and not necessarily the number of 

individuals exposed, as a single 

individual may be exposed multiple 

times over the course of a year. 

Although acoustic modeling estimated 

that one of the Level B Harassment takes 

would be in the form of TTS, NMFS 

believes it is unlikely that any Bryde’s 

whales would incur TTS or be injured 

because of the distance within which 

they would have to approach the sonar 

source (depending on conditions, 

within a range of 275–500 m for the 

most powerful source for TTS, 10 m for 

injury), the fact that many animals will 

likely avoid sonar sources to some 

degree, and the likelihood that Navy 

monitors would detect these animals 

prior to an approach within this 

distance and implement sonar 

powerdown or shutdown. Navy 

lookouts will likely detect a group of 

Bryde’s whales out to 914 m (1,000 yd) 

given their large size and pronounced 

blow. Acoustic analysis predicts that no 

Bryde’s whales will be exposed to 

sound levels or explosive detonations 

likely to result either in TTS, Level A 

harassment, or mortality. No areas of 

specific importance for reproduction or 

feeding for Bryde’s whales have been 

identified in the AFAST Study Area. 

The best abundance estimate for Bryde’s 

whales within the northern Gulf of 

Mexico is 40. 

Sperm Whales 

Acoustic analysis indicates that up to 

9741 (estimated 342 in GOM) exposures 

of sperm whales to sound levels likely 

to result in Level B harassment may 

occur. This estimate represents the total 

number of exposures and not 

necessarily the number of individuals 

exposed, as a single individual may be 

exposed multiple times over the course 

of a year. Although 63 of the modeled 

Level B Harassment takes were 

predicted to be in the form of TTS, 

NMFS believes it is unlikely that all of 

the estimated sperm whales will incur 

TTS because of the distance within 

which they would have to approach the 

sonar source (depending on conditions, 

within a range of 275–500 m for the 

most powerful source), the fact that 

many animals will likely avoid sonar 

sources to some degree, and the 

likelihood that Navy monitors would 

detect these animals prior to an 

approach within this given their large 

size, pronounced blow, and average 

group size (7). However, because of their 

long, deep diving behavior (up to 2-hour 

dives), NMFS believes that some 

animals may approach undetected 

within the distance in which TTS 

would likely be incurred. Therefore, 

NMFS estimates that 0–32 sperm whales 

may incur some degree of TTS from 

exposure to MFAS/HFAS. 

The region of the Mississippi River 

Delta (Desoto Canyon) has been 

recognized for high densities of sperm 

whales and appears to represent an 

important calving and nursery area for 

these animals (Townsend, 1935; Collum 

and Fritts, 1985; Mullin et al., 1994a; 

Wu ̈rsig et al., 2000; Baumgartner et al., 

2001; Davis et al., 2002; Mullin et al., 

2004; Jochens et al., 2006). Sperm 

whales typically exhibit a strong affinity 

for deep waters beyond the continental 

shelf, though in the area of the 

Mississippi Delta they also occur on the 

outer continental shelf break. However, 

there is a PAA designated immediately 

seaward of the continental shelf 

associated with the Mississippi Delta, in 

which the Navy plans to conduct no 

more than 1 major exercise and which 

they plan to take into consideration in 

the planning of unit-level exercises, and 

therefore NMFS does not expect that 

impacts will be focused, extensive, or 

severe in the sperm whale calving area. 

Acoustic analysis predicts that no 

sperm whales will be exposed to sound 

or explosive levels likely to result either 

in Level A harassment or mortality. The 

best abundance estimate for sperm 

whales for the western North Atlantic is 

4,804 and in the northern GOMEX is 

1,349 individuals (Mullin and Fulling, 

2004). 

Pygmy and Dwarf Sperm Whales 

Due to the difficulty in differentiating 

these two species at sea, an estimate of 

the effects on the two species have been 

combined (as have abundance estimates 

in NMFS’ stock assessment reports). 

Acoustic analysis indicates that up to 

4384 exposures of Kogia spp. to sound 

levels likely to result in Level B 

harassment may occur. This estimate 

represents the total number of exposures 

and not necessarily the number of 

individuals exposed, as a single 

individual may be exposed multiple 

times over the course of a year. 44 of the 

modeled Level B Harassment takes were 

predicted to be in the form of TTS. 

NMFS believes it is unlikely that all 44 

whales will incur TTS because of the 

distance within which they would have 

to approach the sonar source 

(depending on conditions, within a 

range of 275–500 m for the most 

powerful source), the fact that many 

animals will likely avoid sonar sources 

to some degree, and the likelihood that 

Navy monitors would detect some of 

these animals prior to an approach 

within this distance and implement 

sonar powerdown or shutdown. 

However, because of their deep diving 

behavior (longer time below the surface) 

and relatively cryptic behavior/profile at 

the surface, NMFS estimates that 22–44 

animals may approach undetected 

within the distance in which TTS 

would likely be incurred. As mentioned 

above, some Kogia sp. vocalizations 

might overlap with the MFAS/HFAS 

TTS frequency range (2–20 kHz), but the 

limited information for Kogia sp. 

indicates that their clicks are at a much 

higher frequency and that their 

maximum hearing sensitivity is between 

90 and 150 kHz. It is worth noting that 

TTS in the range induced by MFAS 

would reduce sensitivity in the band 

that killer whales click and echolocate 

in. However, as noted previously, NMFS 

does not anticipate TTS of a long 

duration or severe degree to occur as a 

result of exposure to MFA/HFAS. 

No areas of specific importance for 

reproduction or feeding for Kogia spp. 

have been identified in the AFAST 

Study Area. Also, acoustic analysis 

predicts that no pygmy or dwarf sperm 

whales will be exposed to sound or 

explosive levels likely to result either in 

Level A harassment or mortality. The 

best abundance estimate for both 

species combined in the western North 

Atlantic is 395 individuals, and 

combined in the Northern Gulf of 

Mexico, the best abundance estimate is 

742. 

Beaked Whales 

Due to the difficulty in differentiating 

Mesoplodon species from each other, as 

well as from Ziphius at sea, and because 

of the lack of a population estimate for 

bottlenose whales, estimates of the 

effects on the six species of beaked 

whales listed in Table 4 have been 

combined (as have abundance estimates 

in NMFS’s stock assessment reports). 

Acoustic analysis indicates that up to 

2,665 exposures of beaked whales to 

sound levels likely to result in Level B 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60821 

harassment may occur. This estimate 

represents the total number of exposures 

and not necessarily the number of 

individuals exposed, as a single 

individual may be exposed multiple 

times over the course of a year: 34 of the 

modeled Level B Harassment takes were 

predicted to be in the form of TTS. 

NMFS believes it is unlikely that all 34 

whales will incur TTS because of the 

distance within which they would have 

to approach the sonar source 

(depending on conditions, within a 

range of 275–500 m for the most 

powerful source), the fact that many 

animals will likely avoid sonar sources 

to some degree, and the likelihood that 

Navy monitors would detect a few of 

these animals prior to an approach 

within this distance and implement 

sonar powerdown or shutdown. 

However, because of their deep diving 

behavior (longer time below the surface) 

and cryptic behavior/profile at the 

surface, NMFS believes that some 

animals (estimate 17–34) may approach 

undetected within the distance in which 

TTS would likely be incurred. As 

mentioned above and indicated in Table 

13, some beaked whale vocalizations 

might overlap with the MFAS/HFAS 

TTS frequency range (2–20 kHz); 

however, as noted previously, NMFS 

does not anticipate TTS of a long 

duration or severe degree to occur as a 

result of exposure to MFA/HFAS. It is 

worth noting that TTS in the range 

induced by MFAS could reduce 

sensitivity in the band that killer whales 

click and echolocate in. 

No areas of specific importance for 

reproduction or feeding for beaked 

whales have been identified in the 

AFAST Study Area. Also, acoustic 

analysis predicts that no beaked whales 

will be exposed to sound or explosive 

levels likely to result either in Level A 

harassment or mortality. The best 

abundance estimate for Mesoplodon 

species and Cuvier’s beaked whales in 

the northern Gulf of Mexico are 106 and 

95 animals, respectively. The best 

abundance estimate for undifferentiated 

beaked whales (Ziphius and 

Mesoplodon species) in the Western 

North Atlantic is 3,513. 

Although NMFS does not expect 

mortality of any of these six species to 

occur as a result of the MFAS/HFAS 

training exercises (see Mortality 

paragraph above), because we intend to 

authorize mortality, we consider the 10 

potential mortalities from across the six 

species potentially effected over the 

course of 5 years in our negligible 

impact determination (NMFS only 

intends to authorize a total of 10 beaked 

whale mortality takes, but since they 

could be of any of the species, we 

consider the effects of 10 mortalities of 

any of the six species). 

Social Pelagic Species (Except Pilot 

Whales) 

Acoustic analysis predicts that the 

following numbers of behavioral 

harassments of the associated species 

will occur: 502 (false killer whales), 499 

(killer whales), 263 (Pygmy killer 

whales), and 1,533 (melon-headed 

whales), including the following 

numbers of TTS, respectively: 10, 41, 7, 

22. This estimate represents the total 

number of exposures and not 

necessarily the number of individuals 

exposed, as a single individual may be 

exposed multiple times over the course 

of a year. Although 80 (total) of the 

modeled Level B Harassment takes for 

these four species were predicted to be 

in the form of TTS, NMFS believes it is 

unlikely that any individuals of these 

species will incur TTS because of the 

distance within which they would have 

to approach the sonar source 

(depending on conditions, within a 

range of 275–500 m for the most 

powerful source), the fact that many 

animals will likely avoid sonar sources 

to some degree, and the likelihood that 

Navy monitors would detect these 

animals prior to an approach within this 

distance and implement sonar 

powerdown or shutdown. Navy 

lookouts will likely detect a group of 

any of these four social pelagic species 

out to 914 m (1,000 yd) given their large 

size, gregarious behavior, and large 

average group size. No areas of specific 

importance for reproduction or feeding 

for these whales have been identified in 

the AFAST Study Area. 

