64508 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 218 

[Docket No. 100817363–0365–02] 

RIN 0648–BA14 

Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; Military Training Activities 

Conducted Within the Gulf of Alaska 

(GoA) Temporary Maritime Activities 

Area (TMAA) 

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 in the Gulf of Alaska (GoA) 

Temporary Maritime Activities Area 

(TMAA) for the period December 2010 

through December 2015. Pursuant to the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), NMFS proposes regulations to 

govern that take and requests 

information, suggestions, and comments 

on these proposed regulations. 

Specifically, we encourage the public to 

recommend effective, regionally specific 

methods for augmenting existing marine 

mammal density, distribution, and 

abundance information in the GoA 

TMAA and to prioritize the specific 

density and distribution data needs in 

the area (species, time of year, etc.). This 

information will ensure the design of 

the most effective Monitoring Plan with 

the resources available. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than November 18, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by 0648–BA14, 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, Brian D. Hopper, or Michelle 

Magliocca, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 713–2289. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability 

A copy of the Navy’s application, as 

well as the draft Monitoring Plan and 

the draft Stranding Response Plan for 

GoA TMAA, may be obtained by writing 

to the address specified above (See 

ADDRESSES), telephoning the contact 

listed above (see FOR FURTHER 

INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting 

the internet at: http:// 

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

incidental.htm#applications. The 

Navy’s Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS) for GoA TMAA was 

published on December 11, 2009 and 

may be viewed at http:// 

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

incidental.htm#applications. NMFS 

participates in the development of the 

Navy’s EIS as a cooperating agency 

under NEPA. 

Background 

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

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

the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) 

to allow, upon request, the incidental, 

but not intentional taking of marine 

mammals by U.S. citizens who engage 

in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) during periods of 

not more than five consecutive years 

each if certain findings are made and 

regulations are issued or, if the taking is 

limited to harassment, notice of a 

proposed authorization is provided to 

the public for review. 

Authorization shall be granted if 

NMFS finds that the taking will have a 

negligible impact on the species or 

stock(s), will not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of the 

species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, 

and if the permissible methods of taking 

and requirements pertaining to the 

mitigation, monitoring and reporting of 

such taking are set forth. NMFS has 

defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR 

216.103 as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

The National Defense Authorization 

Act of 2004 (NDAA) (Pub. L. 108–136) 

modified the MMPA by removing the 

‘‘small numbers’’ and ‘‘specified 

geographical region’’ limitations and 

amended the definition of ‘‘harassment’’ 

as it applies to a ‘‘military readiness 

activity’’ to read as follows (Section 

3(18)(B) of the MMPA): 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 any act that disturbs or 

is likely to disturb a marine mammal or 

marine mammal stock in the wild by 

causing disruption of natural behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering, to a point where 

such behavioral patterns are abandoned 

or significantly altered [Level B 

Harassment]. 

Summary of Request 

In March 2009, NMFS received an 

application from the Navy requesting 

authorization to take individuals of 20 

species of marine mammals (15 

cetaceans and 5 pinnipeds) incidental to 

upcoming training activities to be 

conducted from December 2010 through 

December 2015 in the GoA TMAA, 

which is a 42,146 square nautical mile 

(nm 2) (145,482 km 2) polygon roughly 

the shape of a 300 nm (555.6 km) by 150 

nm (277.8 km) rectangle oriented 

northwest to southeast in the long 

direction. NMFS subsequently 

requested additional information, which 

was provided in November 2009 in the 

form of a revised application. These 

training activities are classified as 

military readiness activities under the 

provisions of the NDAA of 2004. These 

military readiness activities may 

incidentally take marine mammals 

within the TMAA by exposing them to 

sound from mid-frequency or highfrequency active sonar (MFAS/HFAS) or 

underwater detonations. The Navy 

requests authorization to take 

individuals of 20 species of cetaceans 

and pinnipeds by Level B Harassment. 

Further, although it does not anticipate 

that it will occur, the Navy requests 

authorization to take, by injury or 

mortality, up to 15 individual beaked 

whales (of any of the following species: 

Baird’s beaked whale, Cuvier’s beaked 

whale, Stejneger’s beaked whale) over 

the course of the 5-year regulations. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64509 

Description of Specified Activities 

Purpose and Background 

The Navy’s mission is to maintain, 

train, and equip combat-ready naval 

forces capable of winning wars, 

deterring aggression, and maintaining 

freedom of the seas. Section 5062 of 

Title 10 of the United States Code 

directs the Chief of Naval Operations to 

train all military forces for combat. The 

Chief of Naval Operations meets that 

direction, in part, by conducting at-sea 

training exercises and ensuring naval 

forces have access to ranges, operating 

areas (OPAREAs) and airspace where 

they can develop and maintain skills for 

wartime missions and conduct research, 

development, testing, and evaluation 

(RDT&E) of naval systems. 

The specified training activities 

addressed in this proposed rule are a 

subset of the Proposed Action described 

in the GoA TMAA DEIS, which would 

support and maintain Department of 

Defense training and assessments of 

current capabilities. Training does not 

include combat operations, operations 

in direct support of combat, or other 

activities conducted primarily for 

purposes other than training. The 

Department of Defense proposes to 

implement actions within the GoA 

TMAA to: 

• Increase the number of training 

activities from current levels (up to 14 

days) as necessary to support Fleet 

exercise requirements (that could last 

up to 21 days between April and 

October); 

• Conduct training in the Primary 

Mission Areas (PMARs) including AntiAir Warfare (AAW), Anti-Surface 

Warfare (ASUW), Anit-Submarine 

Warfare (ASW), Naval Special Warfare 

(NSW), Strike Warfare (STW), and 

Electronic Combat (EC). Conduct of 

training may include that necessary for 

newer systems, instrumentation, and 

platforms, including the EA–18G 

Growler aircraft, Guided Missile 

Submarines (SSGN), P–8 Poseidon 

Multimission Maritime Aircraft (MMA), 

Guided Missile Destroyer (DDG) 1000 

(Zumwalt Class) destroyer, and several 

types of Unmanned Aerial Systems 

(UASs); 

• Accommodate training 

enhancement instrumentation, to 

include the use of a Portable Undersea 

Tracking Range (PUTR); 

• Conduct an additional Carrier 

Strike Group (CSG) exercise during the 

months of April through October, which 

could also last up to 21 days (first CSG 

exercise being part of the baseline No 

Action Alternative); and 

• Conduct a Sinking Exercise 

(SINKEX) during each summertime 

exercise (maximum of two) in the 

TMAA. 

The proposed action would result in 

the following increases (above those 

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

Action Alternative in the Navy’s DEIS) 

in activities associated with the annual 

take of marine mammals: 

• Helicopter Anti-submarine Warfare 

(ASW) tracking exercise (TRACKEX) 

(includes use of MFAS and HFAS 

dipping sonar and sonobuoys) 

• Surface ASW TRACKEX (includes 

use of hull-mounted MFAS) 

• Submarine ASW (includes use of 

hull-mounted MFAS and HFAS) 

• Fixed-wing Marine Patrol Aircraft 

(MPA) ASW TRACKEX (includes use of 

sonobuoys) 

• Extended Echo Ranging ASW 

(includes explosive sonobuoys) 

• Bombing Exercises (BOMBEX) 

• Sinking Exercises (SINKEX) 

• Gunnery Exercises (GUNEX) 

Overview of the GoA TMAA 

Since the 1990s, the Navy has 

participated in a major joint training 

exercise that involves the Departments 

of the Navy, Army, Air Force, and Coast 

Guard participants reporting to a unified 

or joint commander who coordinates the 

activities planned to demonstrate and 

evaluate the ability of the services to 

engage in a conflict and carry out plans 

in response to a threat to national 

security. Previous exercises in the 

TMAA have occurred in the summer 

(April–October) timeframe due to the 

extreme cold weather and sea state 

conditions in the TMAA during the 

winter months. The areas making up the 

Alaska Training Areas (ATAs) (see 

figure 1–1 in the Navy’s application) 

consist of 3 components: (1) TMAA; (2) 

U.S. Air Force over-land Special Use 

Airspace (SUA) and air routes over the 

GoA and State of Alaska; and (3) U.S. 

Army training lands. 

Within the northeastern GoA, the 

TMAA is comprised of the 42,146 

square nautical miles (nm2) (145,482 

square kilometer (km2) of surface and 

subsurface area and 88,731 nm2

(305,267 km2)) of special use airspace 

(SUA) (not including the portion of 

Warning Area 612 [W–612] that falls 

outside of the TMAA). The TMAA is 

roughly rectangular and oriented from 

northwest to southeast, approximately 

300 nautical miles (nm) (556 kilometer 

(km)) long by 150 nm (278 km) wide, 

situated south of Prince William Sound 

and east of Kodiak Island. With the 

exception of Cape Cleare on Montague 

Island located over 12 nm (22 km) from 

the northern point of the TMAA, the 

nearest shoreline (Kenai Peninsula) is 

located approximately 24 nm (44 km) 

north of the TMAA’s northern 

boundary. The approximate middle of 

the TMAA is located 140 nm (259 km) 

offshore. 

The abyssal plain in the GoA 

gradually shoals from a 16,400 feet (ft) 

(5,000 meter (m)) depth in the 

southwestern GoA to less than 9,843 ft 

(3,000 m) in the northeastern expanses 

of the Gulf. Maximal depths exceed 

22,965 ft (7,000 m) near the central 

Aleutian Trench along the continental 

slope south of the Aleutian Islands. 

Numerous seamounts, remnants of 

submarine volcanoes, are scattered 

across the central basin. Several of the 

seamounts rise to within a few hundred 

meters of the sea surface. 

Ocean circulation in the GoA is 

defined by the cyclonic motion of the 

Pacific subpolar gyre (also referred to as 

the Alaska Gyre), which is composed of 

the North Pacific Current, the Alaska 

Current, and the Alaskan Stream. 

Circulation patterns along the shelf 

divide the region into the inner shelf (or 

Alaska Coastal Current domain), the 

mid-shelf, and the outer shelf including 

the shelf break (DoN, 2006). The center 

of the gyre is located at approximately 

52 to 53 °N and 145 to 155 °W. 

Nearshore flow is dominated by the 

Alaskan Coastal Current and is less 

organized than the flow found along the 

shelf break and slope. The northwestern 

GoA also includes several prominent 

geological features that influence the 

regional oceanography. For example, 

Kayak Island extends 50 km across the 

continental shelf to the east of the 

Copper River. This island can deflect 

shelf waters farther offshore delivering 

high concentrations of suspended 

sediment to the outer shelf (DoN, 2006). 

During winter months, intense 

circulation over the GoA produces 

easterly coastal winds and 

downwelling, both of which result in a 

well-mixed water column. During the 

summer, stratification develops due to 

decreased winds, increased freshwater 

discharge, and increased solar radiation. 

Under summer and fall conditions, the 

shelf waters are stratified with the upper 

water column temperatures at their 

maximum and salinities at their 

minimum. On longer time scales, there 

is evidence of interannual variation in 

the circulation patterns within the GoA. 

These variations result from the climatic 

variability of the El Nin ̃ o Southern 

Oscillation (ENSO) and the Pacific 

Decadal Oscillation (PDO) (DoN, 2006). 

Generally, two surface temperature 

regimes characterize the northern 

expanses of the GoA throughout the 

year. Relatively warm surface water 

occurs over the continental shelf, while 

colder water is found farther offshore 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64510 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

beyond the shelf break. Thermal 

stratification remains weak until late 

May or June, then strong stratification 

persists through the summer months. As 

winds intensify in the fall, stratification 

dissipates, due to stronger vertical 

mixing and increased downwelling, 

surface waters sink along the coast, and 

the thermocline deepens throughout the 

region. Along the continental shelf and 

within the coastal fjords, waters are 

often highly stratified by both salinity 

and temperature; an intense thermocline 

occurs at approximately 82 ft (25 m). 

Farther offshore in the Alaskan Stream, 

maximal stratification occurs between 

depths of 328 ft to 984 ft (100 to 300 m) 

and is associated primarily with a 

permanent halocline in the GoA (DoN, 

2006). 

Specified Activities 

As mentioned above, the Navy has 

requested MMPA authorization to take 

marine mammals incidental to training 

in the GoA TMAA that would result in 

the generation of sound or pressure 

waves in the water at or above levels 

that NMFS has determined will likely 

result in take (see Acoustic Take Criteria 

Section), either through the use of 

MFAS/HFAS or the detonation of 

explosives in the water. These activities 

are discussed in the subsections below. 

In addition to use of active sonar 

sources and explosives, these activities 

include the operation and movement of 

vessels that are necessary to conduct the 

training, and the effects of this part of 

the activities are also analyzed in this 

document. 

The Navy’s application also briefly 

summarizes Air Combat Maneuvers 

(ACM), Visit Board Search and Seizure/ 

Vessels of Interest (VBSS/VOI), 

Maritime Interdiction (MI), Chaff 

Exercises, Sea Surface Control (SSC), 

and Naval Special Warfare Insertion/ 

Extraction exercises; however, these 

activities are primarily air or land based 

and do not utilize sound sources or 

explosives in the water. No take of 

marine mammals is anticipated to result 

from these activities and, therefore, they 

are not discussed further. 

Activities Utilizing Active Sonar 

Sources 

For the GoA TMAA, the training 

activities that utilize active tactical 

sonar sources fall primarily into the 

category of Anti-submarine Warfare 

(ASW). This section includes a 

description of ASW, the active acoustic 

devices used in ASW exercises, and the 

exercise types in which these acoustic 

sources are used. 

ASW Training and Active Sonar 

ASW training involves helicopter and 

sea control aircraft, ships, and 

submarines, operating alone or in 

combination, to locate, track, and 

neutralize submarines. Various types of 

active and passive sonar are used by the 

Navy to determine water depth, locate 

mines, and identify, track, and target 

submarines. Passive sonar ‘‘listens’’ for 

sound waves by using underwater 

microphones, called hydrophones, 

which receive, amplify, and process 

underwater sounds. No sound is 

introduced into the water when using 

passive sonar. Passive sonar can 

indicate the presence, character, and 

movement of submarines. However, 

passive sonar only provides information 

about the bearing (direction) to a soundemitting source; it does not provide an 

accurate range (distance) to the source. 

Also, passive sonar relies on the 

underwater target itself to provide 

sufficient sound to be detected by 

hydrophones. Active sonar is needed to 

locate objects that emit little or no noise 

(such as mines or diesel-electric 

submarines operating in electric mode) 

and to establish both bearing and range 

to the detected contact. 

Active sonar transmits pulses of 

sound that travel through the water, 

reflect off objects, and return to a 

receiver. By knowing the speed of sound 

in water and the time taken for the 

sound wave to travel to the object and 

back, active sonar systems can quickly 

calculate direction and distance from 

the sonar platform to the underwater 

object. There are three frequency range 

classifications for active sonar: Lowfrequency (LF), mid-frequency (MF), 

and high-frequency (HF). 

MFAS, as defined in the Navy’s GoA 

TMAA LOA application, operates 

between 1 and 10 kHz, with detection 

ranges up to 10 nm (19 km). Because of 

this detection ranging capability, MFAS 

is the Navy’s primary tool for 

conducting ASW. Many ASW 

experiments and exercises have 

demonstrated that the improved 

capability (of MFAS over other sources) 

for mid-range detection of adversary 

submarines before they are able to 

conduct an attack is essential to U.S. 

ship survivability. Today, ASW is the 

Navy’s number one war-fighting 

priority. Navies across the world utilize 

modern, quiet, diesel-electric 

submarines that pose the primary threat 

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

number of critical missions. Extensive 

ASW training is necessary for sailors on 

ships and in strike groups to gain 

proficiency using MFAS. Moreover, if a 

strike group does not demonstrate 

MFAS proficiency, it cannot be certified 

as combat ready. 

HFAS, as defined in the Navy’s GoA 

TMAA LOA application, operates at 

frequencies greater than 10 kilohertz 

(kHz). At higher acoustic frequencies, 

sound rapidly dissipates in the ocean 

environment, resulting in short 

detection ranges, typically less than five 

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

primarily for determining water depth, 

hunting mines, and guiding torpedoes, 

which are all short range applications. 

Training exercises in the GoA TMAA 

will include the use of HFAS. 

Low-frequency sources operate below 

1 kHz. Sonar in this frequency range is 

designed to detect extremely quiet 

diesel-electric submarines at ranges far 

beyond the capabilities of MFA sonars. 

Currently, there are only two ships in 

use by the Navy equipped with lowfrequency sonar; both are ocean 

surveillance vessels operated by 

Military Sealift Command. While 

Surveillance Towed Array Sensor 

System (SURTASS) low-frequency 

active sonar was analyzed in a separate 

EIS/OEIS, use of low-frequency active 

sonar is not part of the planned training 

activities considered for the GoA 

TMAA. 

Acoustic Sources Used for ASW 

Exercises in the GoA TMAA 

Modern sonar technology has 

developed a multitude of sonar sensor 

and processing systems. In concept, the 

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

arrival of the reflected echoes from the 

target object to determine range. More 

sophisticated active sonars emit an 

omni-directional ping and then rapidly 

scan a steered receiving beam to provide 

directional, as well as range, 

information. More advanced active 

sonars transmit multiple preformed 

beams, listening to echoes from several 

directions simultaneously and 

providing efficient detection of both 

direction and range. The types of active 

sonar and other sound sources 

employed during training exercises in 

the GoA TMAA are identified in Table 

1. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64511 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C ASW sonar systems are deployed 

from certain classes of surface ships, 

submarines, helicopters, and fixed-wing 

maritime patrol aircraft (MPA). 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP19OC10.005</GPH>
64512 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Maritime patrol aircraft is a category of 

fixed-wing aircraft that includes the 

current P–3C Orion, and the future P– 

8 Poseidon multimission maritime 

aircraft. The surface ships used are 

typically equipped with hull-mounted 

sonars (passive and active) for the 

detection of submarines. During an 

exercise, fixed-wing MPA may be used 

to deploy both active and passive 

sonobuoys to assist in locating and 

tracking submarines or ASW targets. 

Helicopters may also be used during an 

exercise to deploy both active and 

passive sonobuoys to assist in locating 

and tracking submarines or ASW 

targets, and to deploy dipping sonar. 

Submarines are equipped with both 

passive and active sonar sensors that 

may be used to locate and prosecute 

other submarines and/or surface ships 

during the exercise. The platforms and 

systems used in ASW exercises are 

identified below. 

Surface Ship Sonar—A variety of 

surface ships participate in training 

events, including the Fast Frigate (FFG), 

the Guided Missile Destroyer (DDG), 

and the Guided Missile Cruiser (CG). 

These three classes of ships are 

equipped with active as well as passive 

tactical sonar for mine avoidance and 

submarine detection and tracking. DDG 

and CG class ships are equipped with 

the AN/SQS–53 sonar system (the most 

powerful system), with a nominal 

source level of 235 decibels (dB) re 1 

μPa @ 1 m. The FFG class ship uses the 

SQS–56 sonar system, with a nominal 

source level of 225 decibels (dB) re 1 

μPa @ 1 m. Sonar ping transmission 

durations were modeled as lasting 1 

second per ping and omni-directional, 

which is a conservative assumption that 

will overestimate potential effects 

because actual ping durations will be 

less than 1 second. The AN/SQS–53 

hull-mounted sonar transmits at a center 

frequency of 3.5 kHz. The SQS–56 

transmits at a center frequency of 7.5 

kHz. Details concerning the tactical use 

of specific frequencies and the 

repetition rate for the sonar pings are 

classified but were modeled based on 

the required tactical training setting. 

Submarine Sonars—Submarines use 

sonar (e.g., AN/BQQ–10) to detect and 

target enemy submarines and surface 

ships. Because submarine active sonar 

use is very rare and in those rare 

instances, very brief, it is extremely 

unlikely that use of active sonar by 

submarines would have any measurable 

effect on marine mammals. In addition, 

submarines use high-frequency sonar 

(AN/BQS–15 or BQQ–24) for navigation 

safety, mine avoidance, and a 

fathometer that is not unlike a standard 

fathometer in source level or output. 

There is, at present, no mine training 

range in the GoA TMAA. Therefore, 

given their limited use and rapid 

attenuation as high frequency sources, 

the AN/BQS–15 and BQQ–24 are not 

expected to result in the take of marine 

mammals. 

Aircraft Sonar Systems—Aircraft 

sonar systems that would operate in the 

GoA TMAA include sonobuoys from 

fixed and rotary-wing aircraft and 

dipping sonar from helicopters. 

Sonobuoys may be deployed by 

maritime patrol aircraft or helicopters; 

dipping sonars are used by carrier-based 

helicopters. A sonobuoy is an 

expendable device used by aircraft for 

the detection of underwater acoustic 

energy and for conducting vertical water 

column temperature measurements. 

Most sonobuoys are passive, but some 

can also generate active acoustic signals. 

Dipping sonar is an active or passive 

sonar device lowered by cable from 

helicopters to detect or maintain contact 

with underwater targets. During ASW 

training, these systems’ active modes are 

only used briefly for localization of 

contacts and are not used in primary 

search capacity. Helicopters and MPA 

(P–3 or P–8 in approximately 2013) may 

deploy sonobuoys in the GoA TMAA 

during ASW training exercises. 

Extended Echo Ranging/Improved 

Extended Echo Ranging (EER/IEER) 

Systems—EER/IEER are airborne ASW 

systems used to conduct ‘‘large area’’ 

searches for submarines. These systems 

are made up of airborne avionics ASW 

acoustic processing and sonobuoy types 

that are deployed in pairs. The EER/ 

IEER system’s active sonobuoy has two 

components: An AN/SSQ–110A 

Sonobuoy, which generates an explosive 

sound impulse; and a passive receiver 

sonobuoy (SSQ–77), which ‘‘listens’’ for 

the return echo that has been bounced 

off the surface of a submarine. These 

sonobuoys are designed to provide 

underwater acoustic data necessary for 

naval aircrews to quickly and accurately 

detect submerged submarines. The 

sonobuoy pairs are dropped from a 

maritime patrol aircraft into the ocean 

in a predetermined pattern with a few 

buoys covering a very large area. The 

AN/SSQ–110A Sonobuoy Series is an 

expendable and commandable 

sonobuoy. In other words, the 

equipment is not retrieved after 

deployment and, once deployed, it can 

be remotely controlled. For example, 

upon command from the aircraft, the 

explosive charge would detonate, 

creating the sound impulse. Within the 

sonobuoy pattern, only one detonation 

is commanded at a time. Sixteen to 

twenty SSQ–110A source sonobuoys 

may be used in a typical exercise. Both 

charges of each sonobuoy would be 

detonated independently during the 

course of the training. The first 

detonation would be for tactical 

reasons—to locate the submarine; and 

the second occurs when the sonobuoy is 

commanded to scuttle at the conclusion 

of the exercise. The AN/SSQ–110A is 

listed in Table 1 because it functions 

like a sonar ping; however, the source 

creates an explosive detonation and its 

effects are considered in the underwater 

explosive section. 

Multistatic Active Coherent (MAC) 

system–Formerly referred to as the 

Advanced Extended Echo Ranging 

(AEER) system, the proposed SSQ–125 

MAC sonobuoy system is operationally 

similar to the existing EER/IEER system. 

The MAC system will use the same Air 

Deployed Active Receiver (ADAR) 

sonobuoy (SSQ–101A) as the acoustic 

receiver and will be used for a large area 

ASW search capability in both shallow 

and deep water. However, instead of 

using an explosive AN/SSQ–110A as an 

impulsive source for the active acoustic 

wave, the MAC system will use a battery 

powered (electronic) source for the AN/ 

SSQ 125 sonobuoy. The output and 

operational parameters for the AN/SSQ– 

125 sonobuoy (source levels, frequency, 

wave forms, etc.) are classified. 

However, this sonobuoy is intended to 

replace the EER/IEER’s use of explosives 

and is scheduled to enter the fleet in 

2011. For purposes of analysis, 

replacement of the EER/IEER system by 

the MAC system will be assumed to 

occur at 25 percent per year as follows: 

2011—25 percent replacement; 2012— 

50 percent replacement; 2013—75 

percent replacement; 2014—100 percent 

replacement with no further use of the 

EER/IEER system beginning in 2015 and 

beyond. 

Torpedoes—Torpedoes are the 

primary ASW weapon used by surface 

ships, aircraft, and submarines. The 

guidance systems of these weapons can 

be autonomous or electronically 

controlled from the launching platform 

through an attached wire. The 

autonomous guidance systems are 

acoustically based. They operate either 

passively, exploiting the emitted sound 

energy by the target, or actively, 

ensonifying the target and using the 

received echoes for guidance. With the 

exception of SINKEX, torpedoes will not 

be used in the GoA TMAA during the 

proposed training activities. 

Portable Undersea Tracking Range 

(PUTR)—The PUTR is a self-contained, 

portable, undersea tracking capability 

that employs modern technologies to 

support coordinated undersea warfare 

training in numerous locations. The 

system tracks submarines, surface ships, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64513 

1MPA currently refers to the P–3C Orion aircraft. 

The P–8 Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft is 

scheduled to replace the P–3C as the Navy’s MPA. 

weapons, targets, and unmanned 

undersea vehicles and then distributes 

the data to a data processing and display 

system, either aboard ship or at a shore 

site. The PUTR may be deployed to 

support ASW or other training in the 

GoA TMAA. The PUTR would 

temporarily place hydrophones on the 

seafloor in areas 25–100 nm2 (46.3– 

185.2 km2) or smaller and provide highfidelity feedback and scoring of crew 

performance during ASW training 

activities. No on-shore construction 

would take place. Seven electronics 

packages, each approximately 3 ft (0.9 

m) long by 2 ft (0.6 m) in diameter, 

would be temporarily installed on the 

seafloor by a range boat. The anchors 

used to keep the electronics packages on 

the seafloor consist of either concrete or 

sand bags, each of which are 

approximately 1.5 ft-by-1.5 ft (0.45 mby-0.45 m) and 300 pounds (136 

kilograms). PUTR equipment can be 

recovered for maintenance or when 

training is completed. Two separate 

sound sources are associated with the 

operation of the PUTR: 

Range tracking pingers—Range 

tracking pingers would be used on 

ships, submarines, and ASW targets 

when training is conducted on the 

PUTR. A typical MK 84 range tracking 

pinger generates a 12.93 kHz sine wave 

in pulses with a maximum duty cycle of 

30 milliseconds and has a design power 

of 194 dB re 1 micro-Pascal at 1 meter. 

Ping rate is selectable and typically one 

pulse every two seconds. Under the 

proposed action, up to four range 

pingers would operate simultaneously 

for 4 hours each of the 20 PUTR 

operating days per year. Total time 

operated would be 80 hours annually. 

Transponders—Each transponder 

package consists of a hydrophone that 

receives pinger signals, and a transducer 

that sends an acoustic ‘‘uplink’’ of 

locating data to the range boat. The 

uplink signal is transmitted at 8.8 kHz, 

17 kHz, or 40 kHz, at a source level of 

190 dB at 40 kHz, and 186 dB at 8.8 

kHz. The uplink frequency is selectable 

and typically uses the 40 kHz signal, 

however the lower frequency may be 

used when PUTR is deployed in deep 

waters where conditions may not permit 

the 40 kHz signal to establish and 

maintain the uplink. The PUTR system 

also incorporates an emergency 

underwater voice capability that 

transmits at 8–11 kHz and a source level 

of 190 dB. Under the proposed action, 

the uplink transmitters would operate 

20 days per year, for 4 hours each day 

of use. Total time operated would be 80 

hours annually. 

Training Targets—ASW training 

targets are used to simulate opposition 

submarines. They are equipped with 

one or a combination of the following 

devices: (1) Acoustic projectors 

emanating sounds to simulate 

submarine acoustic signatures; (2) echo 

repeaters to simulate the characteristics 

of the echo of a particular sonar signal 

reflected from a specific type of 

submarine; and (3) magnetic sources to 

trigger magnetic detectors. Two ASW 

training target types may be used in the 

TMAA: The MK–30, which is recovered 

after each use and the MK–39 

Expendable Mobile ASW Training 

Target (EMATT), which is not 

recovered. Under the proposed action, 

approximately 12 EMATTs may be 

expended annually during training in 

the TMAA. A small percentage of these 

EMATTS may be replaced by the more 

costly yet recoverable MK–30. 

As described above, ASW training 

exercises are the primary type of 

exercises that utilize MFAS and HFAS 

sources in the GoA TMAA. Unit level 

tracking and torpedo ASW exercises 

may occur over the course of several 

days during the proposed training 

period in the GoA TMAA. Under the 

Navy’s preferred alternative, in a single 

year the GoA TMAA may have two 

exercises lasting up to 21 days, both of 

which may involve one ASW unit 

(aircraft, ship, or submarine) versus one 

target (usually a MK–39 EMATT or live 

submarine). ASW exercise descriptions 

are included below and summarized 

(along with the exercises utilizing 

explosives) in Table 2. 

ASW Tracking Exercise (TRACKEX)— 

Generally, TRACKEXs train aircraft, 

ship, and submarine crews in tactics, 

techniques, and procedures for search, 

detection, localization, and tracking of 

submarines with the goal of determining 

a firing solution that could be used to 

launch a torpedo and destroy the 

submarine. Use of torpedoes is not a 

proposed activity in the TMAA, with 

the exception of SINKEX. ASW 

Tracking Exercises occur during both 

day and night. A typical unit-level 

exercise involves one (1) ASW unit 

(aircraft, ship, or submarine) versus one 

(1) target—either a MK–39 (EMATT), or 

a live submarine. The target may be 

non-evading while operating on a 

specified track or fully evasive. 

Participating units use active and 

passive sensors, including hull-mounted 

sonar, towed arrays, dipping sonar, 

variable-depth sonar, and sonobuoys for 

tracking. 

ASW training activities will take 

place during the summer months, in the 

form of one or two major exercises or 

focused activity periods. These 

exercises or activity periods would each 

last up to 21 days and consist of 

multiple component training activities. 

Unlike Navy Training activities in other 

areas, the GOA TMAA is not a Range 

Complex and as such, there are no other 

or ongoing small scale Navy Training 

activities conducted outside these 

activity periods. Descriptions of each 

ASW tracking exercise type are 

provided below. 

Helicopter ASW TRACKEX 

A helicopter ASW TRACKEX 

typically involves one or two MH–60R 

helicopters using both passive and 

active sonar for tracking submarine 

targets. For passive tracking, the MH– 

60R may deploy patterns of passive 

sonobuoys to receive underwater 

acoustic signals, providing the 

helicopter crew with locating 

information on the target. Active 

sonobuoys may also be used. An active 

sonobuoy, as in any active sonar system, 

emits an acoustic pulse that travels 

through the water, returning echoes if 

any objects, such as a submarine, are 

within the range of acoustic detection. 

For active sonar tracking, the MH–60R 

crew will rely primarily on its AQS–22 

Dipping Sonar. The sonar is lowered 

into the ocean while the helicopter 

hovers within 50 ft (15m) of the surface. 

Similar to the active sonobuoy, the 

dipping sonar emits acoustic energy and 

receives any returning echoes, 

indicating the presence of an 

underwater object. Use of dipping sonar 

has the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock 

resulting in MMPA Level B harassment 

as defined for military readiness 

activities. 

The target for this exercise is either an 

EMATT or live submarine which may 

be either nonevading and assigned to a 

specified track or fully evasive 

depending on the state of training of the 

helicopter crew. A Helicopter 

TRACKEX usually takes 2 to 4 hours. 

No torpedoes are fired during this 

exercise. A total of 192 AQS–22 ‘‘dips’’ 

annually were analyzed for potential 

acoustic impacts under the proposed 

training activities. 

MPA 1 ASW TRACKEX 

During these exercises, a typical 

scenario involves a single MPA 

dropping sonobuoys, from an altitude 

below 3,000 ft (914 m), into specific 

patterns designed for both the 

anticipated threat submarine and the 

specific water conditions. These 

patterns vary in size and coverage area 

based on anticipated threat and water 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64514 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

conditions. Typically, passive 

sonobuoys will be used first, so the 

threat submarine is not alerted. Active 

sonobuoys will be used as required 

either to locate extremely quiet 

submarines or to further localize and 

track submarines previously detected by 

passive buoys. Use of sonobuoys has the 

potential to disturb a marine mammal or 

marine mammal stock resulting in 

MMPA Level B harassment as defined 

for military readiness activities. 

The MPA will typically operate below 

3,000 ft (914 m) to drop sonobuoys, will 

sometimes be as low as 400 ft (122 m), 

then may climb to several thousand feet 

after the buoy pattern is deployed. The 

higher altitude allows monitoring of the 

buoys over a much larger search pattern 

area. The target for this exercise is either 

an EMATT or live submarine, which 

may be either non-evading and assigned 

to a specified track or fully evasive 

depending on the state of training of the 

MPA. An MPA TRACKEX usually takes 

2 to 4 hours. The annual use of a total 

of 266 DICASS sonobuoys was analyzed 

for potential acoustic impacts under the 

proposed training activities. 

EER/IEER ASW Training Exercises 

This is an at-sea flying exercise 

designed to train MPA crews in the 

deployment and use of the EER/IEER 

sonobuoy systems. This system uses the 

SSQ–110A as the signal source and the 

SSQ–77 as the receiver buoy. This 

activity differs from the MPA ASW 

TRACKEX in that the SSQ–110A 

sonobuoy uses two explosive charges 

per buoy for the acoustic source. Other 

active sonobuoys use an electrically 

generated ‘‘ping.’’ Use of explosive 

sonobuoys has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock resulting in MMPA Level B 

harassment as defined for military 

readiness activities. 

A typical EER/IEER exercise lasts 

approximately 6 hours. The aircrew will 

first deploy 16 to 20 SSQ–110A 

sonobuoys and 16 to 20 passive 

sonobuoys in 1 hour. For the next 5 

hours, the sonobuoy charges will be 

detonated, while the EER/IEER system 

analyzes the returns for evidence of a 

submarine. This exercise may or may 

not include a practice target. For 

potential acoustic impacts, the annual 

deployments of 40 SSQ–110 (two 

explosions per buoy) sonobuoys were 

analyzed under the proposed training 

activities. 

In the future, the SSQ–125 MAC 

sonobuoy will be deployed in the GoA 

TMAA as a replacement for the SSQ– 

110 in EER/IEER exercises. 

ASW TRACKEX (Surface Ship) 

Surface ships operating in the GoA 

TMAA would use hull-mounted active 

sonar to conduct ASW Tracking 

exercises. Typically, this exercise would 

involve the coordinated use of other 

ASW assets, to include MPA, 

helicopters, and other ships. A total of 

578 hours of SQS–53 and 52 hours of 

SQS–56 sonar annually were analyzed 

for potential acoustic impacts under the 

proposed training activities. Acoustic 

cumulative and synergistic effects are 

incorporated into the modeling as 

detailed in Appendix B of the Navy’s 

LOA application (see SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section for information on 

obtaining copies of supporting 

documents). Use of active sonar by 

surface ships for ASW has the potential 

to disturb a marine mammal or marine 

mammal stock resulting in MMPA Level 

B harassment as defined for military 

readiness activities. 

ASW or Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW) 

(Submarine) 

During these exercises, submarines 

use passive sonar sensors to search, 

detect, classify, localize, and track the 

threat submarine with the goal of 

developing a firing solution that could 

be used to launch a torpedo and destroy 

the threat submarine. However, no 

torpedoes are fired during this exercise. 

Submarines also use their highfrequency sonar for object avoidance 

and navigation safety. Sonar use by 

submarines has the potential to disturb 

a marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock resulting in MMPA Level B 

harassment as defined for military 

readiness activities. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64515 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP19OC10.006</GPH>
64516 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Activities Utilizing Underwater 

Detonations 

Underwater detonation activities can 

occur at various depths. They may 

include activities with detonations at or 

just below the surface (such as SINKEX 

or gunnery exercises (GUNEX)). When 

the weapons hit the target, there is no 

explosion in the water, and so a ‘‘hit’’ is 

not modeled (i.e., the energy (either 

acoustic or pressure) from the hit is not 

expected to reach levels that would 

result in take of marine mammals). 

When a live weapon misses, it is 

modeled to explode below the water 

surface at 1 ft (5-inch naval gunfire, 76- 

mm rounds), 2 meters (Maverick, 

Harpoon, MK–82, MK–83, MK–84), or 

50 ft (MK–48 torpedo) as shown in 

Appendix A of the Navy’s application 

(the depth is chosen to represent the 

worst case of the possible scenarios as 

related to potential marine mammals 

impacts). Exercises may utilize either 

live or inert ordnance of the types listed 

in Table 2. Additionally, successful hit 

rates are known to the Navy and are 

utilized in the effects modeling. 

Training events that involve explosives 

and underwater detonations are 

described below and summarized in 

Table 3. 

TABLE 3—SOURCES OF AT-SEA EXPLOSIVES USED IN GOA TMAA FOR WHICH TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS IS

ANTICIPATED

Ordnance/explosive 

Net 

explosive 

weight 

(in lbs.) 

Sub-TTS TTS Injury Mortality 

Exclusion 

zone 

177dB 182 SEL/23psi Used (m) 

50% TM 

rupture, 205db 

or 23 psi-ms 

Onset massive 

lung injury or 

31 psi-ms 

5′′ Naval gunfire ................................................... 9.54 413 227/269 43 23 549 

76 mm Rounds .................................................... 1.6 168 95/150 19 13 549 

MK–82 .................................................................. 238 2720 1584/809 302 153 914 

MK–83 .................................................................. 574 4056 2374/1102 468 195 914 

MK–84 .................................................................. 945 5196 3050/1327 611 226 914 

SSQ–110 IEER .................................................... 5 NA 325/271 155 76 914 

MK–48 .................................................................. 851 NA 2588/1198 762 442 1852 

Table Also Indicates Range to Indicated Threshold and Size of Navy Exclusion Zone Used in Mitigation. Units Are Meters. 

Sinking Exercise (SINKEX)—In a 

SINKEX, a specially prepared, 

deactivated vessel is deliberately sunk 

using multiple weapons systems. The 

exercise provides training to ship and 

aircraft crews in delivering both live 

and inert ordnance on a real target. 

These target vessels are empty, cleaned, 

and environmentally-remediated ship 

hulks. A SINKEX target is towed to sea 

and set adrift at the SINKEX location. 

The duration of a SINKEX is 

unpredictable since it ends when the 

target sinks, sometimes immediately 

after the first weapon impact and 

sometimes only after multiple impacts 

by a variety of weapons. Typically, the 

exercise lasts for 4 to 8 hours over 1 to 

2 days. The Navy proposes to conduct 

one SINKEX during each summertime 

exercise in the GoA TMAA (maximum 

of two). Potential harassment would be 

from underwater detonation. SINKEX 

events have been conducted in the 

Pacific at Navy training range 

complexes off Southern California, the 

Pacific Northwest, Hawaii, and the 

Mariana Islands, in compliance with 40 

CFR 229.2. 

The Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) grants the Navy a general permit 

through the Marine Protection, 

Research, and Sanctuaries Act to 

transport vessels ‘‘for the purpose of 

sinking such vessels in ocean waters 

***’’ (40 CFR 229.2). Subparagraph 

(a)(3) of this regulation states ‘‘All such 

vessel sinkings shall be conducted in 

water at least 1,000 fathoms (6,000 feet) 

deep and at least 50 nautical miles from 

land.’’ 

SINKEX events typically include at 

least one surface combatant (frigate, 

destroyer, or cruiser); one submarine; 

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

serve as a surveillance platform to 

ensure the hulk does not pose a hazard 

to navigation prior to and during the 

SINKEX. The weapons actually 

expended during a SINKEX can vary 

greatly. Table 1–7 in the Navy’s 

application indicates the typical 

ordnance that may be used in a SINKEX, 

which may include missiles, bombs, 5’’ 

gunfire, and a single MK–48 torpedo. 

This table reflects the planning for 

weapons, which may be expended 

during one SINKEX in the GoA TMAA. 

This level of ordnance is expected for 

each of the two possible SINKEX events 

in the GoA TMAA. With the exception 

of the single torpedo, which is designed 

to explode below the target hulk in the 

water column, the weapons deployed 

during a SINKEX are intended to strike 

the target hulk, and thus not explode 

within the water column. 

Surface-to-Surface Gunnery Exercise 

(S–S GUNEX)—These exercises train 

surface ship crews in high-speed surface 

engagement procedures against mobile 

(towed or self-propelled) seaborne 

targets. Both live and inert training 

rounds are used against the targets. The 

training consists of the pre-attack phase, 

including locating, identifying, and 

tracking the threat vessel, and the attack 

phase in which the missile is launched 

and flies to the target. In a live-fire 

event, aircraft conduct a surveillance 

flight to ensure that the range is clear of 

nonparticipating ships. These activities 

may occur within the GoA TMAA and 

have the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock 

resulting in MMPA Level B harassment 

as defined for military readiness 

activities. 

For S–S GUNEX from a Navy ship, 

gun crews engage surface targets at sea 

with their main battery 5-inch and 

76mm guns as well as smaller surface 

targets with 25mm, 0.50-caliber (cal), or 

7.62mm machine guns, with the goal of 

disabling or destroying the threat target. 

For a surface-to-surface GUNEX from a 

Navy small boat, the weapon used is 

typically a 0.50 cal, 7.62-mm, or 40-mm 

machine gun. 

The number of rounds fired depends 

on the weapon used for S–S GUNEX. 

For 0.50-cal, 7.62-mm, or 40-mm 

ordnance, the number of rounds is 

approximately 200, 800, and 10 rounds, 

respectively. For the ship main battery 

guns, the gun crews typically fire 

approximately 60 rounds of 5-inch or 

76-mm ordnance during one exercise. 

These activities may occur within the 

GoA TMAA. 

Air-to-Surface Gunnery Exercise (A–S 

GUNEX)—Strike fighter aircraft and 

helicopter crews, including embarked 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64517 

Naval Special Warfare (NSW) personnel 

use guns to attack surface maritime 

targets, day or night, with the goal of 

destroying or disabling enemy ships, 

boats, or floating or near-surface mines. 

These training activities have the 

potential to disturb a marine mammal or 

marine mammal stock resulting in 

MMPA Level B harassment as defined 

for military readiness activities. 

For fixed-wing A–S GUNEX, a flight 

of two F/A–18 aircraft will begin a 

descent to the target from an altitude of 

about 3,000 ft (914 m) while still several 

miles away. Within a distance of 4,000 

ft (1,219 m) from the target, each aircraft 

will fire a burst of about 30 rounds 

before reaching an altitude of 1,000 ft 

(305 m), then break off and reposition 

for another strafing run until each 

aircraft expends its exercise ordnance 

allowance of about 250 rounds from its 

20mm cannon. 

For rotary-wing A–S GUNEX, a single 

helicopter will carry several air 

crewmen needing gunnery training and 

fly at an altitude between 50 and 100 ft 

(15 to 30 m) in a 300-ft (91-m) racetrack 

pattern around an at-sea target. Each 

gunner will expend about 200 rounds of 

0.50 cal and 800 rounds of 7.62-mm 

ordnance in each exercise. The target is 

normally a noninstrumented floating 

object such as an expendable smoke 

float, steel drum, or cardboard box, but 

may be a remote-controlled speed boat 

or jet ski type target. The exercise lasts 

about 1 hour and occurs within the GoA 

TMAA. 

Air-to-Surface Missile Exercise (A–S 

MISSILEX)—An air-to-surface 

MISSILEX involves fixed-winged 

aircraft and helicopter crews launching 

missiles at surface maritime targets, day 

and night, with the goal of training to 

destroy or disable enemy ships or boats. 

These activities may occur within the 

TMAA; however, all missile launches 

would be simulated; therefore, 

MISSILEX activities are not likely to 

disturb a marine mammal or marine 

mammal stock resulting in MMPA Level 

B harassment as defined for military 

readiness activities. 

For helicopter A–S MISSILEX, one or 

two MH–60R/S helicopters approach 

and acquire an at-sea surface target, 

which is then designated with a laser to 

guide an AGM–114 Hellfire missile to 

the target. The laser designator may be 

onboard the helicopter firing the 

hellfire, another helicopter, or another 

source. The helicopter simulates 

launching a missile from an altitude of 

about 300 ft (91 m) against a specially 

prepared target with an expendable 

target area on a nonexpendable 

platform. The platform fitted with the 

expendable target could be a stationary 

barge, a remote-controlled speed boat, or 

a jet ski towing a trimaran whose 

infrared signature has been augmented 

with a heat source (charcoal or propane) 

to better represent a typical threat 

vessel. All missile firings would be 

simulated. 

For an air-to-surface MISSILEX fired 

from fixed-wing aircraft, the simulated 

missile used is typically an AGM–84 

Standoff Land Attack Missile-Expanded 

Response (SLAM–ER), an AGM–84 

Harpoon, or an AGM–65 Maverick. A 

flight of one or two aircraft approach an 

at-sea surface target from an altitude 

between 40,000 ft (12,192 m) and 25,000 

ft (7,620 m) for SLAM–ER or Harpoon, 

and between 25,000 ft (7,620 m) and 

5,000 ft (1,524 m) for Maverick, 

complete the internal targeting process, 

and simulate launching the weapon at 

the target from beyond 150 nm (278 km) 

for SLAM–ER and from beyond 12 nm 

(22 km) for Maverick. The majority of 

unit level exercises involve the use of 

captive carry (inert, no release) training 

missiles; the aircraft perform all 

detection, tracking, and targeting 

requirements without actually releasing 

a missile. These activities may occur 

within the GoA TMAA and all missile 

launches would be simulated. 

Air-to-Surface Bombing Exercise 

(BOMBEX)—During an air-to-surface 

BOMBEX, maritime patrol aircraft 

(MPA) or F/A–18 deliver free-fall bombs 

against surface maritime targets, with 

the goal of destroying or disabling 

enemy ships or boats. 

A flight of one or two aircraft will 

approach the target from an altitude of 

15,000 ft (4,570 m) to less than 3,000 ft 

(914 m) while adhering to designated 

ingress and egress routes. Typical bomb 

release altitude is below 3,000 ft (914 m) 

and within a range of 1,000 yards (yd) 

(914 m) for unguided munitions, and 

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

of 10 nm (18 km) for precision-guided 

munitions. Exercises at night will 

normally be done with captive carry (no 

drop) weapons because of safety 

considerations. Laser designators from 

aircraft releasing ordnance or a support 

aircraft are used to illuminate certified 

targets for use with lasers when using 

laser guided weapons. Bombs used 

could include BDU–45 (inert) or MK– 

82/83/84 (live and inert). These 

activities may occur within the GoA 

TMAA and have the potential to disturb 

a marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock resulting in MMPA Level B 

harassment as defined for military 

readiness activities. In the near future, 

the Navy will be transitioning all carrier 

based MK–80 series bombs to BLU 110, 

111, and 117 live and inert bombs. The 

difference is that the BLU-series bombs 

contain insensitive (less likely to 

accidently explode) high explosives, 

which make them safer for carrier-based 

operations. All other attributes would 

remain the same. 

EER–IEER AN/SSQ–110A—The 

Extended Echo Ranging and Improved 

Extended Echo Ranging (EER/IEER) 

systems are airborne ASW systems used 

in conducting ‘‘large area’’ searches for 

submarines. These systems are made up 

of airborne avionics ASW acoustic 

processing and sonobuoy types that are 

deployed in pairs. The IEER system’s 

active sonobuoy has two components: 

An AN/SSQ–110A Sonobuoy, which 

generates a sound similar to a ‘‘sonar 

ping’’ using a small explosive; and a 

passive AN/SSQ–77 Sonobuoy, which 

‘‘listens’’ for the return echo of the 

‘‘sonar ping’’ that has been bounced off 

the surface of a submarine. These 

sonobuoys are designed to provide 

underwater acoustic data necessary for 

naval aircrews to quickly and accurately 

detect submerged submarines. The 

sonobuoy pairs are dropped from a 

fixed-wing aircraft into the ocean in a 

predetermined pattern with a few buoys 

covering a very large area. The AN/ 

SSQ–110A Sonobuoy Series is an 

expendable and commandable 

sonobuoy. Upon command from the 

aircraft, the bottom payload is released 

to sink to a designated operating depth. 

A second command is required from the 

aircraft to cause the second payload to 

release and detonate the explosive to 

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

detonation in the pattern of buoys at a 

time. Potential harassment would be 

from underwater detonations. 

The MAC system (described in the 

sonar source section) will eventually 

replace the EER/IEER system and was 

analyzed for this proposed rule. 

Vessel Movement 

Many of the proposed activities 

within the GoA TMAA involve 

maneuvers by various types of surface 

ships, boats, and submarines 

(collectively referred to as vessels). 

According to the Navy’s application, up 

to seven Navy vessels (six surface ships 

and one submarine) may be operating 

within the GoA TMAA. In addition, the 

Navy’s DEIS stated that under the 

preferred alternative (Alternative 2) 19 

contracted support vessels may also be 

operating within the GoA TMAA. 

Within the maximum two summer 

exercises, the length of the exercise, the 

number of vessels, and the allotted atsea time within the GoA TMAA during 

an exercise will be variable between 

years. These variations cannot be 

predicted given unknowns including 

the availability of participants for the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64518 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

annual exercise(s), which is a direct 

result of factors such as Navy responses 

to real-world events (e.g., tactical 

deployments, disaster relief, 

humanitarian assistance, etc.), planned 

and unplanned deployments, vessel 

availability due to funding and 

maintenance cycles, and logistic 

concerns with conducting an exercise in 

the GoA. 

