33828 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 218 

[Docket No. 0906101030–91038–01] 

RIN 0648–AX88 

Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; Navy Training Activities 

Conducted Within the Northwest 

Training Range Complex 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for 

authorization to take marine mammals 

incidental to training activities 

conducted in the Northwest Training 

Range Complex (NWTRC), off the coasts 

of Washington, Oregon, and northern 

California, for the period of February 

2010 through February 2015 (updated 

from initial request for October 2009 

through September 2014). Pursuant to 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), NMFS is proposing 

regulations to govern that take and 

requesting information, suggestions, and 

comments on these proposed 

regulations. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than August 12, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by 0648–AX88, by any one of 

the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Hand delivery or mailing of paper, 

disk, or CD–ROM comments should be 

addressed to Michael Payne, Chief, 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 

East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910–3225. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

NMFS will accept anonymous 

comments (enter N/A in the required 

fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolie 

Harrison, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, (301) 713–2289, ext. 166. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability 

A copy of the Navy’s application may 

be obtained by writing to the address 

specified above (See ADDRESSES), 

telephoning the contact listed above (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or 

visiting the Internet at: http://

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

incidental.htm#applications. The 

Navy’s Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS) for NWTRC was 

published on December 29 2008, and 

may be viewed at http://

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

incidental.htm#applications. NMFS is 

participating in the development of the 

Navy’s EIS as a cooperating agency 

under NEPA. 

Background 

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

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

the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) 

to allow, upon request, the incidental, 

but not intentional taking of marine 

mammals by U.S. citizens who engage 

in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) during periods of 

not more than five consecutive years 

each if certain findings are made and 

regulations are issued or, if the taking is 

limited to harassment, notice of a 

proposed authorization is provided to 

the public for review. 

Authorization shall be granted if 

NMFS finds that the taking will have a 

negligible impact on the species or 

stock(s), will not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of the 

species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, 

and if the permissible methods of taking 

and requirements pertaining to the 

mitigation, monitoring and reporting of 

such taking are set forth. NMFS has 

defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR 

216.103 as: 

‘‘An impact resulting from the specified 

activity that cannot be reasonably expected 

to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely 

affect the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’ 

The National Defense Authorization 

Act of 2004 (NDAA) (Pub. L. 108–136) 

modified the MMPA by removing the 

‘‘small numbers’’ and ‘‘specified 

geographical region’’ limitations and 

amended the definition of ‘‘harassment’’ 

as it applies to a ‘‘military readiness 

activity’’ to read as follows (Section 

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

(i) Any act that injures or has the 

significant potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 

[Level A Harassment]; or 

(ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely to 

disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption of 

natural behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point 

where such behavioral patterns are 

abandoned or significantly altered [Level B 

Harassment]. 

In January 2009, the Council on 

Environmental Quality requested that 

NOAA conduct a comprehensive review 

of the Navy’s mitigation measures 

applicable to the use of sonar in it’s 

training activities. 

Summary of Request 

In September 2008, NMFS received an 

application from the Navy requesting 

authorization for the take of individuals 

of 26 species of marine mammals 

incidental to upcoming Navy training 

activities to be conducted within the 

NWTRC, which extends west to 250 

nautical miles (nm) (463 kilometers 

[km]) beyond the coast of Northern 

California, Oregon, and Washington and 

east to Idaho and encompasses 122,400 

nm2 (420,163 km2) of surface/subsurface 

ocean operating areas. These training 

activities are military readiness 

activities under the provisions of the 

NDAA. The Navy states, and NMFS 

concurs, that these military readiness 

activities may incidentally take marine 

mammals present within the NWTRC by 

exposing them to sound from midfrequency or high frequency active 

sonar (MFAS/HFAS) or underwater 

detonations. The Navy requests 

authorization to take individuals of 26 

species of marine mammals by Level B 

Harassment and 14 individuals of 10 

species by Level A Harassment. The 

Navy’s model, which did not factor in 

any potential benefits of mitigation 

measures, predicted that 14 individual 

marine mammals would be exposed to 

levels of sound or pressure that would 

result in injury; thus, NMFS is 

proposing to authorize the take, by 

Level A Harassment of 14 individuals. 

However, NMFS and the Navy have 

determined preliminarily that injury can 

be avoided through the implementation 

of the Navy’s proposed mitigation 

measures. NMFS neither anticipates, 

nor does it propose to authorize 

mortality of marine mammals incidental 

to naval exercises in the NWTRC. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33829 

Background of Request 

The Navy’s mission is to maintain, 

train, and equip combat-ready naval 

forces capable of winning wars, 

deterring aggression, and maintaining 

freedom of the seas. Section 5062 of 

Title 10 of the United States Code 

directs the Chief of Naval Operations to 

train all naval 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 weapons systems. 

The proposed action would result in 

selectively focused, but critical 

enhancements and increases in training 

that are necessary for the Navy to 

maintain a state of military readiness 

commensurate with the national defense 

mission. The Navy proposes to 

implement actions within the NWTRC 

to: 

• Conduct training and Unmanned 

Aerial Systems (UAS) RDT&E activities 

of the same types as currently 

conducted, but also; 

• Increase training activities from 

current levels as necessary in support of 

the Fleet Response Training Plan 

(FRTP); 

• Accommodate force structure 

changes (new platforms and weapons 

systems); and 

• Implement range enhancements 

associated with the NWTRC. 

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: 

• Antisubmarine Warfare—10% 

increase. 

• Gunnery Exercises—100% increase 

(increased from 90 to 176 events). 

• Bombing Exercises—25% increase 

(increased from 24 to 30 sorties). 

• Sinking Exercises—100% increase 

(increased from 1 to 2 exercises). 

Overview of the NWTRC 

The U.S. Navy has been training and 

operating in the area now defined as the 

NWTRC for over 60 years. The NWTRC 

includes ranges and airspace that extend 

west to 250 nm (463 km) beyond the 

coast of Northern California, Oregon, 

and Washington and east to Idaho. The 

components of the NWTRC encompass 

122,461 nm2 (420,163 km2) of surface/ 

subsurface ocean operating areas 

(OPAREAs), 46,048 nm2 (157,928 km2) 

of special use airspace (SUA), and 875 

acres (354 hectares) of land. For range 

management and scheduling purposes, 

the NWTRC is divided into numerous 

sub-component ranges or training areas 

used to conduct training and RDT&E of 

military hardware, personnel, tactics, 

munitions, explosives, and electronic 

combat systems, as described in detail 

in the NWTRC DEIS. As the take of 

marine mammals is inherently tied to 

the surface/subsurface OPAREAs of the 

NWTRC, only those areas are discussed 

in more detail below. 

The LOA application includes 

graphics (Figures 1–1, 2–1, and 2–2) that 

depict the sea, undersea, and air spaces 

used by the Navy. To aid in the 

description of the range complexes that 

will be addressed in this proposed rule, 

the ranges are divided into three major 

geographic and functional subdivisions. 

Each of the depicted individual ranges 

falls into one of these three major range 

subdivisions: 

The Offshore Area—The Pacific 

Northwest (PACNW) OPAREA (same 

footprint as Offshore Area) serves as 

maneuver water space for ships and 

submarines to conduct training and to 

use as transit lanes. It extends from the 

Strait of Juan de Fuca in the north, to 

approximately 50 nm (93 km) south of 

Eureka, California in the south, and 

from the coast line of Washington, 

Oregon, and California westward to 130° 

W. longitude. The PACNW OPAREA is 

approximately 510 nm (945 km) in 

length from the northern boundary to 

the southern boundary, and 250 nm 

(463 km) from the coastline to the 

western boundary at 130° W longitude. 

Total surface area of the PACNW 

OPAREA is 122,400 nm2 (420,163 km2). 

Commander Submarine Force, U.S. 

Pacific Fleet (COMSUBPAC) Pearl 

Harbor manages this water space as 

transit lanes for U.S. submarines. While 

the sea space is ample for all levels of 

Navy training, no infrastructure is 

currently in place to support training. 

There are no dedicated training 

frequencies, no permanent 

instrumentation, no meteorological and 

oceanographic activities (METOC) 

system, and no Opposition Forces 

(OPFOR) or Electronic Combat (EC) 

target systems. In this region of the 

Pacific Ocean, storms and high sea 

states can create challenges to surface 

ship training between October and 

April. In addition, strong undersea 

currents in the PACNW make it difficult 

to place permanent bottom-mounted 

instrumentation such as hydrophones. 

The Offshore Area undersea space lies 

beneath the PACNW OPAREA as 

described above. The bathymetry chart 

depicts a 100-fathom (182-m) curve 

parallel to the coastline approximately 

12 nm (22 km) to sea, and in places 20 

nm (37 km) out to sea. The area of 

deeper water of more than 100 fathoms 

(182 m) is calculated to be 

approximately 115,800 nm2 (397,194 

km2), while the shallow water area of 

less than 100 fathoms (600 ft, 182 m) is 

all near shore and amounts to 

approximately 6,600 nm2 (22,638 km2). 

The Inshore Area—This area includes 

all sea and undersea ranges and 

OPAREAs inland of the coastline, 

including Puget Sound. This area is 

composed of approximately 61 nm2 of 

surface and subsurface area. NWTRC 

Inshore Areas include land ranges, 

airspace, and two surface/subsurface 

restricted areas—Navy 7 and 3. 

Activities conducted in each of these 

areas are not expected to take marine 

mammals, as defined by the MMPA and 

therefore, and will not be discussed 

further in this proposed rule. Also 

included in the Inshore Area, Explosive 

Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Ranges are 

land, sea, and undersea ranges used by 

NSW and EOD forces specifically for 

EOD training and are composed of 

approximately 0.4 nm2 of surface and 

subsurface area within the area 

identified as the Inshore Area. EOD 

units located in the NWTRC conduct 

underwater detonations as part of mine 

countermeasure training. This training 

is conducted at one of three locations: 

Crescent Harbor Underwater EOD 

Range, offshore from the Seaplane Base 

at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island; at 

the Floral Point Underwater EOD Range, 

located in Hood Canal near NAVBASE 

Kitsap-Bangor; and the Indian Island 

Underwater EOD Range, adjacent to 

Indian Island. 

Description of Specified Activities 

As mentioned above, the Navy has 

requested MMPA authorization to take 

marine mammals incidental to training 

activities in the NWTRC 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 Anti-Air Warfare Training, 

Naval Special Warfare Training and 

Support Operations; however, these 

activities are primarily land and air 

based and do not utilize sound sources 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

33830 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

or explosives for the portions that are in 

the water and, therefore, no take of 

marine mammals is anticipated from 

these activities and they are not 

discussed further. 

Activities Utilizing Active Sonar 

Sources 

For the NWTRC, the training activities 

that utilize active tactical sonar sources 

fall primarily into the category of Antisubmarine Warfare (ASW) exercises 

(MFAS/HFAS is also used in the mine 

avoidance exercises, which are 

considered Mine Warfare Training 

(MIW) activities; however, it is in such 

a small amount that impacts to marine 

mammals are minimal). 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. 

Of note, the use of MFAS/HFAS in the 

NWTRC is minimal as compared to 

previous rules issued by NMFS 

(approximately 110 hours annual use of 

the most powerful surface vessel sonar 

versus approximately 2,500 hours 

annual use of AN/SQS–53C and AN/ 

SQS–56C sonar in the Southern 

California Range Complex), does not 

include major exercises that involve the 

use of more than one surface vessel 

MFAS (AN/SQS–53C or AN/SQS–56C) 

at a time, and will not occur in the 

inshore area (i.e., inland from the mouth 

of the Strait of Juan de Fuca). 

ASW Training and Active Sonar 

ASW involves helicopter and sea 

control aircraft, ships, and submarines, 

operating alone or in combination, to 

locate, track, and neutralize submarines. 

Various types of active and passive 

sonars are used by the Navy to 

determine water depth, locate mines, 

and identify, track, and target 

submarines. Passive sonar ‘‘listens’’ for 

sound waves by using underwater 

microphones, called hydrophones, 

which receive, amplify and process 

underwater sounds. No sound is 

introduced into the water when using 

passive sonar. Passive sonar can 

indicate the presence, character and 

movement of submarines. However, 

passive sonar provides only a bearing 

(direction) to a sound-emitting source; it 

does not provide an accurate range 

(distance) to the source. Also, passive 

sonar relies on the underwater target 

itself to provide sufficient sound to be 

detected by hydrophones. Active sonar 

is needed to locate objects that emit 

little or no noise (such as mines or 

diesel-electric submarines operating in 

electric mode) and to establish both 

bearing and range to the detected 

contact. 

Active sonar transmits pulses of 

sound that travel through the water, 

reflect off objects and return to a 

receiver. By knowing the speed of sound 

in water and the time taken for the 

sound wave to travel to the object and 

back, active sonar systems can quickly 

calculate direction and distance from 

the sonar platform to the underwater 

object. There are three types of active 

sonar: low frequency, mid-frequency, 

and high-frequency. 

LFA sonar is not presently utilized in 

the NWTRC, and is not part of the 

Proposed Action. 

MFAS, as defined in the Navy’s 

NWTRC 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 this improved 

capability for long 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 

training is necessary if Sailors, ships, 

and strike groups are to gain proficiency 

in using MFAS. If a strike group does 

not demonstrate MFAS proficiency, it 

cannot be certified as combat ready. 

HFAS, as defined in the Navy’s 

NWTRC 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. 

Acoustic Sources Used for ASW 

Exercises in the NWTRC 

Modern sonar technology has 

developed a multitude of sonar sensor 

and processing systems. In concept, the 

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

the arrival of the reflected echoes from 

the target object to determine range. 

More sophisticated active sonar emits 

an omni-directional ping and then 

rapidly scans a steered receiving beam 

to provide directional, as well as range, 

information. More advanced active 

sonars transmit multiple preformed 

beams, listening to echoes from several 

directions simultaneously and 

providing efficient detection of both 

direction and range. The types of active 

sonar sources employed during ASW 

active sonar training exercises in the 

NWTRC are identified in Table 1. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33831 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

ASW sonar systems are deployed 

from certain classes of surface ships, 

submarines, and fixed-wing maritime 

patrol aircraft (MPA). Maritime patrol 

aircraft is a category of fixed-wing 

aircraft that includes the current P–3C 

Orion, and the future P–8 Poseidon 

multimission maritime aircraft. No ASW 

helicopters train in the NWTRC. The 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP13JY09.140</GPH>
33832 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

surface ships used are typically 

equipped with hull-mounted sonars 

(passive and active) for the detection of 

submarines. Fixed-wing MPA are used 

to deploy both active and passive 

sonobuoys to assist in locating and 

tracking submarines or ASW targets 

during the exercise. Submarines are 

equipped with passive sonar sensors 

used to locate and prosecute other 

submarines and/or surface ships during 

the exercise. The platforms used in 

ASW exercises are identified below. 

Surface Ship Sonars—A variety of 

surface ships participate in training 

events. Of the ships that operate in the 

NWTRC, only two classes employ 

MFAS: the Fast Frigate (FFG) and the 

Guided Missile Destroyer (DDG). These 

two classes of ship are equipped with 

active as well as passive tactical sonars 

for mine avoidance and submarine 

detection and tracking. DDG class ships 

are equipped with the AN/SQS–53C 

sonar system (the most powerful 

system), with a nominal source level of 

235 decibels (dB) re 1 μPa @ 1 m. The 

FFG class ship uses the SQS–56 sonar 

system, with a nominal source level of 

225 decibels (dB) re 1 μPa @ 1 m. Sonar 

ping transmission durations were 

modeled as lasting 1 second per ping 

and omni-directional, which is a 

conservative assumption that will 

overestimate potential effects. Actual 

ping durations will be less than 1 

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

frequency of 3.5 kHz. The SQS–56 

transmits at a center frequency of 7.5 

kHz. Details concerning the tactical use 

of specific frequencies and the 

repetition rate for the sonar pings is 

classified but was modeled based on the 

required tactical training setting. 

Submarine Sonars—Submarine active 

sonars are not used for ASW training in 

the NWTRC. However, the AN/BQS–15 

sonar would be used for mine detection 

training. The AN/BQS–15, installed on 

guided missile nuclear submarines 

(SSGN) and fast attack nuclear 

submarines (SSN), uses high frequency 

(> 10 kHz) active sonar to locate mine 

shapes. A total of seven mine avoidance 

exercises would take place annually in 

the NWTRC. Each exercise would last 

six hours, for a total of 42 hours 

annually. 

Aircraft Sonar Systems—Sonobuoys 

are the only aircraft sonar systems that 

would operate in the NWTRC. 

Sonobuoys are deployed by MPAs and 

are expendable devices used for the 

detection of submarines. Most 

sonobuoys are passive, but some can 

generate active acoustic signals, as well 

as listen passively. During ASW 

training, these systems’ active modes are 

used for localization of contacts and are 

not typically used in primary search 

capacity. The AN/SSQ–62 Directional 

Command Activated Sonobuoy System 

(DICASS) is the only MFAS sonobuoy 

used in the NWTRC. Because no ASW 

helicopters train in the NWTRC, no 

dipping sonar system is carried forward 

for any further analysis of effects. 

Extended Echo Ranging and Improved 

Extended Echo Ranging (EER/IEER) 

Systems—EER/IEER are airborne ASW 

systems used to conduct ‘‘large area’’ 

searches for submarines. These systems 

are made up of airborne avionics ASW 

acoustic processing and sonobuoy types 

that are deployed in pairs. The EER/ 

IEER System’s active sonobuoy 

component, the AN/SSQ–110A 

Sonobuoy, generates an explosive sound 

impulse and a passive sonobuoy 

(ADAR, AN/SSQ–101A) would ‘‘listen’’ 

for the return echo that has been 

bounced off the surface of a submarine. 

These sonobuoys are designed to 

provide underwater acoustic data 

necessary for naval aircrews to quickly 

and accurately detect submerged 

submarines. The sonobuoy pairs are 

dropped from a maritime patrol aircraft 

into the ocean in a predetermined 

pattern with a few buoys covering a very 

large area. The AN/SSQ–110A 

Sonobuoy Series is an expendable and 

commandable sonobuoy. Upon 

command from the aircraft, the 

explosive charge would detonate, 

creating the sound impulse. Within the 

sonobuoy pattern, only one detonation 

is commanded at a time. Twelve to 

twenty SSQ–110A source sonobuoys are 

used in a typical exercise. Both charges 

of each sonobuoy would be detonated 

during the course of the training, either 

tactically to locate the submarine, or 

when the sonobuoys are commanded to 

scuttle at the conclusion of the exercise. 

The AN/SSQ–110A is listed in this table 

because it functions like a sonar ping, 

however, the source creates an 

explosive detonation and its effects are 

considered in the underwater explosive 

section. 

Advanced Extended Echo Ranging 

(AEER) System—The proposed AEER 

system is operationally similar to the 

existing EER/IEER system. The AEER 

system will use the same ADAR 

sonobuoy (SSQ–101A) as the acoustic 

receiver and will be used for a large area 

ASW search capability in both shallow 

and deep water. However, instead of 

using an explosive AN/SQS–110A as an 

impulsive source for the active acoustic 

wave, the AEER system will use a 

battery powered (electronic) source for 

the AN/SSQ 125 sonobuoy. The output 

and operational parameters for the AN/ 

SSQ–125 sonobuoy (source levels, 

frequency, wave forms, etc.) are 

classified. However, this sonobuoy is 

intended to replace the EER/IEER’s use 

of explosives and is scheduled to enter 

the fleet in 2011. Acoustic impact 

analysis for the AN/SSQ–125 in this 

document assumes a similar per-buoy 

effect as that modeled for the DICASS 

sonobuoy. For purposes of analysis, 

replacement of the EER/IEER system by 

the AEER system will be assumed to 

occur at 25% per year as follows: 

2011—25% replacement; 2012—50% 

replacement; 2013—75% replacement; 

2014—100% replacement with no 

further use of the EER/IEER system 

beginning in 2015 and beyond. 

Torpedoes—Torpedoes are the 

primary ASW weapon used by surface 

ships, aircraft, and submarines. The 

guidance systems of these weapons can 

be autonomous or electronically 

controlled from the launching platform 

through an attached wire. The 

autonomous guidance systems are 

acoustically based. They operate either 

passively, exploiting the emitted sound 

energy by the target, or actively, 

ensonifying the target and using the 

received echoes for guidance. The MK– 

48 submarine-launched torpedo, used in 

its anti-surface ship mode, was modeled 

for active sonar transmissions in 

Sinking Exercises conducted within the 

NWTRC. 

Portable Undersea Tracking Range— 

The Portable Undersea Tracking Range 

(PUTR) has been developed to support 

ASW training in areas where the ocean 

depth is between 300 ft and 12,000 ft 

and at least 3 nm from land. This 

proposed project would temporarily 

instrument 25-square-mile or smaller 

areas on the seafloor, and would 

provide high fidelity feedback and 

scoring of crew performance during 

ASW training activities. When training 

is complete, the PUTR equipment 

would be recovered. All of the potential 

PUTR areas have been used for ASW 

training for decades. 

No on-shore construction would take 

place. Seven electronics packages, each 

approximately 3 ft long by 2 ft in 

diameter, would be temporarily 

installed on the seafloor by a range boat, 

in water depths greater than 600 ft. The 

anchors used to keep the electronics 

packages on the seafloor would be either 

concrete or sand bags, approximately 

1.5 ft-by-1.5 ft and 300 pounds. Each 

package consists of a hydrophone that 

receives pinger signals, and a transducer 

that sends an acoustic ‘‘uplink’’ of 

locating data to the range boat. The 

uplink signal is transmitted at 8.8 

kilohertz (kHz), 17 kHz, or 40 kHz, at a 

source level of 190 decibels (dB). The 

Portable Undersea Tracking Range 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33833 

system also incorporates an underwater 

voice capability that transmits at 8–11 

kHz and a source level of 190 dB. Each 

of these packages is powered by a D cell 

alkaline battery. After the end of the 

battery life, the electronic packages 

would be recovered and the anchors 

would remain on the seafloor. The Navy 

proposes to deploy this system for 3 

months of the year (approximately 

June–August), and to conduct 

TRACKEX activities for 10 days per 

month in an area beyond 3 nm from 

shore. During each of the 30 days of 

annual operation, the PUTR would be in 

use for 5 hours each day. No additional 

ASW activity is proposed as a result of 

PUTR use. Operation of this range 

requires that underwater participants 

transmit their locations via pingers and 

that the receiving transducers transmit 

that information the range boat via the 

Uplink transmitter (see ‘‘Range Tracking 

Pingers’’ and uplink transmitter 

‘‘below’’). 

Range Tracking Pingers—MK–84 

range tracking pingers would be used on 

ships, submarines, and ASW targets 

when ASW TRACKEX training is 

conducted on the PUTR. The MK–84 

pinger generates a 12.93 kHz sine wave 

in pulses with a maximum duty cycle of 

30 milliseconds (3% duty cycle) and has 

a design power of 194 dB re 1 microPascal at 1 meter. Although the specific 

exercise, and number and type of 

participants will determine the number 

of pingers in use at any time, a 

minimum of one and a maximum of 

three pingers would be used for each 

ASW training activity. On average, two 

pingers would be in use for 3 hours each 

during PUTR operational days. 

Uplink Transmitters—Each package 

consists of a hydrophone that receives 

pinger signals, and a transducer that 

sends an acoustic ‘‘uplink’’ of locating 

data to the range boat. The uplink signal 

is transmitted at 8.8 kilohertz (kHz), 17 

kHz, or 40 kHz, at a source level of 190 

decibels (dB). The Portable Undersea 

Tracking Range system also incorporates 

an 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 

30 days per year, for 5 hours each day 

of use. The total time of use would be 

150 hours annually. 

Exercises Utilizing MFAS in the 

NWTRC 

ASW Tracking Exercises are the 

exercises that primarily utilize MFAS 

and HFAS sources in the NWTRC, 

although Mine Avoidance MIW 

exercises also utilize a less powerful 

HFAS source. ASW Tracking Exercise 

(TRACKEX) trains aircraft, ship, and 

submarine crews in tactics, techniques, 

and procedures for search, detection, 

localization, and tracking of submarines 

with the goal of determining a firing 

solution that could be used to launch a 

torpedo and destroy the submarine. 

ASW Tracking Exercises occur during 

both day and night. A typical unit-level 

exercise involves one (1) ASW unit 

(aircraft, ship, or submarine) versus one 

(1) target—either a MK–39 Expendable 

Mobile ASW Training Target (EMATT), 

or a live submarine. The target may be 

non-evading while operating on a 

specified track or fully evasive. 

Participating units use active and 

passive sensors, including hull-mounted 

sonar, towed arrays, and sonobuoys for 

tracking. If the exercise continues into 

the firing of a practice torpedo it is 

termed a Torpedo Exercise (TORPEX). 

The ASW TORPEX usually starts as a 

TRACKEX to achieve the firing solution. 

No torpedoes are fired during ASW 

training conducted in the NWTRC. The 

exercise types that utilize MFAS/HFAS 

are described below and summarized in 

Table 2, which also includes a summary 

of the exercise types utilizing 

explosives. 

ASW TRACKEX (Maritime Patrol 

Aircraft)—During an ASW TRACKEX 

(MPA), a typical scenario would involve 

a single MPA dropping sonobuoys, from 

an altitude below 3,000 ft (914 m) above 

mean sea level (MSL), and sometimes as 

low as 400 ft (122 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 the threat and water 

conditions. 

Typically, passive sonobuoys will be 

used first, so the threat submarine is not 

alerted. Active buoys will be used as 

required either to locate extremely quiet 

submarines, or to further localize and 

track submarines previously detected by 

passive buoys. A TRACKEX (MPA) 

usually takes two to four hours. The 

P–8 Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft 

(MMA), a modified Boeing 737 that is 

the Navy’s replacement for the aging 

P–3 Orion aircraft, is a long-range 

aircraft that is capable of broad-area, 

maritime and littoral activities. As P–8 

live training is expected to be 

supplemented with virtual training to a 

greater degree than P–3 training, P–8 

training activities in the NWTRC are 

likely to be less numerous than those 

currently conducted by P–3 aircraft 

crews. P–3 replacement is expected to 

begin by 2013. None of the potential 

marine mammal impacts associated 

with the P–3 aircraft are expected to 

differ as a result of the P–3 being 

replaced by the MMA. 

ASW TRACKEX (EER/IEER or 

AEER)—This activity is an at-sea flying 

event, typically conducted below 3,000 

ft (914 m) MSL, that is designed to train 

P–3 crews in the deployment and use of 

the EER/IEER (and in the future, AEER) 

sonobuoy systems. These systems use 

the SSQ–110A as the signal source and 

the SSQ–77 (VLAD) as the receiver 

buoy. The signal source is a small 

explosive charge that detonates 

underwater. The SSQ–110A sonobuoy 

has two charges, each being 

individually detonated during the 

exercise. This activity typically lasts six 

hours, with one hour for buoy pattern 

deployment and five hours for active 

search. Between 12 and 20 SSQ–110A 

source sonobuoys and approximately 20 

SSQ–77 passive sonobuoys are used in 

a typical exercise. 

ASW TRACKEX (Surface Ship)—In 

the PACNW OPAREA, locally based 

surface ships do not routinely conduct 

ASW Tracking exercises. However, 

MFAS is used during ship transits 

through the OPAREA. In a typical year, 

24 DDG ship transits and 36 FFG 

transits will take place, with 1.5 hours 

of active sonar use during each transit. 

All surface ship MFAS use is 

documented in this training activity 

description. 10% of surface ship MFAS 

used in NWTRC is training associated 

with the PUTR. 

ASW TRACKEX (Submarine)—ASW 

TRACKEX is a primary training exercise 

for locally based submarines. Training is 

conducted within the NWTRC and 

involves aircraft approximately 30% of 

the time. Training events in which 

aircraft are used typically last 8 to 12 

hours. During these activities 

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 

training activity. All submarine ASW 

TRACKEX conducted in the NWTRC is 

passive only; therefore, these activities 

are not carried forward for any further 

analysis of effects. All aircraft ASW is 

analyzed under ASW TRACKEX (MPA). 

Mine Avoidance—Mine avoidance 

exercises train ship and submarine 

crews to detect and avoid underwater 

mines. In the NWTRC, submarine crews 

will use the AN/BQS–15 high frequency 

active sonar to locate mine shapes in a 

training minefield in the PACNW 

OPAREA. A small-scale underwater 

minefield will be added in the NWTRC 

for these exercises. Each mine 

avoidance exercise involves one 

submarine operating the AN/BQS–15 

sonar for six hours to navigate through 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

33834 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

the training minefield. A total of seven mine avoidance exercises will occur in 

the NWTRC annually. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP13JY09.141</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33835 

Activities Utilizing Underwater 

Detonations 

Underwater detonation activities can 

occur at various depths depending on 

the activity, but may also include 

activities which may have detonations 

at or just below the surface (such as 

SINKEX or gunnery exercise [GUNEX]). 

When the weapons hit the target, except 

for live torpedo shots, there is no 

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

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

acoustic or pressure) from the hit is not 

expected to reach levels that would 

result in take of marine mammals). 

When a live weapon misses, it is 

modeled as exploding below the water 

surface at 1 ft (5-inch naval gunfire, 

76mm rounds), 2 meters (Maverick, 

Harpoon, MK–82, MK–83, MK–84), or 

50-ft (MK–48 torpedo) as shown in 

Appendix A of the Navy’s application 

(the depth is chosen to represent the 

worst case of the possible scenarios as 

related to potential marine mammal 

impacts). Exercises may utilize either 

live or inert ordnance of the types listed 

in Table 3. Additionally, successful hit 

rates are known to the Navy and are 

utilized in the effects modeling. 

Training events that involve explosives 

and underwater detonations occur 

throughout the year and are described 

below and summarized in Table 2. Of 

note, the only Inshore Area exercises 

that use explosives are on EOD ranges 

described under Mine Countermeasures 

(No more than 4 total detonations of 2.5 

lb. charges annually). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

33836 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Anti-Surface Warfare Training (ASUW) 

Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW) is the 

category of activity that addresses 

combat (or interdiction) activities 

training by air, surface, or submarine 

forces against hostile surface ships and 

boats. The ASUW exercises conducted 

in NWTRC are described in the sections 

below. Because all of the rounds used in 

GUNEX in the NWTRC are inert, no take 

of marine mammals is anticipated to 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP13JY09.142</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33837 

result from the activity. However, a 

description is included here for 

comparison and clarity as NMFS has 

authorized take of marine mammals 

incidental to these activities in the past 

when explosive rounds were used 

instead of inert rounds. 

Air-to-Surface Bombing Exercise— 

During an Air-to-Surface Bombing 

Exercise (BOMBEX A–S), fixed-wing 

aircraft deliver bombs against simulated 

surface maritime targets, typically a 

smoke float, with the goal of destroying 

or disabling enemy ships or boats. MPA 

use bombs to attack surfaced 

submarines and surface craft that would 

not present a major threat to the MPA 

itself. A single MPA approaches the 

target at a low altitude. In most training 

exercises, the aircrew drops inert 

training ordnance, such as the Bomb 

Dummy Unit (BDU–45) on a MK–58 

smoke float used as the target. 

Historically, ordnance has been released 

throughout W–237 (off WA State), just 

south of W–237, and in international 

waters in accordance with international 

laws, rules, and regulations. Annually, 

120 pieces of ordnance, consisting of 10 

MK–82 live bombs and 110 BDU 45 

inert bombs, are dropped in the 

NWTRC. In accordance with the 

regulations for the Olympic Coast 

National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS) 

the Navy dos not conduct live bombing 

in the sanctuary. Each BOMBEX A–S 

can take up to 4 hours to complete. 

Sinking Exercise—A Sinking Exercise 

(SINKEX) is typically conducted by 

aircraft, surface ships, and submarines 

in order to take advantage of a full size 

ship target and an opportunity to fire 

live weapons. The target is typically a 

decommissioned combatant or merchant 

ship that has been made 

environmentally safe for sinking. In 

accordance with EPA permits, it is 

towed out to sea (at least 50 nm [92.6 

km]) and set adrift at the SINKEX 

location in deep water (at least 1,000 

fathoms [6,000 feet]) where it will not be 

a navigation hazard to other shipping. 

The Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) granted the Department of 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 Part 

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.’’ 

Ship, aircraft, and submarine crews 

typically are scheduled to attack the 

target with coordinated tactics and 

deliver live ordnance to sink the target. 

Inert ordnance is often used during the 

first stages of the event so that the target 

may be available for a longer time. The 

duration of a SINKEX is unpredictable 

because it ends when the target sinks, 

but the goal is to give all forces involved 

in the exercise an opportunity to deliver 

their live ordnance. Sometimes the 

target will begin to sink immediately 

after the first weapon impact and 

sometimes only after multiple impacts 

by a variety of weapons. Typically, the 

exercise lasts 4 to 8 hours, especially if 

inert ordnance such as 5-inch gun 

projectiles or MK–76 dummy bombs are 

used during the first hours. In the worst 

case of maximum exposure, the 

following ordnance are all expended (in 

the indicated amounts): MK82 Live 

Bomb (4); MK83 Live Bomb (4); MK84 

Live Bomb (4); HARM Missile (2); 

AGM–114 Hellfire Missile (1); M–65 

Maverick Missile (3); M–84 Harpoon 

Missile (3); AM ER Missile (1); 5 in/62 

Shell (500); 76 mm Shell (200); 48 

ADCAP Torpedo (1). If the hulk is not 

sunk by weapons, it will be sunk by 

Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) 

personnel setting off demolition charges 

previously placed on the ship. Since the 

target may sink at any time during the 

exercise, the actual number of weapons 

used can vary widely. 

Surface-to-Surface Gunnery 

Exercise—Surface-to-Surface Gunnery 

Exercises (S–S GUNEX) take place in 

the open ocean to provide gunnery 

practice for Navy ship crews. Exercises 

can involve a variety of surface targets 

that are either stationary or 

maneuverable. Gun systems employed 

against surface targets include the 5′′, 

76 mm, 57 mm, .50 caliber and the 7.62 

mm. A GUNEX lasts approximately one 

to two hours, depending on target 

services and weather conditions. All 

rounds fired are inert, containing no 

explosives. 

Mine Warfare Training (MIW) 

Mine Warfare Training includes Mine 

Countermeasures and Mine Avoidance. 

Mine Avoidance includes use of an 

active sonar source (although in very 

small amounts) and, therefore, was 

addressed in the appropriate section 

previously. Because of the location of 

the EOD ranges, the very limited use of 

explosives (4 individual explosions) 

proposed annually for these Mine 

Countermeasure exercises, and the 

likely effectiveness of the mitigation 

(e.g., marine mammal take is only 

expected within 180 m of the impact 

area, which is well within the shutdown 

zone of 700 yds from the point of 

impact), take of marine mammals is not 

anticipated to occur in the NWTRC. 

However, a description is included here 

for comparison as NMFS has authorized 

take of marine mammals incidental to 

these activities in other areas where the 

amount of activity is significantly 

greater. 

Mine Countermeasures—Naval EOD 

personnel require proficiency in 

underwater mine neutralization. Mine 

neutralization activities consist of 

underwater demolitions designed to 

train personnel in the destruction of 

mines, unexploded ordnance (UXO), 

obstacles, or other structures in an area 

to prevent interference with friendly or 

neutral forces and non-combatants. EOD 

units conduct underwater demolition 

training in Crescent Harbor Underwater 

EOD Range, Indian Island Underwater 

EOD Range, and Floral Point 

Underwater EOD Range. A 2.5 lb (1.1 

kg) charge of C–4 is used, consisting of 

one surface or one subsurface 

detonation. No more than two 

detonations will take place annually at 

Crescent Harbor, and no more than one 

each at Indian Island and Floral Point. 

The total duration of the exercise is four 

hours for an underwater detonation and 

one hour for a surface detonation. Small 

boats such as the MK–5 Combat Rubber 

Raiding Craft and MK–7, or 9 (meters in 

length, respectively) Rigid Hull 

Inflatable Boats (RHIB) are used to insert 

personnel for underwater activities and 

either a helicopter (H–60) or RHIB is 

used for insertion for surface activities. 

Vessel Movement 

The operation and movement of 

vessels that is necessary to conduct the 

training described above is also 

analyzed here. Training exercises 

involving vessel movements occur 

intermittently and are variable in 

duration, ranging from a few hours up 

to 2 weeks. During training, speeds vary 

and depend on the specific type of 

activity, although 10–14 knots is 

considered the typical speed. 

Approximately 490 training activities 

that involve Navy vessels occur within 

the Study Area during a typical year. 

Training activities are widely dispersed 

throughout the large OPAREA, which 

encompasses 122,468 nm2 (420,054 

km2). Consequently, the density of Navy 

ships within the Study Area at any 

given time is low. 

Research, Development, Testing, and 

Evaluation 

RDT&E proposed in this action is 

limited to Unmanned Aerial Systems 

(UAS) activities, the use of which is not 

anticipated to result in the take of 

marine mammals because it utilizes 

small, relatively quiet airborne, not 

undersea, gliders. Undersea RDT&E in 

the Pacific Northwest is conducted at 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

33838 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

the Naval Sea Systems Command 

(NAVSEA) Keyport range and is 

analyzed in the NAVSEA Naval 

Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) 

Keyport Range Extension EIS/OEIS. 

Additional information on the Navy’s 

proposed activities may be found in the 

LOA Application and the Navy’s 

NWTRC DEIS. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activities 

The California Current passes through 

the NWTRC, creating a mixing of 

temperate and tropical waters, thereby 

making this area one of the most 

productive ocean systems in the world 

(Department of the Navy [DoN], 2002a). 

Because of this productive environment, 

there is a rich marine mammal fauna, as 

evidenced in abundance and species 

diversity (Leatherwood et al., 1988; 

Bonnell and Dailey, 1993). In addition 

to many marine mammal species that 

live here year-round and use the 

region’s coasts and islands for breeding 

and hauling out, there is a community 

of seasonal residents and migrants. The 

narrow continental shelf along the 

Pacific coast and the presence of the 

cold California Current sweeping down 

from Alaska allows cold-water marine 

mammal species to reach nearshore 

waters as far south as Baja California. 

Thirty-three marine mammal species 

or populations/stocks have confirmed or 

possible occurrence within the NWTRC, 

including six species of baleen whales 

(mysticetes), 21 species of toothed 

whales (odontocetes), five species of 

seals and sea lions (pinnipeds), and the 

sea otter (mustelids). Table 4 

summarizes their abundance, 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) status, 

population trends, and occurrence in 

the area. Most of these species are listed 

as ‘‘common’’ in the table, indicating 

that they occur routinely, either yearround or during annual migrations into 

or through the area. The other species 

are indicated as ‘‘rare’’ because of 

sporadic sightings or as ‘‘very rare’’ 

because they have been documented 

once or twice as appearing outside their 

normal range. All of the species that 

occur in the NWTRC are either 

cosmopolitan (occur worldwide), or 

associated with the temperate and subArctic oceans (Leatherwood et al., 

1988). Seven of the species are ESAlisted and considered depleted under 

the MMPA: Blue whale; fin whale; 

humpback whale; sei whale; sperm 

whale; southern resident killer whale; 

and Steller sea lion. 