Acoustic analysis predicts that no 

individuals of these 4 species will be 

exposed to sound or explosive levels 

likely to result either in Level A 

harassment or mortality. These species 

are rare or extralimital in the Northwest 

Atlantic Ocean and estimated takes for 

these species are anticipated to occur in 

the GOM. Following are the best 

estimates of abundance for these species 

in the GOM: false killer whales—1,038; 

killer whales—133; pygmy killer 

whales—408; melon-headed whales— 

3,451. 

Pilot Whales 

An estimate of the effects on these 

two species has been combined (as have 

abundance estimates in NMFS’s stock 

assessment reports). Acoustic analysis 

indicates that up to 127,266 exposures 

of pilot whales to sound levels likely to 

result in Level B harassment may occur. 

This estimate represents the total 

number of exposures and not 

necessarily the number of individuals 

exposed, as a single individual may be 

exposed multiple times over the course 

of a year. Although 1,104 of the 

modeled Level B Harassment takes for 

pilot whales were predicted to be in the 

form of TTS, NMFS believes it is 

unlikely that any individuals of these 

species will incur TTS because of the 

distance within which they would have 

to approach the sonar source (275–500 

m for the most powerful source), the fact 

that many animals will likely avoid 

sonar sources to some degree, and the 

likelihood that Navy monitors would 

detect these animals prior to an 

approach within this distance and 

implement sonar powerdown or 

shutdown. Navy lookouts will likely 

detect a group of pilot whales out to 914 

m (1,000 yd) given their large size, 

gregarious behavior, and large average 

group size. Although the model 

predicted that 1 animal would be 

exposed to sound levels that would 

result in Level A Harassment (PTS— 

injury), NMFS does not believe that any 

animals would be exposed to these 

levels for the same reasons listed in the 

previous sentence (and animals would 

need to approach within 10 m of the 

sonar dome). No areas of specific 

importance for reproduction or feeding 

for pilot whales have been identified in 

the AFAST Study Area. 

Acoustic analysis predicts that no 

pilot whales will be exposed to sound 

or explosive levels likely to result in 

mortality. The best estimate of 

abundance for pilot whales (combined 

short-finned and long-finned) in the 

western North Atlantic is 31,139 

individuals, with a minimum 

population estimate of 24,866 (Waring 

et al., 2007). The best estimate of 

abundance for the short-finned pilot 

whale in the northern Gulf of Mexico is 

2,388 individuals, with a minimum 

population estimate of 1,628 (Mullin 

and Fulling, 2004; Waring et al., 2006). 

Dolphins 

The acoustic analysis predicts that the 

following numbers of behavioral 

harassments of the associated species 

will occur: 2705 (rough-toothed 

dolphin), 605530 (bottlenose dolphins), 

138394 (pantropical spotted dolphin), 

376070 (Atlantic spotted dolphin), 

21147 (spinner dolphin), 45302 

(Clymene dolphin), 173675 (striped 

dolphin), 95548 (common dolphin), 320 

(Fraser’s dolphin), 94001 (Risso’s 

dolphins), 20647 (Atlantic white-sided 

dolphins), and 26243 (white-beaked 

dolphin). This estimate represents the 

total number of exposures and not 

necessarily the number of individuals 

exposed, as a single individual may be 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60822 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

exposed multiple times over the course 

of a year. 

Although a portion (see table 11) of 

the modeled Level B Harassment takes 

for all of these species were predicted to 

be in the form of TTS, NMFS believes 

it is unlikely that all of the individuals 

estimated will incur TTS because of the 

distance within which they would have 

to approach the sonar source 

(depending on conditions, within a 

range of 275–500 m for the most 

powerful source), the fact that many 

animals will likely avoid sonar sources 

to some degree, and the likelihood that 

Navy monitors would detect these 

animals prior to an approach within this 

distance and implement sonar 

powerdown or shutdown. Navy 

lookouts will likely detect a group of 

dolphins out to 914 m (1,000 yd) given 

their relatively short dives and large 

average group size. However, the Navy’s 

proposed mitigation has a provision that 

allows the Navy to continue operation 

of MFAS if the animals are clearly bowriding even after the Navy has initially 

maneuvered to try and avoid closing 

with the animals. Since these animals 

sometimes bow-ride and could 

potentially be exposed to levels 

associated with TTS as they approach or 

depart from bow-riding, we estimate 

that half or less of the number of 

animals modeled for MFAS/HFAS TTS 

might actually sustain TTS (see table 

11). As mentioned above and indicated 

in Table 13, some dolphin vocalizations 

might overlap with the MFAS/HFAS 

TTS frequency range (2–20 kHz), 

however, as noted previously, NMFS 

does not anticipate TTS of a long 

duration or severe degree to occur as a 

result of exposure to MFA/HFAS. 

No areas of specific importance for 

reproduction or feeding for dolphins 

have been identified in the AFAST 

Study Area. 

Although acoustic analysis predicted 

that a small number of several dolphin 

species would be exposed to levels of 

sound or explosive detonations likely to 

result in Level A harassment, for the 

same reasons stated above (mitigation, 

avoidance, dolphin behavior), NMFS 

believes it is unlikely any animals 

would actually approach within the 

necessary distance undetected (10 m for 

sonar, 79–180 m for IEER) to be exposed 

to injurious levels. Of note, the 

directionality of the sonar dome is such 

that dolphins would not likely be 

exposed to injurious levels of sound 

while bow-riding. No mortalities from 

MFAS/HFAS or IEER were predicted. 

Table 14 summarizes the best 

abundance estimates for the different 

dolphin stocks, except for the bottlenose 

dolphin, which is addressed below. 

The western North Atlantic includes 

both coastal and offshore bottlenose 

dolphin stocks. The best estimate for the 

western North Atlantic coastal stock of 

bottlenose dolphins is 15,620 and the 

best estimate for the western North 

Atlantic offshore stock of bottlenose 

dolphins is 81,588 (Waring et al., 2007). 

Torres et al. (2003) found that the 

offshore morphotype was found 

exclusively seaward of 34 km (18 NM) 

and in waters deeper than 34 m, though 

more recent studies have sampled 

offshore animals as close as 7.3 km (4 

NM) from shore in water depths of 13 

m (43 ft) (Garrison et al., 2003). Due to 

the apparent mixing of the coastal and 

offshore stocks of bottlenose dolphins 

along the Atlantic coast it is impossible 

to estimate the percentage of each stock 

potentially exposed to sonar from 

AFAST. The general distribution of 

AFAST training activities suggests that 

the majority of estimated exposures to 

bottlenose dolphins will be to the 

offshore stock, however some small 

proportion of exposures will likely 

apply to the coastal stock as well. 

In the northern GOMEX, the stocks of 

concern include the continental shelf 

and oceanic stocks. The continental 

shelf stock is thought to overlap with 

both the oceanic stock as well as coastal 

stocks in some areas (Waring et al., 

2007); however, the coastal stock is 

generally limited to less than 20 m (66 

ft) water depths and therefore is not 

expected to be exposed to sonar from 

AFAST. The best abundance estimate 

for the continental shelf stock is 25,320 

(Waring et al., 2007), The estimated 

abundance for bottlenose dolphins in 

oceanic waters, pooled from 1996 to 

2001, is 2,239 (Mullin and Fulling, 

2004). The oceanic stock is 

provisionally defined for bottlenose 

dolphins inhabiting waters greater than 

200 m (656 ft) (Waring et al., 2007). 

While the two stocks may overlap to 

some degree the Navy estimates, based 

on the distribution of AFAST activities, 

that most of the predicted exposures 

will occur to the oceanic stock with the 

few remaining exposures applying to 

the continental stock. 

Harbor Porpoises 

Acoustic analysis indicates that up to 

153,481 exposures of harbor porpoises 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP14OC08.022</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60823 

to sound levels likely to result in Level 

B harassment may occur. This estimate 

represents the total number of exposures 

and not necessarily the number of 

individuals exposed, as a single 

individual may be exposed multiple 

times over the course of a year. Of note, 

the Level B harassment threshold for 

harbor porpoises is 120 dB rms, i.e. any 

animal exposed above that level is 

considered to be taken, which means 

that the vast majority of the estimated 

takes will occur at relatively low levels 

(120–140 dB). Although 11 of the 

modeled Level B Harassment takes for 

all of these species were predicted to be 

in the form of TTS, NMFS believes it is 

unlikely that any of the individuals 

estimated will incur TTS because of the 

distance within which they would have 

to approach the sonar source 

(depending on conditions, within a 

range of 275–500 m for the most 

powerful source), the fact that many 

animals will likely avoid sonar sources 

to some degree, and the likelihood that 

Navy monitors would detect these 

animals prior to an approach within this 

distance and implement sonar 

powerdown or shutdown. Navy 

lookouts will likely detect a group of 

harbor porpoises out to 914 m (1,000 yd) 

given their relatively short dives and 

large average group size. 

Acoustic analysis predicts that no 

harbor porpoises will be exposed to 

sound levels or explosive detonations 

likely to result either in Level A 

harassment or mortality. No areas of 

specific importance for reproduction or 

feeding for harbor porpoises have been 

identified in the AFAST Study Area. 

The best abundance estimate for the 

Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock of 

harbor porpoises is 89,700 individuals. 