Vessel movements have the potential 

to affect marine mammals by directly 

striking or disturbing individual 

animals. The probability of vessel and 

marine mammal interactions occurring 

in the GoA TMAA is dependent on 

several factors including numbers, 

types, and speeds of vessels; the 

regularity, duration, and spatial extent 

of activities; the presence/absence and 

density of marine mammals; and 

protective measures implemented by the 

Navy. During training activities, speeds 

vary and depend on the specific training 

activity. In general, Navy vessels move 

in a coordinated manner, but can be 

separated by many miles in distance. 

These activities are widely dispersed 

throughout the GoA TMAA, which is a 

vast area encompassing 42,146 nm2

(145,458 km2). Consequently, the 

density of Navy vessels within the GoA 

TMAA at any given time is extremely 

low. 

Additional information on the Navy’s 

proposed activities may be found in the 

LOA Application and the Navy’s GoA 

TMAA DEIS. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activities 

Twenty-six marine mammal species 

or populations/stocks have confirmed or 

possible occurrence within or adjacent 

to the GoA, including seven species of 

baleen whales (mysticetes), 13 species 

of toothed whales (odontocetes), five 

species of seals (pinnipeds), and the sea 

otter (mustelid). Nine of these species 

are ESA-listed and considered depleted 

under the MMPA: Blue whale, fin 

whale, humpback whale, sei whale, 

sperm whale, North Pacific right whale, 

Cook Inlet beluga whale, Steller sea 

lion, and sea otter. Table 4 summarizes 

their abundance, Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) status, occurrence, density, 

and likely occurrence in the TMAA 

during the April to October timeframe. 

The sea otter is managed by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and will not 

be addressed further here. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64519 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Species Not Considered Further 

Cook Inlet Beluga Whale—The 

likelihood of a Cook Inlet beluga whale 

(Delphinapterus leucas) occurring in the 

TMAA is extremely low. Only 28 

sightings of beluga whales in the GoA 

have been reported from 1936 to 2000 

(Laidre et al., 2000). The nearest beluga 

whales to the TMAA are in Cook Inlet 

with a 2008 abundance estimate of 375 

whales in the Cook Inlet stock (NMFS 

2008). In October 2008, the Cook Inlet 

beluga whale distinct population 

segment was listed as endangered under 

the ESA (73 FR 62919, October 22, 

2008). Prior to listing, the population 

had been designated as depleted under 

the MMPA (NMFS, 2008). Cook Inlet is 

approximately 70 nm (129.6 km) from 

the nearest edge of the TMAA and the 

Cook Inlet beluga whales do not leave 

the waters of Cook Inlet (NMFS, 2007, 

2008). Based on this information, it is 

highly unlikely for a Cook Inlet beluga 

whale to be present in the action area. 

Consequently, this distinct population 

segment will not be considered in the 

remainder of this analysis. 

False Killer Whale—The likelihood of 

a false killer whale (Pseudorca 

crassidens) being present in the TMAA 

is extremely low. False killer whales are 

found in tropical and temperate waters, 

generally between 50° S and 50° N 

latitude (Baird et al., 1989; Odell and 

McClune, 1999). The southernmost 

point boundary of the TMAA is well 

north of 55° N latitude. There have been 

records of false killer whale sightings as 

far north as the Aleutian Islands and 

Prince William Sound in the past 

(Leatherwood et al., 1988). In addition, 

a false killer whale was sighted in May 

2003 near Juneau, but this was 

considered to be far north of its normal 

range (DoN, 2006). There are no 

abundance estimates available for this 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP19OC10.007</GPH>
64520 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

species in the NMFS stock assessment 

report for this area of the Pacific. In 

summary, false killer whales are 

considered extralimital to the TMAA 

and will not be considered further in 

this analysis. 

Northern Right Whale Dolphin—The 

likelihood of a northern right whale 

dolphin (Lissodelphis borealis) 

occurring in the TMAA is extremely 

low. This species occurs in North 

Pacific oceanic waters and along the 

outer continental shelf and slope in cool 

temperate waters colder than 20° C. This 

species is distributed approximately 

from 30° N to 55° N and 145° W to 118° 

E (both south and east of the TMAA). 

There are two records of northern right 

whale dolphins in the GoA (one just 

south of Kodiak Island), but these are 

considered extremely rare (DoN, 2006). 

There are no abundance estimates for 

this species in the NMFS stock 

assessment report for this area of the 

Pacific. Given the extremely low 

likelihood of this species occurrence in 

the action area, the northern right whale 

dolphin will not be considered further 

in this analysis. 

Risso’s Dolphin—The likelihood of 

Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus) 

occurring in the action area is extremely 

low. The Risso’s dolphin is distributed 

worldwide in tropical to warmtemperate waters, roughly between 60° 

N and 60° S, where surface water 

temperature is usually greater than 10° 

C (Kruse et al., 1999). The average sea 

surface temperature for the GoA is 

reported to be approximately 9.6° C and 

has undergone a warming trend since 

1957 (Aquarone and Adams, 2008). The 

average summer temperature within the 

upper 328 ft (100 m) of the TMAA is 

approximately 11° C based on data as 

presented in the modeling analysis 

undertaken by the Navy. In the eastern 

Pacific, Risso’s dolphins range from the 

GoA to Chile (Leatherwood et al., 1980; 

Reimchen, 1980; Braham, 1983; 

Olavarria et al., 2001). Water 

temperature appears to be a factor that 

affects the distribution of Risso’s 

dolphins in the Pacific (Leatherwood et 

al., 1980; Kruse et al., 1999). Risso’s 

dolphins are expected to be extralimital 

in the TMAA. They prefer tropical to 

warm temperate waters and have 

seldom been sighted in the cold waters 

of the GoA. Records of Risso’s dolphins 

near the TMAA include sightings near 

Chirikof Island (southwest of Kodiak 

Island) and offshore in the GoA, just 

south of the TMAA boundary 

(Consiglieri et al., 1980; Braham, 1983). 

Given the extremely low likelihood of 

this species occurrence in the action 

area, the Risso’s dolphin will not be 

considered further in this analysis. 

Short-Finned Pilot Whale—Shortfinned pilot whales (Globicephala 

macrohynchus) are not expected to 

occur in the GoA TMAA. This species 

is found in tropical to warm temperate 

seas, generally in deep offshore areas, 

and they do not usually range north of 

50° N (DoN, 2006). There are two 

records of this species in Alaskan 

waters. In 1937, a short-finned pilot 

whale was taken near Katanak on the 

Alaska Peninsula and a group of five 

short-finned pilot whales were sighted 

just southeast of Kodiak Island in May 

1977 (DoN, 2006). There are no 

abundance estimates available for this 

species in the NMFS stock assessment 

report for this area of the Pacific. Given 

the extremely low likelihood of this 

species’ occurrence in the action area, 

the short-finned pilot whale will not be 

considered further in this analysis. 

The Navy has compiled information 

on the abundance, behavior, status and 

distribution, and vocalizations of 

marine mammal species in the GoA 

TMAA waters from the Navy Marine 

Resource Assessment and has 

supplemented this information with 

additional citations derived from new 

survey efforts and scientific 

publications. NMFS has designated 

stocks of marine mammals in the waters 

surrounding the GoA TMAA and, 

therefore, compiles stock assessment 

reports for this area. This information 

may be viewed in the Navy’s LOA 

application and/or the Navy’s DEIS for 

the GoA TMAA (see Availability), and 

is incorporated by reference herein. 

There are no designated marine 

mammal critical habitats or known 

foraging areas within the GoA TMAA; 

however, critical habitats for two ESAlisted species have been designated in 

the vicinity of the GoA TMAA. On April 

8, 2008, NMFS designated two areas as 

North Pacific right whale critical 

habitat—one in the GoA and one in the 

Bering Sea (73 FR 19000). The GoA 

critical habitat is located approximately 

16 nm (30 km) west of the southwest 

corner of the TMAA. NMFS designated 

critical habitat for Steller sea lions on 

August 27, 1993 (58 FR 45269). For the 

western Distinct Population Segment 

(DPS), ‘‘aquatic zone’’ critical habitat 

surrounding haulouts and rookeries 

extends 20 nm (37 km) seaward in state 

and federally managed waters, portions 

of which are adjacent to the TMAA. 

Much is unknown about the feeding 

habits of the dolphin and porpoise 

species in the GoA TMAA, but they are 

thought to feed opportunistically 

throughout their range (like better 

studied species and stocks are known to 

do) and possibly throughout the year. 

Even less is known about the feeding 

habits of beaked whales. Baleen whales 

and sperm whales are thought to forage 

seasonally in areas within and around 

the GoA TMAA. For example, Moore et 

al. (2007) provided evidence of a yearround occurrence of gray whales and a 

noteworthy feeding area in the 

northeastern GoA (southeast of Kodiak 

Island). 

Marine Mammal Hearing and 

Vocalizations 

Cetaceans have an auditory anatomy 

that follows the basic mammalian 

pattern, with some changes to adapt to 

the demands of hearing underwater. The 

typical mammalian ear is divided into 

an outer ear, middle ear, and inner ear. 

The outer ear is separated from the 

inner ear by a tympanic membrane, or 

eardrum. In terrestrial mammals, the 

outer ear, eardrum, and middle ear 

transmit airborne sound to the inner ear, 

where the sound waves are propagated 

through the cochlear fluid. Since the 

impedance of water is close to that of 

the tissues of a cetacean, the outer ear 

is not required to transduce sound 

energy as it does when sound waves 

travel from air to fluid (inner ear). 

Sound waves traveling through the 

inner ear cause the basilar membrane to 

vibrate. Specialized cells, called hair 

cells, respond to the vibration and 

produce nerve pulses that are 

transmitted to the central nervous 

system. Acoustic energy causes the 

basilar membrane in the cochlea to 

vibrate. Sensory cells at different 

positions along the basilar membrane 

are excited by different frequencies of 

sound (Pickles, 1998). Baleen whales 

have inner ears that appear to be 

specialized for low-frequency hearing. 

Conversely, dolphins and porpoises 

have ears that are specialized to hear 

high frequencies. 

Marine mammal vocalizations often 

extend both above and below the range 

of human hearing; vocalizations with 

frequencies lower than 18 Hz are 

labeled as infrasonic and those higher 

than 20 kHz as ultrasonic (National 

Research Council (NRC), 2003; Figure 

4–1). Measured data on the hearing 

abilities of cetaceans are sparse, 

particularly for the larger cetaceans such 

as the baleen whales. The auditory 

thresholds of some of the smaller 

odontocetes have been determined in 

captivity. It is generally believed that 

cetaceans should at least be sensitive to 

the frequencies of their own 

vocalizations. Comparisons of the 

anatomy of cetacean inner ears and 

models of the structural properties and 

the response to vibrations of the ear’s 

components in different species provide 

an indication of likely sensitivity to 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64521 

various sound frequencies. The ears of 

small toothed whales are optimized for 

receiving high-frequency sound, while 

baleen whale inner ears are best in low 

to infrasonic frequencies (Ketten, 1992; 

1997; 1998). 

Baleen whale vocalizations are 

composed primarily of frequencies 

below 1 kHz, and some contain 

fundamental frequencies as low as 16 

Hz (Watkins et al., 1987; Richardson et 

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

1998; Stafford et al., 1999; Wartzok and 

Ketten, 1999) but can be as high as 24 

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

Clark and Ellison (2004) suggested that 

baleen whales use low-frequency 

sounds not only for long-range 

communication, but also as a simple 

form of echo ranging, using echoes to 

navigate and orient relative to physical 

features of the ocean. Information on 

auditory function in mysticetes is 

extremely lacking. Sensitivity to lowfrequency sound by baleen whales has 

been inferred from observed 

vocalization frequencies, observed 

reactions to playback of sounds, and 

anatomical analyses of the auditory 

system. Although there is apparently 

much variation, the source levels of 

most baleen whale vocalizations lie in 

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

m. Low-frequency vocalizations made 

by baleen whales and their 

corresponding auditory anatomy suggest 

that they have good low-frequency 

hearing (Ketten, 2000), although specific 

data on sensitivity, frequency or 

intensity discrimination, or localization 

abilities are lacking. Marine mammals, 

like all mammals, have typical Ushaped audiograms that begin with 

relatively low sensitivity (high 

threshold) at some specified low 

frequency with increased sensitivity 

(low threshold) to a species specific 

optimum followed by a generally steep 

rise at higher frequencies (high 

threshold) (Fay, 1988). 

The toothed whales produce a wide 

variety of sounds, which include 

species-specific broadband ‘‘clicks’’ with 

peak energy between 10 and 200 kHz, 

individually variable ‘‘burst pulse’’ click 

trains, and constant frequency or 

frequency-modulated (FM) whistles 

ranging from 4 to 16 kHz (Wartzok and 

Ketten, 1999). The general consensus is 

that the tonal vocalizations (whistles) 

produced by toothed whales play an 

important role in maintaining contact 

between dispersed individuals, while 

broadband clicks are used during 

echolocation (Wartzok and Ketten, 

1999). Burst pulses have also been 

strongly implicated in communication, 

with some scientists suggesting that 

they play an important role in agonistic 

encounters (McCowan and Reiss, 1995), 

while others have proposed that they 

represent ‘‘emotive’’ signals in a broader 

sense, possibly representing graded 

communication signals (Herzing, 1996). 

Sperm whales, however, are known to 

produce only clicks, which are used for 

both communication and echolocation 

(Whitehead, 2003). Most of the energy of 

toothed whale social vocalizations is 

concentrated near 10 kHz, with source 

levels for whistles as high as 100 to 180 

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

1995). No odontocete has been shown 

audiometrically to have acute hearing 

(<80 dB re 1 μPa) below 500 Hz (DoN, 

2001). Sperm whales produce clicks, 

which may be used to echolocate 

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

range from less than 100 Hz to 30 kHz 

and source levels up to 230 dB re 1 μPa 

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

Table 5a and Table 5b list the species 

found in the GoA TMAA and include a 

summary of their vocalizations, if 

available. The ‘‘Brief Background on 

Sound’’ section below contains a 

description of the functional hearing 

groups designated by Southall et al. 

(2007), which includes the functional 

hearing range of various marine 

mammal groups (i.e., what frequencies 

that can actually hear). 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64522 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP19OC10.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64523 

BILLING CODE 35–22–C 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP19OC10.009</GPH>
64524 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Marine Mammal Density Estimates 

Understanding the distribution and 

abundance of a particular marine 

mammal species or stock is necessary to 

analyze the potential impacts of an 

action on that species or stock. 

Furthermore, it is necessary to know the 

density of the animals in the affected 

area in order to quantitatively assess the 

likely acoustic impacts of a potential 

action on individuals and estimate take 

(discussed further in the Estimated Take 

section). 

Density is nearly always reported for 

an area (e.g., animals per km 2). 

Analyses of survey results using 

distance sampling techniques include 

correction factors for animals at the 

surface but not seen as well as animals 

below the surface and not seen. 

Therefore, although the area (e.g., km2) 

appears to represent only the surface of 

the water (two-dimensional), density 

actually implicitly includes animals 

anywhere within the water column 

under that surface area. In addition, 

density assumes that animals are 

uniformly distributed within the 

prescribed area, even though this is 

likely a rare occurrence. Marine 

mammals are usually concentrated in 

areas of greater importance, such as 

areas of high productivity, low 

predation, safe calving, etc. Density can 

occasionally be calculated for smaller 

areas that are regularly used by marine 

mammals, but more often than not, 

there are insufficient data to calculate 

density for small areas. Therefore, 

assuming an even distribution within 

the prescribed area remains the norm. 

Recent survey data for marine 

mammals in the GoA is limited and 

most survey efforts were localized and 

extremely nearshore. In addition to the 

visual surveys, there is evidence of 

several species based on acoustic 

studies, but these do not provide 

measurements of abundance (e.g., 

Stafford, 2009). 

In April 2009, the Navy funded and 

NMFS conducted the Gulf of Alaska 

Line-Transect Survey (GOALS) to 

address the data needs for this analysis 

(Rone et al., 2009). Line-transect survey 

visual data to support distance sampling 

statistics and acoustic data were 

collected over a 10-day period both 

within and outside the TMAA. This 

survey resulted in sightings of several 

species and allowed for the derivation 

of densities for fin and humpback whale 

(Rone et al., 2009). In addition to this 

latest survey, two previous vessel 

surveys conducted in the nearshore 

region of the TMAA were also used to 

derive the majority of the density data 

used in acoustic modeling for this 

analysis. The methods used to derive 

density estimates for all remaining 

species in the TMAA are detailed in 

Appendix B of the LOA application and 

summarized below. 

Zerbini et al. (2006) conducted 

dedicated vessel surveys for large 

whales in summer 2001–2003 from 

Resurrection Bay on the Kenai 

Peninsula to Amchitka Island in the 

Aleutian Islands. Survey effort near the 

TMAA was nearshore (within 

approximately 46 nm (85 km) of shore), 

and is delineated as ‘‘Block 1’’ in the 

original paper. Densities for this region 

were published for fin and humpback 

whales. 

Waite (2003) conducted vessel 

surveys for cetaceans near Kenai 

Peninsula, within Prince William Sound 

and around Kodiak Island, during 

acoustic-trawl surveys for pollock in 

summer 2003. Surveys extended 

offshore to the 1,000 m isobaths and 

therefore overlapped with some of the 

TMAA. Waite (2003) did not calculate 

densities, but did provide some of the 

elements necessary for calculating 

density (please see Appendix B of the 

LOA application for more information). 

Mysticetes occurring in the GoA 

include blue, fin, gray, humpback, 

minke, North Pacific right, and sei 

whales (Angliss and Allen, 2008; Rone 

et al., 2009). Blue, North Pacific right, 

and sei whales are considered rare, and 

are included here only for discussion 

purposes due to their designations as 

‘‘depleted’’ under the MMPA and 

‘‘endangered’’ under the ESA. 

Gray whale density was calculated 

from data obtained during nearshore 

feeding studies in the GoA. Gray whales 

are found almost exclusively in near 

shore areas; therefore, they would not be 

expected to be found in the majority of 

the TMAA (≤50 nm (93 km) offshore 

and >5,997 ft (1,828 m) depth) (DoN, 

2006). The recent 2009 survey 

encountered one group of two gray 

whales on the shelf within the western 

edge of the TMAA and two groups well 

outside the TMAA near shore at Kodiak 

Island (Rone et al., 2009). 

Odontocetes occurring regularly 

include sperm whale, Cuvier’s, Baird’s, 

and Stejneger’s beaked whales, killer 

whale, Pacific white-sided dolphin, and 

Dall’s porpoise (Angliss and Allen, 

2008; Rone et al., 2009). In Alaska 

waters, harbor porpoise inhabit coastal 

waters where depths are less than 328 

ft (100 m) in depth (DoN, 2006; Angliss 

and Allen, 2008). The majority of the 

TMAA is well offshore of the normal 

habitat range for harbor porpoise. There 

is no density data available for this 

species in the nearshore portion of the 

TMAA that overlaps the harbor porpoise 

range. An estimated quantification of 

impacts for harbor porpoise was, 

however, undertaken as described in the 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals section. 

Pinnipeds occurring regularly include 

Steller sea lion, northern fur seal, and 

northern elephant seal. The range of 

California sea lions extends as far north 

as the Pribolof Islands in the Bering Sea. 

Tagging data indicate that most northern 

fur seal foraging and migration takes 

place to the west of the TMAA (Ream 

et al., 2005), although the derived 

density for this species assumed the 

population would be present in the area 

for modeling purposes. Harbor seals are 

primarily a coastal species and are 

rarely found more than 12 mi (20 km) 

from shore (DoN, 2006). Harbor seals 

should be very rare in the TMAA and 

there was no attempt to model for this 

species. 

Pinniped at-sea density is not often 

available because pinniped abundance 

is obtained via shore counts of animals 

at known rookeries and haulouts. 

Lacking any other available means of 

quantification, densities of pinnipeds 

were derived using shore counts. 

Several parameters were identified for 

pinnipeds from the literature, including 

area of stock occurrence, number of 

animals (which may vary seasonally) 

and season, and those parameters were 

then used to calculate density. Once 

density per ‘‘pinniped season’’ was 

determined, those values were prorated 

to fit the warm water (June through 

October) and cold water (November 

through May) seasons. Determining 

density in this manner is risky because 

the parameters used usually contain 

error (e.g., geographic range is not 

exactly known and needs to be 

estimated and abundance estimates 

usually have large variances). As is true 

of all density estimates, they assume 

that the animals are always distributed 

evenly within an area which is likely 

never true. 

Brief Background on Sound 

An understanding of the basic 

properties of underwater sound is 

necessary to comprehend many of the 

concepts and analyses presented in this 

document. A summary is included 

below. 

Sound is a wave of pressure variations 

propagating through a medium (for the 

MFAS/HFAS considered in this 

proposed rule, the medium is marine 

water). Pressure variations are created 

by compressing and relaxing the 

medium. Sound measurements can be 

expressed in two forms: Intensity and 

pressure. Acoustic intensity is the 

average rate of energy transmitted 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64525 

through a unit area in a specified 

direction and is expressed in watts per 

square meter (W/m2). Acoustic intensity 

is rarely measured directly, but rather 

from ratios of pressures; the standard 

reference pressure for underwater sound 

is 1 microPascal (μPa); for airborne 

sound, the standard reference pressure 

is 20 μPa (Richardson et al., 1995). 

Acousticians have adopted a 

logarithmic scale for sound intensities, 

which is denoted in decibels (dB). 

Decibel measurements represent the 

ratio between a measured pressure value 

and a reference pressure value (in this 

case 1 μPa or, for airborne sound, 20 

μPa). The logarithmic nature of the scale 

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

100-fold increase over 10 dB, 30 dB is 

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

Humans perceive a 10 dB increase in 

noise as a doubling of loudness, or a 10 

dB decrease in noise as a halving of 

loudness. The term ‘‘sound pressure 

level’’ implies a decibel measure and a 

reference pressure that is used as the 

denominator of the ratio. Throughout 

this document, NMFS uses 1 

microPascal (denoted re: 1μPa) as a 

standard reference pressure unless 

noted otherwise. 

It is important to note that decibels 

underwater and decibels in air are not 

the same and cannot be directly 

compared. Because of the different 

densities of air and water and the 

different decibel standards (i.e., 

reference pressures) in air and water, 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 measures 160 dB 

underwater would have the same 

approximate effective intensity as a 

sound that is 97 dB in air. 

Sound frequency is measured in 

cycles per second, or Hertz (abbreviated 

Hz), and is analogous to musical pitch; 

high-pitched sounds contain high 

frequencies and low-pitched sounds 

contain low frequencies. Natural sounds 

in the ocean span a huge range of 

frequencies: from earthquake noise at 5 

Hz to harbor porpoise clicks at 150,000 

Hz (150 kHz). These sounds are so low 

or so high in pitch that humans cannot 

even hear them; acousticians call these 

infrasonic (typically below 20 Hz) and 

ultrasonic (typically above 20,000 Hz) 

sounds, respectively. A single sound 

may be made up of many different 

frequencies together. Sounds made up 

of only a small range of frequencies are 

called ‘‘narrowband’’, and sounds with a 

broad range of frequencies are called 

‘‘broadband’’; explosives are an example 

of a broadband sound source and active 

tactical sonars are an example of a 

narrowband sound source. 

When considering the influence of 

various kinds of sound on the marine 

environment, it is necessary to 

understand that different kinds of 

marine life are sensitive to different 

frequencies of sound. Based on available 

behavioral data, audiograms derived 

using auditory evoked potential (AEP) 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data, Southall et al. (2007) 

designate ‘‘functional hearing groups’’ 

for marine mammals and estimate the 

lower and upper frequencies of 

functional hearing of the groups. 

Further, the frequency range in which 

each group’s hearing is estimated as 

being most sensitive is represented in 

the flat part of the M-weighting 

functions (which are derived from the 

audiograms described above; see Figure 

1 in Southall et al., 2007) developed for 

each group. The functional groups and 

the associated frequencies are indicated 

below (though, again, animals are less 

sensitive to sounds at the outer edge of 

their functional range and most 

sensitive to sounds of frequencies 

within a smaller range somewhere in 

the middle of their functional hearing 

range): 

• Low-frequency cetaceans (13 

species of mysticetes): functional 

hearing is estimated to occur between 

approximately 7 Hz and 22 kHz; 

• Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 

species of dolphins, six species of larger 

toothed whales, and 19 species of 

beaked and bottlenose whales): 

functional hearing is estimated to occur 

between approximately 150 Hz and 160 

kHz; 

• High-frequency cetaceans (eight 

species of true porpoises, six species of 

river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana, 

and four species of cephalorhynchids): 

functional hearing is estimated to occur 

between approximately 200 Hz and 180 

kHz; 

• Pinnipeds in water: functional 

hearing is estimated to occur between 

approximately 75 Hz and 75 kHz, with 

the greatest sensitivity between 

approximately 700 Hz and 20 kHz. 

Because ears adapted to function 

underwater are physiologically different 

from human ears, comparisons using 

decibel measurements in air would still 

not be adequate to describe the effects 

of a sound on a whale. When sound 

travels (propagates) away from its 

source, its loudness decreases as the 

distance traveled by the sound 

increases. Thus, the loudness of a sound 

at its source is higher than the loudness 

of that same sound a kilometer distant. 

Acousticians often refer to the loudness 

of a sound at its source (typically 

measured one meter from the source) as 

the source level and the loudness of 

sound elsewhere as the received level. 

For example, a humpback whale 3 km 

from an airgun that has a source level 

of 230 dB may only be exposed to sound 

that is 160 dB loud, depending on how 

the sound propagates (in this example, 

it is spherical spreading). As a result, it 

is important not to confuse source levels 

and received levels when discussing the 

loudness of sound in the ocean or its 

impacts on the marine environment. 

As sound travels from a source, its 

propagation in water is influenced by 

various physical characteristics, 

including water temperature, depth, 

salinity, and surface and bottom 

properties that cause refraction, 

reflection, absorption, and scattering of 

sound waves. Oceans are not 

homogeneous and the contribution of 

each of these individual factors is 

extremely complex and interrelated. 

The physical characteristics that 

determine the sound’s speed through 

the water will change with depth, 

season, geographic location, and with 

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

HFAS operations, crews will measure 

oceanic conditions, such as sea water 

temperature and depth, to calibrate 

models that determine the path the 

sonar signal will take as it travels 

through the ocean and how strong the 

sound signal will be at a given range 

along a particular transmission path). As 

sound travels through the ocean, the 

intensity associated with the wavefront 

diminishes, or attenuates. This decrease 

in intensity is referred to as propagation 

loss, also commonly called transmission 

loss. 

Metrics Used in This Document 

This section includes a brief 

explanation of the two sound 

measurements (sound pressure level 

(SPL) and sound exposure level (SEL)) 

frequently used in the discussions of 

acoustic effects in this document. 

SPL 

Sound pressure is the sound force per 

unit area, and is usually measured in 

micropascals (μPa), where 1 Pa is the 

pressure resulting from a force of one 

newton exerted over an area of one 

square meter. SPL is expressed as the 

ratio of a measured sound pressure and 

a reference level. The commonly used 

reference pressure level in underwater 

acoustics is 1 μPa, and the units for 

SPLs are dB re: 1 μPa. 

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

pressure) 

SPL is an instantaneous measurement 

and can be expressed as the peak, the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64526 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

peak-peak, or the root mean square 

(rms). Root mean square, which is the 

square root of the arithmetic average of 

the squared instantaneous pressure 

values, is typically used in discussions 

of the effects of sounds on vertebrates 

and all references to SPL in this 

document refer to the root mean square. 

SPL does not take the duration of a 

sound into account. SPL is the 

applicable metric used in the risk 

continuum, which is used to estimate 

behavioral harassment takes (see Level 

B Harassment Risk Function (Behavioral 

Harassment) Section). 

SEL 

SEL is an energy metric that integrates 

the squared instantaneous sound 

pressure over a stated time interval. The 

units for SEL are dB re: 1 μPa2-s. 

SEL = SPL + 10log(duration in seconds) 

As applied to MFAS/HFAS, the SEL 

includes both the SPL of a sonar ping 

and the total duration. Longer duration 

pings and/or pings with higher SPLs 

will have a higher SEL. If an animal is 

exposed to multiple pings, the SEL in 

each individual ping is summed to 

calculate the total SEL. The total SEL 

depends on the SPL, duration, and 

number of pings received. The 

thresholds that NMFS uses to indicate at 

what received level the onset of 

temporary threshold shift (TTS) and 

permanent threshold shift (PTS) in 

hearing are likely to occur are expressed 

in SEL. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals 

The Navy has requested authorization 

for the take of marine mammals that 

may occur incidental to training 

activities in the GoA TMAA utilizing 

MFAS/HFAS or underwater 

detonations. In addition to MFAS/HFAS 

and underwater detonations, the Navy 

has analyzed other potential impacts to 

marine mammals from training 

activities in the GoA TMAA DEIS, 

including ship strike, aerial overflights, 

ship noise and movement, and others, 

and, in consultation with NMFS as a 

cooperating agency for the GoA TMAA 

DEIS, has determined that take of 

marine mammals incidental to these 

non-acoustic components of the GoA 

TMAA is unlikely and, therefore, has 

not requested authorization for take of 

marine mammals that might occur 

incidental to these non-acoustic 

components. In this document, NMFS 

analyzes the potential effects on marine 

mammals from exposure to MFAS/ 

HFAS and underwater detonations, but 

also includes some additional analysis 

of the potential impacts from vessel 

operations in the GoA TMAA. 

For the purpose of MMPA 

authorizations, NMFS’ effects 

assessments serve four primary 

purposes: (1) To help identify the 

permissible methods of taking, or the 

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

anthropogenic noise vs. from ship 

strike, etc.); the regulatory level of take 

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

harassment); and the amount of take; (2) 

to inform the prescription of means of 

effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact on such species or stock and its 

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

the determination of whether the 

specified activity will have a negligible 

impact on the affected species or stocks 

of marine mammals (based on the 

likelihood that the activity will 

adversely affect the species or stock 

through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival); and (4) to 

determine whether the specified activity 

will have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses. 

More specifically, for activities 

involving sonar or underwater 

detonations, NMFS’ analysis will 

identify the probability of lethal 

responses, physical trauma, sensory 

impairment (permanent and temporary 

threshold shifts and acoustic masking), 

physiological responses (particular 

stress responses), behavioral 

disturbance (that rises to the level of 

harassment), and social responses that 

would be classified as behavioral 

harassment or injury and/or would be 

likely to adversely affect the species or 

stock through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival. In this section, 

we will focus qualitatively on the 

different ways that MFAS/HFAS and 

underwater explosive detonations may 

affect marine mammals (some of which 

NMFS would not classify as 

harassment). Then, in the Estimated 

Take of Marine Mammals Section, 

NMFS will relate the potential effects to 

marine mammals from MFAS/HFAS 

and underwater detonation of 

explosives to the MMPA regulatory 

definitions of Level A and Level B 

Harassment and attempt to quantify 

those effects. 

Exposure to MFAS/HFAS 

In the subsections below, the 

following types of impacts are discussed 

in more detail: Direct physiological 

impacts, stress responses, acoustic 

masking and impaired communication, 

behavioral disturbance, and strandings. 

An additional useful graphic tool for 

better understanding the layered nature 

of potential marine mammal responses 

to anthropogenic sound is presented in 

Figure 11 of NMFS’ June 28, 2010, 

biological opinion for the Mariana 

Islands Range Complex (available at: 

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

incidental.htm#applications). That 

document presents a conceptual model 

of the potential responses of endangered 

and threatened species upon being 

exposed to active sonar and the 

pathways by which those responses 

might affect the fitness of individual 

animals that have been exposed, and the 

resulting impact on the individual 

animal’s ability to reproduce or survive. 

Literature supporting the framework, 

with examples drawn from many taxa 

(both aquatic and terrestrial) was 

included in the ‘‘Application of this 

Approach’’ and ‘‘Response Analyses’’ 

sections of that document. 

Direct Physiological Effects 

Based on the literature, there are two 

basic ways that MFAS/HFAS might 

directly result in physical trauma or 

damage: Noise-induced loss of hearing 

sensitivity (more commonly called 

‘‘threshold shift’’) and acoustically 

mediated bubble growth. Separately, an 

animal’s behavioral reaction to an 

acoustic exposure might lead to 

physiological effects that might 

ultimately lead to injury or death, which 

is discussed later in the Stranding 

section. 

Threshold Shift (Noise-Induced Loss of 

Hearing) 

When animals exhibit reduced 

hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds must be 

louder for an animal to recognize them) 

following exposure to a sufficiently 

intense sound, it is referred to as a 

noise-induced threshold shift (TS). An 

animal can experience temporary 

threshold shift (TTS) or permanent 

threshold shift (PTS). TTS can last from 

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

recovery), occurs in specific frequency 

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

a temporary loss of hearing sensitivity 

between the frequencies of 1 and 10 

kHz), and can be of varying amounts 

(e.g., 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 TS: 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64527 

blood flow, and post-stimulatory 

reduction in both efferent and sensory 

neural output (Southall et al., 2007). 

The amplitude, duration, frequency, 

temporal pattern, and energy 

distribution of sound exposure all affect 

the amount of associated TS and the 

frequency range in which it occurs. As 

amplitude and duration of sound 

exposure increase, so, generally, does 

the amount of TS, along with the 

recovery time. Human non-impulsive 

noise exposure guidelines are based on 

exposures of equal energy (the same 

SEL) producing equal amounts of 

hearing impairment regardless of how 

the sound energy is distributed in time 

(NIOSH, 1998). Until recently, previous 

marine mammal TTS studies have also 

generally supported this equal energy 

relationship (Southall et al., 2007). 

Three newer studies, two by Mooney et 

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

dolphin either exposed to playbacks of 

Navy MFAS or octave-band noise (4–8 

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

a single California sea lion exposed to 

airborne octave-band noise (centered at 

2.5 kHz), concluded that for all noise 

exposure situations the equal energy 

relationship may not be the best 

indicator to predict TTS onset levels. 

All three of these studies highlight the 

inherent complexity of predicting TTS 

onset in marine mammals, as well as the 

importance of considering exposure 

duration when assessing potential 

impacts. Generally, with sound 

exposures of equal energy, those that 

were quieter (lower SPL) with longer 

duration were found to induce TTS 

onset more than those of louder (higher 

SPL) and shorter duration (more similar 

to MFAS). For intermittent sounds, less 

TS will occur than from a continuous 

exposure with the same energy (some 

recovery will occur between 

intermittent exposures) (Kryter et al., 

1966; Ward, 1997). For example, one 

short but loud (higher SPL) sound 

exposure may induce the same 

impairment as one longer but softer 

sound, which in turn may cause more 

impairment than a series of several 

intermittent softer sounds with the same 

total energy (Ward, 1997). Additionally, 

though TTS is temporary, very 

prolonged exposure to sound strong 

enough to elicit TTS, or shorter-term 

exposure to sound levels well above the 

TTS threshold, can cause PTS, at least 

in terrestrial mammals (Kryter, 1985) 

(although in the case of MFAS/HFAS, 

animals are not expected to be exposed 

to levels high enough or durations long 

enough to result in PTS). 

PTS is considered auditory injury 

(Southall et al., 2007). Irreparable 

damage to the inner or outer cochlear 

hair cells may cause PTS; however, 

other mechanisms are also involved, 

such as exceeding the elastic limits of 

certain tissues and membranes in the 

middle and inner ears and resultant 

changes in the chemical composition of 

the inner ear fluids (Southall et al., 

2007). 

Although the published body of 

scientific literature contains numerous 

theoretical studies and discussion 

papers on hearing impairments that can 

occur with exposure to a loud sound, 

only a few studies provide empirical 

information on the levels at which 

noise-induced loss in hearing sensitivity 

occurs in nonhuman animals. For 

cetaceans, published data on the onset 

of TTS are limited to the captive 

bottlenose dolphin and beluga 

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

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

2003, 2004). For pinnipeds in water, 

data are limited to Kastak et al.’s 

measurement of TTS in one harbor seal, 

one elephant seal, and one California 

sea lion. 

Marine mammal hearing plays a 

critical role in communication with 

conspecifics and in interpretation of 

environmental cues for purposes such 

as predator avoidance and prey capture. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

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

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious (similar to those discussed in 

auditory masking, below). For example, 

a marine mammal may be able to readily 

compensate for a brief, relatively small 

amount of TTS in a non-critical 

frequency range that takes place during 

a time when the animal is traveling 

through the open ocean, where ambient 

noise is lower and there are not as many 

competing sounds present. 

Alternatively, a larger amount and 

longer duration of TTS sustained during 

a time when communication is critical 

for successful mother/calf interactions 

could have more serious impacts if it 

were in the same frequency band as the 

necessary vocalizations and of a severity 

that it impeded communication. The 

fact that animals exposed to levels and 

durations of sound that would be 

expected to result in this physiological 

response would also be expected to 

have behavioral responses of a 

comparatively more severe or sustained 

nature is also notable and potentially of 

more importance than the simple 

existence of a TTS. 

Also, depending on the degree and 

frequency range, the effects of PTS on 

an animal could range in severity, 

although it is considered generally more 

serious than TTS because it is a 

permanent condition. Of note, reduced 

hearing sensitivity as a simple function 

of development and aging has been 

observed in marine mammals, as well as 

humans and other taxa (Southall et al., 

2007), so we can infer that strategies 

exist for coping with this condition to 

some degree, though likely not without 

cost. There is no empirical evidence that 

exposure to MFAS/HFAS can cause PTS 

in any marine mammals; instead, the 

probability of PTS has been inferred 

from studies of TTS (see Richardson et 

al., 1995). 

Acoustically Mediated Bubble Growth 

One theoretical cause of injury to 

marine mammals is rectified diffusion 

(Crum and Mao, 1996), the process of 

increasing the size of a bubble by 

exposing it to a sound field. This 

process could be facilitated if the 

environment in which the ensonified 

bubbles exist is supersaturated with gas. 

Repetitive diving by marine mammals 

can cause the blood and some tissues to 

accumulate gas to a greater degree than 

is supported by the surrounding 

environmental pressure (Ridgway and 

Howard, 1979). The deeper and longer 

dives of some marine mammals (e.g., 

beaked whales) are theoretically 

predicted to induce greater 

supersaturation (Houser et al., 2001b), 

although recent preliminary empirical 

data suggests that there is no increase in 

blood nitrogen levels or formation of 

bubbles in diving bottlenose dolphins 

(Houser, 2008). If rectified diffusion 

were possible in marine mammals 

exposed to high-level sound, conditions 

of tissue supersaturation could 

theoretically speed the rate and increase 

the size of bubble growth. Subsequent 

effects due to tissue trauma and emboli 

would presumably mirror those 

observed in humans suffering from 

decompression sickness. 

It is unlikely that the short duration 

of MFAS pings would be long enough 

to drive bubble growth to any 

substantial size, if such a phenomenon 

occurs. However, an alternative but 

related hypothesis has also been 

suggested; stable bubbles could be 

destabilized by high-level sound 

exposures such that bubble growth then 

occurs through static diffusion of gas 

out of the tissues. In such a scenario the 

marine mammal would need to be in a 

gas-supersaturated state for a long 

enough period of time for bubbles to 

become of a problematic size. 

Yet another hypothesis 

(decompression sickness) speculates 

that rapid ascent to the surface 

following exposure to a startling sound 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64528 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

might produce tissue gas saturation 

sufficient for the evolution of nitrogen 

bubbles (Jepson et al., 2003; Fernandez 

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

ascent would need to be sufficiently 

rapid to compromise behavioral or 

physiological protections against 

nitrogen bubble formation. 

Alternatively, Tyack et al. (2006) 

studied the deep diving behavior of 

beaked whales and concluded that: 

‘‘Using current models of breath-hold 

diving, we infer that their natural diving 

behavior is inconsistent with known 

problems of acute nitrogen 

supersaturation and embolism.’’ 

Collectively, these hypotheses can be 

referred to as ‘‘hypotheses of 

acoustically mediated bubble growth.’’ 

Although theoretical predictions 

suggest the possibility for acoustically 

mediated bubble growth, there is 

considerable disagreement among 

scientists as to its likelihood (Piantadosi 

and Thalmann, 2004; Evans and Miller, 

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

2006). Crum and Mao (1996) 

hypothesized that received levels would 

have to exceed 190 dB in order for there 

to be the possibility of significant 

bubble growth due to supersaturation of 

gases in the blood (i.e., rectified 

diffusion). More recent work conducted 

by Crum et al. (2005) demonstrated the 

possibility of rectified diffusion for 

short duration signals, but at SELs and 

tissue saturation levels that are highly 

improbable to occur in diving marine 

mammals. To date, energy levels (ELs) 

predicted to cause in vivo bubble 

formation within diving cetaceans have 

not been evaluated (NOAA, 2002b). 

Although it has been argued that 

traumas from some recent beaked whale 

strandings are consistent with gas 

emboli and bubble-induced tissue 

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

no conclusive evidence of this (Rommel 

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

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

2005) concluded that in vivo bubble 

formation, which may be exacerbated by 

deep, long-duration, repetitive dives, 

may explain why beaked whales appear 

to be particularly vulnerable to MFAS/ 

HFAS exposures. Further investigation 

is needed to further assess the potential 

validity of these hypotheses. More 

information regarding hypotheses that 

attempt to explain how behavioral 

responses to MFAS/HFAS can lead to 

strandings is included in the 

Behaviorally Mediated Bubble Growth 

Section, after the summary of 

strandings. 

Acoustic Masking 

Marine mammals use acoustic signals 

for a variety of purposes, which differ 

among species, but include 

communication between individuals, 

navigation, foraging, reproduction, and 

learning about their environment (Erbe 

and Farmer, 2000; Tyack, 2000). 

Masking, or auditory interference, 

generally occurs when sounds in the 

environment are louder than, and of a 

similar frequency as, auditory signals an 

animal is trying to receive. Masking is 

a phenomenon that affects animals that 

are trying to receive acoustic 

information about their environment, 

including sounds from other members 

of their species, predators, prey, and 

sounds that allow them to orient in their 

environment. Masking these acoustic 

signals can disturb the behavior of 

individual animals, groups of animals, 

or entire populations. 

The extent of the masking interference 

depends on the spectral, temporal, and 

spatial relationships between the signals 

an animal is trying to receive and the 

masking noise, in addition to other 

factors. In humans, significant masking 

of tonal signals occurs as a result of 

exposure to noise in a narrow band of 

similar frequencies. As the sound level 

increases, the detection of frequencies 

above those of the masking stimulus 

decreases. 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 highfrequency sound. Human data indicate 

that low-frequency sounds can mask 

high-frequency sounds (i.e., upward 

masking). Studies on captive 

odontocetes by Au et al. (1974, 1985, 

1993) indicate that some species may 

use various processes to reduce masking 

effects (e.g., adjustments in echolocation 

call intensity or frequency as a function 

of background noise conditions). There 

is also evidence that the directional 

hearing abilities of odontocetes are 

useful in reducing masking at the higher 

frequencies these cetaceans use to 

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

communicate (Zaitseva et al., 1980). A 

recent study by Nachtigall and Supin 

(2008) showed that false killer whales 

adjust their hearing to compensate for 

ambient sounds and the intensity of 

returning echolocation signals. 

As mentioned previously, the 

functional hearing ranges of 

odontocetes, pinnipeds underwater, and 

mysticetes all overlap with the 

frequencies of the MFAS/HFAS sources 

used in the Navy’s MFAS/HFAS 

training exercises (although some 

mysticetes’ best hearing capacities are 

likely at frequencies somewhat lower 

than MFAS). Additionally, in almost all 

species, vocal repertoires span across 

the frequencies of these MFAS/HFAS 

sources used by the Navy. The closer 

the characteristics of the masking signal 

to the signal of interest, the more likely 

masking is to occur. For hull-mounted 

MFAS/HFAS, which accounts for the 

largest takes of marine mammals 

(because of the source strength and 

number of hours it’s conducted), the 

pulse length and duty cycle of the 

MFAS/HFAS signal (∼ 1 second pulse 

twice a minute) makes it less likely that 

masking will occur as a result. 

Impaired Communication 

In addition to making it more difficult 

for animals to perceive acoustic cues in 

their environment, anthropogenic sound 

presents separate challenges for animals 

that are vocalizing. When they vocalize, 

animals are aware of environmental 

conditions that affect the ‘‘active space’’ 

of their vocalizations, which is the 

maximum area within which their 

vocalizations can be detected before 

they drop to the level of ambient noise 

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

Lohr et al., 2003). Animals are also 

aware of environmental conditions that 

affect whether listeners can discriminate 

and recognize their vocalizations from 

other sounds, which is more important 

than simply detecting that a 

vocalization is occurring (Brenowitz, 

1982; Brumm et al., 2004; Dooling, 

2004, Marten and Marler, 1977; 

Patricelli et al., 2006). Most animals that 

vocalize have evolved with an ability to 

make adjustments to their vocalizations 

to increase the signal-to-noise ratio, 

active space, and recognizability/ 

distinguishability of their vocalizations 

in the face of temporary changes in 

background noise (Brumm et al., 2004; 

Patricelli et al., 2006). Vocalizing 

animals can make adjustments to 

vocalization characteristics such as the 

frequency structure, amplitude, 

temporal structure and temporal 

delivery. 

Many animals will combine several of 

these strategies to compensate for high 

levels of background noise. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64529 

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 

to 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 

responses. 

In the case of many stressors, an 

animal’s first and most economical (in 

terms of biotic costs) response is 

behavioral avoidance of the potential 

stressor or avoidance of continued 

exposure to a stressor. An animal’s 

second line of defense to stressors 

involves the sympathetic part of the 

autonomic nervous system and the 

classical ‘‘fight or flight’’ response which 

includes the cardiovascular system, the 

gastrointestinal system, the exocrine 

glands, and the adrenal medulla to 

produce changes in heart rate, blood 

pressure, and gastrointestinal activity 

that humans commonly associate with 

‘‘stress.’’ These responses have a 

relatively short duration and may or 

may not have significant long-term 

effect on an animal’s welfare. 

An animal’s third line of defense to 

stressors involves its neuroendocrine or 

sympathetic nervous systems; the 

system that has received the most study 

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

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

some reptiles). Unlike stress responses 

associated with the autonomic nervous 

system, virtually all neuro-endocrine 

functions that are affected by stress— 

including immune competence, 

reproduction, metabolism, and 

behavior—are regulated by pituitary 

hormones. Stress-induced changes in 

the secretion of pituitary hormones have 

been implicated in failed reproduction 

(Moberg, 1987; Rivier, 1995), 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 functions, which impair 

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 fitness will 

suffer. In these cases, the animals will 

have entered a pre-pathological or 

pathological state which is called 

‘‘distress’’ (sensu Seyle, 1950) or 

‘‘allostatic loading’’ (sensu McEwen and 

Wingfield, 2003). This pathological state 

will last until the animal replenishes its 

biotic reserves sufficient to restore 

normal function. Note that these 

examples involved a long-term (days or 

weeks) stress response exposure to 

stimuli. 

Relationships between these 

physiological mechanisms, animal 

behavior, and the costs of stress 

responses have also been documented 

fairly well through controlled 

experiment; because this physiology 

exists in every vertebrate that has been 

studied, it is not surprising that stress 

responses and their costs have been 

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

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

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

2004; Lankford et al., 2005; Reneerkens 

et al., 2002; Thompson and Hamer, 

2000). Although no information has 

been collected on the physiological 

responses of marine mammals to 

anthropogenic sound exposure, 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 and midfrequency sounds. 

For example, Jansen (1998) reported 

on the relationship between acoustic 

exposures and physiological responses 

that are indicative of stress responses in 

humans (e.g., 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 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64530 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

required to recover from stress 

responses (Moberg, 2000), NMFS also 

assumes that stress responses could 

persist beyond the time interval 

required for animals to recover from 

TTS and might result in pathological 

and pre-pathological states that would 

be as significant as behavioral responses 

to TTS. 

Behavioral Disturbance 

Behavioral responses to sound are 

highly variable and context-specific. 

Many different variables can influence 

an animal’s perception of and response 

to (in both nature and magnitude) an 

acoustic event. An animal’s prior 

experience with a sound or sound 

source affects whether it is less likely 

(habituation) or more likely 

(sensitization) to respond to certain 

sounds in the future (animals can also 

be innately pre-disposed to respond to 

certain sounds in certain ways) 

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

sound itself, the perceived nearness of 

the sound, bearing of the sound 

(approaching vs. retreating), similarity 

of the sound to biologically relevant 

sounds in the animal’s environment 

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

conspecifics), and familiarity of the 

sound may affect the way an animal 

responds to the sound (Southall et al., 

2007). Individuals (of different age, 

gender, reproductive status, etc.) among 

most populations will have variable 

hearing capabilities, and differing 

behavioral sensitivities to sounds that 

will be affected by prior conditioning, 

experience, and current activities of 

those individuals. Often, specific 

acoustic features of the sound and 

contextual variables (i.e., proximity, 

duration, or recurrence of the sound or 

the current behavior that the marine 

mammal is engaged in or its prior 

experience), as well as entirely separate 

factors such as the physical presence of 

a nearby vessel, may be more relevant 

to the animal’s response than the 

received level alone. 