Temperate and warm-water toothed 

whales often change their distribution 

and abundance as oceanographic 

conditions vary both seasonally (Forney 

and Barlow, 1998) and inter-annually 

(Forney, 2000). Forney and Barlow 

(1998) noted significant north/south 

shifts in distribution for Dall’s 

porpoises, common dolphins, and 

Pacific white-sided dolphins, and they 

identified significant inshore/offshore 

differences for northern right whale 

dolphins and humpback whales. Several 

authors have noted the impact of the El 

Nin ̃ o events of 1982/1983 and 1997/ 

1998 on marine mammal occurrence 

patterns and population dynamics in 

the waters off California (Wells et al., 

1990; Forney and Barlow, 1998; Benson 

et al., 2002). 

The distribution of some marine 

mammal species is based on the 

presence of salmon, an important prey 

source. Seals and sea lions congregate 

near areas where migrating salmon run. 

For example, in the San Juan Islands, 

harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardii) 

congregate near a constricted channel 

where incoming tidal currents funnel 

migrating salmon (Zamon, 2001). In 

Oregon, harbor seals wait for chum 

salmon runs during the incoming tide 

near a constriction in Netarts Bay 

(Brown and Mat, 1983). During the 

summer, southern resident killer whales 

(Orcinus orca) congregate at locations 

associated with high densities of 

migrating salmon (Heimlich-Boran, 

1986; Nichol and Shackleton, 1996; 

Olson, 1998; National Marine Fisheries 

Service [NMFS], 2005i). Their strong 

preference for Chinook salmon may 

influence the year-round distribution 

patterns of southern resident killer 

whales in the NWTRC (Ford and Ellis, 

2005). 

The Navy has compiled information 

on the abundance, behavior, status and 

distribution, and vocalizations of 

marine mammal species in the NWTRC 

waters from the Navy Marine Resource 

Assessment for NWTRC (which was 

recently updated, during the 

development of the application for this 

rule, based on peer-reviewed literature 

and government reports such as NMFS’ 

Stock Assessment Reports) and marine 

mammal experts engaged in current 

research utilizing tagging and tracking. 

This information may be viewed in the 

Navy’s LOA application and/or the 

Navy’s DEIS for NWTRC (see 

Availability), and is incorporated by 

reference herein. Included below, 

however, are summaries of some 

important biological issues that are 

needed to further inform the MMPA 

effects analysis. Additional information 

is available in NMFS Stock Assessment 

Reports, which may be viewed at: 

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

species.htm. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33839 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Species Not Considered Further 

The North Pacific right whale is 

classified as endangered under the ESA. 

Although there is designated critical 

habitat for this species in the western 

Gulf of Alaska and an area in the 

southeastern Bering Sea (NMFS, 2006), 

there is no designated critical habitat for 

this species within the NWTRC. Census 

data are too limited to suggest a 

population trend for this species. In the 

western North Pacific, the population 

may number in the low hundreds 

(Brownell et al., 2001; Clapham et al., 

2004). The eastern population likely 

now numbers in the tens of animals. 

Right whales were probably never 

common along the west coast of North 

America (Scarff, 1986; Brownell et al., 

2001). Historical whaling records 

provide the most complete information 

on likely North Pacific right whale 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP13JY09.143</GPH>
33840 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

distribution. Presently, sightings are 

extremely rare, occurring primarily in 

the Okhotsk Sea and the eastern Bering 

Sea (Brownell et al., 2001; Shelden et 

al., 2005; Shelden and Clapham, 2006; 

Wade et al., 2006). There were no 

sightings of North Pacific right whales 

during ship surveys conducted off 

California, Oregon, and Washington 

from 1991 through 2005 (Barlow and 

Forney, 2007), although recent 

deployment of directional sonobuoys 

(focused on the gunshot call) in the 

southeastern Bering Sea has resulted in 

multiple recordings of the rarely 

detected marine mammals (Berchok et 

al., 2009). The area of densest 

concentration in the Gulf of Alaska is 

east from 170° W to 150° W and south 

to 52° N (Shelden and Clapham, 2006). 

Based upon the extremely low 

probability of encountering this species 

anywhere in the coastal and offshore 

waters in the NWTRC, this species will 

not be included in this analysis. 

Designated Critical Habitat 

Southern Resident Killer Whale 

NMFS designated critical habitat for 

the southern resident killer whale 

(Orcinus orca) distinct population 

segment (DPS). Three specific areas 

(which comprise approximately 2,560 

square miles (6,630 sq km) of marine 

habitat) are designated: 

(1) The Summer Core Area in Haro 

Strait and waters around the San Juan 

Islands—Occurrence of Southern 

Residents in Area 1 coincides with 

concentrations of salmon, and is more 

consistent and concentrated in the 

summer months of June through August, 

though they have been sighted in Area 

1 during every month of the year; 

(2) Puget Sound—southern resident 

killer whale occurrence in Area 2 has 

been correlated with fall salmon runs; 

and 

(3) The Strait of Juan de Fuca—All 

pods regularly use the Strait of Juan de 

Fuca for passage from Areas 1 and 2 to 

outside waters in the Pacific Ocean and 

to access outer coastal water feeding 

grounds. 

The designated physical and 

biological features which are essential to 

the conservation of southern resident 

killer whales and that may require 

special management considerations or 

protection (Primary Constituent 

Elements/PCEs) are as follows: 

(1) Water quality to support growth 

and development—Because of their long 

life span, position at the top of the food 

chain, and their blubber stores, southern 

resident killer whales accumulate high 

concentrations of contaminants; 

(2) Prey species of sufficient quantity, 

quality and availability to support 

individual growth, reproduction and 

development, as well as overall 

population growth—Fish are the major 

dietary component of southern resident 

killer whales in the northeastern Pacific. 

Salmon comprise the southern resident 

killer whales’ preferred prey, and are 

likely consumed in large amounts; and 

(3) Passage conditions to allow for 

migration, resting, and foraging—In 

order to move between important 

habitat areas, find prey, and fulfill other 

life history requirements, southern 

resident killer whales require open 

waterways that are free from 

obstruction. 

As noted previously, the Navy’s 

proposed action does not include the 

use of MFAS/HFAS in southern resident 

killer whale critical habitat, and 

explosive use is limited to four 

detonations of 2.5-lb charges annually 

in EOD exercises. 

Steller Sea Lion 

In California and Oregon, major 

Steller sea lion rookeries and associated 

air and aquatic zones are designated as 

critical habitat. Critical habitat includes 

an air zone extending 3,000 ft above 

rookery areas historically occupied by 

sea lions and an aquatic zone extending 

3,000 seaward. Three rookeries located 

along the southern Oregon Coast have 

been designated as critical habitat sites 

in the NWTRC. These include: Orford 

Reef (Long Brown Rock); Oxrord Reef 

(Seal Rock); Rogue Reef (Pyramid Rock). 

The PCEs for Steller sea lions are: 

Nearshore waters around rookeries and 

haulouts and prey resources and 

foraging habitats. 

Gray Whale Migration 

The gray whale makes a well-defined 

seasonal north-south migration. Most of 

the population summers in the shallow 

waters of the northern Bering Sea, the 

Chukchi Sea, and the western Beaufort 

Sea (Rice and Wolman, 1971), whereas 

some individuals also summer along the 

Pacific coast from Vancouver Island to 

central California (Rice and Wolman, 

1971; Darling 1984; Nerini, 1984). In 

October and November, the whales 

begin to migrate southeast through 

Unimak Pass and follow the shoreline 

south to breeding grounds on the west 

coast of Baja California and the 

southeastern Gulf of California (Braham, 

1984; Rugh, 1984). The average gray 

whale migrates 7,500–10,000 km at a 

rate of 147 km/d (Rugh et al., 2001; 

Jones and Swartz, 2002). Although some 

calves are born along the coast of 

California, most are born in the shallow, 

protected waters on the Pacific coast of 

Baja California from Morro de Santo 

Domingo (28° N) south to Isla Creciente 

(24° N) (Urban et al., 2003). The main 

calving sites are Laguna Guerrero Negro, 

Laguna Ojo de Liebre, Laguna San 

Ignacio, and Estero Soledad (Rice et al., 

1981). 

Gray whales occur in the Pacific 

Northwest OPAREA and Puget Sound 

throughout the year. In addition, larger 

numbers of migratory animals transit 

along the coast of Washington, Oregon, 

and California during migrations 

between breeding and feeding grounds. 

Peak sightings in the NWTRC during the 

southbound migration occur in January 

(Rugh et al., 2001). There are two phases 

of the northbound migration, including 

an early phase from mid-February 

through April and a later phase, which 

consists of mostly cows and calves, from 

late April through May (Herzing and 

Mate, 1984). 

Marine Mammal Hearing and 

Vocalizations 

Cetaceans have an auditory anatomy 

that follows the basic mammalian 

pattern, with some changes to adapt to 

the demands of hearing in the sea. The 

typical mammalian ear is divided into 

an outer ear, middle ear, and inner ear. 

The outer ear is separated from the 

inner ear by a tympanic membrane, or 

eardrum. In terrestrial mammals, the 

outer ear, eardrum, and middle ear 

transmit airborne sound to the inner ear, 

where the sound waves are propagated 

through the cochlear fluid. Since the 

impedance of water is close to that of 

the tissues of a cetacean, the outer ear 

is not required to transduce sound 

energy as it does when sound waves 

travel from air to fluid (inner ear). 

Sound waves traveling through the 

inner ear cause the basilar membrane to 

vibrate. Specialized cells, called hair 

cells, respond to the vibration and 

produce nerve pulses that are 

transmitted to the central nervous 

system. Acoustic energy causes the 

basilar membrane in the cochlea to 

vibrate. Sensory cells at different 

positions along the basilar membrane 

are excited by different frequencies of 

sound (Pickles, 1998). Baleen whales 

have inner ears that appear to be 

specialized for low-frequency hearing. 

Conversely, dolphins and porpoises 

have ears that are specialized to hear 

high frequencies. 

Marine mammal vocalizations often 

extend both above and below the range 

of human hearing; vocalizations with 

frequencies lower than 18 Hertz (Hz) are 

labeled as infrasonic and those higher 

than 20 kHz as ultrasonic (National 

Research Council [NRC], 2003; Figure 

4–1). Measured data on the hearing 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33841 

abilities of cetaceans are sparse, 

particularly for the larger cetaceans such 

as the baleen whales. The auditory 

thresholds of some of the smaller 

odontocetes have been determined in 

captivity. It is generally believed that 

cetaceans should at least be sensitive to 

the frequencies of their own 

vocalizations. Comparisons of the 

anatomy of cetacean inner ears and 

models of the structural properties and 

the response to vibrations of the ear’s 

components in different species provide 

an indication of likely sensitivity to 

various sound frequencies. The ears of 

small toothed whales are optimized for 

receiving high-frequency sound, while 

baleen whale inner ears are best in low 

to infrasonic frequencies (Ketten, 1992; 

1997; 1998). 

Baleen whale vocalizations are 

composed primarily of frequencies 

below 1 kHz, and some contain 

fundamental frequencies as low as 16 

Hz (Watkins et al., 1987; Richardson et 

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

1998; Stafford et al., 1999; Wartzok and 

Ketten, 1999) but can be as high as 24 

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

Clark and Ellison (2004) suggested that 

baleen whales use low frequency 

sounds not only for long-range 

communication, but also as a simple 

form of echo ranging, using echoes to 

navigate and orient relative to physical 

features of the ocean. Information on 

auditory function in mysticetes is 

extremely lacking. Sensitivity to lowfrequency sound by baleen whales has 

been inferred from observed 

vocalization frequencies, observed 

reactions to playback of sounds, and 

anatomical analyses of the auditory 

system. Although there is apparently 

much variation, the source levels of 

most baleen whale vocalizations lie in 

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

m. Low-frequency vocalizations made 

by baleen whales and their 

corresponding auditory anatomy suggest 

that they have good low-frequency 

hearing (Ketten, 2000), although specific 

data on sensitivity, frequency or 

intensity discrimination, or localization 

abilities are lacking. Marine mammals, 

like all mammals, have typical Ushaped audiograms that begin with 

relatively low sensitivity (high 

threshold) at some specified low 

frequency with increased sensitivity 

(low threshold) to a species specific 

optimum followed by a generally steep 

rise at higher frequencies (high 

threshold) (Fay, 1988). 

The toothed whales produce a wide 

variety of sounds, which include 

species-specific broadband ‘‘clicks’’ 

with peak energy between 10 and 200 

kHz, individually variable ‘‘burst pulse’’ 

click trains, and constant frequency or 

frequency-modulated (FM) whistles 

ranging from 4 to 16 kHz (Wartzok and 

Ketten, 1999). The general consensus is 

that the tonal vocalizations (whistles) 

produced by toothed whales play an 

important role in maintaining contact 

between dispersed individuals, while 

broadband clicks are used during 

echolocation (Wartzok and Ketten, 

1999). Burst pulses have also been 

strongly implicated in communication, 

with some scientists suggesting that 

they play an important role in agonistic 

encounters (McCowan and Reiss, 1995), 

while others have proposed that they 

represent ‘‘emotive’’ signals in a broader 

sense, possibly representing graded 

communication signals (Herzing, 1996). 

Sperm whales, however, are known to 

produce only clicks, which are used for 

both communication and echolocation 

(Whitehead, 2003). Most of the energy of 

toothed whales social vocalizations is 

concentrated near 10 kHz, with source 

levels for whistles as high as 100–180 

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

1995). No odontocete has been shown 

audiometrically to have acute hearing 

(<80 dB re 1 μPa) below 500 Hz (DoN, 

2001). Sperm whales produce clicks, 

which may be used to echolocate 

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

range from less than 100 Hz to 30 kHz 

and source levels up to 230 dB re 1 μPa 

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

Table 5 includes a summary of the 

vocalizations of the species found in the 

NWTRC. The ‘‘Brief Background on 

Sound’’ section contained 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). 

Marine Mammal Density Estimates 

Understanding the distribution and 

abundance of a particular marine 

mammal species or stock is necessary to 

analyze the potential impacts of an 

action on that species or stock. Further, 

in order to assess quantitatively the 

likely acoustic impacts of a potential 

action on individuals and to estimate 

take it is necessary to know the density 

of the animals in the affected area. 

Density estimates for cetaceans were 

obtained from the Marine Mammal and 

Sea Turtle Density Estimates for the 

Pacific Northwest Study Area (DoN, 

2007a). The abundance of most 

cetaceans was derived from shipboard 

surveys conducted by the Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center in 1991, 1993, 

1996, 2001, and 2005 (Barlow, 1995; 

Barlow, 2003; Barlow and Forney, 

2007). These estimates are used to 

develop NMFS Stock Assessment 

Reports (Carretta et al., 2007); interpret 

the impacts of human-caused mortality 

associated with fishery bycatch, ship 

strikes, and other sources; and evaluate 

the ecological role of cetaceans in the 

eastern North Pacific. In the density 

study, predictive species-habitat models 

were built for species with sufficient 

numbers of sightings to estimate 

densities for the NWTRC (described in 

detail Appendix B of the Navy’s 

application). For species with 

insufficient numbers of sightings, 

density estimates were obtained from 

Barlow and Forney (2007). 

There are limited depth distribution 

data for most marine mammals. This is 

especially true for cetaceans, as they 

must be tagged at-sea and by using a tag 

that either must be implanted in the 

skin/blubber in some manner or adhere 

to the skin. There is slightly more data 

for some pinnipeds, as they can be 

tagged while on shore during breeding 

or molting seasons and the tags can be 

glued to the pelage rather than 

implanted. There are a few different 

methodologies/techniques that can be 

used to determine depth distribution 

percentages, but by far the most widely 

used technique currently is the timedepth recorder. These instruments are 

attached to the animal for a fairly short 

period of time (several hours to a few 

days) via a suction cup or glue, and then 

retrieved immediately after detachment 

or when the animal returns to the beach. 

Depth information can also be collected 

via satellite tags, sonic tags, digital tags, 

and, for sperm whales, via acoustic 

tracking of sounds produced by the 

animal itself. 

There are somewhat suitable depth 

distribution data for a few marine 

mammal species. Sample sizes are 

usually extremely small, nearly always 

fewer than 10 animals total and often 

only one or two animals. Depth 

distribution information often must be 

interpreted from other dive and/or 

preferred prey characteristics. Depth 

distributions for species for which no 

data are available are extrapolated from 

similar species. 

Density is nearly always reported for 

an area, e.g., animals/km2. 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. Density 

assumes that animals are uniformly 

distributed within the prescribed area, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

33842 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

even though this is likely rarely true. 

Marine mammals are usually clumped 

in areas of greater importance (and often 

in groups), for example, areas of high 

productivity, lower predation, safe 

calving, etc. Density can occasionally be 

calculated for smaller areas that are 

used regularly 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. 

Assuming that marine mammals are 

distributed evenly within the water 

column is not accurate. The everexpanding database of marine mammal 

behavioral and physiological parameters 

obtained through tagging and other 

technologies has demonstrated that 

marine mammals use the water column 

in various ways, with some species 

capable of regular deep dives (<800 m) 

and others regularly diving to <200 m, 

regardless of the bottom depth. 

Assuming that all species are evenly 

distributed from surface to bottom is 

almost never appropriate and can 

present a distorted view of marine 

mammal distribution in any region. 

By combining marine mammal 

density with depth distribution 

information, a more accurate threedimensional density estimate is 

possible. These 3–D estimates allow 

more accurate modeling of potential 

marine mammal exposures from specific 

noise sources. Density estimates are 

included in Table 4. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33843 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP13JY09.144</GPH>
33844 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP13JY09.145</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33845 

Brief Background on Sound 

An understanding of the basic 

properties of underwater sound is 

necessary to comprehend many of the 

concepts and analyses presented in this 

document. A summary is included 

below. 

Sound is a wave of pressure variations 

propagating through a medium (for the 

MFAS/HFAS considered in this 

proposed rule, the medium is marine 

water). Pressure variations are created 

by compressing and relaxing the 

medium. Sound measurements can be 

expressed in two forms: Intensity and 

pressure. Acoustic intensity is the 

average rate of energy transmitted 

through a unit area in a specified 

direction and is expressed in watts per 

square meter (W/m2). Acoustic intensity 

is rarely measured directly, it is derived 

from ratios of pressures; the standard 

reference pressure for underwater sound 

is 1 microPascal (μPa); for airborne 

sound, the standard reference pressure 

is 20 μPa (Richardson et al., 1995). 

Acousticians have adopted a 

logarithmic scale for sound intensities, 

which is denoted in decibels (dB). 

Decibel measurements represent the 

ratio between a measured pressure value 

and a reference pressure value (in this 

case 1 μPa or, for airborne sound, 20 

μPa). The logarithmic nature of the scale 

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

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

increase). 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: 

μPa) as a standard reference pressure 

unless noted otherwise. 

It is important to note that decibels 

underwater and decibels in air are not 

the same and cannot be directly 

compared. To estimate a comparison 

between sound in air and underwater, 

because of the different densities of air 

and water and the different decibel 

standards (i.e., reference pressures) in 

water and air, a sound with the same 

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

would be approximately 63 dB quieter 

in air. Thus a sound that is 160 dB loud 

underwater would have the same 

approximate effective intensity as a 

sound that is 97 dB loud in air. 

Sound frequency is measured in 

cycles per second, or Hertz (abbreviated 

Hz), and is analogous to musical pitch; 

high-pitched sounds contain high 

frequencies and low-pitched sounds 

contain low frequencies. Natural sounds 

in the ocean span a huge range of 

frequencies: From earthquake noise at 5 

Hz to harbor porpoise clicks at 150,000 

Hz (150 kHz). These sounds are so low 

or so high in pitch that humans cannot 

even hear them; acousticians call these 

infrasonic (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 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 away from its source, its 

loudness decreases as the distance 

traveled (propagates) by the sound 

increases. Thus, the loudness of a sound 

at its source is higher than the loudness 

of that same sound a kilometer distant. 

Acousticians often refer to the loudness 

of a sound at its source (typically 

measured one meter from the source) as 

the source level and the loudness of 

sound elsewhere as the received level. 

For example, a humpback whale three 

kilometers from an airgun that has a 

source level of 230 dB may only be 

exposed to sound that is 160 dB loud, 

depending on how the sound propagates 

(in this example, it is spherical 

spreading). As a result, it is important 

not to confuse source levels and 

received levels when discussing the 

loudness of sound in the ocean or its 

impacts on the marine environment. 

As sound travels from a source, its 

propagation in water is influenced by 

various physical characteristics, 

including water temperature, depth, 

salinity, and surface and bottom 

properties that cause refraction, 

reflection, absorption, and scattering of 

sound waves. Oceans are not 

homogeneous and the contribution of 

each of these individual factors is 

extremely complex and interrelated. 

The physical characteristics that 

determine the sound’s speed through 

the water will change with depth, 

season, geographic location, and with 

time of day (as a result, in actual 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. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

33846 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

SPL 

Sound pressure is the sound force per 

unit area, and is usually measured in 

micropascals (μPa), where 1 Pa is the 

pressure resulting from a force of one 

newton exerted over an area of one 

square meter. SPL is expressed as the 

ratio of a measured sound pressure and 

a reference level. The commonly used 

reference pressure level in underwater 

acoustics is 1 μPa, and the units for 

SPLs are dB re: 1 μPa. 

SPL (in dB) = 20 log (pressure / 

reference pressure) 

SPL is an instantaneous measurement 

and can be expressed as the peak, the 

peak-peak, or the root mean square 

(rms). Root mean square, which is the 

square root of the arithmetic average of 

the squared instantaneous pressure 

values, is typically used in discussions 

of the effects of sounds on vertebrates 

and all references to SPL in this 

document refer to the root mean square. 

SPL does not take the duration of a 

sound into account. SPL is the 

applicable metric used in the risk 

continuum, which is used to estimate 

behavioral harassment takes (see Level 

B Harassment Risk Function (Behavioral 

Harassment) Section). 

SEL 

SEL is an energy metric that integrates 

the squared instantaneous sound 

pressure over a stated time interval. The 

units for SEL are dB re: 1 μPa2¥s. 

SEL = SPL + 10log (duration in seconds) 

As applied to MFAS/HFAS, the SEL 

includes both the SPL of a sonar ping 

and the total duration. Longer duration 

pings and/or pings with higher SPLs 

will have a higher SEL. If an animal is 

exposed to multiple pings, the SEL in 

each individual ping is summed to 

calculate the total SEL. The total SEL 

depends on the SPL, duration, and 

number of pings received. The 

thresholds that NMFS uses to indicate at 

what received level the onset of 

temporary threshold shift (TTS) and 

permanent threshold shift (PTS) in 

hearing are likely to occur are expressed 

in SEL. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals 

The Navy has requested authorization 

for the take of marine mammals that 

may occur incidental to training 

activities in the NWTRC 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 NWTRC DEIS, 

including ship strike, aerial overflights, 

ship noise and movement, and others, 

and, in consultation with NMFS as a 

cooperating agency for the NWTRC 

DEIS, has determined that take of 

marine mammals incidental to these 

non-acoustic components of the 

NWTRC 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 

operation in the NWTRC. 

For the purpose of MMPA 

authorizations, NMFS’ effects 

assessments serve four primary 

purposes: (1) To help identify the 

permissible methods of taking, meaning: 

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

from anthropogenic noise vs. from ship 

strike, etc.); the regulatory level of take 

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

harassment), and; the amount of take; 

(2) to inform the prescription of means 

of affecting the least practicable adverse 

impact on such species or stock and its 

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

the determination of whether the 

specified activity will have a negligible 

impact on the affected species or stocks 

of marine mammals (based on the 

likelihood that the activity will 

adversely affect the species or stock 

through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival); and (4) to 

determine whether the specified activity 

will have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (however, 

there are no subsistence communities 

that would be affected in the NWTRC). 

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 

NMFS’ January 14, 2009 Programmatic 

biological opinion on the U.S. Navy’s 

proposal to conduct training exercises 

in the Southern California Range 

Complex from January 2009 to January 

2014 (available at: http:// 

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

incidental.htm#applications). This 

document presents a conceptual model 

of the potential responses of endangered 

and threatened species upon being 

exposed to MFAS/HFAS 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33847 

recovery), occurs in specific frequency 

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

a temporary loss of hearing sensitivity 

between the frequencies of 1 and 10 

kHz), and can be of varying amounts (for 

example, an animal’s hearing sensitivity 

might be reduced by only 6 dB or 

reduced by 30 dB). PTS is permanent 

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

occurs in a specific frequency range and 

amount as mentioned above for TTS. 

The following physiological 

mechanisms are thought to play a role 

in inducing auditory TSs: Effects to 

sensory hair cells in the inner ear that 

reduce their sensitivity, modification of 

the chemical environment within the 

sensory cells, residual muscular activity 

in the middle ear, displacement of 

certain inner ear membranes, increased 

blood flow, and post-stimulatory 

reduction in both efferent and sensory 

neural output (Southall et al., 2007). 

The amplitude, duration, frequency, 

temporal pattern, and energy 

distribution of sound exposure all affect 

the amount of associated TS and the 

frequency range in which it occurs. As 

amplitude and duration of sound 

exposure increase, so, generally, does 

the amount of TS, along with the 

recovery time. Human non-impulsive 

noise exposure guidelines are based on 

exposures of equal energy (the same 

SEL) producing equal amounts of 

hearing impairment regardless of how 

the sound energy is distributed in time 

(NIOSH, 1998). Until recently, previous 

marine mammal TTS studies have also 

generally supported this equal energy 

relationship (Southall et al., 2007). 

Three newer studies, two by Mooney et 

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

dolphin either exposed to playbacks of 

Navy MFAS or octave-band noise (4–8 

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

a single California sea lion exposed to 

airborne octave-band noise (centered at 

2.5 kHz), concluded that for all noise 

exposure situations the equal energy 

relationship may not be the best 

indicator to predict TTS levels. All three 

of these studies highlight the inherent 

complexity of TTS in marine mammals, 

as well the importance of considering 

exposure duration when assessing 

impacts. With exposures of equal 

energy, quieter, longer duration 

exposures were found to induce greater 

levels of TTS than those of exposures 

that were louder and of 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 interpretation of 

environmental cues for purposes such 

as predator avoidance and prey capture. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

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

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious (similar to those discussed in 

auditory masking, below). For example, 

a marine mammal may be able to readily 

compensate for a brief, relatively small 

amount of TTS in a non-critical 

frequency range that takes place during 

a time when the animal is traveling 

through the open ocean, where ambient 

noise is lower and there are not as many 

competing sounds present. 

Alternatively, a larger amount and 

longer duration of TTS sustained during 

time when communication is critical for 

successful mother/calf interactions 

could have more serious impacts if it 

were in the same frequency band as the 

necessary vocalizations and of a severity 

that it impeded communication. Also, 

depending on the degree and frequency 

range, the effects of PTS on an animal 

could range in severity, although it is 

considered generally more serious 

because it is a permanent condition. Of 

note, reduced hearing sensitivity as a 

simple function of development and 

aging has been observed in marine 

mammals, as well as humans and other 

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

infer that strategies exist for coping with 

this condition to some degree, though 

likely not without cost. There is no 

empirical evidence that exposure to 

MFAS/HFAS can cause PTS in any 

marine mammals; instead the 

probability of PTS has been inferred 

from studies of TTS (see Richardson et 

al., 1995). 

Acoustically Mediated Bubble Growth 

One theoretical cause of injury to 

marine mammals is rectified diffusion 

(Crum and Mao, 1996), the process of 

increasing the size of a bubble by 

exposing it to a sound field. This 

process could be facilitated if the 

environment in which the ensonified 

bubbles exist is supersaturated with gas. 

Repetitive diving by marine mammals 

can cause the blood and some tissues to 

accumulate gas to a greater degree than 

is supported by the surrounding 

environmental pressure (Ridgway and 

Howard, 1979). The deeper and longer 

dives of some marine mammals (for 

example, beaked whales) are 

theoretically predicted to induce greater 

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

rectified diffusion were possible in 

marine mammals exposed to high-level 

sound, conditions of tissue 

supersaturation could theoretically 

speed the rate and increase the size of 

bubble growth. Subsequent effects due 

to tissue trauma and emboli would 

presumably mirror those observed in 

humans suffering from decompression 

sickness. 

It is unlikely that the short duration 

of 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

33848 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

enough period of time for bubbles to 

become of a problematic size. 

Yet another hypothesis 

(decompression sickness) has 

speculated that rapid ascent to the 

surface following exposure to a startling 

sound might produce tissue gas 

saturation sufficient for the evolution of 

nitrogen bubbles (Jepson et al., 2003; 

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

the rate of ascent would need to be 

sufficiently rapid to compromise 

behavioral or physiological protections 

against nitrogen bubble formation. 

Collectively, these hypotheses can be 

referred to as ‘‘hypotheses of 

acoustically mediated bubble growth.’’ 

Although theoretical predictions 

suggest the possibility for acoustically 

mediated bubble growth, there is 

considerable disagreement among 

scientists as to its likelihood (Piantadosi 

and Thalmann, 2004; Evans and Miller, 

2003). Crum and Mao (1996) 

hypothesized that received levels would 

have to exceed 190 dB in order for there 

to be the possibility of significant 

bubble growth due to supersaturation of 

gases in the blood (i.e., rectified 

diffusion). More recent work conducted 

by Crum et al., (2005) demonstrated the 

possibility of rectified diffusion for 

short duration signals, but at SELs and 

tissue saturation levels that are highly 

improbable to occur in diving marine 

mammals. To date, Energy Levels (ELs) 

predicted to cause in vivo bubble 

formation within diving cetaceans have 

not been evaluated (NOAA, 2002b). 

Although it has been argued that 

traumas from some recent beaked whale 

strandings are consistent with gas 

emboli and bubble-induced tissue 

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

no conclusive evidence of this. 

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

Fernandez et al., (2004, 2005) 

concluded that in vivo bubble 

formation, which may be exacerbated by 

deep, 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 to, auditory signals an 

animal is trying to receive. Masking is 

a phenomenon that affects animals that 

are trying to receive acoustic 

information about their environment, 

including sounds from other members 

of their species, predators, prey, and 

sounds that allow them to orient in their 

environment. Masking these acoustic 

signals can disturb the behavior of 

individual animals, groups of animals, 

or entire populations. 

The extent of the masking interference 

depends on the spectral, temporal, and 

spatial relationships between the signals 

an animal is trying to receive and the 

masking noise, in addition to other 

factors. In humans, significant masking 

of tonal signals occurs as a result of 

exposure to noise in a narrow band of 

similar frequencies. As the sound level 

increases, though, the detection of 

frequencies above those of the masking 

stimulus decreases also. This principle 

is expected to apply to marine mammals 

as well because of common 

biomechanical cochlear properties 

across taxa. 

Richardson et al., (1995b) argued that 

the maximum radius of influence of an 

industrial noise (including broadband 

low frequency sound transmission) on a 

marine mammal is the distance from the 

source to the point at which the noise 

can barely be heard. This range is 

determined by either the hearing 

sensitivity of the animal or the 

background noise level present. 

Industrial masking is most likely to 

affect some species’ ability to detect 

communication calls and natural 

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

Richardson et al., 1995). 

The echolocation calls of toothed 

whales are subject to masking by high 

frequency sound. Human data indicate 

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

masking). Studies on captive 

odontocetes by Au et al., (1974, 1985, 

1993) indicate that some species may 

use various processes to reduce masking 

effects (e.g., adjustments in echolocation 

call intensity or frequency as a function 

of background noise conditions). There 

is also evidence that the directional 

hearing abilities of odontocetes are 

useful in reducing masking at the high 

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 encompass the 

frequencies of the MFAS/HFAS sources 

used in the Navy’s MFAS/HFAS 

training exercises (although some 

mysticete’s best hearing capacities are 

likely at frequencies somewhat lower 

than MFAS). Additionally, in almost all 

species, vocal repertoires span across 

the frequencies of these MFAS/HFAS 

sources used by the Navy. The closer 

the characteristics of the masking signal 

to the signal of interest, the more likely 

masking is to occur. For hull-mounted 

MFAS/HFAS—which accounts for the 

largest part of the takes of marine 

mammals (because of the source 

strength and number of hours it’s 

conducted), the pulse length and duty 

cycle of the MFAS/HFAS signal (∼1 

second pulse twice a minute) makes it 

less likely that masking will occur as a 

result. 

Impaired Communication 

In addition to making it more difficult 

for animals to perceive acoustic cues in 

their environment, anthropogenic sound 

presents separate challenges for animals 

that are vocalizing. When they vocalize, 

animals are aware of environmental 

conditions that affect the ‘‘active space’’ 

of their vocalizations, which is the 

maximum area within which their 

vocalizations can be detected before it 

drops to the level of ambient noise 

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

Lohr et al., 2003). Animals are also 

aware of environmental conditions that 

affect whether listeners can discriminate 

and recognize their vocalizations from 

other sounds, which is more important 

than simply detecting that a 

vocalization is occurring (Brenowitz, 

1982; Brumm et al., 2004; Dooling, 

2004, Marten and Marler, 1977; 

Patricelli et al., 2006). Most animals that 

vocalize have evolved with an ability to 

make adjustments to their vocalizations 

to increase the signal-to-noise ratio, 

active space, and recognizability/ 

distinguishability of their vocalizations 

in the face of temporary changes in 

background noise (Brumm et al., 2004; 

Patricelli et al., 2006). Vocalizing 

animals can make one or more of the 

following adjustments to their 

vocalizations: Adjust the frequency 

structure; adjust the amplitude; adjust 

temporal structure; or adjust temporal 

delivery (see Biological Opinion). 

Many animals will combine several of 

these strategies to compensate for high 

levels of background noise. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33849 

Anthropogenic sounds that reduce the 

signal-to-noise ratio of animal 

vocalizations, increase the masked 

auditory thresholds of animals listening 

for such vocalizations, or reduce the 

active space of an animal’s 

vocalizations, impair communication 

between animals. Most animals that 

vocalize have evolved strategies to 

compensate for the effects of short-term 

or temporary increases in background or 

ambient noise on their songs or calls. 

Although the fitness consequences of 

these vocal adjustments remain 

unknown, like most other trade-offs 

animals must make, some of these 

strategies probably come at a cost 

(Patricelli et al., 2006). For example, 

vocalizing more loudly in noisy 

environments may have energetic costs 

that decrease the net benefits of vocal 

adjustment and alter a bird’s energy 

budget (Brumm, 2004; Wood and 

Yezerinac, 2006). Shifting songs and 

calls to higher frequencies may also 

impose energetic costs (Lambrechts, 

1996). 

Stress Responses 

Classic stress responses begin when 

an animal’s central nervous system 

perceives a potential threat to its 

homeostasis. That perception triggers 

stress responses regardless of whether a 

stimulus actually threatens the animal; 

the mere perception of a threat is 

sufficient to trigger a stress response 

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

Seyle, 1950). Once an animal’s central 

nervous system perceives a threat, it 

mounts a biological response or defense 

that consists of a combination of the 

four general biological defense 

responses: Behavioral responses, 

autonomic nervous system responses, 

neuroendocrine responses, or immune 

response. 

In the case of many stressors, an 

animal’s first and most economical (in 

terms of biotic costs) response is 

behavioral avoidance of the potential 

stressor or avoidance of continued 

exposure to a stressor. An animal’s 

second line of defense to stressors 

involves the sympathetic part of the 

autonomic nervous system and the 

classical ‘‘fight or flight’’ response 

which includes the cardiovascular 

system, the gastrointestinal system, the 

exocrine glands, and the adrenal 

medulla to produce changes in heart 

rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal 

activity that humans commonly 

associate with ‘‘stress.’’ These responses 

have a relatively short duration and may 

or may not have significant long-term 

effects on an animal’s welfare. 

An animal’s third line of defense to 

stressors involves its neuroendocrine or 

sympathetic nervous systems; the 

system that has received the most study 

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

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

some reptiles). Unlike stress responses 

associated with the autonomic nervous 

system, virtually all neuro-endocrine 

functions that are affected by stress— 

including immune competence, 

reproduction, metabolism, and 

behavior—are regulated by pituitary 

hormones. Stress-induced changes in 

the secretion of pituitary hormones have 

been implicated in failed reproduction 

(Moberg, 1987; Rivier, 1995) and altered 

metabolism (Elasser et al., 2000), 

reduced immune competence (Blecha, 

2000) and behavioral disturbance. 

Increases in the circulation of 

glucocorticosteroids (cortisol, 

corticosterone, and aldosterone in 

marine mammals; see Romano et al., 

2004) have been equated with stress for 

many years. 

The primary distinction between 

stress (which is adaptive and does not 

normally place an animal at risk) and 

distress is the biotic cost of the 

response. During a stress response, an 

animal uses glycogen stores that can be 

quickly replenished once the stress is 

alleviated. In such circumstances, the 

cost of the stress response would not 

pose a risk to the animal’s welfare. 

However, when an animal does not have 

sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the 

energetic costs of a stress response, 

energy resources must be diverted from 

other biotic functions, which impairs 

those functions that experience the 

diversion. For example, when mounting 

a stress response diverts energy away 

from growth in young animals, those 

animals may experience stunted growth. 

When mounting a stress response 

diverts energy from a fetus, an animal’s 

reproductive success and its fitness will 

suffer. In these cases, the animals will 

have entered a pre-pathological or 

pathological state which is called 

‘‘distress’’ (sensu Seyle, 1950) or 

‘‘allostatic loading’’ (sensu McEwen and 

Wingfield, 2003). This pathological state 

will last until the animal replenishes its 

biotic reserves sufficient to restore 

normal function. 

Relationships between these 

physiological mechanisms, animal 

behavior, and the costs of stress 

responses have also been documented 

fairly well through controlled 

experiment; because this physiology 

exists in every vertebrate that has been 

studied, it is not surprising that stress 

responses and their costs have been 

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

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

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

2004; Lankford et al., 2005; Reneerkens 

et al., 2002; Thompson and Hamer, 

2000). Although no information has 

been collected on the physiological 

responses of marine mammals to 

exposure to anthropogenic sounds, 

studies of other marine animals and 

terrestrial animals would lead us to 

expect some marine mammals to 

experience physiological stress 

responses and, perhaps, physiological 

responses that would be classified as 

‘‘distress’’ upon exposure to high 

frequency, mid-frequency and lowfrequency sounds. 

For example, Jansen (1998) reported 

on the relationship between acoustic 

exposures and physiological responses 

that are indicative of stress responses in 

humans (for example, elevated 

respiration and increased heart rates). 

Jones (1998) reported on reductions in 

human performance when faced with 

acute, repetitive exposures to acoustic 

disturbance. Trimper et al., (1998) 

reported on the physiological stress 

responses of osprey to low-level aircraft 

noise while Krausman et al., (2004) 

reported on the auditory and physiology 

stress responses of endangered Sonoran 

pronghorn to military overflights. Smith 

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

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

goldfish) that accompanied short- and 

long-term hearing losses. Welch and 

Welch (1970) reported physiological 

and behavioral stress responses that 

accompanied damage to the inner ears 

of fish and several mammals. 

Hearing is one of the primary senses 

marine mammals use to gather 

information about their environment 

and to communicate with conspecifics. 