Pinnipeds 

The acoustic analysis predicts that the 

following numbers of behavioral 

harassments of the associated species 

will occur: 7,859 (gray seal), 12,659 

(harbor seal), 15,718 (hooded seal), and 

11,002 (harp seal). This estimate 

represents the total number of exposures 

and not necessarily the number of 

individuals exposed, as a single 

individual may be exposed multiple 

times over the course of a year. A small 

number (31, 29, 62, and 43, 

respectively) of the modeled Level B 

Harassment takes for these species were 

predicted to be in the form of TTS. 

Because the TTS threshold for these 

species is lower than for cetaceans (i.e., 

the distance from the source at which 

they might incur TTS is larger) and 

because they are typically more difficult 

to detect, NMFS concurs with the Navy 

that up to the indicated number of 

pinnipeds could be exposed to levels of 

sonar associated with TTS. As 

mentioned above and indicated in Table 

13, some pinniped vocalizations might 

overlap with the MFAS/HFAS TTS 

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

noted previously, NMFS does not 

anticipate TTS of a long duration or 

severe degree to occur as a result of 

exposure to MFA/HFAS. 

No areas of specific importance for 

reproduction or feeding for pinnipeds 

have been identified in the AFAST 

Study Area. Acoustic analysis predicts 

that no pinnipeds will be exposed to 

sound levels or explosive detonations 

likely to result in Level A harassment or 

mortality. Best estimates for the north 

Atlantic for the hooded and harp seals 

are, respectively, 592,100 and 5.9 

million. The best estimate for the 

western north Atlantic stock of the 

harbor seal is 99,340. There is no 

current best estimate for gray seals in 

the north Atlantic, though Canada’s 

DFO estimated 99,340 in 1995. 

Preliminary Determination 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat and dependent upon 

the implementation of the mitigation 

and monitoring measures, NMFS 

preliminarily finds that the total taking 

from Navy training exercises utilizing 

MFAS/HFAS and underwater 

explosives (IEER) in the AFAST Study 

Area will have a negligible impact on 

the affected species or stocks. NMFS has 

proposed regulations for these exercises 

that prescribe the means of affecting the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

marine mammals and their habitat and 

set forth requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of that taking. 

Subsistence Harvest of Marine 

Mammals 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the issuance of 5-yr regulations and 

subsequent LOAs for Navy training 

exercises in the AFAST Study Area 

would not have an unmitigable adverse 

impact on the availability of the affected 

species or stocks for subsistence use, 

since there are no such uses in the 

specified area. 

ESA 

There are six marine mammal species 

and six sea turtle species that are listed 

as endangered under the ESA with 

confirmed or possible occurrence in the 

study area: humpback whale, North 

Atlantic right whale, sei whale, fin 

whale, blue whale, sperm whale, 

loggerhead sea turtle, the green sea 

turtle, hawksbill sea turtle, leatherback 

sea turtle, the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, 

and the olive ridley sea turtle. The Navy 

has begun consultation with NMFS 

pursuant to section 7 of the ESA, and 

NMFS will also consult internally on 

the issuance of an LOA under section 

101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA for AFAST 

activities. Consultation will be 

concluded prior to a determination on 

the issuance of the final rule and an 

LOA. 

NEPA 

NMFS has participated as a 

cooperating agency on the Navy’s Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 

for AFAST, which was published on 

February 15, 2008. The Navy’s DEIS is 

posted on NMFS’s website: http:// 

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

incidental.htm. NMFS intends to adopt 

the Navy’s Final EIS (FEIS), if adequate 

and appropriate. Currently, we believe 

that the adoption of the Navy’s FEIS 

will allow NMFS to meet its 

responsibilities under NEPA for the 

issuance of an LOA for AFAST. If the 

Navy’s FEIS is deemed not to be 

adequate, NMFS would supplement the 

existing analysis and document to 

ensure that we comply with NEPA prior 

to the issuance of the final rule or LOA. 

Classification 

This action does not contain a 

collection of information requirement 

for purposes of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

Pursuant to the procedures 

established to implement section 6 of 

Executive Order 12866, the Office of 

Management and Budget has 

determined that this proposed rule is 

significant. 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, the Chief Counsel for Regulation of 

the Department of Commerce has 

certified to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration that this rule, if 

adopted, would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The 

Regulatory Flexibility Act requires 

Federal agencies to prepare an analysis 

of a rule’s impact on small entities 

whenever the agency is required to 

publish a notice of proposed 

rulemaking. However, a Federal agency 

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

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

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The Navy is the entity that will be 

affected by this rulemaking, not a small 

governmental jurisdiction, small 

organization or small business, as 

defined by the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. Any requirements imposed by a 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60824 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Letter of Authorization issued pursuant 

to these regulations, and any monitoring 

or reporting requirements imposed by 

these regulations, will be applicable 

only to the Navy. Because this action, if 

adopted, would directly affect the Navy 

and not a small entity, NMFS concludes 

the action would not result in a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Dated: September 25, 2008. 

James Balsiger, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

For reasons set forth in the preamble, 

50 CFR part 216 is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 216—REGULATIONS 

GOVERNING THE TAKING AND 

IMPORTING OF MARINE MAMMALS 

1. The authority citation for part 216 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2. Subpart V is added to part 216 to 

read as follows: 

Subpart V—Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to U.S. Navy’s Atlantic Fleet 

Active Sonar Training (AFAST) 

Sec. 

216.240 Specified activity and specified 

geographic region. 

216.241 Definitions. 

216.242 Permissible methods of taking. 

216.243 Prohibitions. 

216.244 Mitigation. 

216.245 Requirements for monitoring and 

reporting. 

216.246 Applications for Letters of 

Authorization. 

216.247 Letters of Authorization. 

216.248 Renewal of Letters of 

Authorization. 

216.249 Modifications to Letters of 

Authorization and adaptive 

management. 

Table 1 to Subpart V—‘‘Summary of 

monitoring effort proposed in draft 

Monitoring Plan for AFAST’’ 

Figure 1 to Subpart V [Reserved] 

Figure 2 to Subpart V—‘‘AFAST Planning 

Awareness Areas’’ 

Subpart V—Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to U.S. Navy’s Atlantic Fleet 

Active Sonar Training (AFAST) 

§ 216.240 Specified activity and specified 

geographical region. 

(a) Regulations in this subpart apply 

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

marine mammals that occurs in the area 

outlined in paragraph (b) of this section 

and that occur incidental to the 

activities described in paragraph (c) of 

this section. 

(b) The taking of marine mammals by 

the Navy is only authorized if it occurs 

within the AFAST Study Area, which 

extends east from the Atlantic Coast of 

the U.S. to 45 degrees W. long. and 

south from the Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico Coasts to approximately 23 

degrees N. lat., excluding the Bahamas 

(see Figure 1–1 in the Navy’s 

Application). 

(c) The taking of marine mammals by 

the Navy is only authorized if it occurs 

incidental to the use of the following 

mid-frequency active sonar (MFAS) 

sources, high frequency active sonar 

(HFAS) sources, or explosive sonobuoys 

for U.S. Navy anti-submarine warfare 

(ASW), mine warfare (MIW) training, 

maintenance, or research, development, 

testing, and evaluation (RDT&E) in the 

amounts indicated below (+/¥10 

percent): 

(1) AN/SQS–53 (hull-mounted 

sonar)—up to 16,070 hours over the 

course of 5 years (an average of 3,214 

hours per year). 

(2) AN/SQS–56 (hull-mounted 

sonar)—up to 8,420 hours over the 

course of 5 years (an average of 1,684 

hours per year). 

(3) AN/SQS–56 or 53 (hull mounted 

sonar in object detection mode)—up to 

1,080 hours over the course of 5 years 

(an average of 216 hours per year). 

(4) AN/BQQ–10 or 5 (submarine 

sonar)—up to 49,880 pings over the 

course of 5 years (an average of 9,976 

pings per year)(an average of 1 ping per 

two hours during training events, 60 

pings per hour for maintenance). 

(5) AN/AQS–22 or 13 (helicopter 

dipping sonar)—up to 14,760 dips over 

the course of 5 years (an average of 

2,952 dips per year—10 pings per fiveminute dip). 

(6) SSQ–62 (Directional Command 

Activated Sonobuoy System (DICASS) 

sonobuoys)—up to 29,265 sonobuoys 

over the course of 5 years (an average of 

5,853 sonobuoys per year). 

(7) MK–48 (heavyweight torpedoes)— 

up to 160 torpedoes over the course of 

5 years (an average of 32 torpedoes per 

year). 

(8) MK–46 or 54 (lightweight 

torpedoes)—up to 120 torpedoes over 

the course of 5 years (an average of 24 

torpedoes per year). 

(9) AN/SSQ–110A (IEER explosive 

sonobuoy)—up to 4,360 sonobuoys over 

the course of 5 years (an average of 872 

buoys per year). 

(10) AN/SQQ–32 (over the side minehunting sonar)—up to 22,370 hours over 

the course of 5 years (an average of 

4,474 hours per year). 

(11) AN/SLQ–25 (NIXIE—towed 

countermeasure)—up to 1,660 hours 

over the course of 5 years (an average of 

332 hours per year). 

(12) AN/BQS–15 (submarine 

navigation)—up to 2,250 hours over the 

course of 5 years (an average of 450 

hours per year) 

(13) MK–1 or 2 or 3 or 4 (Submarinefired Acoustic Device Countermeasure 

(ADC))—up to 1,125 ADCs over the 

course of 5 years (an average of 225 

ADCs per year) 

(14) Noise Acoustic Emitters (NAE— 

Sub-fired countermeasure)—up to 635 

NAEs over the course of 5 years (an 

average of 127 NAEs per year) 

§ 216.241 Definitions. 