Exposure of marine mammals to 

sound sources can result in, but is not 

limited to, no response or any of the 

following observable responses: 

Increased alertness; orientation or 

attraction to a sound source; vocal 

modifications; cessation of feeding; 

cessation of social interaction; alteration 

of movement or diving behavior; 

avoidance; habitat abandonment 

(temporary or permanent); and, in 

severe cases, panic, flight, stampede, or 

stranding, potentially resulting in death 

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

marine mammal responses to 

anthropogenic sound was first 

conducted by Richardson (1995). A 

more recent review (Nowacek et al., 

2007) addresses studies conducted since 

1995 and focuses on observations where 

the received sound level of the exposed 

marine mammal(s) was known or could 

be estimated. The following subsections 

provide examples of behavioral 

responses that provide an idea of the 

variability in behavioral responses that 

would be expected given the differential 

sensitivities of marine mammal species 

to sound and the wide range of potential 

acoustic sources to which a marine 

mammal may be exposed. Estimates of 

the types of behavioral responses that 

could occur for a given sound exposure 

should be determined from the 

literature that is available for each 

species, or extrapolated from closely 

related species when no information 

exists. 

Alteration of Diving or Movement— 

Changes in dive behavior can vary 

widely. They may consist of increased 

or decreased dive times and surface 

intervals as well as changes in the rates 

of ascent and descent during a dive. 

Variations in dive behavior may reflect 

interruptions in biologically significant 

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

of little biological significance. 

Variations in dive behavior may also 

expose an animal to potentially harmful 

conditions (e.g., increasing the chance 

of ship-strike) or may serve as an 

avoidance response that enhances 

survivorship. The impact of a variation 

in diving resulting from an acoustic 

exposure depends on what the animal is 

doing at the time of the exposure and 

the type and magnitude of the response. 

Nowacek et al. (2004) reported 

disruptions of dive behaviors in foraging 

North Atlantic right whales when 

exposed to an alerting stimulus, a 

reaction, they noted, that could lead to 

an increased likelihood of ship strike. 

However, the whales did not respond to 

playbacks of either right whale social 

sounds or vessel noise, highlighting the 

importance of the sound characteristics 

in producing a behavioral reaction. 

Conversely, Indo-Pacific humpback 

dolphins have been observed to dive for 

longer periods of time in areas where 

vessels were present and/or 

approaching (Ng and Leung, 2003). In 

both of these studies, the influence of 

the sound exposure cannot be 

decoupled from the physical presence of 

a surface vessel, thus complicating 

interpretations of the relative 

contribution of each stimulus to the 

response. Indeed, the presence of 

surface vessels, their approach, and the 

speed of approach, all seemed to be 

significant factors in the response of the 

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Ng 

and Leung, 2003). Low-frequency 

signals of the Acoustic Thermometry of 

Ocean Climate (ATOC) sound source 

were not found to affect dive times of 

humpback whales in Hawaiian waters 

(Frankel and Clark, 2000) or to overtly 

affect elephant seal dives (Costa et al., 

2003). They did, however, produce 

subtle effects that varied in direction 

and degree among the individual seals, 

illustrating the varied nature of 

behavioral effects and consequent 

difficulty in defining and predicting 

them. 

Foraging—Disruption of feeding 

behavior can be difficult to correlate 

with anthropogenic sound exposure, so 

it is usually inferred by observed 

displacement from known foraging 

areas, the appearance of secondary 

indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment 

plumes), or changes in dive behavior. 

Noise from seismic surveys was not 

found to impact the feeding behavior of 

western gray whales off the coast of 

Russia (Yazvenko et al., 2007) and 

sperm whales engaged in foraging dives 

did not abandon dives when exposed to 

distant signatures of seismic airguns 

(Madsen et al., 2006). Balaenopterid 

whales exposed to moderate SURTASS 

LFA demonstrated no variation in 

foraging activity (Croll et al., 2001), 

whereas five out of six North Atlantic 

right whales exposed to an acoustic 

alarm interrupted their foraging dives 

(Nowacek et al., 2004). Although the 

received sound pressure level was 

similar in the latter two studies, the 

frequency, duration, and temporal 

pattern of signal presentation were 

different. These factors, as well as 

differences in species sensitivity, are 

likely contributing factors to the 

differential response. A determination 

of whether foraging disruptions incur 

fitness consequences will require 

information on or estimates of the 

energetic requirements of the 

individuals and the relationship 

between prey availability, foraging effort 

and success, and the life history stage of 

the animal. 

Brownell (2004) reported the 

behavioral responses of western gray 

whales off the northeast coast of 

Sakhalin Island to sounds produced by 

local seismic activities. In 1997, the gray 

whales responded to seismic activities 

by changing their swimming speed and 

orientation, respiration rates, and 

distribution in waters around the 

seismic surveys. In 2001, seismic 

activities were conducted in a known 

foraging ground and the whales left the 

area and moved farther south to the Sea 

of Okhotsk. They only returned to the 

foraging ground several days after the 

seismic activities stopped. The potential 

fitness consequences of displacing these 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64531 

whales, especially mother-calf pairs and 

‘‘skinny whales,’’ outside of their normal 

feeding area are not known; however, 

because gray whales, like other large 

whales, must gain enough energy during 

the summer foraging season to last them 

the entire year, sounds or other stimuli 

that cause them to abandon a foraging 

area for several days could disrupt their 

energetics and force them to make tradeoffs like delaying their migration south, 

delaying reproduction, reducing growth, 

or migrating with reduced energy 

reserves. 

Social Relationships—Social 

interactions between mammals can be 

affected by noise via the disruption of 

communication signals or by the 

displacement of individuals. Sperm 

whales responded to military sonar, 

apparently from a submarine, by 

dispersing from social aggregations, 

moving away from the sound source, 

remaining relatively silent, and 

becoming difficult to approach (Watkins 

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

in the Mediterranean that were exposed 

to submarine sonar continued calling (J. 

Gordon pers. comm. cited in Richardson 

et al., 1995). Social disruptions must be 

considered, however, in context of the 

relationships that are affected. While 

some disruptions may not have 

deleterious effects, long-term or 

repeated disruptions of mother/calf 

pairs or interruption of mating 

behaviors have the potential to affect the 

growth and survival or reproductive 

effort/success of individuals, 

respectively. 

Vocalizations (also see Masking 

Section)—Vocal changes in response to 

anthropogenic noise can occur across 

the repertoire of sound production 

modes used by marine mammals, such 

as whistling, echolocation click 

production, calling, and singing. 

Changes may result in response to a 

need to compete with an increase in 

background noise or may reflect an 

increased vigilance or startle response. 

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

whales have been observed to increase 

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

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

to the overlap in frequencies between 

the whale song and the low-frequency 

active sonar. A similar compensatory 

effect for the presence of low-frequency 

vessel noise has been suggested for right 

whales; right whales have been 

observed to shift the frequency content 

of their calls upward while reducing the 

rate of calling in areas of increased 

anthropogenic noise (Parks et al., 2007). 

Killer whales off the northwestern coast 

of the United States have been observed 

to increase the duration of primary calls 

once a threshold in observing vessel 

density (e.g., whale watching) was 

reached, which has been suggested as a 

response to increased masking noise 

produced by the vessels (Foote et al., 

2004). In contrast, both sperm and pilot 

whales potentially ceased sound 

production during the Heard Island 

feasibility test (Bowles et al., 1994), 

although it cannot be absolutely 

determined whether the inability to 

acoustically detect the animals was due 

to the cessation of sound production or 

the displacement of animals from the 

area. 

Avoidance—Avoidance is the 

displacement of an individual from an 

area as a result of the presence of a 

sound. Richardson et al. (1995) noted 

that avoidance reactions are the most 

obvious manifestations of disturbance in 

marine mammals. Avoidance 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. However, longer term 

displacement is possible and can lead to 

changes in abundance or distribution 

patterns of the species in the affected 

region if animals do not become 

acclimated to the presence of the 

chronic sound (Blackwell et al., 2004; 

Bejder et al., 2006; Teilmann et al., 

2006). Acute avoidance responses have 

been observed in captive porpoises and 

pinnipeds exposed to a number of 

different sound sources (Kastelein et al., 

2001; Finneran et al., 2003; Kastelein et 

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

Short-term avoidance of seismic 

surveys, low-frequency emissions, and 

acoustic deterrents have also been noted 

in wild populations of odontocetes 

(Bowles et al., 1994; Goold, 1996, 1998; 

Stone et al., 2000; Morton and 

Symonds, 2002) and to some extent in 

mysticetes (Gailey et al., 2007), while 

long-term or repetitive/chronic 

displacement for some dolphin groups 

and for manatees has been suggested to 

result from the presence of chronic 

vessel noise (Haviland-Howell et al., 

2007; Miksis-Olds et al., 2007). 

Maybaum (1993) conducted sound 

playback experiments to assess the 

effects of mid-frequency active sonar on 

humpback whales in Hawaiian waters. 

Specifically, she exposed focal pods to 

sounds of a 3.3-kHz sonar pulse, a sonar 

frequency sweep from 3.1 to 3.6 kHz, 

and a control (blank) tape while 

monitoring the behavior, movement, 

and underwater vocalizations. The two 

types of sonar signals (which both 

contained both mid- and low-frequency 

components) differed in their effects on 

the humpback whales, but both resulted 

in avoidance behavior. The whales 

responded to the pulse by increasing 

their distance from the sound source 

and responded to the frequency sweep 

by increasing their swimming speeds 

and track linearity. In the Caribbean, 

sperm whales avoided exposure to midfrequency submarine sonar pulses, in 

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

2005). 

Kvadsheim et al., (2007) conducted a 

controlled exposure experiment in 

which killer whales (Orcinus orca) 

fitted with D-tags were exposed to midfrequency active sonar (Source A: a 1.0 

s upsweep 209 dB @ 1–2 kHz every 10 

seconds for 10 minutes; Source B: with 

a 1.0 s upsweep 197 dB @ 6–7 kHz every 

10 s for 10 min). When exposed to 

Source A, a tagged whale and the group 

it was traveling with did not appear to 

avoid the source. When exposed to 

Source B, the tagged whales along with 

other whales that had been carousel 

feeding, ceased feeding during the 

approach of the sonar and moved 

rapidly away from the source. When 

exposed to Source B, Kvadsheim and 

his co-workers reported that a tagged 

killer whale seemed to try to avoid 

further exposure to the sound field by 

the following behaviors: immediately 

swimming away (horizontally) from the 

source of the sound; engaging in a series 

of erratic and frequently deep dives that 

seemed to take it below the sound field; 

or swimming away while engaged in a 

series of erratic and frequently deep 

dives. Although the sample sizes in this 

study are too small to support statistical 

analysis, the behavioral responses of the 

orcas were consistent with the results of 

other studies. 

In 2007, the first in a series of 

behavioral response studies conducted 

by NMFS and other scientists showed 

one beaked whale (Mesoplodon 

densirostris) responding to an MFAS 

playback. The BRS–07 cruise report 

indicates that the playback began when 

the tagged beaked whale was vocalizing 

at depth (at the deepest part of a typical 

feeding dive), following a previous 

control with no sound exposure. The 

whale appeared to stop clicking 

significantly earlier than usual, when 

exposed to mid-frequency signals in the 

130–140 dB (rms) received level range. 

After a few more minutes of the 

playback, when the received level 

reached a maximum of 140–150 dB, the 

whale ascended on the slow side of 

normal ascent rates with a longer than 

normal ascent, at which point the 

exposure was terminated. The BRS–07 

cruise report notes that the results are 

from a single experiment and that a 

greater sample size is needed before 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64532 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

robust and definitive conclusions can be 

drawn (NMFS, 2008a). 

The preliminary BRS–08 cruise report 

has been published. Although the 

extensive data sets emerging from this 

study will require detailed analysis, 

researchers have identified an emerging 

pattern of responses. For example, 

Blainville’s beaked whales—a resident 

species within the study area—appear to 

be sensitive to noise at levels well below 

expected TTS (∼160 dB re1μPa). This 

sensitivity is manifest by an adaptive 

movement away from a sound source. 

This response was observed irrespective 

of whether the signal transmitted was 

within the band width of MFAS, which 

suggests that beaked whales may not 

respond to the specific sound 

signatures. Instead, they may be 

sensitive to any pulsed sound from a 

point source in this frequency range. 

The response to such stimuli appears to 

involve maximizing the distance from 

the sound source (NMFS, 2008b). 

Flight Response—A flight response is 

a dramatic change in normal movement 

to a directed and rapid movement away 

from the perceived location of a sound 

source. Relatively little information on 

flight responses of marine mammals to 

anthropogenic signals exist, although 

observations of flight responses to the 

presences of predators have occurred 

(Connor and Heithaus, 1996). Flight 

responses have been speculated as being 

a component of marine mammal 

strandings associated with MFAS 

activities (Evans and England, 2001). If 

marine mammals respond to Navy 

vessels that are transmitting active sonar 

in the same way that they might 

respond to a predator, their probability 

of flight responses should increase 

when they perceive that Navy vessels 

are approaching them directly, because 

a direct approach may convey detection 

and intent to capture (Burger and 

Gochfeld, 1981, 1990; Cooper, 1997, 

1998). The probability of avoidance and 

flight responses should also increase as 

received levels of active sonar increase 

(and the ship is, therefore, closer) and 

as ship speeds increase (that is, as 

approach speeds increase). For example, 

the probability of flight responses in 

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

2001b), ringed seals Phoca hispida 

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

bernicl nigricans), and Canada geese (B. 

Canadensis) increased as a helicopter or 

fixed-wing aircraft more directly 

approached groups of these animals 

(Ward et al., 1999). Bald eagles 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) perched on 

trees alongside a river were also more 

likely to flee from a paddle raft when 

their perches were closer to the river or 

were closer to the ground (Steidl and 

Anthony, 1996). 

Breathing—Variations in respiration 

naturally occur with different behaviors. 

Variations in respiration rate as a 

function of acoustic exposure can cooccur 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 foraging 

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, exposing 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 of 

understanding species differences in the 

tolerance of underwater noise when 

determining the potential for impacts 

resulting from anthropogenic sound 

exposure. 

Continued Pre-disturbance Behavior 

and Habituation—Under some 

circumstances, some of the individual 

marine mammals that are exposed to 

active sonar transmissions will continue 

their normal behavioral activities; in 

other circumstances, individual animals 

will respond to sonar transmissions at 

lower received levels and move to avoid 

additional exposure or exposures at 

higher received levels (Richardson et 

al., 1995). 

It is difficult to distinguish between 

animals that continue their predisturbance behavior without stress 

responses, animals that continue their 

behavior but experience stress responses 

(that is, animals that cope with 

disturbance), and animals that habituate 

to disturbance (that is, they may have 

experienced low-level stress responses 

initially, but those responses abated 

over time). Watkins (1986) reviewed 

data on the behavioral reactions of fin, 

humpback, right and minke whales that 

were exposed to continuous, broadband 

low-frequency shipping and industrial 

noise in Cape Cod Bay. He concluded 

that underwater sound was the primary 

cause of behavioral reactions in these 

species of whales and that the whales 

responded behaviorally to acoustic 

stimuli within their respective hearing 

ranges. Watkins also noted that whales 

showed the strongest behavioral 

reactions to sounds in the 15 Hz to 28 

kHz range, although negative reactions 

(avoidance, interruptions in 

vocalizations, etc.) were generally 

associated with sounds that were either 

unexpected, too loud, suddenly louder 

or different, or perceived as being 

associated with a potential threat (such 

as an approaching ship on a collision 

course). In particular, whales seemed to 

react negatively when they were within 

100 m of the source or when received 

levels increased suddenly in excess of 

12 dB relative to ambient sounds. At 

other times, the whales ignored the 

source of the signal and all four species 

habituated to these sounds. 

Nevertheless, Watkins concluded that 

whales ignored most sounds in the 

background of ambient noise, including 

sounds from distant human activities 

even though these sounds may have had 

considerable energies at frequencies 

well within the whales’ range of 

hearing. Further, he noted that of the 

whales observed, fin whales were the 

most sensitive of the four species, 

followed by humpback whales; right 

whales were the least likely to be 

disturbed and generally did not react to 

low-amplitude engine noise. By the end 

of his period of study, Watkins (1986) 

concluded that fin and humpback 

whales have generally habituated to the 

continuous and broad-band noise of 

Cape Cod Bay while right whales did 

not appear to change their response. As 

mentioned above, animals that habituate 

to a particular disturbance may have 

experienced low-level stress responses 

initially, but those responses abated 

over time. In most cases, this likely 

means a lessened immediate potential 

effect from a disturbance; however, 

concern exists where the habituation 

occurs in a potentially more harmful 

situation, for example: animals may 

become more vulnerable to vessel 

strikes once they habituate to vessel 

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

1995). 

Aicken et al., (2005) monitored the 

behavioral responses of marine 

mammals to a new low-frequency active 

sonar system that was being developed 

for use by the British Navy. During 

those trials, fin whales, sperm whales, 

Sowerby’s beaked whales, long-finned 

pilot whales (Globicephala melas), 

Atlantic white-sided dolphins, and 

common bottlenose dolphins were 

observed and their vocalizations were 

recorded. These monitoring studies 

detected no evidence of behavioral 

responses that the investigators could 

attribute to exposure to the lowfrequency active sonar during these 

trials. 

Behavioral Responses—Southall et al. 

(2007) reports the results of the efforts 

of a panel of experts in acoustic research 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64533 

from behavioral, physiological, and 

physical disciplines that convened and 

reviewed the available literature on 

marine mammal hearing and 

physiological and behavioral responses 

to human-made sound with the goal of 

proposing exposure criteria for certain 

effects. This peer-reviewed compilation 

of literature is very valuable, though 

Southall et al. (2007) note that not all 

data are equal, some have poor 

statistical power, insufficient controls, 

and/or limited information on received 

levels, background noise, and other 

potentially important contextual 

variables. Such data were reviewed and 

sometimes used for qualitative 

illustration, but were not included in 

the quantitative analysis for the criteria 

recommendations. All of the studies 

considered, however, contain an 

estimate of the received sound level 

when the animal exhibited the indicated 

response. 

In the Southall et al. (2007) 

publication, for the purposes of 

analyzing responses of marine mammals 

to anthropogenic sound and developing 

criteria, the authors differentiate 

between single pulse sounds, multiple 

pulse sounds, and non-pulse sounds. 

MFAS/HFAS is considered a non-pulse 

sound. Southall et al. (2007) summarize 

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

responses to non-pulse sounds, based 

strictly on received level, in Appendix 

C of their article (incorporated by 

reference and summarized in the three 

paragraphs below). 

The studies that address responses of 

low-frequency cetaceans to non-pulse 

sounds include data gathered in the 

field and related to several types of 

sound sources (of varying similarity to 

MFAS/HFAS), including: Vessel noise, 

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

multiple phase reversals) playback, 

tactical low-frequency active sonar 

playback, drill ships, Acoustic 

Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC) 

source, and non-pulse playbacks. These 

studies generally indicate no (or very 

limited) responses to received levels in 

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

increasing likelihood of avoidance and 

other behavioral effects in the 120 to 

160 dB range. As mentioned earlier, 

though, contextual variables play a very 

important role in the reported responses 

and the severity of effects are not linear 

when compared to received level. Also, 

few of the laboratory or field datasets 

had common conditions, behavioral 

contexts, or sound sources, so it is not 

surprising that responses differ. 

The studies that address responses of 

mid-frequency cetaceans to non-pulse 

sounds include data gathered both in 

the field and the laboratory and related 

to several different sound sources (of 

varying similarity to MFAS/HFAS) 

including: Pingers, drilling playbacks, 

ship and ice-breaking noise, vessel 

noise, Acoustic Harassment Devices 

(AHDs), Acoustic Deterrent Devices 

(ADDs), MFAS, and non-pulse bands 

and tones. Southall et al. (2007) were 

unable to come to a clear conclusion 

regarding the results of these studies. In 

some cases, animals in the field showed 

significant responses to received levels 

between 90 and 120 dB, while in other 

cases these responses were not seen in 

the 120 to 150 dB range. The disparity 

in results was likely due to contextual 

variation and the differences between 

the results in the field and laboratory 

data (animals typically responded at 

lower levels in the field). 

The studies that address responses of 

high-frequency cetaceans to non-pulse 

sounds include data gathered both in 

the field and the laboratory and related 

to several different sound sources (of 

varying similarity to MFAS/HFAS), 

including: Pingers, AHDs, and various 

laboratory non-pulse sounds. All of 

these data were collected from harbor 

porpoises. Southall et al. (2007) 

concluded that the existing data 

indicate that harbor porpoises are likely 

sensitive to a wide range of 

anthropogenic sounds at low received 

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

exposures. All recorded exposures 

above 140 dB induced profound and 

sustained avoidance behavior in wild 

harbor porpoises (Southall et al., 2007). 

Rapid habituation was noted in some 

but not all studies. There is no data to 

indicate whether other high-frequency 

cetaceans are as sensitive to 

anthropogenic sound as harbor 

porpoises. 

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 suggest that exposures to 

non-pulse sounds between 90 and 140 

dB generally do not result in strong 

behavioral responses of pinnipeds in 

water, but no data exist at higher 

received levels. 

In addition to summarizing the 

available data, the authors of Southall et 

al. (2007) developed a severity scaling 

system with the intent of ultimately 

being able to assign some level of 

biological significance to a response. 

Following is a summary of their scoring 

system (a comprehensive list of the 

behaviors associated with each score 

may be found in the report): 

• 0–3 (Minor and/or brief behaviors) 

includes, but is not limited to: No 

response; minor changes in speed or 

locomotion (but with no avoidance); 

individual alert behavior; minor 

cessation in vocal behavior; minor 

changes in response to trained behaviors 

(in laboratory) 

• 4–6 (Behaviors with higher 

potential to affect foraging, 

reproduction, or survival) includes, but 

is not limited to: Moderate changes in 

speed, direction, or dive profile; brief 

shift in group distribution; prolonged 

cessation or modification of vocal 

behavior (duration > duration of sound); 

minor or moderate individual and/or 

group avoidance of sound; brief 

cessation of reproductive behavior; or 

refusal to initiate trained tasks (in 

laboratory) 

• 7–9 (Behaviors considered likely to 

affect the aforementioned vital rates) 

includes, but is not limited to: Extensive 

or prolonged aggressive behavior; 

moderate, prolonged, or significant 

separation of females and dependent 

offspring with disruption of acoustic 

reunion mechanisms; long-term 

avoidance of an area; outright panic, 

stampede, stranding; threatening or 

attacking sound source (in laboratory) 

In Table 6 we have summarized the 

scores that Southall et al. (2007) 

assigned to the papers that reported 

behavioral responses of low-frequency 

cetaceans, mid-frequency cetaceans, and 

pinnipeds in water to non-pulse sounds. 

This table is included simply to 

summarize the findings of the studies 

and opportunistic observations (all of 

which were capable of estimating 

received level) that Southall et al. (2007) 

compiled in an effort to develop 

acoustic criteria. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64534 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Potential Effects of Behavioral 

Disturbance 

The different ways that marine 

mammals respond to sound are 

sometimes indicators of the ultimate 

effect that exposure to a given stimulus 

will have on the well-being (survival, 

reproduction, etc.) of an animal. There 

are few quantitative marine mammal 

data relating the exposure of marine 

mammals to sound to effects on 

reproduction or survival, though data 

exist for terrestrial species to which we 

can draw comparisons for marine 

mammals. Several authors have 

reported that disturbance stimuli cause 

animals to abandon nesting and foraging 

sites (Sutherland and Crockford, 1993), 

cause animals to increase their activity 

levels and suffer premature deaths or 

reduced reproductive success when 

their energy expenditures exceed their 

energy budgets (Daan et al., 1996; Feare 

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

Waunters et al., 1997), or cause animals 

to experience higher predation rates 

when they adopt risk-prone foraging or 

migratory strategies (Frid and Dill, 

2002). Each of these studies addressed 

the consequences of animals shifting 

from one behavioral state (e.g., resting or 

foraging) to another behavioral state 

(e.g., avoidance or escape behavior) 

because of human disturbance or 

disturbance stimuli. 

One consequence of behavioral 

avoidance results from the changes in 

energetics of marine mammals because 

of the energy required to avoid surface 

vessels or the sound field associated 

with active sonar (Frid and Dill, 2002). 

Most animals can avoid that energetic 

cost by swimming away at slow speeds 

or speeds that minimize the cost of 

transport (Miksis-Olds, 2006), as has 

been demonstrated in Florida manatees 

(Hartman, 1979; Miksis-Olds, 2006). 

Those costs increase, however, when 

animals shift from a resting state, which 

is designed to conserve an animal’s 

energy, to an active state that consumes 

energy the animal would have 

conserved had it not been disturbed. 

Marine mammals that have been 

disturbed by anthropogenic noise and 

vessel approaches are commonly 

reported to shift from resting behavioral 

states to active behavioral states, which 

would imply that they incur an energy 

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

undisturbed humpback whale cows that 

were accompanied by their calves were 

frequently observed resting while their 

calves circled them (milling). When 

vessels approached, the amount of time 

cows and calves spent resting and 

milling declined significantly, 

respectively. These results are similar to 

those reported by Scheidat et al. (2004) 

for the humpback whales they observed 

off the coast of Ecuador. 

Constantine and Brunton (2001) 

reported that bottlenose dolphins in the 

Bay of Islands, New Zealand only 

engaged in resting behavior 5 percent of 

the time when vessels were within 300 

m compared with 83 percent of the time 

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

(2005) reported that Florida manatees in 

Sarasota Bay, Florida, reduced the 

amount of time they spent milling and 

increased the amount of time they spent 

feeding when background noise levels 

increased. Although the acute costs of 

these changes in behavior are not likely 

to exceed an animal’s ability to 

compensate, the chronic costs of these 

behavioral shifts are uncertain. 

Attention is the cognitive process of 

selectively concentrating on one aspect 

of an animal’s environment while 

ignoring other things (Posner, 1994). 

Because animals (including humans) 

have limited cognitive resources, there 

is a limit to how much sensory 

information they can process at any 

time. The phenomenon called 

‘‘attentional capture’’ occurs when a 

stimulus (usually a stimulus that an 

animal is not concentrating on or 

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

attention. This shift in attention can 

occur consciously or unconsciously 

(e.g., 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 

treating the stimulus as a disturbance 

and responding 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 attend to 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 (e.g., 

multiple surface vessels), or when they 

co-occur with times that an animal 

perceives increased risk (e.g., 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP19OC10.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64535 

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 physical 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 had 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), and caribou disturbed by lowelevation military jet flights (Luick et 

al., 1996; Harrington and Veitch, 1992). 

Similarly, a study of elk (Cervus 

elaphus) that were disturbed 

experimentally by pedestrians 

concluded that the ratio of young to 

mothers was inversely related to 

disturbance rate (Phillips and 

Alldredge, 2000). 

The primary mechanism by which 

increased vigilance and disturbance 

appear to affect the fitness of individual 

animals is by disrupting an animal’s 

time budget and, as a result, reducing 

the time they might spend foraging and 

resting (which increases an animal’s 

activity rate and energy demand). For 

example, a study of grizzly bears (Ursus 

horribilis) reported that bears disturbed 

by hikers reduced their energy intake by 

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

min), and spent energy fleeing or acting 

aggressively toward hikers (White et al., 

1999). Alternately, Ridgway et al. 

(2006), reported that increased vigilance 

in bottlenose dolphins exposed to sound 

over a five-day period did not cause any 

sleep deprivation or stress effects such 

as changes in cortisol or epinephrine 

levels. 

On a related note, many animals 

perform vital functions, such as feeding, 

resting, traveling, and socializing, on a 

diel cycle (24-hr cycle). Behavioral 

reactions to noise exposure (such as 

disruption of critical life functions, 

displacement, or avoidance of important 

habitat) are more likely to be significant 

if they last more than one diel cycle or 

recur on subsequent days (Southall et 

al., 2007). Consequently, a behavioral 

response lasting less than one day and 

not recurring on subsequent days is not 

considered particularly severe unless it 

could directly affect reproduction or 

survival (Southall et al., 2007). 

Stranding and Mortality 

When a live or dead marine mammal 

swims or floats onto shore and becomes 

‘‘beached’’ or incapable of returning to 

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

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

2002; Geraci and Lounsbury, 2005; 

NMFS, 2007). The legal definition for a 

stranding within the United States is 

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

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

States; or (ii) in waters under the 

jurisdiction of the United States 

(including any navigable waters); or (B) 

a marine mammal is alive and is (i) on 

a beach or shore of the United States 

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

on a beach or shore of the United States 

and, although able to return to the 

water, is in need of apparent medical 

attention; or (iii) in the waters under the 

jurisdiction of the United States 

(including any navigable waters), but is 

unable to return to its natural habitat 

under its own power or without 

assistance’’ (16 U.S.C. 1421h). 

Marine mammals are known to strand 

for a variety of reasons, such as 

infectious agents, biotoxicosis, 

starvation, fishery interaction, ship 

strike, unusual oceanographic or 

weather events, sound exposure, or 

combinations of these stressors 

sustained concurrently or in series. 

However, the cause or causes of most 

strandings are unknown (Geraci et al., 

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

Best, 1982). Numerous studies suggest 

that the physiology, behavior, habitat 

relationships, age, or condition of 

cetaceans may cause them to strand or 

might pre-dispose them to strand when 

exposed to another phenomenon. These 

suggestions are consistent with the 

conclusions of numerous other studies 

that have demonstrated that 

combinations of dissimilar stressors 

commonly combine to kill an animal or 

dramatically reduce its fitness, even 

though one exposure without the other 

does not produce the same result 

(Chroussos, 2000; Creel, 2005; DeVries 

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

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

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

2004). 

Several sources have published lists 

of mass stranding events of cetaceans in 

an attempt to identify relationships 

between those stranding events and 

military active sonar (Hildebrand, 2004; 

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

example, based on a review of stranding 

records between 1960 and 1995, the 

International Whaling Commission 

(2005) identified ten mass stranding 

events of Cuvier’s beaked whales that 

had been reported and one mass 

stranding of four Baird’s beaked 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 MFAS, one 

had been associated with the use of 

tactical low-frequency sonar, and the 

remaining stranding event had been 

associated with the use of seismic 

airguns. 

Most of the stranding events reviewed 

by the IWC involved beaked whales. A 

mass stranding of Cuvier’s beaked 

whales in the eastern Mediterranean Sea 

occurred in 1996 (Franzis, 1998) and 

mass stranding events involving 

Gervais’ beaked whales, Blainville’s 

beaked whales, and Cuvier’s beaked 

whales occurred off the coast of the 

Canary Islands in the late 1980s 

(Simmonds and Lopez-Jurado, 1991). 

The stranding events that occurred in 

the Canary Islands and Kyparissiakos 

Gulf in the late 1990s and the Bahamas 

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

been associated with naval exercises 

involving the use of MFAS. 

Strandings Associated With MFAS 

Over the past 12 years, there have 

been five stranding events coincident 

with military mid-frequency active 

sonar use in which exposure to sonar is 

believed by NMFS and the Navy to have 

been a contributing factor: Greece 

(1996); the Bahamas (2000); Madeira 

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

(2006). Additionally, in 2004, during the 

2008 Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 

exercises, between 150 and 200 usually 

pelagic melon-headed whales occupied 

the shallow waters of the Hanalei Bay, 

Kaua’i, Hawaii for over 28 hours. NMFS 

determined that the mid-frequency 

sonar was a plausible, if not likely, 

contributing factor in what may have 

been a confluence of events that led to 

the Hanalei Bay stranding. A number of 

other stranding events coincident with 

the operation of MFAS including the 

death of beaked whales or other species 

(minke whales, dwarf sperm whales, 

pilot whales) have been reported; 

however, the majority have not been 

investigated to the degree necessary to 

determine the cause of the stranding 

and only one of these exercises was 

conducted by the U.S. Navy. 

Greece (1996) 

Twelve Cuvier’s beaked whales 

stranded atypically (in both time and 

space) along a 38.2-km strand of the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64536 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

coast of the Kyparissiakos Gulf on May 

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

May 11 through May 15, the NATO 

research vessel, Alliance, was 

conducting active sonar tests with 

signals of 600 Hz and 3 kHz and source 

levels of 228 and 226 dB re: 1μPa, 

respectively (D’Amico and Verboom, 

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

and location of the testing encompassed 

the time and location of the whale 

strandings (Frantzis, 1998). 

Necropsies of eight of the animals 

were performed but were limited to 

basic external examination and 

sampling of stomach contents, blood, 

and skin. No ears or organs were 

collected, and no histological samples 

were preserved. No apparent 

abnormalities or wounds were found 

(Frantzis, 2004). Examination of photos 

of the animals, taken soon after their 

death, revealed that the eyes of at least 

four of the individuals were bleeding. 

Photos were taken soon after their death 

(Frantzis, 2004). Stomach contents 

contained the flesh of cephalopods, 

indicating that feeding had recently 

taken place (Frantzis, 1998). 

All available information regarding 

the conditions associated with this 

stranding event were compiled, and 

many potential causes were examined, 

including major pollution events, 

prominent tectonic activity, unusual 

physical or meteorological events, 

magnetic anomalies, epizootics, and 

conventional military activities 

(International Council for the 

Exploration of the Sea, 2005a). 

However, none of these potential causes 

coincided in time or space with the 

mass stranding, or could explain its 

characteristics (International Council for 

the Exploration of the Sea, 2005a). The 

robust condition of the animals, plus the 

recent stomach contents, is inconsistent 

with pathogenic causes (Frantzis, 2004). 

In addition, environmental causes can 

be ruled out as there were no unusual 

environmental circumstances or events 

before or during this time period and 

within the general proximity (Frantzis, 

2004). 

Because of the rarity of this mass 

stranding of Cuvier’s beaked whales in 

the Kyparissiakos Gulf (first one in 

history), the probability for the two 

events (the military exercises and the 

strandings) to coincide in time and 

location, while being independent of 

each other, was thought to be extremely 

low (Frantzis, 1998). However, because 

full necropsies had not been conducted, 

and no abnormalities were noted, the 

cause of the strandings could not be 

precisely determined (Cox et al., 2006). 

A Bioacoustics Panel convened by 

NATO concluded that the evidence 

available did not allow them to accept 

or reject sonar exposures as a causal 

agent in these stranding events. Their 

official finding was: ‘‘An acoustic link 

can neither be clearly established, nor 

eliminated as a direct or indirect cause 

for the May 1996 strandings.’’ The 

analysis of this stranding event 

provided support for, but no clear 

evidence for, the cause-and-effect 

relationship of active sonar training 

activities and beaked whale strandings 

(Cox et al., 2006). 

Bahamas (2000) 

NMFS and the Navy prepared a joint 

report addressing the multi-species 

stranding in the Bahamas in 2000, 

which took place within 24 hours of 

U.S. Navy ships using MFAS as they 

passed through the Northeast and 

Northwest Providence Channels on 

March 15 and March 16, 2000. The 

ships, which operated both AN/SQS–53 

and AN/SQS–56, moved through the 

channel while emitting MFAS pings 

approximately every 24 seconds. Of the 

17 cetaceans that stranded over a 36-hr 

period (Cuvier’s beaked whales, 

Blainville’s beaked whales, minke 

whales, and a spotted dolphin), seven 

animals died on the beach (5 Cuvier’s 

beaked whales, 1 Blainville’s beaked 

whale, and the spotted dolphin), while 

the other ten were returned to the water 

alive (though their ultimate fate is 

unknown). As discussed in the Bahamas 

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

likely association between the minke 

whale and spotted dolphin strandings 

and the operation of MFAS. 

Necropsies were performed on five of 

the stranded beaked whales. All five 

necropsied beaked whales were in good 

body condition, showing no signs of 

infection, disease, ship strike, blunt 

trauma, or fishery related injuries, and 

three still had food remains in their 

stomachs. Auditory structural damage 

was discovered in four of the whales, 

specifically bloody effusions or 

hemorrhaging around the ears. Bilateral 

intracochlear and unilateral temporal 

region subarachnoid hemorrhage, with 

blood clots in the lateral ventricles, 

were found in two of the whales. Three 

of the whales had small hemorrhages in 

their acoustic fats (located along the jaw 

and in the melon). 

A comprehensive investigation was 

conducted and all possible causes of the 

stranding event were considered, 

whether they seemed likely at the outset 

or not. Based on the way in which the 

strandings coincided with ongoing 

naval activity involving tactical MFAS 

use, in terms of both time and 

geography, the nature of the 

physiological effects experienced by the 

dead animals, and the absence of any 

other acoustic sources, the investigation 

team concluded that MFAS aboard U.S. 

Navy ships that were in use during the 

active sonar exercise in question were 

the most plausible source of this 

acoustic or impulse trauma to beaked 

whales. This sound source was active in 

a complex environment that included 

the presence of a surface duct, unusual 

and steep bathymetry, a constricted 

channel with limited egress, intensive 

use of multiple, active sonar units over 

an extended period of time, and the 

presence of beaked whales that appear 

to be sensitive to the frequencies 

produced by these active sonars. The 

investigation team concluded that the 

cause of this stranding event was the 

confluence of the Navy MFAS and these 

contributory factors working together, 

and further recommended that the Navy 

avoid operating MFAS in situations 

where these five factors would be likely 

to occur. This report does not conclude 

that all five of these factors must be 

present for a stranding to occur, nor that 

beaked whales are the only species that 

could potentially be affected by the 

confluence of the other factors. Based on 

this, NMFS believes that the operation 

of MFAS in situations where surface 

ducts exist, or in marine environments 

defined by steep bathymetry and/or 

constricted channels may increase the 

likelihood of producing a sound field 

with the potential to cause cetaceans 

(especially beaked whales) to strand, 

and therefore, suggests the need for 

increased vigilance while operating 

MFAS in these areas, especially when 

beaked whales (or potentially other 

deep divers) are likely present. 

Madeira, Spain (2000) 

From May 10 to May 14, 2000, three 

Cuvier’s beaked whales were found 

atypically stranded on two islands in 

the Madeira archipelago, Portugal (Cox 

et al., 2006). A fourth animal was 

reported floating in the Madeiran waters 

by fishermen but did not come ashore 

(Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 

2005). Joint NATO amphibious training 

peacekeeping exercises, involving 

participants from 17 countries and 80 

warships, took place in Portugal 

between May 2 and May 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64537 

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 pressurerelated 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 to 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 

MFAS was used, and the specifics of the 

sound sources used are unknown (Cox 

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

took place in an area surrounded by 

land masses separated by less than 35 

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

in length, or in an embayment. Exercises 

involving multiple ships employing 

MFAS near land may produce sound 

directed towards a channel or 

embayment that may cut off the lines of 

egress for marine mammals (Freitas, 

2004). 

Canary Islands, Spain (2002) 

The southeastern area within the 

Canary Islands is well known for 

aggregations of beaked whales due to its 

ocean depths of greater than 547 

fathoms (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 MFAS activity (International 

Council for Exploration of the Sea, 

2005a; Fernandez et al., 2005). 

Eight Cuvier’s beaked whales, one 

Blainville’s beaked whale, and one 

Gervais’ beaked whale were necropsied, 

six of them within 12 hours of stranding 

(Fernandez et al., 2005). No pathogenic 

bacteria were isolated from the carcasses 

(Jepson et al., 2003). The animals 

displayed severe vascular congestion 

and hemorrhage especially around the 

tissues in the jaw, ears, brain, and 

kidneys, displaying marked 

disseminated microvascular 

hemorrhages associated with 

widespread fat emboli (Jepson et al., 

2003; International Council for 

Exploration of the Sea, 2005a). Several 

organs contained intravascular bubbles, 

although definitive evidence of gas 

embolism in vivo is difficult to 

determine after death (Jepson et al., 

2003). The livers of the necropsied 

animals were the most consistently 

affected organ, which contained 

macroscopic gas-filled cavities and had 

variable degrees of fibrotic 

encapsulation. In some animals, 

cavitary lesions had extensively 

replaced the normal tissue (Jepson et al., 

2003). Stomachs contained a large 

amount of fresh and undigested 

contents, suggesting a rapid onset of 

disease and death (Fernandez et al., 

2005). Head and neck lymph nodes 

were enlarged and congested, and 

parasites were found in the kidneys of 

all animals (Fernandez et al., 2005). 

The association of NATO MFAS use 

close in space and time to the beaked 

whale strandings, and the similarity 

between this stranding event and 

previous beaked whale mass strandings 

coincident with active sonar use, 

suggests that a similar scenario and 

causative mechanism of stranding may 

be shared between the events. Beaked 

whales stranded in this event 

demonstrated brain and auditory system 

injuries, hemorrhages, and congestion in 

multiple organs, similar to the 

pathological findings of the Bahamas 

and Madeira stranding events. In 

addition, the necropsy results of the 

Canary Islands stranding event lead to 

the hypothesis that the presence of 

disseminated and widespread gas 

bubbles and fat emboli were indicative 

of nitrogen bubble formation, similar to 

what might be expected in 

decompression sickness (Jepson et al., 

2003; Ferna ́ndez et al., 2005). 

Spain (2006) 

The Spanish Cetacean Society 

reported an atypical mass stranding of 

four beaked whales that occurred 

January 26, 2006, on the southeast coast 

of Spain, near Mojacar (Gulf of Vera) in 

the western Mediterranean Sea. 

According to the report, two of the 

whales were discovered alive on the 

evening of January 26. 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. Between January 25 and 26, 

2006, Standing North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization (NATO) Response Force 

Maritime Group Two (five of seven 

ships including one U.S. ship under 

NATO Operational Control) had 

conducted active sonar training against 

a Spanish submarine within 50 nm (93 

km) of the stranding site. 

Veterinary pathologists necropsied 

the two male and two female Cuvier’s 

beaked whales. According to the 

pathologists, the most likely primary 

cause of this type of beaked whale mass 

stranding event was anthropogenic 

acoustic activities, most probably antisubmarine MFAS used during the 

military naval exercises. However, no 

positive acoustic link was established as 

a direct cause of the stranding. Even 

though no causal link can be made 

between the stranding event and naval 

exercises, certain conditions may have 

existed in the exercise area that, in their 

aggregate, may have contributed to the 

marine mammal strandings (Freitas, 

2004): exercises were conducted in 

areas of at least 547 fathoms (1,000 m) 

depth near a shoreline where there is a 

rapid change in bathymetry on the order 

of 547 to 3,281 fathoms (1,000 to 6,000 

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 hrs) in close proximity; and 

exercises took place in an area 

surrounded by landmasses, or in an 

embayment. Exercises involving 

multiple ships employing MFAS near 

land may have produced sound directed 

towards a channel or embayment that 

may have cut off the lines of egress for 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64538 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

the affected marine mammals (Freitas, 

2004). 

Hanalei Bay (2004) 

On July 3 and 4, 2004, approximately 

150 to 200 melon-headed whales 

occupied the shallow waters of the 

Hanalei Bay, Kaua’i, Hawaii for over 28 

hrs. Attendees of a canoe blessing 

observed the animals entering the Bay 

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

July 3, 2004. The animals were observed 

moving back into the shore from the 

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

pelagic animals milled in the shallow 

bay and were returned to deeper water 

with human assistance beginning at 9:30 

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

sight by 10:30 a.m. 

Only one animal, a calf, was known 

to have died following this event. The 

animal was noted alive and alone in the 

Bay on the afternoon of July 4, 2004 and 

was found dead in the Bay the morning 

of July 5, 2004. A full necropsy, 

magnetic resonance imaging, and 

computerized tomography examination 

were performed on the calf to determine 

the manner and cause of death. The 

combination of imaging, necropsy and 

histological analyses found no evidence 

of infectious, internal traumatic, 

congenital, or toxic factors. Cause of 

death could not be definitively 

determined, but it is likely that maternal 

separation, poor nutritional condition, 

and dehydration contributed to the final 

demise of the animal. Although we do 

not know when the calf was separated 

from its mother, the animals’ movement 

into the Bay and subsequent milling and 

re-grouping may have contributed to the 

separation or lack of nursing, especially 

if the maternal bond was weak or this 

was a primiparous calf. 

Environmental factors, abiotic and 

biotic, were analyzed for any anomalous 

occurrences that would have 

contributed to the animals entering and 

remaining in Hanalei Bay. The Bay’s 

bathymetry is similar to many other 

sites within the Hawaiian Island chain 

and dissimilar to sites that have been 

associated with mass strandings in other 

parts of the United States. The weather 

conditions appeared to be normal for 

that time of year with no fronts or other 

significant features noted. There was no 

evidence of unusual distribution, 

occurrence of predator or prey species, 

or unusual harmful algal blooms, 

although Mobley et al., 2007 suggested 

that the full moon cycle that occurred at 

that time may have influenced a run of 

squid into the Bay. Weather patterns 

and bathymetry that have been 

associated with mass strandings 

elsewhere were not found to occur in 

this instance. 

The Hanalei event was spatially and 

temporally correlated with RIMPAC. 

Official sonar training and tracking 

exercises in the Pacific Missile Range 

Facility (PMRF) warning area did not 

commence until approximately 8 a.m. 

on July 3 and were thus ruled out as a 

possible trigger for the initial movement 

into the Bay. However, six naval surface 

vessels transiting to the operational area 

on July 2 intermittently transmitted 

active sonar (for approximately 9 hours 

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

they approached from the south. The 

potential for these transmissions to have 

triggered the whales’ movement into 

Hanalei Bay was investigated. Analyses 

with the information available indicated 

that animals to the south and east of 

Kaua’i could have detected active sonar 

transmissions on July 2, and reached 

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

3, 2004. However, data limitations 

regarding the position of the whales 

prior to their arrival in the Bay, the 

magnitude of sonar exposure, behavioral 

responses of melon-headed whales to 

acoustic stimuli, and other possible 

relevant factors preclude a conclusive 

finding regarding the role of sonar in 

triggering this event. Propagation 

modeling suggest that transmissions 

from sonar use during the July 3 

exercise in the PMRF warning area may 

have been detectable at the mouth of the 

Bay. If the animals responded negatively 

to these signals, it may have contributed 

to their continued presence in the Bay. 

The U.S. Navy ceased all active sonar 

transmissions during exercises in this 

range on the afternoon of July 3, 2004. 

Subsequent to the cessation of sonar 

use, the animals were herded out of the 

Bay. 

While causation of this stranding 

event may never be unequivocally 

determined, we consider the active 

sonar transmissions of July 2–3, 2004, a 

plausible, if not likely, contributing 

factor in what may have been a 

confluence of events. This conclusion is 

based on the following: (1) The 

evidently anomalous nature of the 

stranding; (2) its close spatiotemporal 

correlation with wide-scale, sustained 

use of sonar systems previously 

associated with stranding of deep-diving 

marine mammals; (3) the directed 

movement of two groups of transmitting 

vessels toward the southeast and 

southwest coast of Kauai; (4) the results 

of acoustic propagation modeling and 

an analysis of possible animal transit 

times to the Bay; and (5) the absence of 

any other compelling causative 

explanation. The initiation and 

persistence of this event may have 

resulted from an interaction of 

biological and physical factors. The 

biological factors may have included the 

presence of an apparently uncommon, 

deep-diving cetacean species (and 

possibly an offshore, non-resident 

group), social interactions among the 

animals before or after they entered the 

Bay, and/or unknown predator or prey 

conditions. The physical factors may 

have included the presence of nearby 

deep water, multiple vessels transiting 

in a directed manner while transmitting 

active sonar over a sustained period, the 

presence of surface sound ducting 

conditions, and/or intermittent and 

random human interactions while the 

animals were in the Bay. 

A separate event involving melonheaded whales and rough-toothed 

dolphins took place over the same 

period of time in the Northern Mariana 

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

several thousand miles from Hawaii. 

Some 500 to 700 melon-headed whales 

came into Sasanhaya Bay on July 4, 

2004 near the island of Rota and then 

left of their own accord after 5.5 hrs; no 

known active sonar transmissions 

occurred in the vicinity of that event. 

The Rota incident led to scientific 

debate regarding what, if any, 

relationship the event had to the 

simultaneous events in Hawaii and 

whether they might be related by some 

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

moon on July 2, 2004 as well as during 

other melon-headed whale strandings 

and nearshore aggregations (Brownell et 

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

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

compared the two incidents, along with 

one other stranding incident at Nuka 

Hiva in French Polynesia and normal 

resting behaviors observed at Palmyra 

Island, in regard to physical features in 

the areas, melon-headed whale 

behavior, and lunar cycles. Brownell et 

al., (2009) concluded that the rapid 

entry of the whales into Hanalei Bay, 

their movement into very shallow water 

far from the 100-m contour, their 

milling behavior (typical pre-stranding 

behavior), and their reluctance to leave 

the bay constituted an unusual event 

that was not similar to the events that 

occurred at Rota (but was similar to the 

events at Palmyra), which appear to be 

similar to observations of melon-headed 

whales resting normally at Palmyra 

Island. Additionally, there was no 

correlation between lunar cycle and the 

types of behaviors observed in the 

Brownell et al. (2009) examples. 

Association Between Mass Stranding 

Events and Exposure to MFAS 

Several authors have noted 

similarities between some of these 

stranding incidents: they occurred in 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64539 

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, such 

as Kogia breviceps, have stranded in 

association with the operation of MFAS, 

but in much lower numbers and less 

consistently than beaked whales. 