Although empirical information on the 

relationship between sensory 

impairment (TTS, PTS, and acoustic 

masking) on marine mammals remains 

limited, it seems reasonable to assume 

that reducing an animal’s ability to 

gather information about its 

environment and to communicate with 

other members of its species would be 

stressful for animals that use hearing as 

their primary sensory mechanism. 

Therefore, we assume that acoustic 

exposures sufficient to trigger onset PTS 

or TTS would be accompanied by 

physiological stress responses because 

terrestrial animals exhibit those 

responses under similar conditions 

(NRC, 2003). More importantly, marine 

mammals might experience stress 

responses at received levels lower than 

those necessary to trigger onset TTS. 

Based on empirical studies of the time 

required to recover from stress 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

33850 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 (nature and magnitude) an acoustic 

event. An animal’s prior experience 

with a sound or sound source affects 

whether it is less likely (habituation) or 

more likely (sensitization) to respond to 

certain sounds in the future (animals 

can also be innately pre-disposed to 

respond to certain sounds in certain 

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

the sound itself, the perceived nearness 

of the sound, bearing of the sound 

(approaching vs. retreating), similarity 

of a sound to biologically relevant 

sounds in the animal’s environment 

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

conspecifics), and familiarity of the 

sound may affect the way an animal 

responds to the sound (Southall et al., 

2007). Individuals (of different age, 

gender, reproductive status, etc.) among 

most populations will have variable 

hearing capabilities, and differing 

behavioral sensitivities to sounds that 

will be affected by prior conditioning, 

experience, and current activities of 

those individuals. Often, specific 

acoustic features of the sound and 

contextual variables (i.e., proximity, 

duration, or recurrence of the sound or 

the current behavior that the marine 

mammal is engaged in or its prior 

experience), as well as entirely separate 

factors such as the physical presence of 

a nearby vessel, may be more relevant 

to the animal’s response than the 

received level alone. 

Exposure of marine mammals to 

sound sources can result in (but is not 

limited to) no response or any of the 

following observable responses: 

Increased alertness; orientation or 

attraction to a sound source; vocal 

modifications; cessation of feeding; 

cessation of social interaction; alteration 

of movement or diving behavior; 

avoidance; habitat abandonment 

(temporary or permanent); and, in 

severe cases, panic, flight, stampede, or 

stranding, potentially resulting in death 

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

marine mammal responses to 

anthropogenic sound was first 

conducted by Richardson (1995). A 

more recent review (Nowacek et al., 

2007) addresses studies conducted since 

1995 and focuses on observations where 

the received sound level of the exposed 

marine mammal(s) was known or could 

be estimated. The following subsections provide examples of behavioral 

responses that provide an idea of the 

variability in behavioral responses that 

would be expected given the differential 

sensitivities of marine mammal species 

to sound and the wide range of potential 

acoustic sources to which a marine 

mammal may be exposed. Estimates of 

the types of behavioral responses that 

could occur for a given sound exposure 

should be determined from the 

literature that is available for each 

species, or extrapolated from closely 

related species when no information 

exists. 

Alteration of Diving or Movement— 

Changes in dive behavior can vary 

widely. They may consist of increased 

or decreased dive times and surface 

intervals as well as changes in the rates 

of ascent and descent during a dive. 

Variations in dive behavior may reflect 

interruptions in biologically significant 

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

of little biological significance. 

Variations in dive behavior may also 

expose an animal to potentially harmful 

conditions (e.g., increasing the chance 

of ship-strike) or may serve as an 

avoidance response that enhances 

survivorship. The impact of a variation 

in diving resulting from an acoustic 

exposure depends on what the animal is 

doing at the time of the exposure and 

the type and magnitude of the response. 

Nowacek et al., (2004) reported 

disruptions of dive behaviors in foraging 

North Atlantic right whales when 

exposed to an alerting stimulus, an 

action, they noted, that could lead to an 

increased likelihood of ship-strike. 

However, the whales did not respond to 

playbacks of either right whale social 

sounds or vessel noise, highlighting the 

importance of the sound characteristics 

in producing a behavioral reaction. 

Conversely, Indo-Pacific humpback 

dolphins have been observed to dive for 

longer periods of time in areas where 

vessels were present and/or 

approaching (Ng and Leung, 2003). In 

both of these studies, the influence of 

the sound exposure cannot be 

decoupled from the physical presence of 

a surface vessel, thus complicating 

interpretations of the relative 

contribution of each stimulus to the 

response. Indeed, the presence of 

surface vessels, their approach and 

speed of approach, seemed to be 

significant factors in the response of the 

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Ng 

and Leung, 2003). Low frequency 

signals of the Acoustic Thermometry of 

Ocean Climate (ATOC) sound source 

were not found to affect dive times of 

humpback whales in Hawaiian waters 

(Frankel and Clark, 2000) or to overtly 

affect elephant seal dives (Costa et al., 

2003). They did, however, produce 

subtle effects that varied in direction 

and degree among the individual seals, 

illustrating the equivocal nature of 

behavioral effects and consequent 

difficulty in defining and predicting 

them. 

Foraging—Disruption of feeding 

behavior can be difficult to correlate 

with anthropogenic sound exposure, so 

it is usually inferred by observed 

displacement from known foraging 

areas, the appearance of secondary 

indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment 

plumes), or changes in dive behavior. 

Noise from seismic surveys was not 

found to impact the feeding behavior in 

western grey whales off the coast of 

Russia (Yazvenko et al., 2007) and 

sperm whales engaged in foraging dives 

did not abandon dives when exposed to 

distant signatures of seismic airguns 

(Madsen et al., 2006). Balaenopterid 

whales exposed to moderate lowfrequency signals similar to the ATOC 

sound source demonstrated no variation 

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

whereas five out of six North Atlantic 

right whales exposed to an acoustic 

alarm interrupted their foraging dives 

(Nowacek et al., 2004). Although the 

received sound pressure level at the 

animals was similar in the latter two 

studies, the frequency, duration, and 

temporal pattern of signal presentation 

were different. These factors, as well as 

differences in species sensitivity, are 

likely contributing factors to the 

differential response. A determination 

of whether foraging disruptions incur 

fitness consequences will require 

information on or estimates of the 

energetic requirements of the 

individuals and the relationship 

between prey availability, foraging effort 

and success, and the life history stage of 

the animal. 

Brownell (2004) reported the 

behavioral responses of western gray 

whales off the northeast coast of 

Sakhalin Island to sounds produced by 

seismic activities in that region. In 1997, 

the gray whales responded to seismic 

activities by changing their swimming 

speed and orientation, respiration rates, 

and distribution in waters around the 

seismic surveys. In 2001, seismic 

activities were conducted in a known 

feeding area of these whales and the 

whales left the feeding area and moved 

to areas farther south in the Sea of 

Okhotsk. They only returned to the 

feeding area several days after the 

seismic activities stopped. The potential 

fitness consequences of displacing these 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33851 

whales, especially mother-calf pairs and 

‘‘skinny whales,’’ outside of their 

normal feeding area is not known; 

however, because gray whales, like 

other large whales, must gain enough 

energy during the summer foraging 

season to last them the entire year, 

sounds or other stimuli that cause them 

to abandon a foraging area for several 

days could disrupt their energetics and 

force them to make trade-offs like 

delaying their migration south, delaying 

reproduction, reducing growth, or 

migrating with reduced energy reserves. 

Social relationships—Social 

interactions between mammals can be 

affected by noise via the disruption of 

communication signals or by the 

displacement of individuals. Disruption 

of social relationships therefore depends 

on the disruption of other behaviors 

(e.g., avoidance, masking, etc.). 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). Social disruptions must be 

considered, however, in context of the 

relationships that are affected. While 

some disruptions may not have 

deleterious effects, long-term 

disruptions of mother/calf pairs or 

interruption of mating behaviors have 

the potential to affect the growth and 

survival or reproductive effort/success 

of individuals, respectively. 

Vocalizations (also see Masking 

section)—Vocal changes in response to 

anthropogenic noise can occur across 

the repertoire of sound production 

modes used by marine mammals, such 

as whistling, echolocation click 

production, calling, and singing. 

Changes may result in response to a 

need to compete with an increase in 

background noise or may reflect an 

increased vigilance or startle response. 

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

whales have been observed to increase 

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

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

to the overlap in frequencies between 

the whale song and the low-frequency 

active sonar. A similar compensatory 

effect for the presence of low-frequency 

vessel noise has been suggested for right 

whales; right whales have been 

observed to shift the frequency content 

of their calls upward while reducing the 

rate of calling in areas of increased 

anthropogenic noise (Parks et al., 2007). 

Killer whales off the northwestern coast 

of the United States have been observed 

to increase the duration of primary calls 

once a threshold in observing vessel 

density (e.g., whale watching) was 

reached, which has been suggested as a 

response to increased masking noise 

produced by the vessels (Foote et al., 

2004). In contrast, both sperm and pilot 

whales potentially ceased sound 

production during the Heard Island 

feasibility test (Bowles et al., 1994), 

although it cannot be absolutely 

determined whether the inability to 

acoustically detect the animals was due 

to the cessation of sound production or 

the displacement of animals from the 

area. 

Avoidance—Avoidance is the 

displacement of an individual from an 

area as a result of the presence of a 

sound. Richardson et al., (1995) noted 

that avoidance reactions are the most 

obvious manifestations of disturbance in 

marine mammals. It is qualitatively 

different from the flight response, but 

also differs in the magnitude of the 

response (i.e., directed movement, rate 

of travel, etc.). Oftentimes avoidance is 

temporary, and animals return to the 

area once the noise has ceased. Longer 

term displacement is possible, however, 

which can lead to changes in abundance 

or distribution patterns of the species in 

the affected region if they do not 

become acclimated to the presence of 

the sound (Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder 

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

Acute avoidance responses have been 

observed in captive porpoises and 

pinnipeds exposed to a number of 

different sound sources (Kastelein et al., 

2001; Finneran et al., 2003; Kastelein et 

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

term avoidance of seismic surveys, lowfrequency emissions, and acoustic 

deterrents has also been noted in wild 

populations of odontocetes (Bowles et 

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

al., 2000; Morton and Symonds, 2002) 

and to some extent in mysticetes (Gailey 

et al., 2007), while longer term or 

repetitive/chronic displacement for 

some dolphin groups and for manatees 

has been suggested to be due to the 

presence of chronic vessel noise 

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

Maybaum (1993) conducted sound 

playback experiments to assess the 

effects of mid-frequency active sonar on 

humpback whales in Hawaiian waters. 

Specifically, he 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 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 mid-frequency submarine 

sonar pulses, in the range of 1,000 Hz 

to 10,000 Hz (IWC 2005). 

Kvadsheim et al., (2007) conducted a 

controlled exposure experiment in 

which killer whales (Orcinus orca) that 

had been fitted with D-tags were 

exposed to mid-frequency active sonar 

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

2 kHz every 10 seconds for 10 minutes; 

Source B: with a 1.0 s upsweep 197 dB 

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

exposed to Source A, a tagged whale 

and the group it was traveling with did 

not appear to avoid the source. When 

exposed to Source B, the tagged whales 

along with other whales that had been 

carousel feeding, ceased feeding during 

the approach of the sonar and moved 

rapidly away from the source. When 

exposed to Source B, Kvadsheim and 

his co-workers reported that a tagged 

killer whale seemed to try to avoid 

further exposure to the sound field by 

immediately swimming away 

(horizontally) from the source of the 

sound; by engaging in a series of erratic 

and frequently deep dives that seem to 

take it below the sound field; or by 

swimming away while engaged in a 

series of erratic and frequently deep 

dives. Although the sample sizes in this 

study are too small to support statistical 

analysis, the behavioral responses of the 

orcas were consistent with the results of 

other studies. 

In 2007, the first in the series of 

behavioral response studies conducted 

by NMFS and other scientists showed 

one beaked whale (Mesoplodon 

densirostris) responding to an MFAS 

playback. The BRS–07 Cruise report 

indicates that the playback began when 

the tagged beaked whale was vocalizing 

at depth (at the deepest part of a typical 

feeding dive), following a previous 

control with no sound exposure. The 

whale appeared to stop clicking 

significantly earlier than usual, when 

exposed to mid-frequency signals in the 

130–140 dB (rms) range. After a few 

more minutes of the playback, when the 

received level reached a maximum of 

140–150 dB, the whale ascended on the 

slow side of normal ascent rates with a 

longer than normal ascent, at which 

point the exposure was terminated. The 

BRS–07 Cruise report notes that the 

results are from a single experiment and 

that a greater sample size is needed 

before robust and definitive conclusions 

can be drawn (NMFS, 2008) 

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

33852 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

source. 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 

responses should also increase as 

received levels of active sonar increase 

(and the ship is, therefore, closer) and 

as ship speeds increase (that is, as 

approach speeds increase). For example, 

the probability of flight responses in 

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

2001b), ringed seals Phoca hispida 

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

bernicl nigricans) and Canada geese (B. 

Canadensis) increased as a helicopter or 

fixed-wing aircraft approached groups 

of these animals more directly (Ward et 

al., 1999). Bald eagles (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus) perched on trees 

alongside a river were also more likely 

to flee from a paddle raft when their 

perches were closer to the river or were 

closer to the ground (Steidl and 

Anthony, 1996). 

Breathing—Variations in respiration 

naturally vary with different behaviors 

and variations in respiration rate as a 

function of acoustic exposure can be 

expected to co-occur with other 

behavioral reactions, such as a flight 

response or an alteration in diving. 

However, respiration rates in and of 

themselves may be representative of 

annoyance or an acute stress response. 

Mean exhalation rates of gray whales at 

rest and while diving were found to be 

unaffected by seismic surveys 

conducted adjacent to the whale feeding 

grounds (Gailey et al., 2007). Studies 

with captive harbor porpoises showed 

increased respiration rates upon 

introduction of acoustic alarms 

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

2006a) and emissions for underwater 

data transmission (Kastelein et al., 

2005). However, exposure of the same 

acoustic alarm to a striped dolphin 

under the same conditions did not elicit 

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

again highlighting the importance in 

understanding species differences in the 

tolerance of underwater noise when 

determining the potential for impacts 

resulting from anthropogenic sound 

exposure. 

Continued Pre-Disturbance Behavior, 

Habituation, or No Response 

Under some circumstances, some of 

the individual marine mammals that are 

exposed to active sonar transmissions 

will continue their normal behavioral 

activities; in other circumstances, 

individual animals will become aware 

of the sonar transmissions at lower 

received levels and move to avoid 

additional exposure or exposures at 

higher received levels (Richardson 

et al., 1995). 

It is difficult to distinguish between 

animals that continue their predisturbance behavior without stress 

responses, animals that continue their 

behavior but experience stress responses 

(that is, animals that cope with 

disturbance), animals that habituate to 

disturbance (that is, they may have 

experienced low-level stress responses 

initially, but those responses abated 

over time), and animals that do not 

respond to the potential disturbance. 

Watkins (1986) reviewed data on the 

behavioral reactions of fin, humpback, 

right and minke whales that were 

exposed to continuous, broadband lowfrequency shipping and industrial noise 

in Cape Cod Bay. He concluded that 

underwater sound was the primary 

cause of behavioral reactions in these 

species of whales and that the whales 

responded behaviorally to acoustic 

stimuli within their respective hearing 

ranges. Watkins also noted that whales 

showed the strongest behavioral 

reactions to sounds in the 15 Hz to 28 

kHz range, although negative reactions 

(avoidance, interruptions in 

vocalizations, etc.) were generally 

associated with sounds that were either 

unexpected, too loud, suddenly louder 

or different, or perceived as being 

associated with a potential threat (such 

as an approaching ship on a collision 

course). In particular, whales seemed to 

react negatively when they were within 

100 m of the source or when received 

levels increased suddenly in excess of 

12 dB relative to ambient sounds. At 

other times, the whales ignored the 

source of the signal and all four species 

habituated to these sounds. 

Nevertheless, Watkins concluded that 

whales ignored most sounds in the 

background of ambient noise, including 

the sounds from distant human 

activities even though these sounds may 

have had considerable energies at 

frequencies well within the whales’ 

range of hearing. Further, he noted that 

of the whales observed, fin whales were 

the most sensitive of the four species, 

followed by humpback whales; right 

whales were the least likely to be 

disturbed and generally did not react to 

low-amplitude engine noise. By the end 

of his period of study, Watkins (1986) 

concluded that fin and humpback 

whales have generally habituated to the 

continuous and 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)) 

Southall et al., (2007) reports the 

results of the efforts of a panel of experts 

in acoustic research from behavioral, 

physiological, and physical disciplines 

that convened and reviewed the 

available literature on marine mammal 

hearing and physiological and 

behavioral responses to human-made 

sound with the goal of proposing 

exposure criteria for certain effects. This 

peer-reviewed compilation of literature 

is very valuable, though Southall et al., 

(2007) note that not all data are equal, 

some have poor statistical power, 

insufficient controls, and/or limited 

information on received levels, 

background noise, and other potentially 

important contextual variables—such 

data were reviewed and sometimes used 

for qualitative illustration but were not 

included in the quantitative analysis for 

the criteria recommendations. All of the 

studies considered, however, contain an 

estimate of the received sound level 

when the animal exhibited the indicated 

response. 

In the Southall et al., (2007) 

publication, for the purposes of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33853 

analyzing responses of marine mammals 

to anthropogenic sound and developing 

criteria, the authors differentiate 

between single pulse sounds, multiple 

pulse sounds, and non-pulse sounds. 

MFAS/HFAS is considered a non-pulse 

sound. Southall et al., (2007) summarize 

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

responses to non-pulse sounds, based 

strictly on received level, in Appendix 

C of their article (incorporated by 

reference and summarized in the three 

paragraphs below). 

The studies that address responses of 

low frequency cetaceans to non-pulse 

sounds include data gathered in the 

field and related to several types of 

sound sources (of varying similarity to 

MFAS/HFAS) including: vessel noise, 

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

multiple phase reversals) playback, 

tactical low-frequency active sonar 

playback, drill ships, Acoustic 

Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC) 

source, and non-pulse playbacks. These 

studies generally indicate no (or very 

limited) responses to received levels in 

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

increasing likelihood of avoidance and 

other behavioral effects in the 120 to 

160 dB range. As mentioned earlier, 

though, contextual variables play a very 

important role in the reported responses 

and the severity of effects are not linear 

when compared to received level. Also, 

few of the laboratory or field datasets 

had common conditions, behavioral 

contexts or sound sources, so it is not 

surprising that responses differ. 

The studies that address responses of 

mid-frequency cetaceans to non-pulse 

sounds include data gathered both in 

the field and the laboratory and related 

to several different sound sources (of 

varying similarity to MFAS/HFAS) 

including: Pingers, drilling playbacks, 

ship and ice-breaking noise, vessel 

noise, Acoustic Harassment Devices 

(AHDs), Acoustic Deterrent Devices 

(ADDs), MFAS, and non-pulse bands 

and tones. Southall et al., (2007) were 

unable to come to a clear conclusion 

regarding the results of these studies. In 

some cases, animals in the field showed 

significant responses to received levels 

between 90 and 120 dB, while in other 

cases these responses were not seen in 

the 120 to 150 dB range. The disparity 

in results was likely due to contextual 

variation and the differences between 

the results in the field and laboratory 

data (animals typically responded at 

lower levels in the field). 

The studies that address responses of 

high frequency cetaceans to non-pulse 

sounds include data gathered both in 

the field and the laboratory and related 

to several different sound sources (of 

varying similarity to MFAS/HFAS) 

including: Pingers, AHDs, and various 

laboratory non-pulse sounds. All of 

these data were collected from harbor 

porpoises. Southall et al., (2007) 

concluded that the existing data 

indicate that harbor porpoises are likely 

sensitive to a wide range of 

anthropogenic sounds at low received 

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

exposures. All recorded exposures 

above 140 dB induced profound and 

sustained avoidance behavior in wild 

harbor porpoises (Southall et al., 2007). 

Rapid habituation was noted in some 

but not all studies. There is no data to 

indicate whether other high frequency 

cetaceans are as sensitive to 

anthropogenic sound as harbor 

porpoises are. 

The studies that address the responses 

of pinnipeds in water to non-pulse 

sounds include data gathered both in 

the field and the laboratory and related 

to several different sound sources (of 

varying similarity to MFAS/HFAS) 

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

communication; underwater drilling, 

and construction noise. Few studies 

exist with enough information to 

include them in the analysis. The 

limited data suggested that exposures to 

non-pulse sounds between 90 and 140 

dB generally do not result in strong 

behavioral responses in pinnipeds in 

water, but no data exist at higher 

received levels. 

In addition to summarizing the 

available data, the authors of Southall et 

al., (2007) developed a severity scaling 

system with the intent of ultimately 

being able to assign some level of 

biological significance to a response. 

Following is a summary of their scoring 

system, a comprehensive list of the 

behaviors associated with each score 

may be found in the report: 

• 0–3 (Minor and/or brief behaviors) 

includes, but is not limited to: No 

response; minor changes in speed or 

locomotion (but with no avoidance); 

individual alert behavior; minor 

cessation in vocal behavior; minor 

changes in response to trained behaviors 

(in laboratory); 

• 4–6 (Behaviors with higher 

potential to affect foraging, 

reproduction, or survival) includes, but 

is not limited to: Moderate changes in 

speed, direction, or dive profile; brief 

shift in group distribution; prolonged 

cessation or modification of vocal 

behavior (duration > duration of sound), 

minor or moderate individual and/or 

group avoidance of sound; brief 

cessation of reproductive behavior; or 

refusal to initiate trained tasks (in 

laboratory); 

• 7–9 (Behaviors considered likely to 

affect the aforementioned vital rates) 

includes, but is not limited to: Extensive 

of prolonged aggressive behavior; 

moderate, prolonged or significant 

separation of females and dependent 

offspring with disruption of acoustic 

reunion mechanisms; long-term 

avoidance of an area; outright panic, 

stampede, stranding; threatening or 

attacking sound source (in laboratory). 

In Table 6 we have summarized the 

scores that Southall et al., (2007) 

assigned to the papers that reported 

behavioral responses of low-frequency 

cetaceans, mid-frequency cetaceans, and 

pinnipeds in water to non-pulse sounds. 

This table is included simply to 

summarize the findings of the studies 

and opportunistic observations (all of 

which were capable of estimating 

received level) that Southall et al., 

(2007) compiled in the effort to develop 

acoustic criteria. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

33854 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 

is little quantitative marine mammal 

data relating the exposure of marine 

mammals to sound to effects on 

reproduction or survival, though data 

exists for terrestrial species to which we 

can draw comparisons for marine 

mammals. Several authors have 

reported that disturbance stimuli cause 

animals to abandon nesting and foraging 

sites, Sutherland and Crockford, 1993), 

cause animals to increase their activity 

levels and suffer premature deaths or 

reduced reproductive success when 

their energy expenditures exceed their 

energy budgets (Daan et al., 1996, Feare 

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

Waunters et al., 1997), or cause animals 

to experience higher predation rates 

when they adopt risk-prone foraging or 

migratory strategies (Frid and Dill, 

2002). Each of these studies addressed 

the consequences that result when 

animals shift from one behavioral state 

(for example, resting or foraging) to 

another behavioral state (avoidance or 

escape behavior) because of human 

disturbance or disturbance stimuli. 

One consequence of behavioral 

avoidance results from changing the 

energetics of marine mammals because 

of the energy required to avoid surface 

vessels or the sound field associated 

with active sonar (Frid and Dill, 2002). 

Most animals can avoid that energetic 

cost by swimming away at slow speeds 

or those speeds that are at or near the 

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

in Florida manatees (Hartman, 1979, 

Miksis-Olds, 2006). 

Those costs increase, however, when 

animals shift from a resting state, which 

is designed to conserve an animal’s 

energy, to an active state that consumes 

energy the animal would have 

conserved had it not been disturbed. 

Marine mammals that have been 

disturbed by anthropogenic noise and 

vessel approaches are commonly 

reported to shift from resting behavioral 

states to active behavioral states, which 

would imply that they incur an energy 

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

undisturbed humpback whale cows that 

were accompanied by their calves were 

frequently observed resting while their 

calves circled them (milling) and rolling 

interspersed with dives. When vessels 

approached, the amount of time cows 

and calves spent resting and milling, 

respectively declined significantly. 

These results are similar to those 

reported by Scheidat et al. (2004) for the 

humpback whales they observed off the 

coast of Ecuador. 

Constantine and Brunton (2001) 

reported that bottlenose dolphins in the 

Bay of Islands, New Zealand only 

engaged in resting behavior 5% of the 

time when vessels were within 300 

meters compared with 83% of the time 

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

(2005) reported that Florida manatees in 

Sarasota Bay, Florida, reduced the 

amount of time they spent milling and 

increased the amount of time they spent 

feeding when background noise levels 

increased. Although the acute costs of 

these changes in behavior are not likely 

to exceed an animals’ ability to 

compensate, the chronic costs of these 

behavioral shifts are uncertain. 

Attention is the cognitive process of 

selectively concentrating on one aspect 

of an animal’s environment while 

ignoring other things (Posner, 1994). 

Because animals (including humans) 

have limited cognitive resources, there 

is a limit to how much sensory 

information they can process at any 

time. The phenomenon called 

‘‘attentional capture’’ occurs when a 

stimulus (usually a stimulus that an 

animal is not concentrating on or 

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

attention. This shift in attention can 

occur consciously or unconsciously (for 

example, when an animal hears sounds 

that it associates with the approach of 

a predator) and the shift in attention can 

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

Once a stimulus has captured an 

animal’s attention, the animal can 

respond by ignoring the stimulus, 

assuming a ‘‘watch and wait’’ posture, 

or treat the stimulus as a disturbance 

and respond accordingly, which 

includes scanning for the source of the 

stimulus or ‘‘vigilance’’ (Cowlishaw et 

al., 2004). 

Vigilance is normally an adaptive 

behavior that helps animals determine 

the presence or absence of predators, 

assess their distance from conspecifics, 

or to attend cues from prey (Bednekoff 

and Lima, 1998; Treves, 2000). Despite 

those benefits, however, vigilance has a 

cost of time: when animals focus their 

attention on specific environmental 

cues, they are not attending to other 

activities such a foraging. These costs 

have been documented best in foraging 

animals, where vigilance has been 

shown to substantially reduce feeding 

rates (Saino, 1994; Beauchamp and 

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

Animals will spend more time being 

vigilant, which may translate to less 

time foraging or resting, when 

disturbance stimuli approach them 

more directly, remain at closer 

distances, have a greater group size (for 

example, multiple surface vessels, 

which, of note, will not be utilized in 

the NWTRC), or when they co-occur 

with times that an animal perceives 

increased risk (for example, when they 

are giving birth or accompanied by a 

calf). Most of the published literature, 

however, suggests that direct 

approaches will increase the amount of 

time animals will dedicate to being 

vigilant. For example, bighorn sheep 

and Dall’s sheep dedicated more time to 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP13JY09.146</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33855 

being vigilant, and less time resting or 

foraging, when aircraft made direct 

approaches over them (Frid, 2001; 

Stockwell et al., 1991). 

Several authors have established that 

long-term and intense disturbance 

stimuli can cause population declines 

by reducing the body condition of 

individuals that have been disturbed, 

followed by reduced reproductive 

success, reduced survival, or both (Daan 

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

1983). For example, Madsen (1994) 

reported that pink-footed geese (Anser 

brachyrhynchus) in undisturbed habitat 

gained body mass and had about a 46- 

percent reproductive success rate 

compared with geese in disturbed 

habitat (being consistently scared off the 

fields on which they were foraging) 

which did not gain mass and has a 17% 

reproductive success rate. Similar 

reductions in reproductive success have 

been reported for mule deer (Odocoileus 

hemionus) disturbed by all-terrain 

vehicles (Yarmoloy et al., 1988), caribou 

disturbed by seismic exploration blasts 

(Bradshaw et al., 1998), caribou 

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

disturbed by low-elevation jet flights 

(Harrington and Veitch, 1992). 

Similarly, a study of elk (Cervus 

elaphus) that were disturbed 

experimentally by pedestrians 

concluded that the ratio of young to 

mothers was inversely related to 

disturbance rate (Phillips and 

Alldredge, 2000). 

The primary mechanism by which 

increased vigilance and disturbance 

appear to affect the fitness of individual 

animals is by disrupting an animal’s 

time budget and, as a result, reducing 

the time they might spend foraging and 

resting (which increases an animal’s 

activity rate and energy demand). For 

example, a study of grizzly bears (Ursus 

horribilis) reported that bears disturbed 

by hikers reduced their energy intake by 

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

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). Substantive 

behavioral reactions to noise exposure 

(such as disruption of critical life 

functions, displacement, or avoidance of 

important habitat) are more likely to be 

significant if they last more than one 

diel cycle or recur on subsequent days 

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

behavioral response lasting less than 

one day and not recurring on 

subsequent days is not considered 

particularly severe unless it could 

directly affect reproduction or survival 

(Southall et al., 2007). 

Stranding and Mortality 

When a live or dead marine mammal 

swims or floats onto shore and becomes 

‘‘beached’’ or incapable of returning to 

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

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

2002; Geraci and Lounsbury, 2005; 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

2007p). The legal definition for a 

stranding within the United States is 

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

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

States; or (ii) in waters under the 

jurisdiction of the United States 

(including any navigable waters); or (B) 

a marine mammal is alive and is (i) on 

a beach or shore of the United States 

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

on a beach or shore of the United States 

and, although able to return to the 

water, is in need of apparent medical 

attention; or (iii) in the waters under the 

jurisdiction of the United States 

(including any navigable waters), but is 

unable to return to its natural habitat 

under its own power or without 

assistance.’’ (16 U.S.C. 1421h). 

Marine mammals are known to strand 

for a variety of reasons, such as 

infectious agents, biotoxicosis, 

starvation, fishery interaction, ship 

strike, unusual oceanographic or 

weather events, sound exposure, or 

combinations of these stressors 

sustained concurrently or in series. 

However, the cause or causes of most 

strandings are unknown (Geraci et al., 

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

Best, 1982). Numerous studies suggest 

that the physiology, behavior, habitat 

relationships, age, or condition of 

cetaceans may cause them to strand or 

might pre-dispose them 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 

of those seven had been associated with 

the use of tactical low-frequency sonar, 

and the remaining stranding event had 

been associated with the use of seismic 

airguns. 

Most of the stranding events reviewed 

by the IWC involved beaked whales. A 

mass stranding of Cuvier’s beaked 

whales in the eastern Mediterranean Sea 

occurred in 1996 (Franzis, 1998) and 

mass stranding events involving 

Gervais’ beaked whales, Blainville’s 

beaked whales, and Cuvier’s beaked 

whales occurred off the coast of the 

Canary Islands in the late 1980s 

(Simmonds and Lopez-Jurado, 1991). 

The stranding events that occurred in 

the Canary Islands and Kyparissiakos 

Gulf in the late 1990s and the Bahamas 

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

been associated with naval exercises 

involving the use of MFAS. 

Strandings Associated With MFAS 

Over the past 12 years, there have 

been five stranding events coincident 

with military mid-frequency active 

sonar use in which exposure to sonar is 

believed by NMFS and the Navy to have 

been a contributing factor: Greece 

(1996); the Bahamas (2000); Madeira 

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

(2006). Additionally, in 2004, during the 

RIMPAC exercises, between 150–200 

usually pelagic melon-headed whales 

occupied the shallow waters of the 

Hanalei Bay, Kaua’i, Hawaii for over 28 

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

likely, contributing factor in what may 

have been a confluence of events that 

led to the Hanalei Bay stranding. A 

number of other stranding events 

coincident with the operation of MFAS 

including the death of beaked whales or 

other species (minke whales, dwarf 

sperm whales, pilot whales) have been 

reported; however, the majority have 

not been investigated to the degree 

necessary to determine the cause of the 

stranding. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

33856 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Greece (1996) 

Twelve Cuvier’s beaked whales 

stranded atypically (in both time and 

space) along a 38.2-kilometer strand of 

the coast of the Kyparissiakos Gulf on 

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

From May 11 through May 15, the 

NATO research vessel Alliance was 

conducting active sonar tests with 

signals of 600 Hz and 3 kHz and source 

levels of 228 and 226 dB re: 1 μPa, 

respectively (D’Amico and Verboom, 

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

and the location of the testing 

encompassed the time and location of 

the whale strandings (Frantzis, 1998). 

Necropsies of eight of the animals 

were performed but were limited to 

basic external examination and 

sampling of stomach contents, blood, 

and skin. No ears or organs were 

collected, and no histological samples 

were preserved. No apparent 

abnormalities or wounds were found 

(Frantzis, 2004). Examination of photos 

of the animals, taken soon after their 

death, revealed that the eyes of at least 

four of the individuals were bleeding. 

Photos were taken soon after their death 

(Frantzis, 2004). Stomach contents 

contained the flesh of cephalopods, 

indicating that feeding had recently 

taken place (Frantzis, 1998). 

All available information regarding 

the conditions associated with this 

stranding event were compiled, and 

many potential causes were examined 

including major pollution events, 

prominent tectonic activity, unusual 

physical or meteorological events, 

magnetic anomalies, epizootics, and 

conventional military activities 

(International Council for the 

Exploration of the Sea, 2005a). 

However, none of these potential causes 

coincided in time or space with the 

mass stranding, or could explain its 

characteristics (International Council for 

the Exploration of the Sea, 2005a). The 

robust condition of the animals, plus the 

recent stomach contents, is inconsistent 

with pathogenic causes (Frantzis, 2004). 

In addition, environmental causes can 

be ruled out as there were no unusual 

environmental circumstances or events 

before or during this time period and 

within the general proximity (Frantzis, 

2004). 

Because of the rarity of this mass 

stranding of Cuvier’s beaked whales in 

the Kyparissiakos Gulf (first one in 

history), the probability for the two 

events (the military exercises and the 

strandings) to coincide in time and 

location, while being independent of 

each other, was thought to be extremely 

low (Frantzis, 1998). However, because 

full necropsies had not been conducted, 

and no abnormalities were noted, the 

cause of the strandings could not be 

precisely determined (Cox et al., 2006). 

A Bioacoustics Panel convened by 

NATO concluded that the evidence 

available did not allow them to accept 

or reject sonar exposures as a causal 

agent in these stranding events. Their 

official finding was ‘‘An acoustic link 

can neither be clearly established, nor 

eliminated as a direct or indirect cause 

for the May 1996 strandings.’’ The 

analysis of this stranding event 

provided support for, but no clear 

evidence for, the cause-and-effect 

relationship of active sonar training 

activities and beaked whale strandings 

(Cox et al., 2006). 

Bahamas (2000) 

NMFS and the Navy prepared a joint 

report addressing the multi-species 

stranding in the Bahamas in 2000, 

which took place within 24 hours of 

U.S. Navy ships using MFAS as they 

passed through the Northeast and 

Northwest Providence Channels on 

March 15–16, 2000. The ships, which 

operated both AN/SQS–53C and AN/ 

SQS–56, moved through the channel 

while emitting MFAS pings 

approximately every 24 seconds. Of the 

17 cetaceans that stranded over a 36-hr 

period (Cuvier’s beaked whales, 

Blainville’s beaked whales, Minke 

whales, and a spotted dolphin), seven 

animals died on the beach (5 Cuvier’s 

beaked whales, 1 Blainville’s beaked 

whale, and the spotted dolphin), while 

the other 10 were returned to the water 

alive (though their ultimate fate is 

unknown). As discussed in the Bahamas 

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

likely association between the minke 

whale and spotted dolphin strandings 

and the operation of MFAS. 

Necropsies were performed on five of 

the stranded beaked whales. All five 

necropsied beaked whales were in good 

body condition, showing no signs of 

infection, disease, ship strike, blunt 

trauma, or fishery related injuries, and 

three still had food remains in their 

stomachs. Auditory structural damage 

was discovered in four of the whales, 

specifically bloody effusions or 

hemorrhaging around the ears. Bilateral 

intracochlear and unilateral temporal 

region subarachnoid hemorrhage, with 

blood clots in the lateral ventricles, 

were found in two of the whales. Three 

of the whales had small hemorrhages in 

their acoustic fats (located along the jaw 

and in the melon). 

A comprehensive investigation was 

conducted and all possible causes of the 

stranding event were considered, 

whether they seemed likely at the outset 

or not. Based on the way in which the 

strandings coincided with ongoing 

naval activity involving tactical MFAS 

use, in terms of both time and 

geography, the nature of the 

physiological effects experienced by the 

dead animals, and the absence of any 

other acoustic sources, the investigation 

team concluded that MFAS aboard U.S. 

Navy ships that were in use during the 

active sonar exercise in question were 

the most plausible source of this 

acoustic or impulse trauma to beaked 

whales. This sound source was active in 

a complex environment that included 

the presence of a surface duct, unusual 

and steep bathymetry, a constricted 

channel with limited egress, intensive 

use of multiple, active sonar units over 

an extended period of time, and the 

presence of beaked whales that appear 

to be sensitive to the frequencies 

produced by these active sonars. The 

investigation team concluded that the 

cause of this stranding event was the 

confluence of the Navy MFAS and these 

contributory factors working together, 

and further recommended that the Navy 

avoid operating MFAS in situations 

where these five factors would be likely 

to occur. This report does not conclude 

that all five of these factors must be 

present for a stranding to occur, nor that 

beaked whales are the only species that 

could potentially be affected by the 

confluence of the other factors. Based on 

this, NMFS believes that the operation 

of MFAS in situations where surface 

ducts exist, or in marine environments 

defined by steep bathymetry and/or 

constricted channels, may increase the 

likelihood of producing a sound field 

with the potential to cause cetaceans 

(especially beaked whales) to strand, 

and therefore suggests the need for 

increased vigilance while operating 

MFAS in these areas, especially when 

beaked whales (or potentially other 

deep divers) are likely present. 

Madeira, Spain (2000) 

From May 10–14, 2000, three Cuvier’s 

beaked whales were found atypically 

stranded on two islands in the Madeira 

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

A fourth animal was reported floating in 

the Madeiran waters by fishermen but 

did not come ashore (Woods Hole 

Oceanographic Institution, 2005). Joint 

NATO amphibious training 

peacekeeping exercises involving 

participants from 17 countries and 80 

warships, took place in Portugal during 

May 2–15, 2000. 

The bodies of the three stranded 

whales were examined post mortem 

(Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 

2005), though only one of the stranded 

whales was fresh enough (24 hours after 

stranding) to be necropsied (Cox et al., 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33857 

2006). Results from the necropsy 

revealed evidence of hemorrhage and 

congestion in the right lung and both 

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

also evidence of intercochlear and 

intracranial hemorrhage similar to that 

which was observed in the whales that 

stranded in the Bahamas event (Cox et 

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

trauma, and no major fractures (Woods 

Hole Oceanographic Institution, 2005). 

The cranial sinuses and airways were 

found to be clear with little or no fluid 

deposition, which may indicate good 

preservation of tissues (Woods Hole 

Oceanographic Institution, 2005). 