The following definitions are utilized 

in these regulations: 

(a) Uncommon Stranding Event 

(USE)—A stranding event that takes 

place during a major training exercise 

(MTE) and involves any one of the 

following: 

(1) Two or more individuals of any 

cetacean species (not including mother/ 

calf pairs, unless of species of concern 

listed in next bullet) found dead or live 

on shore within a two-day period and 

occurring within 30 miles of one 

another. 

(2) A single individual or mother/calf 

pair of any of the following marine 

mammals of concern: beaked whale of 

any species, dwarf or pygmy sperm 

whales, melon-headed whales, pilot 

whales, right whales, humpback whales, 

sperm whales, blue whales, fin whales, 

or sei whales. 

(3) A group of 2 or more cetaceans of 

any species exhibiting indicators of 

distress. 

(b) Shutdown—The cessation of 

MFAS/HFAS operation or detonation of 

explosives within 14 nm (Atlantic 

Ocean) or 17 nm (Gulf of Mexico) of any 

live, in the water, animal involved in a 

USE. 

(c) Exhibiting Indicators of Distress— 

Animals exhibiting an uncommon 

combination of behavioral and 

physiological indicators typically 

associated with distressed or stranded 

animals. This situation would be 

identified by a qualified individual and 

typically includes, but is not limited to, 

some combination of the following 

characteristics: 

(1) Marine mammals continually 

circling or moving haphazardly in a 

tightly packed group—with or without a 

member occasionally breaking away and 

swimming towards the beach. 

(2) Abnormal respirations including 

increased or decreased rate or volume of 

breathing, abnormal content or odor. 

(3) Presence of an individual or group 

of a species that has not historically 

been seen in a particular habitat, for 

example a pelagic species in a shallow 

bay when historic records indicate that 

it is a rare event. 

(4) Abnormal behavior for that 

species, such as abnormal surfacing or 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60825 

swimming pattern, listing, and 

abnormal appearance. 

(d) Major Training Exercise—MTEs, 

within the context of the AFAST 

Stranding Plan, include: 

(1) Southeastern Integrated Training 

Initiative (SEASWITI)—4 events 

annually, 5 to 7 days per entire event. 

(2) Integrated ASW Course (IAC)—5 

events annually, 2 to 5 days per entire 

event. 

(3) Group Sails—20 events annually, 

2 to 3 days per entire event. 

(4) Composite Training Unit Exercise 

(COMPTUEX)—5 events annually, 21 

days per entire event. 

(5) Joint Task Force Exercise 

(JTFEX)—2 events annually, 10 days per 

entire event. 

It should be noted that sonar is 

typically not in use throughout an entire 

event. 

§ 216.242 Permissible methods of taking. 

(a) Under Letters of Authorization 

issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 and 

216.247, the Holder of the Letter of 

Authorization (hereinafter ‘‘Navy’’) may 

incidentally, but not intentionally, take 

marine mammals within the area 

described in § 216.240(b), provided the 

activity is in compliance with all terms, 

conditions, and requirements of these 

regulations and the appropriate Letter of 

Authorization. 

(b) The activities identified in 

§ 216.240(c) must be conducted in a 

manner that minimizes, to the greatest 

extent practicable, any adverse impacts 

on marine mammals and their habitat. 

(c) The incidental take of marine 

mammals under the activities identified 

in § 216.240(c) is limited to the 

following species, by the indicated 

method of take and the indicated 

number of times (estimated based on the 

authorized amounts of sound source 

operation): 

(1) Level B Harassment (+/¥10 

percent of the take estimate indicated 

below): 

(i) Mysticetes: 

(A) North Atlantic right whale 

(Eubalaena glacialis)—666. 

(B) Humpback whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae)—4,198. 

(C) Minke whale (Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata)—414. 

(D) Sei whale (Balaenoptera 

borealis)—1,054. 

(E) Fin whale (Balaenoptera 

physalus)—881. 

(F) Blue whale (Balaenoptera 

musculus)—801. 

(F) Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera 

edeni)—34. 

(ii) Odontocetes: 

(A) Sperm whales (Physeter 

macrocephalus)—9,741. 

(B) Pygmy or dwarf sperm whales 

(Kogia breviceps or Kogia sima)—4,384. 

(C) Beaked Whales (Cuvier’s, True’s, 

Gervais’, Sowerby’s, Blainville’s, 

Northern bottlenose whale) (Ziphius 

cavirostris, Mesoplodon mirus, M. 

europaeus, M. bidens, M. densirostris, 

Hyperoodon ampullatus)—2665. 

(D) Rough-toothed dolphin (Steno 

bredanensis)—2705. 

(E) Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops 

truncatus)—605530. 

(F) Pan-tropical dolphin (Stenella 

attenuata)—138394. 

(G) Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella 

frontalis)—376070. 

(H) Spinner dolphin (Stenella 

longirostris)—21147. 

(I) Clymene dolphin (Stenella 

clymene)—45823. 

(J) Striped dolphin (Stenella 

coeruleoalba)—174583. 

(K) Common dolphin (Delphinus 

spp.)—96409. 

(L) Fraser’s dolphin (Lagenodelphis 

hosei)—320. 

(M) Risso’s dolphin (Grampus 

griseus)—94001. 

(N) Atlantic white-sided dolphin 

(Lagenorhynchus acutus)—20647. 

(O) White-beaked dolphin 

(Lagenorhynchus albirostris)—26243. 

(P) Melon-headed whale 

(Peponocephala electra)—1533. 

(Q) Pygmy killer whale (Feresa 

attenuata)—263. 

(R) False killer whale (Pseudorca 

crassidens)—502. 

(S) Killer whale (Orcinus orca)—499. 

(T) Pilot whales (Short-finned pilot or 

long-finned) (Globicephala 

macrorynchus or G. melas)—127266. 

(U) Harbor porpoise (Phocoena 

phocoena)—153481. 

(iii) Pinnipeds: 

(A) Gray seal (Halichoerus grypus)— 

7859. 

(B) Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina)— 

12659. 

(C) Hooded seal (Cystophora 

cristata)—15718. 

(D) Harp seal (Pagophilus 

groenlandica)—11002. 

(2) Level A Harassment and/or 

mortality of no more than 10 beaked 

whales (total), of any of the species 

listed in § 216.242(c)(1)(ii)(C) over the 

course of the 5-year regulations. 

§ 216.243 Prohibitions. 

No person in connection with the 

activities described in § 216.240 may: 

(a) Take any marine mammal not 

specified in § 216.242(c); 

(b) Take any marine mammal 

specified in § 216.242(c) other than by 

incidental take as specified in 

§ 216.242(c)(1) and (2); 

(c) Take a marine mammal specified 

in § 216.242(c) if such taking results in 

more than a negligible impact on the 

species or stocks of such marine 

mammal; or 

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

terms, conditions, and requirements of 

these regulations or a Letter of 

Authorization issued under §§ 216.106 

and 216.247. 

§ 216.244 Mitigation. 

(a) The activity identified in 

§ 216.240(a) must be conducted in a 

manner that minimizes, to the greatest 

extent practicable, adverse impacts on 

marine mammals and their habitats. 

(b) When conducting training, 

maintenance, or RDT&E activities and 

operating the sound sources identified 

in § 216.240(a), the mitigation measures 

contained in the Letter of Authorization 

issued under §§ 216.106 and 216.247 

must be implemented. These mitigation 

measures include (but are not limited 

to): 

(1) Mitigation Measures for ASW and 

MIW training: 

(i) All lookouts onboard platforms 

involved in ASW training events shall 

review the NMFS-approved Marine 

Species Awareness Training (MSAT) 

material prior to use of midfrequency 

active sonar. 

(ii) All Commanding Officers, 

Executive Officers, and officers standing 

watch on the Bridge shall review the 

MSAT material prior to a training event 

employing the use of mid- or high 

frequency active sonar. 

(iii) Navy lookouts shall undertake 

extensive training in order to qualify as 

a watchstander in accordance with the 

Lookout Training Handbook 

(NAVEDTRA, 12968–B). 

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

supervision of a qualified, experienced 

watchstander. Following successful 

completion of this supervised training 

period, Lookouts shall complete the 

Personal Qualification Standard 

program, certifying that they have 

demonstrated the necessary skills (such 

as detection and reporting of partially 

submerged objects). 

(v) Lookouts shall be trained in the 

most effective means to ensure quick 

and effective communication within the 

command structure in order to facilitate 

implementation of mitigation measures 

if marine mammals are spotted. 

(vi) On the bridge of surface ships, 

there shall always be at least three 

people on watch whose duties include 

observing the water surface around the 

vessel. 

(vii) All surface ships participating in 

ASW exercises shall, in addition to the 

three personnel on watch noted 

previously, have at all times during the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60826 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

exercise at least two additional 

personnel on watch as lookouts. 

(viii) Personnel on lookout and 

officers on watch on the bridge shall 

have at least one set of binoculars 

available for each person to aid in the 

detection of marine mammals. 

(ix) On surface vessels equipped with 

mid-frequency active sonar, pedestal 

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

shall be present and in good working 

order. 

(x) Personnel on lookout shall employ 

visual search procedures employing a 

scanning methodology in accordance 

with the Lookout Training Handbook 

(NAVEDTRA 12968–B). Surface 

lookouts would scan the water from the 

ship to the horizon and be responsible 

for all contacts in their sector. In 

searching the assigned sector, the 

lookout would always start at the 

forward part of the sector and search aft 

(toward the back). To search and scan, 

the lookout would hold the binoculars 

steady so the horizon is in the top third 

of the field of vision and direct the eyes 

just below the horizon. The lookout 

would scan for approximately five 

seconds in as many small steps as 

possible across the field seen through 

the binoculars. They would search the 

entire sector in approximately fivedegree steps, pausing between steps for 

approximately five seconds to scan the 

field of view. At the end of the sector 

search, the glasses should be lowered to 

allow the eyes to rest for a few seconds, 

and then the lookout would search back 

across the sector with the naked eye. 