Based on the evidence available, 

however, we cannot determine whether 

(a) Cuvier’s beaked whale is more prone 

to injury from high-intensity sound than 

other species, (b) their behavioral 

responses to sound make 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 mammal mass stranding events 

is not consistent—some marine 

mammals strand without being exposed 

to active sonar and some sonar 

transmissions are not associated with 

marine mammal stranding events 

despite their co-occurrence—other risk 

factors or a grouping of risk factors 

probably contribute to these stranding 

events. 

Behaviorally Mediated Responses to 

MFAS That May Lead to Stranding 

Although the confluence of Navy 

MFAS with the other contributory 

factors noted in the report was 

identified as the cause of the 2000 

Bahamas stranding event, the specific 

mechanisms that led to that stranding 

(or the others) are not understood, and 

there is uncertainty regarding the 

ordering of effects that led to the 

stranding. It is unclear whether beaked 

whales were directly injured by sound 

(e.g., acoustically mediated bubble 

growth, as addressed above) prior to 

stranding or whether a behavioral 

response to sound occurred that 

ultimately caused the beaked whales to 

be injured and to strand. 

Although causal relationships 

between beaked whale stranding events 

and active sonar remain unknown, 

several authors have hypothesized that 

stranding events involving these species 

in the Bahamas and Canary Islands may 

have been triggered when the whales 

changed their dive behavior in a startled 

response to exposure, to active sonar, or 

to further avoid exposure (Cox et al., 

2006; Rommel et al., 2006). These 

authors proposed three mechanisms by 

which the behavioral responses of 

beaked whales upon being exposed to 

active sonar might result in a stranding 

event. These include the following: 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 (e.g., 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. Furthermore, 

beaked whales exposed to active sonar 

might alter their dive behavior. Changes 

in dive behavior might cause them to 

remain at the surface or at depth for 

extended periods of time which could 

lead to hypoxia by increasing their 

oxygen demands or increasing their 

energy expenditures (i.e., the energy 

needed to remain at depth, which 

would increase their oxygen demand). If 

beaked whales are at depth when they 

detect a ping from an active sonar 

transmission and change their dive 

profile, this could lead to the formation 

of significant gas bubbles, which could 

damage multiple organs or interfere 

with normal physiological function (Cox 

et al., 2006; Rommel et al., 2006; 

Zimmer and Tyack, 2007). Baird et al. 

(2005) found that slow ascent rates from 

deep dives and long periods of time 

spent within 50 m of the surface were 

typical for both Cuvier’s and Blainville’s 

beaked whales, the two species involved 

in mass strandings related to naval 

MFAS. These two behavioral 

mechanisms may be necessary to purge 

excessive dissolved nitrogen 

concentrated in their tissues during 

their frequent long dives (Baird et al., 

2005). Baird et al. (2005) further 

suggests that abnormally rapid ascents 

or premature dives in response to highintensity active sonar could indirectly 

result in physical harm to the beaked 

whales, through the mechanisms 

described above (gas bubble formation 

or non-elimination of excess nitrogen). 

Because many species of marine 

mammals make repetitive and 

prolonged dives to great depths, it has 

long been assumed that marine 

mammals have evolved physiological 

mechanisms to protect against the 

effects of rapid and repeated 

decompressions. Although several 

investigators have identified 

physiological adaptations that may 

protect marine mammals against 

nitrogen gas supersaturation (e.g., 

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 (up 

to 2 kilometers) and long (up to 90 

minutes) foraging dives with (2) 

relatively slow, controlled ascents, 

followed by (3) a series of ‘‘bounce’’ 

dives between 100 and 400 meters in 

depth (also see Zimmer and Tyack, 

2007). They concluded that acoustic 

exposures that disrupted any part of this 

dive sequence (e.g., causing beaked 

whales to spend more time at surface 

without the bounce dives that are 

necessary for recovery) could produce 

excessive levels of nitrogen 

supersaturation in their tissues, leading 

to gas bubble and emboli formation that 

produces pathologies similar to 

decompression sickness. 

Recently, Zimmer and Tyack (2007) 

modeled nitrogen tension and bubble 

growth in several tissue compartments 

for several hypothetical dive profiles 

and concluded that repetitive shallow 

dives (defined as a dive where depth 

does not exceed the depth of alveolar 

collapse, approximately 72 m for 

Ziphius), perhaps as a consequence of 

an extended avoidance reaction to 

active sonar sound, could pose a risk for 

decompression sickness and that this 

risk should increase with the duration 

of the response. Their models also 

suggested that unrealistically rapid rates 

of ascent from normal dive behaviors 

are unlikely to result in supersaturation 

to the extent that bubble formation 

would be expected. Tyack et al. (2006) 

suggested that emboli observed in 

animals exposed to MFAS (Jepson et al., 

2003; Fernandez et al., 2005) could stem 

from a behavioral response that involves 

repeated dives shallower than the depth 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64540 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

of lung collapse. Given that nitrogen gas 

accumulation is a passive process (i.e., 

nitrogen is metabolically inert), a 

bottlenose dolphin was trained to 

repetitively dive a profile predicted to 

elevate nitrogen saturation to the point 

that nitrogen bubble formation was 

predicted to occur. However, inspection 

of the vascular system of the dolphin via 

ultrasound did not demonstrate the 

formation of asymptomatic nitrogen gas 

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

(2008), in a beaked whale tagging study 

off Hawaii, showed that deep dives are 

equally common during day or night, 

but ‘‘bounce dives’’ are typically a 

daytime behavior, possibly associated 

with visual predator avoidance (Baird et 

al., 2008). This may indicate that 

‘‘bounce dives’’ are associated with 

something other than behavioral 

regulation of dissolved nitrogen levels, 

which would be necessary day and 

night. 

Despite the many theories involving 

bubble formation (both as a direct cause 

of injury (see Acoustically Mediated 

Bubble Growth Section) and an indirect 

cause of stranding (see Behaviorally 

Mediated Bubble Growth Section), 

Southall et al. (2007) summarizes that 

there is either scientific disagreement or 

a lack of information regarding each of 

the following important points: (1) 

Received acoustical exposure conditions 

for animals involved in stranding 

events; (2) pathological interpretation of 

observed lesions in stranded marine 

mammals; (3) acoustic exposure 

conditions required to induce such 

physical trauma directly; (4) whether 

noise exposure may cause behavioral 

reactions (such as atypical diving 

behavior) that secondarily cause bubble 

formation and tissue damage; and (5) 

the extent the post mortem artifacts 

introduced by decomposition before 

sampling, handling, freezing, or 

necropsy procedures affect 

interpretation of observed lesions. 

Although not all of the five 

environmental factors believed to have 

contributed to the Bahamas stranding (at 

least three surface vessel MFAS sources 

operating simultaneously or in 

conjunction with one another, beaked 

whale presence, surface ducts, steep 

bathymetry, and constricted channels 

with limited egress) will be present 

during exercises in the GoA TMAA, 

NMFS recommends caution when either 

steep bathymetry, surface ducting 

conditions, or a constricted channel is 

present when mid-frequency active 

sonar is employed by multiple surface 

vessels simultaneously and cetaceans 

(especially beaked whales) are present. 

Exposure to Underwater Detonation of 

Explosives 

Some of the Navy’s training exercises 

include the underwater detonation of 

explosives. For many of the exercises 

discussed, inert ordnance is used for a 

subset of the exercises. For exercises 

that involve ‘‘shooting’’ at a target that is 

above the surface of the water, 

underwater explosions only occur when 

the target is missed, which is the 

minority of the time (the Navy has 

historical hit/miss ratios and uses them 

in their exposure estimates). The 

underwater explosion from a weapon 

would send a shock wave and blast 

noise through the water, release gaseous 

by-products, create an oscillating 

bubble, and cause a plume of water to 

shoot up from the water surface. The 

effects of an underwater explosion on a 

marine mammal depend on many 

factors, including the size, type, and 

depth of both the animal and the 

explosive charge; the depth of the water 

column; and the standoff distance 

between the charge and the animals, as 

well as the sound propagation 

properties of the environment. Potential 

impacts can range from brief effects 

(such as behavioral disturbance), tactile 

perception, physical discomfort, and 

slight injury of the internal organs and 

the auditory system, to death of the 

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

and Young, 1984; DoN, 2001). Nonlethal injury includes slight injury to 

internal organs and the auditory system; 

however, delayed lethality can be a 

result of individual or cumulative 

sublethal injuries (DoN, 2001). 

Immediate lethal injury would be a 

result of massive combined trauma to 

internal organs as a direct result of 

proximity to the point of detonation 

(DoN, 2001). Generally, exposures to 

higher levels of impulse and pressure 

levels would result in worse impacts to 

an individual animal. 

Injuries resulting from a shock wave 

take place at boundaries between tissues 

of different 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 trauma associated with 

blast noise can be theoretically distinct 

from injury from the shock wave, 

particularly farther from the explosion. 

If an animal is able to hear a noise, at 

some level it can fatigue or damage its 

hearing by causing decreased sensitivity 

(see Noise-induced Threshold Shift 

Section above; Ketten, 1995). Soundrelated trauma can be lethal or 

sublethal. Lethal impacts are those that 

result in immediate death or serious 

debilitation in or near an intense source 

and are not, technically, pure acoustic 

trauma (Ketten, 1995). Sublethal 

impacts include hearing loss, which is 

caused by exposures to perceptible 

sounds. Severe damage (from the shock 

wave) to the ears includes tympanic 

membrane rupture, fracture of the 

ossicles, damage to the cochlea, 

hemorrhage, and cerebrospinal fluid 

leakage into the middle ear. Moderate 

injury implies partial hearing loss due 

to tympanic membrane rupture and 

blood in the middle ear. Permanent 

hearing loss also can occur when the 

hair cells are damaged by one very loud 

event, as well as by prolonged exposure 

to a loud noise or chronic exposure to 

noise. The level of impact from blasts 

depends on both an animal’s location 

and, at outer zones, on its sensitivity to 

the residual noise (Ketten, 1995). 

There have been fewer studies 

addressing the behavioral effects of 

explosives on marine mammals than 

MFAS/HFAS. However, though the 

nature of the sound waves emitted from 

an explosion is different (in shape and 

rise time) from MFAS/HFAS, we still 

anticipate the same sorts of behavioral 

responses (see Exposure to MFAS/ 

HFAS: Behavioral Disturbance Section) 

to result from repeated explosive 

detonations (a smaller range of likely 

less severe responses would be expected 

to occur as a result of exposure to a 

single explosive detonation). 

Potential Effects of Vessel Movement 

and Collisions 

Vessel movement in the vicinity of 

marine mammals has the potential to 

result in either a behavioral response or 

a direct physical interaction. Both 

scenarios are discussed below. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64541 

Vessel Movement 

There are limited data concerning 

marine mammal behavioral responses to 

vessel traffic and vessel noise, and a 

lack of consensus among scientists with 

respect to what these responses mean or 

whether they result in short-term or 

long-term adverse effects. In those cases 

where there is a busy shipping lane or 

where there is a large amount of vessel 

traffic, marine mammals may 

experience acoustic masking 

(Hildebrand, 2005) if they are present in 

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

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

2008). In cases where vessels actively 

approach marine mammals (e.g., whale 

watching or dolphin watching boats), 

scientists have documented that animals 

exhibit altered behavior such as 

increased swimming speed, erratic 

movement, and active avoidance 

behavior (Bursk, 1983; Acevedo, 1991; 

Baker and MacGibbon, 1991; Trites and 

Bain, 2000; Williams et al., 2002; 

Constantine et al., 2003), reduced blow 

interval (Ritcher et al., 2003), disruption 

of normal social behaviors (Lusseau, 

2003; 2006), and the shift of behavioral 

activities which may increase energetic 

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

detailed review of marine mammal 

reactions to ships and boats is available 

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

the marine mammal taxonomy groups, 

Richardson et al. (1995) provides the 

following assessment regarding cetacean 

reactions to vessel traffic: 

Toothed whales: ‘‘In summary, 

toothed whales sometimes show no 

avoidance reaction to vessels, or even 

approach them. However, avoidance can 

occur, especially in response to vessels 

of types used to chase or hunt the 

animals. This may cause temporary 

displacement, but we know of no clear 

evidence that toothed whales have 

abandoned significant parts of their 

range because of vessel traffic.’’ 

Baleen whales: ‘‘When baleen whales 

receive low-level sounds from distant or 

stationary vessels, the sounds often 

seem to be ignored. Some whales 

approach the sources of these sounds. 

When vessels approach whales slowly 

and non-aggressively, whales often 

exhibit slow and inconspicuous 

avoidance maneuvers. In response to 

strong or rapidly changing vessel noise, 

baleen whales often interrupt their 

normal behavior and swim rapidly 

away. Avoidance is especially strong 

when a boat heads directly toward the 

whale.’’ 

It is important to recognize that 

behavioral responses to stimuli are 

complex and influenced to varying 

degrees by a number of factors, such as 

species, behavioral contexts, 

geographical regions, source 

characteristics (moving or stationary, 

speed, direction, etc.), prior experience 

of the animal, and physical status of the 

animal. For example, studies have 

shown that beluga whales reacted 

differently when exposed to vessel noise 

and traffic. In some cases, naı ̈ve beluga 

whales exhibited rapid swimming from 

ice-breaking vessels up to 80 km away, 

and showed changes in surfacing, 

breathing, diving, and group 

composition in the Canadian high 

Arctic where vessel traffic is rare (Finley 

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

whales were more tolerant of vessels, 

but responded differentially to certain 

vessels and operating characteristics by 

reducing their calling rates (especially 

older animals) in the St. Lawrence River 

where vessel traffic is common (Blane 

and Jaakson, 1994). In Bristol Bay, 

Alaska, beluga whales continued to feed 

when surrounded by fishing vessels and 

resisted dispersal even when 

purposefully harassed (Fish and Vania, 

1971). 

In reviewing more than 25 years of 

whale observation data, Watkins (1986) 

concluded that whale reactions to vessel 

traffic were ‘‘modified by their previous 

experience and current activity: 

Habituation often occurred rapidly, 

attention to other stimuli or 

preoccupation with other activities 

sometimes overcame their interest or 

wariness of stimuli.’’ Watkins noticed 

that over the years of exposure to ships 

in the Cape Cod area, minke whales 

(Balaenoptera acutorostrata) changed 

from frequent positive interest (e.g., 

approaching vessels) to generally 

uninterested reactions; finback whales 

(B. physalus) changed from mostly 

negative (e.g., avoidance) to 

uninterested reactions; right whales 

(Eubalaena glacialis) apparently 

continued the same variety of responses 

(negative, uninterested, and positive 

responses) with little change; and 

humpbacks (Megaptera novaeangliae) 

dramatically changed from mixed 

responses that were often negative to 

reactions that were often strongly 

positive. Watkins (1986) summarized 

that ‘‘whales near shore, even in regions 

with low vessel traffic, generally have 

become less wary of boats and their 

noises, and they have appeared to be 

less easily disturbed than previously. In 

particular locations with intense 

shipping and repeated approaches by 

boats (such as the whale-watching areas 

of Stellwagen Bank), more and more 

whales had P [positive] reactions to 

familiar vessels, and they also 

occasionally approached other boats 

and yachts in the same ways.’’ 

Although the radiated sound from 

Navy vessels will be audible to marine 

mammals over a large distance, it is 

unlikely that animals will respond 

behaviorally (in a manner that NMFS 

would consider MMPA harassment) to 

low-level distant shipping noise as the 

animals in the area are likely to be 

habituated to such noises (Nowacek et 

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

does not expect the Navy’s vessel 

movements to result in Level B 

harassment. 

Vessel Strike 

Commercial and Navy ship strikes of 

cetaceans can cause major wounds, 

which may lead to the death of the 

animal. An animal at the surface could 

be struck directly by a vessel, a 

surfacing animal could hit the bottom of 

a vessel, or an animal just below the 

surface could be cut by a vessel’s 

propeller. The severity of injuries 

typically depends on the size and speed 

of the vessel (Knowlton and Kraus, 

2001; Laist et al., 2001; Vanderlaan and 

Taggart, 2007). 

The most vulnerable marine mammals 

are those that spend extended periods of 

time at the surface in order to restore 

oxygen levels within their tissues after 

deep dives (e.g., the sperm whale). In 

addition, some baleen whales, such as 

the North Atlantic right whale, seem 

generally unresponsive to vessel sound, 

making them more susceptible to vessel 

collisions (Nowacek et al., 2004). These 

species are primarily large, slow moving 

whales. Smaller marine mammals (e.g., 

bottlenose dolphin) move quickly 

through the water column and are often 

seen riding the bow wave of large ships. 

Marine mammal responses to vessels 

may include avoidance and changes in 

dive pattern (NRC, 2003). 

An examination of all known ship 

strikes from all shipping sources 

(civilian and military) indicates vessel 

speed is a principal factor in whether a 

vessel strike results in death (Knowlton 

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

Jensen and Silber, 2003; Vanderlaan and 

Taggart, 2007). In assessing records in 

which vessel speed was known, Laist et 

al. (2001) found a direct relationship 

between the occurrence of a whale 

strike and the speed of the vessel 

involved in the collision. The authors 

concluded that most deaths occurred 

when a vessel was traveling in excess of 

13 knots. 

Jensen and Silber (2003) detailed 292 

records of known or probable ship 

strikes of all large whale species from 

1975 to 2002. Of these, vessel speed at 

the time of collision was reported for 58 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64542 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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

resulted in serious injury or death (19 of 

those resulted in serious injury as 

determined by blood in the water, 

propeller gashes or severed tailstock, 

and fractured skull, jaw, vertebrae, 

hemorrhaging, massive bruising or other 

injuries noted during necropsy and 20 

resulted in death). Operating speeds of 

vessels that struck various species of 

large whales ranged from 2 to 51 knots. 

The majority (79 percent) of these 

strikes occurred at speeds of 13 knots or 

greater. The average speed that resulted 

in serious injury or death was 18.6 

knots. Pace and Silber (2005) found that 

the probability of death or serious injury 

increased rapidly with increasing vessel 

speed. Specifically, the predicted 

probability of serious injury or death 

increased from 45 percent to 75 percent 

as vessel speed increased from 10 to 14 

knots, and exceeded 90 percent at 17 

knots. Higher speeds during collisions 

result in greater force of impact, but 

higher speeds also appear to increase 

the chance of severe injuries or death by 

pulling whales toward the vessel. 

Computer simulation modeling showed 

that hydrodynamic forces pulling 

whales toward the vessel hull increase 

with increasing speed (Clyne, 1999; 

Knowlton et al., 1995). 

The Jensen and Silber (2003) report 

notes that the database represents a 

minimum number of collisions, because 

the vast majority probably goes 

undetected or unreported. In contrast, 

Navy vessels are likely to detect any 

strike that does occur, and they are 

required to report all ship strikes 

involving marine mammals. Overall, the 

percentages of Navy traffic relative to 

overall large shipping traffic are very 

small (on the order of 2 percent). 

The probability of vessel and marine 

mammal interactions occurring in the 

GoA TMAA is dependent upon several 

factors including numbers, types, and 

speeds of vessels; the regularity, 

duration, and spatial extent of training 

events; the presence/absence and 

density of marine mammals; and 

mitigation measures implemented by 

the Navy. Currently, the number of 

Navy vessels that may be operating in 

the GoA TMAA varies based on training 

schedules and can typically range from 

zero to about ten vessels per 21-day 

exercise cycle. Ship sizes range from 

362 ft (110 m) for a nuclear submarine 

(SSN) to 1,092 ft (331 m) for a nuclear 

aircraft carrier (CVN). Smaller boats, 

such as rigid-hulled inflatable boats 

(RHIBs), may also be utilized in the GoA 

TMAA. The smaller boats do not 

contain acoustic sound sources. Speeds 

are typically within 10 to 14 knots; 

however, slower or faster speeds are 

possible depending upon the specific 

training scenario. Training involving 

vessel movements occurs intermittently 

and is variable in duration, ranging from 

a few hours to three weeks. These 

training events are widely dispersed; 

consequently, the density of ships 

within the GoA TMAA at any given 

time is extremely low (i.e., 

approximately 0.0002 ships/nm2). 

Moreover, naval vessels transiting the 

GoA TMAA or engaging in the training 

exercises will not actively or 

intentionally approach a marine 

mammal. While in transit, naval vessels 

will be alert at all times, use extreme 

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

that the vessel can take proper and 

effective action to avoid a collision with 

any marine animal and can be stopped 

within a distance appropriate to the 

prevailing circumstances and 

conditions. When whales have been 

sighted in the area, Navy vessels will 

increase vigilance and take reasonable 

and practicable actions to avoid 

collisions and activities that might 

result in close interaction of naval assets 

and marine mammals. Actions may 

include changing speed and/or direction 

and would be dictated by environmental 

and other conditions (e.g., safety, 

weather). For a thorough discussion of 

mitigation measures, please see the 

Mitigation section. 

Additionally, the majority of ships 

participating in GoA TMAA training 

activities have a number of advantages 

for avoiding ship strikes as compared to 

most commercial merchant vessels, 

including the following: Navy ships 

have their bridges positioned forward, 

offering good visibility ahead of the 

bow; crew size is much larger than that 

of merchant ships allowing for more 

potential observers on the bridge; 

dedicated lookouts are posted during a 

training activity scanning the ocean for 

anything detectable in the water, 

anything detected is reported to the 

Officer of the Deck; Navy lookouts 

receive extensive training including 

Marine Species Awareness Training 

designed to provide marine species 

detection cues and information 

necessary to detect marine mammals; 

and Navy ships are generally much 

more maneuverable than commercial 

merchant vessels. 

Based on the implementation of Navy 

mitigation measures and the low density 

of Navy ships in the GoA TMAA, NMFS 

has concluded, preliminarily, that the 

probability of a ship strike is very low, 

especially for dolphins and porpoises, 

killer whales, social pelagic odontocetes 

and pinnipeds that are highly visible, 

and/or comparatively small and 

maneuverable. Though more probable, 

NMFS also believes that the likelihood 

of a Navy vessel striking a mysticete or 

sperm whale is low. The Navy did not 

request take from a ship strike and 

based on our preliminary determination, 

NMFS is not recommending that they 

modify their request at this time. 

However, both NMFS and the Navy are 

currently engaged in a Section 7 

consultation under the ESA, and that 

consultation will further inform our 

final decision. 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an incidental take 

authorization (ITA) under Section 

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

set forth the ‘‘permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to such activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact on such 

species or stock and its habitat, paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 

grounds, and areas of similar 

significance.’’ The NDAA of 2004 

amended the MMPA as it relates to 

military-readiness activities and the ITA 

process such that ‘‘least practicable 

adverse impact’’ shall include 

consideration of personnel safety, 

practicality of implementation, and 

impact on the effectiveness of the 

‘‘military readiness activity.’’ The 

training activities described in the GoA 

TMAA application are considered 

military readiness activities. 

NMFS reviewed the proposed GoA 

TMAA activities and the proposed GoA 

TMAA mitigation measures as described 

in the Navy’s LOA application to 

determine if they would result in the 

least practicable adverse effect on 

marine mammals, which includes a 

careful balancing of the likely benefit of 

any particular measure to the marine 

mammals with the likely effect of that 

measure on personnel safety, 

practicality of implementation, and 

impact on the effectiveness of the 

‘‘military-readiness activity.’’ NMFS 

identified the need to further flesh out 

the Navy’s plan for how to respond in 

the event of a stranding in the GoA, and 

the Navy and NMFS subsequently 

coordinated and produced the draft 

Stranding Response Plan for the GoA, 

which is summarized below and 

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

pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications. 

Included below are the mitigation 

measures the Navy initially proposed 

(see ‘‘Mitigation Measures Proposed in 

the Navy’s LOA Application’’) and the 

Stranding Response Plan that NMFS 

and the Navy developed (see 

‘‘Additional Measure Developed by 

NMFS and the Navy’’ below). 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64543 

Mitigation Measures Proposed in the 

Navy’s LOA Application 

Personnel Training—Watchstanders and 

Lookouts 

The use of shipboard lookouts is a 

critical component of all Navy 

mitigation measures. Navy shipboard 

lookouts (also referred to as 

‘‘watchstanders’’) are highly qualified 

and experienced observers of the marine 

environment. Their duties require that 

they report all objects sighted in the 

water to the Officer of the Deck (OOD) 

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

mammals, sea turtles) and all 

disturbances (e.g., surface disturbance, 

discoloration) that may be indicative of 

a threat to the vessel and its crew. There 

are personnel serving as lookouts on 

station at all times (day and night) when 

a ship or surfaced submarine is moving 

through the water. 

All Commanding Officers (COs), 

Executive Officers (XOs), lookouts, 

OODs, Junior OODs (JOODs), maritime 

patrol aircraft aircrews, and Antisubmarine Warfare (ASW) helicopter 

crews would complete the NMFSapproved Marine Species Awareness 

Training (MSAT) by viewing the U.S. 

Navy MSAT digital versatile disk (DVD). 

MSAT may also be viewed on-line at 

https://portal.navfac.navy.mil/go/msat. 

MSAT training must be reviewed at 

least annually and again prior to the 

first use of mid-frequency active sonar 

(MFAS) and/or IEER during major ASW 

exercises. This training addresses the 

lookout’s role in environmental 

protection, laws governing the 

protection of marine species, Navy 

stewardship commitments, and general 

observation information to aid in 

avoiding interactions with marine 

species, and must be recorded in the 

individual’s training record. 

Navy lookouts shall undertake 

extensive training in order to qualify as 

a watchstander in accordance with the 

Lookout Training Handbook (Naval 

Education and Training Command 

(NAVEDTRA) 12968–D). 

Lookout training will include on-thejob 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). Personnel 

being trained as lookouts can be 

counted among the number of lookouts 

required by a particular mitigation 

measure as long as supervisors monitor 

their progress and performance. 

Lookouts shall be trained in the most 

effective means to ensure quick and 

effective communication within the 

command structure in order to facilitate 

implementation of protective measures 

if marine species are spotted. 

Operating Procedures and Collision 

Avoidance (for All Training Types) 

Prior to major exercises, a Letter of 

Instruction, Mitigation Measures 

Message, or Environmental Annex to the 

Operational Order will be issued to 

further disseminate the personnel 

training requirement and general marine 

species protective measures. 

COs will make use of marine species 

detection cues and information to limit 

interaction with marine species to the 

maximum extent possible consistent 

with safety of the ship. 

While underway, surface vessels will 

have at least two lookouts with 

binoculars; surfaced submarines would 

have at least one lookout with 

binoculars. Lookouts already posted for 

safety of navigation and man-overboard 

precautions may be used to fill this 

requirement. As part of their regular 

duties, lookouts shall watch for and 

report to the OOD the presence of 

marine mammals. 

All surface ships participating in 

ASW training events shall have, in 

addition to the three personnel on 

watch constantly, at least two additional 

personnel on watch as lookouts at all 

times during the exercise. 

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. 

On surface vessels equipped with a 

multi-function active sensor, pedestal 

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

will be properly installed and in good 

working order to assist in the detection 

of marine mammals in the vicinity of 

the vessel. 

Personnel on lookout shall employ 

visual search procedures employing a 

scanning methodology in accordance 

with the Lookout Training Handbook 

(NAVEDTRA 12968–D). 

After sunset and prior to sunrise, 

lookouts will employ Night Lookout 

Techniques in accordance with the 

Lookout Training Handbook 

(NAVEDTRA 12968–D). 

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 OOD, 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. Navy 

environmental compliance relies 

heavily on the abilities of lookouts to 

detect and avoid protected species. 

Therefore, it is critical that lookouts be 

vigilant in their reporting. 

While in transit, naval vessels shall be 

alert at all times, use extreme caution, 

and proceed at a ‘‘safe speed’’ so that the 

vessel could take proper and effective 

action to avoid a collision with any 

marine animal and could be stopped 

within a short distance appropriate to 

the prevailing circumstances and 

conditions. 

When marine mammals have been 

sighted in the area, Navy vessels will 

increase vigilance and take reasonable 

and practicable actions to avoid 

collisions and activities that might 

result in close interaction of naval assets 

and marine mammals. Actions may 

include changing speed and/or direction 

and would be dictated by environmental 

and other conditions (e.g., safety, 

weather). 

Navy vessels will maneuver to keep at 

least 1,500 ft (500 yd or 457 m) away 

from any observed whale in the vessel’s 

path and avoid approaching whales 

head-on. 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 

a person, vessel, or aircraft, and to the 

extent vessels are restricted in their 

ability to maneuver. Restricted 

maneuverability includes, but is not 

limited to, situations when vessels are 

engaged in dredging, submerged 

activities, launching and recovering 

aircraft or landing craft, minesweeping 

activities, replenishment while 

underway, and towing activities that 

severely restrict a vessel’s ability to 

deviate course. Vessels will take 

reasonable steps to alert other vessels in 

the vicinity of the whale. Given rapid 

swimming speeds and maneuverability 

of many dolphin species, naval vessels 

shall maintain normal course and speed 

on sighting dolphins unless some 

condition indicated a need for the vessel 

to maneuver. 

Navy aircraft participating in 

exercises at sea will 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. Marine mammal detections 

would be immediately reported to the 

assigned Aircraft Control Unit for 

further dissemination to ships in the 

vicinity of the marine species as 

appropriate when it is reasonable to 

conclude that the course of the ship 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64544 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

would likely result in a closing of the 

distance to the detected marine 

mammal. 

Floating weeds and kelp, algal mats, 

clusters of seabirds, and jellyfish are 

good indicators of marine mammals. 

Therefore, where these circumstances 

are present, the Navy will exercise 

increased vigilance in watching for 

marine mammals. 

All vessels will maintain logs and 

records documenting training 

operations should they be required for 

event reconstruction purposes. Logs and 

records are kept and archived following 

completion of a major training exercise. 

Operating Procedures (for MidFrequency Active Sonar Activities) 

All personnel engaged in passive 

acoustic sonar operation (including 

aircraft, surface ships, or submarines) 

will monitor for marine mammal 

vocalizations and report the detection of 

any marine mammal to the appropriate 

watch station for dissemination and 

appropriate action. 

During MFAS operations, personnel 

will utilize all available sensor and 

optical systems (such as night vision 

goggles) to aid in the detection of 

marine mammals. 

Aircraft with deployed sonobuoys 

will use only the passive capability of 

sonobuoys when marine mammals are 

detected within 200 yd (183 m) of the 

sonobuoy. 

Helicopters shall observe/survey the 

vicinity of an ASW exercise for 10 

minutes before the first deployment of 

active (dipping) sonar in the water. 

Helicopters shall not dip their sonar 

within 200 yd (183 m) of a marine 

mammal and shall cease pinging if a 

marine mammal closes within 200 yd 

(183 m) after pinging has begun. 

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 1,000 yd (914 m) of the sonar 

dome (the bow) (i.e., limit to at most 229 

dB for AN/SQS–53 and 219 dB for AN/ 

SQS–56, etc.). Ships and submarines 

shall continue to limit maximum 

transmission levels by this 6-dB factor 

until the animal has been seen to leave 

the 1,000-yd safety zone, has not been 

detected for 30 minutes, or the vessel 

has transited more than 2,000 yd (1829 

m) beyond the location of the last 

detection. 

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 10 dB below normal 

operating levels if any detected marine 

mammals are within 500 yd (457 m) of 

the sonar dome (the bow). Ships and 

submarines shall continue to limit 

maximum ping levels by this 10-dB 

factor until the animal has been seen to 

leave the 500-yd safety zone, has not 

been detected for 30 minutes, or the 

vessel has transited more than 2,000 yd 

(1,829 m) beyond the location of the last 

detection. 

When marine mammals are detected 

by any means (aircraft, shipboard 

lookout, or acoustically) the Navy shall 

ensure that sonar transmission ceases if 

any detected marine mammals are 

within 200 yd (183 m) of the sonar 

dome (the bow). Sonar shall not resume 

until the animal has been seen to leave 

the 200-yd safety zone, has not been 

detected for 30 minutes, or the vessel 

has transited more than 2,000 yd (457 

m) beyond the location of the last 

detection. 

Special conditions applicable for 

dolphins and porpoises only: If, after 

conducting an initial maneuver to avoid 

close quarters with dolphins or 

porpoises, the OOD concludes that 

dolphins or porpoises are deliberately 

closing to ride the vessel’s bow wave, no 

further mitigation actions are necessary 

while the dolphins or porpoises 

continue to exhibit bow wave riding 

behavior. 

Prior to start up or restart of active 

sonar, operators will check that the 

1,000-m safety zone radius around the 

sound source is clear of marine 

mammals. 

Active sonar levels (generally)—Navy 

shall operate active sonar at the lowest 

practicable level, not to exceed 235 dB, 

except as required to meet tactical 

training objectives. 

Submarine sonar operators will 

review detection indicators of closeaboard marine mammals prior to the 

commencement of ASW training events 

involving MFAS. 

If the need for power-down should 

arise when the Navy is operating a hullmounted or sub-mounted source above 

235 dB (infrequent), the Navy shall 

follow the requirements as though they 

were operating at 235 dB—the normal 

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

what level above 235 dB active sonar 

was being operated). 

Surface-to-Surface Gunnery (Up to 5- 

Inch Explosive Rounds) 

For exercises using targets towed by a 

vessel, target-towing vessels shall 

maintain a trained lookout for marine 

mammals when feasible. If a marine 

mammal is sighted in the vicinity, the 

tow vessel will immediately notify the 

firing vessel, which will suspend the 

exercise until the area is clear. 

A 600 yd (585 m) radius buffer zone 

will be established around the intended 

target. 

From the intended firing position, 

trained lookouts will survey the buffer 

zone for marine mammals prior to 

commencement and during the exercise 

as long as practicable. Due to the 

distance between the firing position and 

the buffer zone, lookouts are only 

expected to visually detect breaching 

whales, whale blows, and large pods of 

dolphins and porpoises. 

The exercise will be conducted only 

when the buffer zone is visible and 

marine mammals are not detected 

within it. 

Surface-to-Surface Gunnery (NonExplosive Rounds) 

A 200-yd (183 m) radius buffer zone 

shall be established around the intended 

target. 

From the intended firing position, 

trained lookouts shall survey the buffer 

zone for marine mammals prior to 

commencement and during the exercise 

as long as practicable. 

If available, target towing vessels shall 

maintain a lookout (unmanned towing 

vessels will not have a lookout 

available). If a marine mammal is 

sighted in the vicinity of the exercise, 

the tow vessel shall immediately notify 

the firing vessel in order to secure 

gunnery firing until the area is clear. 

The exercise shall be conducted only 

when the buffer zone is visible and 

marine mammals are not detected 

within the target area and the buffer 

zone. 

Surface-to-Air Gunnery (Explosive and 

Non-Explosive Rounds) 

Vessels will orient the geometry of 

gunnery exercises in order to prevent 

debris from falling in the area of sighted 

marine mammals. 

Vessels will attempt to recover any 

parachute deploying aerial targets to the 

extent practicable (and their parachutes 

if feasible) to reduce the potential for 

entanglement of marine mammals. 

Target towing aircraft shall maintain a 

lookout if feasible. If a marine mammal 

is sighted in the vicinity of the exercise, 

the tow aircraft will immediately notify 

the firing vessel in order to secure 

gunnery firing until the area is clear. 

Air-to-Surface Gunnery (Explosive and 

Non-Explosive Rounds) 

A 200-yd (183 m) radius buffer zone 

will be established around the intended 

target. 

If surface vessels are involved, the 

lookouts would visually survey the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64545 

buffer zone for marine mammals prior to 

and during the exercise. 

Aerial surveillance of the buffer zone 

for marine mammals will be conducted 

prior to commencement of the exercise. 

Aerial surveillance altitude of 500 feet 

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

Aircraft crew/pilot will maintain visual 

watch during exercises. Release of 

ordnance through cloud cover is 

prohibited; aircraft must be able to 

actually see ordnance impact areas. 

The exercise will be conducted only 

if marine mammals are not visible 

within the buffer zone. 

Air-to-Surface At-Sea Bombing 

Exercises (Explosive and Non-Explosive 

Bombs) 

If surface vessels are involved, trained 

lookouts shall survey for marine 

mammals. Ordnance shall not be 

targeted to impact within 1,000 yds (914 

m) of known or observed marine 

mammals. 

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

shall be established around the intended 

target. 

Aircraft shall visually survey the 

target and buffer zone for marine 

mammals prior to and during the 

exercise. The survey of the impact area 

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

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

slowest safe speed. When safety or other 

considerations require the release of 

weapons without the releasing pilot 

having visual sight of the target area, a 

second aircraft, the ‘‘wingman,’’ will 

clear the target area and perform the 

clearance and observation functions 

required before the dropping plane may 

release its weapons. Both planes must 

have direct communication to assure 

immediate notification to the dropping 

plane that the target area may have been 

fouled by encroaching animals or 

people. The clearing aircraft will assure 

it has visual site of the target area at a 

maximum height of 1,500 ft (457 m). 

The clearing plane will remain within 

visual sight of the target until required 

to clear the area for safety reasons. 

Survey aircraft shall employ most 

effective search tactics and capabilities. 

The exercises will be conducted only 

if marine mammals are not visible 

within the buffer zone. 

Air-to-Surface Missile Exercises 

(Explosive and Non-Explosive) 

Aircraft will visually survey the target 

area for marine mammals. Visual 

inspection of the target area will be 

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

or lower, if safe to do so, and at slowest 

safe speed. Firing or range clearance 

aircraft must be able to actually see 

ordnance impact areas. 

Explosive ordnance shall not be 

targeted to impact within 1,800 yds 

(1646 m) of sighted marine mammals. 

Sinking Exercises (SINKEX) 

The selection of sites suitable for 

SINKEX involves a balance of 

operational suitability and requirements 

established under the Marine 

Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries 

Act (MPRSA) permit granted to the 

Navy (40 CFR § 229.2). To meet 

operational suitability criteria, SINKEX 

locations must be within a reasonable 

distance of the target vessels’ originating 

location. The locations should also be 

close to active military bases to allow 

participating assets access to shore 

facilities. For safety purposes, these 

locations should also be in areas that are 

not generally used by non-military air or 

watercraft. The MPRSA permit requires 

vessels to be sunk in waters which are 

at least 1,000 fathoms (6,000 ft (1828 m)) 

deep and at least 50 nm (92.6 km) from 

land, which may incidentally avoid 

adverse impacts to marine mammals. In 

general, most marine mammals prefer 

areas with strong bathymetric gradients 

and oceanographic fronts for significant 

biological activity such as feeding and 

reproduction. Typical locations include 

the continental shelf and shelf-edge. 

In addition, the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fisheries Conservation and Management 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), as amended 

by the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA), 

mandated identification and 

conservation of Essential Fish Habitat 

(EFH) as well as subset of EFH known 

as Habitat Areas of Particular Concern 

(HAPC). The guidelines for designating 

EFH identify HAPCs as types or areas of 

habitat within EFH that are defined 

based on one or more of the following 

considerations: The importance of the 

ecological function provided by the 

habitat; the extent to which the habitat 

is sensitive to human-induced 

environmental degradation; whether, 

and to what extent, development 

activities are or will be stressing the 

habitat type; and the rarity of the habitat 

type (50 CFR 600.815(a)(8)). The 

following HAPCs have been established 

in the GoA: 10 Gulf of Alaska Slope 

Habitat Conservation Areas 

(GOASHCAs), 15 Alaska Seamount 

Habitat Protection Areas (ASHPAs); and 

5 Gulf of Alaska Coral Habitat 

Protection Areas (NMFS 2006). Within 

the TMAA, one GOASHCA (Cable) and 

three ASHPAs (Dall, Giacomini, and 

Quinn Seamounts) occur almost entirely 

within the TMAA. Other areas, such as 

the Kodiak Seamount and Middleton 

West GOASHCA are partially located in 

the TMAA. The Navy has agreed not to 

conduct SINKEXs—the activity with the 

greatest potential to impact HAPCs— 

within these areas. 

The following mitigation measures 

shall be applied when conducting a 

SINKEX in the GoA TMAA: 

All weapons firing shall be conducted 

during the period 1 hour after official 

sunrise to 30 minutes before official 

sunset. 

An exclusion zone with a radius of 

1.0 nm (1.9 km) will be established 

around each target. An additional buffer 

of 0.5 nm (0.9 km) will be added to 

account for errors, target drift, and 

animal movements. Additionally, a 

safety zone, which will extend beyond 

the buffer zone by an additional 0.5 nm 

(0.9 km), shall be surveyed. Together, 

the zone extends out 2 nm (3.7 km) from 

the target. 

A series of surveillance over-flights 

shall be conducted within the 2 nm (3.7 

km) zone around the target, prior to and 

during the exercise, when feasible. 

Survey protocol shall be as follows: 

Overflights within the 2 nm (3.7 km) 

zone around the target shall be 

conducted in a manner that optimizes 

the surface area of the water observed. 

This may be accomplished through the 

use of the Navy’s Search and Rescue 

Tactical Aid, which provides the best 

search altitude, ground speed, and track 

spacing for the discovery of small, 

possibly dark objects in the water based 

on the environmental conditions of the 

day. These environmental conditions 

include the angle of sun inclination, 

amount of daylight, cloud cover, 

visibility, and sea state. 

All visual surveillance activities shall 

be conducted by Navy personnel trained 

in visual surveillance. At least one 

member of the mitigation team will have 

completed the Navy’s marine mammal 

training program for lookouts. 

In addition to the overflights, the 2- 

nm (3.7 km) zone around the target shall 

be monitored by passive acoustic 

means, when assets are available. This 

passive acoustic monitoring will be 

maintained throughout the exercise. 

Additionally, passive sonar onboard 

submarines may be utilized to detect 

any vocalizing marine mammals in the 

area. The OCE will be informed of any 

aural detection of marine mammals and 

will include this information in the 

determination of when it is safe to 

commence the exercise. 

On each day of the exercise, aerial 

surveillance of the 2 nm (3.7 km) zone 

around the target shall commence 2 

hours prior to the first firing. 

The results of all visual, aerial, and 

acoustic searches shall be reported 

immediately to the OCE. No weapons 

launches or firing may commence until 

the OCE declares this 2 nm (3.7 km) 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64546 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

zone around the target is free of marine 

mammals. 

If a marine mammal is observed 

within the 2 nm (3.7 km) zone around 

the target, firing will be delayed until 

the animal is re-sighted outside the 2 

nm (3.7 km) zone around the target, or 

30 minutes have elapsed. After 30 

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

the 2 nm (3.7 km) zone around the 

target. The OCE will determine if the 

marine mammal is in danger of being 

adversely affected by commencement of 

the exercise. 

During breaks in the exercise of 30 

minutes or more, the 2 nm (3.7 km) zone 

around the target shall again be 

surveyed for any marine mammal. If 

marine mammals are sighted within the 

2 nm (3.7 km) zone around the target, 

the OCE shall be notified, and the 

procedure described above shall be 

followed. 

Upon sinking of the vessel, a final 

surveillance of the 2 nm (3.7 km) zone 

around the target shall be monitored for 

2 hours, or until sunset, to verify that no 

marine mammals were harmed. 

Aerial surveillance shall be conducted 

using helicopters or other aircraft based 

on necessity and availability. The Navy 

has several types of aircraft capable of 

performing this task; however, not all 

types are available for every exercise. 

For each exercise, the available asset 

best suited for identifying objects on 

and near the surface of the ocean shall 

be used. These aircraft shall be capable 

of flying at the slow safe speeds 

necessary to enable viewing of marine 

vertebrates with unobstructed, or 

minimally obstructed, downward and 

outward visibility. The exclusion and 

safety zone surveys may be cancelled in 

the event that a mechanical problem, 

emergency search and rescue, or other 

similar and unexpected event preempts 

the use of one of the aircraft onsite for 

the exercise. 

Every attempt shall be made to 

conduct the exercise in sea states that 

are ideal for marine mammal sighting, 

Beaufort Sea State 3 or less. In the event 

of a 4 or above, survey efforts shall be 

increased within the 2 nm (3.7 km) zone 

around the target. This shall be 

accomplished through the use of an 

additional aircraft, if available, and 

conducting tight search patterns. 

The exercise shall not be conducted 

unless the 2 nm (3.7 km) zone around 

the target could be adequately 

monitored visually. Should low cloud 

cover or surface visibility prevent 

adequate visual monitoring as described 

previously, the exercise would be 

delayed until conditions improved, and 

all of the above monitoring criteria 

could be met. 

In the event that any marine mammals 

are observed to be harmed in the area, 

a detailed description of the animal 

shall be taken, the location noted, and 

if possible, photos taken of the marine 

mammal. This information shall be 

provided to NMFS via the Navy’s 

regional environmental coordinator for 

purposes of identification (see the 

Stranding Plan for detail). 

An after action report detailing the 

exercise’s time line, the time the surveys 

commenced and terminated, amount, 

and types of all ordnance expended, and 

the results of survey efforts for each 

event shall be submitted to NMFS. 

Explosive Source Sonobuoys (SSQ– 

110A) 

AN/SSQ–110A Pattern Deployment— 

The following mitigation measures shall 

be used with the employment of IEER/ 

AEER sonobuoys: 

Crews shall conduct visual 

reconnaissance of the drop area prior to 

laying their intended sonobuoy pattern. 

This search shall be conducted at an 

altitude below 500 yd (457 m) at a slow 

speed, if operationally feasible and 

weather conditions permit. In dual 

aircraft operations, crews are allowed to 

conduct coordinated area clearances. 

For IEER (AN/SSQ–110A), crews shall 

conduct a minimum of 30 minutes of 

visual and aural monitoring of the 

search area prior to commanding the 

first post detonation. This 30-minute 

observation period may include pattern 

deployment time. 

For any part of the intended sonobuoy 

pattern where a post (source/receiver 

sonobuoy pair) will be deployed within 

1,000 yd (914 m) of observed marine 

mammal activity, the Navy shall deploy 

the receiver only (i.e., not the source) 

and monitor while conducting a visual 

search. When marine mammals are no 

longer detected within 1,000 yd (914 m) 

of the intended post position, the source 

sonobuoy (AN/SSQ–110A/SSQ–125) 

will be co-located with the receiver. 

When operationally feasible, Navy 

crews shall conduct continuous visual 

and aural monitoring of marine mammal 

activity. This shall include monitoring 

of own-aircraft sensors from the time of 

the first sensor placement until the 

aircraft have left the area and are out of 

RF range of these sensors. 

AN/SSQ–110A Pattern Employment 

Aural Detection—If the presence of 

marine mammals is detected aurally, 

then that shall cue the Navy aircrew to 

increase the diligence of their visual 

surveillance. Subsequently, if no marine 

mammals are visually detected, then the 

crew may continue multi-static active 

search. 

Visual Detection—If marine mammals 

are visually detected within 1,000 yd 

(914 m) of the explosive source 

sonobuoy (AN/SSQ–110A/SSQ–125) 

intended for use, then that payload shall 

not be activated. 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 yd (914 m) safety buffer. 

Aircrews may shift their multi-static 

active search to another post, where 

marine mammals are outside the 1,000 

yd (914 m) safety buffer. 

AN/SSQ–110A Scuttling Sonobuoys 

For IEER (AN/SSQ–110A), 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 yd (914 m) safety buffer, visually 

clear of marine mammals, is maintained 

around each post as is done during 

active search operations. 

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. 

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. 

Mammal monitoring shall continue 

until out of own-aircraft sensor range. 

Mitigation Conclusions 

NMFS has carefully evaluated the 

Navy’s proposed mitigation measures 

and considered a broad range of other 

measures in the context of ensuring that 

NMFS prescribes the means of effecting 

the least practicable adverse impact on 

the affected marine mammal species 

and stocks and their habitat. Our 

evaluation of potential measures 

included consideration of the following 

factors in relation to one another: The 

manner in which, and the degree to 

which, the successful implementation of 

the measure is expected to minimize 

adverse impacts to marine mammals; 

the proven or likely efficacy of the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64547 

specific measure to minimize adverse 

impacts as planned; and the 

practicability of the measure for 

applicant implementation, including 

consideration of personnel safety, 

practicality of implementation, and 

impact on the effectiveness of the 

military readiness activity. 

In some cases, additional mitigation 

measures are required beyond those that 

the applicant proposes. Any mitigation 

measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should 

be able to accomplish, have a reasonable 

likelihood of accomplishing (based on 

current science), or contribute to the 

accomplishment of one or more of the 

general goals listed below: 

(a) Avoidance or minimization of 

injury or death of marine mammals 

wherever possible (goals b, c, and d may 

contribute to this goal). 

(b) A reduction in the numbers of 

marine mammals (total number or 

number at biologically important time 

or location) exposed to received levels 

of MFAS/HFAS, underwater 

detonations, or other activities expected 

to result in the take of marine mammals 

(this goal may contribute to a, above, or 

to reducing harassment takes only). 

(c) A reduction in the number of times 

(total number or number at biologically 

important time or location) individuals 

would be exposed to received levels of 

MFAS/HFAS, underwater detonations, 

or other activities expected to result in 

the take of marine mammals (this goal 

may contribute to a, above, or to 

reducing harassment takes only). 

(d) A reduction in the intensity of 

exposures (either total number or 

number at biologically important time 

or location) to received levels of MFAS/ 

HFAS, underwater detonations, or other 

activities expected to result in the take 

of marine mammals (this goal may 

contribute to a, above, or to reducing the 

severity of harassment takes only). 