Several observations on the Madeira 

stranded beaked whales, such as the 

pattern of injury to the auditory system, 

are the same as those observed in the 

Bahamas strandings. Blood in and 

around the eyes, kidney lesions, pleural 

hemorrhages, and congestion in the 

lungs are particularly consistent with 

the pathologies from the whales 

stranded in the Bahamas, and are 

consistent with stress and pressure 

related trauma. The similarities in 

pathology and stranding patterns 

between these two events suggest that a 

similar pressure event may have 

precipitated or contributed to the 

strandings at both sites (Woods Hole 

Oceanographic Institution, 2005). 

Even though no definitive causal link 

can be made between the stranding 

event and naval exercises, certain 

conditions may have existed in the 

exercise area that, in their aggregate, 

may have contributed to the marine 

mammal strandings (Freitas, 2004): 

Exercises were conducted in areas of at 

least 547 fathoms (1,000 m) depth near 

a shoreline where there is a rapid 

change in bathymetry on the order of 

547 to 3,281 (1,000–6,000 m) fathoms 

occurring across a relatively short 

horizontal distance (Freitas, 2004); 

multiple ships were operating around 

Madeira, though it is not known if 

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 

MFA near land may produce sound 

directed towards a channel or 

embayment that may cut off the lines of 

egress for marine mammals (Freitas, 

2004). 

Canary Islands, Spain (2002) 

The southeastern area within the 

Canary Islands is well known for 

aggregations of beaked whales due to its 

ocean depths of greater than 547 

fathoms (1,000 m) within a few hundred 

meters of the coastline (Fernandez et al., 

2005). On September 24, 2002, 14 

beaked whales were found stranded on 

Fuerteventura and Lanzarote Islands in 

the Canary Islands (International 

Council for Exploration of the Sea, 

2005a). Seven whales died, while the 

remaining seven live whales were 

returned to deeper waters (Fernandez et 

al., 2005). Four beaked whales were 

found stranded dead over the next 3 

days either on the coast or floating 

offshore. These strandings occurred 

within near proximity of an 

international naval exercise that utilized 

MFAS and involved numerous surface 

warships and several submarines. 

Strandings began about 4 hours after the 

onset of 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 the evening of 

January 26 and were found to be still 

alive. Two other whales were 

discovered during the day on January 

27, but had already died. The fourth 

animal was found dead on the afternoon 

of January 27, a few kilometers north of 

the first three animals. From January 

25–26, 2006, Standing North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization (NATO) Response 

Force Maritime Group Two (five of 

seven ships including one U.S. ship 

under NATO Operational Control) had 

conducted active sonar training against 

a Spanish submarine within 50 nm (93 

km) of the stranding site. 

Veterinary pathologists necropsied 

the two male and two female Cuvier’s 

beaked whales. According to the 

pathologists, the most likely primary 

cause of this type of beaked whale mass 

stranding event was anthropogenic 

acoustic activities, most probably antisubmarine MFAS used during the 

military naval exercises. However, no 

positive acoustic link was established as 

a direct cause of the stranding. Even 

though no causal link can be made 

between the stranding event and naval 

exercises, certain conditions may have 

existed in the exercise area that, in their 

aggregate, may have contributed to the 

marine mammal strandings (Freitas, 

2004): exercises were conducted in 

areas of at least 547 fathoms (1000 m) 

depth near a shoreline where there is a 

rapid change in bathymetry on the order 

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

occurring across a relatively short 

horizontal distance (Freitas, 2004); 

multiple ships (in this instance, five) 

were operating MFAS in the same area 

over extended periods of time (in this 

case, 20 hours) in close proximity; 

Exercises took place in an area 

surrounded by landmasses, or in an 

embayment. Exercises involving 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

33858 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

multiple ships employing MFAS near 

land may have produced sound directed 

towards a channel or embayment that 

may have cut off the lines of egress for 

the affected marine mammals (Freitas, 

2004). 

Hanalei Bay (2004) 

On July 3–4, 2004, approximately 

150–200 melon-headed whales 

occupied the shallow waters of the 

Hanalei Bay, Kaua’i, Hawaii for over 28 

hours. Attendees of a canoe blessing 

observed the animals entering the Bay 

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

July 3, 2004. The animals were observed 

moving back into the shore from the 

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

pelagic animals milled in the shallow 

bay and were returned to deeper water 

with human assistance beginning at 9:30 

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

sight by 10:30 a.m. 

Only one animal, a calf, was known 

to have died following this event. The 

animal was noted alive and alone in the 

Bay on the afternoon of July 4, 2004 and 

was found dead in the Bay the morning 

of July 5, 2004. A full necropsy, 

magnetic resonance imaging, and 

computerized tomography examination 

were performed on the calf to determine 

the manner and cause of death. The 

combination of imaging, necropsy and 

histological analyses found no evidence 

of infectious, internal traumatic, 

congenital, or toxic factors. Although 

cause of death could not be definitively 

determined, it is likely that maternal 

separation, poor nutritional condition, 

and dehydration contributed to the final 

demise of the animal. Although we do 

not know when the calf was separated 

from its mother, the movement into the 

Bay, the milling and re-grouping may 

have contributed to the separation or 

lack of nursing especially if the 

maternal bond was weak or this was a 

primiparous calf. 

Environmental factors, abiotic and 

biotic, were analyzed for any anomalous 

occurrences that would have 

contributed to the animals entering and 

remaining in Hanalei Bay. The Bay’s 

bathymetry is similar to many other 

sites within the Hawaiian Island chain 

and dissimilar to sites that have been 

associated with mass strandings in other 

parts of the United States. The weather 

conditions appeared to be normal for 

that time of year with no fronts or other 

significant features noted. There was no 

evidence of unusual distribution or 

occurrence of predator or prey species, 

or unusual harmful algal blooms. 

Weather patterns and bathymetry that 

have been associated with mass 

strandings elsewhere were not found to 

occur in this instance. 

A separate event involving melonheaded whales and rough-toothed 

dolphins took place over the same 

period of time in the Northern Mariana 

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

several thousand miles from Hawaii. 

Some 500–700 melon-headed whales 

came into Sasanhaya Bay on 4 July 2004 

on the island of Rota and then left of 

their own accord after 5.5 hours; no 

known active sonar transmissions 

occurred in the vicinity of that event. 

Global reports of these types of events 

or sightings are of great interest to the 

scientific community and continuing 

efforts to enhance reporting in island 

nations will contribute to our increased 

understanding of animal behavior and 

potential causes of stranding events. 

Exactly what, if any, relationship this 

event has to the simultaneous events in 

Hawaii and whether they might be 

related to some common factor (e.g., 

there was a full moon on July 2, 2004) 

is and will likely remain unknown. 

However, these two synchronous, 

nearshore events involving a rarelysighted species are curious and may 

point to the range of potential 

contributing factors for which we lack 

detailed understanding and which the 

authors acknowledged might have 

played some role in the ‘‘confluence of 

events’’ in Hanalei Bay. 

The Hanalei event was spatially and 

temporally correlated with RIMPAC. 

Official sonar training and tracking 

exercises in the Pacific Missile Range 

Facility (PMRF) warning area did not 

commence until approximately 8 a.m. 

on July 3 and were thus ruled out as a 

possible trigger for the initial movement 

into the Bay. 

However, six naval surface vessels 

transiting to the operational area on July 

2 intermittently transmitted active sonar 

(for approximately 9 hours total from 

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

approached from the south. The 

potential for these transmissions to have 

triggered the whales’ movement into 

Hanalei Bay was investigated. Analyses 

with the information available indicated 

that animals to the south and east of 

Kaua’i could have detected active sonar 

transmissions on July 2, and reached 

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

3, 2004. However, data limitations 

regarding the position of the whales 

prior to their arrival in the Bay, the 

magnitude of sonar exposure, behavioral 

responses of melon-headed whales to 

acoustic stimuli, and other possible 

relevant factors preclude a conclusive 

finding regarding the role of sonar in 

triggering this event. Propagation 

modeling suggest that transmissions 

from sonar use during the July 3 

exercise in the PMRF warning area may 

have been detectable at the mouth of the 

Bay. If the animals responded negatively 

to these signals, it may have contributed 

to their continued presence in the Bay. 

The U.S. Navy ceased all active sonar 

transmissions during exercises in this 

range on the afternoon of July 3, 2004. 

Subsequent to the cessation of sonar 

use, the animals were herded out of the 

Bay. 

While causation of this stranding 

event may never be unequivocally 

determined, we consider the active 

sonar transmissions of July 2–3, 2004, a 

plausible, if not likely, contributing 

factor in what may have been a 

confluence of events. This conclusion is 

based on: (1) The evidently anomalous 

nature of the stranding; (2) its close 

spatiotemporal correlation with widescale, sustained use of sonar systems 

previously associated with stranding of 

deep-diving marine mammals; (3) the 

directed movement of two groups of 

transmitting vessels toward the 

southeast and southwest coast of Kauai; 

(4) the results of acoustic propagation 

modeling and an analysis of possible 

animal transit times to the Bay; and (5) 

the absence of any other compelling 

causative explanation. The initiation 

and persistence of this event may have 

resulted from an interaction of 

biological and physical factors. The 

biological factors may have included the 

presence of an apparently uncommon, 

deep-diving cetacean species (and 

possibly an offshore, non-resident 

group), social interactions among the 

animals before or after they entered the 

Bay, and/or unknown predator or prey 

conditions. The physical factors may 

have included the presence of nearby 

deep water, multiple vessels transiting 

in a directed manner while transmitting 

active sonar over a sustained period, the 

presence of surface sound ducting 

conditions, and/or intermittent and 

random human interactions while the 

animals were in the Bay. 

Association Between Mass Stranding 

Events and Exposure to MFAS 

Several authors have noted 

similarities between some of these 

stranding incidents: They occurred in 

islands or archipelagoes with deep 

water nearby, several appeared to have 

been associated with acoustic 

waveguides like surface ducting, and 

the sound fields created by ships 

transmitting MFAS (Cox et al., 2006, 

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

beaked whales have been the most 

common species involved in these 

stranding events (81% of the total 

number of stranded animals), other 

beaked whales (including Mesoplodon 

europeaus, M. densirostris, and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33859 

Hyperoodon ampullatus) comprise 14% 

of the total. Other species, such as Kogia 

breviceps, have stranded in association 

with the operation of MFAS, but in 

much lower numbers and less 

consistently than beaked whales. 

Based on the evidence available, 

however, we cannot determine whether 

(a) Cuvier’s beaked whale is more prone 

to injury from high-intensity sound than 

other species, (b) their behavioral 

responses to sound makes them more 

likely to strand, or (c) they are more 

likely to be exposed to MFAS than other 

cetaceans (for reasons that remain 

unknown). Because the association 

between active sonar exposures and 

marine mammals mass stranding events 

is not consistent—some marine 

mammals strand without being exposed 

to active sonar and some sonar 

transmissions are not associated with 

marine mammal stranding events 

despite their co-occurrence—other risk 

factors or a grouping of risk factors 

probably contribute to these stranding 

events. 

Behaviorally Mediated Responses to 

MFAS That May Lead to Stranding 

Although the confluence of Navy 

MFAS with the other contributory 

factors noted in the report was 

identified as the cause of the 2000 

Bahamas stranding event, the specific 

mechanisms that led to that stranding 

(or the others) are not understood, and 

there is uncertainty regarding the 

ordering of effects that led to the 

stranding. It is unclear whether beaked 

whales were directly injured by sound 

(acoustically mediated bubble growth, 

addressed above) prior to stranding or 

whether a behavioral response to sound 

occurred that ultimately caused the 

beaked whales to be injured and to 

strand. 

Although causal relationships 

between beaked whale stranding events 

and active sonar remain unknown, 

several authors have hypothesized that 

stranding events involving these species 

in the Bahamas and Canary Islands may 

have been triggered when the whales 

changed their dive behavior in a startled 

response to exposure to active sonar or 

to further avoid exposure (Cox et al., 

2006; Rommel et al., 2006). These 

authors proposed three mechanisms by 

which the behavioral responses of 

beaked whales upon being exposed to 

active sonar might result in a stranding 

event. These include: gas bubble 

formation caused by excessively fast 

surfacing; remaining at the surface too 

long when tissues are supersaturated 

with nitrogen; or diving prematurely 

when extended time at the surface is 

necessary to eliminate excess nitrogen. 

More specifically, beaked whales that 

occur in deep waters that are in close 

proximity to shallow waters (for 

example, the ‘‘canyon areas’’ that are 

cited in the Bahamas stranding event; 

see D’Spain and D’Amico, 2006), may 

respond to active sonar by swimming 

into shallow waters to avoid further 

exposures and strand if they were not 

able to swim back to deeper waters. 

Second, beaked whales exposed to 

active sonar might alter their dive 

behavior. Changes in their dive behavior 

might cause them to remain at the 

surface or at depth for extended periods 

of time which could lead to hypoxia 

directly by increasing their oxygen 

demands or indirectly by increasing 

their energy expenditures (to remain at 

depth) and increase their oxygen 

demands as a result. If beaked whales 

are at depth when they detect a ping 

from an active sonar transmission and 

change their dive profile, this could lead 

to the formation of significant gas 

bubbles, which could damage multiple 

organs or interfere with normal 

physiological function (Cox et al., 2006; 

Rommel et al., 2006; Zimmer and 

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

that slow ascent rates from deep dives 

and long periods of time spent within 

50 m of the surface were typical for both 

Cuvier’s and Blainville’s beaked whales, 

the two species involved in mass 

strandings related to naval 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 (alveolar 

collapse and elective circulation; 

Kooyman et al., 1972; Ridgway and 

Howard, 1979), Ridgway and Howard 

(1979) reported that bottlenose dolphins 

(Tursiops truncatus) that were trained to 

dive repeatedly had muscle tissues that 

were substantially supersaturated with 

nitrogen gas. Houser et al. (2001) used 

these data to model the accumulation of 

nitrogen gas within the muscle tissue of 

other marine mammal species and 

concluded that cetaceans that dive deep 

and have slow ascent or descent speeds 

would have tissues that are more 

supersaturated with nitrogen gas than 

other marine mammals. Based on these 

data, Cox et al., (2006) hypothesized 

that a critical dive sequence might make 

beaked whales more prone to stranding 

in response to acoustic exposures. The 

sequence began with (1) very deep (to 

depths of up to 2 kilometers) and long 

(as long as 90 minutes) foraging dives 

with (2) relatively slow, controlled 

ascents, followed by (3) a series of 

‘‘bounce’’ dives between 100 and 400 

meters in depth (also see Zimmer and 

Tyack, 2007). They concluded that 

acoustic exposures that disrupted any 

part of this dive sequence (for example, 

causing beaked whales to spend more 

time at surface without the bounce dives 

that are necessary to recover from the 

deep dive) could produce excessive 

levels of nitrogen supersaturation in 

their tissues, leading to gas bubble and 

emboli formation that produces 

pathologies similar to decompression 

sickness. 

Recently, Zimmer and Tyack (2007) 

modeled nitrogen tension and bubble 

growth in several tissue compartments 

for several hypothetical dive profiles 

and concluded that repetitive shallow 

dives (defined as a dive where depth 

does not exceed the depth of alveolar 

collapse, approximately 72 m for 

Ziphius), perhaps as a consequence of 

an extended avoidance reaction to 

active sonar sound, could pose a risk for 

decompression sickness and that this 

risk should increase with the duration 

of the response. Their models also 

suggested that unrealistically rapid 

ascent rates of ascent from normal dive 

behaviors are unlikely to result in 

supersaturation to the extent that bubble 

formation would be expected. Tyack et 

al., (2006) suggested that emboli 

observed in animals exposed to MFAS 

(Jepson et al., 2003; Fernandez et al., 

2005) could stem from a behavioral 

response that involves repeated dives 

shallower than the depth of lung 

collapse. Given that nitrogen gas 

accumulation is a passive process (i.e. 

nitrogen is metabolically inert), a 

bottlenose dolphin was trained to 

repetitively dive a profile predicted to 

elevate nitrogen saturation to the point 

that nitrogen bubble formation was 

predicted to occur. However, inspection 

of the vascular system of the dolphin via 

ultrasound did not demonstrate the 

formation of asymptomatic nitrogen gas 

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

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

33860 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

Of note, no major ASW training 

exercises are proposed to be conducted 

in the NWTRC. The exercises utilizing 

MFAS will not utilize more than one 

surface vessel MFAS source at once. 

Additionally, while beaked whales may 

be present in the NWTRC where surface 

duct and steep bathymetry (in the form 

of sea mounts) characteristics exist, 

none of the training events will take 

place in a location having a constricted 

channel less than 35 miles wide or with 

limited egress similar to the Bahamas. 

Moreover, no sonar is proposed to be 

used in the Inshore area east of the 

mouth of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. 

Additionally, only approximately 110 

hours of the highest power surface 

vessel MFAS use will be conducted 

annually (in short duration 1.5 hour 

exercises) in the NWTRC per year. 

Although the five environmental factors 

believed to have contributed to the 

Bahamas stranding (at least 3 surface 

vessel MFAS sources operating 

simultaneously or in conjunction with 

one another, beaked whale presence, 

surface ducts, steep bathymetry, and 

constricted channels with limited 

egress) will not be present during 

exercises in NWTRC, NMFS 

recommends caution when either steep 

bathymetry, surface ducting conditions, 

or a constricted channel is present when 

mid-frequency active sonar is employed 

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 

shock wave and blast noise are of most 

concern to marine animals. Depending 

on the intensity of the shock wave and 

size, location, and depth of the animal, 

an animal can be injured, killed, suffer 

non-lethal physical effects, experience 

hearing related effects with or without 

behavioral responses, or exhibit 

temporary behavioral responses or 

tolerance from hearing the blast sound. 

Generally, exposures to higher levels of 

impulse and pressure levels would 

result in worse impacts to an individual 

animal. 

Injuries resulting from a shock wave 

take place at boundaries between tissues 

of different density. Different velocities 

are imparted to tissues of different 

densities, and this can lead to their 

physical disruption. Blast effects are 

greatest at the gas-liquid interface 

(Landsberg, 2000). Gas-containing 

organs, particularly the lungs and 

gastrointestinal tract, are especially 

susceptible (Goertner, 1982; Hill, 1978; 

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

sacs, larynx, pharynx, trachea, and 

lungs may be damaged by compression/ 

expansion caused by the oscillations of 

the blast gas bubble (Reidenberg and 

Laitman, 2003). Intestinal walls can 

bruise or rupture, with subsequent 

hemorrhage and escape of gut contents 

into the body cavity. Less severe 

gastrointestinal tract injuries include 

contusions, petechiae (small red or 

purple spots caused by bleeding in the 

skin), and slight hemorrhaging 

(Yelverton et al., 1973). 

Because the ears are the most 

sensitive to pressure, they are the organs 

most sensitive to injury (Ketten, 2000). 

Sound-related trauma associated with 

blast noise can be theoretically distinct 

from injury from the shock wave, 

particularly farther from the explosion. 

If an animal is able to hear a noise, at 

some level it can fatigue or damage its 

hearing by causing decreased sensitivity 

(Ketten, 1995) (See Noise-induced 

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

sublethal. Lethal impacts are those that 

result in immediate death or serious 

debilitation in or near an intense source 

and are not, technically, pure acoustic 

trauma (Ketten, 1995). Sublethal 

impacts include hearing loss, which is 

caused by exposures to perceptible 

sounds. Severe damage (from the shock 

wave) to the ears includes tympanic 

membrane rupture, fracture of the 

ossicles, damage to the cochlea, 

hemorrhage, and cerebrospinal fluid 

leakage into the middle ear. Moderate 

injury implies partial hearing loss due 

to tympanic membrane rupture and 

blood in the middle ear. Permanent 

hearing loss also can occur when the 

hair cells are damaged by one very loud 

event, as well as by prolonged exposure 

to a loud noise or chronic exposure to 

noise. The level of impact from blasts 

depends on both an animal’s location 

and, at outer zones, on its sensitivity to 

the residual noise (Ketten, 1995). 

There have been fewer studies 

addressing the behavioral effects of 

explosives on marine mammals than 

MFAS/HFAS. However, though the 

nature of the sound waves emitted from 

an explosion is different (in shape and 

rise time) from MFAS/HFAS, we still 

anticipate the same sorts of behavioral 

responses (see Exposure to MFAS/ 

HFAS: Behavioral Disturbance Section) 

to result from repeated explosive 

detonations (a smaller range of likely 

less severe responses would be expected 

to occur as a result of exposure to a 

single explosive detonation). 

Potential Effects of Vessel Movement 

and Collisions 

Vessel movement in the vicinity of 

marine mammals has the potential to 

result in either a behavioral response or 

a direct physical interaction. Both 

scenarios are discussed below. 

Vessel Movement 

There are limited data concerning 

marine mammal behavioral responses to 

vessel traffic and vessel noise, and a 

lack of consensus among scientists with 

respect to what these responses mean or 

whether they result in short-term or 

long-term adverse effects. In those cases 

where there is a busy shipping lane or 

where there is large amount of vessel 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33861 

traffic, marine mammals may 

experience acoustic masking 

(Hildebrand, 2005) if they are present in 

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

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

2008). In cases where vessels actively 

approach marine mammals (e.g., whale 

watching or dolphin watching boats), 

scientists have documented that animals 

exhibit altered behavior such as 

increased swimming speed, erratic 

movement, and active avoidance 

behavior (Bursk, 1983; Acevedo, 1991; 

Baker and MacGibbon, 1991; Trites and 

Bain, 2000; Williams et al., 2002; 

Constantine et al., 2003), reduced blow 

interval (Ritcher et al., 2003), disruption 

of normal social behaviors (Lusseau, 

2003; 2006), and the shift of behavioral 

activities which may increase energetic 

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

detailed review of marine mammal 

reactions to ships and boats is available 

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

the marine mammals taxonomy groups, 

Richardson et al. (1995) provided the 

following assessment regarding cetacean 

reactions to vessel traffic: 

Toothed whales: ‘‘In summary, 

toothed whales sometimes show no 

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, nave 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 differentially responsive by 

reducing their calling rates, to certain 

vessels and operating characteristics 

(especially older animals) in the St. 

Lawrence River where vessel traffic is 

common (Blane and Jaakson, 1994). In 

Bristol Bay, Alaska, beluga whales 

continued to feed when surrounded by 

fishing vessels and resisted dispersal 

even when purposefully harassed (Fish 

and Vania, 1971). 

In reviewing more than 25 years of 

whale observation data, Watkins (1986) 

concluded that whale reactions to vessel 

traffic were ‘‘modified by their previous 

experience and current activity: 

habituation often occurred rapidly, 

attention to other stimuli or 

preoccupation with other activities 

sometimes overcame their interest or 

wariness of stimuli.’’ Watkins noticed 

that over the years of exposure to ships 

in the Cape Cod area, minke whales 

(Balaenoptera acutorostrata) changed 

from frequent positive (such as 

approaching vessels) interest to 

generally uninterested reactions; finback 

whales (B. physalus) changed from 

mostly negative (such as avoidance) to 

uninterested reactions; right whales 

(Eubalaena glacialis) apparently 

continued the same variety of responses 

(negative, uninterested, and positive 

responses) with little change; and 

humpbacks (Megaptera novaeangliae) 

dramatically changed from mixed 

responses that were often negative to 

often strongly positive reactions. 

Watkins (1986) summarized that 

‘‘whales near shore, even in regions 

with low vessel traffic, generally have 

become less wary of boats and their 

noises, and they have appeared to be 

less easily disturbed than previously. In 

particular locations with intense 

shipping and repeated approaches by 

boats (such as the whale-watching areas 

of Stellwagen Bank), more and more 

whales had P [positive] reactions to 

familiar vessels, and they also 

occasionally approached other boats 

and yachts in the same ways.’’ 

The Northwest Training Range 

Complex is well traveled by a variety of 

commercial and recreational vessels and 

a fair portion of the marine mammals in 

the area are expected to be habituated to 

vessel noise. Washington state handles 

seven percent of the country’s exports 

and six percent of its imports. Cruise 

ships make daily use of the Seattle Port. 

A substantial volume of small boat 

traffic, primarily recreational, occurs 

throughout Puget Sound, which has 244 

marinas with 39,400 moorage slips and 

another 331 launch sites for smaller 

boats. 

As described in the Description of the 

Specified Activity section, training 

exercises involving vessel movements 

occur intermittently and are variable in 

duration, ranging from a few hours up 

to 2 weeks. During training, speeds vary 

and depend on the specific type of 

activity, although 10–14 knots is 

considered the typical speed. 

Approximately 490 activities that 

involve Navy vessels occur within the 

Study Area during a typical year. 

Training activities are widely dispersed 

throughout the large OPAREA, which 

encompasses 122,468 nm2 (420,054 

km2). Consequently, the density of Navy 

ships within the Study Area at any 

given time is low. 

Moreover, naval vessels transiting the 

study area or engaging in the training 

exercises will not actively or 

intentionally approach a marine 

mammal or change speed drastically. 

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). 

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

33862 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

propeller. The severity of injuries 

typically depends on the size and speed 

of the vessel (Knowlton and Kraus, 

2001; Laist et al. 2001; Vanderlaan and 

Taggart, 2007). 

The most vulnerable marine mammals 

are those that spend extended periods of 

time at the surface in order to restore 

oxygen levels within their tissues after 

deep dives (for example, the sperm 

whale). In addition, some baleen 

whales, such as the North Atlantic right 

whale seem generally unresponsive to 

vessel sound, making them more 

susceptible to vessel collisions 

(Nowacek et al., 2004). These species 

are primarily large, slow-moving 

whales. Smaller marine mammals (for 

example, bottlenose dolphin) move 

quickly through the water column and 

are often seen riding the bow wave of 

large ships. Marine mammal responses 

to vessels may include avoidance and 

changes in dive pattern (NRC, 2003). 

An examination of all known ship 

strikes from all shipping sources 

(civilian and military) indicates vessel 

speed is a principal factor in whether a 

vessel strike results in death (Knowlton 

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

Jensen and Silber, 2003; Vanderlaan and 

Taggart, 2007). In assessing records in 

which vessel speed was known, Laist et 

al. (2001) found a direct relationship 

between the occurrence of a whale 

strike and the speed of the vessel 

involved in the collision. The authors 

concluded that most deaths occurred 

when a vessel was traveling in excess of 

13 knots. 

Jensen and Silber (2003) detailed 292 

records of known or probable ship 

strikes of all large whale species from 

1975 to 2002. Of these, vessel speed at 

the time of collision was reported for 58 

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

resulted in serious injury or death (19 or 

33% resulted in serious injury as 

determined by blood in the water, 

propeller gashes or severed tailstock, 

and fractured skull, jaw, vertebrae, 

hemorrhaging, massive bruising or other 

injuries noted during necropsy and 20 

to 35% resulted in death). Operating 

speeds of vessels that struck various 

species of large whales ranged from 2 to 

51 knots. The majority (79%) of these 

strikes occurred at speeds of 13 knots or 

greater. The average speed that resulted 

in serious injury or death was 18.6 

knots. Pace and Silber (2005) found that 

the probability of death or serious injury 

increased rapidly with increasing vessel 

speed. Specifically, the predicted 

probability of serious injury or death 

increased from 45% to 75% as vessel 

speed increased from 10 to 14 knots, 

and exceeded 90% at 17 knots. Higher 

speeds during collisions result in greater 

force of impact, but higher speeds also 

appear to increase the chance of severe 

injuries or death by pulling whales 

toward the vessel. Computer simulation 

modeling showed that hydrodynamic 

forces pulling whales toward the vessel 

hull increase with increasing speed 

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

The Jensen and Silber (2003) report 

notes that the database represents a 

minimum number of collisions, because 

the vast majority probably go 

undetected or unreported. In contrast, 

Navy vessels are likely to detect any 

strike that does occur, and they are 

required to report all ship strikes 

involving marine mammals. Overall, the 

percentages of Navy traffic relative to 

overall large shipping traffic are very 

small (on the order of 2%). 

The ability of a ship to avoid a 

collision and to detect a collision 

depends on a variety of factors, 

including environmental conditions, 

ship design, size, and manning. The 

majority of ships participating in 

NWTRC training activities have a 

number of advantages for avoiding ship 

strikes as compared to most commercial 

merchant vessels, including the 

following: 

• Navy ships have their bridges 

positioned forward, offering good 

visibility ahead of the bow. 

• Crew size is much larger than that 

of merchant ships allowing for more 

potential observers on the bridge. 

• Dedicated lookouts are posted 

during a training activity scanning the 

ocean for anything detectable in the 

water; anything detected is reported to 

the Officer of the Deck. 

• Navy lookouts receive extensive 

training including Marine Species 

Awareness Training designed to provide 

marine species detection cues and 

information necessary to detect marine 

mammals. 

• Navy ships are generally much 

more maneuverable than commercial 

merchant vessels. 

The Navy has adopted mitigation 

measures to reduce the potential for 

collisions with surfaced marine 

mammals. For a thorough discussion of 

mitigation measures, please see the 

Mitigation section. Briefly, these 

measures include: 

• At all times when vessels are 

underway, trained lookouts are used to 

detect all objects on the surface of the 

water, including marine mammals. 

• Reasonable and prudent actions are 

implemented to avoid the close 

interaction of Navy assets and marine 

mammals. 

• 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. 

Based on the implementation of Navy 

mitigation measures and the relatively 

low density of Navy ships in the Study 

Area, NMFS has concluded 

preliminarily that the probability of a 

ship strike is very low, especially for 

dolphins and porpoises, killer whales, 

social pelagic odontocetes and 

pinnipeds that are highly visible, and/ 

or comparatively small and 

maneuverable. Though more probable, 

NMFS also believes that the likelihood 

of a Navy vessel striking a mysticete or 

sperm whale is low. The Navy did not 

request take from a ship strike and 

based on our preliminary determination, 

NMFS is not recommending that they 

modify their request at this time. 

However, NMFS is currently engaged in 

an internal Section 7 consultation under 

the ESA and the outcome of 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 

NWTRC application are considered 

military readiness activities. 

NMFS reviewed the proposed 

NWTRC activities and the proposed 

NWTRC 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 

determined that further discussion was 

necessary regarding the use of MFAS/ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33863 

HFAS for training in the Inshore Area 

that contains the southern resident 

killer whale critical habitat. 

To address the concerns above, the 

Navy clarified for NMFS (subsequent to 

their submittal of the LOA application) 

that no training utilizing MFAS/HFAS 

had occurred in the Inshore Area of 

NWTRC for the last six years, that it is 

not being conducted now, and that there 

are no plans to utilize MFAS/HFAS in 

the Inshore Area. This information has 

been factored into NMFS’ effects 

analysis.. Because MFAS/HFAS will not 

be used in this area, there is no reason 

to authorize take from these activities. 

However, the Navy indicated that 

should their plans change in the future 

they will request authorization under 

the MMPA. The Navy further explained 

that no explosive training occurs in the 

Inshore Area other than the annual 

detonation of four 2.5lb charges, which 

are not anticipated to result in the take 

of marine mammals. Included below are 

the mitigation measures the Navy 

proposed (see ‘‘Mitigation Measures 

Proposed in the Navy’s LOA 

Application’’) 

Mitigation Measures Proposed in the 

Navy’s LOA Application 

This section includes the protective 

measures proposed by the Navy and is 

taken directly from their application 

(with the exception of headings, which 

have been modified for increased clarity 

within the context of this proposed 

rule). In their proposed mitigation, the 

Navy has included measures to protect 

sea turtles—those measures are 

included here as part of the Navy’s 

proposed action. Although measures to 

protect sea turtles are important, they 

are not required by the MMPA, and 

therefore, will not be codified through 

this regulation or required in any 

subsequent MMPA LOA. Measures to 

protect sea turtles will, however, be 

addressed in the Endangered Species 

Act section 7 consultation. 

General Maritime Measures for All 

Training at Sea 

Personnel Training (for All Training 

Types) 

The use of shipboard lookouts is a 

critical component of all Navy 

protective measures. Lookout duties 

require that they report all objects 

sighted in the water to the officer of the 

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

marine mammals, sea turtles) and all 

disturbances (e.g., surface disturbance, 

discoloration) that may be indicative of 

a threat to the vessel and its crew. There 

are personnel serving as lookouts on 

station at all times (day and night) when 

a ship or surfaced submarine is moving 

through the water. 

• All commanding officers (COs), 

executive officers (XOs), lookouts, 

officers of the deck (OODs), junior 

OODs (JOODs), maritime patrol aircraft 

aircrews, and Anti-submarine Warfare 

(ASW)/Mine Warfare (MIW) helicopter 

crews will complete the NMFSapproved Marine Species Awareness 

Training (MSAT) by viewing the U.S. 

Navy MSAT digital versatile disk (DVD). 

All bridge lookouts will complete both 

parts one and two of the MSAT; part 

two is optional for other personnel. This 

training addresses the lookout’s role in 

environmental protection, laws 

governing the protection of marine 

species, Navy stewardship 

commitments and general observation 

information to aid in avoiding 

interactions with marine species. 

• Navy lookouts will undertake 

extensive training in order to qualify as 

a watchstander in accordance with the 

Lookout Training Handbook (Naval 

Education and Training Command 

[NAVEDTRA] 12968–D). 

• Lookout training will include onthe-job instruction under the 

supervision of a qualified, experienced 

lookout. Following successful 

completion of this supervised training 

period, lookouts will complete the 

Personal Qualification Standard 

Program, certifying that they have 

demonstrated the necessary skills (such 

as detection and reporting of partially 

submerged objects). Personnel being 

trained as lookouts can be counted 

among those listed below as long as 

supervisors monitor their progress and 

performance. 

• Lookouts will be trained in the most 

effective means to ensure quick and 

effective communication within the 

command structure in order to facilitate 

implementation of protective measures 

if marine species are spotted. 

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 will 

have at least one lookout with 

binoculars. Lookouts already posted for 

safety of navigation and man-overboard 

precautions may be used to fill this 

requirement. As part of their regular 

duties, lookouts will watch for and 

report to the OOD the presence of 

marine mammals. 

• On surface vessels equipped with a 

multi-function active sensor, pedestal 

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

will be properly installed and in good 

working order to assist in the detection 

of marine mammals in the vicinity of 

the vessel. 

• Personnel on lookout will employ 

visual search procedures employing a 

scanning methodology in accordance 

with the Lookout Training Handbook 

(NAVEDTRA 12968–D). 

• After sunset and prior to sunrise, 

lookouts will employ Night Lookouts 

Techniques in accordance with the 

Lookout Training Handbook. 

(NAVEDTRA 12968–D). 

• While in transit, naval vessels will 

be alert at all times, use extreme 

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

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). 

• Navy aircraft participating in 

exercises at sea will conduct and 

maintain, when operationally feasible 

and safe, surveillance for marine species 

of concern as long as it does not violate 

safety constraints or interfere with the 

accomplishment of primary operational 

duties. Marine mammal detections will 

be immediately reported to assigned 

Aircraft Control Unit for further 

dissemination to ships in the vicinity of 

the marine species as appropriate where 

it is reasonable to conclude that the 

course of the ship will likely result in 

a closing of the distance to the detected 

marine mammal. 

Measures for MFAS Operations 

Personnel Training (for MFAS 

Operations) 

• All lookouts onboard platforms 

involved in ASW training events will 

review the NMFS-approved Marine 

Species Awareness Training material 

prior to use of mid-frequency active 

sonar. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

33864 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

• All COs, XOs, and officers standing 

watch on the bridge will have reviewed 

the Marine Species Awareness Training 

material prior to a training event 

employing the use of MFAS/HFAS. 

• Navy lookouts will undertake 

extensive training in order to qualify as 

a watchstander in accordance with the 

Lookout Training Handbook (Naval 

Educational Training [NAVEDTRA], 

12968–D). 

• Lookout training will include onthe-job instruction under the 

supervision of a qualified, experienced 

watchstander. Following successful 

completion of this supervised training 

period, lookouts will complete the 

Personal Qualification Standard 

program, certifying that they have 

demonstrated the necessary skills (such 

as detection and reporting of partially 

submerged objects). This does not forbid 

personnel being trained as lookouts 

from being counted as those listed in 

previous measures so long as 

supervisors monitor their progress and 

performance. 

• Lookouts will be trained in the most 

effective means to ensure quick and 

effective communication within the 

command structure in order to facilitate 

implementation of mitigation measures 

if marine species are spotted. 

Lookout and Watchstander 

Responsibilities (for MFAS Operations) 

• On the bridge of surface ships, there 

will always be at least three people on 

watch whose duties include observing 

the water surface around the vessel. 

• All surface ships participating in 

ASW training events will, in addition to 

the three personnel on watch noted 

previously, have at all times during the 

exercise at least two additional 

personnel on watch as marine mammal 

lookouts. 

• Personnel on lookout and officers 

on watch on the bridge will have at least 

one set of binoculars available for each 

person to aid in the detection of marine 

mammals. 

• Personnel on lookout will be 

responsible for reporting all objects or 

anomalies sighted in the water 

(regardless of the distance from the 

vessel) to the Officer of the Deck, since 

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

periscope, surface disturbance, 

discoloration) in the water may be 

indicative of a threat to the vessel and 

its crew or indicative of a marine 

species that may need to be avoided as 

warranted. 

Operating Procedures (for MFAS 

Operations) 

• 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. 

• Navy aircraft participating in 

exercises at sea will conduct and 

maintain, when operationally feasible 

and safe, surveillance for marine species 

of concern as long as it does not violate 

safety constraints or interfere with the 

accomplishment of primary operational 

duties. 

• Aircraft with deployed sonobuoys 

will use only the passive capability of 

sonobuoys when marine mammals are 

detected within 200 yds (183 m) of the 

sonobuoy. 

• Marine mammal detections will be 

immediately reported to assigned 

Aircraft Control Unit for further 

dissemination to ships in the vicinity of 

the marine species as appropriate where 

it is reasonable to conclude that the 

course of the ship will likely result in 

a closing of the distance to the detected 

marine mammal. 

• Safety Zones—When marine 

mammals are detected by any means 

(aircraft, shipboard lookout, or 

acoustically) within or closing to inside 

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

(the bow), the ship or submarine will 

limit active transmission levels to at 

least 6 decibels (dB) below normal 

operating levels (a 6-dB reduction 

equals a 75-percent reduction in power). 

› Ships and submarines will 

continue to limit maximum 

transmission levels by this 6-dB factor 

until the animal has been seen to leave 

the area, has not been detected for 30 

minutes, or the vessel has transited 

more than 2,000 yds (1829 m) beyond 

the location of the last detection. 

› Should a marine mammal be 

detected within or closing to inside 500 

yds (457 m) of the sonar dome, active 

sonar transmissions will be limited to at 

least 10 dB below the equipment’s 

normal operating level. (A 10-dB 

reduction equates to a 90-percent power 

reduction from normal operating levels.) 

Ships and submarines will continue to 

limit maximum ping levels by this 10- 

dB factor until the animal has been seen 

to leave the area, has not been detected 

for 30 minutes, or the vessel has 

transited more than 2,000 yds (1829 m) 

beyond the location of the last 

detection. 

› Should the marine mammal be 

detected within or closing to inside 200 

yds (183 m) of the sonar dome, active 

sonar transmissions will cease. Active 

sonar will not resume until the animal 

has been seen to leave the area, has not 

been detected for 30 minutes, or the 

vessel has transited more than 2,000 yds 

(1829 m) beyond the location of the last 

detection. 