(xi) After sunset and prior to sunrise, 

lookouts shall employ Night Lookouts 

Techniques in accordance with the 

Lookout Training Handbook. At night, 

lookouts would not sweep the horizon 

with their eyes because this method is 

not effective when vessel is moving. 

Lookouts would scan the horizon in a 

series of movements that should allow 

their eyes to come to periodic rests as 

they scan the sector. When visually 

searching at night, they should look a 

little to one side and out of the corners 

of their eyes, paying attention to the 

things on the outer edges of their field 

of vision. 

(xii) Personnel on lookout shall be 

responsible for reporting all objects or 

anomalies sighted in the water 

(regardless of the distance from the 

vessel) to the Officer of the Deck, since 

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

periscope, surface disturbance, 

discoloration) in the water may be 

indicative of a threat to the vessel and 

its crew or indicative of a marine 

species that may need to be avoided as 

warranted. 

(xiii) Commanding Officers shall 

make use of marine mammal detection 

cues and information to limit 

interaction with marine mammals to the 

maximum extent possible consistent 

with safety of the ship. 

(xiv) All personnel engaged in passive 

acoustic sonar operation (including 

aircraft, surface ships, or submarines) 

shall monitor for marine mammal 

vocalizations and report the detection of 

any marine mammal to the appropriate 

watch station for dissemination and 

appropriate action. 

(xv) Units shall use training lookouts 

to survey for marine mammals prior to 

commencement and during the use of 

active sonar. 

(xvi) During operations involving 

sonar, personnel shall utilize all 

available sensor and optical systems 

(such as Night Vision Goggles) to aid in 

the detection of marine mammals. 

(xvii) Navy aircraft participating in 

exercises at sea shall conduct and 

maintain, when operationally feasible 

and safe, surveillance for marine 

mammals as long as it does not violate 

safety constraints or interfere with the 

accomplishment of primary operational 

duties. 

(xviii) Aircraft with deployed 

sonobuoys shall use only the passive 

capability of sonobuoys when marine 

mammals are detected within 200 yards 

(182 m) of the sonobuoy. 

(xix) Marine mammal detections shall 

be reported immediately to assigned 

Aircraft Control Unit (if participating) 

for further dissemination to ships in the 

vicinity of the marine mammals. This 

action would occur when it is 

reasonable to conclude that the course 

of the ship will likely close the distance 

between the ship and the detected 

marine mammal. 

(xx) Safety Zones—When marine 

mammals are detected by any means 

(aircraft, shipboard lookout, or 

acoustically) the Navy shall ensure that 

sonar transmission levels are limited to 

at least 6 dB below normal operating 

levels if any detected marine mammals 

are within 1000 yards (914 m) of the 

sonar dome (the bow). 

(A) Ships and submarines shall 

continue to limit maximum 

transmission levels by this 6-dB factor 

until the marine mammal has been seen 

to leave the area, has not been detected 

for 30 minutes, or the vessel has 

transited more than 2,000 yards (1828 

m) beyond the location of the last 

detection. 

(B) Should a marine mammal be 

detected within or closing to inside 457 

m (500 yd) of the sonar dome, active 

sonar transmissions would be limited to 

at least 10 dB below the equipment’s 

normal operating level. Ships and 

submarines shall continue to limit 

maximum ping levels by this 10-dB 

factor until the marine mammal has 

been seen to leave the area, has not been 

detected for 30 minutes, or the vessel 

has transited more than 2000 yards 

(1828 m) beyond the location of the last 

detection. 

(C) Should the marine mammal be 

detected within or closing to inside 183 

m (200 yd) of the sonar dome, active 

sonar transmissions would cease. Sonar 

shall not resume until the marine 

mammal has been seen to leave the area, 

has not been detected for 30 minutes, or 

the vessel has transited more than 2,000 

yards (1828 m) beyond the location of 

the last detection. 

(D) If the need for power-down should 

arise as detailed in ‘‘Safety Zones’’ 

above, Navy shall follow the 

requirements as though they were 

operating at 235 dB—the normal 

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

at what level above 235 sonar was being 

operated). 

(xxi) Prior to start up or restart of 

active sonar, operators shall check that 

the Safety Zone radius around the 

sound source is clear of marine 

mammals. 

(xxii) Sonar levels (generally)—The 

Navy shall operate sonar at the lowest 

practicable level, not to exceed 235 dB, 

except as required to meet tactical 

training objectives. 

(xxiii) Helicopters shall observe/ 

survey the vicinity of an ASW 

Operation for 10 minutes before the first 

deployment of active (dipping) sonar in 

the water. 

(xxiv) Helicopters shall not dip their 

sonar within 200 yards (183 m) of a 

marine mammal and shall cease pinging 

if a marine mammal closes within 200 

yards (183 m) after pinging has begun. 

(xxv) Submarine sonar operators shall 

review detection indicators of closeaboard marine mammals prior to the 

commencement of ASW training 

activities involving active sonar. 

(xxvi) Dolphin bowriding—If, after 

conducting an initial maneuver to avoid 

close quarters with dolphins, the ship 

concludes that dolphins are deliberately 

closing in on the ship to ride the 

vessel’s bow wave, no further mitigation 

actions would be necessary because 

dolphins are out of the main 

transmission axis of the active sonar 

while in the shallow-wave area of the 

vessel bow. 

(xxvii) TORPEXs conducted in the 

northeast North Atlantic right whale 

critical habitat (as designated in 50 CFR 

Part 226) shall implement the below 

measures. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60827 

(A) All torpedo-firing operations shall 

take place during daylight hours. 

(B) During the conduct of each test, 

visual surveys of the test area shall be 

conducted by all vessels and aircraft 

involved in the exercise to detect the 

presence of marine mammals. 

Additionally, trained observers shall be 

placed on the submarine, spotter 

aircraft, and the surface support vessel. 

All participants shall report sightings of 

any marine mammals, including 

negative reports, prior to torpedo firings. 

Reporting requirements shall be 

outlined in the test plans and 

procedures written for each individual 

exercise, and shall be emphasized as 

part of pre-exercise briefings conducted 

with all participants. 

(C) Observers shall receive NMFSapproved training in field identification, 

distribution, and relevant behaviors of 

marine mammals of the western north 

Atlantic. Observers shall fill out 

Standard Sighting Forms and the data 

shall be housed at the Naval Undersea 

Warfare Center Division Newport 

(NUWCDIVNPT). Any sightings of 

North Atlantic right whales shall be 

immediately communicated to the 

Sighting Advisory System (SAS). All 

platforms shall have onboard a copy of: 

(1) The Guide to Marine Mammals 

and Turtles of the US Atlantic and Gulf 

of Mexico (Wynne and Schwartz 1999). 

(2) The NMFS Critical Sightings 

Program placard. 

(3) Right Whales, Guidelines to 

Mariners placard. 

(D) In addition to the visual 

surveillance discussed above, dedicated 

aerial surveys shall be conducted 

utilizing a fixed-wing aircraft. An 

aircraft with an overhead wing (i.e., 

Cessna Skymaster or similar) shall be 

used to facilitate a clear view of the test 

area. Two trained observers, in addition 

to the pilot, shall be embarked on the 

aircraft. Surveys shall be conducted at 

an approximate altitude of 1000 ft (305 

m) flying parallel track lines at a 

separation of 1 nmi (1.85 km), or as 

necessary to facilitate good visual 

coverage of the sea surface. While 

conducting surveillance, the aircraft 

shall maintain an approximate speed of 

100 knots (185 km/hr). Since factors that 

affect visibility are highly dependent on 

the specific time of day of the survey, 

the flight operator will have the 

flexibility to adjust the flight pattern to 

reduce glare and improve visibility. The 

entire test site shall be surveyed 

initially, but once preparations are being 

made for an actual test launch, survey 

effort shall be concentrated over the 

vicinity of the individual test location. 

Further, for approximately ten minutes 

immediately prior to launch, the aircraft 

shall racetrack back and forth between 

the launch vessel and the target vessel. 

(E) Commencement of an individual 

torpedo test scenario shall not occur 

until observers from all vessels and 

aircraft involved in the exercise have 

reported to the Officer in Tactical 

Command (OTC) and the OTC has 

declared that the range is clear of 

marine mammals. Should marine 

mammals be present within or seen 

moving toward the test area, the test 

shall be either delayed or moved as 

required to avoid interference with the 

animals. 

(F) The TORPEX shall be suspended 

if the Beaufort Sea State exceeds 3 or if 

visibility precludes safe operations. 

(G) Vessel speeds: 

(1) During transit through the 

northeastern North Atlantic right whale 

critical habitat, surface vessels and 

submarines shall maintain a speed of no 

more than 10 knots (19 km/hr) while not 

actively engaged in the exercise 

procedures. 

(2) During TORPEX operations, a 

firing vessel should, where feasible, not 

exceed 10 knots. When a submarine is 

used as a target, vessel speeds should, 

where feasible, not exceed 18 knots. 

However, on occasion, when surface 

vessels are used as targets, the vessel 

may exceed 18 kts in order to fully test 

the functionality of the torpedoes. This 

increased speed would occur for a short 

period of time (e.g., 10–15 minutes) to 

evade the torpedo when fired upon. 

(H) In the event of an animal strike, 

or if an animal is discovered that 

appears to be in distress, the Navy shall 

immediately report the discovery 

through the appropriate Navy chain of 

Command. 

(xxviii) The Navy shall abide by the 

following additional measures: 

(A) The Navy shall avoid planning 

major exercises in the specified 

planning awareness areas (PAAs—see 

Figure 2 of this Subpart) where feasible. 