(e) Avoidance or minimization of 

adverse effects to marine mammal 

habitat, paying special attention to the 

food base, activities that block or limit 

passage to or from biologically 

important areas, permanent destruction 

of habitat, or temporary destruction/ 

disturbance of habitat during a 

biologically important time. 

(f) For monitoring directly related to 

mitigation—an increase in the 

probability of detecting marine 

mammals, thus allowing for more 

effective implementation of the 

mitigation (shut-down zone, etc.). 

Based on our evaluation of the Navy’s 

proposed measures, as well as other 

measures considered by NMFS or 

recommended by the public, NMFS has 

determined preliminarily that the 

Navy’s proposed mitigation measures 

(especially when the Adaptive 

Management component is taken into 

consideration (see Adaptive 

Management, below)) are adequate 

means of effecting the least practicable 

adverse impacts on marine mammals 

species or stocks and their habitat, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar 

significance, while also considering 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. Further detail is included 

below. 

The proposed rule comment period 

will afford the public an opportunity to 

submit recommendations, views, and/or 

concerns regarding this action and the 

proposed mitigation measures. While 

NMFS has determined preliminarily 

that the Navy’s proposed mitigation 

measures would effect the least 

practicable adverse impact on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, NMFS will consider all public 

comments to help inform our final 

decision. Consequently, the proposed 

mitigation measures may be refined, 

modified, removed, or added to prior to 

the issuance of the final rule based on 

public comments received, and where 

appropriate, further analysis of any 

additional mitigation measures. 

NMFS believes that the range 

clearance procedures and shutdown/ 

safety zone/exclusion zone measures the 

Navy has proposed will enable the Navy 

to avoid injuring marine mammals and 

will enable them to minimize the 

numbers of marine mammals exposed to 

levels associated with TTS for the 

following reasons: 

MFAS/HFAS 

The Navy’s standard protective 

measures indicate that they would 

ensure power-down of MFAS/HFAS by 

6 dB when a marine mammal is 

detected within 1,000 yd (914 m), 

power-down of 4 more dB (or 10 dB 

total) when a marine mammal is 

detected within 500 yd (457 m), and 

would cease MFAS/HFAS transmissions 

when a marine mammal is detected 

within 200 yd (183 m). 

PTS/Injury—NMFS believes that the 

proposed mitigation measures would 

allow the Navy to avoid exposing 

marine mammals to received levels of 

MFAS/HFAS sound that would result in 

injury for the following reasons: The 

estimated distance from the most 

powerful source at which cetaceans 

would receive levels at or above the 

threshold for PTS/injury/Level A 

Harassment is approximately 33 ft (10 

m); and NMFS believes that the 

probability that a marine mammal 

would approach within the above 

distances of the sonar dome (to the sides 

or below) without being seen by the 

watchstanders (who would then activate 

a shutdown if the animal was within 

200 yd (183 m)) is very low, especially 

considering that animals would likely 

avoid approaching a source transmitting 

at that level at that distance. 

TTS—NMFS believes that the 

proposed mitigation measures would 

allow the Navy to minimize exposure of 

marine mammals to received levels of 

MFAS/HFAS sound associated with 

TTS for the following reasons: The 

estimated maximum distance from the 

most powerful source at which 

cetaceans would receive levels at or 

above the threshold for TTS is 

approximately 584 ft (178 m) from the 

source in most operating environments; 

based on the size of the animals, average 

group size, behavior, and average dive 

time, NMFS believes that the probability 

that Navy watchstanders would visually 

detect marine mammals at some point 

within the 1,000 yd (914 km) safety 

zone before they are exposed to the TTS 

threshold levels is high, which means 

that the Navy would often be able to 

shut down or power-down to avoid 

exposing these species to sound levels 

associated with TTS; more cryptic 

animals that are difficult to detect and 

observe, such as deep-diving cetaceans 

(i.e., beaked whales), are less likely to be 

visually detected and could potentially 

be exposed to levels of MFAS/HFAS 

expected to cause TTS. However, 

animals at depth in one location would 

not be expected to be continuously 

exposed to repeated sonar signals given 

the typical 10–14 knot speed of Navy 

surface ships during ASW events. 

During a typical 1-hr subsurface dive by 

a beaked whale, the ship would have 

moved over 5 to 10 nm from the original 

location; and, the Navy’s bow riding 

mitigation exception for dolphins may 

sometimes result in dolphins being 

exposed to levels of MFAS/HFAS likely 

to result in TTS. However, there are 

combinations of factors that reduce the 

acoustic energy received by dolphins 

approaching ships to ride in bow waves. 

Dolphins riding a ship’s bow wave are 

outside of the main beam of the MFAS 

vertical beam pattern. Source levels 

drop quickly outside of the main beam. 

Sidelobes of the radiate beam pattern 

that point to the surface are significantly 

lower in power. Together with spherical 

spreading losses, received levels in the 

ship’s bow wave can be more than 42 

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

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

bow wave riding dolphins are 

frequently in and out of a bubble layer 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64548 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

generated by the breaking bow waves. 

This bubble layer is an excellent 

scatterer of acoustic energy and can 

further reduce received energy. 

The Stranding Response Plan will 

minimize the probability of distressed 

live-stranded animals responding to the 

proximity of sonar in a manner that 

further stresses them or increases the 

potential likelihood of mortality. 

Underwater Explosives 

The Navy utilizes exclusion zones 

(wherein explosive detonation will not 

begin/continue if animals are within the 

zone) for explosive exercises. Table 3 

identifies the various explosives, the 

estimated distance at which animals 

will receive levels associated with take 

(see Acoustic Take Criteria Section), and 

the exclusion zone associated with the 

explosive types. 

Mortality and Injury—NMFS believes 

that the mitigation measures will allow 

the Navy to avoid exposing marine 

mammals to underwater detonations 

that would result in injury or mortality 

for the following reasons: Surveillance 

for large charges (which includes aerial 

and passive acoustic detection methods, 

when available, to ensure clearance) 

begins two hours before the exercise and 

extends to 2 nm (3704 m) from the 

source. Surveillance for all charges 

extends out 3–50 times the farthest 

distance from the source at which injury 

would be anticipated to occur (see Table 

3). Animals would need to be less than 

611 m (688 yd) (large explosives) or 19 

m (20.7 yd) (smaller charges) from the 

source to be injured. Unlike for active 

sonar, an animal would need to be 

present at the exact moment of the 

explosion(s) (except for the short series 

of gunfire example in GUNEX) to be 

taken. The model predicted that four 

animals (three Dall’s porpoises and one 

Northern fur seal) would be exposed to 

explosive levels associated with injury 

or death. When the implementation of 

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

the Navy will not start a detonation or 

will not continue to detonate explosives 

if an animal is detected within the 

exclusion zone) is considered in 

combination with the factors described 

in the above bullets, NMFS believes that 

the Navy’s mitigation will prevent 

injury and mortality to marine mammals 

from explosives. 

TTS—NMFS believes that the 

proposed mitigation measures will 

allow the Navy to minimize the 

exposure of marine mammals to 

underwater detonations that would 

result in TTS for the following reasons: 

Seventy animals annually were 

predicted to be exposed to explosive 

levels that would result in TTS. For the 

reasons explained above, NMFS 

believes that most modeled TTS takes 

can be avoided, especially dolphins, 

mysticetes and sperm whales, and social 

pelagic species. However, more cryptic, 

deep-diving species (e.g., beaked 

whales) are less likely to be visually 

detected and could potentially be 

exposed to explosive levels expected to 

cause TTS. The model estimated that 

two beaked whales would be exposed to 

TTS levels. Additionally, for SINKEXs, 

the distance at which an animal would 

be expected to receive sound or pressure 

levels associated with TTS (182 dB SEL 

or 23 psi) is sometimes (when the 

largest explosive type, the MK–84, is 

used) larger than the exclusion zone, 

which means that for those two exercise 

types, some individuals will likely be 

exposed to levels associated with TTS 

outside of the exclusion zone. 

Research 

The Navy provides a significant 

amount of funding and support to 

marine research. In the past five years 

the agency funded over $100 million 

($26 million in Fiscal Year 08 alone) to 

universities, research institutions, 

federal laboratories, private companies, 

and independent researchers around the 

world to study marine mammals. The 

U.S. Navy sponsors 70 percent of all 

U.S. research concerning the effects of 

human-generated sound on marine 

mammals and 50 percent of such 

research conducted worldwide. Major 

topics of Navy-supported research 

include the following: 

• Better understanding of marine 

species distribution and important 

habitat areas; 

• Developing methods to detect and 

monitor marine species before and 

during training; 

• Understanding the effects of sound 

on marine mammals, sea turtles, fish, 

and birds; and 

• Developing tools to model and 

estimate potential effects of sound. 

This research is directly applicable to 

fleet training activities, particularly with 

respect to the investigations of the 

potential effects of underwater noise 

sources on marine mammals and other 

protected species. Proposed training 

activities employ active sonar and 

underwater explosives, which introduce 

sound into the marine environment. 

The Marine Life Sciences Division of 

the Office of Naval Research currently 

coordinates six programs that examine 

the marine environment and are 

devoted solely to studying the effects of 

noise and/or the implementation of 

technology tools that will assist the 

Navy in studying and tracking marine 

mammals. The six programs are as 

follows: 

• Environmental Consequences of 

Underwater Sound 

• Non-Auditory Biological Effects of 

Sound on Marine Mammals 

• Effects of Sound on the Marine 

Environment 

• Sensors and Models for Marine 

Environmental Monitoring 

• Effects of Sound on Hearing of 

Marine Animals 

• 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 Assessment. Furthermore, 

research cruises by NMFS and by 

academic institutions have received 

funding from the U.S. Navy. For 

example, in April 2009, the U.S. Pacific 

Fleet contributed approximately 

$250,000 to support a NMFS marine 

mammal density survey of the GoA’s 

offshore waters. The goal of this 

validation monitoring was to increase 

the state of awareness on marine 

mammal occurrence, density, and 

distribution within the GoA. The Navy 

funded vessel-based line-transect survey 

conducted from onboard the NOAA 

ship Oscar Dyson determined marine 

mammal species distribution and 

abundance in the GoA TMAA. The 

survey cruise employed multiple 

observation techniques, including visual 

and passive acoustic observations, as 

well as photographic identifications 

(Rone et al., 2009). In addition to the 

U.S. Pacific Fleet-funded monitoring 

initiative, the Chief of Naval Operations 

Environmental Readiness Division and 

the Office of Naval Research have 

developed a coordinated Science & 

Technology and Research & 

Development program focused on 

marine mammals and sound. Total 

Investment in this program between 

2004 and 2008 was $100 million. Fiscal 

Year 09 funding was $22 million and 

continued funding at levels greater than 

$14 million is foreseen in subsequent 

years (beyond 2010). 

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, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64549 

and tracking of individual animals still 

requires a significant amount of research 

effort to be considered a reliable method 

for marine mammal monitoring. The 

Navy supports research efforts on 

acoustic monitoring and will continue 

to investigate the feasibility of passive 

acoustics as a potential mitigation and 

monitoring tool. 

Overall, the Navy will continue to 

fund ongoing marine mammal research, 

and is planning to coordinate long-term 

monitoring/studies of marine mammals 

on various established ranges and 

operating areas. The Navy will continue 

to research and contribute to university/ 

external research to improve the state of 

the science regarding marine species 

biology and acoustic effects. These 

efforts include mitigation and 

monitoring programs; data sharing with 

NMFS and via the literature for research 

and development efforts; and future 

research as described previously. 

Monitoring 

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

states that in order to issue an ITA for 

an activity, NMFS must set forth 

‘‘requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such 

taking’’. The MMPA implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) 

indicate that requests for LOAs must 

include the suggested means of 

accomplishing the necessary monitoring 

and reporting that will result in 

increased knowledge of the species and 

of the level of taking or impacts on 

populations of marine mammals that are 

expected to be present. 

Monitoring measures prescribed by 

NMFS should accomplish one or more 

of the following general goals: 

(a) An increase in our understanding 

of how many marine mammals are 

likely to be exposed to levels of MFAS/ 

HFAS (or explosives or other stimuli) 

that we associate with specific adverse 

effects, such as behavioral harassment, 

TTS, or PTS. 

(b) An increase in our understanding 

of how individual marine mammals 

respond (behaviorally or 

physiologically) to MFAS/HFAS (at 

specific received levels), explosives, or 

other stimuli expected to result in take. 

(c) An increase in our understanding 

of how anticipated takes of individuals 

(in different ways and to varying 

degrees) may impact the population, 

species, or stock (specifically through 

effects on annual rates of recruitment or 

survival). 

(d) An increase in knowledge of the 

affected species. 

(e) An increase in our understanding 

of the effectiveness of certain mitigation 

and monitoring measures. 

(f) A better understanding and record 

of the manner in which the authorized 

entity complies with the incidental take 

authorization. 

(g) An increase in the probability of 

detecting marine mammals, both within 

the safety zone (thus allowing for more 

effective implementation of the 

mitigation) and in general to better 

achieve the above goals. 

Proposed Monitoring Plan for the GoA 

TMAA 

The Navy submitted a draft 

Monitoring Plan for the GoA TMAA 

which may be viewed at NMFS’ Web 

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

permits/incidental.htm#applications. 

The plan may be modified or 

supplemented based on comments or 

new information received from the 

public during the public comment 

period. A summary of the primary 

components of the plan follows. 

Navy Monitoring Plans are typically 

designed as a collection of focused 

‘‘studies’’ to gather data that will allow 

the Navy to address one or more of the 

following questions: 

(a) Are marine mammals exposed to 

MFAS/HFAS (1–10 kHz), especially at 

levels associated with adverse effects 

(i.e., based on NMFS’ criteria for 

behavioral harassment, TTS, or PTS)? If 

so, at what levels are they exposed? 

(b) If marine mammals are exposed to 

MFAS/HFAS, do they redistribute 

geographically as a result of continued 

exposure? If so, how long does the 

redistribution last? 

(c) If marine mammals are exposed to 

MFAS/HFAS, what are their behavioral 

responses to various levels? 

(d) What are the behavioral responses 

of marine mammals that are exposed to 

explosives at specific levels? 

(e) Is the Navy’s suite of mitigation 

measures for MFAS/HFAS and 

explosives (e.g., Protective Measures 

Assessment Protocol, major exercise 

measures agreed to by the Navy through 

permitting) effective at avoiding TTS, 

injury, and mortality of marine 

mammals? 

Given the larger scope of training 

events within other Navy range 

complexes as compared to the GoA, not 

all of these original five study questions 

would necessarily be addressed within 

the GoA TMAA Monitoring Plan. 

Rather, data collected from the GoA 

monitoring efforts would be used to 

supplement a consolidated range 

complex marine mammal monitoring 

report incorporating data from the 

Hawaii Range Complex, Marianas Island 

Range Complex, Northwest Training 

Range Complex, and Southern 

California Range Complex. 

Data gathered in these studies will be 

collected by qualified, professional 

marine mammal biologists that are 

experts in their field. 

Monitoring methods proposed for the 

GoA include use of passive acoustic 

monitoring (PAM) to primarily focus on 

providing additional data or study 

questions (b) and (c). 

This monitoring plan has been 

designed to gather data on all species of 

marine mammals that are observed in 

the GoA TMAA study area; however, 

the Navy will prioritize monitoring 

efforts for ESA-listed species and 

beaked whale species. The Plan 

recognizes that deep-diving and cryptic 

species of marine mammals, such as 

beaked whales and sperm whales, may 

have low probability of visual detection 

(Barlow and Gisiner, 2006). Therefore, 

methods will be utilized to address this 

issue (e.g., PAM). 

During the comment period on the 

Notice of Receipt (75 FR 5575, February 

3, 2010) for the GoA TMAA action, 

NMFS received multiple public 

comments suggesting that there are 

inadequate density, distribution, and 

abundance data for marine mammals in 

the GoA TMAA. As mentioned 

previously, the Navy funded a $250,000 

density survey in the off-shore waters of 

the GoA TMAA in April, 2009. As noted 

above, the Navy’s draft monitoring plan 

was developed specifically to address 

distribution and abundance of marine 

mammals, and the year-round PAM 

recorders may fill in some of the 

seasonal data-gaps. NMFS believes that 

we should vigorously target this 

baseline information need with the 

monitoring plan and we will continue to 

work with the Navy on the draft plan, 

and in consideration of the public 

comments that we receive on this 

proposed rule. During the public 

comment period, we encourage the 

public to recommend the most effective 

regionally specific methods for 

gathering the needed marine mammal 

density, distribution, and abundance 

information and to prioritize the 

specific data needs (species, time of 

year, etc.). This information will ensure 

the design of the most effective 

Monitoring Plan with the resources 

available. 

In addition to the Monitoring Plan for 

the GoA, the Navy has established an 

Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring 

Program (ICMP). The ICMP is a Navywide monitoring framework that will 

provide an overarching structure and 

coordination that will, over time, 

compile data from all Navy rangespecific monitoring plans; the GoA 

TMAA plan is just one component of 

the ICMP. The overall objective of the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64550 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

ICMP is to assimilate relevant data 

collected across Navy range complexes 

in order to answer questions pertaining 

to the impact of MFAS and underwater 

explosive detonations on marine 

animals. Top priorities of the ICMP 

include: Monitor Navy training events, 

particularly those involving MFAS and 

underwater detonations; collect data to 

support estimating the number of 

individuals exposed to sound levels 

above current regulatory thresholds; 

assess the efficacy and practicability of 

monitoring and mitigation tools and 

techniques and the Navy’s current 

mitigation methods; and add to the 

overall knowledge base on potential 

behavioral and physiological effects to 

marine species from MFAS and 

underwater detonations. More 

information about the ICMP may be 

found in the draft Monitoring Plan for 

the GoA. 

Monitoring Workshop 

The Navy, with guidance and support 

from NMFS, will convene a Monitoring 

Workshop, including marine mammal 

and acoustic experts as well as other 

interested parties, in 2011. The 

Monitoring Workshop participants will 

review the monitoring results from other 

Navy rules and LOAs (e.g., the Southern 

California Range Complex (SOCAL), 

Hawaii Range Complex (HRC), etc.). The 

Monitoring Workshop participants will 

provide their individual 

recommendations to the Navy and 

NMFS on the monitoring plan(s) after 

also considering the current science 

(including Navy research and 

development) and working within the 

framework of available resources and 

feasibility of implementation. NMFS 

and the Navy will then analyze the 

input from the Monitoring Workshop 

participants and determine the best way 

forward from a national perspective. 

Subsequent to the Monitoring 

Workshop, modifications will be 

applied to monitoring plans as 

appropriate. 

Adaptive Management 

The final regulations governing the 

take of marine mammals incidental to 

Navy training exercises in the GoA 

TMAA will contain an adaptive 

management component. Our 

understanding of the effects of MFAS 

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 in the Pacific Ocean). The 

use of adaptive management will allow 

NMFS to consider new information 

from different sources to determine 

(with input from the Navy regarding 

practicability) on an annual or biennial 

basis if mitigation or monitoring 

measures should be modified (including 

additions or deletions) if new data 

suggest that such modifications are 

appropriate for subsequent annual or 

biennial LOAs. 

The following are some of the 

possible sources of applicable data: (1) 

Findings of the Workshop that the Navy 

will convene in 2011 to analyze 

monitoring results to date, review 

current science, and recommend 

modifications, as appropriate, to the 

monitoring protocols to increase 

monitoring effectiveness; (2) compiled 

results of Navy funded research and 

development (R&D) studies (presented 

pursuant to the ICMP, which is 

discussed elsewhere in this document); 

(3) results from specific stranding 

investigations (involving coincident 

MFAS or explosives training or not 

involving coincident use); (4) results 

from general marine mammal and sound 

research; and (5) any information which 

reveals that marine mammals may have 

been taken in a manner, extent or 

number not authorized by these 

regulations or subsequent Letters of 

Authorization. 

Separately, in July 2010, NMFS and 

the Navy convened the ‘‘Marine 

Mammals and Sound’’ workshop, which 

brought together science and policy 

experts from the government, the 

academic community, and nongovernmental organizations with the 

goals of prioritizing marine mammal 

research needs and opening up a broad 

discussion of (and potentially making 

recommendations regarding) some of 

the current management issues related 

to marine mammals and sound. After 

the information and ideas gathered 

during this workshop are sorted, 

compiled, and assessed, NMFS will use 

them, as appropriate, to inform our 

management decisions on issues such as 

appropriate mitigation and monitoring. 

In addition to considering these 

workshop products in the broader 

context of all MMPA authorizations that 

the Office of Protected Resources, they 

will also be considered as NMFS and 

the Navy work through the Adaptive 

Management process outlined for the 

GOA below. 

Mitigation measures could be 

modified, added, or deleted if new 

information suggests that such 

modifications would have a reasonable 

likelihood of accomplishing the goals of 

mitigation laid out in this proposed rule 

and if the measures are practicable. 

NMFS would also coordinate with the 

Navy to modify, add, or delete the 

existing monitoring requirements if the 

new data suggest that the addition of (or 

deletion of) a particular measure would 

more effectively accomplish the goals of 

monitoring laid out in this proposed 

rule. The reporting requirements 

associated with this proposed rule are 

designed to provide NMFS with 

monitoring data from the previous year 

to allow NMFS to consider the data and 

issue LOAs. NMFS and the Navy will 

meet, prior to LOA issuance, to discuss 

the monitoring reports, Navy R&D 

developments, and current science and 

whether mitigation or monitoring 

modifications are appropriate. 

Reporting 

In order to issue an ITA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

‘‘requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such 

taking’’. Effective reporting is critical 

both to compliance as well as ensuring 

that the most value is obtained from the 

required monitoring. Proposed reporting 

requirements may be modified, 

removed, or added based on information 

or comments received during the public 

comment period. Currently, there are 

several different reporting requirements 

pursuant to these proposed regulations: 

General Notification of Injured or Dead 

Marine Mammals 

Navy personnel will ensure that 

NMFS is notified immediately (see 

Communication Plan) or as soon as 

clearance procedures allow if an 

injured, stranded, or dead marine 

mammal is found during or shortly 

after, and in the vicinity of, any Navy 

training exercise utilizing MFAS, HFAS, 

or underwater explosive detonations. 

The Navy will provide NMFS with 

species or description of the animal(s), 

the condition of the animal(s) (including 

carcass condition if the animal is dead), 

location, time of first discovery, 

observed behaviors (if alive), and photo 

or video (if available). The GoA TMAA 

Stranding Response Plan contains more 

specific reporting requirements for 

specific circumstances. 

In the event that an injured, stranded, 

or dead marine mammal is found by the 

Navy that is not in the vicinity of, or 

found during or shortly after MFAS, 

HFAS, or underwater explosive 

detonations, the Navy will report the 

same information as listed above as 

soon as operationally feasible and 

clearance procedures allow. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64551 

General Notification of a Ship Strike 

In the event of a ship strike by any 

Navy vessel, at any time or place, the 

Navy shall do the following: 

• Immediately report to NMFS the 

species identification (if known), 

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

strike if the animal has disappeared), 

and whether the animal is alive or dead 

(or unknown); 

• Report to NMFS as soon as 

operationally feasible the size and 

length of the animal, an estimate of the 

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

alive, injured and moving, unknown, 

etc.), vessel class/type and operational 

status; 

• Report to NMFS the vessel length, 

speed, and heading as soon as feasible; 

and 

• Provide NMFS a photo or video, if 

equipment is available. 

Annual GoA TMAA Monitoring Plan 

Report 

The Navy shall submit a report 

annually on December 15 describing the 

implementation and results (April 

through October of the same year) of the 

GoA TMAA Monitoring Plan, described 

above. Data collection methods will be 

standardized across range complexes to 

allow for comparison in different 

geographic locations. Although 

additional information will also be 

gathered, the marine mammal observers 

(MMOs) collecting marine mammal data 

pursuant to the GoA TMAA Monitoring 

Plan shall, at a minimum, provide the 

same marine mammal observation data 

required in the MFAS/HFAS major 

Training Exercises section of the Annual 

GoA TMAA Exercise Report referenced 

below. 

The GoA TMAA Monitoring Plan 

Report may be provided to NMFS 

within a larger report that includes the 

required Monitoring Plan Reports from 

multiple Range Complexes. 

Annual GoA TMAA Exercise Report 

The Navy will submit an Annual GoA 

TMAA Report on December 15 of every 

year (covering data gathered from April 

through October). This report shall 

contain the subsections and information 

indicated below. 

MFAS/HFAS Training Exercises 

This section shall contain the 

following information for the following 

Coordinated and Strike Group exercises: 

Joint Multi-strike Group Exercises; Joint 

Expeditionary Exercises; and Marine Air 

Ground Task Force TMAA: 

(a) Exercise Information (for each 

exercise) 

(i) Exercise designator 

(ii) Date that exercise began and 

ended 

(iii) Location 

(iv) Number and types of active 

sources used in the exercise 

(v) Number and types of passive 

acoustic sources used in exercise 

(vi) Number and types of vessels, 

aircraft, etc., participating in exercise 

(vii) Total hours of observation by 

watchstanders 

(viii) Total hours of all active sonar 

source operation 

(ix) Total hours of each active sonar 

source (along with an explanation of 

how hours are calculated for sources 

typically quantified in alternate way 

(buoys, torpedoes, etc.)). 

(x) Wave height (high, low, and 

average during exercise) 

(b) Individual marine mammal 

sighting info (for each sighting in each 

exercise) 

(i) Location of sighting 

(ii) Species (if not possible— 

indication of whale/dolphin/pinniped) 

(iii) Number of individuals 

(iv) Calves observed (y/n) 

(v) Initial Detection Sensor 

(vi) Indication of specific type of 

platform observation made from 

(including, for example, what type of 

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

(vii) Length of time observers 

maintained visual contact with marine 

mammal(s) 

(viii) Wave height (in feet) 

(ix) Visibility 

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

(xi) Indication of whether animal is 

<200 yd, 200–500 yd, 500–1,000 yd, 

1,000–2,000 yd, or >2,000 yd from sonar 

source in (x) above 

(xiii) Mitigation Implementation— 

Whether operation of sonar sensor was 

delayed, or sonar was powered or shut 

down, and how long the delay was 

(xiv) If source in use (x) is 

hullmounted, true bearing of animal 

from ship, true direction of ship’s travel, 

and estimation of animal’s motion 

relative to ship (opening, closing, 

parallel) 

(xv) Observed behavior— 

Watchstanders shall report, in plain 

language and without trying to 

categorize in any way, the observed 

behavior of the animals (such as animal 

closing to bow ride, paralleling course/ 

speed, floating on surface and not 

swimming, etc.) 

(c) An evaluation (based on data 

gathered during all of the exercises) of 

the effectiveness of mitigation measures 

designed to avoid exposing marine 

mammals to MFAS, that shall identify 

the specific observations that support 

any conclusions the Navy reaches about 

the effectiveness of the mitigation 

ASW Summary 

This section shall include the 

following information as summarized 

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

(a) Total Hours—Total annual hours 

of each type of sonar source (along with 

explanation of how hours are calculated 

for sources typically quantified in 

alternate way (buoys, torpedoes, etc.)) 

(b) Cumulative Impacts—To the 

extent practicable, the Navy, in 

coordination with NMFS, shall develop 

and implement a method of annually 

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

utilizing hull-mounted sonar. The report 

shall present an annual (and seasonal, 

where practicable) depiction of nonmajor training exercises geographically 

across the GoA TMAA. The Navy shall 

include (in the GoA TMAA annual 

report) a brief annual progress update 

on the status of the development of an 

effective and unclassified method to 

report this information until an agreedupon (with NMFS) method has been 

developed and implemented. 

Sonar Exercise Notification 

The Navy shall submit to the NMFS 

Office of Protected Resources (specific 

contact information to be provided in 

LOA) either an electronic (preferably) or 

verbal report within fifteen calendar 

days after the completion of any MTER 

indicating: 

(1) Location of the exercise 

(2) Beginning and end dates of the 

exercise 

(3) Type of exercise 

Improved Extended Echo-Ranging 

System (IEER)/Advanced Extended 

Echo-Ranging System (AEER) Summary 

This section shall include an annual 

summary of the following IEER and 

AEER information: 

(i) Total number of IEER and AEER 

events conducted in GoA TMAA Study 

Area 

(ii) Total expended/detonated rounds 

(buoys) 

(iii) Total number of self-scuttled 

IEER rounds 

Sinking Exercises (SINKEXs) 

This section shall include the 

following information for each SINKEX 

completed that year: 

(a) Exercise information: 

(i) Location 

(ii) Date and time exercise began and 

ended 

(iii) Total hours of observation by 

watchstanders before, during, and after 

exercise 

(iv) Total number and types of rounds 

expended/explosives detonated 

(v) Number and types of passive 

acoustic sources used in exercise 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64552 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(vi) Total hours of passive acoustic 

search time 

(vii) Number and types of vessels, 

aircraft, etc., participating in exercise 

(viii) Wave height in feet (high, low 

and average during exercise) 

(ix) Narrative description of sensors 

and platforms utilized for marine 

mammal detection and timeline 

illustrating how marine mammal 

detection was conducted 

(b) Individual marine mammal 

observation during SINKEX (by Navy 

lookouts) information: 

(i) Location of sighting 

(ii) Species (if not possible— 

indication of whale/dolphin/pinniped) 

(iii) Number of individuals 

(iv) Calves observed (y/n) 

(v) Initial detection sensor 

(vi) Length of time observers 

maintained visual contact with marine 

mammal 

(vii) Wave height 

(viii) Visibility 

(ix) Whether sighting was before, 

during, or after detonations/exercise, 

and how many minutes before or after 

(x) Distance of marine mammal from 

actual detonations (or target spot if not 

yet detonated)—use four categories to 

define distance: (1) The modeled injury 

threshold radius for the largest 

explosive used in that exercise type in 

that OPAREA (762 m for SINKEX in the 

GoA TMAA); (2) the required exclusion 

zone (1 nm for SINKEX in the GoA 

TMAA); (3) the required observation 

distance (if different than the exclusion 

zone (2 nm for SINKEX in the GoA 

TMAA); and (4) greater than the 

required observed distance. For 

example, in this case, the observer 

would indicate if <762 m, from 762 m 

to 1 nm, from 1 nm to 2 nm, and >2 nm. 

(xi) Observed behavior— 

Watchstanders will report, in plain 

language and without trying to 

categorize in any way, the observed 

behavior of the animals (such as animal 

closing to bow ride, paralleling course/ 

speed, floating on surface and not 

swimming etc.), including speed and 

direction. 

(xii) Resulting mitigation 

implementation—Indicate whether 

explosive detonations were delayed, 

ceased, modified, or not modified due to 

marine mammal presence and for how 

long. 

(xiii) If observation occurs while 

explosives are detonating in the water, 

indicate munitions type in use at time 

of marine mammal detection. 

Explosives Summary 

The Navy is in the process of 

improving the methods used to track 

explosive use to provide increased 

granularity. To the extent practicable, 

the Navy will provide the information 

described below for all of their 

explosive exercises. Until the Navy is 

able to report in full the information 

below, they will provide an annual 

update on the Navy’s explosive tracking 

methods, including improvements from 

the previous year. 

(a) Total annual number of each type 

of explosive exercise (of those identified 

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

propsed rule) conducted in the GoA 

TMAA 

(b) Total annual expended/detonated 

rounds (missiles, bombs, etc.) for each 

explosive type 

GoA TMAA 5-Yr Comprehensive Report 

The Navy shall submit to NMFS a 

draft report that analyzes and 

summarizes all of the multi-year marine 

mammal information gathered during 

ASW and explosive exercises for which 

annual reports are required (Annual 

GoA TMAA Exercise Reports and GoA 

TMAA Monitoring Plan Reports). This 

report shall be submitted at the end of 

the fourth year of the rule (December 

2014), covering activities that have 

occurred through October 2014. 

Comprehensive National ASW Report 

By June 2014, the Navy shall submit 

a draft National Report that analyzes, 

compares, and summarizes the active 

sonar data gathered (through January 1, 

2014) from the watchstanders and 

pursuant to the implementation of the 

Monitoring Plans for the Northwest 

Training Range Complex, the Southern 

California Range Complex, the Atlantic 

Fleet Active Sonar Training, the Hawaii 

Range Complex, the Mariana Islands 

Range Complex, and the Gulf of Alaska. 

The Navy shall respond to NMFS 

comments and requests for additional 

information or clarification on the GoA 

TMAA Comprehensive Report, the 

Comprehensive National ASW report, 

the Annual GoA TMAA Exercise Report, 

or the Annual GoA TMAA Monitoring 

Plan Report (or the multi-Range 

Complex Annual Monitoring Plan 

Report, if that is how the Navy chooses 

to submit the information) if submitted 

within 3 months of receipt. These 

reports will be considered final after the 

Navy has adequately addressed NMFS’ 

comments or provided the requested 

information, or three months after the 

submittal of the draft if NMFS does not 

comment by then. 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 

As mentioned previously, one of the 

main purposes of NMFS’ effects 

assessments is to identify the 

permissible methods of taking, meaning: 

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

from anthropogenic noise vs. from ship 

strike, etc.); the regulatory level of take 

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

harassment) and the amount of take. 

The Potential Effects section identified 

the lethal responses, physical trauma, 

sensory impairment (permanent and 

temporary threshold shifts and acoustic 

masking), physiological responses 

(particular stress responses), and 

behavioral responses that could 

potentially result from exposure to 

MFAS/HFAS or underwater explosive 

detonations. This section will relate the 

potential effects to marine mammals 

from MFAS/HFAS and underwater 

detonation of explosives to the MMPA 

statutory definitions of Level A and 

Level B Harassment and attempt to 

quantify the effects that might occur 

from the specific training activities that 

the Navy is proposing in the GoA. 

As mentioned previously, behavioral 

responses are context-dependent, 

complex, and influenced to varying 

degrees by a number of factors other 

than just received level. For example, an 

animal may respond differently to a 

sound emanating from a ship that is 

moving towards the animal than it 

would to an identical received level 

coming from a vessel that is moving 

away, or to a ship traveling at a different 

speed or at a different distance from the 

animal. At greater distances, though, the 

nature of vessel movements could also 

potentially not have any effect on the 

animal’s response to the sound. In any 

case, a full description of the suite of 

factors that elicited a behavioral 

response would require a mention of the 

vicinity, speed and movement of the 

vessel, or other factors. So, while sound 

sources and the received levels are the 

primary focus of the analysis and those 

that are laid out quantitatively in the 

regulatory text, it is with the 

understanding that other factors related 

to the training are sometimes 

contributing to the behavioral responses 

of marine mammals, although they 

cannot be quantified. 

Definition of Harassment 

As mentioned previously, with 

respect to military readiness activities, 

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

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

or has the significant potential to injure 

a marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild [Level A Harassment]; 

or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely 

to disturb a marine mammal or marine 

mammal stock in the wild by causing 

disruption of natural behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering, to a point where 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64553 

such behavioral patterns are abandoned 

or significantly altered [Level B 

Harassment]. 

Level B Harassment 

Of the potential effects that were 

described in the previous sections, the 

following are the types of effects that 

fall into the Level B Harassment 

category: 

Behavioral Harassment—Behavioral 

disturbance that rises to the level 

described in the definition above, when 

resulting from exposures to MFAS/ 

HFAS or underwater detonations (or 

another stressor), is considered Level B 

Harassment. Louder sounds (when other 

factors are not considered) are generally 

expected to elicit a stronger response. 

Some of the lower level physiological 

stress responses discussed in the 

previous sections will also likely cooccur 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 

category. Behavioral harassment would 

not typically include behaviors ranked 

0–3 in Southall et al. (2007). 

Acoustic Masking and 

Communication Impairment—The 

severity or importance of an acoustic 

masking event can vary based on the 

length of time that the masking occurs, 

the frequency of the masking signal 

(which determines which sounds are 

masked, which may be of varying 

importance to the animal), and other 

factors. Some acoustic masking would 

be considered Level B Harassment, if it 

can disrupt natural behavioral patterns 

by interrupting or limiting the marine 

mammal’s receipt or transmittal of 

important information or environmental 

cues. 

TTS—As discussed previously, TTS 

can disrupt behavioral patterns by 

inhibiting an animal’s ability to 

communicate with conspecifics and 

interpret other environmental cues 

important for predator avoidance and 

prey capture. However, depending on 

the degree (elevation of threshold in 

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

frequency range of TTS, and the context 

in which it is experienced, TTS can 

have effects on marine mammals 

ranging from discountable to serious 

(similar to those discussed in auditory 

masking). For example, a marine 

mammal may be able to readily 

compensate for a brief, relatively small 

amount of TTS in a non-critical 

frequency range that takes place during 

a time when the animal is traveling 

through the open ocean, where ambient 

noise is lower and there are not as many 

competing sounds present. 

Alternatively, a larger amount and 

longer duration of TTS sustained during 

a time when communication is critical 

for successful mother/calf interactions 

could have more serious impacts if it 

was in the same frequency band as the 

necessary vocalizations and of a severity 

that impeded communication. 

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) 

indicates 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 previous sections, 

following are the types of effects that 

fall into the Level A Harassment 

category: 

PTS—PTS (resulting from either 

exposure to MFAS/HFAS or explosive 

detonations) is irreversible and 

considered an injury. PTS results from 

exposure to intense sounds that cause a 

permanent loss of inner or outer 

cochlear hair cells or exceed the elastic 

limits of certain tissues and membranes 

in the middle and inner ears and result 

in changes in the chemical composition 

of the inner ear fluids. Although PTS is 

considered an injury, the effects of PTS 

on the fitness of an individual can vary 

based on the degree of TTS and the 

frequency band that it is in. 

Tissue Damage Due to Acoustically 

Mediated Bubble Growth–A few theories 

suggest ways in which gas bubbles 

become enlarged through exposure to 

intense sounds (MFAS/HFAS) to the 

point where tissue damage results. In 

rectified diffusion, exposure to a sound 

field would cause bubbles to increase in 

size. A short duration of active sonar 

pings (such as that which an animal 

exposed to MFAS would be most likely 

to encounter) would not likely be long 

enough to drive bubble growth to any 

substantial size. Alternately, bubbles 

could be destabilized by high-level 

sound exposures such that bubble 

growth then occurs through static 

diffusion of gas out of the tissues. The 

degree of supersaturation and exposure 

levels observed to cause microbubble 

destabilization are unlikely to occur, 

either alone or in concert because of 

how close an animal would need to be 

to the sound source to be exposed to 

high enough levels, especially 

considering the likely avoidance of the 

sound source and the required 

mitigation. Still, possible tissue damage 

from either of these processes would be 

considered an injury or, potentially, 

mortality. 

Tissue Damage Due to Behaviorally 

Mediated Bubble Growth—Several 

authors suggest mechanisms in which 

marine mammals could behaviorally 

respond to exposure to MFAS/HFAS by 

altering their dive patterns in a manner 

(unusually rapid ascent, unusually long 

series of surface dives, etc.) that might 

result in unusual bubble formation or 

growth ultimately resulting in tissue 

damage (e.g., emboli). In this scenario, 

the rate of ascent would need to be 

sufficiently rapid to compromise 

behavioral or physiological protections 

against nitrogen bubble formation. 

There is considerable disagreement 

among scientists as to the likelihood of 

this phenomenon (Piantadosi and 

Thalmann, 2004; Evans and Miller, 

2003). Although it has been argued that 

the tissue effects observed from recent 

beaked whale strandings are consistent 

with gas emboli and bubble-induced 

tissue separations (Jepson et al., 2003; 

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

2006), nitrogen bubble formation as the 

cause of the traumas has not been 

verified. If tissue damage does occur by 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64554 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

this phenomenon, it would be 

considered an injury or, potentially, 

mortality. 

Physical Disruption of Tissues 

Resulting From Explosive Shock Wave— 

Physical damage of tissues resulting 

from a shock wave (from an explosive 

detonation) is classified as an injury. 

Blast effects are greatest at the gas-liquid 

interface (Landsberg, 2000) and 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. 

Vessel Strike, Ordnance Strike, 

Entanglement—Although not 

anticipated (or authorized) to occur, 

vessel strike, ordnance strike, or 

entanglement in materials associated 

with the specified action are considered 

Level A Harassment or mortality. 

Acoustic Take Criteria 

For the purposes of an MMPA 

incidental take authorization, three 

types of take are identified: Level B 

Harassment; Level A Harassment; and 

mortality (or serious injury leading to 

mortality). The categories of marine 

mammal responses (physiological and 

behavioral) that fall into the two 

harassment categories were described in 

the previous section. 

Because the physiological and 

behavioral responses of the majority of 

the marine mammals exposed to MFAS/ 

HFAS and underwater detonations 

cannot be detected or measured 

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

visible external to animal, a portion of 

exposed animals are underwater, many 

animals are located many miles from 

observers and covering very large area, 

etc.) and because NMFS must authorize 

take prior to the impacts to marine 

mammals, a method is needed to 

estimate the number of individuals that 

will be taken, pursuant to the MMPA, 

based on the proposed action. To this 

end, NMFS developed acoustic criteria 

that estimate at what received level 

(when exposed to MFAS/HFAS or 

explosive detonations) Level B 

Harassment, Level A Harassment, and 

mortality (for explosives) of marine 

mammals would occur. The acoustic 

criteria for MFAS/HFAS and 

Underwater Detonations (IEER) are 

discussed below. 

MFAS/HFAS Acoustic Criteria 

Because relatively few applicable data 

exist to support acoustic criteria 

specifically for HFAS and because such 

a small percentage of the active sonar 

pings that marine mammals will likely 

be exposed to incidental to this activity 

come from an HFAS source (the vast 

majority come from MFAS sources), 

NMFS will apply the criteria developed 

for the MFAS to the HFAS as well. 

NMFS utilizes three acoustic criteria 

to assess impacts from MFAS/HFAS: 

PTS (injury—Level A Harassment), TTS 

(Level B Harassment), and behavioral 

harassment (Level B Harassment). 

Because there is related quantitative 

data, the TTS criterion is a valuable tool 

for more specifically identifying the 

likely impacts to marine mammals from 

MFAS/HFAS, plus the PTS criteria are 

extrapolated from it. However, TTS is 

simply a subset of Level B Harassment— 

the likely ultimate effects of which are 

not anticipated to necessarily be any 

more severe than the behavioral impacts 

that would be expected to occur at the 

same received levels. Because the TTS 

and PTS criteria are derived similarly 

and the PTS criteria are extrapolated 

from the TTS data, the TTS and PTS 

acoustic criteria will be presented first, 

before the behavioral criteria. 

For more information regarding these 

criteria, please see the Navy’s DEIS for 

the GoA. 

Level B Harassment Threshold (TTS) 

As mentioned above, behavioral 

disturbance, acoustic masking, and TTS 

are all considered Level B Harassment. 

Marine mammals would usually be 

behaviorally disturbed at lower received 

levels than those at which they would 

likely sustain TTS, so the levels at 

which behavioral disturbances are likely 

to occur are considered the onset of 

Level B Harassment. The behavioral 

responses of marine mammals to sound 

are variable, context specific, and, 

therefore, difficult to quantify (see Risk 

Function section, below). Conversely, 

TTS is a physiological effect that has 

been studied and quantified in 

laboratory conditions. Because data 

exist to support an estimate of the 

received levels at which marine 

mammals will incur TTS, NMFS uses an 

acoustic criterion to estimate the 

number of marine mammals that might 

sustain TTS. TTS is a subset of Level B 

Harassment. 

A number of investigators have 

measured TTS in marine mammals. 

These studies measured hearing 

thresholds in trained marine mammals 

before and after exposure to intense 

sounds. The existing cetacean TTS data 

are summarized in the following bullets: 

• Schlundt et al. (2000) reported the 

results of TTS experiments conducted 

with five bottlenose dolphins and two 

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 

(exposure level (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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64555 

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 19–33 dB from behavioral 

measurements and 40–45 dB 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 were exposed to continuous 

underwater sounds at levels of 80 and 

95 dB sensation level at 2.5 and 3.5 kHz 

for up to 50 minutes. Mean TTS shifts 

of up to 12.2 dB occurred with the 

harbor seals showing the largest shift of 

28.1 dB. Increasing the sound duration 

had a greater effect on TTS than 

increasing the sound level from 80 to 95 

dB. 

Some of the more important data 

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

cause a just-measurable amount of TTS) 

often defined as 6 dB of TTS (e.g., 

Schlundt et al., 2000) and the fact that 

energy metrics (sound exposure levels 

(SEL) which include a duration 

component) better predict when an 

animal will sustain TTS than pressure 

(SPL) alone. NMFS’ TTS criterion 

(which indicates the received level at 

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

MFAS/HFAS and cetaceans is 195 dB re 

1 μPa2-s (based on mid-frequency 

cetaceans; no published data exist on 

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

(2007)). 

A detailed description of how this 

TTS criterion was derived from the 

results of the above studies may be 

found in Chapter 3 of Southall et al. 

(2007), as well as the Navy’s GoA 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 Level A harassment. 

PTS data do not currently exist for 

marine mammals and are unlikely to be 

obtained due to ethical concerns. 

However, PTS levels for these animals 

may be estimated using TTS data from 

marine mammals and relationships 

between TTS and PTS that have been 

discovered through study of terrestrial 

mammals. NMFS uses the following 

acoustic criterion for injury of 

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

mid-frequency cetaceans; no published 

data exist on auditory effects of noise in 

low- or high-frequency cetaceans) 

(Southall et al. (2007)). 

This criterion is based on a 20-dB 

increase in SEL over that required for 

onset-TTS. Extrapolations from 

terrestrial mammal data indicate that 

PTS occurs at 40 dB or more of TS, and 

that TS growth occurs at a rate of 

approximately 1.6 dB TS per dB 

increase in EL. There is a 34-dB TS 

difference between onset-TTS (6 dB) 

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 GoA 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) does not 

exist. However, based on the number of 

years (more than 60) and number of 

hours of MFAS per year that the U.S. 

(and other countries) has operated 

compared to the reported (and verified) 

cases of associated marine mammal 

strandings, NMFS believes that the 

probability of these types of injuries is 

very low. 

Level B Harassment Risk Function 

(Behavioral Harassment) 

In 2006, NMFS issued the first MMPA 

authorization to allow the take of 

marine mammals incidental to MFAS 

(to the Navy for RIMPAC). For that 

authorization, NMFS used 173 dB SEL 

as the criterion for the onset of 

behavioral harassment (Level B 

Harassment). This type of single number 

criterion is referred to as a step function, 

in which (in this example) all animals 

estimated to be exposed to received 

levels above 173 db SEL would be 

predicted to be taken by Level B 

Harassment and all animals exposed to 

less than 173dB SEL would not be taken 

by Level B Harassment. As mentioned 

previously, marine mammal behavioral 

responses to sound are highly variable 

and context specific (affected by 

differences in acoustic conditions; 

differences between species and 

populations; differences in gender, age, 

reproductive status, or social behavior; 

or the prior experience of the 

individuals), which does not support 

the use of a step function to estimate 

behavioral harassment. 

Unlike step functions, acoustic risk 

continuum functions (which are also 

called ‘‘exposure-response functions,’’ 

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

assessment contexts) allow for 

probability of a response that NMFS 

would classify as harassment to occur 

over a range of possible received levels 

(instead of one number) and assume that 

the probability of a response depends 

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

received level of sound) and that the 

probability of a response increases as 

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

January 2009, NMFS issued three final 

rules governing the incidental take of 

marine mammals (Navy’s Hawaii Range 

Complex, Southern California Range 

Complex, and Atlantic Fleet Active 

Sonar Training) that used a risk 

continuum to estimate the percent of 

marine mammals exposed to various 

levels of MFAS that would respond in 

a manner NMFS considers harassment. 

The Navy and NMFS have previously 

used acoustic risk functions to estimate 

the probable responses of marine 

mammals to acoustic exposures for 

other training and research programs. 

Examples of previous application 

include the Navy FEISs on the 

SURTASS LFA sonar (U.S. Department 

of the Navy, 2001c); the North Pacific 

Acoustic Laboratory experiments 

conducted off the Island of Kauai (Office 

of Naval Research, 2001), and the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64556 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Supplemental EIS for SURTASS LFA 

sonar (U.S. Department of the Navy, 

2007d). As discussed in the Effects 

section, factors other than received level 

(such as distance from or bearing to the 

sound source) can affect the way that 

marine mammals respond; however, 

data to support a quantitative analysis of 

those (and other factors) do not 

currently exist. NMFS will continue to 

modify these criteria as new data that 

meet NMFS standards of quality become 

available and can be appropriately and 

effectively incorporated. 

The particular acoustic risk functions 

developed by NMFS and the Navy (see 

Figures 1a and 1b) estimate the 

probability of behavioral responses to 

MFAS/HFAS (interpreted as the 

percentage of the exposed population) 

that NMFS would classify as harassment 

for the purposes of the MMPA given 

exposure to specific received levels of 

MFAS/HFAS. The mathematical 

function (below) underlying this curve 

is a cumulative probability distribution 

adapted from a solution in Feller (1968) 

and was also used in predicting risk for 

the Navy’s SURTASS LFA MMPA 

authorization as well. 

R

L B

K

L B

K

A

A =

− ⎛ −

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟

− ⎛ −

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟

−

−

1

1

2

Where: 

R = Risk (0–1.0) 

L = Received level (dB re: 1 μPa) 

B = Basement received level = 120 dB re: 1 

μPa 

K = Received level increment above B where 

50-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 would 

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 

three-phase behavioral response study 

in the Bahamas that is expected to 

provide some initial information on 

beaked whales, the species identified as 

the most sensitive to MFAS. NMFS is 

leading this international effort with 

scientists from various academic 

institutions and research organizations 

to conduct studies on how marine 

mammals respond to underwater sound 

exposures. The results from Phase 1 of 

this study are discussed in the Potential 

Effects of Specified Activities on Marine 

Mammals section, and the preliminary 

results from Phase 2 became available in 

October 2008. Phase 3 was conducted in 

the Mediterranean Sea in the summer of 

2009. Additionally, the Navy recently 

tagged whales in conjunction with the 

2008 RIMPAC exercises; however, 

analyses of these data are not yet 

complete. Until additional appropriate 

data are available, however, NMFS and 

the Navy have determined that the 

following three data sets are most 

applicable for direct use in establishing 

the K parameter for the MFAS/HFAS 

risk function. These data sets, 

summarized below, represent the only 

known data that specifically relate 

altered behavioral responses (that NMFS 

would consider Level B Harassment) to 

exposure—at specific received levels— 

to MFAS and sources within or having 

components within the range of MFAS 

(1–10 kHz). 

Even though these data are considered 

the most representative of the proposed 

specified activities, and therefore the 

most appropriate on which to base the 

K parameter (which basically 

determines the midpoint) of the risk 

function, these data have limitations, 

which are discussed in Appendix D of 

the Navy’s DEIS for the GoA. 

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 captive 

marine mammals trained to perform 

tasks on command, scientists evaluated 

whether the marine mammals still 

performed these tasks when exposed to 

mid-frequency tones. Altered behavior 

during experimental trials usually 

involved refusal of animals to return to 

the site of the sound stimulus, but also 

included attempts to avoid an exposure 

in progress, aggressive behavior, or 

refusal to further participate in tests. 

Finneran and Schlundt (2004) 

examined behavioral observations 

recorded by the trainers or test 

coordinators during the Schlundt et al. 

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

2005) experiments. These included 

observations from 193 exposure sessions 

(fatiguing stimulus level > 141 dB re 

1μPa) conducted by Schlundt et al. 

(2000) and 21 exposure sessions 

conducted by Finneran et al. (2001, 

2003, 2005). The TTS experiments that 

supported Finneran and Schlundt 

(2004) are further explained below. 

Schlundt et al. (2000) provided a 

detailed summary of the behavioral 

responses of trained marine mammals 

during TTS tests conducted at SSC San 

Diego with 1-sec tones and exposure 

frequencies of 0.4 kHz, 3 kHz, 10 kHz, 

20 kHz and 75 kHz. Schlundt et al. 

(2000) reported eight individual TTS 

experiments. The experiments were 

conducted in San Diego Bay. Because of 

the variable ambient noise in the bay, 

low-level broadband masking noise was 

used to keep hearing thresholds 

consistent despite fluctuations in the 

ambient noise. Schlundt et al. (2000) 

reported that ‘‘behavioral alterations,’’ or 

deviations from the behaviors the 

animals being tested had been trained to 

exhibit, occurred as the animals were 

exposed to increasing fatiguing stimulus 

levels. 

Finneran et al. (2001, 2003, 2005) 

conducted two 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP19OC10.011</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64557 

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-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-min signals played 

sequentially three times over. The three 

signals had a 60 percent duty cycle and 

consisted of: (1) Alternating 1-sec pure 

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

logarithmic down-sweep from 4,500 Hz 

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

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

amplitude modulated at 120 Hz and 

each 1-sec long. The purposes of the 

alert signal were (a) to pique the 

mammalian auditory system with 

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 did the 

following: (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 1.1 yd (1 

m) of the surface. 

3. Odontocete Field Data (Haro 

Strait—U.S. Ship (USS) SHOUP)—In 

May 2003, killer whales (Orcinus orca) 

were observed exhibiting behavioral 

responses generally described as 

avoidance behavior while the 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 the Navy and NMFS 

(NMFS, 2005; Fromm, 2004a, 2004b; 

DON, 2003). Although these 

observations were made in an 

uncontrolled environment, the sound 

field that may have been associated with 

the active sonar operations was 

estimated using standard acoustic 

propagation models that were verified 

(for some but not all signals) based on 

calibrated in situ measurements from an 

independent researcher who recorded 

the sounds during the event. Behavioral 

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 animals upon actual 

exposure to AN/SQS–53 sonar. 

The U.S. Department of Commerce 

(NMFS, 2005a), U.S. Department of the 

Navy (2004b), and 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 MFAS (range 

modeled possible received levels: 150 to 

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

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 

(except harbor porpoises) and pinnipeds 

and A = 8 is appropriate for mysticetes. 

The use of a steepness parameter of A 

= 10 for odontocetes for the MFAS/ 

HFAS risk function was based on the 

use of the same value for the SURTASS 

LFA risk continuum, which was 

supported by a sensitivity analysis of 

the parameter presented in Appendix D 

of the SURTASS/LFA FEIS (DoN, 

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 NMFS, 2008). 

NMFS determined that a lower 

steepness parameter (A = 8), resulting in 

a shallower curve, was appropriate for 

use with mysticetes and MFAS/HFAS. 

The Nowacek et al. (2004) dataset 

contains the only data illustrating 

mysticete behavioral responses to a 

sound source that encompasses 

frequencies in the mid-frequency sound 

spectrum. A shallower curve (achieved 

by using A = 8) better reflects the risk 

of behavioral response at the relatively 

low received levels at which behavioral 

responses of right whales were reported 

in the Nowacek et al. (2004) data. 

Compared to the odontocete curve, this 

adjustment results in an increase in the 

proportion of the exposed population of 

mysticetes being classified as 

behaviorally harassed at lower RLs, 

such as those reported in the Novacek 

report, and is supported by the only 

representative dataset currently 

available. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64558 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / 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 MFAS) at a 

given received level of sound. For 

example, at 165 dB SPL (dB re: 1μPa 

rms), the risk (or probability) of 

harassment is defined according to this 

function as 50 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP19OC10.012</GPH> EP19OC10.013</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64559 

sound source, the number of sound 

sources, and whether the sound sources 

are approaching or moving away from 

the animal—can be critically important 

in determining whether and how a 

marine mammal will respond to a sound 

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

that are currently available do not allow 

for incorporation of these other 

variables in the current risk functions; 

however, the risk function represents 

the best use of the data that are 

available. Additionally, although these 

other factors cannot be taken into 

consideration quantitatively in the risk 

function, NMFS considers these other 

variables qualitatively in our analysis, 

when applicable data are available. 

As more specific and applicable data 

become available for MFAS/HFAS 

sources, NMFS can use these data to 

modify the outputs generated by the risk 

function to make them more realistic. 

Ultimately, data may exist to justify the 

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

mentioned previously, the distance from 

the sound source and whether it is 

perceived as approaching or moving 

away can affect the way an animal 

responds to a sound (Wartzok et al., 

2003). In the GoA TMAA example, 

animals exposed to received levels 

between 120 and 130 dB will likely be 

76 to 105 km away 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 

responses of certain marine mammal 

species to mid-frequency sound sources 

at that received level, NMFS does not 

currently have any data that describe 

the response of marine mammals to 

mid-frequency sounds at that distance, 

much less data that compare responses 

to similar sound levels at varying 

distances (much less for MFAS/HFAS). 

However, if applicable data meeting 

NMFS standards were to become 

available, NMFS would re-evaluate the 

risk function and incorporate any 

additional variables into the ‘‘take’’ 

estimates. 

Explosive Detonation Criteria 

The criteria for mortality, Level A 

Harassment, and Level B Harassment 

resulting from explosive detonations 

were initially developed for the Navy’s 

Seawolf and Churchill ship-shock trials 

and have not changed. The criteria, 

which are applied to cetaceans and 

pinnipeds, are summarized in Table 7. 

Additional information regarding the 

derivation of these criteria is available 

in the Navy’s DEIS for the GoA TMAA, 

the LOA application, and in the Navy’s 

CHURCHILL FEIS (DoN, 2001c). 

Estimates of Potential Marine Mammal 

Exposure 

Estimating the take that will result 

from the proposed activities entails the 

following three general steps: (1) 

Propagation model estimates animals 

exposed to sources at different levels; 

(2) further modeling determines number 

of exposures to levels indicated in 

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

and (3) post-modeling corrections refine 

estimates to make them more accurate. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP19OC10.014</GPH>
64560 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

More information regarding the models 

used, the assumptions used in the 

models, and the process of estimating 

take is available in either Appendix B of 

the Navy’s Application or Appendix D 

of the Navy’s DEIS. 

(1) In order to quantify the types of 

take described in previous sections that 

are predicted to result from the Navy’s 

specified activities, the Navy first uses 

a sound propagation model that predicts 

the number of animals that will be 

exposed to a range of levels of pressure 

and energy (of the metrics used in the 

criteria) from MFAS/HFAS and 

explosive detonations based on several 

important pieces of information, 

including: 

• Characteristics of the sound sources 

• Active sonar source characteristics 

include: Source level (with horizontal 

and vertical directivity corrections), 

source depth, center frequency, source 

directivity (horizontal/vertical beam 

width and horizontal/vertical steer 

direction), and ping spacing 

• Explosive source characteristics 

include: The weight of an explosive, the 

type of explosive, the detonation depth, 

and number of successive explosions 

• Transmission loss (in up to 20 

representative environmental provinces 

in two seasons) based on: Water depth; 

sound speed variability throughout the 

water column (warm season exhibits a 

weak surface duct, cold season exhibits 

a relatively strong surface duct); bottom 

geo-acoustic properties (bathymetry); 

and surface roughness, as determined by 

wind speed 

• The estimated density of each 

marine mammal species in the GoA 

TMAA (see Table 4), horizontally 

distributed uniformly and vertically 

distributed according to dive profiles 

based on field data 

(2) Next, the criteria discussed in the 

previous section are applied to the 

estimated exposures to predict the 

number of exposures that exceed the 

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

Level B Harassment, Level A 

Harassment, and mortality. 

(3) During the development of the EIS 

for GoA TMAA, NMFS and the Navy 

determined that the output of the model 

could be made more realistic by 

applying post-modeling corrections to 

account for the following: 

• Acoustic footprints for active sonar 

sources must account for land masses 

(by subtracting them out) 

• Acoustic footprints for active sonar 

sources should not be added 

independently, rather, the degree to 

which the footprints from multiple 

ships participating in the same exercise 

would typically overlap needs to be 

taken into consideration 

• Acoustic modeling should account 

for the maximum number of individuals 

of a species that could potentially be 

exposed to active sonar within the 

course of 1 day or a discrete continuous 

sonar event if less than 24 hrs 

Last, the Navy’s specified activities 

have been described based on best 

estimates of the number of MFAS/HFAS 

hours that the Navy will conduct. The 

exact number of hours may vary from 

year to year, but will not exceed the 5- 

year total indicated in Table 8 (by 

multiplying the yearly estimate by 5) by 

more than 10 percent. NMFS estimates 

that a 10-percent increase in active 

sonar hours would result in 

approximately a 10-percent increase in 

the number of takes, and we have 

considered this possibility in our 

analysis. 

The Navy’s model provides a 

systematic and repeatable way of 

estimating the number of animals that 

will be taken by Level A and Level B 

Harassment. The model is based on the 

sound propagation characteristics of the 

sound sources, physical characteristics 

of the surrounding environment, and a 

uniform density of marine mammals. As 

mentioned in the previous sections, 

many other factors will likely affect how 

and the degree to which marine 

mammals are impacted both at the 

individual and species level by the 

Navy’s activity (such as social ecology 

of the animals, long term exposures in 

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

of quantitative data, NMFS has, and will 

continue, to evaluate that sort of 

information qualitatively. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64561 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP19OC10.015</GPH>
64562 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Mortality 

Evidence from five beaked whale 

strandings, all of which have taken 

place outside the GoA TMAA, and have 

occurred over approximately a decade, 

suggests that the exposure of beaked 

whales to MFAS in the presence of 

certain conditions (e.g., multiple units 

using active sonar, steep bathymetry, 

constricted channels, strong surface 

ducts, etc.) may result in strandings, 

potentially leading to mortality. 

Although not all five of these physical 

factors believed to have contributed to 

the likelihood of beaked whale 

strandings are present, in their 

aggregate, in the GoA TMA, scientific 

uncertainty exists regarding what other 

factors, or combination of factors, may 

contribute to beaked whale strandings. 

Accordingly, to allow for scientific 

uncertainty regarding contributing 

causes of beaked whale strandings and 

the exact behavioral or physiological 

mechanisms that can lead to the 

ultimate physical effects (stranding and/ 

or death), the Navy has requested 

authorization for (and NMFS is 

proposing authorizing) take, by injury or 

mortality. Although NMFS proposes to 

authorize take by injury or mortality of 

up to 15 beaked whales over the course 

of the 5-yr regulations, the Navy’s model 

did not predict injurious takes of beaked 

whales and neither NMFS, nor the Navy 

anticipates that marine mammal 

strandings or mortality will result from 

the operation of MFAS during Navy 

exercises within the GoA TMAA. 

Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat 

The Navy’s proposed training 

exercises could potentially affect marine 

mammal habitat through the 

introduction of pressure, sound, and 

expendable materials into the water 

column, which in turn could impact 

prey species of marine mammals, or 

cause bottom disturbance or changes in 

water quality. Each of these components 

was considered in the GoA TMAA DEIS 

and was determined by the Navy to 

have no significant or long term effect 

on marine mammal habitat. Based on 

the information below and the 

supporting information included in the 

Navy’s DEIS, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the GoA TMAA 

training activities will not have 

significant or long-term impacts on 

marine mammal habitat. Unless the 

sound source or explosive detonation is 

stationary and/or continuous over a long 

duration in one area, the effects of the 

introduction of sound into the 

environment are generally considered to 

have a less severe impact on marine 

mammal habitat than the physical 

alteration of the habitat. Marine 

mammals may be temporarily displaced 

from areas where Navy training is 

occurring, but the area will likely be 

utilized again after the activities have 

ceased. A summary of the conclusions 

are included in subsequent sections. 

Effects on Food Resources 

Fish 

The Navy’s DEIS includes a detailed 

discussion of the effects of active sonar 

on marine fish. In summary, studies 

have indicated that acoustic 

communication and orientation of fish 

may be restricted by anthropogenic 

sound in their environment. However, 

the vast majority of fish species studied 

to date are hearing generalists and 

cannot hear sounds above 500 to 1,500 

Hz (0.5 to 1.5 kHz), depending upon the 

species. Therefore, these fish species are 

not likely to be affected behaviorally 

from higher frequency sounds such as 

MFAS/HFAS. Moreover, even those 

marine species that may hear above 1.5 

kHz, such as a few sciaenids and the 

clupeids (and relatives), have relatively 

poor hearing above 1.5 kHz as compared 

to their hearing sensitivity at lower 

frequencies, so it is likely that the fish 

will only actually hear the sounds if the 

fish and source were fairly close to one 

another. Finally, since the vast majority 

of sounds that are of biological 

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

Zelick et al., 1999; Ladich and Popper, 

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

high-frequency sound, these sounds will 

not likely mask detection of lower 

frequency biologically relevant sounds. 

Thus, based on the available 

information, a reasonable conclusion is 

that there will be few, and more likely 

no, impacts on the behavior of fish from 

active sonar. 

Though mortality has been shown to 

occur in one species, a hearing 

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

evidence does not suggest that 

exposures such as those anticipated 

from MFAS/HFAS would result in 

significant fish mortality on a 

population level. The mortality that was 

observed was considered insignificant 

in light of natural daily mortality rates. 

Experiments have shown that exposure 

to loud sound can result in significant 

threshold shifts in certain fish that are 

classified as hearing specialists (but not 

those classified as hearing generalists). 

Threshold shifts are temporary, and 

considering the best available data, no 

data exist that demonstrate any longterm negative effects on marine fish 

from underwater sound associated with 

active sonar activities. Further, while 

fish may respond behaviorally to midfrequency sources, this behavioral 

modification is only expected to be brief 

and not biologically significant. 

There are currently no wellestablished thresholds for estimating 

effects to fish from explosives other than 

mortality models. Fish that are located 

in the water column, in proximity to the 

source of detonation could be injured, 

killed, or disturbed by the impulsive 

sound and possibly temporarily leave 

the area. Continental Shelf Inc. (2004) 

summarized a few studies conducted to 

determine effects associated with 

removal of offshore structures (e.g., oil 

rigs) in the Gulf of Mexico. Their 

findings revealed that at very close 

range, underwater explosions are lethal 

to most fish species regardless of size, 

shape, or internal anatomy. For most 

situations, cause of death in fishes has 

been massive organ and tissue damage 

and internal bleeding. At longer range, 

species with gas-filled swimbladders 

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

more susceptible than those without 

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

Studies also suggest that larger fishes 

are generally less susceptible to death or 

injury than small fishes. Moreover, 

elongated forms that are round in cross 

section are less at risk than deep-bodied 

forms; and orientation of fish relative to 

the shock wave may affect the extent of 

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

mackerel) also seem to be less affected 

than reef fishes. The results of most 

studies are dependent upon specific 

biological, environmental, explosive, 

and data recording factors. 

The huge variations in the fish 

population, including numbers, species, 

sizes, and orientation and range from 

the detonation point, make it very 

difficult to accurately predict mortalities 

at any specific site of detonation. Most 

fish species experience a large number 

of natural mortalities, especially during 

early life-stages, and any small level of 

mortality caused by the GoA TMAA 

training exercises involving explosives 

will likely be insignificant to the 

population as a whole. 

Invertebrates 

Very little is known about sound 

detection and use of sound by 

invertebrates (see Budelmann 1992a, 

1992b; Popper et al., 2001 for reviews). 

The limited data show that some crabs 

are able to detect sound, and there has 

been the suggestion that some other 

groups of invertebrates are also able to 

detect sounds. In addition, cephalopods 

(octopus and squid) and decapods 

(lobster, shrimp, and crab) are thought 

to sense low-frequency sound 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64563 

(Budelmann, 1992b). Packard et al. 

(1990) reported sensitivity to sound 

vibrations between 1 and 100 Hz for 

three species of cephalopods. McCauley 

et al. (2000) found evidence that squid 

exposed to seismic airguns show a 

behavioral response including inking. 

However, these were caged animals, and 

it is not clear how unconfined animals 

may have responded to the same signal 

and at the same distances used. In 

another study, Wilson et al. (2007) 

played back echolocation clicks of killer 

whales to two groups of squid (Loligo 

pealeii) in a tank. The investigators 

observed no apparent behavioral effects 

or any acoustic debilitation from 

playback of signals up to 199 to 226 dB 

re 1 μPa. It should be noted, however, 

that the lack of behavioral response by 

the squid may have been because the 

animals were in a tank rather than being 

in the wild. In another report on squid, 

Guerra et al. (2004) claimed that dead 

giant squid turned up around the time 

of seismic airgun operations off of 

Spain. The authors suggested, based on 

analysis of carcasses, that the damage to 

the squid was unusual when compared 

to other dead squid found at other 

times. However, the report presents 

conclusions based on a correlation to 

the time of finding of the carcasses and 

seismic testing, but the evidence in 

support of an effect of airgun activity 

was totally circumstantial. Moreover, 

the data presented showing damage to 

tissue is highly questionable since there 

was no way to differentiate between 

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

the seismic airgun) and normal tissue 

degradation that takes place after death, 

or due to poor fixation and preparation 

of tissue. To date, this work has not 

been published in peer reviewed 

literature, and detailed images of the 

reportedly damaged tissue are also not 

available. 

In summary, baleen whales feed on 

aggregations of zooplankton, krill, and 

small schooling fish, while toothed 

whales feed on epipelagic, mesopelagic, 

and bathypelagic fish and squid. As 

summarized above and in the GoA 

TMAA DEIS in more detail, potential 

impacts to marine mammal food 

resources within the GoA TMAA are 

negligible given both lack of hearing 

sensitivity to mid-frequency sonar, the 

very geographic and spatially limited 

scope of most Navy at sea activities 

including underwater detonations, and 

the high biological productivity of these 

resources. No short- or long-term effects 

to marine mammal food resources from 

Navy activities are anticipated within 

the GoA TMAA. 

Military Expendable Material 

Marine mammals are subject to 

entanglement in expended materials, 

particularly anything incorporating 

loops or rings, hooks and lines, or sharp 

objects. Most documented cases of 

entanglements occur when whales 

encounter the vertical lines of fixed 

fishing gear. This section summarizes 

the potential effects of expended 

materials on marine mammals. Detailed 

discussion of military expendable 

material is contained within the GoA 

TMAA DEIS. 

The Navy endeavors to recover 

expended training materials. 

Notwithstanding, it is not possible to 

recover all training materials, and some 

may be encountered by marine 

mammals in the waters of the GoA 

TMAA. Debris related to military 

activities that is not recovered generally 

sinks; the amount that might remain on 

or near the sea surface is low, and the 

density of such expendable materials in 

the GoA TMAA would be very low. 

Types of training materials that might be 

encountered include: Parachutes of 

various types (e.g., those employed by 

personnel or on targets, flares, or 

sonobuoys); torpedo guidance wires, 

torpedo ‘‘flex hoses;’’ cable assemblies 

used to facilitate target recovery; 

sonobuoys; and EMATTs. 

Entanglement in military expendable 

material was not cited as a source of 

injury or mortality for any marine 

mammals recorded in a large marine 

mammal and sea turtle stranding 

database for California waters, an area 

with much higher density of marine 

mammals and a much greater amount of 

Navy training. Therefore, as discussed 

in the GoA TMAA DEIS, expendable 

material is highly unlikely to directly 

affect marine mammal species or 

potential habitat within the GoA TMAA. 

NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation 

is working with the Navy to better 

identify the potential risks of expended 

materials from the Navy activities as 

they relate to Essential Fish Habitat. 

These effects are indirectly related to 

marine mammal habitat, but based on 

the extent of the likely effects described 

in the Navy’s DEIS, NMFS’ Office of 

Protected Resources has preliminarily 

determined that they will not result in 

significant impacts to marine mammal 

habitat. The EFH discussions between 

Navy and NMFS’ Office of Habitat 

Conservation will further inform the 

marine mammal habitat analysis in the 

final rule. 

Water Quality 

The GoA TMAA DEIS analyzed the 

potential effects to water quality from 

sonobuoy, Acoustic Device 

Countermeasures (ADCs), and 

Expendable Mobile Acoustic Training 

Target (EMATT) batteries; explosive 

packages associated with the explosive 

source sonobuoy (AN/SSQ–110A), and 

Otto Fuel (OF) II combustion 

byproducts associated with torpedoes. 

Expendable bathythermographs do not 

have batteries and were not included in 

the analysis. In addition, sonobuoys 

were not analyzed since, once scuttled, 

their electrodes are largely exhausted 

during use and residual constituent 

dissolution occurs more slowly than the 

releases from activated seawater 

batteries. As such, only the potential 

effects of batteries and explosions on 

marine water quality in and 

surrounding the sonobuoy training area 

were completed. The Navy determined 

that there would be no significant effect 

to water quality from seawater batteries, 

lithium batteries, and thermal batteries 

associated with scuttled sonobuoys. 

ADCs and EMATTs use lithium sulfur 

dioxide batteries. The constituents in 

the battery react to form soluble 

hydrogen gas and lithium dithionite. 

The hydrogen gas eventually enters the 

atmosphere and the lithium hydroxide 

dissociates, forming lithium ions and 

hydroxide ions. The hydroxide is 

neutralized by the hydronium formed 

from hydrolysis of the acidic sulfur 

dioxide, ultimately forming water. 

Sulfur dioxide, a gas that is highly 

soluble in water, is the major reactive 

component in the battery. The sulfur 

ioxide ionizes in the water, forming 

bisulfite (HSO3) that is easily oxidized 

to sulfate in the slightly alkaline 

environment of the ocean. Sulfur is 

present as sulfate in large quantities 

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

the ocean. Thus, it was determined that 

there would be no significant effect to 

water quality from lithium sulfur 

batteries associated with scuttled ADCs 

and EMATTs. 

Only a very small percentage of the 

available hydrogen fluoride explosive 

product in the explosive source 

sonobuoy (AN/SSQ–110A) is expected 

to become solubilized prior to reaching 

the surface and the rapid dilution would 

occur upon mixing with the ambient 

water. As such, it was determined that 

there would be no significant effect to 

water quality from the explosive 

product associated with the explosive 

source sonobuoy (AN/SSQ–110A). 

OF II is combusted in the torpedo 

engine and the combustion byproducts 

are exhausted into the torpedo wake, 

which is extremely turbulent and causes 

rapid mixing and diffusion. Combustion 

byproducts include carbon dioxide, 

carbon monoxide, water, hydrogen gas, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64564 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

nitrogen gas, ammonia, hydrogen 

cyanide, and nitrogen oxides. All of the 

byproducts, with the exception of 

hydrogen cyanide, are below the EPA 

water quality criteria. Hydrogen cyanide 

is highly soluble in seawater and dilutes 

below the EPA criterion within 6.3 m 

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

determined there would be no 

significant effect to water quality as a 

result of OF II. 

Analysis and Negligible Impact 

Determination 

Pursuant to NMFS’ regulations 

implementing the MMPA, an applicant 

is required to estimate the number of 

animals that will be ‘‘taken’’ by the 

specified activities (i.e., takes by 

harassment only, or takes by 

harassment, injury, and/or death). This 

estimate informs the analysis that NMFS 

must perform to determine whether the 

activity will have a ‘‘negligible impact’’ 

on the affected species or stock. Level B 

(behavioral) harassment occurs at the 

level of the individual(s) and does not 

assume any resulting population-level 

consequences, though there are known 

avenues through which behavioral 

disturbance of individuals can result in 

population-level effects (e.g., pinkfooted 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., population-level effects). An 

estimate of the number of Level B 

harassment takes, alone, is not enough 

information on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through behavioral harassment, NMFS 

must consider other factors, such as the 

likely nature of any responses (their 

intensity, duration, etc.), the context of 

any responses (critical reproductive 

time or location, migration, etc.), as well 

as the number and nature of estimated 

Level A Harassment takes, the number 

of estimated mortalities, and effects on 

habitat. Generally speaking, and 

especially with other factors being 

equal, the Navy and NMFS anticipate 

more severe effects from takes resulting 

from exposure to higher received levels 

(though this is in no way a strictly linear 

relationship throughout species, 

individuals, or circumstances) and less 

severe effects from takes resulting from 

exposure to lower received levels. 

The Navy’s specified activities have 

been described based on best estimates 

of the number of MFAS/HFAS hours 

that the Navy will conduct. The exact 

number of hours (or torpedoes, or pings, 

whatever unit the source is estimated 

in) may vary from year to year, but will 

not exceed the 5-year total indicated in 

Table 8 (by multiplying the yearly 

estimate by 5) by more than 10 percent. 

NMFS estimates that a 10-percent 

increase in active sonar hours 

(torpedoes, pings, etc.) would result in 

approximately a 10-percent increase in 

the number of takes, and we have 

considered this possibility and the effect 

of the additional active sonar use in our 

analysis. 

Taking the above into account, 

considering the sections discussed 

below, and dependent upon the 

implementation of the proposed 

mitigation measures, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that Navy 

training exercises utilizing MFAS/HFAS 

and underwater detonations will have a 

negligible impact on the marine 

mammal species and stocks present in 

the GoA TMAA. 

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 9) 

estimating the percentage of the total 

takes that will occur within the 10-dB 

bins (without considering mitigation or 

avoidance) that are within the received 

levels considered in the risk continuum 

and for TTS and PTS. This table applies 

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

powerful source); with less powerful 

sources, the percentages would increase 

slightly in the lower received levels and 

correspondingly decrease in the higher 

received levels. As mentioned above, an 

animal’s exposure to a higher received 

level is more likely to result in a 

behavioral response that is more likely 

to adversely affect the health of the 

animal. 

TABLE 9—APPROXIMATE PERCENT OF ESTIMATED TAKES THAT OCCUR IN THE INDICATED 10-dB BINS FOR AN/SQS–53 

(THE MOST POWERFUL SOURCE) 

Received level (SPL) Distance at which levels occur in GOA TMAA 

Percent of 

total 

harassment 

takes 

estimated to 

occur at 

indicated level 

Below 138 dB ............................................................................................... 42 km–105 km .......................................................... ∼0 

138 < Level < 144 dB ................................................................................... 28 km–42 km ............................................................ < 1 

144 < Level < 150 dB ................................................................................... 17 km–28 km ............................................................ ∼1 

150 < Level < 156 dB ................................................................................... 9 km–17 km .............................................................. 7 

156 < Level < 162 dB ................................................................................... 5 km–9 km ................................................................ 18 

162 < Level < 168 dB ................................................................................... 2.5 km–5 km ............................................................. 26 

168 < Level < 174 dB ................................................................................... 1.2 km–2.5 km .......................................................... 22 

174 < Level < 180 dB ................................................................................... 0.5 km–1.2 km .......................................................... 14 

180 < Level < 186 dB ................................................................................... 335 m–0.5 km .......................................................... 6 

186 < Level < TTS ....................................................................................... 178 m–335 m ........................................................... 5 

TTS (195 SEL) ............................................................................................. 10 m–178 m ............................................................. < 1 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64565 

TABLE 9—APPROXIMATE PERCENT OF ESTIMATED TAKES THAT OCCUR IN THE INDICATED 10-dB BINS FOR AN/SQS–53 

(THE MOST POWERFUL SOURCE)—Continued 

Received level (SPL) Distance at which levels occur in GOA TMAA 

Percent of 

total 

harassment 

takes 

estimated to 

occur at 

indicated level 

PTS (215 SEL) ............................................................................................. 10 m ......................................................................... < .01 

Note: For smaller sources, a higher % of the takes occur at lower levels, and a lower % at higher levels. 

Because the Navy has only been 

monitoring specifically to discern the 

effects of MFAS/HFAS on marine 

mammals since approximately 2006, 

and because of the overall data gap 

regarding the effects of MFAS/HFAS on 

marine mammals, not a lot is known 

regarding how marine mammals in the 

GoA TMAA will respond to MFAS/ 

HFAS. The Navy has submitted reports 

from more than 60 major exercises 

conducted in the Southern California 

Range Complex, the Hawaii Range 

Complex, and off the Atlantic Coast, 

that indicate no behavioral disturbance 

was observed. One cannot conclude 

from these results that marine mammals 

were not harassed from MFAS/HFAS, as 

a portion of animals within the area of 

concern were not seen (especially those 

more cryptic, deep-diving species, such 

as beaked whales or Kogia spp.) and 

some of the non-biologist watchstanders 

might not be well-qualified to 

characterize behaviors. However, one 

can say that the animals that were 

observed did not respond in any of the 

obviously more severe ways, such as 

panic, aggression, or anti-predator 

response. 

In addition to the monitoring that will 

be required pursuant to these 

regulations and any corresponding 

LOAs, which is specifically designed to 

help us better understand how marine 

mammals respond to sound, the Navy 

and NMFS have developed, funded, and 

begun conducting a controlled exposure 

experiment with beaked whales in the 

Bahamas (results of first year discussed 

in previous sections; preliminary 2008 

results are also available). Separately, 

the Navy and NMFS conducted an 

opportunistic tagging experiment with 

several species of marine mammals in 

the area of the 2008 RIMPAC training 

exercises in the Hawaii Range Complex 

(HRC), for which the results are still 

being analyzed. 

Diel Cycle 

As noted previously, many animals 

perform vital functions, such as feeding, 

resting, traveling, and socializing on a 

diel cycle (24-hr cycle). Behavioral 

reactions to noise exposure (when 

taking place in a biologically important 

context, such as disruption of critical 

life functions, displacement, or 

avoidance of important habitat) are 

more likely to be significant if they last 

more than one diel cycle or recur on 

subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007). 

Consequently, a behavioral response 

lasting less than one day and not 

recurring on subsequent days is not 

considered severe unless it could 

directly affect reproduction or survival 

(Southall et al., 2007). 

In the previous section, we discussed 

the fact that potential behavioral 

responses to MFAS/HFAS that fall into 

the category of harassment could range 

in severity. By definition, takes by 

behavioral harassment involve the 

disturbance of a marine mammal or 

marine mammal stock in the wild by 

causing disruption of natural behavioral 

patterns (such as migration, surfacing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering) 

to a point where such behavioral 

patterns are abandoned or significantly 

altered. These reactions would, 

however, be more of a concern if they 

were expected to last over 24 hrs or be 

repeated in subsequent days. 

Additionally, vessels with hull-mounted 

active sonar are typically moving at 

speeds of 10–14 knots, which would 

make it unlikely that the same animal 

could remain in the immediate vicinity 

of the ship for the entire duration of the 

exercise. Animals are not expected to be 

exposed to MFAS/HFAS at levels or for 

a duration likely to result in a 

significant response that would then last 

for more than one day or on successive 

days. With the exception of SINKEXs, 

the planned explosive exercises are also 

of a short duration (1–6 hrs). Although 

explosive exercises may sometimes be 

conducted in the same general areas 

repeatedly, because of their short 

duration and the fact that they are in the 

open ocean and animals can easily 

move away, it is similarly unlikely that 

animals would be exposed for long, 

continuous amounts of time. Although 

SINKEXs may last for up to 48 hrs, only 

two are planned annually, they are 

stationary and conducted in deep, open 

water (where fewer marine mammals 

would typically be expected to be 

randomly encountered), and they have a 

rigorous monitoring and shutdown 

protocol, all of which make it unlikely 

that individuals would be exposed to 

the exercise for extended periods or on 

consecutive days. 

TTS 

NMFS and the Navy have estimated 

that approximately 1,000 individual 

marine mammals (totaled from all 

affected species) may sustain some level 

of TTS from MFAS/HFAS annually. As 

mentioned previously, TTS can last 

from a few minutes to days, be of 

varying degree, and occur across various 

frequency bandwidths, all of which 

determine the severity of the impacts on 

the affected individual, which can range 

from minor to more severe. Table 9 

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: 

(1) Frequency—Available data (of 

mid-frequency hearing specialists 

exposed to mid- or high-frequency 

sounds; Southall et al., 2007) suggest 

that most TTS occurs in the frequency 

range of the source up to one octave 

higher than the source (with the 

maximum TTS at 1⁄2 octave above). The 

more MF powerful sources used (the 

two hull-mounted MFAS sources and 

the DICASS sonobuoys) have center 

frequencies between 3.5 and 8 kHz and 

the other unidentified MF sources are, 

by definition, less than 10 kHz, which 

suggests that TTS induced by any of 

these MF sources would be in a 

frequency band somewhere between 

approximately 2 and 20 kHz. There are 

fewer hours of HF source use and the 

sounds would attenuate more quickly, 

plus they have lower source levels, but 

if an animal were to incur TTS from 

these sources, it would cover a higher 

frequency range (sources are between 20 

and 100 kHz, which means that TTS 

could range up to 200 kHz; however, HF 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64566 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

systems are typically used less 

frequently and for shorter time periods 

than surface ship and aircraft MF 

systems, so TTS from these sources is 

even less likely). TTS from explosives 

would be broadband. Tables 5a and 5b 

summarize the vocalization data 

available for each species. 

(2) 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 459 ft (140 m) from 

the most powerful MFAS source, the 

AN/SQS–53 (the maximum ranges to 

TTS from other sources would be less, 

as modeled for the GoA TMAA). An 

animal would have to approach closer 

to the source or remain in the vicinity 

of the sound source appreciably longer 

to increase the received SEL, which 

would be difficult considering the 

watchstanders and the nominal speed of 

an active sonar vessel (10–12 knots). In 

the TTS studies, some using exposures 

of almost an hour in duration or up to 

217 SEL, most of the TTS induced was 

15 dB or less, though Finneran et al. 

(2007) induced 43 dB of TTS with a 64- 

sec exposure to a 20 kHz source (MFAS 

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

(3) Duration of TTS (recovery time)— 

In the TTS laboratory studies, some 

using exposures of almost an hour in 

duration or up to 217 SEL, almost all 

individuals recovered within 1 day (or 

less, often in minutes), though in one 

study (Finneran et al., 2007), recovery 

took 4 days. 

Based on the range of degree and 

duration of TTS reportedly induced by 

exposures to non-pulse sounds of 

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

are likely to be exposed during MFAS/ 

HFAS training exercises in the GoA 

TMAA, it is unlikely that marine 

mammals would ever sustain a TTS 

from MFAS that alters their sensitivity 

by more than 20 dB for more than a few 

days (and the majority would be far less 

severe because of short duration of the 

majority of the exercises and the speed 

of a typical vessel), if that. Also, for the 

same reasons discussed in the Diel 

Cycle section, and because of the short 

distance within which animals would 

need to approach the sound source, it is 

unlikely that animals would be exposed 

to the levels necessary to induce TTS in 

subsequent time periods such that their 

recovery is impeded. Additionally, 

though the frequency range of TTS that 

marine mammals might sustain would 

overlap with some of the frequency 

ranges of their vocalization types, the 

frequency range of TTS from MFAS (the 

source from which TTS would most 

likely be sustained because the higher 

source level and slower attenuation 

make it more likely that an animal 

would be exposed to a higher level) 

would not usually span the entire 

frequency range of one vocalization 

type, much less span all types of 

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

impaired, marine mammals would 

typically be aware of their impairment 

and implement behaviors to compensate 

(see Communication Impairment 

Section), though these compensations 

may incur energetic costs. 

Acoustic Masking or Communication 

Impairment 

Table 5a and Table 5b are 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 hullmounted active sonar). However, 

masking only occurs during the time of 

the signal (and potential secondary 

arrivals of indirect rays), versus TTS, 

which continues beyond the duration of 

the signal. Standard MFAS pings last on 

average one second and occur about 

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

which we know the pulse length, most 

are significantly shorter than hullmounted active sonar, on the order of 

several microseconds to tens of 

microseconds. For hull-mounted active 

sonar, though some of the vocalizations 

that marine mammals make are less 

than one second long, there is only a 1 

in 24 chance that they would occur 

exactly when the ping was received, and 

when vocalizations are longer than one 

second, only parts of them are masked. 

Alternately, when the pulses are only 

several microseconds long, the majority 

of most animals’ vocalizations would 

not be masked. Masking effects from 

MFAS/HFAS are expected to be 

minimal. If masking or communication 

impairment were to occur briefly, it 

would be in the frequency range of 

MFAS, which overlaps with some 

marine mammal vocalizations; however, 

it would likely not mask the entirety of 

any particular vocalization or 

communication series because the 

signal length, frequency, and duty cycle 

of the MFAS/HFAS signal does not 

perfectly mimic the characteristics of 

any marine mammal’s vocalizations. 

PTS, Injury, or Mortality 

The Navy’s model estimated that one 

Dall’s porpoise would be exposed to 

levels of MFAS/HFAS that would result 

in PTS. This estimate does not take into 

consideration either the mitigation 

measures, the likely avoidance 

behaviors of some of the animals 

exposed, the distance from the sonar 

dome of a surface vessel within which 

an animal would have to be exposed to 

incur PTS (10 m), or the nominal speed 

of a surface vessel engaged in ASW 

exercises. NMFS believes that many 

marine mammals would deliberately 

avoid exposing themselves to the 

received levels of active sonar necessary 

to induce injury by moving away from 

or at least modifying their path to avoid 

a close approach. Additionally, in the 

unlikely event that an animal 

approaches the sonar vessel at a close 

distance, NMFS believes that the 

mitigation measures (i.e., shutdown/ 

powerdown zones for MFAS/HFAS) 

would typically ensure that animals 

would be not be exposed to injurious 

levels of sound. As discussed 

previously, the Navy utilizes both aerial 

(when available) and passive acoustic 

monitoring (during all ASW exercises) 

in addition to watchstanders on vessels 

to detect marine mammals for 

mitigation implementation and 

indicated that they are capable of 

effectively monitoring a 1000-m (1093- 

yd) safety zone at night using night 

vision goggles, infrared cameras, and 

passive acoustic monitoring. 

If a marine mammal is able to 

approach a surface vessel within the 

distance necessary to incur PTS, the 

likely speed of the vessel (nominal 10– 

12 knots) would make it very difficult 

for the animal to remain in range long 

enough to accumulate enough energy to 

result in more than a mild case of PTS. 

As mentioned previously and in relation 

to TTS, the likely consequences to the 

health of an individual that incurs PTS 

can range from mild to more serious 

dependent upon the degree of PTS and 

the frequency band it is in, and many 

animals are able to compensate for the 

shift, although it may include energetic 

costs. While the Navy’s modeling 

predicts that one Dall’s porpoise will 

incur PTS from exposure to MFAS/ 

HFAS, the Navy and NMFS believe it is 

very unlikely to occur; therefore, the 

Navy has not requested authorization to 

take one by Level A Harasssment and 

NMFS is not proposing to authorize take 

of Dall’s porpoise by Level A 

harassment. 

As discussed previously, marine 

mammals (especially beaked whales) 

could potentially respond to MFAS at a 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64567 

received level lower than the injury 

threshold in a manner that indirectly 

results in the animals stranding. The 

exact mechanisms of this potential 

response, behavioral or physiological, 

are not known. When naval exercises 

have been associated with strandings in 

the past, it has typically been when 

three or more vessels are operating 

simultaneously, in the presence of a 

strong surface duct, and in areas of 

constricted channels, semi-enclosed 

areas, and/or steep bathymetry. While 

these features certainly do not define 

the only factors that can contribute to a 

stranding, and while they need not all 

be present in their aggregate to increase 

the likelihood of a stranding, it is worth 

noting that they are not all present in 

the GoA TMAA, which only has a 

strong surface duct present during the 

winter, and does not have bathymetry or 

constricted channels of the type that 

have been present in the sonarassociated strandings. Additionally, 

based on the number of occurrences 

where strandings have been definitively 

associated with military active sonar 

versus the number of hours of active 

sonar training that have been 

conducted, we suggest that the 

probability is small that this will occur. 

Lastly, an active sonar shutdown 

protocol for strandings involving live 

animals milling in the water minimizes 

the chances that these types of events 

turn into mortalities. Though NMFS 

does not expect it to occur, because of 

the uncertainty surrounding the 

mechanisms that link exposure to 

MFAS to stranding (especially in beaked 

whales), NMFS proposes to authorize 

the injury or mortality of up to 15 

beaked whales over the course of the 

5-yr regulations. 

Species-Specific Analysis 

In the discussions below, the 

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

analysis, which includes the use of 

several models and other applicable 

calculations as described in the 

Estimates of Potential Marine Mammal 

Exposure section. The numbers 

predicted by the ‘‘acoustic analysis’’ are 

based on a uniform and stationary 

distribution of marine mammals and do 

not take into consideration the 

implementation of mitigation measures 

or potential avoidance behaviors of 

marine mammals, and therefore, are 

likely overestimates of potential 

exposures to the indicated thresholds 

(PTS, TTS, behavioral harassments). 

Blue Whale (MMPA Depleted/ESAListed) 

Acoustic analysis predicts that one 

exposure of a blue whale to MFAS/ 

HFAS at levels likely to result in Level 

B harassment will occur, and that one 

exposure to explosives will occur. This 

estimate represents the total number of 

takes and not necessarily the number of 

individuals taken, as a single individual 

may be taken multiple times over the 

course of a year. These Level B takes are 

anticipated to be primarily in the form 

of behavioral disturbance as described 

in the Definition of Harassment: Level B 

Harassment section; zero TTS takes are 

estimated. It is unlikely that any blue 

whales will incur TTS because of the 

following: The distance within which 

they would have to approach the MFAS 

source (approximately 140 m for the 

most powerful source for TTS); the fact 

that many animals will likely avoid 

active sonar sources to some degree; and 

the likelihood that Navy monitors 

would detect these animals prior to an 

approach within this distance (given 

their large size, average group size of 

two or three, and pronounced vertical 

blow) and implement active sonar 

powerdown or shutdown. Of note, blue 

whale vocalizations are in the 12 to 400 

Hz range with dominant energy in the 

12 to 25 Hz range, which suggests that 

blue whale hearing may be more 

sensitive in this frequency range. Thus, 

frequencies in the MFAS range (1–10 

kHz) are predicted to lie closer to the 

periphery of their hearing, which 

suggests that adverse impacts resulting 

from exposure to MFAS may be fewer 

than modeled. 

Blue whales have been seen in the 

GoA and the Eastern North Pacific 

population is estimated at a minimum 

of 1,368 whales. Like most baleen 

whales, blue whales would most likely 

feed in the north during summer 

months (potentially the GoA) and head 

southward in the cooler months. 

Relative to the population size, this 

activity is anticipated to result only in 

a limited number of Level B harassment 

takes. The GoA TMAA activities are not 

expected to occur in an area/time of 

specific importance for breeding, 

calving, or other known critical 

behaviors. The blue whales’ large size 

and detectability makes it unlikely that 

these animals would be exposed to the 

higher levels of sound expected to result 

in more severe effects. Consequently, 

the activities are not expected to 

adversely impact rates of recruitment or 

survival of blue whales. Based on the 

general information contained in the 

Negligible Impact Analysis section and 

this species-specific summary of the 

effects of the takes, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the 

Navy’s specified activities will have a 

negligible impact on this species. 

Fin Whale (MMPA Depleted/ESAListed) 

Acoustic analysis predicts that 11,019 

exposures of fin whales to MFAS/HFAS 

at sound levels likely to result in Level 

B harassment will occur, and that 18 

exposures to explosives will occur. This 

estimate represents the total number of 

takes and not necessarily the number of 

individuals taken, as a single individual 

may be taken multiple times over the 

course of a year. These Level B takes are 

anticipated to be primarily in the form 

of behavioral disturbance as described 

in the Definition of Harassment: Level B 

Harassment section, although 26 TTS 

takes are also estimated. However, it is 

unlikely that any fin whales will incur 

TTS because of: The distance within 

which they would have to approach the 

MFAS source (approximately 140 m for 

the most powerful source for TTS), the 

fact that many animals will likely avoid 

active sonar sources to some degree, and 

the likelihood that Navy monitors 

would detect these animals prior to an 

approach within this distance (given 

their large size, average group size (3), 

and pronounced vertical blow) and 

implement active sonar powerdown or 

shutdown. Of note, fin whale 

vocalizations are in the 15–750 Hz range 

with the majority below 70 Hz, which 

suggests that fin whale hearing may be 

more sensitive in this frequency range. 

Thus, frequencies in the MFAS range 

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

the periphery of their hearing, which 

suggests that adverse impacts resulting 

from exposure to MFAS may be fewer 

than modeled. 

Although reliable estimates of current 

abundance for the entire Northeast 

Pacific fin whale stock are not currently 

available, fin whales have been seen in 

the GoA and the provisional estimate for 

this stock is 3,368 whales for the 

central-eastern Bering Sea and 683 for 

the eastern Bering Sea. These estimates 

are considered provisional because they 

have not been corrected for animals 

missed on the trackline, animals 

submerged when the survey ship 

passed, and responsive movements. For 

purposes of acoustic impact modeling, a 

density of 0.010 individuals per km2

was used based on 24 visual 

observations of fin whale groups 

totaling 64 individuals during a 10-day 

period (Rone et al., 2009). Although 

acoustic impact modeling predicted a 

large number of takes relative to 

population size, NMFS believes that this 

is a conservative estimate due to the 

high number of fin whales sighted 

during the most recent survey in 2009. 

In addition, the majority of fin whale 

takes by Level B harassment would 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64568 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

result in behavioral harassment (99.8 

percent), which NMFS, for reasons 

discussed in the Behavioral Harassment 

section above, expects will have a 

negligible impact on the species. For 

instance, previous monitoring reports 

submitted by the Navy from more than 

60 major exercises have indicated no 

observed behavioral disturbance 

Although one cannot conclude from 

these results that marine mammals were 

not harassed and some of the nonbiologist watchstanders might not be 

well qualified to characterize behavior, 

one can say that the animals observed 

did not respond in any of the obviously 

more severe ways, such as panic, 

aggression, or anti-predator response 

that would be more likely to adversely 

affect annual rates of recruitment or 

survival. Additional reasons in support 

of NMFS’ preliminary negligible impact 

determination follow. In the North 

Pacific, fin whales migrate seasonally 

from high Arctic feeding areas in the 

summer to low latitude breeding and 

calving areas in the winter. The GoA 

TMAA activities are not expected to 

occur in an area/time of specific 

importance for breeding, calving, or 

other known critical behaviors. The fin 

whales’ large size and detectability 

makes it unlikely that these animals 

would be exposed to the higher levels 

of sound expected to result in more 

severe effects. Consequently, the 

activities are not expected to adversely 

impact rates of recruitment or survival 

of fin whales. Based on the general 

information contained in the Negligible 

Impact Analysis section and this 

species-specific summary of the effects 

of the takes, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the Navy’s specified 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on this species. 