› Special conditions applicable for 

dolphin and porpoise only: If, after 

conducting an initial maneuver to avoid 

close quarters with dolphin or porpoise, 

the OOD concludes that dolphin or 

porpoise are deliberately closing to ride 

the vessel’s bow wave, no further 

mitigation actions would be necessary 

while the dolphin or porpoise continue 

to exhibit bow wave riding behavior. 

› If the need for power-down should 

arise as detailed in ‘‘Safety Zones’’ 

above, 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). 

• Prior to start up or restart of active 

sonar, operators will check that the 

Safety Zone radius around the sound 

source is clear of marine mammals. 

• Active sonar levels (generally)— 

Navy will operate sonar at the lowest 

practicable level, not to exceed 235 dB, 

except as required to meet tactical 

training objectives. 

• Submarine sonar operators will 

review detection indicators of closeaboard marine mammals prior to the 

commencement of ASW training events 

involving MFAS. 

Measures for Underwater Detonations 

Surface-to-Surface Gunnery (NonExplosive Rounds) 

• A 200-yd (183 m) radius buffer zone 

will be established around the intended 

target. 

• From the intended firing position, 

trained lookouts will survey the buffer 

zone for marine mammals prior to 

commencement and during the exercise 

as long as practicable. Due to the 

distance between the firing position and 

the buffer zone, lookouts are only 

expected to visually detect breaching 

whales, whale blows, and large pods of 

dolphins and porpoises. 

• If applicable, target towing vessels 

will maintain a lookout. If a marine 

mammal is sighted in the vicinity of the 

exercise, the tow vessel will 

immediately notify the firing vessel in 

order to secure gunnery firing until the 

area is clear. 

• The exercise will be conducted only 

when the buffer zone is visible and 

marine mammals are not detected 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33865 

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, algal mats, and 

floating kelp. 

• Vessels will expedite the recovery 

of any parachute deploying aerial targets 

to reduce the potential for entanglement 

of marine mammals. 

• Target towing aircraft shall 

maintain a lookout. 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 At-Sea Bombing 

Exercises (Explosive and NonExplosive) 

• If surface vessels are involved, 

trained lookouts will survey for floating 

kelp, which may be inhabited by marine 

mammals. Ordnance shall not be 

targeted to impact within 1,000 yds (914 

m) of known or observed floating kelp 

or marine mammals. 

• A 1,000 yd (914 m) radius buffer 

zone will be established around the 

intended target. 

• Aircraft will visually survey the 

target and buffer zone for marine 

mammals prior to and during the 

exercise. The survey of the impact area 

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

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

slowest safe speed. Release of ordnance 

through cloud cover is prohibited: 

Aircraft must be able to actually see 

ordnance impact areas. Survey aircraft 

should employ most effective search 

tactics and capabilities. 

• The exercise 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 (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. 

Underwater Detonations (Up to 2.5-lb 

Charges) 

Exclusion Zones—All Mine Warfare 

and Mine Countermeasures Operations 

involving the use of explosive charges 

must include exclusion zones for 

marine mammals to prevent physical 

and/or acoustic effects to those species. 

These exclusion zones shall extend in a 

700-yard arc (640 yd) radius around the 

detonation site. 

Pre-Exercise Surveys—For Demolition 

and Ship Mine Countermeasures 

Operations, pre-exercise surveys shall 

be conducted within 30 minutes prior to 

the commencement of the scheduled 

explosive event. The survey may be 

conducted from the surface, by divers, 

and/or from the air, and personnel shall 

be alert to the presence of any marine 

mammal. Should such an animal be 

present within the survey area, the 

explosive event shall not be started until 

the animal voluntarily leaves the area. 

The Navy will ensure the area is clear 

of marine mammals for a full 30 

minutes prior to initiating the explosive 

event. Personnel will record any marine 

mammal observations during the 

exercise as well as measures taken if 

species are detected within the 

exclusion zone. 

Post-Exercise Surveys—Surveys 

within the same radius shall also be 

conducted within 30 minutes after the 

completion of the explosive event. 

Reporting—If there is evidence that a 

marine mammal may have been 

stranded, injured or killed by the action, 

Navy training activities will be 

suspended immediately and the 

situation reported immediately by the 

participating unit to the Officer in 

Charge of the Exercise (OCE), who will 

follow Navy procedures for reporting 

the incident to Commander, Pacific 

Fleet, Commander, Navy Region 

Southwest, Environmental Director, and 

the chain-of-command. The situation 

will also be reported to NMFS 

immediately or as soon as clearance 

procedures allow. 

Sinking Exercise 

The selection of sites suitable for 

SINKEXs involves a balance of 

operational suitability, requirements 

established under the Marine 

Protection, Research and Sanctuaries 

Act (MPRSA) permit granted to the 

Navy (40 CFR 229.2), and the 

identification of areas with a low 

likelihood of encountering ESA-listed 

species. To meet operational suitability 

criteria, the locations of SINKEXs must 

be within a reasonable distance of the 

target vessels’ originating location. The 

locations should also be close to active 

military bases to allow participating 

assets access to shore facilities. For 

safety purposes, these locations should 

also be in areas that are not generally 

used by non-military air or watercraft. 

The MPRSA permit requires vessels to 

be sunk in waters which are at least 

6000 ft (1829 m) deep and at least 50 nm 

from land. In general, most listed 

species prefer areas with strong 

bathymetric gradients and 

oceanographic fronts for significant 

biological activity such as feeding and 

reproduction. Typical locations include 

the continental shelf and shelf-edge. 

The Navy has developed range 

clearance procedures to maximize the 

probability of sighting any ships or 

marine mammal in the vicinity of an 

exercise, which are as follows: 

• All weapons firing would be 

conducted during the period 1 hour 

after official sunrise to 30 minutes 

before official sunset. 

• Extensive range clearance activities 

would be conducted in the hours prior 

to commencement of the exercise, 

ensuring that no shipping is located 

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

• An exclusion zone with a radius of 

1.0 nm (1.9 km) would be established 

around each target. This exclusion zone 

is based on calculations using a 990-lb 

(450-kg) H6 net explosive weight high 

explosive source detonated 5 ft (1.5 m) 

below the surface of the water, which 

yields a distance of 0.85 nm (1.57 km) 

(cold season) and 0.89 nm (1.65 km) 

(warm season) beyond which the 

received level is below the 182 decibels 

(dB) re: 1 micropascal squared-seconds 

(μPa2-s) threshold established for the 

WINSTON S. CHURCHILL (DDG 81) 

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

additional buffer of 0.5 nm (0.9 km) 

would be added to account for errors, 

target drift, and animal movements. 

Additionally, a safety zone, which 

would extend beyond the buffer zone by 

an additional 0.5 nm (0.9 km), would be 

surveyed. Together, the zones extend 

out 2 nm (3.7 km) from the target. 

• A series of surveillance overflights 

shall be conducted prior to the event to 

ensure that no marine mammals are 

present in the exclusion zone. Survey 

protocol will be as follows: 

• Overflights within the exclusion 

zone would be conducted in a manner 

that optimizes the surface area of the 

water observed. This may be 

accomplished through the use of the 

Navy’s Search and Rescue Tactical Aid, 

which provides the best search altitude, 

ground speed, and track spacing for the 

discovery of small, possibly dark objects 

in the water based on the environmental 

conditions of the day. These 

environmental conditions include the 

angle of sun inclination, amount of 

daylight, cloud cover, visibility, and sea 

state. 

• All visual surveillance activities 

would be conducted by Navy personnel 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

33866 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

trained in visual surveillance. At least 

one member of the mitigation team 

would have completed the Navy’s 

marine mammal training program for 

lookouts. 

• In addition to the overflights, the 

exclusion zone would be monitored by 

passive acoustic means, when assets are 

available. This passive acoustic 

monitoring would be maintained 

throughout the exercise. Potential assets 

include sonobuoys, which can be 

utilized to detect any vocalizing marine 

mammals (particularly sperm whales) in 

the vicinity of the exercise. The 

sonobuoys would be re-seeded as 

necessary throughout the exercise. 

Additionally, passive sonar onboard 

submarines may be utilized to detect 

any vocalizing marine mammals in the 

area. The OCE would be informed of 

any aural detection of marine mammals 

and would include this information in 

the determination of when it is safe to 

commence the exercise. 

• On each day of the exercise, aerial 

surveillance of the exclusion and safety 

zones would commence 2 hours prior to 

the first firing. 

• The results of all visual, aerial, and 

acoustic searches would be reported 

immediately to the OCE. No weapons 

launches or firing would commence 

until the OCE declares the safety and 

exclusion zones free of marine 

mammals and threatened and 

endangered species. 

• If a marine mammal observed 

within the exclusion zone is diving, 

firing would be delayed until the animal 

is re-sighted outside the exclusion zone, 

or 30 minutes have elapsed, whichever 

occurs first. After 30 minutes, if the 

animal has not been re-sighted it would 

be assumed to have left the exclusion 

zone. The OCE would determine if the 

marine mammal is in danger of being 

adversely affected by commencement of 

the exercise. 

• During breaks in the exercise of 30 

minutes or more, the exclusion zone 

would again be surveyed for any marine 

mammal. If a marine mammal is sighted 

within the exclusion zone, the OCE 

would be notified, and the procedure 

described above would be followed. 

• Upon sinking of the vessel, a final 

surveillance of the exclusion zone 

would be monitored for 2 hours, or until 

sunset, to verify that no marine 

mammals were harmed. 

• Aerial surveillance would be 

conducted using helicopters or other 

aircraft based on necessity and 

availability. The Navy has several types 

of aircraft capable of performing this 

task; however, not all types are available 

for every exercise. For each exercise, the 

available asset best suited for 

identifying objects on and near the 

surface of the ocean would be used. 

These aircraft would be capable of 

flying at the slow safe speeds necessary 

to enable viewing of marine vertebrates 

with unobstructed, or minimally 

obstructed, downward and outward 

visibility. The exclusion and safety zone 

surveys may be cancelled in the event 

that a mechanical problem, emergency 

search and rescue, or other similar and 

unexpected event preempts the use of 

one of the aircraft onsite for the 

exercise. 

• Every attempt would be made to 

conduct the exercise in sea states that 

are ideal for marine mammal sighting— 

Beaufort Sea State 3 or less. In the event 

of a sea state of 4 or above, survey 

efforts would be increased within the 

zones. This would be accomplished 

through the use of an additional aircraft, 

if available, and conducting tight search 

patterns. 

• The exercise would not be 

conducted unless the exclusion zone 

could be adequately monitored visually. 

Should low cloud cover or surface 

visibility prevent adequate visual 

monitoring as described previously, the 

exercise would be delayed until 

conditions improved, and all of the 

above monitoring criteria could be met. 

• In the unlikely event that any 

marine mammal is observed to be 

harmed in the area, a detailed 

description of the animal would be 

taken, the location noted, and if 

possible, photos taken. This information 

would be provided to NMFS via the 

Navy’s regional environmental 

coordinator for purposes of 

identification (see the draft Stranding 

Plan for detail). 

• An after action report detailing the 

exercise’s time line, the time the surveys 

commenced and terminated, amount, 

and types of all ordnance expended, and 

the results of survey efforts for each 

event would be submitted to NMFS. 

Explosive Source Sonobuoys Used in 

EER/IEER (AN/SSQ–110A) 

• Crews will conduct visual 

reconnaissance of the drop area prior to 

laying their intended sonobuoy pattern. 

This search should be conducted below 

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

operationally feasible and weather 

conditions permit. In dual aircraft 

operations, crews are allowed to 

conduct coordinated area clearances. 

• Crews shall conduct a minimum of 

30 minutes of visual and aural 

monitoring of the search area prior to 

commanding the first post detonation. 

This 30-minute observation period may 

include pattern deployment time. 

• For any part of the briefed pattern 

where a post (source/receiver sonobuoy 

pair) will be deployed within 914 m 

(1,000 yd) of observed marine mammal 

activity, deploy the receiver ONLY and 

monitor while conducting a visual 

search. When marine mammals are no 

longer detected within 914 m (1,000 yd) 

of the intended post position, co-locate 

the explosive source sonobuoy (AN/ 

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

• When operationally feasible, crews 

will conduct continuous visual and 

aural monitoring of marine mammal 

activity. This is to include monitoring of 

own-aircraft sensors from first sensor 

placement to checking off station and 

out of RF range of these sensors. 

• Aural Detection—If the presence of 

marine mammals is detected aurally, 

then that should cue the aircrew to 

increase the diligence of their visual 

surveillance. Subsequently, if no marine 

mammals are visually detected, then the 

crew may continue multi-static active 

search. 

• Visual Detection—If marine 

mammals are visually detected within 

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

sonobuoy (AN/SSQ–110A) intended for 

use, then that payload shall not be 

detonated. Aircrews may utilize this 

post once the marine mammals have not 

been re-sighted for 30 minutes, or are 

observed to have moved outside the 914 

m (1,000 yd) safety buffer, whichever 

occurs first. Aircrews may shift their 

multi-static active search to another 

post, where marine mammals are 

outside the 914 m (1,000 yd) safety 

buffer. 

• Aircrews shall make every attempt 

to manually detonate the unexploded 

charges at each post in the pattern prior 

to departing the operations area by 

using the ‘‘Payload 1 Release’’ command 

followed by the ‘‘Payload 2 Release’’ 

command. Aircrews shall refrain from 

using the ‘‘Scuttle’’ command when two 

payloads remain at a given post. 

Aircrews will ensure that a 914 m (1,000 

yd) safety buffer, visually clear of 

marine mammals, is maintained around 

each post as is done during active 

search 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 (detonation occurs by timer 

approximately 6 hours after water entry) 

or tertiary (detonation occurs by salt 

water soluble plug approximately 12 

hours after water entry) method. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33867 

• Aircrews shall ensure all payloads 

are accounted for. Explosive source 

sonobuoys (AN/SSQ–110A) that cannot 

be scuttled shall be reported as 

unexploded ordnance via voice 

communications while airborne, then 

upon landing via naval message. 

• Mammal monitoring shall continue 

until out of own-aircraft sensor range. 

Mitigation Conclusions 

NMFS has carefully evaluated the 

Navy’s proposed mitigation measures 

and considered a broad range of other 

measures in the context of ensuring that 

NMFS prescribes the means of effecting 

the least practicable adverse impact on 

the affected marine mammal species 

and stocks and their habitat. Our 

evaluation of potential measures 

included consideration of the following 

factors in relation to one another: 

• The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure is 

expected to minimize adverse impacts 

to marine mammals. 

• The proven or likely efficacy of the 

specific measure to minimize adverse 

impacts as planned. 

• The practicability of the measure 

for applicant implementation, including 

consideration of personnel safety, 

practicality of implementation, and 

impact on the effectiveness of the 

military readiness activity. 

In some cases, additional mitigation 

measures are required beyond those that 

the applicant proposes. Any mitigation 

measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should 

be able to accomplish, have a reasonable 

likelihood of accomplishing (based on 

current science), or contribute to the 

accomplishment of one or more of the 

general goals listed below: 

(a) Avoidance or minimization of 

injury or death of marine mammals 

wherever possible (goals b, c, and d may 

contribute to this goal). 

(b) A reduction in the numbers of 

marine mammals (total number or 

number at biologically important time 

or location) exposed to received levels 

of MFAS/HFAS, underwater 

detonations, or other activities expected 

to result in the take of marine mammals 

(this goal may contribute to a, above, or 

to reducing harassment takes only). 

(c) A reduction in the number of times 

(total number or number at biologically 

important time or location) individuals 

would be exposed to received levels of 

MFAS/HFAS, underwater detonations, 

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 (see Adaptive Management 

below) component is taken into 

consideration) are adequate means of 

effecting the least practicable adverse 

impacts on marine mammals species or 

stocks and their habitat, paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 

grounds, and areas of similar 

significance, while also considering 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. Further detail is included 

below. 

The proposed rule comment period 

will afford the public an opportunity to 

submit recommendations, views and/or 

concerns regarding this action and the 

proposed mitigation measures. While 

NMFS has determined preliminarily 

that the Navy’s proposed mitigation 

measures will effect the least practicable 

adverse impact on the affected species 

or stocks and their habitat, NMFS will 

consider all public comments to help 

inform our final decision. Consequently, 

the proposed mitigation measures may 

be refined, modified, removed, or added 

to prior to the issuance of the final rule 

based on public comments received, 

and where appropriate, further analysis 

of any additional mitigation measures. 

NMFS believes that the range 

clearance procedures and shutdown/ 

safety zone/exclusion zone measures the 

Navy has proposed will enable the Navy 

to avoid injuring marine mammals and 

will enable them to minimize the 

numbers of marine mammals exposed to 

levels associated with TTS for the 

following reasons: 

MFAS/HFAS 

The Navy’s standard protective 

measures indicate that they will ensure 

powerdown of MFAS/HFAS by 6-dB 

when a marine mammal is detected 

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

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

marine mammal is detected within 500 

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

transmissions when a marine mammal 

is detected within 200 yd (183 m). 

PTS/Injury—NMFS believes that the 

proposed mitigation measures will 

allow the Navy to avoid exposing 

marine mammals to received levels of 

MFAS/HFAS sound that would result in 

injury for the following reasons: 

• The estimated distance from the 

most powerful source at which 

cetaceans and all pinnipeds except 

harbor seals would receive levels at or 

above the threshold for PTS/injury/ 

Level A Harassment is approximately 10 

m (10.9 yd). The PTS threshold for 

harbor seals is lower, and the associated 

distance in which a harbor seal would 

experience PTS is approximately 50 m. 

• NMFS believes that the probability 

that a marine mammal would approach 

within the above distances of the sonar 

dome (to the sides or below) without 

being seen by the watchstanders (who 

would then activate a shutdown if the 

animal was within 200 yd (183 m)) is 

very low, especially considering that 

animals would likely avoid approaching 

a source transmitting at that level at that 

distance. 

• The model predicted that one 

harbor seal would be exposed to levels 

associated with injury, however, the 

model does not consider the mitigation 

or likely avoidance behaviors and 

NMFS believes that injury is unlikely 

when those factors are considered. 

TTS—NMFS believes that the 

proposed mitigation measures will 

allow the Navy to minimize exposure of 

marine mammals to received levels of 

MFAS/HFAS sound associated with 

TTS for the following reasons: 

• The estimated maximum distance 

from the most powerful source at which 

cetaceans and all pinnipeds except 

harbor seals would receive levels at or 

above the threshold for TTS is 

approximately 140 m from the source in 

most operating environments (except for 

harbor seals for which the distance is 

approximately 400 m). 

• Based on the size of the animals, 

average group size, behavior, and 

average dive time, NMFS believes that 

the probability that Navy watchstanders 

will visually detect mysticetes or sperm 

whales, dolphins, social pelagic species 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

33868 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(pilot whales, melon-headed whales, 

etc.), and sea lions 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 shutdown 

or powerdown to avoid exposing these 

species to sound levels associated with 

TTS. 

• However, seals and more cryptic 

(animals that are difficult to detect and 

observe), deep-diving cetaceans (beaked 

whales and Kogia spp.) are less likely to 

be visually detected and could 

potentially be exposed to levels of 

MFAS/HFAS expected to cause TTS. 

Animals at depth in one location would 

not be expected to be continuously 

exposed to repeated sonar signals given 

the typical 5–10+ knot speed of Navy 

surface ships during ASW events. 

During a typical one-hour subsurface 

dive by a beaked whale, the ship will 

have moved over 5 to 10 nm from the 

original location. Additionally, the 

Navy’s model does not predict TTS 

exposures of beaked whales or Kogia, 

although it does predict TTS exposure 

of 245 harbor seals. 

• Additionally, the Navy’s bow-riding 

mitigation exception for dolphins may 

sometimes result in dolphins being 

exposed to levels of MFAS/HFAS likely 

to result in TTS. However, there are 

combinations of factors that reduce the 

acoustic energy received by dolphins 

approaching ships to ride in bow waves. 

Dolphins riding a ship’s bow wave are 

outside of the main beam of the MFAS 

vertical beam pattern. Source levels 

drop quickly outside of the main beam. 

Sidelobes of the radiate beam pattern 

that point to the surface are significantly 

lower in power. Together with spherical 

spreading losses, received levels in the 

ship’s bow wave can be more than 42 

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

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

bow wave riding dolphins are 

frequently in and out of a bubble layer 

generated by the breaking bow waves. 

This bubble layer is an excellent 

scatterer of acoustic energy and can 

further reduce received energy. 

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 (3,704 m) from the 

source. Surveillance for all charges 

extends out 2–12 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 

120–694 m (131–759 yd) (large 

explosives) or 21–112 m (23–123 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 14 

animals would be exposed to levels 

associated with injury, and 2 animals 

would be exposed to levels associated 

with death (though for the reasons 

explained above, NMFS does not 

believe they will be exposed to those 

levels). 

• 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: 

• About 200 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, pinnipeds and more 

cryptic, deep-diving species (beaked 

whales and Kogia spp.) are less likely to 

be visually detected and could 

potentially be exposed to explosive 

levels expected to cause TTS. The 

model estimated that one beaked whale, 

zero Kogia, 44 northern fur seal, 29 

northern elephant seal, 2 harbor seal, 1 

California sea lion, and 3 Steller sea 

lions would be exposed to TTS levels. 

• Additionally, for two of the exercise 

types (SINKEX and BOMBEX), 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 larger than the 

exclusion zone, which means that for 

those two exercise types, some 

individuals will likely be exposed to 

levels associated with TTS outside of 

the exclusion zone. 

Research 

The Navy provides a significant 

amount of funding and support to 

marine research. In the past five years 

the agency funded over $100 million 

($26 million in FY08 alone) to 

universities, research institutions, 

Federal laboratories, private companies, 

and independent researchers around the 

world to study marine mammals. The 

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

research concerning the effects of 

human-generated sound on marine 

mammals and 50% of such research 

conducted worldwide. Major topics of 

Navy-supported research include the 

following: 

• Better understanding of marine 

species distribution and important 

habitat areas, 

• Developing methods to detect and 

monitor marine species before and 

during training, 

• Understanding the effects of sound 

on marine mammals, sea turtles, fish, 

and birds, and 

• Developing tools to model and 

estimate potential effects of sound. 

This research is directly applicable to 

Fleet training activities, particularly 

with respect to the investigations of the 

potential effects of underwater noise 

sources on marine mammals and other 

protected species. Proposed training 

activities employ active sonar and 

underwater explosives, which introduce 

sound into the marine environment. 

The Marine Life Sciences Division of 

the Office of Naval Research currently 

coordinates six programs that examine 

the marine environment and are 

devoted solely to studying the effects of 

noise and/or the implementation of 

technology tools that will assist the 

Navy in studying and tracking marine 

mammals. The six programs are as 

follows: 

• Environmental Consequences of 

Underwater Sound, 

• Non-Auditory Biological Effects of 

Sound on Marine Mammals, 

• Effects of Sound on the Marine 

Environment, 

• Sensors and Models for Marine 

Environmental Monitoring, 

• Effects of Sound on Hearing of 

Marine Animals, and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33869 

• Passive Acoustic Detection, 

Classification, and Tracking of Marine 

Mammals. 

The Navy has also developed the 

technical reports referenced within this 

document, which include the Marine 

Resource Assessments and the Navy 

OPAREA Density Estimates (NODE) 

reports. Furthermore, research cruises 

by the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) and by academic 

institutions have received funding from 

the U.S. Navy. 

The Navy has sponsored several 

workshops to evaluate the current state 

of knowledge and potential for future 

acoustic monitoring of marine 

mammals. The workshops brought 

together acoustic experts and marine 

biologists from the Navy and other 

research organizations to present data 

and information on current acoustic 

monitoring research efforts and to 

evaluate the potential for incorporating 

similar technology and methods on 

instrumented ranges. However, acoustic 

detection, identification, localization, 

and tracking of individual animals still 

requires a significant amount of research 

effort to be considered a reliable method 

for marine mammal monitoring. The 

Navy supports research efforts on 

acoustic monitoring and will continue 

to investigate the feasibility of passive 

acoustics as a potential mitigation and 

monitoring tool. 

Overall, the Navy will continue to 

fund ongoing marine mammal research, 

and is planning to coordinate long term 

monitoring/studies of marine mammals 

on various established ranges and 

operating areas. The Navy will continue 

to research and contribute to university/ 

external research to improve the state of 

the science regarding marine species 

biology and acoustic effects. These 

efforts include mitigation and 

monitoring programs; data sharing with 

NMFS and via the literature for research 

and development efforts; and future 

research as described previously. 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for 

Navy Assistance With Stranding 

Investigations 

The Navy and NMFS are currently 

developing a nationwide MOA (or other 

mechanism consistent with Federal 

fiscal law requirements (and all other 

applicable laws)), that will establish a 

framework whereby the Navy can (and 

NMFS will provide examples of how 

best to) assist NMFS with stranding 

investigations in certain circumstances. 

Long-Term Prospective Study 

Apart from this proposed rule, NMFS, 

with input and assistance from the Navy 

and several other agencies and entities, 

will perform a longitudinal 

observational study of marine mammal 

strandings to systematically observe for 

and record the types of pathologies and 

diseases and investigate the relationship 

with potential causal factors (e.g., active 

sonar, seismic, weather). The study will 

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

will be unable to quantify or estimate 

specific active sonar or other sound 

exposures for individual animals that 

strand. However, a cross-sectional or 

correlational analyses, a method of 

descriptive rather than analytical 

epidemiology, can be conducted to 

compare population characteristics, e.g., 

frequency of strandings and types of 

specific pathologies between general 

periods of various anthropogenic 

activities and non-activities within a 

prescribed geographic space. In the 

long-term study, we will more fully and 

consistently collect and analyze data on 

the demographics of strandings in 

specific locations and consider 

anthropogenic activities and physical, 

chemical, and biological environmental 

parameters. This approach in 

conjunction with true cohort studies 

(tagging animals, measuring received 

sounds, and evaluating behavior or 

injuries) in the presence of activities 

and non-activities will provide critical 

information needed to further define the 

impacts of MTEs and other 

anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic 

stressors. In coordination with the Navy 

and other Federal and non-Federal 

partners, the comparative study will be 

designed and conducted for specific 

sites during intervals of the presence of 

anthropogenic activities such as active 

sonar transmission or other sound 

exposures and absence to evaluate 

demographics of morbidity and 

mortality, lesions found, and cause of 

death or stranding. Additional data that 

will be collected and analyzed in an 

effort to control potential confounding 

factors include variables such as average 

sea temperature (or just season), 

meteorological or other environmental 

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

activities, etc. All efforts will be made 

to include appropriate controls (i.e., no 

active sonar or no seismic); 

environmental variables may complicate 

the interpretation of ‘‘control’’ 

measurements. The Navy and NMFS 

along with other partners are evaluating 

mechanisms for funding this study. 

Monitoring 

In order to issue an ITA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

‘‘requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such 

taking’’. The MMPA implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) 

indicate that requests for LOAs must 

include the suggested means of 

accomplishing the necessary monitoring 

and reporting that will result in 

increased knowledge of the species and 

of the level of taking or impacts on 

populations of marine mammals that are 

expected to be present. 

Monitoring measures prescribed by 

NMFS should accomplish one or more 

of the following general goals: 

(a) An increase in our understanding 

of how many marine mammals are 

likely to be exposed to levels of MFAS/ 

HFAS (or explosives or other stimuli) 

that we associate with specific adverse 

effects, such as behavioral harassment, 

TTS, or PTS. 

(b) An increase in our understanding 

of how individual marine mammals 

respond (behaviorally or 

physiologically) to MFAS/HFAS (at 

specific received levels), explosives, or 

other stimuli expected to result in take. 

(c) An increase in our understanding 

of how anticipated takes of individuals 

(in different ways and to varying 

degrees) may impact the population, 

species, or stock (specifically through 

effects on annual rates of recruitment or 

survival). 

(d) An increased knowledge of the 

affected species. 

(e) An increase in our understanding 

of the effectiveness of certain mitigation 

and monitoring measures. 

(f) A better understanding and record 

of the manner in which the authorized 

entity complies with the incidental take 

authorization. 

(g) An increase in the probability of 

detecting marine mammals, both within 

the safety zone (thus allowing for more 

effective implementation of the 

mitigation) and in general to better 

achieve the above goals. 

Proposed Monitoring Plan for the 

NWTRC 

The Navy has submitted a draft 

Monitoring Plan for the NWTRC which 

may be viewed at NMFS’ Web site: 

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

incidental.htm#applications. NMFS and 

the Navy have worked together on the 

development of this plan in the months 

preceding the publication of this 

proposed rule; however, we are still 

refining the plan and anticipate that it 

will contain more details by the time 

NMFS issues the final rule. 

Additionally, the plan may be modified 

or supplemented based on comments or 

new information received from the 

public during the public comment 

period. A summary of the primary 

components of the plan follows. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

33870 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

The draft Monitoring Plan for NWTRC 

has been designed as a collection of 

focused ‘‘studies’’ (described fully in the 

NWTRC draft Monitoring Plan) to gather 

data that will allow the Navy to address 

the following questions: 

(a) Are marine mammals exposed to 

MFAS/HFAS, especially at levels 

associated with adverse effects (i.e., 

based on NMFS’ criteria for behavioral 

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

levels are they exposed? 

(b) If marine mammals are exposed to 

MFAS/HFAS in the NWTRC Range 

Complex, do they redistribute 

geographically as a result of continued 

exposure? If so, how long does the 

redistribution last? 

(c) If marine mammals are exposed to 

MFAS/HFAS, what are their behavioral 

responses to various levels? 

(d) What are the behavioral responses 

of marine mammals and that are 

exposed to explosives at specific levels? 

(e) Is the Navy’s suite of mitigation 

measures for MFAS/HFAS (e.g., 

measures agreed to by the Navy through 

permitting) effective at preventing TTS, 

injury, and mortality of marine 

mammals? 

Data gathered in these studies will be 

collected by qualified, professional 

marine mammal biologists that are 

experts in their field. They will use a 

combination of the following methods 

to collect data: 

• Contracted vessel and aerial 

surveys. 

• Passive acoustics. 

• Marine mammal observers on Navy 

ships. 

• Tagging (satellite and acoustic). 

In the three proposed study designs 

(all of which cover multiple years), the 

above methods will be used separately 

or in combination to monitor marine 

mammals in different combinations 

before, during, and after training 

activities utilizing MFAS/HFAS. 

This monitoring plan has been 

designed to gather data on all species of 

marine mammals that are observed in 

the NWTRC, however, where 

appropriate priority will be given to 

beaked whales, ESA-listed species, 

killer whales, and harbor porpoises. The 

Plan recognizes that deep-diving and 

cryptic species of marine mammals such 

as beaked whales have a low probability 

of detection (Barlow and Gisiner, 2006). 

Therefore, methods will be utilized to 

attempt to address this issue (e.g., 

passive acoustic monitoring). 

In addition to the Monitoring Plan for 

NWTRC, by the end of 2009, the Navy 

will have completed an Integrated 

Comprehensive Monitoring Program 

(ICMP) Plan. The ICMP will provide the 

overarching structure and coordination 

that will, over time, compile data from 

both range specific monitoring plans 

(such as AFAST, the Hawaii Range 

Complex, and the Southern California 

Range Complex) as well as Navy funded 

research and development (R&D) 

studies. The primary objectives of the 

ICMP are to: 

• Monitor Navy training events, 

particularly those involving MFAS and 

underwater detonations, for compliance 

with the terms and conditions of ESA 

Section 7 consultations or MMPA 

authorizations; 

• Collect data to support estimating 

the number of individuals exposed to 

sound levels above current acoustic 

thresholds; 

• Assess the efficacy of the Navy’s 

current marine species mitigation; 

• Add to the knowledge base on 

potential behavioral and physiological 

effects to marine species from midfrequency active sonar and underwater 

detonations; and, 

• Assess the practicality and 

effectiveness of a number of mitigation 

tools and techniques (some not yet in 

use). 

More information about the ICMP 

may be found in the draft Monitoring 

Plan for NWTRC. 

Monitoring Workshop 

The Navy, with guidance and support 

from NMFS, will convene a Monitoring 

Workshop, including marine mammal 

and acoustic experts as well as other 

interested parties, in 2011. The 

Monitoring Workshop participants will 

review the monitoring results from the 

previous two years of monitoring 

pursuant to the NWTRC rule as well as 

monitoring results from other Navy 

rules and LOAs (e.g., the Southern 

California Range Complex (SOCAL), 

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

Monitoring Workshop participants 

would provide their individual 

recommendations to the Navy and 

NMFS on the monitoring plan(s) after 

also considering the current science 

(including Navy research and 

development) and working within the 

framework of available resources and 

feasibility of implementation. NMFS 

and the Navy would then analyze the 

input from the Monitoring Workshop 

participants and determine the best way 

forward from a national perspective. 

Subsequent to the Monitoring 

Workshop, modifications would be 

applied to monitoring plans as 

appropriate. 

Adaptive Management 

The final regulations governing the 

take of marine mammals incidental to 

Navy training exercises in the NWTRC 

will contain an adaptive management 

component. Our understanding of the 

effects of MFAS/HFAS and explosives 

on marine mammals is still in its 

relative infancy, and yet the science in 

this field is evolving fairly quickly. 

These circumstances make the inclusion 

of an adaptive management component 

both valuable and necessary within the 

context of 5-year regulations for 

activities that have been associated with 

marine mammal mortality in certain 

circumstances and locations (though not 

the NWTRC in the Navy’s over 60 years 

of use of the area for testing and 

training). The use of adaptive 

management will allow NMFS to 

consider new data from different 

sources to determine (in coordination 

with the Navy) on an annual basis if 

mitigation or monitoring measures 

should be modified or added (or 

deleted) if new data suggests that such 

modifications are appropriate (or are not 

appropriate) for subsequent annual 

LOAs. 

Following are some of the possible 

sources of applicable data: 

■ Results from the Navy’s monitoring 

from the previous year (either from 

NWTRC or other locations). 

■ 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. 

■ Compiled results of Navy funded 

research and development (R&D) studies 

(presented pursuant to the ICMP, which 

is discussed elsewhere in this 

document). 

■ Results from specific stranding 

investigations (either from NWTRC or 

other locations, and involving 

coincident MFAS/HFAS of explosives 

training or not involving coincident 

use). 

■ Results from the Long Term 

Prospective Study described above. 

■ Results from general marine 

mammal and sound research (funded by 

the Navy (described above) or 

otherwise). 

■ Any information which reveals 

that marine mammals may have been 

taken in a manner, extent or number not 

authorized by these regulations or 

subsequent Letters of Authorization. 

Mitigation measures could be 

modified or added (or deleted) if new 

data suggests that such modifications 

would have (or do not 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 or 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33871 

add to (or delete) the existing 

monitoring requirements if the new data 

suggest that the addition of (or deletion 

of) a particular measure would more 

effectively accomplish the goals of 

monitoring laid out in this proposed 

rule. The reporting requirements 

associated with this proposed rule are 

designed to provide NMFS with 

monitoring data from the previous year 

to allow NMFS to consider the data and 

issue annual LOAs. NMFS and the Navy 

will meet annually, prior to LOA 

issuance, to discuss the monitoring 

reports, Navy R&D developments, and 

current science and whether mitigation 

or monitoring modifications are 

appropriate. 

Reporting 

In order to issue an ITA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

‘‘requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such 

taking’’. Effective reporting is critical 

both to compliance as well as ensuring 

that the most value is obtained from the 

required monitoring. Some of the 

reporting requirements are still in 

development and the final rule may 

contain additional details not contained 

in the proposed rule. Additionally, 

proposed reporting requirements may be 

modified, removed, or added based on 

information or comments received 

during the public comment period. 

Currently, there are several different 

reporting requirements pursuant to 

these proposed regulations: 

General Notification of Injured or Dead 

Marine Mammals 

Navy personnel will ensure that 

NMFS 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). 

In the event that an injured, stranded, 

or dead marine mammal is found by the 

Navy that is not in the vicinity of, or 

during or shortly after MFAS, HFAS, or 

underwater explosive detonations, the 

Navy will report the same information 

as listed above as soon as operationally 

feasible and clearance procedures allow. 

General Notification of a Ship Strike 

In the event of a ship strike by any 

Navy vessel, at any time or place, the 

Navy shall do the following: 

• Immediately report to NMFS the 

species identification (if known), 

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

strike if the animal has disappeared), 

and whether the animal is alive or dead 

(or unknown). 

• Report to NMFS as soon as 

operationally feasible the size and 

length of animal, an estimate of the 

injury status (ex., dead, injured but 

alive, injured and moving, unknown, 

etc.), vessel class/type and operational 

status. 

• Report to NMFS the vessel length, 

speed, and heading as soon as feasible. 

• Provide NMFS a photo or video, if 

equipment is available. 

Event Communication Plan 

The Navy shall develop a 

communication plan that will include 

all of the communication protocols 

(phone trees, etc.) and associated 

contact information required for NMFS 

and the Navy to carry out the necessary 

expeditious communication required in 

the event of a stranding or ship strike, 

including as described in the proposed 

notification measures above. 

Annual NWTRC Report 

The Navy will submit an Annual 

NWTRC Report on October 1 of every 

year (covering data gathered through 

August 1). This report shall contain the 

subsections and information indicated 

below. 

ASW Summary 

This section shall include the 

following information as summarized 

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

MIW): 

(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 NWTRC. The Navy shall include 

(in the NWTRC 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. 

Sinking Exercises (SINKEXs) 

This section shall include the 

following information for each SINKEX 

completed that year: 

(a) Exercise info: 

(i) Location. 

(ii) Date and time exercise began and 

ended. 

(iii) Total hours of observation by 

watchstanders before, during, and after 

exercise. 

(iv) Total number and types of rounds 

expended/explosives detonated. 

(v) Number and types of passive 

acoustic sources used in exercise. 

(vi) Total hours of passive acoustic 

search time. 

(vii) Number and types of vessels, 

aircraft, etc., participating in exercise. 

(viii) Wave height in feet (high, low 

and average during exercise). 

(ix) Narrative description of sensors 

and platforms utilized for marine 

mammal detection and timeline 

illustrating how marine mammal 

detection was conducted. 

(b) Individual marine mammal 

observation during SINKEX (by Navy 

lookouts) info: 

(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 (694 m for SINKEX in 

NWTRC); (2) the required exclusion 

zone (1 nm for SINKEX in NWTRC); (3) 

the required observation distance (if 

different than the exclusion zone (2 nm 

for SINKEX in NWTRC); and (4) greater 

than the required observed distance. For 

example, in this case, the observer 

would indicate if < m, from 694 m–1 

nm, from 1 nm–2 nm, and > 2 nm. 

(xi) Observed behavior— 

Watchstanders will report, in plain 

language and without trying to 

categorize in any way, the observed 

behavior of the animals (such as animal 

closing to bow ride, paralleling course/ 

speed, floating on surface and not 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

33872 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

Improved Extended Echo-Ranging 

System (IEER) Summary 

This section shall include an annual 

summary of the following IEER 

information: 

(a) Total number of IEER events 

conducted in NWTRC. 