Should national security require the 

conduct of more than four major 

exercises (C2X, JTFEX, SEASWITI, or 

similar scale event) in these areas 

(meaning all or a portion of the exercise) 

per year the Navy shall provide NMFS 

with prior notification and include the 

information in any associated afteraction or monitoring reports. 

(B) The Navy shall conduct no more 

than one of the four above-mentioned 

major exercises (COMPTUEX, JTFEX, 

SEASWITI or similar scale event) per 

year in the Gulf of Mexico to the extent 

operationally feasible. If national 

security needs require more than one 

major exercise to be conducted in the 

Gulf of Mexico PAAs, the Navy shall 

provide NMFS with prior notification 

and include the information in any 

associated after-action or monitoring 

reports. 

(C) The Navy shall include the PAAs 

in the Navy’s Protective Measures 

Assessment Protocol (PMAP) 

(implemented by the Navy for use in the 

protection of the marine environment) 

for unit level situational awareness (i.e., 

exercises other than COMPTUEX, 

JTFEX, SEASWITI) and planning 

purposes. 

(D) Helicopter Dipping Sonar—Unless 

otherwise dictated by national security 

needs, the Navy shall minimize 

helicopter dipping sonar activities 

within the southeastern areas of North 

Atlantic right whale critical habitat (as 

designated in 50 CFR Part 226) from 

November 15–April 15. 

(E) Object Detection Exercises—The 

Navy shall implement the following 

measures regarding object detection 

activities in the southeastern areas of 

the North Atlantic right whale critical 

habitat: 

(1) The Navy shall reduce the time 

spent conducting object detection 

exercises in the NARW critical habitat; 

(2) Prior to conducting surface ship 

object detection exercises in the 

southeastern areas of the North Atlantic 

right whale critical habitat during the 

time of November 15—April 15, ships 

shall contact FACSFACJAX to obtain 

the latest right whale sighting 

information. FACSFACJAX shall advise 

ships of all reported whale sightings in 

the vicinity of the critical habitat and 

associated areas of concern (which 

extend 9 km (5 NM) seaward of the 

designated critical habitat boundaries). 

To the extent operationally feasible, 

ships shall avoid conducting training in 

the vicinity of recently sighted right 

whales. Ships shall maneuver to 

maintain at least 500 yards separation 

from any observed whale, consistent 

with the safety of the ship. 

(xxix) The Navy shall abide by the 

letter of the ‘‘Stranding Response Plan 

for Major Navy Training Exercises in the 

AFAST Study Area’’ (available at: 

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

incidental.htm), to include the 

following measures: 

(A) Shutdown Procedures—When an 

Uncommon Stranding Event (USE— 

defined in § 216.241) occurs during a 

Major Training Exercise (MTE, 

including SEASWITI, IAC, Group Sails, 

JTFEX, or COMPTUEX) in the AFAST 

Study Area, the Navy shall implement 

the procedures described below. 

(1) The Navy shall implement a 

Shutdown (as defined § 216.241) when 

advised by a NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources Headquarters Senior Official 

designated in the AFAST Stranding 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60828 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Communication Protocol that a USE 

involving live animals has been 

identified and that at least one live 

animal is located in the water. NMFS 

and Navy shall communicate, as 

needed, regarding the identification of 

the USE and the potential need to 

implement shutdown procedures. 

(2) Any shutdown in a given area 

shall remain in effect in that area until 

NMFS advises the Navy that the 

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

are euthanized, or that all live animals 

involved in the USE at that area have 

left the area (either of their own volition 

or herded). 

(3) If the Navy finds an injured or 

dead animal of any species other than 

North Atlantic right whale floating at 

sea during an MTE, the Navy shall 

notify NMFS immediately or as soon as 

operational security considerations 

allow. The Navy shall provide NMFS 

with species or description of the 

animal (s), the condition of the animal 

(s) including carcass condition if the 

animal(s) is/are dead), location, time of 

first discovery, observed behaviors (if 

alive), and photo or video (if available). 

Based on the information provided, 

NMFS shall determine if, and advise the 

Navy whether a modified shutdown is 

appropriate on a case-by-case basis. 

(4) If the Navy finds an injured (or 

entangled) right whale floating at sea 

during an MTE, the Navy shall 

implement shutdown procedures (14 or 

17 nm, as defined below) around the 

animal immediately (without waiting 

for notification from NMFS). The Navy 

shall then notify NMFS (pursuant to the 

AFAST Communication Protocol, which 

is still in development) immediately or 

as soon as operational security 

considerations allow. The Navy shall 

provide NMFS with species or 

description of the animal (s), the 

condition of the animal (s) including 

carcass condition if the animal(s) is/are 

dead), location, time of first discovery, 

observed behaviors (if alive), and photo 

or video (if available). Subsequent to the 

discovery of the injured whale, any 

Navy platforms in the area shall report 

any right whale sightings to NMFS (or 

to a contact that can alert NMFS as soon 

as possible). Based on the information 

provided, NMFS may initiate/organize 

an aerial survey (by requesting the 

Navy’s assistance pursuant to the MOA 

(see (xxix)(C) below) or by other 

available means) to see if other right 

whales are in the vicinity. Based on the 

information provided by the Navy and, 

if necessary, the outcome of the aerial 

surveys, NMFS shall determine whether 

a continued shutdown is appropriate on 

a case-by-case basis. Though it will be 

determined on a case-by-case basis after 

Navy/NMFS discussion of the situation, 

NMFS anticipates that the shutdown 

will continue within 14 or 17 nm of a 

live, injured/entangled right whale until 

the animal dies or has not been seen for 

at least 3 hours (either by NMFS staff 

attending the injured animal or Navy 

personnel monitoring the area around 

where the animal was last sighted). 

(5) If the Navy finds a dead right 

whale floating at sea during an MTE, the 

Navy shall notify NMFS (pursuant to 

AFAST Stranding Communication 

Protocol, which is still in development) 

immediately or as soon as operational 

security considerations allow. The Navy 

shall provide NMFS with species or 

description of the animal (s), the 

condition of the animal (s) including 

carcass condition if the animal(s) is/are 

dead), location, time of first discovery, 

observed behaviors (if alive), and photo 

or video (if available). Subsequent to the 

discovery of the dead whale, if the Navy 

is operating sonar in the area they shall 

use increased vigilance (in looking for 

right whales) and all platforms in the 

area shall report sightings of right 

whales to NMFS as soon as possible. 

Based on the information provided, 

NMFS may initiate/organize an aerial 

survey (by requesting the Navy’s 

assistance pursuant to the memorandum 

of agreement (see (xxix)(C) below) or by 

other available means) to see if other 

right whales are in the vicinity. Based 

on the information provided by the 

Navy and, if necessary, the outcome of 

the aerial surveys, NMFS will determine 

whether any additional protective 

measures are necessary on a case-bycase basis. 

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

(a) Qualified individuals are attempting 

to herd animals back out to the open 

ocean and animals are not willing to 

leave, or (b) animals are seen repeatedly 

heading for the open ocean but turning 

back to shore, NMFS and the Navy 

should coordinate (including an 

investigation of other potential 

anthropogenic stressors in the area) to 

determine if the proximity of MFAS/ 

HFAS training activities or explosive 

detonations, though farther than 14 or 

17 nm from the distressed animal(s), is 

likely decreasing the likelihood that the 

animals return to the open water. If so, 

NMFS and the Navy shall further 

coordinate to determine what measures 

are necessary to further minimize that 

likelihood and implement those 

measures as appropriate. 

(B) Within 72 hours of NMFS 

notifying the Navy of the presence of a 

USE, the Navy shall provide available 

information to NMFS (per the AFAST 

Communication Protocol) regarding the 

location, number and types of acoustic/ 

explosive sources, direction and speed 

of units using MFAS/HFAS, and marine 

mammal sightings information 

associated with training activities 

occurring within 80 nm (148 km) and 72 

hours prior to the USE event. 

Information not initially available 

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

period prior to the event shall be 

provided as soon as it becomes 

available. The Navy shall provide NMFS 

investigative teams with additional 

relevant unclassified information as 

requested, if available. 

(C) Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA)—The Navy and NMFS shall 

develop an MOA, or other mechanism 

consistent with federal fiscal law 

requirements (and all other applicable 

laws), that allows the Navy to assist 

NMFS with the Phase 1 and 2 

Investigations of USEs through the 

provision of in-kind services, such as 

(but not limited to) the use of plane/ 

boat/truck for transport of personnel 

involved in the stranding response or 

investigation or animals, use of Navy 

property for necropsies or burial, or 

assistance with aerial surveys to discern 

the extent of a USE. The Navy may 

assist NMFS with the Investigations by 

providing one or more of the in-kind 

services outlined in the MOA, when 

available and logistically feasible and 

when the assistance does not negatively 

affect Fleet operational commitments. 

(2) Mitigation for IEER—The 

following are protective measures for 

use with Extended Echo Ranging/ 

Improved Extended Echo Ranging (EER/ 

IEER) given an explosive source 

generates the acoustic wave used in this 

sonobuoy. 

(i) Navy crews shall conduct visual 

reconnaissance of the drop area prior to 

laying their intended sonobuoy pattern. 

This search should be conducted below 

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

operationally feasible and weather 

conditions permit. In dual aircraft 

training activities, crews are allowed to 

conduct coordinated area clearances. 

(ii) Navy crews shall conduct a 

minimum of 30 minutes of visual and 

acoustic monitoring of the search area 

prior to commanding the first post 

detonation. This 30-minute observation 

period may include pattern deployment 

time. 

(iii) For any part of the briefed pattern 

where a post (source/receiver sonobuoy 

pair) will be deployed within 1,000 

yards (914 m) of observed marine 

mammal activity, deploy the receiver 

ONLY and monitor while conducting a 

visual search. When marine mammals 

are no longer detected within 1,000 

yards (914 m) of the intended post 

position, co-locate the explosive source 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60829 

sonobuoy (AN/SSQ–110A) (source) with 

the receiver. 

(iv) When able, Navy crews shall 

conduct continuous visual and aural 

monitoring of marine mammal activity. 

This is to include monitoring of ownaircraft sensors from first sensor 

placement to checking off station and 

out of communication range of these 

sensors. 

(v) Aural Detection: If the presence of 

marine mammals is detected aurally, 

then that should cue the aircrew to 

increase the diligence of their visual 

surveillance. Subsequently, if no marine 

mammals are visually detected, then the 

Navy crew may continue multi-static 

active search. 

(vi) Visual Detection: 

(A) If marine mammals are visually 

detected within 1,000 yards (914 m) of 

the explosive source sonobuoy (AN/ 

SSQ–110A) intended for use, then that 

payload shall not be detonated. 

(B) Navy Aircrews may utilize this 

post once the marine mammals have not 

been re-sighted for 30 minutes, or are 

observed to have moved outside the 

1,000 yards (914 m) safety buffer. 

(C) Navy Aircrews may shift their 

multi-static active search to another 

post, where marine mammals are 

outside the 1,000 yards (914 m) safety 

buffer. 

(vii) Navy Aircrews shall make every 

attempt to manually detonate the 

unexploded charges at each post in the 

pattern prior to departing the operations 

area by using the ‘‘Payload 1 Release’’ 

command followed by the ‘‘Payload 2 

Release’’ command. Aircrews shall 

refrain from using the ‘‘Scuttle’’ 

command when two payloads remain at 

a given post. Aircrews shall ensure that 

a 1,000 yard (914 m) safety buffer, 

visually clear of marine mammals, is 

maintained around each post as is done 

during active search operations. 

(viii) Navy Aircrews shall only leave 

posts with unexploded charges in the 

event of a sonobuoy malfunction, an 

aircraft system malfunction, or when an 

aircraft must immediately depart the 

area due to issues such as fuel 

constraints, inclement weather, and inflight emergencies. In these cases, the 

sonobuoy will self-scuttle using the 

secondary or tertiary method. 

(ix) The navy shall ensure all 

payloads are accounted for. Explosive 

source sonobuoys (AN/SSQ–110A) that 

cannot be scuttled shall be reported as 

unexploded ordnance via voice 

communications while airborne, then 

upon landing via naval message. 

(x) Mammal monitoring shall 

continue until out of own-aircraft sensor 

range. 

(3) Protective Measures related to 

Vessel Transit and North Atlantic Right 

Whales. 

(i) Mid-Atlantic, Offshore of the 

Eastern United States. 

(A) All Navy vessels are required to 

use extreme caution and operate at a 

slow, safe speed consistent with mission 

and safety during the months indicated 

below and within a 37 km (20 nm) arc 

(except as noted) of the specified 

associated reference points: 

(1) South and East of Block Island (37 

km (20 NM) seaward of line between 

41–4.49 N. lat. 071–51.15 W. long. and 

41–18.58 N. lat. 070–50.23 W. long): 

Sept–Oct and Mar–Apr. 

(2) New York / New Jersey (40–30.64 

N. lat. 073–57.76 W. long.): Sep–Oct and 

Feb–Apr. 

(3) Delaware Bay (Philadelphia) (38– 

52.13 N. lat. 075–1.93 W. long.): Oct– 

Dec and Feb–Mar. 

(4) Chesapeake Bay (Hampton Roads 

and Baltimore) (37–1.11 . lat. 075–57.56 

W. long.): Nov–Dec and Feb–Apr. 

(5) North Carolina (34–41.54 N. lat. 

076–40.20 W. long.): Dec–Apr. 

(6) South Carolina (33–11.84 N. lat. 

079–8.99 W. long. and 32–43.39 N. lat. 

079–48.72 W. long.): Oct–Apr. 

(B) During the months indicated in 

(A), above, Navy vessels shall practice 

increased vigilance with respect to 

avoidance of vessel-whale interactions 

along the mid-Atlantic coast, including 

transits to and from any mid-Atlantic 

ports not specifically identified above. 

(C) All surface units transiting within 

56 km (30 NM) of the coast in the midAtlantic shall ensure at least two 

watchstanders are posted, including at 

least one lookout who has completed 

required MSAT training. 

(D) Navy vessels shall not knowingly 

approach any whale head on and shall 

maneuver to keep at least 457 m (1,500 

ft) away from any observed whale, 

consistent with vessel safety. 

(ii) Southeast Atlantic, Offshore of the 

Eastern United States—for the purposes 

of the measures below (within (ii)), the 

‘‘southeast’’ encompasses sea space 

from Charleston, South Carolina, 

southward to Sebastian Inlet, Florida, 

and from the coast seaward to 148 km 

(80 NM) from shore. North Atlantic right 

whale critical habitat is the area from 

31–15 N. lat. to 30–15 N. lat. extending 

from the coast out to 28 km (15 NM), 

and the area from 28–00 N. lat. to 30– 

15 N. lat. from the coast out to 9 km (5 

NM). All mitigation measures described 

here that apply to the critical habitat 

also apply to an associated area of 

concern which extends 9 km (5 NM) 

seaward of the designated critical 

habitat boundaries. 

(A) Prior to transiting or training in 

the critical habitat or associated area of 

concern, ships shall contact Fleet Area 

Control and Surveillance Facility, 

Jacksonville, to obtain latest whale 

sighting and other information needed 

to make informed decisions regarding 

safe speed and path of intended 

movement. Subs shall contact 

Commander, Submarine Group Ten for 

similar information. 

(B) The following specific mitigation 

measures apply to activities occurring 

within the critical habitat and an 

associated area of concern which 

extends 9 km (5 NM) seaward of the 

designated critical habitat boundaries: 

(1) When transiting within the critical 

habitat or associated area of concern, 

vessels shall exercise extreme caution 

and proceed at a slow safe speed. The 

speed shall be the slowest safe speed 

that is consistent with mission, training 

and operations. 

(2) Speed reductions (adjustments) are 

required when a whale is sighted by a 

vessel or when the vessel is within 9 km 

(5 NM) of a reported new sighting less 

then 12 hours old. 

(3) Additionally, circumstances could 

arise where, in order to avoid North 

Atlantic right whale(s), speed 

reductions could mean vessel must 

reduce speed to a minimum at which it 

can safely keep on course or vessels 

could come to an all stop. 

(4) Vessels shall avoid head-on 

approaches to North Atlantic right 

whale(s) and shall maneuver to 

maintain at least 457 m (500 yd) of 

separation from any observed whale if 

deemed safe to do so. These 

requirements do not apply if a vessel’s 

safety is threatened, such as when a 

change of course would create an 

imminent and serious threat to a person, 

vessel, or aircraft, and to the extent 

vessels are restricted in the ability to 

maneuver. 

(5) Ships shall not transit through the 

critical habitat or associated area of 

concern in a North-South direction. 

(6) Ships, surfaced subs, and aircraft 

shall report any whale sightings to Fleet 

Area Control and Surveillance Facility, 

Jacksonville, by the most convenient 

and fastest means. The sighting report 

shall include the time, latitude/ 

longitude, direction of movement and 

number and description of whale (i.e., 

adult/calf). 

(iii) Northeast Atlantic, Offshore of 

the Eastern United States 

(A) Prior to transiting the Great South 

Channel or Cape Cod Bay critical habitat 

areas, ships shall obtain the latest right 

whale sightings and other information 

needed to make informed decisions 

regarding safe speed. The Great South 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60830 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Channel critical habitat is defined by 

the following coordinates: 41–00 N. lat., 

69–05 W. long.; 41–45 N. lat, 69–45 W. 

long; 42–10 N. lat., 68–31 W. long.; 41– 

38 N. lat., 68–13 W. long.. The Cape Cod 

Bay critical habitat is defined by the 

following coordinates: 42–04.8 N. lat., 

70–10 W. long.; 42–12 N. lat., 70–15 W. 

long.; 42–12 N. lat., 70–30 W. long.; 41– 

46.8 N. lat., 70–30 W. long. 

(B) Ships, surfaced subs, and aircraft 

shall report any North Atlantic right 

whale sightings (if the whale is 

identifiable as a right whale) off the 

northeastern U.S. to Patrol and 

Reconnaissance Wing 

(COMPATRECONWING). The report 

shall include the time of sighting, lat/ 

long, direction of movement (if 

apparent) and number and description 

of the whale(s). 

(C) Vessels or aircraft that observe 

whale carcasses shall record the 

location and time of the sighting and 

report this information as soon as 

possible to the cognizant regional 

environmental coordinator. All whale 

strikes must be reported. This report 

shall include the date, time, and 

location of the strike; vessel course and 

speed; operations being conducted by 

the vessel; weather conditions, 

visibility, and sea state; description of 

the whale; narrative of incident; and 

indication of whether photos/videos 

were taken. Navy personnel are 

encouraged to take photos whenever 

possible. 

(D) Specific mitigation measures 

related to activities occurring within the 

critical habitat include the following: 

(1) Vessels shall avoid head-on 

approaches to North Atlantic right 

whale(s) and shall maneuver to 

maintain at least 457 m (500 yd) of 

separation from any observed whale if 

deemed safe to do so. These 

requirements do not apply if a vessel’s 

safety is threatened, such as when 

change of course would create an 

imminent and serious threat to person, 

vessel, or aircraft, and to the extent 

vessels are restricted in the ability to 

maneuver. 

(2) When transiting within the critical 

habitat or associated area of concern, 

vessels shall use extreme caution and 

operate at a safe speed so as to be able 

to avoid collisions with North Atlantic 

right whales and other marine 

mammals, and stop within a distance 

appropriate to the circumstances and 

conditions. 

(3) Speed reductions (adjustments) are 

required when a whale is sighted by a 

vessel or when the vessel is within 9 km 

(5 NM) of a reported new sighting less 

than one week old. 

(4) Ships transiting in the Cape Cod 

Bay and Great South Channel critical 

habitats shall obtain information on 

recent whale sightings in the vicinity of 

the critical habitat. Any vessel operating 

in the vicinity of a North Atlantic right 

whale shall consider additional speed 

reductions as per Rule 6 of International 

Navigational Rules. 

§ 216.245 Requirements for monitoring 

and reporting. 

(a) The Navy is required to cooperate 

with the NMFS, and any other Federal, 

state or local agency monitoring the 

impacts of the activity on marine 

mammals. 

(b) As outlined in the AFAST 

Stranding Communication Plan, the 

Navy must notify NMFS immediately 

(or as soon as clearance procedures 

allow) if the specified activity identified 

in § 216.240(b) is thought to have 

resulted in the mortality or injury of any 

marine mammals, or in any take of 

marine mammals not identified in 

§ 216.240(c). 

(c) The Navy must conduct all 

monitoring and/or research required 

under the Letter of Authorization 

including abiding by the letter of the 

AFAST Monitoring Plan, which requires 

the Navy to implement, at a minimum, 

the monitoring activities summarized in 

Table 1 to subpart V to this part (and 

described in more detail in the AFAST 

Monitoring Plan, which may be viewed 

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

permits/incidental.htm). 

(d) Report on Monitoring required in 

sub-paragraph (c) of this section—The 

Navy shall submit a report annually on 

September 1 describing the 

implementation and results (through 

June 1 of the same year) of the 

monitoring required in paragraph c, 

above. Standard marine species sighting 

forms shall be used by the Navy to 

standardize data collection and data 

collection methods will be standardized 

across ranges to allow for comparison in 

different geographic locations. 

(e) IEER exercises—A yearly report 

detailing the number of exercises along 

with the hours of associated marine 

mammal survey and associated marine 

mammal sightings, number of times 

employment was delayed by marine 

mammal sightings, and the number of 

total detonated charges and self-scuttled 

charges shall be submitted to NMFS. 

(f) MFAS/HFAS exercises—The Navy 

shall submit an After Action Report to 

the Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, within 120 days of the 

completion of any Major Training 

Exercise (SEASWITI, IAC, COMPTUEX, 

JTFEX, but not Group Sails). For other 

ASW and MIW exercises, the Navy shall 

submit a yearly summary report. These 

reports shall, at a minimum, include the 

following information: 

(1) The estimated number of hours of 

sonar operation, subdivided by source 

type; 

(2) The total number of hours of 

observation effort (including 

observation time when sonar was not 

operating), if obtainable; 

(3) All marine mammal sightings (at 

any distance—not just within a 

particular distance) to include, when 

possible, and if not classified: 

(i) Species. 

(ii) Number of animals sighted. 

(iii) Geographic location of marine 

mammal sighting. 

(iv) Distance of animal from any ship 

with observers. 

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

or starboard. 

(vi) Direction of animal movement in 

relation to boat (towards, away, 

parallel). 

(vii) Any observed behaviors of 

marine mammals. 

(4) The status of any sonar sources 

(what sources were in use) and whether 

or not they were powered down or shut 

down as a result of the marine mammal 

observation. 

(5) The platform that the marine 

mammals were initially sighted from. 

(g) AFAST Comprehensive Report— 

The Navy shall submit to NMFS a draft 

report that analyzes and summarizes all 

of the multi-year marine mammal 

information gathered during all training 

for which individual reports are 

required in § 216.145 (d–f). This report 

shall be submitted at the end of the 

fourth year of the rule (November 2012), 

covering activities that have occurred 

through June 1, 2012. 

(h) The Navy shall respond to NMFS 

comments on the draft comprehensive 

report if NMFS provides the Navy with 

comments on the draft report within 3 

months of receipt. The report shall be 

considered final after the Navy has 

addressed NMFS’ comments, or three 

months after the submittal of the draft 

if NMFS does not comment by then. 

(i) Comprehensive National Sonar 

Report—By June, 2014, the Navy shall 

submit a draft National Report that 

analyzes, compares, and summarizes the 

active sonar data gathered from the 

watchstanders and pursuant to the 

implementation of the Monitoring Plans 

for AFAST, the Hawaii Range Complex 

(HRC), the Southern California (SOCAL) 

Range Complex, the Marianas Range 

Complex, and the Northwest Training 

Range. 

(j) The Navy shall respond to NMFS 

comments on the draft comprehensive 

report if NMFS provides the Navy with 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60831 

comments on the draft report within 3 

months of receipt. The report will be 

considered final after the Navy has 

addressed NMFS’ comments, or three 

months after the submittal of the draft 

if NMFS does not comment by then. 

§ 216.246 Applications for Letters of 

Authorization. 

To incidentally take marine mammals 

pursuant to these regulations, the Navy 

conducting the activity identified in 

§ 216.240(a) must apply for and obtain 

either an initial Letter of Authorization 

in accordance with §§ 216.247 or a 

renewal under § 216.248. 

§ 216.247 Letter of Authorization. 

(a) A Letter of Authorization, unless 

suspended or revoked, will be valid for 

a period of time not to exceed the period 

of validity of this subpart, but must be 

renewed annually subject to annual 

renewal conditions in § 216.248. 

(b) Each Letter of Authorization shall 

set forth: 

(1) Permissible methods of incidental 

taking; 

(2) Means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact on the 

species, its habitat, and on the 

availability of the species for 

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

(3) Requirements for mitigation, 

monitoring and reporting. 

(c) Issuance and renewal of the Letter 

of Authorization shall be based on a 

determination that the total number of 

marine mammals taken by the activity 

as a whole will have no more than a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stock of marine mammal(s). 

§ 216.248 Renewal of Letters of 

Authorization and adaptive management. 

(a) A Letter of Authorization issued 

under § 216.106 and § 216.147 for the 

activity identified in § 216.140(c) will be 

renewed annually upon: 

(1) Notification to NMFS that the 

activity described in the application 

submitted under § 216.246 will be 

undertaken and that there will not be a 

substantial modification to the 

described work, mitigation or 

monitoring undertaken during the 

upcoming 12 months; 

(2) Receipt of the monitoring reports 

and notifications within the indicated 

timeframes required under § 216.245(b– 

j); and 

(3) A determination by the NMFS that 

the mitigation, monitoring and reporting 

measures required under § 216.244 and 

the Letter of Authorization issued under 

§§ 216.106 and 216.247, were 

undertaken and will be undertaken 

during the upcoming annual period of 

validity of a renewed Letter of 

Authorization. 

(b) Adaptive Management—Based on 

new information, NMFS may modify or 

augment the existing mitigation 

measures if new data suggests that such 

modifications would have a reasonable 

likelihood of reducing adverse effects to 

marine mammals and if the measures 

are practicable. Similarly, NMFS may 

coordinate with the Navy to modify or 

augment the existing monitoring 

requirements if the new data suggest 

that the addition of a particular measure 

would likely fill in a specifically 

important data gap. The following are 

some possible sources of new and 

applicable data: 

(1) Results from the Navy’s 

monitoring from the previous year 

(either from the AFAST Study Area or 

other locations); 

(2) Results from specific stranding 

investigations (either from the AFAST 

Study Area or other locations, and 

involving coincident MFAS/HFAS 

training or not involving coincident use) 

or NMFS’ long term prospective 

stranding investigation discussed in the 

preamble to this proposed rule; 

(3) Results from general marine 

mammal and sound research (funded by 

the Navy or otherwise). 

(c) If a request for a renewal of a Letter 

of Authorization issued under 

§§ 216.106 and 216.248 indicates that a 

substantial modification to the 

described work, mitigation or 

monitoring undertaken during the 

upcoming season will occur, or if NMFS 

utilizes the adaptive management 

mechanism addressed in (b) above to 

modify or augment the mitigation or 

monitoring measures, the NMFS shall 

provide the public a period of 30 days 

for review and comment on the request. 

Review and comment on renewals of 

Letters of Authorization would be 

restricted to: 

(1) New cited information and data 

indicating that the determinations made 

in this document are in need of 

reconsideration, and 

(2) Proposed changes to the mitigation 

and monitoring requirements contained 

in these regulations or in the current 

Letter of Authorization. 

(c) A notice of issuance or denial of 

a renewal of a Letter of Authorization 

will be published in the Federal 

Register. 

§ 216.249 Modifications to Letters of 

Authorization. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, no substantive 

modification (including withdrawal or 

suspension) to the Letter of 

Authorization by NMFS, issued 

pursuant to §§ 216.106 and 216.247 and 

subject to the provisions of this subpart, 

shall be made until after notification 

and an opportunity for public comment 

has been provided. For purposes of this 

paragraph, a renewal of a Letter of 

Authorization under § 216.248, without 

modification (except for the period of 

validity), is not considered a substantive 

modification. 

(b) If the Assistant Administrator 

determines that an emergency exists 

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

mammals specified in § 216.240(b), a 

Letter of Authorization issued pursuant 

to §§ 216.106 and 216.247 may be 

substantively modified without prior 

notification and an opportunity for 

public comment. Notification will be 

published in the Federal Register 

within 30 days subsequent to the action. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60832 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP14OC08.023</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60833 

[FR Doc. E8–23617 Filed 10–10–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP14OC08.024</GPH>