Sei Whale (MMPA Depleted/ESAListed) 

Acoustic analysis predicts that 4 

exposures of sei whales to MFAS/HFAS 

at sound levels likely to result in Level 

B harassment will occur, and that 4 

exposures to explosives will occur. This 

estimate represents the total number of 

takes and not necessarily the number of 

individuals taken, as a single individual 

may be taken multiple times over the 

course of a year. These Level B takes are 

anticipated to be primarily in the form 

of behavioral disturbance as described 

in the Definition of Harassment: Level B 

Harassment section; no TTS takes are 

estimated. It is unlikely that any sei 

whales will incur TTS because of: The 

distance within which they would have 

to approach the MFAS source 

(approximately 140 m for the most 

powerful source for TTS), the fact that 

many animals will likely avoid active 

sonar sources to some degree, and the 

likelihood that Navy monitors would 

detect these animals prior to an 

approach within this distance (given 

their large size, average group size 

(three), and pronounced vertical blow) 

and implement active sonar powerdown 

or shutdown. 

The most appropriate population 

estimate for the sei whale is the one for 

the North Pacific, which estimates 9,110 

whales. Relative to the population size, 

this activity is anticipated to result only 

in a limited number of Level B 

harassment takes. Sei whales are 

generally thought to feed in the summer 

in the north and spend winters in warm 

temperate or sub-tropical areas. The 

GoA TMAA activities are not expected 

to occur in an area/time of specific 

importance for breeding, calving, or 

other known critical behaviors. The sei 

whales’ large size and detectability 

makes it unlikely that these animals 

would be exposed to the higher levels 

of sound expected to result in more 

severe effects. Consequently, the 

activities are not expected to adversely 

impact rates of recruitment or survival 

of sei whales. Based on the general 

information contained in the Negligible 

Impact Analysis section and this 

species-specific summary of the effects 

of the takes, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the Navy’s specified 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on this species. 

Humpback Whale (MMPA Depleted/ 

ESA-Listed) 

Acoustic analysis predicts that 1,394 

exposures of humpback whales to 

MFAS/HFAS at sound levels likely to 

result in Level B harassment will occur. 

This estimate represents the total 

number of takes and not necessarily the 

number of individuals taken, as a single 

individual may be taken multiple times 

over the course of a year. These Level 

B takes are anticipated to be primarily 

in the form of behavioral disturbance as 

described in the Definition of 

Harassment: Level B Harassment 

section, although six TTS takes are also 

estimated. However, it is unlikely that 

any humpback whales will incur TTS 

because of the following: The distance 

within which they would have to 

approach the MFAS source 

(approximately 459 ft (140 m) for the 

most powerful source for TTS); the fact 

that many animals will likely avoid 

active sonar sources to some degree; and 

the likelihood that Navy monitors 

would detect these animals prior to an 

approach within this distance (given 

their large size and gregarious nature) 

and implement active sonar powerdown 

or shutdown. 

The acoustic analysis further predicts 

that one humpback whale would be 

exposed to levels of pressure and/or 

energy from explosive detonations that 

would result in Level B harassment. 

NMFS believes that this is unlikely 

because of: (1) The distance within 

which they would have to approach the 

explosive source; and (2) the likelihood 

that Navy monitors would, before or 

during exercise monitoring, detect these 

large, gregarious animals prior to an 

approach within this distance and 

require a delay of the exercise. 

The current estimate for the North 

Pacific is 18,302 humpback whales 

(Calambokidis et al., 2008). Relative to 

the population size, this activity is 

anticipated to result only in a limited 

number of Level B harassment takes. 

Humpback whales are generally thought 

to feed in the summer in the north and 

spend winters in warm temperate or 

sub-tropical areas. The GoA TMAA 

activities are not expected to occur in an 

area/time of specific importance for 

breeding, calving, or other known 

critical behaviors. The humpback 

whales’ large size and detectability 

makes it unlikely that these animals 

would be exposed to the higher levels 

of sound expected to result in more 

severe effects. Consequently, the 

activities are not expected to adversely 

impact rates of recruitment or survival 

of humpback whales. Based on the 

general information contained in the 

Negligible Impact Analysis section and 

this species-specific summary of the 

effects of the takes, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the 

Navy’s specified activities will have a 

negligible impact on this species. 

North Pacific Right Whale (MMPA 

Depleted/ESA-Listed) 

Acoustic analysis predicts that one 

exposure of a North Pacific right whale 

to MFAS/HFAS at sound levels likely to 

result in Level B harassment will occur, 

and that one exposure to explosives will 

occur. These Level B takes are 

anticipated to be in the form of 

behavioral disturbance as described in 

the Definition of Harassment: Level B 

Harassment section; no TTS takes are 

estimated. It is unlikely that any North 

Pacific right whales will incur TTS 

because of: The distance within which 

they would have to approach the MFAS 

source (approximately 459 ft (140 m) for 

the most powerful source for TTS), the 

fact that many animals will likely avoid 

active sonar sources to some degree, and 

the likelihood that Navy monitors 

would detect these animals prior to an 

approach within this distance (given 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64569 

their large size, callosities on the head, 

and pronounced v-shaped blow) and 

implement active sonar powerdown or 

shutdown. 

North Pacific right whales are found 

in subpolar to temperate waters. There 

are no reliable estimates of current 

abundance or trends for right whales in 

the North Pacific and the population 

may only number in the low hundreds 

(Angliss and Allen, 2008). The 

population in the eastern North Pacific 

is considered to be very small, perhaps 

only in the tens of animals. Over the 

past 40 years, most sightings in the 

eastern North Pacific have been of single 

animals; however, during the last few 

years, small groups of right whales have 

been reported (such as the group of 17 

documented in the Bering Sea in 2004; 

Angliss and Allen, 2008). There is 

evidence that the GoA was historically 

used as a feeding ground, and recent 

surveys suggest that some individuals 

continue to use the shelf east of Kodiak 

Island as a feeding area, which has now 

been designated under the ESA as 

critical habitat (73 FR 19000, April 8, 

2008). The North Pacific right whales’ 

large size and detectability makes it 

unlikely that these animals would be 

exposed to the higher levels of sound 

expected to result in more severe effects. 

Consequently, the activities are not 

expected to adversely impact rates of 

recruitment or survival of North Pacific 

right whales. Based on the general 

information contained in the Negligible 

Impact Analysis section and this 

species-specific summary of the effects 

of the takes, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the Navy’s specified 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on this species. 

Minke Whale 

Acoustic analysis predicts that 679 

exposures of minke whales to MFAS/ 

HFAS at sound levels likely to result in 

Level B harassment will occur, and that 

two exposures to explosives will occur. 

This estimate represents the total 

number of takes and not necessarily the 

number of individuals taken, as a single 

individual may be taken multiple times 

over the course of a year. These Level 

B takes are anticipated to be primarily 

in the form of behavioral disturbance as 

described in the Definition of 

Harassment: Level B Harassment 

section, although two TTS takes are also 

estimated. It is somewhat unlikely that 

any minke whales will incur TTS 

because of: The distance within which 

they would have to approach the MFAS 

source (approximately 459 ft (140 m) for 

the most powerful source for TTS) and 

the fact that many animals will likely 

avoid active sonar sources to some 

degree. However, minke whales are 

relatively cryptic at surface, making 

visual detection more difficult, although 

they are often detected acoustically. 

Minke whales are distributed in polar, 

temperate, and tropical waters, but are 

less common in the tropics than in 

cooler waters. Within the Pacific EEZ, 

NMFS recognizes three stocks of minke 

whales: A California/Oregon/ 

Washington stock; an Alaskan stock; 

and a Hawaiian stock. Currently, there 

are no estimates of abundance for minke 

whales in Alaskan waters (Angliss and 

Allen, 2008). In general, sightings of 

minke whales in the GoA are low. 

Although large numbers of minke 

whales were reported at Portlock Bank 

(in the TMAA) and Albatross bank (west 

of the TMAA) in May 1976 (Fiscus et 

al., 1976), subsequent NMFS surveys 

reported no minke whales in those 

locations. During the April 2009 survey, 

two encounters totaling three individual 

minke whales occurred on the shelf and 

only one of these encounters was within 

the TMAA. The GoA TMAA activities 

are not expected to occur in an area/ 

time of specific importance for breeding, 

calving, or other known critical 

behaviors. Consequently, the activities 

are not expected to adversely impact 

rates of recruitment or survival of minke 

whales. Based on the general 

information contained in the Negligible 

Impact Analysis section and this 

species-specific summary of the effects 

of the takes, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the Navy’s specified 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on this species. 

Sperm Whale (MMPA Depleted/ESAListed) 

Acoustic analysis predicts that 328 

exposures of sperm whales to MFAS/ 

HFAS at sound levels likely to result in 

Level B harassment will occur. This 

estimate represents the total number of 

takes and not necessarily the number of 

individuals taken, as a single individual 

may be taken multiple times over the 

course of a year. These Level B takes are 

anticipated to be primarily in the form 

of behavioral disturbance as described 

in the Definition of Harassment: Level B 

Harassment section; one TTS take is 

estimated and proposed for 

authorization. However, it is unlikely 

that any sperm whales will incur TTS 

because of: The distance within which 

they would have to approach the MFAS 

source (approximately 459 ft (140 m) for 

the most powerful source for TTS), the 

fact that many animals will likely avoid 

active sonar sources to some degree, and 

the likelihood that Navy monitors 

would detect these animals prior to an 

approach within this distance (given 

their large size, pronounced blow, and 

mean group size of seven). 

The acoustic analysis further predicts 

that one sperm whale would be exposed 

to levels of pressure and/or energy from 

explosive detonations that would result 

in Level B harassment. NMFS believes 

that this is unlikely because of: The 

distance within which they would have 

to approach the explosive source; and 

the likelihood that Navy monitors 

would, before or during exercise 

monitoring, detect these animals for the 

reasons indicated above. 

Sperm whales occur throughout all 

ocean basins from equatorial to polar 

waters. Sperm whales are found 

throughout the North Pacific, and are 

broadly distributed from tropical and 

temperate waters to the Bering Sea as far 

north as Cape Navarin. Currently, 

estimates of sperm whale abundance in 

the North Pacific are not available. For 

the North Pacific, sperm whales have 

been divided into three separate stocks 

based on where they are found, which 

have been designated as (1) Alaska 

(North Pacific stock), (2) California/ 

Oregon/Washington, and (3) Hawaii 

(Angliss and Allen, 2008). The 

estimated population for the North 

Pacific stock is 102,112 (CV = 0.15) 

(Angliss and Allen, 2008). In the GoA, 

sperm whales primarily occur seaward 

of the 1,640 ft (500 m) isobath (DoN, 

2006). A survey in the Shelikof Strait 

(north of Kodiak), Cook Inlet, Prince 

William Sound and between Kodiak and 

Montique Island from June 26 to July 15, 

2003 detected six sperm whales along 

the shelf break, with an average group 

size of 1.2 (Waite 2003). The April 2009 

survey in the TMAA recorded sperm 

whales acoustically in both the inshore 

and offshore strata, but no sperm whales 

were detected visually (Rone et al., 

2009). The sperm whales’ large size and 

detectability makes it unlikely that these 

animals would be exposed to the higher 

levels of sound expected to result in 

more severe effects. Consequently, the 

activities are not expected to adversely 

impact rates of recruitment or survival 

of sperm whales. Based on the general 

information contained in the Negligible 

Impact Analysis section and this 

species-specific summary of the effects 

of the takes, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the Navy’s specified 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on this species. 

Gray Whale 

Acoustic analysis predicts that 385 

exposures of gray whales to MFAS/ 

HFAS at sound levels likely to result in 

Level B harassment will occur. This 

estimate represents the total number of 

takes and not necessarily the number of 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64570 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

individuals taken, as a single individual 

may be taken multiple times over the 

course of a year. These Level B takes are 

anticipated to be primarily in the form 

of behavioral disturbance as described 

in the Definition of Harassment: Level B 

Harassment section; one TTS take is 

estimated. NMFS believes that it is 

unlikely that a gray whale will incur 

TTS because of the distance within 

which they would have to approach the 

MFAS source (approximately 459 ft (140 

m) for the most powerful source for 

TTS) and the fact that many animals 

will likely avoid active sonar sources to 

some degree. The gray whales’ size and 

detectability makes it unlikely that these 

animals would be exposed to the higher 

levels of sound expected to result in 

more severe effects. Consequently, the 

activities are not expected to adversely 

impact rates of recruitment or survival 

of gray whales. 

The acoustic analysis further predicts 

that three gray whales would be 

exposed to levels of pressure and/or 

energy from explosive detonations that 

would result in Level B harassment. 

These Level B takes are anticipated to be 

primarily in the form of behavioral 

disturbance as described in the 

Definition of Harassment: Level B 

Harassment section. 

Gray whales occur only in the North 

Pacific. The Eastern North Pacific (ENP) 

population is found from the upper Gulf 

of California, south to the tip of Baja 

California, and up the Pacific coast of 

North America to the Chukchi and 

Beaufort seas. This stock is known to 

summer in the shallow waters of the 

northern Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea, and 

western Beaufort Sea, but some 

individuals spend the summer feeding 

along the Pacific coast from 

southeastern Alaska to central 

California. The minimum population 

estimates for the ENP stock of gray 

whales using the mean of the 2000/01 

and 2001/02 abundance estimates is 

17,752 and the best estimate of 18,813 

whales (CV = 0.07; Angliss and Allen, 

2008). The April 2009 survey 

encountered one group of two gray 

whales within the western edge of the 

TMAA and two groups well outside the 

TMAA, nearshore at Kodiak Island 

(Rone et al., 2009). The GoA TMAA 

activities are not expected to occur in an 

area/time of specific importance for 

breeding, calving, or other known 

critical behaviors. Consequently, the 

activities are not expected to adversely 

impact rates of recruitment or survival 

of gray whales. Based on the general 

information contained in the Negligible 

Impact Analysis section and this 

species-specific summary of the effects 

of the takes, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the Navy’s specified 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on this species. 

Beaked Whales 

Acoustic analysis predicts that 486 

Baird’s beaked whales, 2,308 Cuvier’s 

beaked whales, and 2,308 Stejneger’s 

beaked whales will be exposed to 

MFAS/HFAS at sound levels likely to 

result in Level B harassment. This 

estimate represents the total number of 

takes and not necessarily the number of 

individuals taken, as a single individual 

may be taken multiple times over the 

course of a year. These Level B takes are 

anticipated to be primarily in the form 

of behavioral disturbance as described 

in the Definition of Harassment: Level B 

Harassment section; one, six, and six 

(respectively, by species) TTS takes are 

estimated. NMFS believes that it is 

unlikely that this number of beaked 

whales will incur TTS because of the 

distance within which they would have 

to approach the MFAS source 

(approximately 459 ft (140 m) for the 

most powerful source for TTS) and the 

fact that many animals will likely avoid 

active sonar sources to some degree. 

However, the likelihood that Navy 

monitors would detect most of these 

animals at the surface prior to an 

approach within this distance is low 

because of their deep-diving behavior 

and cryptic profile. As mentioned above 

and indicated in Table 5a and Table 5b, 

some beaked whale vocalizations might 

overlap with the MFAS/HFAS TTS 

frequency range (2 to 20 kHz), which 

could potentially temporarily decrease 

an animal’s sensitivity to the calls of 

conspecifics or returning echolocation 

signals. However, as noted previously, 

NMFS does not anticipate TTS of a long 

duration or severe degree to occur as a 

result of exposure to MFAS/HFAS. 

The acoustic analysis further predicts 

that one Cuvier’s beaked whale and one 

Stejneger’s beaked whale would be 

exposed to levels of pressure and/or 

energy from explosive detonations that 

would result in Level B harassment by 

TTS, and one Baird’s beaked whale, 

three Cuvier’s beaked whales, and four 

Stejneger’s beaked whales could be 

exposed to levels associated with 

behavioral disturbance. It is important 

to note that, due to the lack of available 

density information for Stejneger’s 

beaked whale, the density and results 

from modeling of Cuvier’s beaked 

whales were used as a surrogate. 

Baird’s beaked whales appear to occur 

mainly in cold deep water (3,300 ft 

(1,000 m) or greater) over the 

continental slope, oceanic seamounts, 

and in areas with submarine 

escarpments. They may also 

occasionally occur near shore along 

narrow continental shelves. The range 

for the Alaska stock of Baird’s beaked 

whale extends from Cape Navarin (63 

°N lat.) and the central Sea of Okhotsk 

(57 °N lat.) to St. Matthew Island, the 

Pribilof Islands in the Bering Sea, and 

the northern GoA (Angliss and Allen, 

2008; DoN, 2006). Waite (2003) reported 

a group of four Baird’s beaked whales at 

the shelf break to the east of the TMAA. 

There were no beaked whales detected 

acoustically or visually (although two 

groups of unidentified small whale were 

sighted) during the 2009 survey of the 

TMAA (Rone et al., 2009). 

Cuvier’s beaked whales are 

considered to be the most widely 

distributed of the beaked whales. They 

occur in all three major oceans and most 

seas. In the North Pacific, they range 

north to the northern GoA, the Aleutian 

Islands, and the Commander Islands 

and as far south as Hawaii. In general, 

Cuvier’s beaked whales are sighted in 

waters with a bottom depth greater than 

656 ft (200 m) and are frequently 

recorded in areas with depths of 3,281 

ft (1,000 m) or deeper. Occurrence has 

been linked to physical features such as 

the continental slope, canyons, 

escarpments, and oceanic islands 

(Angliss and Outlaw, 2005). Waite 

(2003) reported one sighting of a group 

of four Cuvier’s beaked whales at the 

shelf break within the TMAA. Other 

reports of Cuvier’s beaked whales in the 

GoA were in very deep water. Rice and 

Wolman (1982) observed a group of six 

Cuvier’s beaked whales in about 14,715 

ft (5,400 m) of water southeast of Kodiak 

Island. Surveys in the Aleutian Islands 

observed a group of six Cuvier’s beaked 

whales in waters with a bottom depth of 

13,123 to 16,404 ft (4,000 to 5,000 m) 

(Forney and Brown, 1996). 

Stejneger’s beaked whales (also called 

Bering Sea beaked whales) are found 

only in the North Pacific and appear to 

prefer cold-temperate and subpolar 

waters. The Alaska stock is recognized 

as separate from the population off 

California (Angliss and Outlaw, 2007). 

Off Alaska, this species has been 

observed in waters ranging from a 

bottom depth ranging from 2,395 to 

5,118 ft (730 to 1,560 m) on the steep 

slope of the continental shelf as it drops 

off into the Aleutian Basin (which 

exceeds 11,482 ft (3,500 m) in bottom 

depth) (DoN, 2006). Although the April 

2009 survey in the TMAA detected no 

beaked whales, surveys in the central 

Aleutian Islands sighted groups of three 

to 15 Stejneger’s beaked whales (Rice, 

1986). 

No abundance estimates are available 

for any of these three species of beaked 

whale. There is only a limited amount 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64571 

of information pertaining to the life 

history of beaked whales. Scientists 

have gathered some information from 

stranded animals, but little is known 

about how these animals express their 

life histories in the wild. Moreover, 

most sightings of beaked whales are 

brief because these whales are often 

difficult to approach and they actively 

avoid aircraft and vessels (e.g., Wursig 

et al., 1998). For the Stejneger’s beaked 

whale, for example, there is no available 

information on reproduction and 

breeding. As discussed above, 

correlations have been made between 

bathymetric features and beaked whale 

sightings, which may indicate a habitat 

preference. The GoA TMAA activities 

are not expected to occur in an area/ 

time of specific importance for 

reproduction, feeding, or other known 

critical behaviors. Consequently, the 

activities are not expected to adversely 

impact rates of recruitment or survival 

of beaked whales. Based on the general 

information contained in the Negligible 

Impact Analysis section and this 

species-specific summary of the effects 

of the takes, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the Navy’s specified 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on this species. 

Killer Whale (AT1 Transient Stock 

MMPA Depleted) 

Acoustic analysis predicts that 10,643 

killer whales will be exposed to MFAS/ 

HFAS at sound levels likely to result in 

Level B harassment. This estimate 

represents the total number of takes and 

not necessarily the number of 

individuals taken, as a single individual 

may be taken multiple times over the 

course of a year. These Level B takes are 

anticipated to be primarily in the form 

of behavioral disturbance as described 

in the Definition of Harassment: Level B 

Harassment section; 41 TTS takes are 

estimated. NMFS, for reasons discussed 

in the Behavioral Harassment section 

above, expects that these takes will have 

a negligible impact on the species. For 

instance, previous monitoring reports 

submitted by the Navy from more than 

60 major exercises have indicated no 

observed behavioral disturbance. 

Although one cannot conclude from 

these results that marine mammals were 

not harassed and some of the nonbiologist watchstanders might not be 

well qualified to characterize behavior, 

one can say that the animals observed 

did not respond in any of the obviously 

more severe ways, such as panic, 

aggression, or anti-predator response 

that would be more likely to adversely 

affect annual rates of recruitment or 

survival. With respect to the TTS takes, 

it is unlikely that many individuals of 

these species will incur TTS because of: 

The distance within which they would 

have to approach the MFAS source 

(approximately 459 ft (140 m) for the 

most powerful source for TTS), the fact 

that many animals will likely avoid 

active sonar sources to some degree, and 

the likelihood that Navy monitors 

would detect these animals prior to an 

approach within this distance (given 

their gregarious nature and large group 

size) and implement active sonar 

powerdown or shutdown. As mentioned 

above and indicated in Table 5a and 

Table 5b, vocalizations of these species 

might overlap with the MFAS/HFAS 

TTS frequency range (2 to 20 kHz), 

which could potentially temporarily 

decrease an animal’s sensitivity to the 

calls of conspecifics or returning 

echolocation signals. However, as noted 

previously, NMFS does not anticipate 

TTS of a long duration or severe degree 

to occur as a result of exposure to 

MFAS/HFAS. 

The acoustic analysis further predicts 

that two killer whales would be exposed 

to levels of pressure and/or energy from 

explosive detonations that would result 

in Level B harassment by TTS, and four 

could be exposed to levels associated 

with behavioral disturbance. NMFS 

believes that this is unlikely because of: 

(1) The distance within which they 

would have to approach the explosive 

source; and, (2) the likelihood that Navy 

monitors would, during pre- or during 

exercises monitoring, detect these largegrouped gregarious animals prior to an 

approach within this distance and 

require a delay of the exercise. 

Killer whales have the most 

ubiquitous distribution of any marine 

mammal species, observed in virtually 

every marine habitat from the tropics to 

the poles and from shallow, inshore 

water (and even rivers) to deep, oceanic 

regions. In the eastern north Pacific, 

including Alaskan waters, killer whales 

are found in protected inshore waters, 

as well as offshore waters (DoN, 2006). 

Killer whales are segregated socially, 

genetically, and ecologically into three 

distinct eco-type groups: Residents, 

transients, and offshore animals; all 

three eco-types are represented in the 

GoA. The ENP Alaskan Resident stock 

ranges from southeastern Alaska to the 

Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea. The 

ENP Northern Resident stock occurs 

from British Columbia through part of 

southeastern Alaska. There are about 

656 and 216 photo-identified 

individuals in the ENP Alaska Resident 

and ENP Northern Resident stocks, 

respectively (Angliss and Allen, 2008). 

The minimum population estimate for 

the GoA, Aleutian Islands, and Bering 

Sea Transient stock is 314 individuals 

based on photo-identification work. 

There is a minimum population 

estimate of 320 individuals in the West 

Coast Transient stock, which includes 

about 225 in Washington State and 

British Columbia, and southeastern 

Alaska, and 105 off California. The 

population estimate for the ENP stock of 

Transient whales is 346. The minimum 

population estimate for the AT1 

Transient stock is seven individuals 

based on photographs from recent years 

(Angliss and Allen, 2008). 

The minimum population estimate for 

the ENP Offshore stock of killer whales 

is 1,214 individuals (Carretta et al., 

2007). The total number of known 

offshore killer whales is 211 

individuals, but the amount of time this 

transboundary stock spends in U.S. 

waters is unknown (Carretta et al., 

2006). 

The GoA TMAA activities are not 

expected to occur in an area/time of 

specific importance for reproduction, 

feeding, or other known critical 

behaviors. Consequently, the activities 

are not expected to adversely impact 

rates of recruitment or survival of these 

three eco-types of killer whales. Based 

on the general information contained in 

the Negligible Impact Analysis section 

and this species-specific summary of the 

effects of the takes, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the 

Navy’s specified activities will have a 

negligible impact on this species. 

Pacific White-Sided Dolphins 

Acoustic analysis predicts that 16,973 

Pacific white-sided dolphins will be 

exposed to MFAS/HFAS at sound levels 

likely to result in Level B harassment. 

These estimates represent the total 

number of takes and not necessarily the 

number of individuals taken, as a single 

individual may be taken multiple times 

over the course of a year. These Level 

B takes are anticipated to be primarily 

in the form of behavioral disturbance as 

described in the Definition of 

Harassment: Level B Harassment 

section; 61 TTS takes are estimated. 

However, it is unlikely that many 

individuals of these species will incur 

TTS because of: The distance within 

which they would have to approach the 

MFAS source (approximately 459 ft (140 

m) for the most powerful source for 

TTS), the fact that many animals will 

likely avoid active sonar sources to 

some degree, and the likelihood that 

Navy monitors would detect these 

animals prior to an approach within this 

distance (given their gregarious nature 

and large group size) and implement 

active sonar powerdown or shutdown. 

However, the Navy’s proposed 

mitigation has a provision that allows 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64572 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

the Navy to continue operation of MFAS 

if the animals are clearly bow-riding 

even after the Navy has initially 

maneuvered to try and avoid closing 

with the animals. Since these animals 

sometimes bow-ride they could 

potentially be exposed to levels 

associated with TTS as they approach or 

depart from bow-riding. As mentioned 

above and indicated in Table 5a and 

Table 5b, vocalizations of these species 

might overlap with the MFAS/HFAS 

TTS frequency range (2 to 20 kHz), 

which could potentially temporarily 

decrease an animal’s sensitivity to the 

calls of conspecifics or returning 

echolocation signals. However, as noted 

previously, NMFS does not anticipate 

TTS of a long duration or severe degree 

to occur as a result of exposure to 

MFAS/HFAS. 

The acoustic analysis further predicts 

that six Pacific white-sided dolphins 

would be exposed to levels of pressure 

and/or energy from explosive 

detonations that would result in Level B 

harassment by TTS, and 12 could be 

exposed to levels associated with 

behavioral disturbance. NMFS believes 

that this is unlikely because of: The 

distance within which they would have 

to approach the explosive source; and 

the likelihood that Navy monitors 

would, before or during exercise 

monitoring, detect these large-grouped 

gregarious animals prior to an approach 

within this distance and require a delay 

of the exercise. 

Pacific white-sided dolphins occur 

across the central north Pacific waters to 

latitudes as low as (or lower than) 38 °N 

and northward to the Bering Sea and 

coastal areas of southern Alaska. In the 

eastern north Pacific, the species occurs 

from the southern Gulf of California, 

north to the GoA, west to Amchitka in 

the Aleutian Islands, and is rarely 

encountered in the southern Bering Sea. 

Pacific white-sided dolphins occur 

regularly year-round throughout the 

GoA. They are widely distributed along 

the shelf break, continental slope, and 

in offshore waters. In Alaska, peak 

abundance is between July and August, 

when Pacific white-sided dolphins tend 

to congregate near the Fairweather 

Grounds in the southeastern GoA and 

Portlock Bank in the northeast part of 

the TMAA (Angliss and Allen, 2008; 

DoN, 2006). The minimum population 

estimate for the North Pacific stock is 

26,880 (CV = 0.90) individuals (Angliss 

and Allen, 2008). 

The GoA TMAA activities are not 

expected to occur in an area/time of 

specific importance for reproduction, 

feeding, or other known critical 

behaviors. Consequently, the activities 

are not expected to adversely impact 

rates of recruitment or survival of 

Pacific white-sided dolphins. Based on 

the general information contained in the 

Negligible Impact Analysis section and 

this species-specific summary of the 

effects of the takes, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the 

Navy’s specified activities will have a 

negligible impact on this species. 

Porpoises 

The acoustic analysis predicts that the 

following numbers of Level B behavioral 

harassments of the associated species 

will occur: 206,374 Dall’s porpoises and 

5,440 harbor porpoises. 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 a portion (768 Dall’s 

porpoises) of the modeled Level B 

Harassment takes for these species is 

predicted to be in the form of TTS from 

MFAS, 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 active sonar source 

(approximately 459 ft (140 m) for the 

most powerful source), the fact that 

many animals will likely avoid active 

sonar sources to some degree, and the 

likelihood that Navy monitors would 

detect these animals prior to an 

approach within this distance and 

implement active sonar powerdown or 

shutdown. Navy lookouts will likely 

detect a group of dolphins given their 

relatively short dives, gregarious 

behavior, 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 bow-riding 

even after the Navy has initially 

maneuvered to try and avoid closing 

with the animals. Since these animals 

sometimes bow-ride they could 

potentially be exposed to levels 

associated with TTS as they approach or 

depart from bow-riding. As mentioned 

above and indicated in Table 5a and 

Table 5b, some porpoise vocalizations 

might overlap with the MFAS/HFAS 

TTS frequency range (2 to 20 kHz), 

which could potentially temporarily 

decrease an animal’s sensitivity to the 

calls of conspecifics or returning 

echolocation signals. However, as noted 

previously, NMFS does not anticipate 

TTS of a long duration or severe degree 

to occur as a result of exposure to 

MFAS/HFAS. 

Acoustic analysis also predicted that 

37 Dall’s porpoises would be exposed to 

sound or pressure from explosives at 

levels expected to result in TTS. For the 

same reasons noted above, NMFS 

anticipates that the Navy watchstanders 

would likely detect these species and 

implement the mitigation to avoid 

exposure. However, the range to TTS for 

a few of the larger explosives is larger 

than the associated exclusion zones for 

BOMBEX, MISSILEX, or SINKEX (see 

Table 3), and therefore NMFS 

anticipates that TTS might not be 

entirely avoided during those exercises. 

Acoustic analysis also predicted that 

three Dall’s porpoises might be exposed 

to sound or pressure from sonar (one) 

and explosive detonations (two) that 

would result in PTS or injury. In 

addition, the analysis predicted that one 

Dall’s porpoise mortality may occur as 

a result of exposure to pressure/energy 

levels from explosive detonations. For 

the same reasons listed above (group 

size, dive and social behavior), NMFS 

anticipates that the Navy watchstanders 

would detect these species and 

implement the mitigation measures to 

avoid exposure. In the case of all 

explosive exercises, the exclusion zones 

are 2–12 times larger than the estimated 

distance at which an animal would be 

exposed to injurious sounds or pressure 

waves. 

No areas of specific importance for 

reproduction or feeding for porpoises 

have been identified in the GoA TMAA. 

Table 4 shows the estimated abundance 

of the affected porpoise stocks. 

Based on the general information 

contained in the Negligible Impact 

Analysis section and this stock-specific 

summary of the effects of the takes, 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the Navy’s specified activities will 

have a negligible impact on these 

species. 

Steller Sea Lion (MMPA Depleted/ESAListed) 

The risk function and Navy postmodeling analysis estimates that 11,106 

Steller sea lions would be exposed to 

non-TTS (behavioral) Level B 

harassment, two Steller sea lions would 

be exposed to TTS Level B harassment 

and no Steller sea lions would be 

exposed to Level A harassment (11,105 

from sonar and three from at-sea 

explosions). These estimates represent 

the total number of takes and not 

necessarily the number of individuals 

taken, as a single individual may be 

taken multiple times over the course of 

the year. The short duration and 

intermittent transmission of the sonar 

signals, combined with relatively rapid 

vessel speed, reduces the likelihood that 

exposure to sonar sound would cause a 

behavioral response that may affect vital 

functions, TTS, or PTS. The set-up 

procedures and checks required for 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64573 

safety of event participants make it 

unlikely that Steller sea lions would 

remain in an area undetected before 

explosive detonation occurred. 

The minimum abundance estimate for 

the western U.S. stock of Steller sea 

lions is 38,988 individuals and for the 

Eastern stock is 45,095 to 55,832 

(Angliss and Allen, 2008). Given the 

wide dispersal of individuals, both the 

western and eastern U.S. stocks may 

occur in the GoA (DoN, 2006; Angliss 

and Outlaw, 2007; NMFS, 2008), with 

about 70 percent of the population 

living in Alaskan waters. Relative to the 

population size, the Navy’s activities are 

anticipated to result only in a limited 

number of Level B harassment takes. For 

the GoA, foraging habitat is primarily 

shallow, nearshore, and continental 

shelf waters 4.3 to 13 nm (8 to 24 km) 

offshore with a secondary occurrence 

inshore of the 3,289 ft (1,000 m) 

isobaths, and a rare occurrence seaward 

of the 3,280 ft (1,000 m) isobaths. Steller 

sea lions have been sighted foraging in 

the middle of the GoA (DoN, 2006). The 

April 2009 survey in the TMAA 

encountered two groups of Steller sea 

lions (Rone et al., 2009). No aquatic 

foraging critical habitat exists within the 

TMAA. Steller sea lions form large 

rookeries during late spring and most 

births occur from mid-May through 

mid-July outside the boundaries of the 

TMAA. There are no known areas used 

by Steller sea lions for reproduction or 

calving within the TMAA. Based on the 

general information contained in the 

Negligible Impact Analysis section and 

this species-specific summary of the 

effects of the takes, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the 

Navy’s specified activities will have a 

negligible impact on this species. 

California Sea Lion 

There are not sufficient numbers of 

California sea lions present in the 

TMAA to allow for acoustic impact 

modeling. Even if an accurate 

abundance or density could be derived 

for these species, being so few in 

number in the TMAA, accepted 

modeling methodology would predict 

zero exposures. Therefore, for each 

proposed 21-day exercise period, the 

number of behavioral harassments will 

be based on an assumption of having 

exposed the average group size to one 

instance of behavioral harassment to 

account for all acoustic sources for 

purposes of this analysis in the TMAA. 

It is assumed, given that California sea 

lions are very rare in the GoA, that they 

would only be encountered individually 

(i.e., average group size of one) even if 

a prey species was running. In order to 

account for rare animals, the Navy 

requests authorization to take two 

California sea lions by non-TTS Level B 

harassment. No TTS Level B harassment 

or Level A harassment is anticipated. 

The abundance estimate for the U.S. 

stock of California sea lions is 238,000 

individuals (Carretta et al., 2007b). This 

number is from counts during the 2001 

breeding season of animals that were 

ashore at the four major rookeries in 

Southern California and at haulout sites 

north to the Oregon/California border. 

The few California sea lions recorded in 

Alaska are usually observed at Steller 

sea lion rookeries and haulout sites with 

most sightings recorded between March 

and May, although they may be found 

in the GoA throughout the year 

(Maniscalco et al., 2004; DoN, 2006). 

During August and September, after the 

mating season, adult male California sea 

lions migrate to feeding areas as far 

north as the GoA (Lowry et al., 1991). 

They remain there until spring (MarchMay), when they migrate southward to 

the breeding colonies. The GoA is 

outside of the known breeding range for 

California sea lions. There are no known 

areas used by California sea lions for 

reproduction or calving in the TMAA. 

Based on the general information 

contained in the Negligible Impact 

Analysis section and this speciesspecific summary of the effects of the 

takes, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the Navy’s specified 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on this species. 

Harbor Seal 

The Navy’s acoustic analysis 

estimates that one harbor seal would be 

exposed to MFAS/HFAS at sound levels 

likely to result in Level B harassment. 

This Level B take is anticipated to be in 

the form of behavioral disturbance as 

described in the Definition of 

Harassment: Level B Harassment 

section; no TTS takes are estimated. 

The acoustic analysis further predicts 

that one harbor seal would be exposed 

to levels of pressure and/or energy from 

explosive detonations that would result 

in Level B harassment. This Level B take 

is also anticipated to be in the form of 

behavioral disturbance and no TTS 

takes are estimated from exposure to 

levels of pressure and/or energy from 

explosive detonations. 

The population estimate for the Gulf 

of Alaska stock of harbor seals is 45,975 

(CV = 0.04) (Angliss and Allen, 2008). 

The harbor seal is one of the most 

widespread of the pinniped species 

distributed from the eastern Baltic Sea, 

west across the Atlantic and Pacific 

Oceans to southern Japan, along the 

coast and offshore islands of the GoA 

(DoN, 2006). With few exceptions, 

harbor seals in the GoA are located in 

shallow nearshore areas and not at sea 

in the TMAA. Harbor seals, therefore, 

should be very rare in the small section 

of the TMAA nearest Kenai Peninsula, 

Montague Island, and Middleton Island. 

During the April 2009 survey, no harbor 

seals were encountered within the 

TMAA (Rone et al., 2009). There are 

harbor seal haulouts along the shoreline 

of southeast Alaska, the south side of 

the Alaska Peninsula, the Aleutian 

Islands, and Middleton and Montague 

Islands (Hoover, 1988; Lowrey et al., 

2001; Boveng et al., 2003). However, 

there are no known preferred habitat 

areas used by harbor seals within the 

TMAA. Based on the general 

information contained in the Negligible 

Impact Analysis section and this 

species-specific summary of the effects 

of the takes, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the Navy’s specified 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on this species. 

Northern Elephant Seal 

The Navy’s acoustic analysis 

estimates that 2,064 northern elephant 

seals would be exposed to MFAS/HFAS 

at sound levels likely to result in Level 

B harassment. This estimate represents 

the total number of takes and not 

necessarily the number of individuals 

taken, as a single individual may be 

taken multiple times over the course of 

the year. These Level B takes are 

anticipated to be in the form of 

behavioral disturbance as described in 

the Definition of Harassment: Level B 

Harassment section, and no TTS takes 

are estimated from exposure to MFAS/ 

HFAS. 

The acoustic analysis further predicts 

that one northern elephant seal would 

be exposed to levels of pressure and/or 

energy from explosive detonations that 

would result in Level B harassment by 

TTS, and four could be exposed to 

levels associated with behavioral 

disturbance. NMFS believes it unlikely 

that a northern elephant seal will incur 

TTS because of: The distance within 

which they would have to approach to 

explosive source; and the likelihood 

that Navy monitors would, during preexercise monitoring or while an exercise 

is taking place, detect these pinnipeds 

(because of the relatively short duration 

of their dives and their tendency to rest 

near the surface) prior to an approach 

within this distance and implement the 

appropriate mitigation measures. 

The population estimate for the 

California Breeding stock of northern 

elephant seals is 124,000 (Carretta et al., 

2007). Northern elephant seals are 

endemic to the North Pacific Ocean, 

occurring almost exclusively in the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64574 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

eastern and central North Pacific. 

Individuals from the California breeding 

stock do occur regularly in the GoA 

year-round (Calkins, 1986). Typically, 

only sub-adult and adult male elephant 

seals forage in the GoA with a peak 

abundance in the spring and fall (Le 

Boeuf et al., 2000). There are no known 

areas used by northern elephant seals 

for reproduction or calving in the 

TMAA. Based on the general 

information contained in the Negligible 

Impact Analysis section and this 

species-specific summary of the effects 

of the takes, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the Navy’s specified 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on this species. 

Northern Fur Seal (Eastern Pacific Stock 

MMPA Depleted) 

The Navy’s acoustic analysis 

estimates that 154,160 northern fur seals 

would be exposed to MFAS/HFAS at 

sound levels likely to result in Level B 

harassment. This estimate represents the 

total number of takes and not 

necessarily the number of individuals 

taken, as a single individual may be 

taken multiple times over the course of 

the year. These Level B takes are 

anticipated to be primarily in the form 

of behavioral disturbance as described 

in the Definition of Harassment: Level B 

Harassment section, although 16 TTS 

takes are estimated from exposure to 

MFAS/HFAS. NMFS believes it unlikely 

that a northern fur seals, for which the 

TTS threshold is 206 dB SEL, will incur 

TTS because of the distance within 

which they would have to approach the 

MFAS source (approximately 121 ft (37 

m) for the most powerful source), the 

fact that many animals will likely avoid 

active sonar sources to some degree, and 

the likelihood that Navy monitors 

would detect these pinnipeds (because 

of the relatively short duration of their 

dives and their tendency to rest near the 

surface) prior to an approach within this 

distance and implement active sonar 

powerdown or shutdown. In addition, 

some northern fur seal vocalizations 

might overlap with the MFAS/HFAS 

TTS frequency range (2 to 20 kHz), 

which could potentially temporarily 

decrease an animal’s sensitivity to the 

calls of conspecifics or returning 

echolocation signals. However, as noted 

previously, NMFS does not anticipate 

TTS of a long duration or severe degree 

to occur as a result of exposure to 

MFAS/HFAS. 

The acoustic analysis further predicts 

that 16 northern fur seals would be 

exposed to levels of pressure and/or 

energy from explosive detonations that 

would result in Level B harassment by 

TTS, 26 could be exposed to levels 

associated with behavioral disturbance, 

and one Level A harassment may occur. 

NMFS believes it unlikely that a 

northern fur seal will be subject to Level 

A harassment or incur TTS because of: 

The distance within which they would 

have to approach to explosive source; 

and the likelihood that Navy monitors 

would, during pre-exercise monitoring 

or while an exercise is taking place, 

detect these pinnipeds (because of the 

relatively short duration of their dives 

and their tendency to rest near the 

surface) prior to an approach within this 

distance and implement the appropriate 

mitigation measures. 

The population estimate for the 

Eastern Pacific stock of northern fur 

seals is 665,550 (Angliss and Allen, 

2008). Northern fur seals are a highly 

oceanic species spending all but 35 to 

45 days per year at sea. They are usually 

sighted 70 to 130 km from land along 

the continental shelf and slope, 

seamounts, submarine canyons, and sea 

valleys, where there are upwellings of 

nutrient-rich water. The Eastern Pacific 

stock spends May through November 

inwaters and breeding colonies north of 

the GoA. In late November, females and 

young begin to arrive in offshore waters 

off California while adult males migrate 

only as far south as the GoA (Kajimura, 

1984). Peak abundance in the TMAA 

should occur between March and June 

during the annual migration north to the 

Pribilof Islands breeding grounds 

(Fiscus et al., 1976; Consiglieri et al., 

1982). However, some northern fur 

seals, particularly juvenile males and 

nonpregnant females, remain in the GoA 

throughout the summer and have been 

documented in the nearshore waters of 

Southeastern Alaska, Prince William 

Sound, Portlock Bank, and the middle 

of the GoA (Calkins, 1986; Fiscus et al., 

1976). Tagging data presented by Ream 

et al. (2005) indicate that the main 

foraging areas and the main migration 

route through the GoA are located far to 

the west of the TMAA. There are no 

known rookeries or haulout sites areas 

used by northern fur seals for 

reproduction or pupping in the vicinity 

of the TMAA. Based on the general 

information contained in the Negligible 

Impact Analysis section and this 

species-specific summary of the effects 

of the takes, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the Navy’s specified 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on this species. 

Preliminary Determination 

Negligible Impact 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat and dependent upon 

the implementation of the mitigation 

and monitoring measures, NMFS 

preliminarily finds that the total taking 

from Navy training exercises utilizing 

MFAS/HFAS and underwater 

explosives in the GoA TMAA will have 

a negligible impact on the affected 

species or stocks. NMFS has proposed 

regulations for these exercises that 

prescribe the means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact on marine 

mammals and their habitat and set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of that taking. 

Subsistence Harvest of Marine 

Mammals 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the issuance of 5-year regulations 

and subsequent LOAs for Navy training 

exercises in the GoA TMAA would not 

have an unmitigable adverse impact on 

the availability of the affected species or 

stocks for subsistence use. The tribes 

nearest the GoA TMAA include the 

Alutiiq, Eyak, and Tlingit groups; 

however, these tribes do not use the 

TMAA for subsistence. In March 2008, 

letter were sent to 12 tribes, including 

those listed above, by the Navy’s 

Alaskan Command and Elemendorf Air 

Force Base requesting government-togovernment consultation pursuant to 

Executive Order 13175. All 12 tribes 

indicated that they have no concerns 

over the proposed action as described in 

the GoA TMAA DEIS. The Navy will 

continue to keep the tribes informed of 

the timeframes of future joint training 

exercises. 

As noted above, NMFS will consider 

all comments, suggestions and/or 

concerns submitted by the public during 

the proposed rulemaking comment 

period to help inform our final decision, 

particularly with respect to our 

negligible impact determination and the 

proposed mitigation and monitoring 

measures. 

ESA 

There are eight marine mammal 

species under NMFS jurisdiction that 

are listed as endangered or threatened 

under the ESA with confirmed or 

possible occurrence in the TMAA: Cook 

Inlet beluga whale, North Pacific right 

whale, humpback whale, sei whale, fin 

whale, blue whale, sperm whale, and 

Steller sea lion. Typically, the Cook 

Inlet beluga whale does not leave Cook 

Inlet, which is approximately 70 nm 

(129.6 km) from the nearest edge of the 

TMAA. Based on this information, Cook 

Inlet beluga whales are considered 

extralimital to the TMAA and will not 

be considered further for analysis under 

the MMPA and the Navy has concluded 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64575 

that the proposed action will have no 

effect on Cook Inlet beluga whales. If 

NMFS concurs with this determination, 

for the remaining seven species, the 

Navy will consult with NMFS pursuant 

to section 7 of the ESA, and NMFS will 

also consult internally on the issuance 

of LOAs under section 101(a)(5)(A) of 

the MMPA for GoA TMAA activities. 

Consultation will be concluded prior to 

a determination on the issuance of the 

final rule and an LOA. 

NEPA 

NMFS has participated as a 

cooperating agency on the Navy’s Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 

for the GoA TMAA, which was 

published on December 11, 2009. The 

Navy’s DEIS is posted on NMFS’ Web 

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

permits/incidental.htm#applications. 

NMFS intends to adopt the Navy’s Final 

EIS (FEIS), if adequate and appropriate. 

Currently, we believe that the adoption 

of the Navy’s FEIS will allow NMFS to 

meet its responsibilities under NEPA for 

the issuance of regulations and an LOA 

for GoA TMAA. If the Navy’s FEIS is 

deemed inadequate, NMFS would 

supplement the existing analysis to 

ensure that we comply with NEPA prior 

to the issuance of the final rule or LOA. 

Classification 

This action does not contain any 

collection of information requirements 

for purposes of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has determined that this proposed rule 

is not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (RFA), the Chief Counsel for 

Regulation of the Department of 

Commerce has certified to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration that this 

proposed rule, if adopted, would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The RFA requires Federal agencies to 

prepare an analysis of a rule’s impact on 

small entities whenever the agency is 

required to publish a notice of proposed 

rulemaking. However, a Federal agency 

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

(b), that the action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The Navy is the sole entity that will be 

affected by this rulemaking, not a small 

governmental jurisdiction, small 

organization, or small business, as 

defined by the RFA. Any requirements 

imposed by a Letter of Authorization 

issued pursuant to these regulations, 

and any monitoring or reporting 

requirements imposed by these 

regulations, will be applicable only to 

the Navy. NMFS does not expect the 

issuance of these regulations or the 

associated LOAs to result in any 

impacts to small entities pursuant to the 

RFA. Because this action, if adopted, 

would directly affect the Navy and not 

a small entity, NMFS concludes the 

action would not result in a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 218 

Exports, Fish, Imports, Incidental 

take, Indians, Labeling, Marine 

mammals, Navy, Penalties, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Seafood, Sonar, Transportation. 

Dated: October 1, 2010. 

Eric C. Schwaab, 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

For reasons set forth in the preamble, 

50 CFR part 218 is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 218—REGULATIONS 

GOVERNING THE TAKING AND 

IMPORTING OF MARINE MAMMALS 

1. The authority citation for part 218 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2. Subpart M is added to part 218 to 

read as follows: 

Subpart M—Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; U.S. Navy’s Gulf of Alaska 

Temporary Maritime Activities Area (GoA 

TMAA) 

Sec. 

218.120 Specified activity and geographical 

area. 

218.121 [Reserved] 

218.122 Permissible methods of taking. 

218.123 Prohibitions. 

218.124 Mitigation. 

218.125 Requirements for monitoring and 

reporting. 

218.126 Applications for Letters of 

Authorization. 

218.127 Letters of Authorization. 

218.128 Renewal of Letters of Authorization 

and adaptive management. 

218.129 Modifications to Letters of 

Authorization. 

Subpart M—Taking and Importing 

Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy’s Gulf of 

Alaska Temporary Maritime Activities 

Area (GoA TMAA) 

§ 218.120 Specified activity and 

geographical area. 

(a) Regulations in this subpart apply 

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

marine mammals that occurs in the area 

outlined in paragraph (b) of this section 

and that occur incidental to the 

activities described in paragraph (c) of 

this section. 

(b) The taking of marine mammals by 

the Navy may be authorized in a Letter 

of Authorization (LOA) only if it occurs 

within the Gulf of Alaska Temporary 

Maritime Activities Area (GoA TMAA) 

(as depicted in Figure 1–1 in the Navy’s 

application for GoA TMAA), which is 

bounded by a hexagon with the 

following six corners: 57°30′ N. lat., 

141°30′ W. long.; 59°36′ N. lat., 148°10′ 

W. long.; 58°57′ N. lat., 150°04′ W. long.; 

58°20′ N. lat., 151°00′ W. long.; 57°16′ 

N. lat., 151°00′ W. long.; and 55°30′ N. 

lat, 142°00′ W. long. 

(c) The taking of marine mammals by 

the Navy may be authorized in an LOA 

only if it occurs incidental to the 

following activities within the 

designated amounts of use: 

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

high-frequency active sonar (HFAS) 

sources for U.S. Navy anti-submarine 

warfare (ASW), in the amounts and in 

the locations indicated below (± 10 

percent): 

(i) AN/SQS–53 (hull-mounted active 

sonar)—up to 2,890 hours over the 

course of 5 years (an average of 578 

hours per year); 

(ii) AN/SQS–56 (hull-mounted active 

sonar)—up to 260 hours over the course 

of 5 years (an average of 52 hours per 

year); 

(iii) AN/SSQ–62 (Directional 

Command Activated Sonobuoy System 

(DICASS) sonobuoys)—up to 1,330 

sonobuoys over the course of 5 years (an 

average of 266 sonobuoys per year); 

(iv) AN/AQS–22 (helicopter dipping 

sonar)—up to 960 ‘‘dips’’ over the course 

of 5 years (an average of 192 ‘‘dips’’ per 

year); 

(v) AN/BQQ–10 (submarine hullmounted sonar)—up to 240 hours over 

the course of 5 years (an average of 48 

hours per year); 

(vi) MK–48 (torpedo)—up to 10 

torpedoes over the course of 5 years (a 

maximum of 2 torpedoes per year); 

(vii) AN/SSQ–110A (IEER)—up to 400 

buoys deployed over the course of 5 

years (an average of 80 per year 

maximum combined use of AN/SSQ– 

110A or AN/SSQ–125); 

(viii) AN/SSQ–125 (MAC)—up to 400 

buoys deployed over the course of 5 

years (an average of 80 per year 

maximum combined use of AN/SSQ– 

110A or AN/SSQ–125); 

(ix) Range Pingers—up to 400 hours 

over the course of 5 years (an average of 

80 hours per year); 

(x) SUS MK–84—up to 120 devices 

over the course of 5 years (an average of 

24 per year); and 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64576 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(xi) PUTR Transponder—up to 400 

hours over the course of 5 years (an 

average of 80 hours per year). 

(2) The detonation of the underwater 

explosives indicated in paragraph 

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

of the training events indicated in 

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

(i) Underwater Explosives (Net 

Explosive Weight (NEW)): 

(A) 5′′ Naval Gunfire (9.5 lbs NEW); 

(B) 76 mm rounds (1.6 lbs NEW); 

(C) Maverick (78.5 lbs NEW); 

(D) MK–82 (238 lbs NEW); 

(E) MK–83 (238 lbs NEW); 

(F) MK–83 (574 lbs NEW); 

(G) MK–84 (945 lbs NEW); 

(H) MK–48 (851 lbs NEW); 

(I) AN/SSQ–110A (IEER explosive 

sonobuoy—5 lbs NEW); 

(ii) Training Events: 

(A) Gunnery Exercises (S–S 

GUNEX)—up to 60 exercises over the 

course of 5 years (an average of 12 per 

year); 

(B) Bombing Exercises (BOMBEX)— 

up to 180 exercises over the course of 

5 years (an average of 36 per year); 

(C) Sinking Exercises (SINKEX)—up 

to 10 exercises over the course of 5 years 

(a maximum of 2 per year); 

(D) Extended Echo Ranging and 

Improved Extended Echo Ranging (EER/ 

IEER) Systems—up to 400 deployments 

over the course of 5 years (an average of 

80 per year); 

(E) Missile exercises (A–S 

MISSILEX)—up to 20 exercises over the 

course of 5 years (an average of 4 per 

year). 

(d) The taking of marine mammals 

may also be authorized in an LOA for 

the activities and sources listed in 

§ 218.120(c) should the amounts (i.e., 

hours, dips, number of exercises) vary 

from those estimated in § 218.120(c), 

provided that the variation does not 

result in exceeding the amount of take 

indicated in § 218.122. 

§ 218.121 [Reserved] 

§ 218.122 Permissible methods of taking. 

(a) Under Letters of Authorization 

issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 and 

218.127 of this chapter, the Holder of 

the Letter of Authorization (hereinafter 

‘‘Navy’’) may incidentally, but not 

intentionally, take marine mammals 

within the area described in 

§ 218.120(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 

§ 218.120(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 § 218.120(c) is limited to the species 

listed below in paragraphs (c)(4), (5), 

and (6) of this section by the indicated 

method of take and the indicated 

number of times (estimated based on the 

authorized amounts of sound source 

operation), but with the following 

allowances for annual variation in 

activities: 

(1) In any given year, annual take, by 

harassment, of any species of marine 

mammal may not exceed the amount 

identified in paragraphs (c)(4) and (5) of 

this section, for that species by more 

than 25 percent (a post-calculation/ 

estimation of which must be provided 

in the annual LOA application); 

(2) In any given year, annual take by 

harassment of all marine mammal 

species combined may not exceed the 

estimated total of all species combined, 

indicated in paragraphs (c)(4) and (5) of 

this section, by more than 10 percent; 

and 

(3) Over the course of the effective 

period of this subpart, total take, by 

harassment, of any species may not 

exceed the 5-year amounts indicated in 

paragraphs (c)(4) and (5) of this section 

by more than 10 percent. A running 

calculation/estimation of takes of each 

species over the course of the years 

covered by the rule must be maintained. 

(4) Level B Harassment: 

(i) Mysticetes: 

(A) Humpback whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae)—6,975 (an average of 

1,395 annually); 

(B) Fin whale (Balaenoptera 

physalus)—55,185 (an average of 11,037 

annually); 

(C) Blue whale (Balaenoptera 

musculus)—10 (an average of 2 

annually); 

(D) Sei whale (Balaenoptera 

borealis)—40 (an average of 8 annually); 

(E) Minke whale (Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata)—3,405 (an average of 681 

annually); 

(F) Gray whale (Eschrichtius 

robustus)—1,940 (an average of 388 

annually); and 

(G) North Pacific right whale 

(Eubalaena japonica)—10 (an average of 

2 annually). 

(ii) Odontocetes: 

(A) Sperm whales (Physeter 

macrocephalus)—1,645 (an average of 

329 annually); 

(B) Killer whale (Orcinus orca)— 

53,245 (an average of 10,649 annually); 

(C) Harbor porpoise (Phocoena 

phocoena)—27,200 (an average of 5,440 

annually); 

(D) Baird’s beaked whales (Berardius 

bairdii)—2,435 (an average of 487 

annually); 

(E) Cuvier’s beaked whales (Ziphius 

cavirostris)—11,560 (an average of 2,312 

annually); 

(F) Stejneger’s beaked whales 

(Mesoplodon stejnegeri)—11,565 (an 

average of 2,313 annually); 

(G) Pacific white-sided dolphin 

(Lagenorhynchus obliquidens)—84,955 

(an average of 16,991 annually); and 

(H) Dall’s porpoise (Phocoenoides 

dalli)—1,031,870 (an average of 206,374 

annually). 

(iii) Pinnipeds: 

(A) Steller sea lion (Eumetopias 

jubatus)—55,540 (an average of 11,108 

annually) 

(B) California sea lion (Zalophus 

californianus)—10 (an average of 2 

annually); 

(C) Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina 

richardsi)—10 (an average of 2 

annually); 

(D) Northern elephant seal (Mirounga 

angustirostris)—10,345 (an average of 

2,069 annually); and 

(E) Northern fur seal (Callorhinus 

ursinus)—771,010 (an average of 

154,202 annually). 

(5) Level A Harassment and/or 

mortality of no more than 15 beaked 

whales (total), of any of the species 

listed in § 218.122(c)(1)(ii)(D) through 

(F) over the course of the 5-year 

regulations. 

§ 218.123 Prohibitions. 

No person in connection with the 

activities described in § 218.120 may: 

(a) Take any marine mammal not 

specified in § 218.122(c); 

(b) Take any marine mammal 

specified in § 218.122(c) other than by 

incidental take as specified in 

§§ 218.122(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3); 

(c) Take a marine mammal specified 

in § 218.122(c) if such taking results in 

more than a negligible impact on the 

species or stocks of such marine 

mammal; or 

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

terms, conditions, and requirements of 

these regulations or a Letter of 

Authorization issued under §§ 216.106 

and 218.127 of this chapter. 

§ 218.124 Mitigation. 

(a) When conducting training and 

utilizing the sound sources or 

explosives identified in § 218.120(c), the 

mitigation measures contained in a 

Letter of Authorization issued under 

§§ 216.106 and 218.127 of this chapter 

must be implemented. These mitigation 

measures include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Personnel Training: 

(i) All commanding officers (COs), 

executive officers (XOs), lookouts, 

Officers of the Deck (OODs), junior 

OODs (JOODs), maritime patrol aircraft 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64577 

aircrews, and Anti-submarine Warfare 

(ASW) helicopter crews shall complete 

the NMFS-approved Marine Species 

Awareness Training (MSAT) by viewing 

the U.S. Navy MSAT digital versatile 

disk (DVD). All bridge lookouts shall 

complete both parts one and two of the 

MSAT; part two is optional for other 

personnel. 

(ii) Navy lookouts shall undertake 

extensive training in order to qualify as 

a watchstander in accordance with the 

Lookout Training Handbook (Naval 

Education and Training Command 

[NAVEDTRA] 12968–D). 

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

supervision of a qualified, experienced 

lookout. Following successful 

completion of this supervised training 

period, lookouts shall complete the 

Personal Qualification Standard 

Program, certifying that they have 

demonstrated the necessary skills (such 

as detection and reporting of partially 

submerged objects). Personnel being 

trained as lookouts can be counted 

among required lookouts as long as 

supervisors monitor their progress and 

performance. 

(iv) Lookouts shall be trained in the 

most effective means to ensure quick 

and effective communication within the 

command structure in order to facilitate 

implementation of protective measures 

if marine species are spotted. 

(v) All lookouts onboard platforms 

involved in ASW training events shall 

review the NMFS-approved Marine 

Species Awareness Training material 

prior to use of mid-frequency active 

sonar. 

(vi) All COs, XOs, and officers 

standing watch on the bridge shall have 

reviewed the Marine Species Awareness 

Training material prior to a training 

event employing the use of MFAS/ 

HFAS. 

(2) General Operating Procedures (for 

all training types): 

(i) Prior to major exercises, a Letter of 

Instruction, Mitigation Measures 

Message or Environmental Annex to the 

Operational Order shall be issued to 

further disseminate the personnel 

training requirement and general marine 

species protective measures. 

(ii) COs shall make use of marine 

species detection cues and information 

to limit interaction with marine 

mammals to the maximum extent 

possible consistent with safety of the 

ship. 

(iii) While underway, surface vessels 

shall have at least two lookouts with 

binoculars; surfaced submarines shall 

have at least one lookout with 

binoculars. Lookouts already posted for 

safety of navigation and man-overboard 

precautions may be used to fill this 

requirement. As part of their regular 

duties, lookouts shall watch for and 

report to the OOD the presence of 

marine mammals. 

(iv) On surface vessels equipped with 

a multi-function active sensor, pedestal 

mounted ‘‘Big Eye’’ (20×110) binoculars 

shall be properly installed and in good 

working order to assist in the detection 

of marine mammals in the vicinity of 

the vessel. 

(v) Personnel on lookout shall employ 

visual search procedures employing a 

scanning methodology in accordance 

with the Lookout Training Handbook 

(NAVEDTRA 12968–D). 

(vi) After sunset and prior to sunrise, 

lookouts shall employ Night Lookouts 

Techniques in accordance with the 

Lookout Training Handbook 

(NAVEDTRA 12968–D). 

(vii) While in transit, naval vessels 

shall be alert at all times, use extreme 

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

which means the speed at which the CO 

can maintain crew safety and 

effectiveness of current operational 

directives, so that the vessel can take 

action to avoid a collision with any 

marine mammal. 

(viii) When marine mammals have 

been sighted in the area, Navy vessels 

shall increase vigilance and take all 

reasonable actions to avoid collisions 

and close interaction of naval assets and 

marine mammals. Such action may 

include changing speed and/or direction 

and are dictated by environmental and 

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

(ix) Navy aircraft participating in 

exercises at-sea shall conduct and 

maintain surveillance for marine 

mammals as long as it does not violate 

safety constraints or interfere with the 

accomplishment of primary operational 

duties. 

(x) All marine mammal detections 

shall be immediately reported to 

assigned Aircraft Control Unit for 

further dissemination to ships in the 

vicinity of the marine species as 

appropriate when it is reasonable to 

conclude that the course of the ship will 

likely result in a closing of the distance 

to the detected marine mammal. 

(xi) Naval vessels shall maneuver to 

keep at least 1,500 ft (500 yd or 457 m) 

away from any observed whale in the 

vessel’s path and avoid approaching 

whales head-on. These requirements do 

not apply if a vessel’s safety is 

threatened, such as when change of 

course will create an imminent and 

serious threat to a person, vessel, or 

aircraft, and to the extent vessels are 

restricted in their ability to maneuver. 

Restricted maneuverability includes, but 

is not limited to, situations when 

vessels are engaged in dredging, 

submerged activities, launching and 

recovering aircraft or landing craft, 

minesweeping activities, replenishment 

while underway and towing activities 

that severely restrict a vessel’s ability to 

deviate course. Vessels shall take 

reasonable steps to alert other vessels in 

the vicinity of the whale. Given rapid 

swimming speeds and maneuverability 

of many dolphin species, naval vessels 

would maintain normal course and 

speed on sighting dolphins unless some 

condition indicated a need for the vessel 

to maneuver. 

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

(i) On the bridge of surface ships, 

there shall always be at least three 

people on watch whose duties include 

observing the water surface around the 

vessel. 

(ii) All surface ships participating in 

ASW training events shall have, in 

addition to the three personnel on 

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

section, at least two additional 

personnel on watch as lookouts at all 

times during the exercise. 

(iii) Personnel on lookout and officers 

on watch on the bridge shall have at 

least one set of binoculars available for 

each person to aid in the detection of 

marine mammals. 

(iv) Personnel on lookout shall be 

responsible for reporting all objects or 

anomalies sighted in the water 

(regardless of the distance from the 

vessel) to the Officer of the Deck, since 

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

periscope, surface disturbance, 

discoloration) in the water may be 

indicative of a threat to the vessel and 

its crew or indicative of a marine 

mammal that may need to be avoided. 

(v) All personnel engaged in passive 

acoustic sonar operation (including 

aircraft, surface ships, or submarines) 

shall monitor for marine mammal 

vocalizations and report the detection of 

any marine mammal to the appropriate 

watch station for dissemination and 

appropriate action. 

(vi) During mid-frequency active 

sonar operations, personnel shall utilize 

all available sensor and optical systems 

(such as night vision goggles) to aid in 

the detection of marine mammals. 

(vii) Aircraft with deployed 

sonobuoys shall use only the passive 

capability of sonobuoys when marine 

mammals are detected within 200 yd 

(183 m) of the sonobuoy. 

(viii) Helicopters shall observe/survey 

the vicinity of an ASW exercise for 10 

minutes before the first deployment of 

active (dipping) sonar in the water. 

(ix) Helicopters shall not dip their 

sonar within 200 yd (183 m) of a marine 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64578 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

mammal and shall cease pinging if a 

marine mammal closes within 200 yd 

(183 m) after pinging has begun. 

(x) Safety Zones—When marine 

mammals are detected by any means 

(aircraft, shipboard lookout, or 

acoustically) within 1,000 yd (914 m) of 

the sonar dome (the bow), the ship or 

submarine shall limit active 

transmission levels to at least 6 decibels 

(dB) below normal operating levels for 

that source (i.e., limit to at most 229 dB 

for AN/SQS–53 and 219 for AN/SQS– 

56, etc.). 

(A) Ships and submarines shall 

continue to limit maximum 

transmission levels by this 6–dB factor 

until the animal has been seen to leave 

the 1,000-yd (914 m) exclusion zone, 

has not been detected for 30 minutes, or 

the vessel has transited more than 2,000 

yds (1,829 m) beyond the location of the 

last detection. 

(B) Should a marine mammal be 

detected within 500 yd (457 m) of the 

sonar dome, active sonar transmissions 

shall be limited to at least 10 dB below 

the equipment’s normal operating level 

(i.e., limit to at most 225 dB for AN/ 

SQS–53 and 215 for AN/SQS–56, etc.). 

Ships and submarines shall continue to 

limit maximum ping levels by this 10– 

dB factor until the animal has been seen 

to leave the 500-yd (457 m) safety zone 

(at which point the 6–dB powerdown 

applies until the animal leaves the 

1,000-yd (914 m) safety zone), has not 

been detected for 30 minutes, or the 

vessel has transited more than 2,000 yd 

(1,829 m) beyond the location of the last 

detection. 

(C) Should the marine mammal be 

detected within 200 yd (183 m) of the 

sonar dome, active sonar transmissions 

shall cease. Sonar shall not resume until 

the animal has been seen to leave the 

200-yd (183 m) safety zone (at which 

point the 10–dB or 6–dB powerdowns 

apply until the animal leaves the 500- 

yd (457 m) or 1,000-yd (914 m) safety 

zone, respectively), has not been 

detected for 30 minutes, or the vessel 

has transited more than 2,000 yd (1,829 

m) beyond the location of the last 

detection. 

(D) Special conditions applicable for 

dolphins and porpoises only: If, after 

conducting an initial maneuver to avoid 

close quarters with dolphins or 

porpoises, the OOD concludes that 

dolphins or porpoises are deliberately 

closing to ride the vessel’s bow wave, no 

further mitigation actions are necessary 

while the dolphins or porpoises 

continue to exhibit bow wave riding 

behavior. 

(xi) Prior to start up or restart of active 

sonar, operators shall check that the 

Safety Zone radius around the sound 

source is clear of marine mammals. 

(xii) Active sonar levels (generally)— 

Navy shall operate active sonar at the 

lowest practicable level, not to exceed 

235 dB, except as required to meet 

tactical training objectives. 

(xiii) Submarine sonar operators shall 

review detection indicators of closeaboard marine mammals prior to the 

commencement of ASW training events 

involving MFAS. 

(xiv) If the need for power-down 

should arise (as detailed in 

§ 218.114(a)(3)(x)) when the Navy is 

operating a hull-mounted or submounted source above 235 db 

(infrequent), the Navy shall follow the 

requirements as though they were 

operating at 235 dB—the normal 

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

what level above 235 dB active sonar 

was being operated). 

(4) Sinking Exercise: 

(i) All weapons firing shall be 

conducted during the period 1 hour 

after official sunrise to 30 minutes 

before official sunset. 

(ii) An exclusion zone with a radius 

of 1.0 nm (1.9 km) shall be established 

around each target. An additional buffer 

of 0.5 nm (0.9 km) will be added to 

account for errors, target drift, and 

animal movements. Additionally, a 

safety zone, which will extend beyond 

the buffer zone by an additional 0.5 nm 

(0.9 km), shall be surveyed. Together, 

the zones extend out 2 nm (3.7 km) from 

the target. 

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

exclusion and the safety zones, prior to 

and during the exercise, when feasible. 

Survey protocol shall be as follows: 

(A) Overflights within the exclusion 

zone shall be conducted in a manner 

that optimizes the surface area of the 

water observed. This may be 

accomplished through the use of the 

Navy’s Search and Rescue Tactical Aid, 

which provides the best search altitude, 

ground speed, and track spacing for the 

discovery of small, possibly dark objects 

in the water based on the environmental 

conditions of the day. These 

environmental conditions include the 

angle of sun inclination, amount of 

daylight, cloud cover, visibility, and sea 

state. 

(B) All visual surveillance activities 

shall be conducted by Navy personnel 

trained in visual surveillance. At least 

one member of the mitigation team shall 

have completed the Navy’s marine 

mammal training program for lookouts. 

(C) In addition to the overflights, the 

exclusion zone shall be monitored by 

passive acoustic means, when assets are 

available. This passive acoustic 

monitoring shall be maintained 

throughout the exercise. Additionally, 

passive sonar onboard submarines may 

be utilized to detect any vocalizing 

marine mammals in the area. The OCE 

shall be informed of any aural detection 

of marine mammals and shall include 

this information in the determination of 

when it is safe to commence the 

exercise. 

(D) On each day of the exercise, aerial 

surveillance of the exclusion and safety 

zones shall commence 2 hours prior to 

the first firing. 

(E) The results of all visual, aerial, 

and acoustic searches shall be reported 

immediately to the OCE. No weapons 

launches or firing may commence until 

the OCE declares the safety and 

exclusion zones free of marine 

mammals. 

(F) If a marine mammal is observed 

within the exclusion zone, firing shall 

be delayed until the animal is re-sighted 

outside the exclusion zone, or 30 

minutes have elapsed. After 30 minutes, 

if the animal has not been re-sighted it 

can be assumed to have left the 

exclusion zone. The OCE shall 

determine if the marine mammal is in 

danger of being adversely affected by 

commencement of the exercise. 

(G) During breaks in the exercise of 30 

minutes or more, the exclusion zone 

shall again be surveyed for any marine 

mammal. If marine mammals are 

sighted within the exclusion zone or 

buffer zone, the OCE shall be notified, 

and the procedure described above shall 

be followed. 

(H) Upon sinking of the vessel, a final 

surveillance of the exclusion zone shall 

be monitored for 2 hours, or until 

sunset, to verify that no marine 

mammals were harmed. 

(iv) Aerial surveillance shall be 

conducted using helicopters or other 

aircraft based on necessity and 

availability. The Navy has several types 

of aircraft capable of performing this 

task; however, not all types are available 

for every exercise. For each exercise, the 

available asset best suited for 

identifying objects on and near the 

surface of the ocean shall be used. These 

aircraft shall be capable of flying at the 

slow safe speeds necessary to enable 

viewing of marine vertebrates with 

unobstructed, or minimally obstructed, 

downward and outward visibility. The 

exclusion and safety zone surveys may 

be cancelled in the event that a 

mechanical problem, emergency search 

and rescue, or other similar and 

unexpected event preempts the use of 

one of the aircraft onsite for the 

exercise. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64579 

(v) Every attempt shall be made to 

conduct the exercise in sea states that 

are ideal for marine mammal sighting, 

Beaufort Sea State 3 or less. In the event 

of a 4 or above, survey efforts shall be 

increased within the zones. This shall 

be accomplished through the use of an 

additional aircraft, if available, and 

conducting tight search patterns. 

(vi) The exercise shall not be 

conducted unless the exclusion zone 

and the buffer zone can be adequately 

monitored visually. Should low cloud 

cover or surface visibility prevent 

adequate visual monitoring as described 

previously, the exercise shall be delayed 

until conditions improved, and all of 

the above monitoring criteria can be 

met. 

(vii) In the event that any marine 

mammals are observed to be harmed in 

the area, a detailed description of the 

animal shall be taken, the location 

noted, and if possible, photos taken of 

the marine mammal. This information 

shall be provided to NMFS via the 

Navy’s regional environmental 

coordinator for purposes of 

identification (see the draft Stranding 

Plan for detail). 

(viii) An after action report detailing 

the exercise’s time line, the time the 

surveys commenced and terminated, 

amount, and types of all ordnance 

expended, and the results of survey 

efforts for each event shall be submitted 

to NMFS. 

(5) Surface-to-Surface Gunnery (up to 

5-inch Explosive Rounds): 

(i) For exercises using targets towed 

by a vessel, target-towing vessels shall 

maintain a trained lookout for marine 

mammals when feasible. If a marine 

mammal is sighted in the vicinity, the 

tow vessel shall immediately notify the 

firing vessel, which shall suspend the 

exercise until the area is clear. 

(ii) A 600-yd (585 m) radius buffer 

zone shall be established around the 

intended target. 

(iii) From the intended firing position, 

trained lookouts shall survey the buffer 

zone for marine mammals prior to 

commencement and during the exercise 

as long as practicable. Due to the 

distance between the firing position and 

the buffer zone, lookouts are only 

expected to visually detect breaching 

whales, whale blows, and large pods of 

dolphins and porpoises. 

(iv) The exercise shall be conducted 

only when the buffer zone is visible and 

marine mammals are not detected 

within it. 

(6) Surface-to-Surface Gunnery (nonexplosive rounds): 

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

zone shall be established around the 

intended target. 

(ii) From the intended firing position, 

trained lookouts shall survey the buffer 

zone for marine mammals prior to 

commencement and during the exercise 

as long as practicable. 

(iii) If available, target towing vessels 

shall maintain a lookout (unmanned 

towing vessels will not have a lookout 

available). If a marine mammal is 

sighted in the vicinity of the exercise, 

the tow vessel shall immediately notify 

the firing vessel in order to secure 

gunnery firing until the area is clear. 

(iv) The exercise shall be conducted 

only when the buffer zone is visible and 

marine mammals are not detected 

within the target area and the buffer 

zone. 

(7) Surface-to-Air Gunnery (Explosive 

and Non-explosive Rounds): 

(i) Vessels shall orient the geometry of 

gunnery exercises in order to prevent 

debris from falling in the area of sighted 

marine mammals. 

(ii) Vessels shall expedite the attempt 

to recover any parachute deploying 

aerial targets to reduce the potential for 

entanglement of marine mammals. 

(iii) Target towing aircraft shall 

maintain a lookout if feasible. If a 

marine mammal is sighted in the 

vicinity of the exercise, the tow aircraft 

shall immediately notify the firing 

vessel in order to secure gunnery firing 

until the area is clear. 

(8) Air-to-Surface Gunnery (Explosive 

and Non-explosive Rounds): 

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

zone shall be established around the 

intended target. 

(ii) If surface vessels are involved, 

lookout(s) shall visually survey the 

buffer zone for marine mammals to and 

during the exercise. 

(iii) Aerial surveillance of the buffer 

zone for marine mammals shall be 

conducted prior to commencement of 

the exercise. Aerial surveillance altitude 

of 500 ft to 1,500 ft (152–456 m) is 

optimum. Aircraft crew/pilot shall 

maintain visual watch during exercises. 

Release of ordnance through cloud 

cover is prohibited; aircraft must be able 

to actually see ordnance impact areas. 

(iv) The exercise shall be conducted 

only if marine mammals are not visible 

within the buffer zone. 

(9) Small Arms Training (Grenades, 

Explosive and Non-explosive Rounds)— 

Lookouts shall visually survey for 

marine mammals. Weapons shall not be 

fired in the direction of known or 

observed marine mammals. 

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

Exercises (explosive bombs and 

rockets): 

(i) If surface vessels are involved, 

trained lookouts shall survey for marine 

mammals. Ordnance shall not be 

targeted to impact within 1,000 yd (914 

m) of known or observed marine 

mammals. 

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

zone shall be established around the 

intended target. 

(iii) Aircraft shall visually survey the 

target and buffer zone for marine 

mammals prior to and during the 

exercise. The survey of the impact area 

shall be made by flying at 1,500 ft (457 

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

slowest safe speed. When safety or other 

considerations require the release of 

weapons without the releasing pilot 

having visual sight of the target area, a 

second aircraft, the ‘‘wingman,’’ shall 

clear the target area and perform the 

clearance and observation functions 

required before the dropping plane may 

release its weapons. Both planes shall 

have direct communication to assure 

immediate notification to the dropping 

plane that the target area may have been 

fouled by encroaching animals or 

people. The clearing aircraft shall assure 

it has visual site of the target area at a 

maximum height of 1,500 ft (457 m). 

The clearing plane shall remain within 

visual sight of the target until required 

to clear the area for safety reasons. 

Survey aircraft shall employ most 

effective search tactics and capabilities. 

(iv) The exercise shall be conducted 

only if marine mammals are not visible 

within the buffer zone. 

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

Exercises (Non-explosive Bombs and 

Rockets): 

(i) If surface vessels are involved, 

trained lookouts shall survey for marine 

mammals. Ordnance shall not be 

targeted to impact within 1,000 yd (914 

m) of known or observed marine 

mammals. 

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

zone shall be established around the 

intended target. 

(iii) Aircraft shall visually survey the 

target and buffer zone for marine 

mammals prior to and during the 

exercise. The survey of the impact area 

shall be made by flying at 1,500 ft (457 

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

slowest safe speed. When safety or other 

considerations require the release of 

weapons without the releasing pilot 

having visual sight of the target area, a 

second aircraft, the ‘‘wingman,’’ shall 

clear the target area and perform the 

clearance and observation functions 

required before the dropping plane may 

release its weapons. Both planes must 

have direct communication to assure 

immediate notification to the dropping 

plane that the target area may have been 

fouled by encroaching animals or 

people. The clearing aircraft shall assure 

it has visual site of the target area at a 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64580 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

maximum height of 1,500 ft (457 m). 

The clearing plane shall remain within 

visual sight of the target until required 

to clear the area for safety reasons. 

Survey aircraft shall employ most 

effective search tactics and capabilities. 

(iv) The exercise shall be conducted 

only if marine mammals and are not 

visible within the buffer zone. 

(12) Air-to-Surface Missile Exercises 

(explosive and non-explosive): 

(i) Aircraft shall visually survey the 

target area for marine mammals. Visual 

inspection of the target area shall be 

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

lower, if safe to do so, and at the slowest 

safe speed. Firing or range clearance 

aircraft must be able to actually see 

ordnance impact areas. 

(ii) Explosive ordnance shall not be 

targeted to impact within 1,800 yd (1646 

m) of sighted marine mammals. 

(13) Aircraft Training Activities 

Involving Non-Explosive Devices: Nonexplosive devices such as some 

sonobuoys and inert bombs involve 

aerial drops of devices that have the 

potential to hit marine mammals if they 

are in the immediate vicinity of a 

floating target. The exclusion zone (200 

yd), therefore, shall be clear of marine 

mammals and around the target 

location. 

(14) Extended Echo Ranging/ 

Improved Extended Echo Ranging (EER/ 

IEER): 

(i) Crews shall conduct visual 

reconnaissance of the drop area prior to 

laying their intended sonobuoy pattern. 

This search shall be conducted at an 

altitude below 500 yd (457 m) at a slow 

speed, if operationally feasible and 

weather conditions permit. In dual 

aircraft operations, crews are allowed to 

conduct coordinated area clearances. 

(ii) Crews shall conduct a minimum 

of 30 minutes of visual and aural 

monitoring of the search area prior to 

commanding the first post detonation. 

This 30-minute observation period may 

include pattern deployment time. 

(iii) For any part of the briefed pattern 

where a post (source/receiver sonobuoy 

pair) shall be deployed within 1,000 yd 

(914 m) of observed marine mammal 

activity, the Navy shall deploy the 

receiver ONLY and monitor while 

conducting a visual search. When 

marine mammals are no longer detected 

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

post position, the Navy shall co-locate 

the explosive source sonobuoy (AN/ 

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

(iv) When operationally feasible, Navy 

crews shall conduct continuous visual 

and aural monitoring of marine mammal 

activity. This is to include monitoring of 

own-aircraft sensors from first sensor 

placement to checking off station and 

out of RF range of these sensors. 

(v) Aural Detection—If the presence of 

marine mammals is detected aurally, 

then that shall cue the Navy aircrew to 

increase the diligence of their visual 

surveillance. Subsequently, if no marine 

mammals are visually detected, then the 

crew may continue multi-static active 

search. 

(vi) Visual Detection—If marine 

mammals are visually detected within 

1,000 yd (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-yd (914 m) safety buffer. Aircrews 

may shift their multi-static active search 

to another post, where marine mammals 

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

buffer. 

(vii) Aircrews shall make every 

attempt to manually detonate the 

unexploded charges at each post in the 

pattern prior to departing the operations 

area by using the ‘‘Payload 1 Release’’ 

command followed by the ‘‘Payload 2 

Release’’ command. Aircrews shall 

refrain from using the ‘‘Scuttle’’ 

command when two payloads remain at 

a given post. Aircrews shall ensure that 

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

visually clear of marine mammals, is 

maintained around each post as is done 

during active search operations. 

(viii) Aircrews shall only leave posts 

with unexploded charges in the event of 

a sonobuoy malfunction, an aircraft 

system malfunction, or when an aircraft 

must immediately depart the area due to 

issues such as fuel constraints, 

inclement weather, and in-flight 

emergencies. In these cases, the 

sonobuoy shall 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) Marine mammal monitoring shall 

continue until out of own-aircraft sensor 

range. 

(15) The Navy shall abide by the letter 

of the ‘‘Stranding Response Plan for 

Major Navy Training Exercises in the 

GoA TMAA’’ (available at: http:// 

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

incidental.htm), which is incorporated 

herein by reference, to include the 

following measures: 

(i) Shutdown Procedures—When an 

Uncommon Stranding Event (USE— 

defined in § 216.271) occurs during a 

Major Training Exercise (MTE) (as 

defined in the Stranding Plan, meaning 

including Multi-strike group exercises, 

Joint Expeditionary exercises, and 

Marine Air Ground Task Force exercises 

in the GoA TMAA), the Navy shall 

implement the procedures described 

below. 

(A) The Navy shall implement a 

Shutdown (as defined in the Stranding 

Response Plan for GoA TMAA) when 

advised by a NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources Headquarters Senior Official 

designated in the GoA TMAA Stranding 

Communication Protocol that a USE (as 

defined in the Stranding Response Plan 

for the GoA TMAA) 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. 

(B) Any shutdown in a given area 

shall remain in effect in that area until 

NMFS advises the Navy that the 

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

are euthanized, or that all live animals 

involved in the USE at that area have 

left the area (either of their own volition 

or herded). 

(C) If the Navy finds an injured or 

dead marine mammal floating at sea 

during an MTE, the Navy shall notify 

NMFS immediately or as soon as 

operational security considerations 

allow. The Navy shall provide NMFS 

with the 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 behavior(s) (if 

alive), and photo or video of the 

animal(s) (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. 

(D) In the event, following a USE, 

that: qualified individuals are 

attempting to herd animals back out to 

the open ocean and animals are not 

willing to leave, or animals are seen 

repeatedly heading for the open ocean 

but turning back to shore, NMFS and 

the Navy shall coordinate (including an 

investigation of other potential 

anthropogenic stressors in the area) to 

determine if the proximity of MFAS/ 

HFAS activities or explosive 

detonations, though farther than 14 nm 

from the distressed animal(s), is likely 

decreasing the likelihood that the 

animals return to the open water. If so, 

NMFS and the Navy shall further 

coordinate to determine what measures 

are necessary to further minimize that 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64581 

likelihood and implement those 

measures as appropriate. 

(ii) Within 72 hrs of NMFS notifying 

the Navy of the presence of a USE, the 

Navy shall provide available 

information to NMFS (per the GoA 

TMAA 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 hrs prior to the USE 

event. Information not initially available 

regarding the 80 nm (148 km) and 72 hrs 

prior to the event shall be provided as 

soon as it becomes available. The Navy 

shall provide NMFS investigative teams 

with additional relevant unclassified 

information as requested, if available. 

(iii) Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA)—The Navy and NMFS shall 

develop a MOA, or other mechanism, 

that will establish a framework whereby 

the Navy can (and provide the Navy 

examples of how they can best) assist 

NMFS with stranding investigations in 

certain circumstances. 

(b) [Reserved] 

§ 218.125 Requirements for monitoring 

and reporting. 

(a) General Notification of Injured or 

Dead Marine Mammals—Navy 

personnel shall ensure that NMFS is 

notified immediately ((see 

Communication Plan) or as soon as 

clearance procedures allow) if an 

injured, stranded, or dead marine 

mammal is found during or shortly 

after, and in the vicinity of, any Navy 

training exercise utilizing MFAS, HFAS, 

or underwater explosive detonations. 

The Navy shall provide NMFS with the 

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 behavior(s) (if alive), and 

photo or video of the animal(s) (if 

available). In the event that an injured, 

stranded, or dead marine mammal is 

found by the Navy that is not in the 

vicinity of, or during or shortly after, 

MFAS, HFAS, or underwater explosive 

detonations, the Navy shall report the 

same information as listed above as 

soon as operationally feasible and 

clearance procedures allow. 

(b) General Notification of Ship 

Strike—In the event of a ship strike by 

any Navy vessel, at any time or place, 

the Navy shall do the following: 

(1) Immediately report to NMFS the 

species identification (if known), 

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

strike if the animal has disappeared), 

and whether the animal is alive or dead, 

or whether its status is unknown. 

(2) Report to NMFS as soon as 

operationally feasible the size and 

length of animal, an estimate of the 

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

alive, injured and moving, unknown, 

etc.), vessel class/type and operational 

status. 

(3) Report to NMFS the vessel length, 

speed, and heading as soon as feasible. 

(4) Provide NMFS a photo or video of 

the animal(s), if equipment is available. 

(c) The Navy must conduct all 

monitoring and/or research required 

under the Letter of Authorization 

including abiding by the GoA TMAA 

Monitoring Plan. (http:// 

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

incidental.htm#applications) 

(d) Report on Monitoring required in 

paragraph (c) of this section—The Navy 

shall submit a report annually on 

December 15 describing the 

implementation and results (through 

October of the same year) of the 

monitoring required in paragraph (c) of 

this section. The Navy shall standardize 

data collection methods across ranges to 

allow for comparison in different 

geographic locations. 

(e) Sonar Exercise Notification—The 

Navy shall submit to the NMFS Office 

of Protected Resources (specific contact 

information to be provided in LOA) 

either an electronic (preferably) or 

verbal report within 15 calendar days 

after the completion of any MTER 

indicating: 

(1) Location of the exercise; 

(2) Beginning and end dates of the 

exercise; and 

(3) Type of exercise. 

(f) Annual GoA TMAA Report—The 

Navy shall submit an Annual Exercise 

GoA TMAA Report on December 15 of 

every year (covering data gathered 

through October). This report shall 

contain the subsections and information 

indicated below. 

(1) MFAS/HFAS Training Exercises— 

This section shall contain the following 

information for the following 

Coordinated and Strike Group Exercises: 

Joint Multi-strike Group Exercises; Joint 

Expeditionary Exercises; and Marine Air 

Ground Task Force GoA TMAA: 

(i) Exercise Information (for each 

exercise): 

(A) Exercise designator; 

(B) Date that exercise began and 

ended; 

(C) Location; 

(D) Number and types of active 

sources used in the exercise; 

(E) Number and types of passive 

acoustic sources used in exercise; 

(F) Number and types of vessels, 

aircraft, etc., participating in exercise; 

(G) Total hours of observation by 

watchstanders; 

(H) Total hours of all active sonar 

source operation; 

(I) Total hours of each active sonar 

source (along with explanation of how 

hours are calculated for sources 

typically quantified in alternate way 

(buoys, torpedoes, etc.)); and 

(J) Wave height (high, low, and 

average during exercise). 

(ii) Individual marine mammal 

sighting info (for each sighting in each 

exercise): 

(A) Location of sighting; 

(B) Species (if not possible— 

indication of whale/dolphin/pinniped); 

(C) Number of individuals; 

(D) Calves observed (y/n); 

(E) Initial Detection Sensor; 

(F) Indication of specific type of 

platform observation made from 

(including, for example, what type of 

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

(G) Length of time observers 

maintained visual contact with marine 

mammal(s); 

(H) Wave height (ft); 

(I) Visibility; 

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

(K) Indication of whether animal is 

<200 yd, 200–500 yd, 500–1,000 yd, 

1,000–2,000 yd, or >2,000 yd from sonar 

source in (x) above; 

(L) Mitigation Implementation— 

Whether operation of sonar sensor was 

delayed, or sonar was powered or shut 

down, and how long the delay was; 

(M) If source in use (x) is hullmounted, true bearing of animal from 

ship, true direction of ship’s travel, and 

estimation of animal’s motion relative to 

ship (opening, closing, parallel); and 

(N) Observed behavior— 

Watchstanders shall report, in plain 

language and without trying to 

categorize in any way, the observed 

behavior of the animals (such as animal 

closing to bow ride, paralleling course/ 

speed, floating on surface and not 

swimming, etc.). 

(iii) An evaluation (based on data 

gathered during all of the exercises) of 

the effectiveness of mitigation measures 

designed to avoid exposing marine 

mammals to MFAS. This evaluation 

shall identify the specific observations 

that support any conclusions the Navy 

reaches about the effectiveness of the 

mitigation. 

(2) ASW Summary—This section 

shall include the following information 

as summarized from non-major training 

exercises (unit-level exercises, such as 

TRACKEXs): 

(i) Total Hours—Total annual hours of 

each type of sonar source (along with 

explanation of how hours are calculated 

for sources typically quantified in 

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


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64582 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(ii) Cumulative Impacts—To the 

extent practicable, the Navy, in 

coordination with NMFS, shall develop 

and implement a method of annually 

reporting other training (i.e., Unit Level 

Training (ULT)) utilizing hull-mounted 

sonar. The report shall present an 

annual (and seasonal, where 

practicable) depiction of non-major 

training exercises geographically across 

the GoA TMAA. The Navy shall include 

(in the GoA TMAA annual report) a 

brief annual progress update on the 

status of the development of an effective 

and unclassified method to report this 

information until an agreed-upon (with 

NMFS) method has been developed and 

implemented. 

(3) Sinking Exercises (SINKEXs)— 

This section shall include the following 

information for each SINKEX completed 

that year: 

(i) Exercise info: 

(A) Location; 

(B) Date and time exercise began and 

ended; 

(C) Total hours of observation by 

watchstanders before, during, and after 

exercise; 

(D) Total number and types of rounds 

expended/explosives detonated; 

(E) Number and types of passive 

acoustic sources used in exercise; 

(F) Total hours of passive acoustic 

search time; 

(G) Number and types of vessels, 

aircraft, etc., participating in exercise; 

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

and average during exercise); and 

(I) Narrative description of sensors 

and platforms utilized for marine 

mammal detection and timeline 

illustrating how marine mammal 

detection was conducted. 

(ii) Individual marine mammal 

observation during SINKEX (by Navy 

lookouts) information: 

(A) Location of sighting; 

(B) Species (if not possible— 

indication of whale/dolphin/pinniped); 

(C) Number of individuals; 

(D) Calves observed (y/n); 

(E) Initial detection sensor; 

(F) Length of time observers 

maintained visual contact with marine 

mammal; 

(G) Wave height (ft); 

(H) Visibility; 

(I) Whether sighting was before, 

during, or after detonations/exercise, 

and how many minutes before or after; 

(J) Distance of marine mammal from 

actual detonations (or target spot if not 

yet detonated)—use four categories to 

define distance: 

(1) The modeled injury threshold 

radius for the largest explosive used in 

that exercise type in that OPAREA (762 

m for SINKEX in the GoA TMAA); 

(2) The required exclusion zone (1 nm 

for SINKEX in the GoA TMAA); 

(3) The required observation distance 

(if different than the exclusion zone (2 

nm for SINKEX in the GoA TMAA); and 

(4) Greater than the required observed 

distance. For example, in this case, the 

observer shall indicate if <762 m, from 

762 m–1 nm, from 1 nm–2 nm, and > 

2 nm. 

(K) Observed behavior— 

Watchstanders shall report, in plain 

language and without trying to 

categorize in any way, the observed 

behavior of the animals (such as animal 

closing to bow ride, paralleling course/ 

speed, floating on surface and not 

swimming etc.), including speed and 

direction. 

(L) Resulting mitigation 

implementation—Indicate whether 

explosive detonations were delayed, 

ceased, modified, or not modified due to 

marine mammal presence and for how 

long. 

(M) If observation occurs while 

explosives are detonating in the water, 

indicate munitions type in use at time 

of marine mammal detection. 

(4) Improved Extended Echo-Ranging 

System (IEER) Summary: 

(i) Total number of IEER events 

conducted in the GoA TMAA; 

(ii) Total expended/detonated rounds 

(buoys); and 

(iii) Total number of self-scuttled 

IEER rounds. 

(5) Explosives Summary—The Navy is 

in the process of improving the methods 

used to track explosive use to provide 

increased granularity. To the extent 

practicable, the Navy shall provide the 

information described below for all of 

their explosive exercises. Until the Navy 

is able to report in full the information 

below, they shall provide an annual 

update on the Navy’s explosive tracking 

methods, including improvements from 

the previous year. 

(i) Total annual number of each type 

of explosive exercise (of those identified 

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

final rule) conducted in the GoA TMAA; 

and 

(ii) Total annual expended/detonated 

rounds (missiles, bombs, etc.) for each 

explosive type. 

(g) GoA TMAA 5-Yr Comprehensive 

Report—The Navy shall submit to 

NMFS a draft report that analyzes and 

summarizes all of the multi-year marine 

mammal information gathered during 

ASW and explosive exercises for which 

annual reports are required (Annual 

GoA TMAA Exercise Reports and GoA 

TMAA Monitoring Plan Reports). This 

report shall be submitted at the end of 

the fourth year of the rule (December 

2014), covering activities that have 

occurred through October 2014. 

(h) Comprehensive National ASW 

Report—By June, 2014, the Navy shall 

submit a draft National Report that 

analyzes, compares, and summarizes the 

active sonar data gathered (through 

January 1, 2014) from the watchstanders 

and pursuant to the implementation of 

the Monitoring Plans for the Northwest 

Training Range Complex, the Southern 

California Range Complex, the Atlantic 

Fleet Active Sonar Training, the Hawaii 

Range Complex, the Mariana Islands 

Range Complex, and the Gulf of Alaska. 

(i) The Navy shall comply with the 

2009 Integrated Comprehensive 

Monitoring Program (ICMP) Plan and 

continue to improve the program in 

consultation with NMFS. Changes and 

improvements to the program made 

during 2010 (as prescribed in the 2009 

ICMP and deemed appropriate by the 

Navy and NMFS) will be described in 

an updated 2010 ICMP and submitted to 

NMFS by October 31, 2010, for review. 

An updated 2010 ICMP will be finalized 

by December 31, 2010. 

§ 218.126 Applications for Letters of 

Authorization. 

To incidentally take marine mammals 

pursuant to these regulations, the U.S. 

Citizen (as defined by § 216.103 of this 

chapter) conducting the activity 

identified in § 218.120(c) (i.e., the Navy) 

must apply for and obtain either an 

initial Letter of Authorization in 

accordance with § 218.127 or a renewal 

under § 218.128. 

§ 218.127 Letters of Authorization. 

(a) A Letter of Authorization, unless 

suspended or revoked, will be valid for 

a period of time not to exceed the period 

of validity of this subpart, but must be 

renewed annually or biennially subject 

to renewal conditions in § 218.128. 

(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). 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 64583 

§ 218.128 Renewal of Letters of 

Authorization and adaptive management. 

(a) A Letter of Authorization issued 

under § 216.106 and § 218.127 of this 

chapter or the activity identified in 

§ 218.120(c) shall be renewed annually 

or biennially upon: 

(1) Notification to NMFS that the 

activity described in the application 

submitted under § 218.126 shall be 

undertaken and that there will not be a 

substantial modification to the 

described work, mitigation or 

monitoring undertaken during the 

upcoming 12–24 months; 

(2) Receipt of the monitoring reports 

and notifications within the indicated 

timeframes required under § 218.125(b 

through j); and 

(3) A determination by NMFS that the 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

measures required under § 218.124 and 

the Letter of Authorization issued under 

§§ 216.126 and 218.127 of this chapter 

were undertaken and will be undertaken 

during the upcoming period of validity 

of a renewed Letter of Authorization. 

(b) If a request for a renewal of a 

Letter of Authorization issued under 

§§ 216.126 and 216.128 indicates that a 

substantial modification, as determined 

by NMFS, to the described work, 

mitigation or monitoring undertaken 

during the upcoming season will occur, 

NMFS will provide the public a period 

of 30 days for review and comment on 

the request. Review and comment on 

renewals of Letters of Authorization are 

restricted to: 

(1) New cited information and data 

indicating that the determinations made 

in this document are in need of 

reconsideration, and 

(2) Proposed changes to the mitigation 

and monitoring requirements contained 

in these regulations or in the current 

Letter of Authorization. 

(c) A notice of issuance or denial of 

a renewal of a Letter of Authorization 

will be published in the Federal 

Register. 

(d) Adaptive Management—NMFS 

may modify or augment the existing 

mitigation or monitoring measures (after 

consulting with the Navy regarding the 

practicability of the modifications) if 

doing so creates a reasonable likelihood 

of more effectively accomplishing the 

goals of mitigation and monitoring set 

forth in the preamble of these 

regulations. Below are some of the 

possible sources of new data that could 

contribute to the decision to modify the 

mitigation or monitoring measures: 

(1) Results from the Navy’s 

monitoring from the previous year 

(either from the GoA TMAA or other 

locations). 

(2) Findings of the Monitoring 

Workshop that the Navy will convene in 

2011. 

(3) Compiled results of Navy-funded 

research and development (R&D) studies 

(presented pursuant to the Integrated 

Comprehensive Monitoring Plan). 

(4) Results from specific stranding 

investigations (either from the GoA 

TMAA or other locations, and involving 

coincident MFAS/HFAS or explosives 

training or not involving coincident 

use). 

(5) Results from the Long Term 

Prospective Study described in the 

preamble to these regulations. 

(6) Results from general marine 

mammal and sound research (funded by 

the Navy (described below) or 

otherwise). 

§ 218.129 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 §§ 216.126 and 218.127 of 

this chapter and subject to the 

provisions of this subpart, shall be made 

until after notification and an 

opportunity for public comment has 

been provided. For purposes of this 

paragraph, a renewal of a Letter of 

Authorization under § 218.128, without 

modification (except for the period of 

validity), is not considered a substantive 

modification. 

(b) If the Assistant Administrator 

determines that an emergency exists 

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

mammals specified in § 218.120(b), a 

Letter of Authorization issued pursuant 

to §§ 216.126 and 218.127 of this 

chapter may be substantively modified 

without prior notification and an 

opportunity for public comment. 

Notification will be published in the 

Federal Register within 30 days 

subsequent to the action. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25230 Filed 10–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3