(b) Total expended/detonated rounds 

(buoys). 

(c) Total number of self-scuttled IEER 

rounds. 

Explosives Summary 

The Navy is in the process of 

improving the methods used to track 

explosive use to provide increased 

granularity. To the extent practicable, 

the Navy will provide the information 

described below for all of their 

explosive exercises. Until the Navy is 

able to report in full the information 

below, they will provide an annual 

update on the Navy’s explosive tracking 

methods, including improvements from 

the previous year. 

(a) Total annual number of each type 

of explosive exercise (of those identified 

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

final rule) conducted in NWTRC. 

(b) Total annual expended/detonated 

rounds (missiles, bombs, etc.) for each 

explosive type. 

NWTRC 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 

NWTRC Exercise Reports and NWTRC 

Monitoring Plan Reports). This report 

will be submitted at the end of the 

fourth year of the rule (November 2013), 

covering activities that have occurred 

through June 1, 2013. 

Comprehensive National ASW Report 

By June, 2014, the Navy shall submit 

a draft National Report that analyzes, 

compares, and summarizes the active 

sonar data gathered (through January 1, 

2014) from the watchstanders and 

pursuant to the implementation of the 

Monitoring Plans for the Northwest 

Training Range Complex, the Southern 

California Range Complex, the Atlantic 

Fleet Active Sonar Training, the Hawaii 

Range Complex, the Marianas Islands 

Range Complex, and the Gulf of Alaska. 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 

As mentioned previously, one of the 

main purposes of NMFS’ effects 

assessments is to identify the 

permissible methods of taking, meaning: 

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

from anthropogenic noise vs. from ship 

strike, etc.); the regulatory level of take 

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

harassment) and the amount of take. In 

the Potential Effects of Exposure of 

Marine Mammal to MFAS/HFAS and 

Underwater Detonations section, NMFS 

identified the lethal responses, physical 

trauma, sensory impairment (permanent 

and temporary threshold shifts and 

acoustic masking), physiological 

responses (particular stress responses), 

and behavioral responses that could 

potentially result from exposure to 

MFAS/HFAS or underwater explosive 

detonations. In this section, we will 

relate the potential effects to marine 

mammals from MFAS/HFAS and 

underwater detonation of explosives to 

the MMPA statutory definitions of Level 

A and Level B Harassment and attempt 

to quantify the effects that might occur 

from the specific training activities that 

the Navy is proposing in the NWTRC. 

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 sometimes include a 

mention of the vicinity, speed and 

movement of the vessel, or other factors. 

So, while sound sources and the 

received levels are the primary focus of 

the analysis and those that are laid out 

quantitatively in the regulatory text, it is 

with the understanding that other 

factors related to the training are 

sometimes contributing to the 

behavioral responses of marine 

mammals, although they cannot be 

quantified. 

Definition of Harassment 

As mentioned previously, with 

respect to military readiness activities, 

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

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

or has the significant potential to injure 

a marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild [Level A Harassment]; 

or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely 

to disturb a marine mammal or marine 

mammal stock in the wild by causing 

disruption of natural behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering, to a point where 

such behavioral patterns are abandoned 

or significantly altered [Level B 

Harassment]. 

Level B Harassment 

Of the potential effects that were 

described in the Potential Effects of 

Exposure of Marine Mammal to MFAS/ 

HFAS and Underwater Detonations 

Section, the following are the types of 

effects that fall into the Level B 

Harassment category: 

Behavioral Harassment—Behavioral 

disturbance that rises to the level 

described in the definition above, when 

resulting from exposures to MFAS/ 

HFAS or underwater detonations (or 

another stressor), is considered Level B 

Harassment. Louder sounds (when other 

factors are not considered) are generally 

expected to elicit a stronger response. 

Some of the lower level physiological 

stress responses discussed in the 

Potential Effects of Exposure of Marine 

Mammal to MFAS/HFAS and 

Underwater Detonations Section: Stress 

Section will also likely co-occur with 

the predicted harassments, although 

these responses are more difficult to 

detect and fewer data exist relating 

these responses to specific received 

levels of sound. When Level B 

Harassment is predicted based on 

estimated behavioral responses, those 

takes may have a stress-related 

physiological component as well. 

In the effects section above, we 

described the Southall et al., (2007) 

severity scaling system and listed some 

examples of the three broad categories 

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

behaviors); 4–6 (Behaviors with higher 

potential to affect foraging, 

reproduction, or survival); 7–9 

(Behaviors considered likely to affect 

the aforementioned vital rates). 

Generally speaking, MMPA Level B 

Harassment, as defined in this 

document, would include the behaviors 

described in the 7–9 category, and a 

subset, dependent on context and other 

considerations, of the behaviors 

described in the 4–6 categories. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33873 

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 that 

are masked, which may be of varying 

importance to the animal), and other 

factors. Some acoustic masking would 

be considered Level B Harassment, if it 

can disrupt natural behavioral patterns 

by interrupting or limiting the marine 

mammal’s receipt or transmittal of 

important information or environmental 

cues. 

TTS—As discussed previously, TTS 

can disrupt behavioral patterns by 

inhibiting an animal’s ability to 

communicate with conspecifics and 

interpret other environmental cues 

important for predator avoidance and 

prey capture. However, depending on 

the degree (elevation of threshold in 

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

frequency range of TTS, and the context 

in which it is experienced, TTS can 

have effects on marine mammals 

ranging from discountable to serious 

(similar to those discussed in auditory 

masking). For example, a marine 

mammal may be able to readily 

compensate for a brief, relatively small 

amount of TTS in a non-critical 

frequency range that takes place during 

a time when the animal is traveling 

through the open ocean, where ambient 

noise is lower and there are not as many 

competing sounds present. 

Alternatively, a larger amount and 

longer duration of TTS sustained during 

a time when communication is critical 

for successful mother/calf interactions 

could have more serious impacts if it 

were in the same frequency band as the 

necessary vocalizations and of a severity 

that it impeded communication. 

The following physiological 

mechanisms are thought to play a role 

in inducing auditory fatigue: Effects to 

sensory hair cells in the inner ear that 

reduce their sensitivity, modification of 

the chemical environment within the 

sensory cells, residual muscular activity 

in the middle ear, displacement of 

certain inner ear membranes, increased 

blood flow, and post-stimulatory 

reduction in both efferent and sensory 

neural output. Ward (1997) suggested 

that when these effects result in TTS 

rather than PTS, they are within the 

normal bounds of physiological 

variability and tolerance and do not 

represent a physical injury. 

Additionally, Southall et al., (2007) 

indicate that although PTS is a tissue 

injury, TTS is not, because the reduced 

hearing sensitivity following exposure 

to intense sound results primarily from 

fatigue, not loss, of cochlear hair cells 

and supporting structures and is 

reversible. Accordingly, NMFS classifies 

TTS (when resulting from exposure to 

either MFAS/HFAS or underwater 

detonations) as Level B Harassment, not 

Level A Harassment (injury). 

Level A Harassment 

Of the potential effects that were 

described in the Potential Effects of 

Exposure of Marine Mammals to MFAS/ 

HFAS and Underwater Detonations 

Section, following are the types of 

effects that fall into the Level A 

Harassment category: 

PTS—PTS (resulting either from 

exposure to MFAS/HFAS or explosive 

detonations) is irreversible and 

considered an injury. PTS results from 

exposure to intense sounds that cause a 

permanent loss of inner or outer 

cochlear hair cells or exceed the elastic 

limits of certain tissues and membranes 

in the middle and inner ears and result 

in changes in the chemical composition 

of the inner ear fluids. 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. 

Tissue Damage due to Behaviorally 

Mediated Bubble Growth—Several 

authors suggest mechanisms in which 

marine mammals could behaviorally 

respond to exposure to MFAS/HFAS by 

altering their dive patterns in a manner 

(unusually rapid ascent, unusually long 

series of surface dives, etc.) that might 

result in unusual bubble formation or 

growth ultimately resulting in tissue 

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

the rate of ascent would need to be 

sufficiently rapid to compromise 

behavioral or physiological protections 

against nitrogen bubble formation. 

There is considerable disagreement 

among scientists as to the likelihood of 

this phenomenon (Piantadosi and 

Thalmann, 2004; Evans and Miller, 

2003). Although it has been argued that 

the tissue effects observed from recent 

beaked whale strandings are consistent 

with gas emboli and bubble-induced 

tissue separations (Jepson et al., 2003; 

Fernandez et al., 2005), nitrogen bubble 

formation as the cause of the traumas 

has not been verified. If tissue damage 

does occur by this phenomenon, it 

would be considered an injury. 

Physical Disruption of Tissues 

Resulting from Explosive Shock Wave— 

Physical damage of tissues resulting 

from a shock wave (from an explosive 

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

33874 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

cannot be detected or measured (not all 

responses visible external to animal, 

portion of exposed animals underwater 

(so not visible), many animals located 

many miles from observers and covering 

very large area, etc.) and because NMFS 

must authorize take prior to the impacts 

to marine mammals, a method is needed 

to estimate the number of individuals 

that will be taken, pursuant to the 

MMPA, based on the proposed action. 

To this end, NMFS developed acoustic 

criteria that estimate at what received 

level (when exposed to MFAS/HFAS or 

explosive detonations) Level B 

Harassment, Level A Harassment, and 

mortality (for explosives) of marine 

mammals would occur. The acoustic 

criteria for MFAS/HFAS and 

Underwater Detonations (IEER) are 

discussed below. 

MFAS/HFAS Acoustic Criteria 

Because relatively few applicable data 

exist to support acoustic criteria 

specifically for HFAS and because such 

a small percentage of the active sonar 

pings that marine mammals will likely 

be exposed to incidental to this activity 

come from a HFAS source (the vast 

majority come from MFAS sources), 

NMFS will apply the criteria developed 

for the MFAS to the HFAS as well. 

NMFS utilizes three acoustic criteria 

for MFAS/HFAS: PTS (injury—Level A 

Harassment), TTS (Level B Harassment), 

and behavioral harassment (Level B 

Harassment). Because the TTS and PTS 

criteria are derived similarly and the 

PTS criteria was extrapolated from the 

TTS data, the TTS and PTS acoustic 

criteria will be presented first, before 

the behavioral criteria. 

For more information regarding these 

criteria, please see the Navy’s DEIS for 

NWTRC. 

Level B Harassment Threshold (TTS) 

As mentioned above, behavioral 

disturbance, acoustic masking, and TTS 

are all considered Level B Harassment. 

Marine mammals would usually be 

behaviorally disturbed at lower received 

levels than those at which they would 

likely sustain TTS, so the levels at 

which behavioral disturbance are likely 

to occur is considered the onset of Level 

B Harassment. The behavioral responses 

of marine mammals to sound are 

variable, context specific, and, therefore, 

difficult to quantify (see Risk Function 

section, below). Alternately, TTS is a 

physiological effect that has been 

studied and quantified in laboratory 

conditions. Because data exist to 

support an estimate of at what received 

levels marine mammals will incur TTS, 

NMFS uses an acoustic criteria to 

estimate the number of marine 

mammals that might sustain TTS. TTS 

is a subset of Level B Harassment (along 

with sub-TTS behavioral harassment) 

and we are not specifically required to 

estimate those numbers; however, the 

more specifically we can estimate the 

affected marine mammal responses, the 

better the analysis. 

A number of investigators have 

measured TTS in marine mammals. 

These studies measured hearing 

thresholds in trained marine mammals 

before and after exposure to intense 

sounds. The existing cetacean TTS data 

are summarized in the following bullets. 

• Schlundt et al., (2000) reported the 

results of TTS experiments conducted 

with 5 bottlenose dolphins and 2 

belugas exposed to 1-second tones. This 

paper also includes a reanalysis of 

preliminary TTS data released in a 

technical report by Ridgway et al., 

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

kHz, sound pressure levels (SPLs) 

necessary to induce measurable 

amounts (6 dB or more) of TTS were 

between 192 and 201 dB re 1 μPa (EL 

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

exposure SPL and EL for onset-TTS 

were 195 dB re 1 μPa and 195 dB re 1 

μPa2-s, respectively. 

• Finneran et al., (2001, 2003, 2005) 

described TTS experiments conducted 

with bottlenose dolphins exposed to 3- 

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

8 seconds. Small amounts of TTS (3 to 

6 dB) were observed in one dolphin 

after exposure to ELs between 190 and 

204 dB re 1 μ2-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 μ2-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 μ2-s). The difference in 

results was attributed to faster postexposure threshold measurement—TTS 

may have recovered before being 

detected by Nachtigall et al., (2003). 

These studies showed that, for longduration exposures, lower sound 

pressures are required to induce TTS 

than are required for short-duration 

tones. 

• Finneran et al., (2000, 2002) 

conducted TTS experiments with 

dolphins and belugas exposed to 

impulsive sounds similar to those 

produced by distant underwater 

explosions and seismic waterguns. 

These studies showed that, for very 

short-duration impulsive sounds, higher 

sound pressures were required to 

induce TTS than for longer-duration 

tones. 

• Finneran et al., (2007) conducted 

TTS experiments with bottlenose 

dolphins exposed to intense 20 kHz 

fatiguing tone. Behavioral and auditory 

evoked potentials (using sinusoidal 

amplitude modulated tones creating 

auditory steady state response [AASR]) 

were used to measure TTS. The 

fatiguing tone was either 16 (mean = 193 

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

186 re 1μPa) in duration. TTS ranged 

from 19–33db from behavioral 

measurements and 40–45dB from ASSR 

measurements. 

• Kastak et al., (1999a, 2005) 

conducted TTS experiments with three 

species of pinnipeds, California sea lion, 

northern elephant seal and a Pacific 

harbor seal, exposed to continuous 

underwater sounds at levels of 80 and 

95 dB sensation level at 2.5 and 3.5 kHz 

for up to 50 minutes. Mean TTS shifts 

of up to 12.2 dB occurred with the 

harbor seals showing the largest shift of 

28.1 dB. Increasing the sound duration 

had a greater effect on TTS than 

increasing the sound level from 80 to 95 

dB. 

Some of the more important data 

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

cause a just-measurable amount of TTS) 

often defined as 6 dB of TTS (for 

example, Schlundt et al., 2000) and the 

fact that energy metrics (sound exposure 

levels (SEL), which include a duration 

component) better predict when an 

animal will sustain TTS than pressure 

(SPL) alone. NMFS’ TTS criteria (which 

indicate the received level at which 

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

HFAS are as follows: 

• Cetaceans—195 dB re 1 μPa2-s 

(based on mid-frequency cetaceans—no 

published data exist on auditory effects 

of noise in low-or high-frequency 

cetaceans (Southall et al., (2007)). 

• Harbor Seals (and closely related 

species)—183 dB re 1 μPa2-s. 

• Northern Elephant Seals (and 

closely related species)—204 dB re 1 

μPa2-s. 

• California Sea Lions (and closely 

related species)—206 dB re 1 μPa2-s. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33875 

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 NWTRC LOA 

application. Because they are both 

otariids, the California sea lion criterion 

is used to estimate take of northern fur 

seals for this authorization. 

Level A Harassment Threshold (PTS) 

For acoustic effects, because the 

tissues of the ear appear to be the most 

susceptible to the physiological effects 

of sound, and because threshold shifts 

tend to occur at lower exposures than 

other more serious auditory effects, 

NMFS has determined that PTS is the 

best indicator for the smallest degree of 

injury that can be measured. Therefore, 

the acoustic exposure associated with 

onset-PTS is used to define the lower 

limit of the Level A harassment. 

PTS data do not currently exist for 

marine mammals and are unlikely to be 

obtained due to ethical concerns. 

However, PTS levels for these animals 

may be estimated using TTS data from 

marine mammals and relationships 

between TTS and PTS that have been 

discovered through study of terrestrial 

mammals. NMFS uses the following 

acoustic criteria for injury: 

• Cetaceans—215 dB re 1 μPa2-s 

(based on mid-frequency cetaceans—no 

published data exist on auditory effects 

of noise in low-or high-frequency 

cetaceans (Southall et al., (2007)). 

• Harbor Seals (and closely related 

species)—203 dB re 1 μPa2-s. 

• Northern Elephant Seals (and 

closely related species)—224 dB re 1 

μPa2-s. 

• California Sea Lions (and closely 

related species)—226 dB re 1 μPa2-s. 

These criteria are based on a 20 dB 

increase in SEL over that required for 

onset-TTS. Extrapolations from 

terrestrial mammal data indicate that 

PTS occurs at 40 dB or more of TS, and 

that TS growth occurs at a rate of 

approximately 1.6 dB TS per dB 

increase in EL. There is a 34-dB TS 

difference between onset-TTS (6 dB) 

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

animal would require approximately 

20dB of additional exposure (34 dB 

divided by 1.6 dB) above onset-TTS to 

reach PTS. A detailed description of 

how TTS criteria were derived from the 

results of the above studies may be 

found in Chapter 3 of Southall et al. 

(2007), as well as the Navy’s NWTRC 

LOA application. Southall et al. (2007) 

recommend a precautionary dual 

criteria for TTS (230 dB re 1 μPa (SPL 

peak pressure) in addition to 215 dB re 

1 μPa2-s (SEL)) to account for the 

potentially damaging transients 

embedded within non-pulse exposures. 

However, in the case of MFAS/HFAS, 

the distance at which an animal would 

receive 215 dB (SEL) is farther from the 

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

distance at which they would receive 

230 dB (SPL peak pressure) and 

therefore, it is not necessary to consider 

230 dB peak. 

We note here that behaviorally 

mediated injuries (such as those that 

have been hypothesized as the cause of 

some beaked whale strandings) could 

potentially occur in response to 

received levels lower than those 

believed to directly result in tissue 

damage. As mentioned previously, data 

to support a quantitative estimate of 

these potential effects (for which the 

exact mechanism is not known and in 

which factors other than received level 

may play a significant role) do not exist. 

However, based on the number of years 

(more than 40) and number of hours of 

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

countries) has operated compared to the 

reported (and verified) cases of 

associated marine mammal strandings, 

NMFS believes that the probability of 

these types of injuries is very low 

(especially in the NWTRC, in which no 

major exercises using multiple surface 

vessel sources will occur and in which 

the surface vessel sonar use is less than 

110 hours annually). 

Level B Harassment Risk Function 

(Behavioral Harassment) 

In 2006, NMFS issued the first MMPA 

authorization to allow the take of 

marine mammals incidental to MFAS 

(to the Navy for the Rim of the Pacific 

Exercises (RIMPAC)). For that 

authorization, NMFS used 173 dB SEL 

as the criterion for the onset of 

behavioral harassment (Level B 

Harassment). This type of single number 

criterion is referred to as a step function, 

in which (in this example) all animals 

estimated to be exposed to received 

levels above 173 db SEL would be 

predicted to be taken by Level B 

Harassment and all animals exposed to 

less than 173 dB SEL would not be 

taken by Level B Harassment. As 

mentioned previously, marine mammal 

behavioral responses to sound are 

highly variable and context specific 

(affected by differences in acoustic 

conditions; differences between species 

and populations; differences in gender, 

age, reproductive status, or social 

behavior; or the prior experience of the 

individuals), which does not support 

the use of a step function to estimate 

behavioral harassment. 

Unlike step functions, acoustic risk 

continuum functions (which are also 

called ‘‘exposure-response functions,’’ 

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

assessment contexts) allow for 

probability of a response that NMFS 

would classify as harassment to occur 

over a range of possible received levels 

(instead of one number) and assume that 

the probability of a response depends 

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

received level of sound) and that the 

probability of a response increases as 

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

January 2009, NMFS issued 3 final rules 

governing the incidental take of marine 

mammals (Navy’s Hawaii Range 

Complex, Southern California Range 

Complex, and Atlantic Fleet Active 

Sonar Training) that used a risk 

continuum to estimate the percentage of 

marine mammals exposed to various 

levels of MFAS that would respond in 

a manner NMFS considers harassment. 

The Navy and NMFS have previously 

used acoustic risk functions to estimate 

the probable responses of marine 

mammals to acoustic exposures for 

other training and research programs. 

Examples of previous application 

include the Navy FEISs on the 

SURTASS LFA sonar (U.S. Department 

of the Navy, 2001c); the North Pacific 

Acoustic Laboratory experiments 

conducted off the Island of Kauai (Office 

of Naval Research, 2001), and the 

Supplemental EIS for SURTASS LFA 

sonar (U.S. Department of the Navy, 

2007d). As discussed in the Effects 

section, factors other than received level 

(such as distance from or bearing to the 

sound source) can affect the way that 

marine mammals respond; however, 

data to support a quantitative analysis of 

those (and other factors) do not 

currently exist. NMFS will continue to 

modify these criteria as new data that 

meet NMFS standards of quality become 

available and can be appropriately and 

effectively incorporated. 

The particular acoustic risk functions 

developed by NMFS and the Navy (see 

Figures 1a and 1b) estimate the 

probability of behavioral responses to 

MFAS/HFAS (interpreted as the 

percentage of the exposed population) 

that NMFS would classify as harassment 

for the purposes of the MMPA given 

exposure to specific received levels of 

MFAS/HFAS. The mathematical 

function (below) underlying this curve 

is a cumulative probability distribution 

adapted from a solution in Feller (1968) 

and was also used in predicting risk for 

the Navy’s SURTASS LFA MMPA 

authorization as well. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

33876 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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% risk, or the received 

level at which we believe 50% of the 

animals exposed to the designated 

received level will respond in a manner 

that NMFS classifies as Level B 

Harassment. The K parameter (K = 45 

dB) is based on three data sets in which 

marine mammals exposed to midfrequency sound sources were reported 

to respond in a manner that NMFS 

would classify as Level B Harassment. 

There is widespread consensus that 

marine mammal responses to MFA 

sound signals need to be better defined 

using controlled exposure experiments 

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

The Navy is contributing to an ongoing 

3-Phase behavioral response study in 

the Bahamas that is expected to provide 

some initial information on beaked 

whales, the species identified as the 

most sensitive to MFAS. NMFS is 

leading this international effort with 

scientists from various academic 

institutions and research organizations 

to conduct studies on how marine 

mammals respond to underwater sound 

exposures. The results from Phase 1 of 

this study are discussed in the Potential 

Effects of Specified Activities on Marine 

Mammals section and the results from 

Phase 2 are expected to be available in 

the fall of 2009. Phase 3 will be 

conducted in the Mediterranean Sea in 

summer 2009. Additionally, the Navy 

recently tagged whales in conjunction 

with the 2008 RIMPAC exercises; 

however, analysis of these data is 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 NWTRC. 

1. Controlled Laboratory Experiments 

with Odontocetes (SSC Data set)—Most 

of the observations of the behavioral 

responses of toothed whales resulted 

from a series of controlled experiments 

on bottlenose dolphins and beluga 

whales conducted by researchers at 

SSC’s facility in San Diego, California 

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

Finneran and Schlundt, 2004; Schlundt 

et al., 2000). In experimental trials 

(designed to measure TTS) with marine 

mammals trained to perform tasks when 

prompted, scientists evaluated whether 

the marine mammals still performed 

these tasks when exposed to midfrequency tones. Altered behavior 

during experimental trials usually 

involved refusal of animals to return to 

the site of the sound stimulus, but also 

included attempts to avoid an exposure 

in progress, aggressive behavior, or 

refusal to further participate in tests. 

Finneran and Schlundt (2004) 

examined behavioral observations 

recorded by the trainers or test 

coordinators during the Schlundt et al., 

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

2005) experiments. These included 

observations from 193 exposure sessions 

(fatiguing stimulus level > 141 dB re 1 

μPa) conducted by Schlundt et al., 

(2000) and 21 exposure sessions 

conducted by Finneran et al., (2001, 

2003, 2005). The TTS experiments that 

supported Finneran and Schlundt 

(2004) are further explained below: 

• Schlundt et al., (2000) provided a 

detailed summary of the behavioral 

responses of trained marine mammals 

during TTS tests conducted at SSC San 

Diego with 1-sec tones and exposure 

frequencies of 0.4 kHz, 3 kHz, 10 kHz, 

20 kHz and 75 kHz. Schlundt et al., 

(2000) reported eight individual TTS 

experiments. The experiments were 

conducted in San Diego Bay. Because of 

the variable ambient noise in the bay, 

low-level broadband masking noise was 

used to keep hearing thresholds 

consistent despite fluctuations in the 

ambient noise. Schlundt et al., (2000) 

reported that ‘‘behavioral alterations,’’ 

or deviations from the behaviors the 

animals being tested had been trained to 

exhibit, occurred as the animals were 

exposed to increasing fatiguing stimulus 

levels. 

• Finneran et al., (2001, 2003, 2005) 

conducted 2 separate TTS experiments 

using 1-sec tones at 3 kHz. The test 

methods were similar to that of 

Schlundt et al., (2000) except the tests 

were conducted in a pool with very low 

ambient noise level (below 50 dB re 1 

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

was used. In the first, fatiguing sound 

levels were increased from 160 to 201 

dB SPL. In the second experiment, 

fatiguing sound levels between 180 and 

200 dB SPL were randomly presented. 

Bottlenose dolphins exposed to 

1-second (sec) intense tones exhibited 

short-term changes in behavior above 

received sound levels of 178 to 193 dB 

re 1 μPa (rms), and beluga whales did 

so at received levels of 180 to 196 dB 

and above. 

2. Mysticete Field Study (Nowacek et 

al., 2004)—The only available and 

applicable data relating mysticete 

responses to exposure to mid-frequency 

sound sources is from Nowacek et al., 

(2004). Nowacek et al., (2004) 

documented observations of the 

behavioral response of North Atlantic 

right whales exposed to alert stimuli 

containing mid-frequency components 

in the Bay of Fundy. Investigators used 

archival digital acoustic recording tags 

(DTAG) to record the behavior (by 

measuring pitch, roll, heading, and 

depth) of right whales in the presence 

of an alert signal, and to calibrate 

received sound levels. The alert signal 

was 18 minutes of exposure consisting 

of three 2-minute signals played 

sequentially three times over. The three 

signals had a 60% duty cycle and 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP13JY09.147</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33877 

consisted of: (1) Alternating 1-sec pure 

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

logarithmic down-sweep from 4,500 Hz 

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

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

amplitude modulated at 120 Hz and 

each 1-sec long. The purposes of the 

alert signal were (a) to pique the 

mammalian auditory system with 

disharmonic signals that cover the 

whales’ estimated hearing range; (b) to 

maximize the signal to noise ratio 

(obtain the largest difference between 

background noise) and (c) to provide 

localization cues for the whale. The 

maximum source level used was 173 dB 

SPL. 

Nowacek et al. (2004) reported that 

five out of six whales exposed to the 

alert signal with maximum received 

levels ranging from 133 to 148 dB re 1 

μPa significantly altered their regular 

behavior and did so in identical fashion. 

Each of these five whales: (i) 

Abandoned their current foraging dive 

prematurely as evidenced by curtailing 

their ’bottom time’; (ii) executed a 

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

significantly increased fluke stroke rate) 

ascent; (iii) remained at or near the 

surface for the duration of the exposure, 

an abnormally long surface interval; and 

(iv) spent significantly more time at 

subsurface depths (1–10 m) compared 

with normal surfacing periods when 

whales normally stay within 1 m (1.1 

yd) of the surface. 

3. Odontocete Field Data (Haro 

Strait—USS SHOUP)—In May 2003, 

killer whales (Orcinus orca) were 

observed exhibiting behavioral 

responses generally described as 

avoidance behavior while the U.S. Ship 

(USS) SHOUP was engaged in MFAS in 

the Haro Strait in the vicinity of Puget 

Sound, Washington. Those observations 

have been documented in three reports 

developed by Navy and NMFS (NMFS, 

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

2003). Although these observations were 

made in an uncontrolled environment, 

the sound field that may have been 

associated with the active sonar 

operations was estimated using standard 

acoustic propagation models that were 

verified (for some but not all signals) 

based on calibrated in situ 

measurements from an independent 

researcher who recorded the sounds 

during the event. Behavioral 

observations were reported for the group 

of whales during the event by an 

experienced marine mammal biologist 

who happened to be on the water 

studying them at the time. The 

observations associated with the USS 

SHOUP provide the only data set 

available of the behavioral responses of 

wild, non-captive animal upon actual 

exposure to AN/SQS–53 sonar. 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

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

Department of the Navy (2004b); 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 in which the animals were 

exposed. Within that area, the estimated 

received levels varied from 

approximately 150 to 180 dB SPL. 

Calculation of K Parameter—NMFS 

and the Navy used the mean of the 

following values to define the midpoint 

of the function: (1) The mean of the 

lowest received levels (185.3 dB) at 

which individuals responded with 

altered behavior to 3 kHz tones in the 

SSC data set; (2) the estimated mean 

received level value of 169.3 dB 

produced by the reconstruction of the 

USS SHOUP incident in which killer 

whales exposed to MFAS (range 

modeled possible received levels: 150 to 

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

maximum received levels at which 

Nowacek et al. (2004) observed 

significantly altered responses of right 

whales to the alert stimuli than to the 

control (no input signal) is 139.2 dB 

SPL. The arithmetic mean of these three 

mean values is 165 dB SPL. The value 

of K is the difference between the value 

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

of 165 dB SPL; therefore, K = 45. 

A Parameter (Steepness)—NMFS 

determined that a steepness parameter 

(A) = 10 is appropriate for odontocetes 

(except harbor porpoises) and pinnipeds 

and A = 8 is appropriate for mysticetes. 

The use of a steepness parameter of A 

= 10 for odontocetes for the MFAS/ 

HFAS risk function was based on the 

use of the same value for the SURTASS 

LFA risk continuum, which was 

supported by a sensitivity analysis of 

the parameter presented in Appendix D 

of the SURTASS/LFA FEIS (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2001c). As 

concluded in the SURTASS FEIS/EIS, 

the value of A = 10 produces a curve 

that has a more gradual transition than 

the curves developed by the analyses of 

migratory gray whale studies (Malme et 

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

SURTASS LFA Sonar EIS, Subchapters 

1.43, 4.2.4.3 and Appendix D, and 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

2008). 

NMFS determined that a lower 

steepness parameter (A = 8), resulting in 

a shallower curve, was appropriate for 

use with mysticetes and MFAS/HFAS. 

The Nowacek et al. (2004) data set 

contains the only data illustrating 

mysticete behavioral responses to a 

sound source that encompasses 

frequencies in the mid-frequency sound 

spectrum. A shallower curve (achieved 

by using A = 8) better reflects the risk 

of behavioral response at the relatively 

low received levels at which behavioral 

responses of right whales were reported 

in the Nowacek et al. (2004) data. 

Compared to the odontocete curve, this 

adjustment results in an increase in the 

proportion of the exposed population of 

mysticetes being classified as 

behaviorally harassed at lower RLs, 

such as those reported in and supported 

by the only data set currently available. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

33878 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / 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%, and Navy/NMFS 

applies that by estimating that 50% of 

the individuals exposed at that received 

level are likely to respond by exhibiting 

behavior that NMFS would classify as 

behavioral harassment. The risk 

function is not applied to individual 

animals, only to exposed populations. 

The data primarily used to produce 

the risk function (the K parameter) were 

compiled from four species that had 

been exposed to sound sources in a 

variety of different circumstances. As a 

result, the risk function represents a 

general relationship between acoustic 

exposures and behavioral responses that 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP13JY09.148</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33879 

is then applied to specific 

circumstances. That is, the risk function 

represents a relationship that is deemed 

to be generally true, based on the 

limited, best-available science, but may 

not be true in specific circumstances. In 

particular, the risk function, as currently 

derived, treats the received level as the 

only variable that is relevant to a marine 

mammal’s behavioral response. 

However, we know that many other 

variables—the marine mammal’s 

gender, age, and prior experience; the 

activity it is engaged in during an 

exposure event, its distance from a 

sound source, the number of sound 

sources, and whether the sound sources 

are approaching or moving away from 

the animal—can be critically important 

in determining whether and how a 

marine mammal will respond to a sound 

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

that are currently available do not allow 

for incorporation of these other 

variables in the current risk functions; 

however, the risk function represents 

the best use of the data that are 

available. Additionally, although these 

other factors cannot be taken into 

consideration quantitatively in the risk 

function, NMFS considers these other 

variables qualitatively in our analysis, 

when applicable data are available. 

As more specific and applicable data 

become available for MFAS/HFAS 

sources, NMFS can use these data to 

modify the outputs generated by the risk 

function to make them more realistic. 

Ultimately, data may exist to justify the 

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

mentioned previously, the distance from 

the sound source and whether it is 

perceived as approaching or moving 

away can affect the way an animal 

responds to a sound (Wartzok et al., 

2003). In the NWTRC example, animals 

exposed to received levels between 120 

and 140 dB may be 28–70 nm (51–130 

km) from a sound source depending on 

seasonal variations; those distances 

could influence whether those animals 

perceive the sound source as a potential 

threat, and their behavioral responses to 

that threat. Though there are data 

showing response of certain marine 

mammal species to 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 to incorporate any 

additional variables into the ‘‘take’’ 

estimates. 

Harbor Porpoise Behavioral 

Harassment Criteria 

The information currently available 

regarding these inshore species that 

inhabit shallow and coastal waters 

suggests a very low threshold level of 

response for both captive and wild 

animals. Threshold levels at which both 

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

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

2006, Kastelein et al., 2008) and wild 

harbor porpoises (e.g. Johnston, 2002) 

responded to sound (e.g. acoustic 

harassment devices (ADHs), acoustic 

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

~120 dB SPL), although the biological 

significance of the disturbance is 

uncertain. Therefore, a step function 

threshold of 120 dB SPL was used to 

estimate take of harbor porpoises 

instead of the risk functions used for 

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

purpose of estimating take that all 

harbor porpoises exposed to 120 dB or 

higher MFAS/HFAS will be taken by 

Level B behavioral harassment). 

Explosive Detonation Criteria 

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 since other 

MMPA authorizations issued for 

explosive detonations. 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 NWTRC, the 

LOA application, and in the Navy’s 

CHURCHILL FEIS (U.S. Department of 

the Navy, 2001c). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

33880 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Estimates of Potential Marine Mammal 

Exposure 

Estimating the take that will result 

from the proposed activities entails the 

following three general steps: (1) 

Propagation model estimates animals 

exposed to sources at different levels; 

(2) further modeling determines number 

of exposures to levels indicated in 

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

and (3) post-modeling corrections refine 

estimates to make them more accurate. 

More information regarding the models 

used, the assumptions used in the 

models, and the process of estimating 

take is available in Appendix D of the 

Navy’s DEIS for NWTRC. 

(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, 

number of successive explosions. 

• Transmission loss (in 16 

representative environmental provinces 

in two seasons) based on: Water depth; 

sound speed variability throughout the 

water column (warm season exhibits a 

weak surface duct, cold season exhibits 

a relatively strong surface duct); bottom 

geo-acoustic properties (bathymetry); 

and wind speed. 

• The estimated density of each 

marine mammal species in the NWTRC 

(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 NWTRC, 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 discreet continuous 

sonar event if less than 24 hours. 

Last, the Navy’s specified activities 

have been described based on best 

estimates of the number of MFAS/HFAS 

hours that the Navy will conduct. The 

exact number of hours may vary from 

year to year but will not exceed the 5- 

year total indicated in Table 8 (by 

multiplying the yearly estimate by 5) by 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP13JY09.149</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33881 

more than 10%. 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

33882 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Mortality 

Evidence from five beaked whale 

strandings, all of which have taken 

place outside the NWTRC Range 

Complex, and have occurred over 

approximately a decade, suggests that 

the exposure of beaked whales to MFAS 

in the presence of certain conditions 

(e.g., multiple units using active sonar, 

steep bathymetry, constricted channels, 

strong surface ducts, etc.) may result in 

strandings, potentially leading to 

mortality. Although these physical 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP13JY09.150</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33883 

factors believed to have contributed to 

the likelihood of beaked whale 

strandings are not present, in their 

aggregate, in the NWTRC, scientific 

uncertainty exists regarding what other 

factors, or combination of factors, may 

contribute to beaked whale strandings. 

However, because none of the MFAS/ 

HFAS ASW exercises conducted in the 

NWTRC are major exercises employing 

multiple surface vessels, the exercises 

last 1.5 hours or less, and only 65 

exercises are planned (for a total of 

about 100 hours of surface vessel sonar 

operation), NMFS and the Navy believe 

it is highly unlikely that marine 

mammals would respond to these 

exercises in a manner that would result 

in a stranding. Therefore, no 

authorization for mortality has been 

requested or proposed. 

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 NWTRC DEIS and 

was determined by the Navy to have no 

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 NWTRC 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. 

Critical Habitat 

Critical Habitat has been designated 

for 2 species in the NWTRC, southern 

resident killer whales (in the inshore 

area) and Steller sea lions (3 haulouts 

near the southern end of the offshore 

area). No sonar training is planned for 

the inshore area and explosive use will 

be limited to 4 detonations of small 2.5- 

lb charges annually. The Navy plans to 

abide by the 3000-ft air and water standoff distances associated with the Steller 

sea lion critical habitat. Effects to 

designated critical habitat will be fully 

analyzed in the Navy’s ESA Section 7 

consultation for the NWTRC. 

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. As 

mentioned previously, though, only 4 

small detonations are planned for the 

inshore area and the exercises involving 

larger detonations are conducted far 

offshore. Most fish species experience a 

large number of natural mortalities, 

especially during early life-stages, and 

any small level of mortality caused by 

the NWTRC training exercises involving 

explosives will likely be insignificant to 

the population as a whole. 

Invertebrates 

Very little is known about sound 

detection and use of sound by 

invertebrates (see Budelmann 1992a, b, 

Popper et al., 2001 for reviews). The 

limited data shows 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

33884 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

to sense low-frequency sound 

(Budelmann, 1992b). Packard et al. 

(1990) reported sensitivity to sound 

vibrations between 1–100 Hz for three 

species of cephalopods. McCauley et al. 

(2000) found evidence that squid 

exposed to seismic airguns show a 

behavioral response including inking. 

However, these were caged animals, and 

it is not clear how unconfined animals 

may have responded to the same signal 

and at the same distances used. In 

another study, Wilson et al. (2007) 

played back echolocation clicks of killer 

whales to two groups of squid (Loligo 

pealeii) in a tank. The investigators 

observed no apparent behavioral effects 

or any acoustic debilitation from 

playback of signals up to 199 to 226 dB 

re 1 μPa. It should be noted, however, 

that the lack of behavioral response by 

the squid may have been because the 

animals were in a tank rather than being 

in the wild. In another report on squid, 

Guerra et al. (2004) claimed that dead 

giant squid turned up around the time 

of seismic airgun operations off of 

Spain. The authors suggested, based on 

analysis of carcasses, that the damage to 

the squid was unusual when compared 

to other dead squid found at other 

times. However, the report presents 

conclusions based on a correlation to 

the time of finding of the carcasses and 

seismic testing, but the evidence in 

support of an effect of airgun activity 

was totally circumstantial. Moreover, 

the data presented showing damage to 

tissue is highly questionable since there 

was no way to differentiate between 

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

the seismic airgun) and normal tissue 

degradation that takes place after death, 

or due to poor fixation and preparation 

of tissue. To date, this work has not 

been published in peer reviewed 

literature, and detailed images of the 

reportedly damaged tissue are also not 

available. 

In summary, baleen whales feed on 

the aggregations of krill and small 

schooling fish, while toothed whales 

feed on epipelagic, mesopelagic, and 

bathypelagic fish and squid. As 

summarized above and in the NWTRC 

EIS/OEIS in more detail, potential 

impacts to marine mammal food 

resources within the NWTRC is 

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 NWTRC. 

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 

NWTRC EIS. 

The Navy endeavors to recover 

expended training materials. 

Notwithstanding, it is not possible to 

recover all training materials, and some 

may be encountered by marine 

mammals in the waters of the NWTRC. 

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 

NWTRC would be very low. Types of 

training materials that might be 

encountered include: Parachutes of 

various types (e.g., those employed by 

personnel or on targets, flares, or 

sonobuoys); torpedo guidance wires, 

torpedo ‘‘flex hoses;’’ cable assemblies 

used to facilitate target recovery; 

sonobuoys; and EMATT. Although 

sunken debris might be of increased 

concern for bottom-feeding marine 

mammals, like the gray whale, again, 

the low density is such that it is very 

unlikely that animals would interact 

with any of these materials. 

Entanglement in military expendable 

material was not cited as a source of 

injury or mortality for any marine 

mammals recorded in a large marine 

mammal and sea turtle stranding 

database for California waters, an area 

with much higher density of marine 

mammals. Therefore as discussed in the 

NWTRC EIS, expendable material is 

highly unlikely to directly affect marine 

mammal species or potential habitat 

within the NWTRC. 

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 outcome of this 

consultation will further inform the 

marine mammal habitat analysis in the 

final rule. 

Water Quality 

The NWTRC EIS/OEIS analyzed the 

potential effects to water quality 

Expendable Mobile ASW Training 

Target (EMATT) batteries. 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. It was 

determined that there would be no 

significant effect to water quality from 

seawater batteries, lithium batteries, and 

thermal batteries associated with 

scuttled sonobuoys. 

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 EMATTs. 

Analysis and Negligible Impact 

Determination 

Pursuant to NMFS’ regulations 

implementing the MMPA, an applicant 

is required to estimate the number of 

animals that will be ‘‘taken’’ by the 

specified activities (i.e., takes by 

harassment only, or takes by 

harassment, injury, and/or death). This 

estimate informs the analysis that NMFS 

must perform to determine whether the 

activity will have a ‘‘negligible impact’’ 

on the affected species or stock. Level B 

(behavioral) harassment occurs at the 

level of the individual(s) and does not 

assume any resulting population-level 

consequences, though there are known 

avenues through which behavioral 

disturbance of individuals can result in 

population-level effects (for example: 

Pink-footed geese (Anser 

brachyrhynchus) in undisturbed habitat 

gained body mass and had about a 46- 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33885 

percent reproductive success compared 

with geese in disturbed habitat (being 

consistently scared off the fields on 

which they were foraging) which did 

not gain mass and has a 17-percent 

reproductive success). A negligible 

impact finding is based on the lack of 

likely adverse effects on annual rates of 

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

of Level B harassment takes, alone, is 

not enough information on which to 

base an impact determination. In 

addition to considering estimates of the 

number of marine mammals that might 

be ‘‘taken’’ through behavioral 

harassment, NMFS must consider other 

factors, such as the likely nature of any 

responses (their intensity, duration, 

etc.), the context of any responses 

(critical reproductive time or location, 

migration, etc.), as well as the number 

and nature of estimated Level A 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 NWTRC Range Complex. 

Behavioral Harassment 

As discussed in the Potential Effects 

of Exposure of Marine Mammals to 

MFAS/HFAS and illustrated in the 

conceptual framework, marine 

mammals can respond to MFAS/HFAS 

in many different ways, a subset of 

which qualify as harassment (see 

Behavioral Harassment Section). One 

thing that the take estimates do not take 

into account is the fact that most marine 

mammals will likely avoid strong sound 

sources to one extent or another. 

Although an animal that avoids the 

sound source will likely still be taken in 

some instances (such as if the avoidance 

results in a missed opportunity to feed, 

interruption of reproductive behaviors, 

etc.) in other cases avoidance may result 

in fewer instances of take than were 

estimated or in the takes resulting from 

exposure to a lower received level than 

was estimated, which could result in a 

less severe response. For MFAS/HFAS, 

the Navy provided information (Table 9) 

estimating what percentage of the total 

takes that will occur within the 10-dB 

bins (without considering mitigation or 

avoidance) that are within the received 

levels considered in the risk continuum 

and for TTS and PTS. This table applies 

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

powerful source), with less powerful 

sources the percentages would increase 

slightly in the lower received levels and 

correspondingly decrease in the higher 

received levels. As mentioned above, an 

animal’s exposure to a higher received 

level is more likely to result in a 

behavioral response that is more likely 

to adversely affect the health of the 

animal. 

Because of the comparatively small 

amount of MFAS/HFAS sonar training 

the Navy has only been conducting 

offshore in the NWTRC, the fact that 

they have not been monitoring pursuant 

to those activities to date, and because 

of the overall data gap regarding the 

effects MFAS/HFAS has on marine 

mammals, not a lot is known regarding 

how marine mammals in the NWTRC 

will respond to MFAS/HFAS (with the 

exception of the SHOUP incident 

mentioned previously—but since then 

no sonar training has been conducted in 

the Inshore area). Twelve monitoring 

reports from the Southern California 

Range Complex for major training 

exercises indicate that watchstanders 

have observed no instances of obvious 

behavioral disturbance in the more than 

704 marine mammal sightings of 7,435 

animals (9,000+ hours of effort, though 

only 4 of the 12 reports reported the 

total number of hours of observation). 

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 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP13JY09.151</GPH>
33886 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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. Separately, the Navy and 

NMFS conducted an opportunistic 

tagging experiment with beaked whales 

in the area of the 2008 Rim of the Pacific 

training exercises in the HRC. 

Diel Cycle 

As noted previously, many animals 

perform vital functions, such as feeding, 

resting, traveling, and socializing on a 

diel cycle (24-hr cycle). Substantive 

behavioral reactions to noise exposure 

(such as disruption of critical life 

functions, displacement, or avoidance of 

important habitat) are more likely to be 

significant if they last more than one 

diel cycle or recur on subsequent days 

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

behavioral response lasting less than 

one day and not recurring on 

subsequent days is not considered 

particularly severe unless it could 

directly affect reproduction or survival 

(Southall et al., 2007). 

In the previous section, we discussed 

the fact that potential behavioral 

responses to MFAS/HFAS that fall into 

the category of harassment could range 

in severity. By definition, the takes by 

behavioral harassment involve the 

disturbance of a marine mammal or 

marine mammal stock in the wild by 

causing disruption of natural behavioral 

patterns (such as migration, surfacing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering) 

to a point where such behavioral 

patterns are abandoned or significantly 

altered. These reactions would, 

however, be more of a concern if they 

were expected to last over 24 hours or 

be repeated in subsequent days. As 

mentioned previously, 65 ASW 

exercises with a duration of 1.5 hours 

are planned annually for the NWTRC. 

Additionally, vessels with hull-mounted 

active sonar are typically moving at 

speeds of 10–12 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 

substantive response that would then be 

carried on for more than one day or on 

successive days. With the exception of 

SINKEXs, the planned explosive 

exercises are also of a short duration (1– 

6 hours). Although explosive exercises 

may sometimes be conducted in the 

same general areas repeatedly, because 

of their short duration and the fact that 

they are in the open ocean and animals 

can easily move away makes it similarly 

unlikely that animals would be exposed 

for long, continuous amounts of time. 

Although SINKEXs may last for up to 48 

hours, only 2 are planned annually, they 

are stationary and conducted in deep, 

open water (where fewer marine 

mammals would typically be expected 

to be randomly encountered), and they 

have a rigorous monitoring and 

shutdown protocol, all of which make it 

unlikely that individuals would be 

exposed to the exercise for extended 

periods or in consecutive days. 

TTS 

NMFS and the Navy have estimated 

that some individuals of some species of 

marine mammals may sustain some 

level of TTS from MFAS/HFAS. As 

mentioned previously, TTS can last 

from a few minutes to days, be of 

varying degree, and occur across various 

frequency bandwidths, all of which 

determine the severity of the impacts on 

the affected individual, which can range 

from minor to more severe. Table 8 

indicates the estimated number of 

animals that might sustain TTS from 

exposure to MFAS/HFAS. The TTS 

sustained by an animal is primarily 

classified by three characteristics: 

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

mid to high frequency sounds-Southall 

et al., 2007) suggest that most TTS 

occurs in the frequency range of the 

source up to one octave higher than the 

source (with the maximum TTS at 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 

systems are typically used less 

frequently and for shorter time periods 

than surface ship and aircraft MF 

systems, so TTS from these sources is 

even less likely). TTS from explosives 

would be broadband. Tables 5a and 5b 

summarize the vocalization data for 

each species. 

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

dB is the sensitivity of the hearing 

reduced by)—generally, both the degree 

of TTS and the duration of TTS will be 

greater if the marine mammal is exposed 

to a higher level of energy (which would 

occur when the peak dB level is higher 

or the duration is longer). The threshold 

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

(SEL), which might be received at 

distances of up to 140 m from the most 

powerful MFAS source, the AN/SQS–53 

(the maximum ranges to TTS from other 

sources would be less, as modeled for 

NWTRC). 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). Of all TTS studies, some 

using exposures of almost an hour in 

duration or up to 217 SEL, most of the 

TTS induced was 15 dB or less, though 

Finneran et al., (2007) induced 43 dB of 

TTS with a 64-sec exposure to a 20 kHz 

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

minute). 

• Duration of TTS (Recovery time)— 

See above. Of all TTS laboratory studies, 

some using exposures of almost an hour 

in duration or up to 217 SEL, almost all 

recovered within 1 day (or less, often in 

minutes), though in one study (Finneran 

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

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 NWTRC, 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 

exercises, the speed of a typical vessel, 

and the fact that only 1 MFAS source is 

in use at once). 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 (see 

Tables 5a and 5b), though the frequency 

range of TTS that marine mammals 

might sustain would overlap with some 

of the frequency ranges of their 

vocalization types, the frequency range 

of TTS from MFAS (the source from 

which TTS would more likely be 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33887 

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. If impaired, 

marine mammals would typically be 

aware of their impairment and 

implement behaviors to compensate for 

it (see Communication Impairment 

Section), though these compensations 

may incur energetic costs. 

Acoustic Masking or Communication 

Impairment 

Table 5 is also informative regarding 

the nature of the masking or 

communication impairment that could 

potentially occur from MFAS (again, 

center frequencies are 3.5 and 7.5 kHz 

for the two types of hull-mounted active 

sonar). However, masking only occurs 

during the time of the signal (and 

potential secondary arrivals of indirect 

rays), versus TTS, which occurs 

continuously for its duration. Standard 

MFAS pings last on average one second 

and occur about once every 24–30 

seconds for hull-mounted sources. For 

the sources for which we know the 

pulse length, most are significantly 

shorter than hull-mounted active sonar, 

on the order of several microseconds to 

10s of 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 pulse length, frequency, and 

duty cycle of the MFAS/HFAS signal 

does not perfectly mimic the 

characteristics of any marine mammal’s 

vocalizations. 

PTS, Injury, or Mortality 

The Navy’s model estimated that one 

Pacific harbor seal would be exposed to 

levels of MFAS/HFAS that would result 

in PTS. This estimate does not take into 

consideration either the mitigation 

measures, the likely avoidance 

behaviors of some of the animals 

exposed, the distance from the sonar 

dome of a surface vessel within which 

an animal would have to be exposed to 

incur PTS (10 m), and the nominal 

speed of a surface vessel engaged in 

ASW exercises. NMFS believes that 

many marine mammals would 

deliberately avoid exposing themselves 

to the received levels of active sonar 

necessary to induce injury by moving 

away from or at least modifying their 

path to avoid a close approach. 

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 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 1,000-meter 

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

night vision goggles, infrared cameras, 

and passive acoustic monitoring. 

If a marine mammal is able to 

approach a surface vessel within the 

distance necessary to incur PTS, the 

likely speed of the vessel (nominal 10– 

12 knots) would make it very difficult 

for the animal to remain in range long 

enough to accumulate enough energy to 

result in more than a mild case of PTS. 

As mentioned previously and in relation 

to TTS, the likely consequences to the 

health of an individual that incurs PTS 

can range from mild to more serious 

dependent upon the degree of PTS and 

the frequency band it is in, and many 

animals are able to compensate for the 

shift, although it may include energetic 

costs. While NMFS believes it is very 

unlikely that a harbor seal will incur 

PTS from exposure to MFAS/HFAS, 

seals may be difficult to detect at times 

and the Navy has requested 

authorization to take one by Level A 

Harasssment and therefore, NMFS has 

considered this possibility in our 

analysis. 

The Navy’s model estimated that 14 

total animals would be exposed to 

explosive detonations at levels that 

could result in injury (1 fin whale, 1 

blue whale, 1 sperm whale, 3 Dall’s 

porpoise, 1 harbor porpoise, 1 northern 

right whale dolphin, 2 short-beaked 

common dolphins, 2 northern elephant 

seals, 1 northern fur seal, and 1 Steller 

sea lion), and that 0 would be exposed 

to levels that would result in death— 

however, those estimates do not 

consider mitigation measures. Because 

of the surveillance conducted prior to 

and during the exercises, the associated 

exclusion zones (see table 3 and the 

Mitigation section), and the distance 

within which the animal would have to 

be from the explosion, NMFS does not 

think it likely that any animals 

(especially these species, which are 

either large individuals or large 

gregarious groups) will be exposed to 

levels of sound or pressure from 

explosives that will result in injury. 

However, an authorization for Level A 

take of these individuals allows the 

Navy to remain in compliance in the 

unlikely event that animals go 

undetected and enter an area with 

injurious energy or pressure levels, and 

therefore NMFS has considered this 

possibility in our analysis. Injury 

incurred at these levels could (based on 

the data the thresholds are derived 

from) take the form of PTS (discussed 

above), tympanic membrane rupture, or 

slight lung injury. 

As discussed previously, marine 

mammals could potentially respond to 

MFAS at a received level lower than the 

injury threshold in a manner that 

indirectly results in the animals 

stranding. The exact mechanisms of this 

potential response, behavioral or 

physiological, are not known. The naval 

exercises that have been associated with 

strandings in the past have typically had 

three or more vessels operating 

simultaneously, or in conjunction with 

one another, whereas the ASW exercises 

in the NWTRC only utilize one surface 

vessel sonar source at a time. Also, past 

sonar-associated strandings have 

involved constricted channels, semienclosed areas, and/or steep 

bathymetry—the sorts of features 

present in the Inshore area of the 

NWTRC; however, no ASW exercises 

will be conducted in the Inshore area. 

Last, even if the physical features that 

may contribute to a stranding (not all of 

which are known) were present in the 

NWTRC, it is unlikely that they would 

co-occur in time and space given the 

nature of the exercises, e.g., low number 

and short duration of the planned 

exercises and no multi-vessel ASW 

exercises over an extended period of 

time. 

60 Years of Navy Training Exercises 

Using MFAS/HFAS in the NWTRC 

Range Complex 

The Navy has been conducting 

MFAS/HFAS training exercises in the 

NWTRC Range Complex for over 60 

years. Although monitoring specifically 

in conjunction with training exercises to 

determine the effects of active sonar and 

explosives on marine mammals has not 

been conducted by the Navy in the past 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

33888 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

in the NWTRC and the symptoms 

indicative of potential acoustic trauma 

were not as well recognized prior to the 

mid-nineties, people have been 

collecting stranding data in the NWTRC 

Range Complex for approximately 30 

years. Though not all dead or injured 

animals are expected to end up on the 

shore (some may be eaten or float out to 

sea), one might expect that if marine 

mammals were being harmed by the 

Navy training exercises with any 

regularity, more evidence would have 

been detected over the 30-yr period. 

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 19 

exposures of blue whales to MFAS/ 

HFAS or explosive detonations at sound 

or pressure 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 one TTS 

take is estimated from explosive 

exposure and proposed to be 

authorized. It is unlikely that any blue 

whales will incur TTS because of: (1) 

The distance within which they would 

have to approach the explosive source; 

and (2) the likelihood that Navy 

monitors would, during pre- or during 

exercises monitoring, detect these large 

animals prior to an approach within this 

distance and require a delay of the 

exercise. Navy lookouts will likely 

detect a group of blue whales given their 

large size, average group size (2–3), and 

pronounced vertical blow. 

Additionally, the Navy’s acoustic 

analysis predicted that 1 blue whale 

would be exposed to injurious levels of 

energy or pressure from exposure to 

explosive detonations. Because of the 

lengthy pre-monitoring, the size of the 

animal, and the pronounced blow, 

NMFS anticipates that the Navy 

watchstanders would likely detect blue 

whales in most instances and 

implement the mitigation to avoid 

exposure at injurious levels. Although 

NMFS does not anticipate Level A take 

of this species to occur, the Navy has 

requested Level A take authorization for 

this species to ensure MMPA 

compliance and NMFS will analyze the 

possibility of these effects. NMFS is 

currently engaged in an internal Section 

7 consultation under the ESA and the 

outcome of that consultation will 

further inform our final decision. 

Blue whales in the NWTRC belong to 

the Eastern North Pacific stock, which 

may be increasing in number. The best 

population estimate for this stock is 

1,866. Blue whales are known to feed in 

the southern part of the NWTRC in the 

summer. Relative to the population size, 

this activity is anticipated to result only 

in a limited number of level B 

harassment takes. The blue whale’s 

large size and detectability makes it 

unlikely that these animals would be 

exposed to the higher energy or pressure 

expected to result in more severe effects 

either during their selected feeding 

times or otherwise. The NWTRC 

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 blue whales. Based on the general 

information contained in the Negligible 

Impact Analysis section and this stockspecific summary of the effects of the 

takes, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the Navy’s specified 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on this stock. 

Fin Whale (MMPA Depleted/ESA-Listed) 

Acoustic analysis indicates that up to 

122 exposures of fin whales to sound 

levels likely to result in Level B 

harassment (2 from TTS) may result 

from MFAS/HFAS. 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 primarily be in the form 

of behavioral harassment as described in 

the Definition of Harassment: Level B 

Harassment section. Although 2 of the 

modeled Level B Harassment takes were 

predicted to be in the form of TTS from 

MFAS/HFAS, NMFS believes 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 and 

implement active sonar powerdown or 

shutdown. Navy lookouts will likely 

detect a group of fin whales because of 

their large size, mean group size (3), and 

pronounced blow. 

Acoustic analysis also predicted that 

19 Level B Harassment takes from 

explosives would occur (12 sub-TTS, 7 

TTS). For the same reasons listed 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 or SINKEX (see 

Table 3), and therefore NMFS 

anticipates that TTS takes of a fin 

whales might result from explosive 

detonations. 

Additionally, the Navy’s acoustic 

analysis predicted that 1 fin whale 

would be exposed to injurious levels of 

energy or pressure. Because of the 

lengthy pre-monitoring, the size of the 

animal, and the pronounced blow, 

NMFS anticipates that the Navy 

watchstanders would likely detect fin 

whales in most instances and 

implement the mitigation to avoid 

exposure at injurious levels. Although 

NMFS does not anticipate Level A take 

of this species to occur, the Navy has 

requested Level A take authorization for 

this species to ensure MMPA 

compliance and NMFS will analyze the 

possibility of these effects. NMFS is 

currently engaged in an internal Section 

7 consultation under the ESA and the 

outcome of that consultation will 

further inform our final decision. 

Fin whales in the NWTRC belong to 

the California/Oregon/Washington 

stock. The best population estimate for 

this stock is 3454, which may be 

increasing. Relative to the population 

size, this activity is anticipated to result 

only in a limited number of level B 

harassment takes. The NWTRC activities 

are not expected to occur in an area/ 

time of specific importance for 

reproductive, feeding, or other known 

critical behaviors. 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 stockspecific summary of the effects of the 

takes, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the Navy’s specified 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33889 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on this stock. 

Sei Whale (MMPA Depleted/ESA-Listed) 

Acoustic analysis predicts that 1 sei 

whale will be behaviorally harassed by 

exposure to MFAS/HFAS. Sei whales in 

the NWTRC belong to the Eastern North 

Pacific stock. The best population 

estimate for this stock is 43, which may 

be increasing. The sei whales’ large size 

and detectability makes it unlikely that 

these animals would be exposed to the 

higher energy or pressure expected to 

result in more severe effects. No areas of 

specific importance for reproduction or 

feeding of sei whales have been 

identified in the NWTRC. Relative to the 

population size, this activity is 

anticipated to result only in a limited 

number of level B harassment takes. The 

NWTRC activities are not expected to 

occur in an area/time of specific 

importance for reproductive, feeding, or 

other known critical behaviors. 

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 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 this stock. 

Humpback Whale (MMPA Depleted/ 

ESA-Listed) 

Acoustic analysis predicts that 13 

humpback whales will be behaviorally 

harassed by exposure to MFAS/HFAS. 

No humpback whales are expected to be 

taken as a result of exposure to 

explosive detonations. Humpback 

whales in the NWTRC belong to the 

Eastern North Pacific stock. The best 

population estimate for this stock is 

1396, which is increasing. The 

humpback whales’ large size, gregarious 

nature, and detectability makes it 

unlikely that these animals would be 

exposed to the higher energy or pressure 

expected to result in more severe effects. 

No areas of specific importance for 

reproduction or feeding of humpbacks 

have been identified in the NWTRC. 

Relative to the population size, this 

activity is anticipated to result only in 

a limited number of level B harassment 

takes. The NWTRC activities are not 

expected to occur in an area/time of 

specific importance for reproductive, 

feeding, or other known critical 

behaviors. 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 stockspecific summary of the effects of the 

takes, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the Navy’s specified 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on this stock. 

Gray Whale 

Acoustic analysis predicts that 4 gray 

whales will be behaviorally harassed by 

exposure to MFAS/HFAS. No gray 

whales are expected to be taken as a 

result of exposure to explosive 

detonations. Gray whales in the NWTRC 

belong to the Eastern North Pacific 

stock, which is increasing in number. 

The best population estimate for this 

stock is 18178. The gray whales’ large 

size and detectability makes it unlikely 

that these animals would be exposed to 

the higher energy or pressure expected 

to result in more severe effects. There is 

a well-defined north-south migratory 

path through the NWTRC and a known 

aggregation of gray whales (Pacific Coast 

Feeding Aggregation (PCFA)) that feeds 

along the Pacific coast between 

southeastern Alaska and southern 

California throughout the summer and 

fall. Relative to the population size, 

however, this activity is anticipated to 

result only in a very limited number of 

level B harassment takes and, 

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 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 this stock. 

Minke Whale 

Acoustic analysis predicts that 9 

minke whales will be behaviorally 

harassed by exposure to MFAS/HFAS. 

No minke whales are expected to be 

taken as a result of exposure to 

explosive detonations. Minke whales in 

the NWTRC belong to the California/ 

Oregon/Washington stock. The best 

population estimate for this stock is 898. 

The whales’ size and detectability 

makes it unlikely that these animals 

would be exposed to the higher energy 

or pressure expected to result in more 

severe effects. Minke whales appear to 

establish home ranges in the Inshore 

Area and have been documented 

feeding in several areas within the 

Inshore Areas, however, no activities 

expected to result in the take of marine 

mammals will occur in the Inshore 

Area, so these behaviors should not be 

negatively impacted in that area. 

Relative to the population size, this 

activity is anticipated to result only in 

a limited number of level B harassment 

takes. The NWTRC activities are not 

expected to occur in an area/time of 

specific importance for reproductive, 

feeding, or other known critical 

behaviors. Consequently, the activities 

are not expected to adversely impact 

rates of recruitment or survival of minke 

whales. Based on the general 

information contained in the Negligible 

Impact Analysis section and this stockspecific summary of the effects of the 

takes, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the Navy’s specified 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on this stock. 

Sperm Whale (MMPA Depleted/ESAListed) 

Acoustic analysis predicts that up to 

101 exposures of sperm whales to 

MFAS/HFAS at energy levels likely to 

result in Level B harassment may occur. 

This estimate represents the total 

number of Level B 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 primarily be in the form 

of behavioral disturbance as described 

in the Definition of Harassment: Level B 

Harassment section. Two of the 

modeled Level B Harassment takes were 

predicted to be in the form of TTS. 

As indicated in Table 5, some (but not 

all) sperm whale vocalizations might 

overlap with the MFAS/HFAS TTS 

frequency range (2–20 kHz), which 

could potentially temporarily decrease 

an animal’s sensitivity to the calls of 

conspecifics or returning echolocation 

signals. However, as noted previously, 

NMFS does not anticipate TTS of a long 

duration or severe degree to occur as a 

result of exposure to MFAS/HFAS. No 

sperm whales are predicted to be 

exposed to MFAS/HFAS sound levels 

associated with PTS or injury. 

Acoustic analysis also predicted that 

23 sperm whales would be exposed to 

sound or pressure from explosives at 

levels expected to result in Level B 

Harassment (10 from TTS). 

Additionally, the Navy’s acoustic 

analysis predicted that 1 whale would 

be exposed to injurious levels of energy 

or pressure. Because of the lengthy premonitoring and the size of the animal, 

NMFS anticipates that the Navy 

watchstanders would likely detect 

sperm whales in most instances and 

implement the mitigation measures to 

avoid exposure at injurious levels. 

Although NMFS does not anticipate 

sperm whales to experience Level A 

Harassment, the Navy has requested 

Level A take authorization for this 

species to ensure MMPA compliance in 

the unlikely event that an animal is 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

33890 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

exposed to injurious pressures from an 

explosive detonation and NMFS has 

analyzed the possibility of these effects. 

NMFS is currently engaged in an 

internal Section 7 consultation under 

the ESA and the outcome of that 

consultation will further inform our 

final decision. No areas of specific 

importance for reproduction or feeding 

of sperm whales have been identified in 

the NWTRC. 

Relative to the population size, this 

activity is anticipated to result only in 

a limited number of Level B harassment 

takes. Additionally, the NWTRC 

activities are not expected to occur in an 

area/time of specific importance for 

reproductive, feeding, or other known 

critical behaviors. 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 stockspecific summary of the effects of the 

takes, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the Navy’s specified 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on this stock. 

Killer Whale (Southern Resident Is 

MMPA Depleted/ESA-Listed) 

Due to the difficulty in determining 

particular stocks of killer whales in the 

wild, all stocks of killer whales were 

combined for modeling exposures, and 

therefore the modeled takes could be 

applied to any combination of the three 

stocks. When observed offshore, the 

determination of a particular whale to 

either a transient, offshore, or a resident 

is often difficult. For this reason, all 

killer whales are considered to be part 

of the southern resident stock for 

analysis of effect. The southern resident 

stock of killer whales is depleted under 

the MMPA and listed under the ESA. 

Acoustic analysis predicts that 13 

killer whales will be behaviorally 

harassed by exposure to MFAS/HFAS. 

The best population estimate for the 

southern resident killer whale stock is 

89. There was an increase in the overall 

population from 2002–2007, however 

the population declined in 2008 with 85 

southern resident killer whales counted. 

Two additional whales have been 

reported missing since the 2008 census 

count. The whale’s size and 

detectability makes it unlikely that these 

animals would be exposed to the higher 

energy or pressure expected to result in 

more severe effects. As mentioned 

previously, there is designated critical 

habitat for southern resident killer 

whales in the Inshore Area; however, no 

sonar exercises and 4 very small 

detonations (2.5-lb), which are not 

expected to result in the take of marine 

mammals, are planned to occur in the 

Inshore area annually. Southern 

resident killer whales spend the 

majority of their time in the Inshore 

Area from May/June through October/ 

November, although they do make 

multi-day trips to the outer coast. 

Alternately, all of the Navy’s sonar use 

is in the Offshore Area, occurring 

uniformly throughout the year. 

Of note, the vocalizations of killer 

whales fall directly into the frequency 

range in which TTS would be incurred 

from the MFAS sources used in NWTRC 

for ASW exercises, so it is fortunate that 

the Navy is conducting limited ASW 

exercises in the NWTRC and that killer 

whales are predominantly situated in 

the Inshore area when ASW exercises 

are being conducted. Killer whales 

produce a wide-variety of clicks and 

whistles, but most social sounds are 

pulsed, with frequencies ranging from 

0.5 to 25 kHz (dominant frequency 

range: 1 to 6 kHz) (Thomson and 

Richardson, 1995). Echolocation clicks 

indicate source levels ranging from 195 

to 224 dB re 1 μPa-m peak-to-peak, 

dominant frequencies ranging from 20 

to 60 kHz, and durations of about 0.1 

sec (Au et al., 2004). Source levels 

associated with social sounds have been 

calculated to range from 131 to 168 dB 

re 1 μPa-m and vary with vocalization 

type (Veirs, 2004). 

Southern resident killer whales are 

very vocal, making calls during all types 

of behavioral states. Acoustic studies of 

resident killer whales in the Pacific 

Northwest have found that there are 

dialects in their highly stereotyped, 

repetitive discrete calls, which are 

group-specific and shared by all group 

members (Ford, 1991, 2002b). These 

dialects likely are used to maintain 

group identity and cohesion, and may 

serve as indicators of relatedness that 

help prevent inbreeding between closely 

related whales (Ford, 1991, 2002b). 

Dialects have been documented in 

northern Norway (Ford, 2002a) and 

southern Alaska killer whales 

populations (Yurk et al., 2002) and 

likely occur in other regions. 

Both behavioral and auditory 

brainstem response techniques indicate 

killer whales can hear a frequency range 

of 1 to 100 kHz and are most sensitive 

at 20 kHz. This is one the lowest 

maximum-sensitivity frequencies 

known among toothed whales 

(Szymanski et al., 1999). 

Population estimates for the Offshore 

and Transient killer whale stocks are 

422 and 346, respectively. Relative to 

the population size, this activity is 

anticipated to result only in a limited 

number of level B harassment takes. The 

NWTRC activities are not expected to 

occur in an area/time of specific 

importance for reproductive, feeding, or 

other known critical behaviors. 

Consequently, the activities are not 

expected to adversely impact rates of 

recruitment or survival of killer whales. 

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 stocks. 

Pygmy and Dwarf Sperm Whale 

Acoustic analysis predicts that 4 

pygmy or dwarf sperm whales will be 

behaviorally harassed by exposure to 

MFAS/HFAS or explosives. Dwarf and 

pygmy sperm whales in the NWTRC 

belong to the California/Oregon/ 

Washington stocks. There are no 

population estimates for these stocks, 

however, this activity is anticipated to 

result only in a very limited number of 

level B harassment takes. The NWTRC 

activities are not expected to occur in an 

area/time of specific importance for 

reproductive, feeding, or other known 

critical behaviors. Consequently, the 

activities are not expected to adversely 

impact rates of recruitment or survival 

of pygmy and dwarf sperm whales. 

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 this stock. 

Beaked Whales 

Acoustic analysis predicts that 12 

Baird’s beaked whales, 14 Cuvier’s 

beaked whales, and 14 Mesoplodont sp. 

will be taken by Level B harassment by 

exposure to MFAS/HFAS or explosives 

(1, 2, and 1 take each from explosives, 

relatively). Beaked whales in the 

NWTRC belong to the California/ 

Oregon/Washington stocks. Census data 

and life history are too limited to 

suggest a population trend for 

individual species of Mesoplodont 

whales. Until better methods are 

developed for distinguishing the 

different mesoplodont species from one 

another, the management unit is defined 

to include all mesoplodont populations. 

The best population estimate for these 

stocks is 313, 2171, and 1024, 

respectively. Although no areas of 

specific importance for reproduction or 

feeding of beaked whales have been 

identified in the NWTRC, beaked 

whales are generally found in deep 

waters over the continental slope, 

oceanic seamounts, and areas with 

submarine escarpments (very seldom 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33891 

over the continental shelf). Relative to 

the population size, this activity is 

anticipated to result only in a limited 

number of level B harassment takes. 

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 stockspecific summary of the effects of the 

takes, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the Navy’s specified 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on these stocks. 

Short-Finned Pilot Whale 

Acoustic analysis predicts that 2 pilot 

whales will be behaviorally harassed by 

exposure to MFAS/HFAS or explosives. 

Pilot whales are rare in the NWTRC and 

belong to the California/Oregon/ 

Washington stocks. The best population 

estimate for these stocks is 245. Relative 

to the population size, this activity is 

anticipated to result only in a limited 

number of level B harassment takes. The 

NWTRC activities are not expected to 

occur in an area/time of specific 

importance for reproductive, feeding, or 

other known critical behaviors. 

Consequently, the activities are not 

expected to adversely impact rates of 

recruitment or survival of short-finned 

pilot whales. Based on the general 

information contained in the Negligible 

Impact Analysis section and this stockspecific summary of the effects of the 

takes, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the Navy’s specified 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on these stocks. 

Dolphins and Porpoises 

The acoustic analysis predicts that the 

following numbers of Level B behavioral 

harassments of the associated species 

will occur: 4725 Dall’s Porpoises, 

119162 harbor porpoises, 1256 shortbeaked common dolphin, 1256 shortbeaked common dolphin, 734 northern 

right whale dolphin, 555 Pacific whitesided dolphin, and 40 striped dolphin. 

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. No bottlenose dolphins are 

expected to be taken based on the 

Navy’s acoustic analysis. 

Although a portion (147 Dall’s 

Porpoises, 45 harbor porpoises, 42 

short-beaked common dolphin,18 

northern right whale dolphin, 23 Pacific 

white-sided dolphin, and 1 striped 

dolphin) of the modeled Level B 

Harassment takes for all of 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 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 5, some 

dolphin vocalizations might overlap 

with the MFAS/HFAS TTS frequency 

range (2–20 kHz), which could 

potentially temporarily decrease an 

animal’s sensitivity to the calls of 

conspecifics or returning echolocation 

signals. However, as noted previously, 

NMFS does not anticipate TTS of a long 

duration or severe degree to occur as a 

result of exposure to MFAS/HFAS. 

Acoustic analysis also predicted that 

58 Dall’s Porpoises, 5 harbor porpoises, 

23 short-beaked common dolphin, 7 

northern right whale dolphin, 3 Pacific 

white-sided dolphin, and 1 striped 

dolphin 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 

3 Dall’s porpoise, a harbor porpoise, 2 

short-beaked dolphin, and one northern 

right whale dolphin might be exposed to 

sound or pressure from explosive 

detonations that would result in PTS or 

injury. 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 dolphins 

have been identified in the NWTRC. 

Table 4 shows the estimated abundance 

of the affected stocks of dolphins and 

porpoise. 

Of note, the number of harbor 

porpoises behaviorally harassed by 

exposure to MFAS/HFAS is higher than 

the other species (and, in fact, suggests 

that every member of the stock could 

potentially be taken by Level B 

harassment multiple times) because of 

the low Level B Harassment threshold, 

which essentially makes the ensonified 

area of effects significantly larger than 

for the other species. However, the fact 

that the threshold is a step function and 

not a curve (and assuming uniform 

density) means that the vast majority of 

the takes occur in the very lowest levels 

that exceed the threshold 

(approximately 80% of the takes are 

from exposures to 120 dB to 126 dB, and 

then approximately 80% of those takes 

are in the 126 dB to 132 dB range, etc.), 

which means that the anticipated effects 

are not expected to be severe. 

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 stocks. 

Pinnipeds 

The Navy’s acoustic analysis predicts 

that the following numbers of Level B 

harassments (from exposure to MFAS/ 

HFAS or explosives) of the associated 

species will occur: 120 Steller sea lion, 

1,365 Northern fur seal, 286 California 

sea lion, 378 northern elephant seals, 

and 586 Pacific harbor seal. This 

estimate represents the total number of 

exposures and not necessarily the 

number of individuals exposed, as a 

single individual may be exposed 

multiple times over the course of a year. 

The model further predicted that of 

those Level B harassments listed above, 

290 Pacific harbor seals and 1 northern 

fur seal, of the modeled Level B 

Harassment takes for all of these species 

were predicted to be in the form of TTS 

from MFAS exposure. NMFS believes it 

unlikely that 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 37 m for the most 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

33892 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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. For harbor 

seals, more animals will be exposed to 

levels associated with TTS because of 

the lower threshold (183 SEL) that can 

be heard approximately 1,400 m from 

the highest powered AN/SQS–53C 

source. As mentioned above and 

indicated in Table 5, some pinniped 

vocalizations might overlap with the 

MFAS/HFAS TTS frequency range (2– 

20 kHz), which could potentially 

temporarily decrease an animal’s 

sensitivity to the calls of conspecifics or 

returning echolocation signals. 

However, as noted previously, NMFS 

does not anticipate TTS of a long 

duration or severe degree to occur as a 

result of exposure to MFAS/HFAS. 

The acoustic analysis also predicted 

that 1 Pacific harbor seal would be 

exposed to MFAS/HFAS sound levels 

that would result in Level A Harassment 

(PTS—injury). However, because of the 

distance within which they would have 

to approach the MFAS source 

(approximately 50 m for the most 

powerful source) and the fact that 

animals will likely avoid active sonar 

sources to some degree, NMFS does not 

believe that any animals will incur PTS 

or be otherwise injured by MFAS/ 

HFAS. However, the Navy has requested 

authorization for one Level A take for 

Pacific harbor seals, so NMFS is 

considering it in our analysis. 

Acoustic analysis also predicted that 

of the total level B harassment takes 

listed in the first paragraph, 44 Northern 

fur seals, 1 California sea lion, and 29 

northern elephant seals would be 

exposed to sound or pressure from 

explosives at levels expected to result in 

TTS. For the same reasons listed above, 

NMFS anticipates that the Navy 

watchstanders would likely detect the 

majority of the individual northern 

elephant seals, northern fur seals, and 

California sea lions and implement the 

mitigation measures 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), therefore NMFS anticipates 

that some TTS might not be avoided 

during those exercises. Acoustic 

analysis also predicted that 2 northern 

elephant seals and 1 northern fur seal 

might be exposed to levels of sound or 

pressure from explosives that would 

result in PTS or other injury. NMFS 

anticipates that the Navy watchstanders 

would likely 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. However, an authorization for 

Level A take of these individuals allows 

the Navy to remain in compliance in the 

unlikely event that animals go 

undetected and enter an area with 

injurious energy or pressure levels, and 

therefore NMFS considers it in our 

analysis. 

Steller sea lions are MMPA depleted 

and ESA-listed with a decreasing 

population and they have designated 

critical habitat within the NWTRC. A 

small number, compared to the 

population estimate, are predicted to be 

taken by behavioral disturbance, and 

one potentially by injury, although 

NMFS does not anticipate this. Of note, 

the critical habitat (3 haulouts) has 

limitations for air approach distances 

and by sea approach distances and the 

Navy abides by these restrictions. 

Generally speaking, pinniped stocks 

in the NWTRC are thought to be stable 

or increasing. Based on the general 

information contained in the Negligible 

Impact Analysis section and this stockspecific summary of the effects of the 

takes, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the Navy’s specified 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on these stocks. 

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 NWTRC 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 NWTRC would not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the affected species or 

stocks for subsistence use for any Alaska 

Natives or Tribal member in the 

Northwest (e.g., Oregon, Washington, 

and northern California). Specifically, 

the Navy’s exercises would not affect 

any Alaskan Native because the 

activities will be limited to waters off 

the coast of Washington, Oregon, and 

northern California, areas outside of 

traditional Alaskan Native hunting 

grounds. Moreover, there are no 

cooperative agreements in force under 

the MMPA or Whaling Convention Act 

that would allow for the subsistence 

harvest of marine mammals in waters 

off the Northwest coast. Consequently, 

this action would not result in an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the affected species or 

stocks for taking for subsistence uses in 

the Northwest. 

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 seven marine mammal 

species and one sea turtle species that 

are listed as endangered under the ESA 

with confirmed or possible occurrence 

in the study area: Humpback whale, sei 

whale, fin whale, blue whale, sperm 

whale, southern resident killer whale, 

Steller sea lion, and the leatherback sea 

turtle. The Navy has begun consultation 

with NMFS pursuant to section 7 of the 

ESA, and NMFS will also consult 

internally on the issuance of an LOA 

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

for NWTRC 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 NWTRC, which was published 

on December 29, 2008. The Navy’s DEIS 

is posted on NMFS’ Web site: http:// 

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

incidental.htm#applications. NMFS 

intends to adopt the Navy’s Final EIS 

(FEIS), if adequate and appropriate. 

Currently, we believe that the adoption 

of the Navy’s FEIS will allow NMFS to 

meet its responsibilities under NEPA for 

the issuance of an LOA for NWTRC. If 

the Navy’s FEIS is deemed not to be 

adequate, NMFS would supplement the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33893 

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, the Chief Counsel for Regulation of 

the Department of Commerce has 

certified to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration that this proposed rule, 

if adopted, would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The 

Regulatory Flexibility Act requires 

Federal agencies to prepare an analysis 

of a rule’s impact on small entities 

whenever the agency is required to 

publish a notice of proposed 

rulemaking. However, a Federal agency 

may certify, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), 

that the action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The Navy is the sole entity that will be 

affected by this rulemaking, not a small 

governmental jurisdiction, small 

organization or small business, as 

defined by the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (RFA). Any requirements imposed 

by a Letter of Authorization issued 

pursuant to these regulations, and any 

monitoring or reporting requirements 

imposed by these regulations, will be 

applicable only to the Navy. NMFS does 

not expect the issuance of these 

regulations or the associated LOAs to 

result in any impacts to small entities 

pursuant to the RFA. Because this 

action, if adopted, would directly affect 

the Navy and not a small entity, NMFS 

concludes the action would not result in 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Dated: July 2, 2009. 

James Balsiger, 

Acting 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 Northwest Training 

Range Complex (NWTRC) 

Sec. 

218.110 Specified activity and specified 

geographical area. 

218.111 [Reserved] 

218.112 Permissible methods of taking. 

218.113 Prohibitions. 

218.114 Mitigation. 

218.115 Requirements for monitoring and 

reporting. 

218.116 Applications for Letters of 

Authorization. 

218.117 Letters of Authorization. 

218.118 Renewal of Letters of Authorization 

and adaptive management. 

218.119 Modifications to Letters of 

Authorization. 

Subpart M—Taking and Importing 

Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy’s 

Northwest Training Range Complex 

(NWTRC) 

§ 218.110 Specified activity and specified 

geographical area. 

(a) Regulations in this subpart apply 

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

marine mammals that occurs in the area 

outlined in paragraph (b) of this section 

and that occur incidental to the 

activities described in paragraph (c) of 

this section. 

(b) The taking of marine mammals by 

the Navy is only authorized if it occurs 

within the Offshore area of the 

Northwest Training Range Complex 

(NWTRC) (as depicted in Figure ES–1 in 

the Navy’s Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement for NWTRC), which is 

bounded by 48°30′ N. lat.; 130°00′ W. 

long.; 40°00′ N. lat.; and on the east by 

124°00′ W. long or by the shoreline 

where the shoreline extends west of 

124°00′ W. long (excluding the Strait of 

Juan de Fuca (east of 124°40′ W. long), 

which is not included in the Offshore 

area). 

(c) The taking of marine mammals by 

the Navy is only authorized if it occurs 

incidental to the following activities 

within the designated amounts of use: 

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

high frequency active sonar (HFAS) 

sources for U.S. Navy anti-submarine 

warfare (ASW) and mine warfare (MIW) 

training, in the amounts and in the 

locations indicated below (±10%): 

(i) AN/SQS–53 (hull-mounted active 

sonar)—up to 215 hours over the course 

of 5 years (an average of 43 hours per 

year); 

(ii) AN/SQS–56 (hull-mounted active 

sonar)—up to 330 hours over the course 

of 5 years (an average of 65 hours per 

year); 

(iii) SSQ–62 (Directional Command 

Activated Sonobuoy System (DICASS) 

sonobuoys)—up to 4430 sonobuoys over 

the course of 5 years (an average of 886 

sonobuoys per year) 

(iv) MK–48 (heavyweight torpedoes)— 

up to 10 torpedoes over the course of 5 

years (an average of 2 torpedoes per 

year); 

(v) AN/BQS–15 (mine detection and 

submarine navigational sonar)—up to 

210 hours over the course of 5 years (an 

average of 42 hours per year); 

(vi) AN/SSQ–125 (AEER)—up to 745 

buoys deployed over the course of 5 

years (total combined with the AN/ 

SSQ–110A (IEER)) (an average of 149 

per year); 

(vii) Range Pingers—up to 900 hours 

over the course of 5 years (an average of 

180 hours per year); and 

(viii) PUTR Uplink—up to 750 hours 

over the course of 5 years (an average of 

150 hours per year). 

(2) The detonation of the underwater 

explosives indicated in this paragraph 

(c)(2)(i) conducted as part of the training 

events indicated in this paragraph 

(c)(2)(ii): 

(i) Underwater Explosives 

(A) 5′′ Naval Gunfire (9.5 lbs); 

(B) 76 mm rounds (1.6 lbs); 

(C) Maverick (78.5 lbs); 

(D) Harpoon (448 lbs); 

(E) MK–82 (238 lbs); 

(F) MK–48 (851 lbs); 

(G) Demolition Charges (2.5 lbs); 

(H) AN/SSQ–110A (IEER explosive 

sonobuoy—5 lbs); 

(I) HARM; 

(J) Hellfire; 

(K) SLAM; and 

(L) GBU 10, 12, and 16. 

(ii) Training Events 

(A) Surface-to-surface Gunnery 

Exercises (S–S GUNEX)—up to 1700 

exercises over the course of 5 years (an 

average of 340 per year). 

(B) Bombing Exercises (BOMBEX)—up 

to 150 exercises over the course of 5 

years (an average of 30 per year). 

(C) Sinking Exercises (SINKEX)—up 

to 10 exercises over the course of 5 years 

(an average of 2 per year). 

(D) Extended Echo Ranging and 

Improved Extended Echo Ranging (EER/ 

IEER) Systems—up to 60 exercises (total 

combined with the AN/SSQ–125A 

(AEER)) over the course of 5 years (an 

average of 12 per year). 

§ 218.111 [Reserved] 

§ 218.112 Permissible methods of taking. 

(a) Under Letters of Authorization 

issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 and 

218.117 of this chapter, the Holder of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

33894 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

the Letter of Authorization (hereinafter 

‘‘Navy’’) may incidentally, but not 

intentionally, take marine mammals 

within the area described in 

§ 218.110(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 

§ 218.110(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 § 218.110(c) is limited to the 

following species, by the indicated 

method of take and the indicated 

number of times (estimated based on the 

authorized amounts of sound source 

operation): 

(1) Level B Harassment (±10% of the 

Take Estimate Indicated Below) 

(i) Mysticetes 

(A) Humpback whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae)—75 (an average of 15 

annually); 

(B) Fin whale (Balaenoptera 

physalus)—720 (an average of 144 

annually); 

(C) Blue whale (Balaenoptera 

musculus)—95 (an average of 19 

annually); 

(D) Sei whale (Balaenoptera 

borealis)—5 (an average of 1 annually); 

(E) Minke whale (Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata)—45 (an average of 9 

annually); and 

(F) Gray whale (Eschrichtius 

robustus)—20 (an average of 4 

annually). 

(ii) Odontocetes 

(A) Sperm whales (Physeter 

macrocephalus)—635 (an average of 127 

annually); 

(B) Killer whale (Orcinus orca)—70 

(an average of 14 annually); 

(C) Pygmy or dwarf sperm whales 

(Kogia breviceps or Kogia sima)—20 (an 

average of 94 annually); 

(D) Mesoplodont beaked whales—75 

(an average of 15 annually); 

(E) Cuvier’s beaked whales (Ziphius 

cavirostris)—70 (an average of 14 

annually); 

(F) Baird’s beaked whales (Berardius 

bairdii)—65 (an average of 13 annually); 

(G) Short-finned pilot whale 

(Globicephala macrorynchus)—10 (an 

average of 2 annually); 

(H) Striped dolphin (Stenella 

coeruleoalba)—400 (an average of 40 

annually); 

(I) Short-beaked common dolphin 

(Globicephala macrorhynchus)—6280 

(an average of 1256 annually); 

(J) Risso’s dolphin (Grampus 

griseus)—500 (an average of 100 

annually); 

(K) Northern right whale dolphin 

(Lissodelphis borealis)—3705 (an 

average of 741 annually); 

(L) Pacific white-sided dolphin 

(Lagenorhynchus obliquidens)—2855 

(an average of 571 annually); 

(M) Dall’s porpoise (Phocoenoides 

dalli)—23780 (an average of 4752 

annually); and 

(N) Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena 

phocoena)—596370 (an average of 

119274 annually). 

(ii) Pinnipeds 

(A) Northern elephant seal (Mirounga 

angustirostris)—1890 (an average of 378 

annually); 

(B) Pacific harbor seal (Phoca 

vitulina)—2930 (an average of 586 

annually); 

(C) California sea lion (Zalophus 

californianus)—1430 (an average of 286 

annually); 

(D) Northern fur seal (Callorhinus 

ursinus)—6825 (an average of 1365 

annually); and 

(E) Steller sea lion (Eumetopias 

jubatus)—600 (an average of 120 

annually). 

(2) Level A Harassment 

(i) Fin whale—5 (an average of 1 

annually); 

(ii) Blue Whale—5 (an average of 1 

annually); 

(iii) Sperm whale—5 (an average of 1 

annually); 

(iv) Dall’s Porpoise—15 (an average of 

3 annually); 

(v) Harbor Porpoise—5 (an average of 

1 annually); 

(vi) Northern right whale dolphin—5 

(an average of 1 annually); 

(vii) Short-beaked common dolphin— 

10 (an average of 2 annually); 

(viii) Northern elephant seal—10 (an 

average of 2 annually); 

(ix) Pacific harbor seal—5 (an average 

of 1 annually); and 

(x) Northern fur seal—5 (an average of 

1 annually). 

§ 218.113 Prohibitions. 

No person in connection with the 

activities described in § 218.110 may: 

(a) Take any marine mammal not 

specified in § 218.112(c); 

(b) Take any marine mammal 

specified in § 218.112(c) other than by 

incidental take as specified in 

§§ 218.112(c)(1) and (c)(2); 

(c) Take a marine mammal specified 

in § 218.112(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 218.117 of this chapter. 

§ 218.114 Mitigation. 

(a) When conducting training and 

utilizing the sound sources or 

explosives identified in § 218.110(c), the 

mitigation measures contained in the 

Letter of Authorization issued under 

§§ 216.106 and 218.117 of this chapter 

must be implemented. These mitigation 

measures include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Navy’s General Maritime Measures 

for All Training at Sea 

(i) Personnel Training (for All Training 

Types) 

(A) All commanding officers (COs), 

executive officers (XOs), lookouts, 

Officers of the Deck (OODs), junior 

OODs (JOODs), maritime patrol aircraft 

aircrews, and Anti-submarine Warfare 

(ASW)/Mine Warfare (MIW) helicopter 

crews shall complete the NMFSapproved Marine Species Awareness 

Training (MSAT) by viewing the U.S. 

Navy MSAT digital versatile disk (DVD). 

All bridge lookouts shall complete both 

parts one and two of the MSAT; part 

two is optional for other personnel. 

(B) 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). 

(C) 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. 

(D) 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. 

(ii) Operating Procedures and Collision 

Avoidance 

(A) 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33895 

training requirement and general marine 

species protective measures. 

(B) COs shall make use of marine 

species detection cues and information 

to limit interaction with marine species 

to the maximum extent possible 

consistent with safety of the ship. 

(C) While underway, surface vessels 

shall have at least two lookouts with 

binoculars; surfaced submarines shall 

have at least one lookout with 

binoculars. Lookouts already posted for 

safety of navigation and man-overboard 

precautions may be used to fill this 

requirement. As part of their regular 

duties, lookouts will watch for and 

report to the OOD the presence of 

marine mammals. 

(D) On surface vessels equipped with 

a multi-function active sensor, pedestal 

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

shall be properly installed and in good 

working order to assist in the detection 

of marine mammals in the vicinity of 

the vessel. 

(E) Personnel on lookout shall employ 

visual search procedures employing a 

scanning methodology in accordance 

with the Lookout Training Handbook 

(NAVEDTRA 12968–D). 

(F) After sunset and prior to sunrise, 

lookouts shall employ Night Lookouts 

Techniques in accordance with the 

Lookout Training Handbook. 

(NAVEDTRA 12968–D). 

(G) While in transit, naval vessels 

shall 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. 

(H) When marine mammals have been 

sighted in the area, Navy vessels shall 

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 are dictated by environmental and 

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

(I) Navy aircraft participating in 

exercises at sea shall conduct and 

maintain, when operationally feasible 

and safe, surveillance for marine 

mammals as long as it does not violate 

safety constraints or interfere with the 

accomplishment of primary operational 

duties. 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. 

(2) Navy’s Measures for MFAS 

Operations 

(i) Personnel Training (for MFAS 

Operations) 

(A) 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. 

(B) 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 midfrequency active sonar. 

(C) Navy lookouts shall undertake 

extensive training in order to qualify as 

a watchstander in accordance with the 

Lookout Training Handbook (Naval 

Educational Training [NAVEDTRA], 

12968–D). 

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

supervision of a qualified, experienced 

watchstander. Following successful 

completion of this supervised training 

period, lookouts shall complete the 

Personal Qualification Standard 

program, certifying that they have 

demonstrated the necessary skills (such 

as detection and reporting of partially 

submerged objects). This does not forbid 

personnel being trained as lookouts 

from being counted as those listed in 

previous measures so long as 

supervisors monitor their progress and 

performance. 

(E) Lookouts shall be trained in the 

most effective means to ensure quick 

and effective communication within the 

command structure in order to facilitate 

implementation of mitigation measures 

if marine species are spotted. 

(ii) Lookout and Watchstander 

Responsibilities 

(A) 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. 

(B) All surface ships participating in 

ASW training events shall, in addition 

to the three personnel on watch noted 

previously, have at all times during the 

exercise at least two additional 

personnel on watch as marine mammal 

lookouts. 

(C) After sunset and prior to sunrise, 

lookouts shall employ Night Lookouts 

Techniques in accordance with the 

Lookout Training Handbook. 

(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 Officer of the Deck, since 

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

periscope, surface disturbance, 

discoloration) in the water may be 

indicative of a threat to the vessel and 

its crew or indicative of a marine 

species that may need to be avoided as 

warranted. 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. 

(iii) Operating Procedures (for MFAS 

Operations) 

(A) 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. 

(B) 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. 

(C) Navy aircraft participating in 

exercises at sea shall conduct and 

maintain, when operationally feasible 

and safe, surveillance for marine species 

of concern as long as it does not violate 

safety constraints or interfere with the 

accomplishment of primary operational 

duties. 

(D) Aircraft with deployed sonobuoys 

shall use only the passive capability of 

sonobuoys when marine mammals are 

detected within 200 yds (183 m) of the 

sonobuoy. 

(E) 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 where 

it is reasonable to conclude that the 

course of the ship will likely result in 

a closing of the distance to the detected 

marine mammal. 

(F) Safety Zones—When marine 

mammals are detected by any means 

(aircraft, shipboard lookout, or 

acoustically) within or closing to inside 

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

(the bow), the ship or submarine shall 

limit active transmission levels to at 

least 6 decibels (dB) below normal 

operating levels. 

(1) Ships and submarines shall 

continue to limit maximum 

transmission levels by this 6-dB factor 

until the animal has been seen to leave 

the area, has not been detected for 30 

minutes, or the vessel has transited 

more than 2,000 yds (1829 m) beyond 

the location of the last detection. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

33896 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(2) Should a marine mammal be 

detected within or closing to inside 500 

yds (457 m) of the sonar dome, active 

sonar transmissions shall be limited to 

at least 10 dB below the equipment’s 

normal operating level. Ships and 

submarines shall continue to limit 

maximum ping levels by this 10-dB 

factor until the animal has been seen to 

leave the area, has not been detected for 

30 minutes, or the vessel has transited 

more than 2,000 yds (1829 m) beyond 

the location of the last detection. 

(3) Should the marine mammal be 

detected within or closing to inside 200 

yds (183 m) of the sonar dome, active 

sonar transmissions shall cease. Sonar 

shall not resume until the animal has 

been seen to leave the area, has not been 

detected for 30 minutes, or the vessel 

has transited more than 2,000 yds (1829 

m) beyond the location of the last 

detection. 

(4) 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. 

(5) If the need for power-down should 

arise as detailed in ‘‘Safety Zones’’ 

above, 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). 

(G) Prior to start up or restart of active 

sonar, operators will check that the 

Safety Zone radius around the sound 

source is clear of marine mammals. 

(H) 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. 

(3) Navy’s Measures for Underwater 

Detonations 

(i) Surface-to-Surface Gunnery (NonExplosive Rounds) 

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

zone shall be established around the 

intended target. 

(B) 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. 

(C) If applicable, target towing vessels 

shall maintain a lookout. 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. 

(D) 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. 

(ii) Surface-to-Air Gunnery (Explosive 

and Non-Explosive Rounds) 

(A) Vessels shall orient the geometry 

of gunnery exercises in order to prevent 

debris from falling in the area of sighted 

marine mammals. 

(B) Vessels will expedite the recovery 

of any parachute deploying aerial targets 

to reduce the potential for entanglement 

of marine mammals. 

(C) Target towing aircraft shall 

maintain a lookout. 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. 

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

Exercises (Explosive and NonExplosive) 

(A) If surface vessels are involved, 

trained lookouts shall survey for floating 

kelp and marine mammals. Ordnance 

shall not be targeted to impact within 

1,000 yds (914 m) of known or observed 

floating kelp or marine mammals. 

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

zone shall be established around the 

intended target. 

(C) 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. Release of ordnance 

through cloud cover is prohibited: 

aircraft must be able to actually see 

ordnance impact areas. Survey aircraft 

should employ most effective search 

tactics and capabilities. 

(D) The exercise will be conducted 

only if marine mammals are not visible 

within the buffer zone. 

(iv) Air-to-Surface Missile Exercises 

(Explosive and Non-Explosive) 

(A) Ordnance shall not be targeted to 

impact within 1,800 yds (1646 m) of 

observed floating kelp. 

(B) Aircraft shall visually survey the 

target area for marine mammals. Visual 

inspection of the target area shall be 

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

lower, if safe to do so, and at slowest 

safe speed. Firing or range clearance 

aircraft must be able to actually see 

ordnance impact areas. Explosive 

ordnance shall not be targeted to impact 

within 1,800 yds (1646 m) of sighted 

marine mammals. 

(v) Demolitions, Mine Warfare, and 

Mine Countermeasures (Up to a 2.5-lb 

Charge) 

(A) Exclusion Zones—All Mine 

Warfare and Mine Countermeasures 

Operations involving the use of 

explosive charges must include 

exclusion zones for marine mammals to 

prevent physical and/or acoustic effects 

to those species. These exclusion zones 

shall extend in a 700-yard arc radius 

around the detonation site. 

(B) Pre-Exercise Surveys—For 

Demolition and Ship Mine 

Countermeasures Operations, preexercise surveys shall be conducted 

within 30 minutes prior to the 

commencement of the scheduled 

explosive event. The survey may be 

conducted from the surface, by divers, 

and/or from the air, and personnel shall 

be alert to the presence of any marine 

mammal. Should such an animal be 

present within the survey area, the 

explosive event shall not be started until 

the animal voluntarily leaves the area. 

The Navy will ensure the area is clear 

of marine mammals for a full 30 

minutes prior to initiating the explosive 

event. Personnel will record any marine 

mammal observations during the 

exercise as well as measures taken if 

species are detected within the 

exclusion zone. 

(C) Post-Exercise Surveys—Surveys 

within the same radius shall also be 

conducted within 30 minutes after the 

completion of the explosive event. 

(D) Reporting—If there is evidence 

that a marine mammal may have been 

stranded, injured or killed by the action, 

Navy training activities shall be 

immediately suspended and the 

situation immediately reported by the 

participating unit to the Officer in 

Charge of the Exercise (OCE), who will 

follow Navy procedures for reporting 

the incident to the Commander, Pacific 

Fleet, Commander, Navy Region 

Northwest, Environmental Director, and 

the chain of command. The situation 

shall also be reported to NMFS (see 

Stranding Plan for details). 

(vi) Sink Exercise 

(A) All weapons firing shall be 

conducted during the period 1 hour 

after official sunrise to 30 minutes 

before official sunset. 

(B) An exclusion zone with a radius 

of 1.0 nm (1.9 km) would be established 

around each target. This exclusion zone 

is based on calculations using a 990-lb 

(450-kg) H6 net explosive weight high 

explosive source detonated 5 ft (1.5 m) 

below the surface of the water, which 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33897 

yields a distance of 0.85 nm (1.57 km) 

(cold season) and 0.89 nm (1.65 km) 

(warm season) beyond which the 

received level is below the 182 decibels 

(dB) re: 1 micropascal squared-seconds 

(μPa2-s) threshold established for the 

WINSTON S. CHURCHILL (DDG 81) 

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

additional buffer of 0.5 nm (0.9 km) 

would be added to account for errors, 

target drift, and animal movements. 

Additionally, a safety zone, which 

would extend beyond the buffer zone by 

an additional 0.5 nm (0.9 km), would be 

surveyed. Together, the zones extend 

out 2 nm (3.7 km) from the target. 

(C) 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: 

(1) 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. 

(2) All visual surveillance activities 

shall be conducted by Navy personnel 

trained in visual surveillance. At least 

one member of the mitigation team 

would have completed the Navy’s 

marine mammal training program for 

lookouts. 

(3) In addition to the overflights, the 

exclusion zone shall be monitored by 

passive acoustic means, when assets are 

available. This passive acoustic 

monitoring would be maintained 

throughout the exercise. Potential assets 

include sonobuoys, which can be 

utilized to detect any vocalizing marine 

mammals (particularly sperm whales) in 

the vicinity of the exercise. The 

sonobuoys shall be re-seeded as 

necessary throughout the exercise. 

Additionally, passive sonar onboard 

submarines may be utilized to detect 

any vocalizing marine mammals in the 

area. The OCE would be informed of 

any aural detection of marine mammals 

and would include this information in 

the determination of when it is safe to 

commence the exercise. 

(4) On each day of the exercise, aerial 

surveillance of the exclusion and safety 

zones shall commence 2 hours prior to 

the first firing. 

(5) 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. 

(6) If a marine mammal observed 

within the exclusion zone is diving, 

firing would be delayed until the animal 

is re-sighted outside the exclusion zone, 

or 30 minutes have elapsed. After 30 

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

the exclusion zone. The OCE would 

determine if the listed species is in 

danger of being adversely affected by 

commencement of the exercise. 

(7) 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, the 

OCE shall be notified, and the 

procedure described above would be 

followed. 

(8) 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. 

(D) 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 would be used. 

These aircraft would be capable of 

flying at the slow safe speeds necessary 

to enable viewing of marine vertebrates 

with unobstructed, or minimally 

obstructed, downward and outward 

visibility. The exclusion and safety zone 

surveys may be cancelled in the event 

that a mechanical problem, emergency 

search and rescue, or other similar and 

unexpected event preempts the use of 

one of the aircraft onsite for the 

exercise. 

(E) Every attempt would be made to 

conduct the exercise in sea states that 

are ideal for marine mammal sighting, 

Beaufort Sea State 3 or less. In the event 

of a 4 or above, survey efforts shall be 

increased within the zones. This shall 

be accomplished through the use of an 

additional aircraft, if available, and 

conducting tight search patterns. 

(F) The exercise shall not be 

conducted unless the exclusion zone 

could be adequately monitored visually. 

(G) 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. 

This information shall be provided to 

NMFS via the Navy’s regional 

environmental coordinator for purposes 

of identification (see the Stranding Plan 

for detail). 

(H) 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. 

(vii) Extended Echo Ranging/Improved 

Extended Echo Ranging (EER/IEER) 

(A) Crews shall conduct visual 

reconnaissance of the drop area prior to 

laying their intended sonobuoy pattern. 

This search shall be conducted at an 

altitude below 457 m (500 yd) at a slow 

speed, if operationally feasible and 

weather conditions permit. In dual 

aircraft operations, crews are allowed to 

conduct coordinated area clearances. 

(B) 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. 

(C) For any part of the briefed pattern 

where a post (source/receiver sonobuoy 

pair) will be deployed within 914 m 

(1,000 yd) of observed marine mammal 

activity, the Navy shall deploy the 

receiver ONLY and monitor while 

conducting a visual search. When 

marine mammals are no longer detected 

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

post position, the Navy shall co-locate 

the explosive source sonobuoy (AN/ 

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

(D) 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. 

(E) 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. 

(F) Visual Detection—If marine 

mammals are visually detected within 

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

sonobuoy (AN/SSQ–110A) intended for 

use, then that payload shall not be 

detonated. Aircrews may utilize this 

post once the marine mammals have not 

been re-sighted for 30 minutes, or are 

observed to have moved outside the 914 

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

shift their multi-static active search to 

another post, where marine mammals 

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

buffer. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

33898 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(G) Aircrews shall make every attempt 

to manually detonate the unexploded 

charges at each post in the pattern prior 

to departing the operations area by 

using the ‘‘Payload 1 Release’’ command 

followed by the ‘‘Payload 2 Release’’ 

command. Aircrews shall refrain from 

using the ‘‘Scuttle’’ command when two 

payloads remain at a given post. 

Aircrews will ensure that a 914 m (1,000 

yd) safety buffer, visually clear of 

marine mammals, is maintained around 

each post as is done during active 

search operations. 

(H) Aircrews shall only leave posts 

with unexploded charges in the event of 

a sonobuoy malfunction, an aircraft 

system malfunction, or when an aircraft 

must immediately depart the area due to 

issues such as fuel constraints, 

inclement weather, and in-flight 

emergencies. In these cases, the 

sonobuoy will self-scuttle using the 

secondary or tertiary method. 

(I) The Navy shall ensure all payloads 

are accounted for. Explosive source 

sonobuoys (AN/SSQ–110A) that can not 

be scuttled shall be reported as 

unexploded ordnance via voice 

communications while airborne, then 

upon landing via naval message. 

(J) Mammal monitoring shall continue 

until out of own-aircraft sensor range. 

(viii) Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) 

The Navy and NMFS shall develop an 

MOA, or other mechanism consistent 

with Federal fiscal law requirements 

(and all other applicable laws), that 

allows the Navy to assist NMFS with the 

Phase 1 and 2 Investigations of USEs 

through the provision of in-kind 

services, such as (but not limited to) the 

use of plane/boat/truck for transport of 

personnel involved in the stranding 

response or investigation or animals, 

use of Navy property for necropsies or 

burial, or assistance with aerial surveys 

to discern the extent of a USE. The Navy 

may assist NMFS with the 

Investigations by providing one or more 

of the in-kind services outlined in the 

MOA, when available and logistically 

feasible and when the assistance does 

not negatively affect Fleet operational 

commitments. 

(b) [Reserved] 

§ 218.115 Requirements for monitoring 

and reporting. 

(a) The Navy is required to cooperate 

with the NMFS, and any other Federal, 

State or local agency monitoring the 

impacts of the activity on marine 

mammals. 

(b) General Notification of Injured or 

Dead Marine Mammals—Navy 

personnel shall ensure that NMFS is 

notified immediately ((see 

Communication Plan) or as soon as 

clearance procedures allow) if an 

injured, stranded, or dead marine 

mammal is found during or shortly 

after, and in the vicinity of, any Navy 

training exercise utilizing MFAS, HFAS, 

or underwater explosive detonations. 

The Navy will provide NMFS with 

species or description of the animal(s), 

the condition of the animal(s) (including 

carcass condition if the animal is dead), 

location, time of first discovery, 

observed behaviors (if alive), and photo 

or video (if available). In the event that 

an injured, stranded, or dead marine 

mammal is found by the Navy that is 

not in the vicinity of, or during or 

shortly after, MFAS, HFAS, or 

underwater explosive detonations, the 

Navy will report the same information 

as listed above as soon as operationally 

feasible and clearance procedures allow. 

(c) 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 unknown) 

(2) Report to NMFS as soon as 

operationally feasible the size and 

length of animal, an estimate of the 

injury status (ex., dead, injured but 

alive, injured and moving, unknown, 

etc.), vessel class/type and operational 

status. 

(3) Report to NMFS the vessel length, 

speed, and heading as soon as feasible. 

(4) Provide NMFS a photo or video, if 

equipment is available 

(d) Event Communication Plan—The 

Navy shall develop a communication 

plan that will include all of the 

communication protocols (phone trees, 

etc.) and associated contact information 

required for NMFS and the Navy to 

carry out the necessary expeditious 

communication required in the event of 

a stranding or ship strike, including as 

described in the proposed notification 

measures above. 

(e) The Navy must conduct all 

monitoring and/or research required 

under the Letter of Authorization 

including abiding by the NWTRC 

Monitoring Plan (http:// 

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

incidental.htm#applications) 

(f) Report on Monitoring required in 

paragraph (c) of this section—The Navy 

shall submit a report annually on 

September 1 describing the 

implementation and results (through 

June 1 of the same year) of the 

monitoring required in paragraph (c) of 

this section. Navy will standardize data 

collection methods across ranges to 

allow for comparison in different 

geographic locations. 

(g) Annual NWTRC Report—The Navy 

will submit an Annual NWTRC Report 

on October 1 of every year (covering 

data gathered through August 1). This 

report shall contain the subsections and 

information indicated below. 

(1) ASW Summary—This section shall 

include the following information as 

summarized from non-major training 

exercises (unit-level exercises, such as 

TRACKEXs and MIW): 

(i) Total Hours—Total annual hours of 

each type of sonar source (along with 

explanation of how hours are calculated 

for sources typically quantified in 

alternate way (buoys, torpedoes, etc.)) 

(ii) Cumulative Impacts—To the 

extent practicable, the Navy, in 

coordination with NMFS, shall develop 

and implement a method of annually 

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

utilizing hull-mounted sonar. The report 

shall present an annual (and seasonal, 

where practicable) depiction of nonmajor training exercises geographically 

across NWTRC. The Navy shall include 

(in the NWTRC 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. 

(h) Sinking Exercises (SINKEXs)— 

This section shall include the following 

information for each SINKEX completed 

that year: 

(1) Exercise Info; 

(i) Location; 

(ii) Date and time exercise began and 

ended; 

(iii) Total hours of observation by 

watchstanders before, during, and after 

exercise; 

(iv) Total number and types of rounds 

expended/explosives detonated; 

(v) Number and types of passive 

acoustic sources used in exercise; 

(vi) Total hours of passive acoustic 

search time; 

(vii) Number and types of vessels, 

aircraft, etc., participating in exercise; 

(viii) Wave height in feet (high, low 

and average during exercise); and 

(ix) Narrative description of sensors 

and platforms utilized for marine 

mammal detection and timeline 

illustrating how marine mammal 

detection was conducted 

(2) Individual Marine Mammal 

Observation during SINKEX (by Navy 

Lookouts) Information 

(i) Location of sighting; 

(ii) Species (if not possible— 

indication of whale/dolphin/pinniped); 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33899 

(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: 

(A) The modeled injury threshold 

radius for the largest explosive used in 

that exercise type in that OPAREA (TBD 

m for SINKEX in NWTRC); 

(B) The required exclusion zone (1 nm 

for SINKEX in NWTRC); 

(C) The required observation distance 

(if different than the exclusion zone (2 

nm for SINKEX in NWTRC); and 

(D) Greater than the required observed 

distance. For example, in this case, the 

observer would indicate if < TBD m, 

from 738 m ¥ 1 nm, from 1 nm ¥ 2 

nm, and > 2 nm. 

(xi) Observed behavior— 

Watchstanders will report, in plain 

language and without trying to 

categorize in any way, the observed 

behavior of the animals (such as animal 

closing to bow ride, paralleling course/ 

speed, floating on surface and not 

swimming etc.), including speed and 

direction. 

(xii) Resulting mitigation 

implementation—Indicate whether 

explosive detonations were delayed, 

ceased, modified, or not modified due to 

marine mammal presence and for how 

long. 

(xiii) If observation occurs while 

explosives are detonating in the water, 

indicate munitions type in use at time 

of marine mammal detection. 

(i) Improved Extended Echo-Ranging 

System (IEER) Summary 

(1) Total number of IEER events 

conducted in NWTRC; 

(2) Total expended/detonated rounds 

(buoys); and 

(3) Total number of self-scuttled IEER 

rounds. 

(j) Explosives Summary—The Navy is 

in the process of improving the methods 

used to track explosive use to provide 

increased granularity. To the extent 

practicable, the Navy shall provide the 

information described below for all of 

their explosive exercises. Until the Navy 

is able to report in full the information 

below, they will provide an annual 

update on the Navy’s explosive tracking 

methods, including improvements from 

the previous year. 

(1) Total annual number of each type 

of explosive exercise (of those identified 

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

final rule) conducted in NWTRC; and 

(2) Total annual expended/detonated 

rounds (missiles, bombs, etc.) for each 

explosive type. 

(k) NWTRC 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 

NWTRC Exercise Reports and NWTRC 

Monitoring Plan Reports). This report 

will be submitted at the end of the 

fourth year of the rule (November 2013), 

covering activities that have occurred 

through June 1, 2013. 

(l) Comprehensive National ASW 

Report—By June, 2014, the Navy shall 

submit a draft National Report that 

analyzes, compares, and summarizes the 

active sonar data gathered (through 

January 1, 2014) from the watchstanders 

and pursuant to the implementation of 

the Monitoring Plans for the Northwest 

Training Range Complex, the Southern 

California Range Complex, the Atlantic 

Fleet Active Sonar Training, the Hawaii 

Range Complex, the Marianas Islands 

Range Complex, and the Gulf of Alaska. 

§ 218.116 Applications for Letters of 

Authorization. 

To incidentally take marine mammals 

pursuant to these regulations, the U.S. 

Citizen (as defined by § 216.103) 

conducting the activity identified in 

§ 218.110(c) (i.e., the Navy) must apply 

for and obtain either an initial Letter of 

Authorization in accordance with 

§ 218.117 or a renewal under § 218.118. 

§ 218.117 Letters of Authorization. 

(a) A Letter of Authorization, unless 

suspended or revoked, will be valid for 

a period of time not to exceed the period 

of validity of this subpart, but must be 

renewed annually subject to annual 

renewal conditions in § 218.118. 

(b) Each Letter of Authorization shall 

set forth: 

(1) Permissible methods of incidental 

taking; 

(2) Means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact on the 

species, its habitat, and on the 

availability of the species for 

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

(3) Requirements for mitigation, 

monitoring and reporting. 

(c) Issuance and renewal of the Letter 

of Authorization shall be based on a 

determination that the total number of 

marine mammals taken by the activity 

as a whole will have no more than a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stock of marine mammal(s). 

§ 218.118 Renewal of Letters of 

Authorization and adaptive management. 

(a) A Letter of Authorization issued 

under § 216.106 and § 218.177 of this 

chapter or the activity identified in 

§ 218.170(c) will be renewed annually 

upon: 

(1) Notification to NMFS that the 

activity described in the application 

submitted under § 218.246 will be 

undertaken and that there will not be a 

substantial modification to the 

described work, mitigation or 

monitoring undertaken during the 

upcoming 12 months; 

(2) Receipt of the monitoring reports 

and notifications within the indicated 

timeframes required under § 218.115(b 

through j); and 

(3) A determination by the NMFS that 

the mitigation, monitoring and reporting 

measures required under § 218.114 and 

the Letter of Authorization issued under 

§§ 216.106 and 218.117 of this chapter, 

were undertaken and will be undertaken 

during the upcoming annual period of 

validity of a renewed Letter of 

Authorization. 

(b) Adaptive Management—Based on 

new information, NMFS may modify or 

augment the existing mitigation 

measures if new data suggests that such 

modifications would have a reasonable 

likelihood of reducing adverse effects to 

marine mammals and if the measures 

are practicable. Similarly, NMFS may 

coordinate with the Navy to modify or 

augment the existing monitoring 

requirements if the new data suggest 

that the addition of a particular measure 

would likely fill in a specifically 

important data gap. The following are 

some possible sources of new and 

applicable data: 

(1) Results from the Navy’s 

monitoring from the previous year 

(either from the NWTRC or other 

locations); 

(2) Results from specific stranding 

investigations (either from the NWTRC 

Range Complex or other locations, and 

involving coincident MFAS/HFAS 

training or not involving coincident use) 

or NMFS’ long term prospective 

stranding investigation discussed in the 

preamble to this proposed rule; 

(3) Results from general marine 

mammal and sound research (funded by 

the Navy or otherwise); 

(4) 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. 

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

of Authorization issued under 

§§ 216.106 and 218.118 of this chapter 

indicates that a substantial modification 

to the described work, mitigation or 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3

33900 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 132 / Monday, July 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

monitoring undertaken during the 

upcoming season will occur, or if NMFS 

utilizes the adaptive management 

mechanism addressed in paragraph (b) 

of this section to modify or augment the 

mitigation or monitoring measures, the 

NMFS shall provide the public a period 

of 30 days for review and comment on 

the request. Review and comment on 

renewals of Letters of Authorization 

would be restricted to: 

(1) New cited information and data 

indicating that the determinations made 

in this document are in need of 

reconsideration, and 

(2) Proposed changes to the mitigation 

and monitoring requirements contained 

in these regulations or in the current 

Letter of Authorization. 

(d) A notice of issuance or denial of 

a renewal of a Letter of Authorization 

will be published in the Federal 

Register. 

§ 218.119 Modifications to Letters of 

Authorization. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, no substantive 

modification (including withdrawal or 

suspension) to the Letter of 

Authorization by NMFS, issued 

pursuant to §§ 216.106 and 218.117 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 § 218.118, 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 § 218.110(b), a 

Letter of Authorization issued pursuant 

to §§ 216.106 and 218.117 of this 

chapter may be substantively modified 

without prior notification and an 

opportunity for public comment. 

Notification will be published in the 

Federal Register within 30 days 

subsequent to the action. 

[FR Doc. E9–16301 Filed 7–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS3