33960 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

down the entire tree, in order to collect 

nestlings, leading to the loss of nest sites 

and site abandonment. Furthermore, the 

petition asserts that the remaining 

habitat of the species has been reduced 

due to the clearing of many gallery 

forests for agriculture and pasture land 

use. 

The scarlet macaw is found 

throughout Central and South America, 

with an estimated range of 

approximately 2,586,885 square miles 

(m2) (6,700,000 square kilometers (km2)) 

(IUCN 2008e). The species prefers 

humid lowland evergreen forests and 

gallery woodland savannas, primarily 

near exposed river banks and clearings 

with large trees (del Hoyo et al. 1997, p. 

421). The petition asserts that habitat 

destruction and captures for the pet 

trade are the greatest threats to the 

species. The petition claims that habitat 

destruction, as a result of forest clearing, 

settlement, and agriculture, is common 

throughout the species’ range. The 

petition also states that anti-poaching 

enforcement is not keeping up with the 

demand for this species in the pet trade, 

where one bird can sell for over $1,000 

(U.S.). 

The white cockatoo is endemic to 

several islands in North Maluku, 

Indonesia, and inhabits primary, logged, 

and secondary forests up to 2,953 ft (900 

m) (IUCN 2008h). The species also 

occurs in mangroves, on plantations, 

and on agricultural land (IUCN 2008h). 

The petition claims that the greatest 

threats to the species are habitat 

destruction and the pet trade. The 

petition states that an increase in 

logging activity has decreased the 

availability of large trees suitable for 

nest sites throughout the species’ range. 

In addition, the petition asserts that 

trapping of this species for the pet trade 

far exceeds the catch quota issued by 

the Indonesian government. 

The yellow-billed parrot is primarily 

found in the wet areas of Jamaica, 

inhabiting wet limestone forests at 

elevations up to 3,937 ft (1,200 m) 

(IUCN 2008a). The petition lists two 

primary threats to the species: habitat 

destruction and the pet trade. The 

petition claims that the species’ habitat, 

as well as nest sites, has been reduced 

due to logging and mining activities, 

and that trapping of this species for the 

pet trade is common. 

The yellow-crested cockatoo is native 

to Timor-Leste and Indonesia, and 

inhabits forest, forest edge, scrub, and 

agricultural land (IUCN 2008j). The 

petition asserts that the significant 

decline in the population of the species 

is directly attributable to trapping for 

the pet trade. The petition cites 

evidence that suggests that the 

international pet trade has placed the 

highest pressure on the wild population 

of the species. In addition, the petition 

claims that habitat loss, due to logging 

and agricultural conversion of forested 

lands, and the persecution of the species 

as a crop pest, has placed additional 

pressure on the remaining wild 

population. 

Finding 

On the basis of our review, which 

focused on the threats facing these 

parrot species, we find that the petition 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing may be warranted for the 

following 12 species of parrots: Blueheaded macaw, crimson shining parrot, 

great green macaw, grey-cheeked 

parakeet, hyacinth macaw, military 

macaw, Philippine cockatoo, redcrowned parrot, scarlet macaw, white 

cockatoo, yellow-billed parrot, and 

yellow-crested cockatoo. Therefore, we 

are initiating a status review to 

determine if listing any of these 12 

species under the Act is warranted. To 

ensure that the status review is 

comprehensive, we are soliciting 

scientific and commercial information 

regarding these 12 species. Under 

section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, within 12 

months after receiving a petition that is 

found to present substantial information 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted, we are required to 

make a finding as to whether listing the 

species is warranted, not warranted, or 

warranted but precluded by other 

pending listing proposals. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

herein is available upon request from 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Branch of Listing (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section). 

Author 

The primary authors of this notice are 

staff members of the Division of 

Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: June 16, 2009. 

Marvin E. Moriarty, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–16354 Filed 7–13– 09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 218 

RIN 0648–AX86 

Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental 

to Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Training 

Operations Conducted Within the Gulf 

of Mexico 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 requests 

from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for 

authorizations for the take of marine 

mammals incidental to training and 

operational activities conducted by the 

Navy’s Atlantic Fleet within the Gulf of 

Mexico (GOMEX) Range Complex for 

the period beginning December 3, 2009 

and ending December 2, 2014. Pursuant 

to the implementing regulations of 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 13, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by 0648–AX86, 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 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 NA in the required 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33961 

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: 

Shane Guan, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 713–2289, ext. 

137. 

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 the GOMEX Range 

Complex was published in November 

2008, and may be viewed at http:// 

www.gomexrangecomplexeis.com/. 

NMFS participated in the development 

of the Navy’s DEIS as a cooperating 

agency under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (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) if certain findings 

are made and regulations are issued or, 

if the taking is limited to harassment, 

notice of a proposed authorization is 

provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

may be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s), will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

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. 

With respect to military readiness 

activities, 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]. 

Summary of Request 

On October 2, 2008, NMFS received 

an application from the Navy requesting 

an authorization for the take of marine 

mammal species/stocks incidental to the 

proposed training operations within the 

GOMEX Range Complex over the course 

of 5 years. These training activities are 

classified as military readiness 

activities. The Navy states that these 

training activities may cause various 

impacts to marine mammal species in 

the proposed GOMEX Range Complex 

Study Area. The Navy requests an 

authorization to take 8 species of 

cetaceans annually by Level B 

harassment, and 1 individual each of 

pantropical spotted dolphin and spinner 

dolphin by Level A harassment (injury). 

Please refer to the take table on page 6– 

17 of the LOA application for detailed 

information of the potential exposures 

from explosive ordnance (per year) for 

marine mammals in the GOMEX Range 

Complex. However, due to the 

implementation of the proposed 

mitigation and monitoring measures, 

NMFS believes that the actual take 

would be less than estimated. 

Description of the Specified Activities 

The GOMEX Study Area encompasses 

areas at sea, undersea, and Special Use 

Airspace (SUA) in the northern Gulf of 

Mexico off the coast of the U.S. (Figures 

1 and 2 of the LOA application). The 

portions of the GOMEX Study Area to 

be considered for the proposed action 

consist of the BOMBEX Hotbox (surface 

and subsurface waters) located within 

the Pensacola Operation Area 

(OPAREA), SUA warning areas W– 

151A/B/C and W–155A/B (surface 

waters), and underwater detonation 

(UNDET) Area E3 (surface and 

subsurface waters), located within the 

territorial waters off Padre Island, Texas, 

near Corpus Christi NAS. The portions 

of the GOMEX Study Area addressed in 

the Navy’s LOA application encompass: 

• 1,496 nm2 (5,131 km2) of sea space 

(BOMBEX Hotbox, where high 

explosives occur, and UNDET Area E3 

where underwater detonations occur); 

and 

• 11,714 nm2 (40,178 km2) of SUA 

warning areas (vessel movements only) 

The BOMBEX Hotbox is an in-water 

operating and maneuvers area with 

defined air, ocean surface, and 

subsurface areas. The BOMBEX Hotbox 

is located in the offshore waters of the 

northeastern Gulf of Mexico (GOM) 

adjacent to Florida and Alabama. The 

northernmost boundary of the BOMBEX 

Hotbox is located 23 nm (42.6 km) from 

the coast of the Florida panhandle at 

latitude 30 °N, the eastern boundary is 

approximately 200 nm (370.4 km) from 

the coast of the Florida peninsula at 

longitude 86°48′ W. 

The SUA warning areas, W–151A/B/ 

C and W–155A/B, are in-water operating 

and maneuver areas with defined air 

and ocean surface. W–151A/B/C and 

W–155A/B are located in and above the 

offshore waters of the northeastern GOM 

adjacent to Florida and Alabama. 

The UNDET Area E3 is a defined 

surface and subsurface area located in 

the waters south of Corpus Christi NAS 

and offshore of Padre Island, Texas. The 

westernmost boundary is located 7.5 nm 

(13.9 km) from the coast of Padre Island 

at 97°9′33′′ W and 27°24′26′′ N at the 

Western most corner. It lies entirely 

within the territorial waters (0 to 12 nm, 

or 0 to 22.2 km) of the U.S. and the 

majority of it lies within Texas state 

waters (0 to 9 nm, or 0 to 16.7 km). It 

is a very shallow water training area 

with depths ranging from 20 to 26 m. 

In the application submitted to 

NMFS, the Navy requests an 

authorization to take marine mammals 

incidental to conducting training 

operations within the GOMEX Range 

Complex. These training activities 

consist of surface warfare. Although 

vessel movement is also a component of 

the proposed GOMEX Range Complex 

training activities, the Navy concludes 

that it is unlikely marine mammals 

would be taken by vessel movement 

with the implementation of mitigation 

and monitoring measures described in 

the Mitigation Measures and Monitoring 

Measures sections. 

Surface Warfare 

Surface Warfare (SUW) supports 

defense of a geographical area (e.g., a 

zone or barrier) in cooperation with 

surface, subsurface, and air forces. SUW 

operations detect, localize, and track 

surface targets, primarily ships. 

Detected ships are monitored visually 

and with radar. Operations include 

identifying surface contacts, engaging 

with weapons, disengaging, evasion, 

and avoiding attack, including 

implementation of radio silence and 

deceptive measures. For the proposed 

GOMEX Range Complex training 

operations, SUW events involving the 

use of explosive ordnance include airto-surface Bombing Exercises [BOMEX 

(A–S)] and small arms training 

(involving explosive hand grenades) 

that occur at sea. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
33962 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(A) Bombing Exercise (Air-to-Surface) 

[BOMEX (A–S)] 

Strike fighter aircraft, such as F/A– 

18s, deliver explosive bombs against atsea surface targets with the goal of 

destroying the target. BOMBEX (A–S) 

training in the GOMEX Study Area 

occurs only during daylight hours in the 

BOMBEX Hotbox area. 

For the proposed BOMBEX (A–S), two 

aircraft will approach an at-sea target 

from an altitude of between 15,000 ft 

(4,572 m) to less than 3,000 ft (914.4 m) 

and release a high explosive (HE) 1,000- 

pound (lb) bomb on the target. MK–83 

bombs would be used. MK–83 bombs 

have a net explosive weight (NEW) of 

415.8 lbs. The typical bomb release 

altitude is below 3,000 ft (914.4 m) and 

the target is usually a flare. The time in 

between bomb drops is approximately 3 

minutes. 

(B) Small Arms Training (Explosive 

Hand Grenades) 

Small arms training is a part of 

quarterly reservist training and 

operational activities for the Mobile 

Expeditionary Security Group (MESG) 

that operates out of Corpus Christi 

Naval Air Station (NAS). The MESG 

trains with MK3A2 (0.5-lb NEW) antiswimmer concussion grenades. The 

MK3A2 grenades are small and contain 

high explosives in an inert metal or 

plastic shell. They detonate at about 3 

m under the water’s surface within 4 to 

5 seconds of being deployed. The 

detonation depth may be shallower 

depending upon the speed of the boat at 

the time the grenade is deployed. 

A number of different types of boats 

will be used depending on the unit 

using the boat and their mission. Boats 

are mostly used by naval special warfare 

(NSW) teams and Navy Expeditionary 

Combat Command (NECC) units (Naval 

Coastal Warfare, Inshore Boat Units, 

Mobile Security Detachments, Explosive 

Ordnance Disposal, and Riverine 

Forces). These units are used to protect 

ships in harbors and high value units, 

such as aircraft carriers, nuclear 

submarines, liquid natural gas tankers, 

etc., while entering and leaving ports, as 

well as to conduct riverine operations, 

insertion and extractions, and various 

NSW operations. 

The boats used by these units include: 

Small Unit River Craft (SURC), Combat 

Rubber Raiding Craft (CRRC), Rigid Hull 

Inflatable Boats (RHIB), Patrol Craft, and 

many other versions of these types of 

boats. These boats use inboard or 

outboard, diesel or gasoline engines 

with either propeller or water jet 

propulsion. 

This exercise is usually a live-fire 

exercise with M3A2 Anti-swimmer 

Concussion Grenades, but at times 

blanks may be used so boat crews can 

practice their ship-handling skills for 

the employment of weapons without 

being concerned with the safety 

requirements involved with HE 

weapons. Boat crews may use high or 

low speeds to approach and engage 

targets simulating swimmers with antiswimmer concussion grenades. The 

purpose of this exercise is to develop 

marksmanship skills and small boat 

ship-handling tactics skills required to 

employ these weapons. Training usually 

lasts 1–2 hours. Small arms training in 

the GOMEX Study Area will occur 

during day or evening hours in the 

UNDET Area E3. 

Table 1 summarizes the level of 

Surface Warfare training activities 

planned in the GOMEX Range Complex 

for the proposed action. 

TABLE 1—LEVEL OF SURFACE WARFARE TRAINING ACTIVITIES PLANNED IN THE GOMEX RANGE COMPLEX PER YEAR

Operation Platform System/ordnance Number of events Training area 

Potential 

time of 

day 

Event 

duration 

Bombing Exercise 

(BOMBEX) (Air-toSurface, At-Sea).

F/A–18 ...................... MK–831,000-lb High 

Explosive (HE) 

bomb] 415.8 lbs 

NEW.

1 event (4 bombs in 

succession).

BOMBEX Hotbox ...... Daytime 

only.

1 hour. 

Small Arms Training .. Maritime Expeditionary Support 

Group (Various 

Small Boats).

MK3A2 anti-swimmer 

grenades (8-oz HE 

grenade) 0.5 lb 

NEW.

6 events* (20 live 

grenades).

UNDET Area E3 ....... Day or 

night.

1 hour. 

* An individual event can include detonation of up to 10 live grenades, but no more than 20 live grenades will be used per year.

Vessel Movement 

Vessel movements are associated with 

most training and operational activities 

in the GOMEX Study Area. Currently, 

the number of Navy vessels operating in 

the GOMEX Study Area varies based on 

training schedules and can range from 0 

to about 10 vessels at any given time. 

Vessel sizes range from small boats (<35 

ft, or 10.7 m) for a harbor security boat 

to 1,092 ft (332.8 m) for a CVN (carrier 

vessel nuclear) and speeds generally 

range from 10 to 14 knots, but may be 

considerably faster, for example an 

aircraft carrier ‘‘making wind’’ while 

launching and recovering aircraft, and 

for small boat operations. Operations 

involving vessel movements occur 

intermittently and are variable in 

duration, ranging from a few hours up 

to 2 weeks. These operations are widely 

dispersed throughout the GOMEX Study 

Area, which is an area encompassing 

11,714 nm2 (40,178 km2). Most vessel 

movements occur in the offshore 

OPAREAs, but vessel movements 

associated with MESG training in the 

UNDET Area E3 and Commander Naval 

Installations Command (CNIC) harbor 

security group training in the Panama 

City OPAREA occur between shore and 

12 nm (22.2 km), including the 

nearshore zone (<3 nm, or 5.6 km). The 

Navy logs about 180 total vessel days 

within the GOMEX Study Area during 

a typical year. Consequently, the density 

of Navy vessels within the GOMEX 

Study Area at any given time is low (i.e., 

less than 0.0113 ships/nm2 (0.0386 

km2)). 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activities 

Twenty-nine marine mammal species 

have confirmed or potential occurrence 

in the GOMEX Study Area. These 

include 28 cetacean species and 1 

sirenian species (DoN, 2007a), which 

can be found in Table 2. Although it is 

possible that any of the 29 species of 

marine mammals may occur in the 

Study Area, only 21 of those species are 

expected to occur regularly in the 

region. Most cetacean species are in the 

Study Area year-round (e.g., sperm 

whales and bottlenose dolphins), while 

a few (e.g., fin whales and killer whales) 

have accidental or transient occurrence 

in the area. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33963 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES FOUND IN THE GOMEX RANGE COMPLEX

Family and scientific name Common name Federal status 

Order Cetacea 

Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Eubalaena glacialis ................................................................. North Atlantic right whale ...................................................... Endangered. 

Megaptera novaeangliae ......................................................... Humpback whale ................................................................... Endangered. 

Balaenoptera acutorostrata ..................................................... Minke whale.

B. brydei .................................................................................. Bryde’s whale.

B. borealis ............................................................................... Sei whale ............................................................................... Endangered. 

B. physalus .............................................................................. Fin whale ............................................................................... Endangered. 

B. musculus ............................................................................. Blue whale ............................................................................. Endangered. 

Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales) 

Physeter macrocephalus ......................................................... Sperm whale .......................................................................... Endangered. 

Kogia breviceps ....................................................................... Pygmy sperm whale.

K. sima .................................................................................... Dwarf sperm whale.

Ziphius cavirostris ................................................................... Cuvier’s beaked whale.

M. europaeus .......................................................................... Gervais’ beaked whale.

M. bidens ................................................................................. Sowerby’s beaked whale.

M. densirostris ......................................................................... Blainville’s beaked whale.

Steno bredanensis .................................................................. Rough-toothed dolphin.

Tursiops truncatus ................................................................... Bottlenose dolphin.

Stenella attenuata ................................................................... Pantropical spotted dolphin.

S. frontalis ............................................................................... Atlantic spotted dolphin.

S. longirostris .......................................................................... Spinner dolphin.

S. clymene .............................................................................. Clymene dolphin.

S. coeruleoalba ....................................................................... Striped dolphin.

Lagenodephis hosei ................................................................ Fraser’s dolphin.

Grampus griseus ..................................................................... Risso’s dolphin.

Peponocephala electra ........................................................... Melon-headed whale.

Feresa attenuata ..................................................................... Pygmy killer whale.

Pseudorca crassidens ............................................................. False killer whale.

Orcinus orca ............................................................................ Killer whale.

G. macrorhynchus ................................................................... Short-finned pilot whale.

Order Sirenia 

Trichechus manatus ................................................................ West Indian manatee ............................................................. Endangered. 

The information contained in this 

section relies heavily on the data 

gathered in the Marine Resources 

Assessments (MRAs). The Navy MRA 

Program was implemented by the 

Commander, Fleet Forces Command, to 

initiate collection of data and 

information concerning the protected 

and commercial marine resources found 

in the Navy’s OPAREAs. Specifically, 

the goal of the MRA program is to 

describe and document the marine 

resources present in each of the Navy’s 

OPAREAs. The MRA for the GOMEX 

OPAREA was published in 2007 (DoN, 

2007a). The MRA data were used to 

provide a regional context for each 

species. The MRA represents a 

compilation and synthesis of available 

scientific literature (e.g., journals, 

periodicals, theses, dissertations, project 

reports, and other technical reports 

published by government agencies, 

private businesses, or consulting firms), 

and NMFS reports including stock 

assessment reports (SARs), recovery 

plans, and survey reports. This 

information was used to evaluate the 

potential for occurrence of marine 

mammal species in the GOMEX Study 

Area. 

The density estimates that were used 

in previous Navy environmental 

documents have been recently updated 

to provide a compilation of the most 

recent data and information on the 

occurrence, distribution, and density of 

marine mammals. The updated density 

estimates presented in this LOA 

application are derived from the Navy 

OPAREA Density Estimates (NODEs) for 

the GOMEX OPAREA report (DoN, 

2007b). 

Density estimates for cetaceans were 

either modeled using available linetransect survey data or derived using 

cetacean abundance estimates found in 

the 2006 NOAA stock assessment 

reports (SARs) (Waring et al., 2007), 

which can be viewed at http:// 

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

species.htm. The abundance estimates 

in the stock assessment reports are from 

Mullin and Fulling (2004). 

For the model-based approach, 

density estimates were calculated for 

each species within areas containing 

survey effort. A relationship between 

these density estimates and the 

associated environmental parameters 

such as depth, slope, distance from the 

shelf break, sea surface temperature 

(SST), and chlorophyll a (chl a) 

concentration was formulated using 

generalized additive models (GAMs). 

This relationship was then used to 

generate a two-dimensional density 

surface for the region by predicting 

densities in areas where no survey data 

exist. 

The analyses for cetaceans were based 

on sighting data collected through 

shipboard surveys conducted by NMFS 

SEFSC between 1996 and 2004. Speciesspecific density estimates derived 

through spatial modeling were 

compared with abundance estimates 

found in the 2006 NOAA SARs to 

ensure consistency. All spatial models 

and density estimates were reviewed by 

and coordinated with NMFS Science 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
33964 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Center technical staff and scientists with 

the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, 

Centre for Environmental and Ecological 

Modeling (CREEM). For a more detailed 

description of the methods involved in 

calculating the density estimates 

provided in this LOA request, please 

refer to the NODE report for the GOMEX 

OPAREA (DoN, 2007b). The following 

lists how density estimates were derived 

for each species: 

Model-Derived Density Estimates—Line 

Transect Survey Data 

Sperm whale, dwarf and pygmy 

sperm whales, beaked whales, roughtoothed dolphin, bottlenose dolphin 

(Tursiops truncatus), pantropical 

spotted dolphin, Atlantic spotted 

dolphin, striped dolphin, spinner 

dolphin, and Risso’s dolphin. 

Stock Assessment Report or LiteratureDerived Density Estimates 

Bryde’s whale, Clymene dolphin, 

Fraser’s dolphin, killer whale, false 

killer whale, pygmy killer whale, 

melon-headed whale, short-finned pilot 

whale. 

Potential Impacts to Marine Mammal 

Species 

The Navy considers that explosions 

associated with BOMBEX (A–S) and 

small arms training are the activities 

with the potential to result in Level A 

or Level B harassment of marine 

mammals. Vessel strikes were also 

analyzed for potential effect to marine 

mammals. 

Vessel Strikes 

Collisions with commercial and Navy 

ships can result in serious injury and 

may occasionally cause fatalities to 

cetaceans and manatees. Although the 

most vulnerable marine mammals may 

be assumed to be slow-moving 

cetaceans or those that spend extended 

periods of time at the surface in order 

to restore oxygen levels within their 

tissues after deep dives (e.g., sperm 

whale), fin whales are actually struck 

most frequently (Laist et al., 2001). 

Manatees are also particularly 

susceptible to vessel interactions and 

collisions with watercraft constitute the 

leading cause of mortality (USFWS, 

2007). Smaller marine mammals such as 

bottlenose and Atlantic spotted 

dolphins move more quickly throughout 

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 patterns (NRC, 2003). 

After reviewing historical records and 

computerized stranding databases for 

evidence of ship strikes involving 

baleen and sperm whales, Laist et al. 

(2001) found that accounts of large 

whale ship strikes involving motorized 

boats in the area date back to at least the 

late 1800s. Ship collisions remained 

infrequent until the 1950s, after which 

point they increased. Laist et al. (2001) 

report that both the number and speed 

of motorized vessels have increased 

over time for trans-Atlantic passenger 

services, which transit through the area. 

They concluded that most strikes occur 

over or near the continental shelf, that 

ship strikes likely have a negligible 

effect on the status of most whale 

populations, but that for small 

populations or segments of populations 

the impact of ship strikes may be 

significant. 

Although ship strikes may result in 

the mortality of a limited number of 

whales within a population or stock, 

Laist et al. (2001) also concluded that, 

when considered in combination with 

other human-related mortalities in the 

area (e.g., entanglement in fishing gear), 

these ship strikes may present a concern 

for whale populations. 

Of 11 species known to be hit by 

ships, fin whales are struck most 

frequently; followed by right whales, 

humpback whales, sperm whales, and 

gray whales (Laist et al., 2001). In some 

areas, one-third of all fin whale and 

right whale strandings appear to involve 

ship strikes. Sperm whales spend long 

periods (typically up to 10 minutes; 

Jacquet et al., 1996) ‘‘rafting’’ at the 

surface between deep dives. This could 

make them exceptionally vulnerable to 

ship strikes. Berzin (1972) noted that 

there were ‘‘many’’ reports of sperm 

whales of different age classes being 

struck by vessels, including passenger 

ships and tug boats. There were also 

instances in which sperm whales 

approached vessels too closely and were 

cut by the propellers (NMFS, 2006). 

In the Gulf of Mexico, sperm whales 

are of particular concern. Sperm whales 

spend extended periods of time at the 

surface in order to restore oxygen levels 

within their tissues after deep dives. 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., 2004a). In 

comparison with other regions of the 

U.S., the Gulf of Mexico is the least 

common area for ship strikes of large 

whales (Jensen and Silber, 2003). 

Between 1972 and 1999, eight 

confirmed or possible large whale ship 

strikes were recorded in the Gulf of 

Mexico, including two that collided 

with Navy vessels; four of these resulted 

in mortality of the animal (Jensen and 

Silber, 2003) and one resulted in 

extensive damage to a Navy vessel (Laist 

et al., 2001). It is not known whether the 

shipstrikes involving Navy vessels 

resulted in the mortality of the animal 

(Laist et al., 2001; Jensen and Silber, 

2003). 

Accordingly, the Navy has proposed 

mitigation measures to reduce the 

potential for collisions with surfaced 

marine mammals (for more details refer 

to Proposed Mitigation Measures 

below). Based on the implementation of 

Navy mitigation measures and the 

relatively low density of Navy ships in 

the Study Area the likelihood that a 

vessel collision would occur is very 

low. 

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 

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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33965 

stationary vessels, the sounds often 

seem to be ignored. Some whales 

approach the sources of these sounds. 

When vessels approach whales slowly 

and nonaggressively, 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, naive 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.’’ 

In the case of the GOMEX Range 

Complex, naval vessel traffic is expected 

to be much lower than in areas where 

there are large shipping lanes and large 

numbers of fishing vessels and/or 

recreational vessels. Nevertheless, the 

proposed action area is well traveled by 

a variety of commercial and recreational 

vessels, so marine mammals in the area 

are expected to be habituated to vessel 

noise. 

As described earlier in this document, 

operations involving vessel movements 

occur intermittently and are variable in 

duration, ranging from a few hours up 

to 2 weeks. These operations are widely 

dispersed throughout the GOMEX Range 

Complex OPAREA, which is a vast area 

encompassing 11,714 nm2. The Navy 

logs about 180 total vessel days within 

the Study Area during a typical year. 

Consequently, the density of ships 

within the Study Area at any given time 

is extremely low (i.e., less than 0.0113 

ships/nm2). 

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. 

All vessels transiting to, from, and 

within the range complexes will be 

traveling at speeds generally ranging 

from 10 to 14 knots. In addition, 

mitigation measures described below 

require Navy vessels to keep at least 500 

yards (460 m) away from any observed 

whale and at least 200 yards (183 m) 

from marine mammals other than 

whales, and avoid approaching animals 

head-on. Although the radiated sound 

from the vessels will be audible to 

marine mammals over a large distance, 

it is unlikely that animals will respond 

behaviorally 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. 

Assessment of Marine Mammal 

Response to Anthropogenic Sound 

Marine mammals respond to various 

types of anthropogenic sounds 

introduced in the ocean environment. 

Responses are typically subtle and can 

include shorter surfacings, shorter 

dives, fewer blows per surfacing, longer 

intervals between blows (breaths), 

ceasing or increasing vocalizations, 

shortening or lengthening vocalizations, 

and changing frequency or intensity of 

vocalizations (NRC, 2005). However, it 

is not known how these responses relate 

to significant effects (e.g., long-term 

effects or population consequences). 

The following is an assessment of 

marine mammal responses and 

disturbances when exposed to 

anthropogenic sound. 

I. Physiology 

Potential impacts to the auditory 

system are assessed by considering the 

characteristics of the received sound 

(e.g., amplitude, frequency, duration) 

and the sensitivity of the exposed 

animals. Some of these assessments can 

be numerically based (e.g., temporary 

threshold shift [TTS] of hearing 

sensitivity, permanent threshold shift 

[PTS] of hearing sensitivity, perception). 

Others will be necessarily qualitative, 

due to a lack of information, or will 

need to be extrapolated from other 

species for which information exists. 

Potential physiological responses to 

the sound exposure are ranked in 

descending order, with the most severe 

impact (auditory trauma) occurring at 

the top and the least severe impact 

occurring at the bottom (the sound is 

not perceived). 

Auditory trauma represents direct 

mechanical injury to hearing related 

structures, including tympanic 

membrane rupture, disarticulation of 

the middle ear ossicles, and trauma to 

the inner ear structures such as the 

organ of Corti and the associated hair 

cells. Auditory trauma is always 

injurious that could result in PTS and 

is always assumed to result in a stress 

response. 

Auditory fatigue refers to a loss of 

hearing sensitivity after sound 

stimulation. The loss of sensitivity 

persists after, sometimes long after, the 

cessation of the sound. The mechanisms 

responsible for auditory fatigue differ 

from auditory trauma and would 

primarily consist of metabolic 

exhaustion of the hair cells and cochlear 

tissues. The features of the exposure 

(e.g., amplitude, frequency, duration, 

temporal pattern) and the individual 

animal’s susceptibility would determine 

the severity of fatigue and whether the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
33966 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

effects were temporary (TTS) or 

permanent (PTS). Auditory fatigue (PTS 

or TTS) is always assumed to result in 

a stress response. 

Sounds with sufficient amplitude and 

duration to be detected among the 

background ambient noise are 

considered to be perceived. This 

category includes sounds from the 

threshold of audibility through the 

normal dynamic range of hearing (i.e., 

not capable of producing fatigue). 

To determine whether an animal 

perceives the sound, the received level, 

frequency, and duration of the sound 

are compared to what is known of the 

species’ hearing sensitivity. 

Since audible sounds may interfere 

with an animal’s ability to detect other 

sounds at the same time, perceived 

sounds have the potential to result in 

auditory masking. Unlike auditory 

fatigue, which always results in a stress 

response because the sensory tissues are 

being stimulated beyond their normal 

physiological range, masking may or 

may not result in a stress response, 

depending on the degree and duration 

of the masking effect. Masking may also 

result in a unique circumstance where 

an animal’s ability to detect other 

sounds is compromised without the 

animal’s knowledge. This could 

conceivably result in sensory 

impairment and subsequent behavior 

change; in this case, the change in 

behavior is the lack of a response that 

would normally be made if sensory 

impairment did not occur. For this 

reason, masking also may lead directly 

to behavior change without first causing 

a stress response. 

The features of perceived sound (e.g., 

amplitude, duration, temporal pattern) 

are also used to judge whether the 

sound exposure is capable of producing 

a stress response. Factors to consider in 

this decision include the probability of 

the animal being naive or experienced 

with the sound (i.e., what are the 

known/unknown consequences of the 

exposure). 

If the received level is not of sufficient 

amplitude, frequency, and duration to 

be perceptible by the animal, by 

extension, this does not result in a stress 

response (not perceived). Potential 

impacts to tissues other than those 

related to the auditory system are 

assessed by considering the 

characteristics of the sound (e.g., 

amplitude, frequency, duration) and the 

known or estimated response 

characteristics of non-auditory tissues. 

Some of these assessments can be 

numerically based (e.g., exposure 

required for rectified diffusion). Others 

will be necessarily qualitative, due to 

lack of information. Each of the 

potential responses may or may not 

result in a stress response. 

Direct tissue effects—Direct tissue 

responses to sound stimulation may 

range from tissue shearing (injury) to 

mechanical vibration with no resulting 

injury. 

No tissue effects—The received sound 

is insufficient to cause either direct 

(mechanical) or indirect effects to 

tissues. No stress response occurs. 

II. The Stress Response 

The acoustic source is considered a 

potential stressor if, by its action on the 

animal, via auditory or non-auditory 

means, it may produce a stress response 

in the animal. The term ‘‘stress’’ has 

taken on an ambiguous meaning in the 

scientific literature, but with respect to 

the later discussions of allostasis and 

allostatic loading, the stress response 

will refer to an increase in energetic 

expenditure that results from exposure 

to the stressor and which is 

predominantly characterized by either 

the stimulation of the sympathetic 

nervous system (SNS) or the 

hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) 

axis (Reeder and Kramer, 2005). The 

SNS response to a stressor is immediate 

and acute and is characterized by the 

release of the catecholamine 

neurohormones norepinephrine and 

epinephrine (i.e., adrenaline). These 

hormones produce elevations in the 

heart and respiration rate, increase 

awareness, and increase the availability 

of glucose and lipids for energy. The 

HPA response is ultimately defined by 

increases in the secretion of the 

glucocorticoid steroid hormones, 

predominantly cortisol in mammals. 

The amount of increase in circulating 

glucocorticoids above baseline may be 

an indicator of the overall severity of a 

stress response (Hennessy et al., 1979). 

Each component of the stress response 

is variable in time; e.g., adrenalines are 

released nearly immediately and are 

used or cleared by the system quickly, 

whereas cortisol levels may take long 

periods of time to return to baseline. 

The presence and magnitude of a 

stress response in an animal depends on 

a number of factors. These include the 

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

juvenile, adult), the environmental 

conditions, reproductive or 

developmental state, and experience 

with the stressor. Not only will these 

factors be subject to individual 

variation, but they will also vary within 

an individual over time. In considering 

potential stress responses of marine 

mammals to acoustic stressors, each of 

these should be considered. For 

example, is the acoustic stressor in an 

area where animals engage in breeding 

activity? Are animals in the region 

resident and likely to have experience 

with the stressor (i.e., repeated 

exposures)? Is the region a foraging 

ground or are the animals passing 

through as transients? What is the ratio 

of young (naive) to old (experienced) 

animals in the population? It is unlikely 

that all such questions can be answered 

from empirical data; however, they 

should be addressed in any qualitative 

assessment of a potential stress response 

as based on the available literature. 

The stress response may or may not 

result in a behavioral change, depending 

on the characteristics of the exposed 

animal. However, provided a stress 

response occurs, we assume that some 

contribution is made to the animal’s 

allostatic load. Allostasis is the ability of 

an animal to maintain stability through 

change by adjusting its physiology in 

response to both predictable and 

unpredictable events (McEwen and 

Wingfield, 2003). The same hormones 

associated with the stress response vary 

naturally throughout an animal’s life, 

providing support for particular life 

history events (e.g., pregnancy) and 

predictable environmental conditions 

(e.g., seasonal changes). The allostatic 

load is the cumulative cost of allostasis 

incurred by an animal and is generally 

characterized with respect to an 

animal’s energetic expenditure. 

Perturbations to an animal that may 

occur with the presence of a stressor, 

either biological (e.g., predator) or 

anthropogenic (e.g., construction), can 

contribute to the allostatic load 

(Wingfield, 2003). Additional costs are 

cumulative and additions to the 

allostatic load over time may contribute 

to reductions in the probability of 

achieving ultimate life history functions 

(e.g., survival, maturation, reproductive 

effort and success) by producing 

pathophysiological states (the 

conditions of disease or injury). The 

contribution to the allostatic load from 

a stressor requires estimating the 

magnitude and duration of the stress 

response, as well as any secondary 

contributions that might result from a 

change in behavior. 

If the acoustic source does not 

produce tissue effects, is not perceived 

by the animal, or does not produce a 

stress response by any other means, we 

assume that the exposure does not 

contribute to the allostatic load. 

Additionally, without a stress response 

or auditory masking, it is assumed that 

there can be no behavioral change. 

Conversely, any immediate effect of 

exposure that produces an injury is 

assumed to also produce a stress 

response and contribute to the allostatic 

load. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33967 

III. Behavior 

Changes in marine mammal behavior 

are expected to result from an acute 

stress response. This expectation is 

based on the idea that some sort of 

physiological trigger must exist to 

change any behavior that is already 

being performed. The exception to this 

rule is the case of auditory masking. The 

presence of a masking sound may not 

produce a stress response, but may 

interfere with the animal’s ability to 

detect and discriminate biologically 

relevant signals. The inability to detect 

and discriminate biologically relevant 

signals hinders the potential for normal 

behavioral responses to auditory cues 

and is thus considered a behavioral 

change. 

Impulsive sounds from explosions 

have very short durations as compared 

to other sounds like sonar or ship noise, 

which are more likely to produce 

auditory masking. Additionally the 

explosive sources analyzed in this 

document are used infrequently and the 

training events are typically of short 

duration. Therefore, the potential for 

auditory masking is unlikely. 

Numerous behavioral changes can 

occur as a result of stress response. For 

each potential behavioral change, the 

magnitude in the change and the 

severity of the response needs to be 

estimated. Certain conditions, such as 

stampeding (i.e., flight response) or a 

response to a predator, might have a 

probability of resulting in injury. For 

example, a flight response, if significant 

enough, could produce a stranding 

event. Each disruption to a natural 

behavioral pattern (e.g., breeding or 

nursing) may need to be classified as 

Level B harassment. All behavioral 

disruptions have the potential to 

contribute to the allostatic load. This 

secondary potential is signified by the 

feedback from the collective behaviors 

to allostatic loading. 

IV. Life Function 

IV.1. Proximate Life Functions 

Proximate life history functions are 

the functions that the animal is engaged 

in at the time of acoustic exposure. The 

disruption of these functions, and the 

magnitude of the disruption, is 

something that must be considered in 

determining how the ultimate life 

history functions are affected. 

Consideration of the magnitude of the 

effect to each of the proximate life 

history functions is dependent upon the 

life stage of the animal. For example, an 

animal on a breeding ground which is 

sexually immature will suffer relatively 

little consequence to disruption of 

breeding behavior when compared to an 

actively displaying adult of prime 

reproductive age. 

IV.2. Ultimate Life Functions 

The ultimate life functions are those 

that enable an animal to contribute to 

the population (or stock, or species, 

etc.). The impact to ultimate life 

functions will depend on the nature and 

magnitude of the perturbation to 

proximate life history functions. 

Depending on the severity of the 

response to the stressor, acute 

perturbations may have nominal to 

profound impacts on ultimate life 

functions. For example, unit-level use of 

sonar by a vessel transiting through an 

area that is utilized for foraging, but not 

for breeding, may disrupt feeding by 

exposed animals for a brief period of 

time. Because of the brevity of the 

perturbation, the impact to ultimate life 

functions may be negligible. By contrast, 

weekly training over a period of years 

may have a more substantial impact 

because the stressor is chronic. 

Assessment of the magnitude of the 

stress response from the chronic 

perturbation would require an 

understanding of how and whether 

animals acclimate to a specific, repeated 

stressor and whether chronic elevations 

in the stress response (e.g., cortisol 

levels) produce fitness deficits. 

The proximate life functions are 

loosely ordered in decreasing severity of 

impact. Mortality (survival) has an 

immediate effect, in that no future 

reproductive success is feasible and 

there is no further addition to the 

population resulting from reproduction. 

Severe injuries may also lead to reduced 

survivorship (longevity) and prolonged 

alterations in behavior. The latter may 

further affect an animal’s overall 

reproductive success and reproductive 

effort. Disruptions of breeding have an 

immediate impact on reproductive effort 

and may impact reproductive success. 

The magnitude of the effect will depend 

on the duration of the disruption and 

the type of behavior change that was 

provoked. Disruptions to feeding and 

migration can affect all of the ultimate 

life functions; however, the impacts to 

reproductive effort and success are not 

likely to be as severe or immediate as 

those incurred by mortality and 

breeding disruptions. 

Explosive Ordnance Exposure Analysis 

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. 

The effects of an underwater explosion 

on a marine mammal depends on many 

factors, including the size, type, and 

depth of both the animal and the 

explosive charge; the depth of the water 

column; and the standoff distance 

between the charge and the animal, as 

well as the sound propagation 

properties of the environment. Potential 

impacts can range from brief effects 

(such as behavioral disturbance), tactile 

perception, physical discomfort, slight 

injury of the internal organs and the 

auditory system, to death of the animal 

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

Young, 1984; DoN, 2001). Non-lethal 

injury includes slight injury to internal 

organs and the auditory system; 

however, delayed lethality can be a 

result of individual or cumulative 

sublethal injuries (DoN, 2001). 

Immediate lethal injury would be a 

result of massive combined trauma to 

internal organs as a direct result of 

proximity to the point of detonation 

(DoN, 2001). Generally, the higher the 

level of impulse and pressure level 

exposure, the more severe the impact to 

an individual. 

Injuries resulting from a shock wave 

take place at boundaries between tissues 

of different density. Different velocities 

are imparted to tissues of different 

densities, and this can lead to their 

physical disruption. Blast effects are 

greatest at the gas-liquid interface 

(Landsberg, 2000). Gas-containing 

organs, particularly the lungs and 

gastrointestinal tract, are especially 

susceptible (Goertner, 1982; Hill, 1978; 

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

sacs, larynx, pharynx, trachea, and 

lungs may be damaged by compression/ 

expansion caused by the oscillations of 

the blast gas bubble (Reidenberg and 

Laitman, 2003). Intestinal walls can 

bruise or rupture, with subsequent 

hemorrhage and escape of gut contents 

into the body cavity. Less severe 

gastrointestinal tract injuries include 

contusions, petechiae (small red or 

purple spots caused by bleeding in the 

skin), and slight hemorrhaging 

(Yelverton et al., 1973). 

Because the ears are the most 

sensitive to pressure, they are the organs 

most sensitive to injury (Ketten, 2000). 

Sound-related damage associated with 

blast noise can be theoretically distinct 

from injury from the shock wave, 

particularly farther from the explosion. 

If an animal is able to hear a noise, at 

some level it can damage its hearing by 

causing decreased sensitivity (Ketten, 

1995) (See Assessment of Marine 

Mammal Response to Anthropogenic 

Sound Section above). Sound-related 

trauma can be lethal or sublethal. Lethal 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
33968 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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). 

The exercises that use explosives in 

this request include BOMBEX (A–S) and 

GUNEX (S–S). Table 1 summarizes the 

number of events and specific areas 

where each occurs for each type of 

explosive ordnance used. There is no 

difference in how many events take 

place between the different seasons. 

Fractional values are a result of evenly 

distributing the annual totals over the 

four seasons. For example, there is one 

BOXEX event per year that can take 

place in the BOMBEX Hotbox during 

any season, so there are 0.25 event 

modeled for each season. 

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]. 

I. Level B Harassment 

Of the potential effects that were 

described in the Assessment of Marine 

Mammal Response to Anthropogenic 

Sound and the Explosive Ordnance 

Exposure Analysis sections, the 

following are the types of effects that 

fall into the Level B Harassment 

category: 

(A) Behavioral Harassment— 

Behavioral disturbance that rises to the 

level described in the definition above, 

when resulting from exposures to 

underwater detonations, is considered 

Level B Harassment. Some of the lower 

level physiological stress responses 

discussed in the Assessment of Marine 

Mammal Response to Anthropogenic 

Sound 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. 

(B) Acoustic Masking and 

Communication Impairment—Acoustic 

masking is considered Level B 

Harassment as it can disrupt natural 

behavioral patterns by interrupting or 

limiting the marine mammal’s receipt or 

transmittal of important information or 

environmental cues. 

(C) TTS—As discussed previously, 

TTS can affect how an animal behaves 

in response to the environment, 

including conspecifics, predators, and 

prey. The following physiological 

mechanisms are thought to play a role 

in inducing auditory fatigue: effects to 

sensory hair cells in the inner ear that 

reduce their sensitivity, modification of 

the chemical environment within the 

sensory cells, residual muscular activity 

in the middle ear, displacement of 

certain inner ear membranes, increased 

blood flow, and post-stimulatory 

reduction in both efferent and sensory 

neural output. Ward (1997) suggested 

that when these effects result in TTS 

rather than PTS, they are within the 

normal bounds of physiological 

variability and tolerance and do not 

represent a physical injury. 

Additionally, Southall et al. (2007) 

indicate that although PTS is a tissue 

injury, TTS is not because the reduced 

hearing sensitivity following exposure 

to intense sound results primarily from 

fatigue, not loss, of cochlear hair cells 

and supporting structures and is 

reversible. Accordingly, NMFS classifies 

TTS (when resulting from exposure to 

underwater detonations) as Level B 

Harassment, not Level A Harassment 

(injury). 

II. Level A Harassment 

Of the potential effects that were 

described in the Assessment of Marine 

Mammal Response to Anthropogenic 

Sound section, the following are the 

types of effects that fall into the Level 

A Harassment category: 

(A) PTS—PTS is irreversible and 

considered to be 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. 

(B) 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 to damage (Goertner, 1982; 

Hill 1978; Yelverton et al., 1973). Nasal 

sacs, larynx, pharynx, trachea, and 

lungs may be damaged by compression/ 

expansion caused by the oscillations of 

the blast gas bubble (Reidenberg and 

Laitman, 2003). Severe damage (from 

the shock wave) to the ears can include 

tympanic membrane rupture, fracture of 

the ossicles, damage to the cochlea, 

hemorrhage, and cerebrospinal fluid 

leakage into the middle ear. 

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 

underwater detonations cannot be 

detected or measured, 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 uses an 

acoustic criteria that estimate at what 

received level (when exposed to 

explosive detonations) Level B 

Harassment, Level A Harassment, and 

mortality (for explosives) of marine 

mammals would occur. The acoustic 

criteria for Underwater Detonations are 

discussed. 

Thresholds and Criteria for Impulsive 

Sound 

Criteria and thresholds for estimating 

the exposures from a single explosive 

activity on marine mammals were 

established for the Seawolf Submarine 

Shock Test Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) (‘‘Seawolf’’) and 

subsequently used in the USS Winston 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33969 

S. Churchill (DDG–81) Ship Shock FEIS 

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

NMFS adopted these criteria and 

thresholds in its final rule on 

unintentional taking of marine animals 

occurring incidental to the shock testing 

(NMFS, 2001a). Since the ship-shock 

events involve only one large explosive 

at a time, additional assumptions were 

made to extend the approach to cover 

multiple explosions for BOMBEX (A–S). 

In addition, this section reflects a 

revised acoustic criterion for small 

underwater explosions (i.e., 23 pounds 

per square inch [psi] instead of previous 

acoustic criteria of 12 psi for peak 

pressure), which is based on the final 

rule issued to the Air Force by NMFS 

(NMFS, 2005b). 

I.1. Thresholds and Criteria for Injurious 

Physiological Impacts 

I.1.a. Single Explosion 

For injury, NMFS uses dual criteria: 

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

lung injury. These criteria are 

considered indicative of the onset of 

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

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

percent of animals exposed to the level 

are expected to suffer TM rupture). This 

value is stated in terms of an Energy 

Flux Density Level (EL) value of 1.17 

inch pounds per square inch (in-lb/in 2), 

approximately 205 dB re 1 microPa 2- 

sec. 

The threshold for onset of slight lung 

injury is calculated for a small animal 

(a dolphin calf weighing 26.9 lbs), and 

is given in terms of the ‘‘Goertner 

modified positive impulse,’’ indexed to 

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

is conservative since the positive 

impulse needed to cause injury is 

proportional to animal mass, and 

therefore, larger animals require a 

higher impulse to cause the onset of 

injury. This analysis assumed the 

marine species populations were 100 

percent small animals. The criterion 

with the largest potential impact range 

(most conservative), either TM rupture 

(energy threshold) or onset of slight lung 

injury (peak pressure), will be used in 

the analysis to determine Level A 

exposures for single explosive events. 

For mortality, NMFS uses the 

criterion corresponding to the onset of 

extensive lung injury. This is 

conservative in that it corresponds to a 

1 percent chance of mortal injury, and 

yet any animal experiencing onset 

severe lung injury is counted as a lethal 

exposure. For small animals, the 

threshold is given in terms of the 

Goertner modified positive impulse, 

indexed to 30.5 psi-msec. Since the 

Goertner approach depends on 

propagation, source/animal depths, and 

animal mass in a complex way, the 

actual impulse value corresponding to 

the 30.5 psi-msec index is a complicated 

calculation. To be conservative, the 

analysis used the mass of a calf dolphin 

(at 26.9 lbs) for 100 percent of the 

populations. 

I.1.b. Multiple Explosions 

For this analysis, the use of multiple 

explosions only applies to the MK–83 

bombs used in BOMBEX. Since 

BOMBEX events require multiple 

explosions, the Churchill approach had 

to be extended to cover multiple sound 

events at the same training site. For 

multiple exposures, accumulated energy 

over the entire training time is the 

natural extension for energy thresholds 

since energy accumulates with each 

subsequent shot (explosion); this is 

consistent with the treatment of 

multiple arrivals in Churchill. For 

positive impulse, it is consistent with 

Churchill to use the maximum value 

over all impulses received. 

I.2. Thresholds and Criteria for NonInjurious Physiological Effects 

The NMFS’ criterion for non-injurious 

harassment is TTS—a slight, recoverable 

loss of hearing sensitivity (DoN, 2001). 

For this assessment, there are dual 

criteria for TTS, an energy threshold 

and a peak pressure threshold. The 

criterion with the largest potential 

impact range (most conservative) either 

the energy or peak pressure threshold, 

will be used in the analysis to determine 

Level B TTS exposures. 

I.2.a. Single Explosion—TTS-Energy 

Threshold 

The first threshold is a 182 dB re 1 

microPa 2-sec maximum energy flux 

density level in any 1⁄3-octave band at 

frequencies above 100 Hertz (Hz) for 

toothed whales and in any 1⁄3-octave 

band above 10 Hz for baleen whales. For 

large explosives, as in the case of the 

Churchill FEIS, frequency range cutoffs 

at 10 and 100 Hz make a difference in 

the range estimates. For small 

explosives (<1,500 lb NEW), as what 

was modeled for this analysis, the 

spectrum of the shot arrival is broad, 

and there is essentially no difference in 

impact ranges for toothed whales or 

baleen whales. 

The TTS energy threshold for 

explosives is derived from the Space 

and Naval Warfare Systems Center 

(SSC) pure-tone tests for TTS (Schlundt 

et al., 2000; Finneran and Schlundt, 

2004). The pure-tone threshold (192 dB 

as the lowest value) is modified for 

explosives by (a) interpreting it as an 

energy metric, (b) reducing it by 10 dB 

to account for the time constant of the 

mammal ear, and (c) measuring the 

energy in 1⁄3-octave bands, the natural 

filter band of the ear. The resulting 

threshold is 182 dB re 1 microPa 2-sec in 

any 1⁄3-octave band. The energy 

threshold usually dominates and is used 

in the analysis to determine potential 

Level B exposures for single explosion 

ordnance. 

I.2.b. Single Explosion—TTS-Peak 

Pressure Threshold 

The second threshold applies to all 

species and is stated in terms of peak 

pressure at 23 psi (about 225 dB re 1 

microPa). This criterion was adopted for 

Precision Strike Weapons (PSW) Testing 

and Training by Eglin Air Force Base in 

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

important to note that for small shots 

near the surface (such as in this 

analysis), the 23-psi peak pressure 

threshold generally will produce longer 

impact ranges than the 182-dB energy 

metric. Furthermore, it is not unusual 

for the TTS impact range for the 23-psi 

pressure metric to actually exceed the 

without-TTS (behavioral change 

without onset of TTS) impact range for 

the 177-dB energy metric. 

I.2.c. Multiple Explosions—TTS 

For multiple explosions, accumulated 

energy over the entire training time is 

the natural extension for energy 

thresholds since energy accumulates 

with each subsequent shot/detonation. 

This is consistent with the energy 

argument in Churchill. For peak 

pressure, it is consistent with Churchill 

to use the maximum value over all 

impulses received. 

I.3. Thresholds and Criteria for 

Behavioral Effects 

I.3.a. Single Explosion 

For a single explosion, to be 

consistent with Churchill, TTS is the 

criterion for Level B harassment. In 

other words, because behavioral 

disturbance for a single explosion is 

likely to be limited to a short-lived 

startle reaction, use of the TTS criterion 

is considered sufficient protection and 

therefore behavioral effects (Level B 

behavioral harassment without onset of 

TTS) are not expected for single 

explosions. 

I.3.b. Multiple Explosions—Without 

TTS 

For this analysis, the use of multiple 

explosions only applies to FIREX (with 

IMPASS). Because multiple explosions 

would occur within a discrete time 

period, a new acoustic criterion— 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
33970 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

behavioral disturbance (without TTS)— 

is used to account for behavioral effects 

significant enough to be judged as 

harassment, but occurring at lower noise 

levels than those that may cause TTS. 

The threshold is based on test results 

published in Schlundt et al. (2000), with 

derivation following the approach of the 

Churchill FEIS for the energy-based TTS 

threshold. The original Schlundt et al. 

(2000) data and the report of Finneran 

and Schlundt (2004) are the basis for 

thresholds for behavioral disturbance 

(without TTS). As reported by Schlundt 

et al. (2000), instances of altered 

behavior generally began at lower 

exposures than those causing TTS; 

however, there were many instances 

when subjects exhibited no altered 

behavior at levels above the onset-TTS 

levels. Regardless of reactions at higher 

or lower levels, all instances of altered 

behavior were included in the statistical 

summary. 

The behavioral disturbance (without 

TTS) threshold for tones is derived from 

the SSC tests, and is found to be 5 dB 

below the threshold for TTS, or 177 dB 

re: 1 microPa2-s maximum EL in any 1⁄3- 

octave band at frequencies above 100 Hz 

for toothed whales/sea turtles and in 

any 1⁄3-octave band above 10 Hz for 

baleen whales. As stated previously for 

TTS, for small explosives (<1500-lb 

NEW), as what was modeled for this 

analysis, the spectrum of the shot arrival 

is broad, and there is essentially no 

difference in impact ranges for toothed 

whales/sea turtles or baleen whales. For 

BOMBEX involving MK–83 bombs, 

behavioral disturbance (without TTS) 

(177 dB re: 1 microPa2-s) is the criterion 

that dominates in the analysis to 

determine potential behavioral 

exposures (MMPA-Level B) due to the 

use of multiple explosions. 

II. Summary of Thresholds and Criteria 

for Impulsive Sounds 

Table 3 summarizes the effects, 

criteria, and thresholds used in the 

assessment for impulsive sounds. The 

criteria for behavioral effects without 

physiological effects used in this 

analysis are based on use of multiple 

explosives that only take place during a 

BOMBEX event. 

TABLE 3—EFFECTS, CRITERIA, AND THRESHOLDS FOR IMPULSIVE SOUNDS

Effect Criteria Metric Threshold Effect 

Mortality ............... Onset of Extensive Lung Injury ... Goertner modified positive impulse.Indexed to 30.5 psi-msec (assumes 100 percent small animal at 26.9 lbs).Mortality. 

Injurious Physiological.50% Tympanic Membrane Rupture.Energy flux density ...................... 1.17 in-lb/in2 (about 205 dB re 1 

microPa2-sec).

Level A. 

Injurious Physiological.Onset Slight Lung Injury ............. Goertner modified positive impulse.Indexed to 13 psi-msec (assumes 100 percent small animal at 26.9 lbs).Level A. 

Non-injurious 

Physiological.

TTS .............................................. Greatest energy flux density level 

in any 1⁄3-octave band (>100 

Hz for toothed whales and >10 

Hz for baleen whales)—for 

total energy over all exposures 

1.

82 dB re 1 microPa2-sec ............. Level B. 

Non-injurious 

Physiological.

TTS .............................................. Peak pressure over all exposures 23 psi ........................................... Level B. 

Non-injurious Behavioral.Multiple Explosions Without TTS Greatest energy flux density level 

in any 1⁄3-octave (>100 Hz for 

toothed whales and > 10Hz for 

baleen whales)—for total energy over all exposures (multiple explosions only).

177 dB re 1 microPa2-sec ........... Level B. 

The criteria for mortality, Level A 

Harassment, and Level B Harassment 

resulting from explosive detonations 

were initially developed for the Navy’s 

Sea Wolf and Churchill ship-shock trials 

and have not changed since other 

MMPA authorizations issued for 

explosive detonations. The criteria, 

which are applied to cetaceans and 

pinnipeds are summarized in Table 3. 

Additional information regarding the 

derivation of these criteria is available 

in the Navy’s FEIS for the GOMEX 

Range Complex and in the Navy’s 

Churchill FEIS (U.S. Department of the 

Navy, 2001). 

III. Acoustic Environment 

Sound propagation (the spreading or 

attenuation of sound) in the oceans of 

the world is affected by several 

environmental factors: water depth, 

variations in sound speed within the 

water column, surface roughness, and 

the geo-acoustic properties of the ocean 

bottom. These parameters can vary 

widely with location. 

Four types of data are used to define 

the acoustic environment for each 

analysis site: 

Seasonal Sound Velocity Profiles 

(SVP)—Plots of propagation speed 

(velocity) as a function of depth, or 

SVPs, are a fundamental tool used for 

predicting how sound will travel. 

Seasonal SVP averages were obtained 

for each training area. 

Seabed Geo-acoustics—The type of 

sea floor influences how much sound is 

absorbed and how much sound is 

reflected back into the water column. 

Wind Speeds—Several environmental 

inputs, such as wind speed and surface 

roughness, are necessary to model 

acoustic propagation in the prospective 

training areas. 

Bathymetry Data—Bathymetry data 

are necessary to model acoustic 

propagation and were obtained for each 

of the training areas. 

IV. Acoustic Effects Analysis 

The acoustic effects analysis 

presented in the following sections is 

summarized for each major type of 

exercise. A more in-depth effects 

analysis is in Appendix A of the LOA 

application and the Addendum. 

1. BOMBEX 

Modeling was completed for four 

explosive sources (sequential detonation 

of four bombs per event) involved in 

BOMBEX with an assumed detonation 

depth of 1 m. The NEW used in 

simulations of the MK83 is 415.8 lbs. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33971 

Determining the zone of influence 

(ZOI) for the thresholds in terms of total 

EFD, impulse, peak pressure and 1⁄3- 

octave bands EFD must treat the 

sequential explosions differently than 

the single detonations. For the MK–83, 

two factors are involved for the 

sequential explosives that deal with the 

spatial and temporal distribution of the 

detonations as well as the effective 

accumulation of the resultant acoustics. 

In view of the ZOI determinations, the 

sequential detonations are modeled as a 

single point event with only the EFD 

summed incoherently: 

Total EFD db

EFD i

i

n

 =

( )

=

10 10 10 ∑ 10

1

log

/

The multiple explosion energy 

criterion was used to determine the ZOI 

for the Level B without TTS exposure 

analysis. Table 4 shows the ZOI results 

of the model estimation. The ZOI, when 

multiplied by the animal densities and 

total number of events (Table 1), 

provides the exposure estimates for that 

animal species for the given bomb 

source. 

BOMBEX is restricted to one location 

(BOMBEX Hotbox). In addition to other 

mitigation measures (see Mitigation 

Measures section below), aircraft will 

survey the target area for marine 

mammals before and during the 

exercise. Ships will not fire on the target 

until the area is surveyed and 

determined to be free of marine 

mammals. The exercise will be 

suspended if any marine mammals enter 

the buffer area (5,100-yard or 4,663-m 

radius around target). The 

implementation of mitigation measures 

like these effectively reduce exposures 

in the ZOI. 

TABLE 4—ESTIMATED ZOIS (KM2) USED IN EXPOSURE CALCULATIONS FOR BOMBEX USING MK–83 (415.8 LBS NEW) IN

THE GOMEX RANGE COMPLEX FOR DIFFERENT SEASONS

Estimated ZOI @ 177 dB re 1 

μPa2-sec (multiple detonations only) 

Estimated ZOI 

@ 182 dB re 1 μPa2-sec or 23 psi 

Estimated ZOI 

@ 205 dB re 1 μPa2-sec or 13 psi 

Mortality ZOI 

@ 30.5 psi 

Win Spr Sum Fall Win Spr Sum Fall Win Spr Sum Fall Win Spr Sum Fall 

98.93 115.93 161.39 173.27 55.53 76.82 137.33 158.07 4.84 4.84 4.84 4.98 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 

Note: ZOIs for the MK–83 bombs are modeled as multiple detonations (4 bombs dropped in succession at same location). 

2. Small Arms Training 

Modeling was completed for the 

MK3A2 explosive anti-swimmer 

grenades, which assumed a 6 ft (1.8 m) 

detonation depth. The NEW used in 

simulations of the MK3A2 grenade is 

0.5 lb. 

Determining the ZOI for the 

thresholds in terms of total energy flux 

density (EFD), impulse, peak pressure 

and 1⁄3-octave bands EFD must treat the 

sequential explosions differently than 

the single detonations. For the MK3A2, 

two factors are involved for the 

sequential explosives that deal with the 

spatial and temporal distribution of the 

detonations as well as the effective 

accumulation of the resultant acoustics. 

In view of the ZOI determinations, the 

sequential detonations are modeled as a 

single point event with only the EFD 

summed incoherently: 

TotalEFDdb

EFDi

i

n

= ( )

=

101 10 10 ∑ 10

1

log /

The multiple explosion energy 

criterion was used to determine the ZOI 

for the non-injurious behavioral 

(without TTS) exposure analysis. 

Table 5 shows the ZOI results of the 

model estimation. The ZOI, when 

multiplied by the animal densities and 

total number of events, provides the 

exposure estimates for that animal 

species. Grenade use is restricted to one 

location (UNDET Area E3) (see Figure 2 

of the Navy’s LOA application). In 

addition to other mitigation measures 

(see Mitigation Measures section below), 

lookouts will visually survey the target 

area for marine mammals. The exercise 

will not be conducted until the area is 

clear and will suspend the exercise if 

any enter the buffer area. 

Implementation of mitigation measures 

like these reduce the likelihood of 

exposure and potential effects in the 

ZOI. 

TABLE 5—ESTIMATED ZOIS (KM2) USED IN EXPOSURE CALCULATIONS FOR SMALL ARMS TRAINING USING MK3A2 ANTISWIMMER GRENADES (0.5 LBS NEW) IN THE GOMEX RANGE COMPLEX FOR DIFFERENT SEASONS

Estimated ZOI @ 177 dB re 1 μPa2-sec (multiple detonations only) Estimated ZOI 

@ 182 dB re 1 μPa2-sec or 23 psi 

Estimated ZOI 

@ 205 dB re 1 μPa2-sec or 13 psi 

Mortality ZOI 

@ 30.5 psi 

Win Spr Sum Fall Win Spr Sum Fall Win Spr Sum Fall Win Spr Sum Fall 

4.94 5.45 4.71 5.81 1.80 2.18 1.96 3.27 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 

Note: ZOIs for the MK3A2 bombs are modeled as multiple detonations (4 bombs dropped in succession at same location). 

3. Summary of Potential Exposures 

From Explosive Ordnance Use 

Explosions that occur in the GOMEX 

Study Area with the potential to impact 

marine mammals are associated with 

training during BOMBEX and small 

arms training events. Explosive 

ordnance use is limited to specific 

training areas. Within the GOMEX 

Study Area, explosive use associated 

with BOMBEX events occur in the 

BOMBEX Hotbox. The use of MK3A2 

anti-swimmer grenades is associated 

with small arms training events, which 

are limited to the UNDET Area E3 box. 

An explosive analysis was conducted 

to estimate the number of marine 

mammals that could be exposed to 

impacts from explosive ordnance use 

associated with BOMBEX and small 

arms training. Table 6 provides a 

summary of the explosive analysis 

modeling results. 

Exposure estimates could not be 

calculated for several species (blue 

whale, fin whale, humpback whale, 

North Atlantic right whale, sei whale, 

and minke whale) because density data 

could not be calculated for the GOMEX 

Study Area due to the limited available 

data for these species; however, the 

likelihood of exposure for species not 

expected to occur in the GOMEX Study 

Area should be even lower than for the 

species with occurrence frequent 

enough for densities to be calculated. In 

addition to the low likelihood of 

exposure, the proposed mitigation 

measures presented below would be 

implemented prior to release of 

ordnance. Since the fin, North Atlantic 

right, humpback, blue, sei, and minke 

whale are considered rare in the 

GOMEX Range Complex, no exposures 

are expected for these species. In 

addition, the West Indian manatee is not 

expected to occur where explosive 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALSEP14JY09.004</MATH> EP14JY09.005</MATH>
33972 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

ordnance is used; therefore no 

exposures are expected for this species. 

Lookouts will monitor the area before 

ordnance is used. Sperm whales will 

have high detection rates at the surface 

because of their large body size and 

pronounced blows; however, sperm 

whales are long, deep divers and may be 

submerged, and thus not visually 

detectable, for over an hour. It is likely 

that lookouts would detect Atlantic 

spotted dolphins, bottlenose dolphins, 

Clymene dolphins, pantropical spotted 

dolphins, Risso’s dolphins, spinner 

dolphins and striped dolphins due to 

their gregarious nature and active 

surface behavior. Implementation of 

mitigation measures will reduce the 

likelihood of exposure and potential 

effects. 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES FROM EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE (PER YEAR) FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE

GOMEX RANGE COMPLEX BY THE NAVY MODELING

Species/training operation 

Potential exposures 

@177 dB re 1 

microPa2-s 

(multiple detonations only) 

Potential exposures 

@182 dB re 1 

microPa2-s or 23 

psi-ms 

Potential exposures 

@205 dB re 1 

microPa2-s or 13 

psi-ms 

Potential exposures 

@30.5 psi-ms 

Sperm whale: 

BOMBEX training ..................................................... 0 0 0 0 

Small Arms training .................................................. 0 0 0 0 

Total Exposures ................................................ 0 0 0 0 

Atlantic spotted dolphin: 

BOMBEX training ..................................................... 1 1 0 0 

Small Arms training .................................................. 0 0 0 0 

Total Exposures ................................................ 1 1 0 0 

Beaked whales: 

BOMBEX training ..................................................... 0 0 0 0 

Small Arms training .................................................. 0 0 0 0 

Total Exposures ................................................ 0 0 0 0 

Bottlenose dolphin: 

BOMBEX training ..................................................... 6 6 0 0 

Small Arms training .................................................. 4 3 0 0 

Total Exposures ................................................ 10 9 0 0 

Bryde’s whale: 

BOMBEX training ..................................................... 0 0 0 0 

Small Arms training .................................................. 0 0 0 0 

Total Exposures ................................................ 0 0 0 0 

Clymene dolphin: 

BOMBEX training ..................................................... 3 3 0 0 

Small Arms training .................................................. 0 0 0 0 

Total Exposures ................................................ 3 3 0 0 

False killer whale: 

BOMBEX training ..................................................... 0 0 0 0 

Small Arms training .................................................. 0 0 0 0 

Total Exposures ................................................ 0 0 0 0 

Fraser’s dolphin: 

BOMBEX training ..................................................... 0 0 0 0 

Small Arms training .................................................. 0 0 0 0 

Total Exposures ................................................ 0 0 0 0 

Killer whale: 

BOMBEX training ..................................................... 0 0 0 0 

Small Arms training .................................................. 0 0 0 0 

Total Exposures ................................................ 0 0 0 0 

Kogia spp.: 

BOMBEX training ..................................................... 0 0 0 0 

Small Arms training .................................................. 0 0 0 0 

Total Exposures ................................................ 0 0 0 0 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33973 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES FROM EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE (PER YEAR) FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE

GOMEX RANGE COMPLEX BY THE NAVY MODELING—Continued 

Species/training operation 

Potential exposures 

@177 dB re 1 

microPa2-s 

(multiple detonations only) 

Potential exposures 

@182 dB re 1 

microPa2-s or 23 

psi-ms 

Potential exposures 

@205 dB re 1 

microPa2-s or 13 

psi-ms 

Potential exposures 

@30.5 psi-ms 

Melon-headed whale: 

BOMBEX training ..................................................... 1 1 0 0 

Small Arms training .................................................. 0 0 0 0 

Total Exposures ................................................ 1 1 0 0 

Pantropical spotted dolphin: 

BOMBEX training ..................................................... 14 12 1 0 

Small Arms training .................................................. 0 0 0 0 

Total Exposures ................................................ 14 12 1 0 

Pygmy killer whale: 

BOMBEX training ..................................................... 0 0 0 0 

Small Arms training .................................................. 0 0 0 0 

Total Exposures ................................................ 0 0 0 0 

Risso’s dolphin: 

BOMBEX training ..................................................... 1 1 0 0 

Small Arms training .................................................. 0 0 0 0 

Total Exposures ................................................ 1 1 0 0 

Rough-toothed dolphin: 

BOMBEX training ..................................................... 0 0 0 0 

Small Arms training .................................................. 0 0 0 0 

Total Exposures ................................................ 0 0 0 0 

Short-finned pilot whale: 

BOMBEX training ..................................................... 0 0 0 0 

Small Arms training .................................................. 0 0 0 0 

Total Exposures ................................................ 0 0 0 0 

Spinner dolphin: 

BOMBEX training ..................................................... 14 13 1 0 

Small Arms training .................................................. 0 0 0 0 

Total Exposures ................................................ 14 13 1 0 

Striped dolphin 

BOMBEX training ..................................................... 4 4 0 0 

Small Arms training .................................................. 0 0 0 0 

Total Exposures ................................................ 4 4 0 0 

Proposed Mitigation Measures 

In order to issue an incidental take 

authorization (ITA) under Section 

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

prescribe regulations setting 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 amended the MMPA as it relates 

to military readiness activities and the 

incidental take authorization process 

such that ‘‘least practicable adverse 

impact’’ shall include consideration of 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the ‘‘military readiness 

activity.’’ The GOMEX Range Complex 

training activities described in this 

document are considered military 

readiness activities. 

NMFS reviewed the Navy’s proposed 

GOMEX Range Complex training 

activities and the proposed GOMEX 

Range Complex mitigation measures 

presented in the Navy’s application to 

determine whether the activities and 

mitigation measures were capable of 

achieving the least practicable adverse 

effect on marine mammals. 

Any mitigation measure prescribed by 

NMFS should be known to accomplish, 

have a reasonable likelihood of 

accomplishing (based on current 

science), or contribute to the 

accomplishment of one or more of the 

general goals listed below: 

(1) Avoidance or minimization of 

injury or death of marine mammals 

wherever possible (goals (2), (3), and (4) 

may contribute to this goal). 

(2) A reduction in the numbers of 

marine mammals (total number or 

number at a biologically important time 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
33974 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

or location) exposed to underwater 

detonations or other activities expected 

to result in the take of marine mammals 

(this goal may contribute to (1), above, 

or to reducing harassment takes only). 

(3) A reduction in the number of 

times (total number or number at 

biologically important time or location) 

individuals would be exposed to 

underwater detonations or other 

activities expected to result in the take 

of marine mammals (this goal may 

contribute to (1), above, or to reducing 

harassment takes only). 

(4) A reduction in the intensity of 

exposures (either total number or 

number at biologically important time 

or location) to underwater detonations 

or other activities expected to result in 

the take of marine mammals (this goal 

may contribute to (1), above, or to 

reducing the severity of harassment 

takes only). 

(5) A reduction in adverse effects to 

marine mammal habitat, paying special 

attention to the food base, activities that 

block or limit passage to or from 

biologically important areas, permanent 

destruction of habitat, or temporary 

destruction/disturbance of habitat 

during a biologically important time. 

(6) For monitoring directly related to 

mitigation—an increase in the 

probability of detecting marine 

mammals, thus allowing for more 

effective implementation of the 

mitigation (shut-down zone, etc.). 

NMFS reviewed the Navy’s proposed 

mitigation measures, which included a 

careful balancing of the likely benefit of 

any particular measure to the marine 

mammals with the likely effect of that 

measure on personnel safety, 

practicality of implementation, and 

impact on the ‘‘military-readiness 

activity.’’ These mitigation measures are 

listed below. 

General Maritime Measures 

The mitigation measures presented 

below would be taken by Navy 

personnel on a regular and routine 

basis. These are routine measures and 

are considered ‘‘Standard Operating 

Procedures.’’ 

I. Personnel Training—Lookouts 

The use of shipboard lookouts is a 

critical component of all Navy standard 

operating procedures. Navy shipboard 

lookouts (also referred to as 

‘‘watchstanders’’) are qualified and 

experienced observers of the marine 

environment. Their duties require that 

they report all objects sighted in the 

water to the Officer of the Deck (OOD) 

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

mammals, sea turtles) and all 

disturbances (e.g., surface disturbance, 

discoloration) that may be indicative of 

a threat to the vessel and its crew. There 

are personnel serving as lookouts on 

station at all times (day and night) when 

a ship or surfaced submarine is moving 

through the water. 

For the past few years, the Navy has 

implemented marine mammal spotter 

training for its bridge lookout personnel 

on ships and submarines. This training 

has been revamped and updated as the 

Marine Species Awareness Training 

(MSAT) and is provided to all 

applicable units. The lookout training 

program incorporates MSAT, which 

addresses the lookout’s role in 

environmental protection, laws 

governing the protection of marine 

species, Navy stewardship 

commitments, and general observation 

information, including more detailed 

information for spotting marine 

mammals. MSAT may also be viewed 

on-line at https:// 

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

1. All bridge personnel, Commanding 

Officers, Executive Officers, officers 

standing watch on the bridge, maritime 

patrol aircraft aircrews, and Mine 

Warfare (MIW) helicopter crews will 

complete MSAT. 

2. Navy lookouts would undertake 

extensive training to qualify as a 

watchstander in accordance with the 

Lookout Training Handbook 

(NAVEDTRA 12968–D). 

3. 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). 

4. Lookouts will be trained in the 

most effective means to ensure quick 

and effective communication within the 

command structure to facilitate 

implementation of protective measures 

if marine species are spotted. 

5. Surface lookouts would scan the 

water from the ship to the horizon and 

be responsible for all contacts in their 

sector. In searching the assigned sector, 

the lookout would always start at the 

forward part of the sector and search aft 

(toward the back). To search and scan, 

the lookout would hold the binoculars 

steady so the horizon is in the top third 

of the field of vision and direct the eyes 

just below the horizon. The lookout 

would scan for approximately five 

seconds in as many small steps as 

possible across the field seen through 

the binoculars. They would search the 

entire sector in approximately fivedegree steps, pausing between steps for 

approximately five seconds to scan the 

field of view. At the end of the sector 

search, the glasses would be lowered to 

allow the eyes to rest for a few seconds, 

and then the lookout would search back 

across the sector with the naked eye. 

II. Operating Procedures and Collision 

Avoidance 

1. 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 mitigation measures. 

2. Commanding Officers will make 

use of marine species detection cues 

and information to limit interaction 

with marine species to the maximum 

extent possible consistent with safety of 

the ship according to the proposed 

mitigation and monitoring measures. 

3. 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. 

4. Personnel on lookout will employ 

visual search procedures employing a 

scanning method in accordance with the 

Lookout Training Handbook 

(NAVEDTRA 12968–D). 

5. After sunset and prior to sunrise, 

lookouts will employ Night Lookouts 

Techniques in accordance with the 

Lookout Training Handbook 

(NAVEDTRA 12968–D). 

6. While in transit, personnel aboard 

naval vessels will be alert at all times, 

use extreme caution, and proceed at a 

‘‘safe speed’’ (the minimum speed at 

which mission goals or safety will not 

be compromised) 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. 

7. When whales have been sighted in 

the area, Navy vessels will increase 

vigilance and shall implement measures 

to avoid collisions with marine 

mammals and avoid activities that 

might result in close interaction of naval 

assets and marine mammals. Actions 

shall include changing speed and/or 

direction and are dictated by 

environmental and other conditions 

(e.g., safety, weather). 

8. Naval vessels will maneuver to 

keep at least 500 yds (460 m) away from 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33975 

any observed whale and avoid 

approaching whales head-on. This 

requirement does not apply if a vessel’s 

safety is threatened, such as when 

change of course will create an 

imminent and serious threat to a person, 

vessel, or aircraft, and to the extent 

vessels are restricted in their ability to 

maneuver. Restricted maneuverability 

includes, but is not limited to, situations 

when vessels are engaged in dredging, 

submerged operations, launching and 

recovering aircraft or landing craft, 

minesweeping operations, 

replenishment while underway and 

towing operations that severely restrict 

a vessel’s ability to deviate course. 

Vessels will take reasonable steps to 

alert other vessels in the vicinity of the 

whale. 

9. Where feasible and consistent with 

mission and safety, vessels will avoid 

closing to within 200-yd (183 m) of 

marine mammals other than whales 

(whales addressed above). 

10. Floating weeds, algal mats, 

Sargassum rafts, clusters of seabirds, 

and jellyfish are good indicators of 

marine mammal presence. Therefore, 

increased vigilance in watching for 

marine mammals will be taken where 

these conditions exist. 

11. 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 described in the Navy’s LOA 

application. 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. 

12. All vessels will maintain logs and 

records documenting training 

operations should they be required for 

event reconstruction purposes. Logs and 

records will be kept for a period of 30 

days following completion of a major 

training exercise. 

Coordination and Reporting 

Requirements 

The Navy will coordinate with the 

local NMFS Stranding Coordinator for 

any unusual marine mammal behavior 

and any stranding, beached live/dead, 

or floating marine mammals that may 

occur at any time during training 

activities or within 24 hours after 

completion of training activities. 

Additionally, the Navy will follow 

internal chain of command reporting 

procedures as promulgated through 

Navy instructions and orders. 

Proposed Mitigation Measures for 

Specific At-Sea Training Events 

These measures are standard 

operating procedures that are in place 

currently and will be used in the future 

for all activities being analyzed in this 

LOA request. 

I. Small Arms Training—Explosive 

Hand Grenades (MK3A2 Grenades) 

This activity occurs in the UNDET 

Area E3 of the GOMEX Study Area. The 

following mitigation measures are 

proposed by the Navy for the small arms 

training. 

(A) Lookouts visually survey for 

floating weeds, algal mats, Sargassum 

rafts, marine mammals. 

(B) A 200-yard (182-m) radius buffer 

zone will be established around the 

intended target. The exercises will be 

conducted only if the buffer is clear of 

sighted marine mammals and sea 

turtles. 

II. Air-to-Surface At-Sea Bombing 

Exercises (BOMBEX, 500-lb to 2,000-lb 

Explosive Bombs) 

This activity occurs in W–155A/B 

(hot box) area of the GOMEX Study 

Area. The location was established to be 

within 150 nm from shore-based 

facilities (the established flight distance 

restriction for F/A–18 jets during unit 

level training events). The following 

mitigation measures are proposed by the 

Navy for the BOMBEX training. 

(A) Aircraft would visually survey the 

target and buffer zone for marine 

mammals prior to and during the 

exercise. The survey of the impact area 

would be made by flying at 1,500 feet 

altitude 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. 

(B) A buffer zone of a 5,100-yard 

(4,663-m) radius would be established 

around the intended target zone. The 

exercises would be conducted only if 

the buffer zone is clear of sighted 

marine mammals and sea turtles. 

(C) If surface vessels are involved, 

lookouts would survey for Sargassum 

rafts, which may be inhabited by 

immature sea turtles. Ordnance would 

not be targeted to impact within 5,100 

yards (4,663 m) of known or observed 

Sargassum rafts or coral reefs. 

(D) At-sea BOMBEXs using live 

ordnance will occur during daylight 

hours only. 

Monitoring Measures 

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: 

(1) An increase in the probability of 

detecting marine mammals, both within 

the safety zone (thus allowing for more 

effective implementation of the 

mitigation) and in general to generate 

more data to contribute to the effects 

analyses. 

(2) An increase in our understanding 

of how many marine mammals are 

likely to be exposed to levels of 

underwater detonations or other stimuli 

that we associate with specific adverse 

effects, such as behavioral harassment, 

TTS, or PTS. 

(3) An increase in our understanding 

of how marine mammals respond 

(behaviorally or physiologically) to 

underwater detonations or other stimuli 

expected to result in take and how 

anticipated adverse effects on 

individuals (in different ways and to 

varying degrees) may impact the 

population, species, or stock 

(specifically through effects on annual 

rates of recruitment or survival). 

(4) An increased knowledge of the 

affected species. 

(5) An increase in our understanding 

of the effectiveness of certain mitigation 

and monitoring measures. 

(6) A better understanding and record 

of the manner in which the authorized 

entity complies with the incidental take 

authorization. 

Proposed Monitoring Plan for the 

GOMEX Range Complex 

The Navy has provided NMFS with a 

copy of the draft GOMEX Range 

Complex Monitoring Plan. Additionally, 

NMFS and the Navy have incorporated 

a suggestion from the public, which 

recommended the Navy hold a peer 

review workshop to discuss the Navy’s 

Monitoring Plans for the multiple range 

complexes and training exercises in 

which the Navy would receive ITAs. 

The Navy must notify NMFS 

immediately (or as soon as clearance 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
33976 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

procedures allow) if the specified 

activity is thought to have resulted in 

the mortality or injury of any marine 

mammals, or in any take of marine 

mammals not identified in this 

document. 

The Navy must conduct all 

monitoring and/or research required 

under the Letter of Authorization, if 

issued. 

With input from NMFS, a summary of 

the monitoring methods required for use 

during training events in the GOMEX 

Range Complex are described below. 

These methods include a combination 

of individual elements that are designed 

to allow a comprehensive assessment. 

I. Vessel or Aerial Surveys 

(A) The Navy shall visually survey a 

minimum of 1 explosive event per year. 

If possible, the event surveyed will be 

one involving multiple detonations. One 

of the vessel or aerial surveys should 

involve professionally trained marine 

mammal observers (MMOs). 

(B) When operationally feasible, for 

specified training events, aerial or vessel 

surveys shall be used 1–2 days prior to, 

during (if reasonably safe), and 1–5 days 

post detonation. (C) Surveys shall include any 

specified exclusion zone around a 

particular detonation point plus 2,000 

yards beyond the border of the 

exclusion zone (i.e., the circumference 

of the area from the border of the 

exclusion zone extending 2,000 yards 

outwards). For vessel-based surveys a 

passive acoustic system (hydrophone or 

towed array) could be used to determine 

if marine mammals are in the area 

before and/or after a detonation event. 

(D) When conducting a particular 

survey, the survey team shall collect: • Location of sighting; • Species (if not possible, indicate 

whale, dolphin or pinniped); • Number of individuals; • Whether calves were observed; • Initial detection sensor; • Length of time observers 

maintained visual contact with marine 

mammal; • Wave height; • Visibility; • Whether sighting was before, 

during, or after detonations/exercise, 

and how many minutes before or after; • Distance of marine mammal from 

actual detonations (or target spot if not 

yet detonated); • Observed behavior—Watchstanders 

will report, in plain language and 

without trying to categorize in any way, 

the observed behavior of the animal(s) 

(such as animal closing to bow ride, 

paralleling course/speed, floating on 

surface and not swimming etc.), 

including speed and direction; • Resulting mitigation 

implementation—Indicate whether 

explosive detonations were delayed, 

ceased, modified, or not modified due to 

marine mammal presence and for how 

long; and • If observation occurs while 

explosives are detonating in the water, 

indicate munitions type in use at time 

of marine mammal detection (e.g., were 

the 5-inch guns actually firing when the 

animals were sighted? Did animals enter 

an area 2 minutes after a huge explosion 

went off?). 

II. Passive Acoustic Monitoring 

The Navy is required to conduct 

passive acoustic monitoring when 

operationally feasible. 

(A) Any time a towed hydrophone 

array is employed during shipboard 

surveys the towed array shall be 

deployed during daylight hours for each 

of the days the ship is at sea. 

(B) The towed hydrophone array shall 

be used to supplement the ship-based 

systematic line-transect surveys 

(particularly for species such as beaked 

whales that are rarely seen). 

III. Marine Mammal Observers on Navy 

Platforms 

(A) MMOs selected for aerial or vessel 

surveys shall be placed on a Navy 

platform during one of the exercises 

being monitored per year. The 

remaining designated exercise(s) shall 

be monitored by the Navy lookouts/ 

watchstanders. 

(B) The MMO must possess expertise 

in species identification of regional 

marine mammal species and experience 

collecting behavioral data. 

(C) MMOs shall not be placed aboard 

Navy platforms for every Navy training 

event or major exercise, but during 

specifically identified opportunities 

deemed appropriate for data collection 

efforts. The events selected for MMO 

participation shall take into account 

safety, logistics, and operational 

concerns. (D) MMOs shall observe from the 

same height above water as the 

lookouts. 

(E) The MMOs shall not be part of the 

Navy’s formal reporting chain of 

command during their data collection 

efforts; Navy lookouts shall continue to 

serve as the primary reporting means 

within the Navy chain of command for 

marine mammal sightings. The only 

exception is that if an animal is 

observed within the shutdown zone that 

has not been observed by the lookout, 

the MMO shall inform the lookout of the 

sighting, and the lookout shall take the 

appropriate action through the chain of 

command. 

(F) The MMOs shall collect species 

identification, behavior, direction of 

travel relative to the Navy platform, and 

distance first observed. All MMO 

sightings shall be conducted according 

to a standard operating procedure. 

Information collected by MMOs should 

be the same as those collected by Navy 

lookout/watchstanders described above. 

The Monitoring Plan for the GOMEX 

Range Complex has been designed as a 

collection of focused ‘‘studies’’ 

(described fully in the GOMEX 

Monitoring Plan) to gather data that will 

allow the Navy to address the following 

questions: 

(A) What are the behavioral responses 

of marine mammals that are exposed to 

explosives? 

(B) Is the Navy’s suite of mitigation 

measures effective at avoiding injury 

and mortality of marine mammals? 

Data gathered in these studies will be 

collected by qualified, professional 

marine mammal biologists or trained 

Navy lookouts/watchstanders that are 

experts in their field. This monitoring 

plan has been designed to gather data on 

all species of marine mammals that are 

observed in the GOMEX Range Complex 

study area. 

Monitoring Workshop 

During the public comment period on 

past proposed rules for Navy actions 

(such as the Hawaii Range Complex 

(HRC) and Southern California Range 

Complex (SOCAL) proposed rules), 

NMFS received a recommendation that 

a workshop or panel be convened to 

solicit input on the monitoring plan 

from researchers, experts, and other 

interested parties. The GOMEX Range 

Complex proposed rule included an 

adaptive management component and 

both NMFS and the Navy believe that a 

workshop would provide a means for 

Navy and NMFS to consider input from 

participants in determining whether 

(and if so, how) to modify monitoring 

techniques to more effectively 

accomplish the goals of monitoring set 

forth earlier in the document. NMFS 

and the Navy believe that this workshop 

concept is valuable in relation to all of 

the Range Complexes and major training 

exercise rules and LOAs that NMFS is 

working on with the Navy at this time. 

Consequently, NMFS has determined 

that this single Monitoring Workshop 

will be included as a component of all 

of the rules and LOAs that NMFS will 

be processing for the Navy in the next 

year or so. 

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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33977 

previous two years of monitoring 

pursuant to the GOMEX Range Complex 

rule as well as monitoring results from 

other Navy rules and LOAs (e.g., 

VACAPES, AFAST, SOCAL, HRC, and 

other rules). 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. 

Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring 

Program 

In addition to the site-specific 

Monitoring Plan for the GOMEX Range 

Complex, the Navy will complete the 

Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring 

Program (ICMP) Plan by the end of 

2009. The ICMP is currently in 

development by the Navy, with Chief of 

Naval Operations Environmental 

Readiness Division (CNO-N45) having 

the lead. The program does not 

duplicate the monitoring plans for 

individual areas (e.g., AFAST, HRC, 

SOCAL, VACAPES); instead it is 

intended to provide the overarching 

coordination that will support 

compilation of data from both rangespecific monitoring plans as well as 

Navy funded research and development 

(R&D) studies. The ICMP will 

coordinate the monitoring programs’ 

progress towards meeting its goals and 

develop a data management plan. A 

program review board is also being 

considered to provide additional 

guidance. The ICMP will be evaluated 

annually to provide a matrix for 

progress and goals for the following 

year, and will make recommendations 

on adaptive management for refinement 

and analysis of the monitoring methods. 

The primary objectives of the ICMP 

are to: 

• Monitor and assess the effects of 

Navy activities on protected species; 

• Ensure that data collected at 

multiple locations is collected in a 

manner that allows comparison between 

and among different geographic 

locations; 

• Assess the efficacy and practicality 

of the monitoring and mitigation 

techniques; 

• Add to the overall knowledge-base 

of marine species and the effects of 

Navy activities on marine species. 

The ICMP will be used both as: (1) a 

planning tool to focus Navy monitoring 

priorities (pursuant to ESA/MMPA 

requirements) across Navy Range 

Complexes and Exercises; and (2) an 

adaptive management tool, through the 

consolidation and analysis of the Navy’s 

monitoring and watchstander data, as 

well as new information from other 

Navy programs (e.g., R&D), and other 

appropriate newly published 

information. 

In combination with the 2011 

Monitoring Workshop and the adaptive 

management component of the GOMEX 

Range Complex rule and the other Navy 

rules (e.g. VACAPES Range Complex, 

Jacksonville Range Complex, etc.), the 

ICMP could potentially provide a 

framework for restructuring the 

monitoring plans and allocating 

monitoring effort based on the value of 

particular specific monitoring proposals 

(in terms of the degree to which results 

would likely contribute to stated 

monitoring goals, as well the likely 

technical success of the monitoring 

based on a review of past monitoring 

results) that have been developed 

through the ICMP framework, instead of 

allocating based on maintaining an 

equal (or commensurate to effects) 

distribution of monitoring effort across 

range complexes. For example, if careful 

prioritization and planning through the 

ICMP (which would include a review of 

both past monitoring results and current 

scientific developments) were to show 

that a large, intense monitoring effort in 

Hawaii would likely provide extensive, 

robust and much-needed data that could 

be used to understand the effects of 

sonar throughout different geographical 

areas, it may be appropriate to have 

other range complexes dedicate money, 

resources, or staff to the specific 

monitoring proposal identified as ‘‘high 

priority’’ by the Navy and NMFS, in lieu 

of focusing on smaller, lower priority 

projects divided throughout their home 

range complexes. 

The ICMP will identify: 

• A means by which NMFS and the 

Navy would jointly consider prior years’ 

monitoring results and advancing 

science to determine if modifications 

are needed in mitigation or monitoring 

measures to better effect the goals laid 

out in the Mitigation and Monitoring 

sections of the GOMEX Range Complex 

rule. 

• Guidelines for prioritizing 

monitoring projects. 

• If, as a result of the workshop and 

similar to the example described in the 

paragraph above, the Navy and NMFS 

decide it is appropriate to restructure 

the monitoring plans for multiple ranges 

such that they are no longer evenly 

allocated (by rule), but rather focused on 

priority monitoring projects that are not 

necessarily tied to the geographic area 

addressed in the rule, the ICMP will be 

modified to include a very clear and 

unclassified recordkeeping system that 

will allow NMFS and the public to see 

how each range complex/project is 

contributing to all of the ongoing 

monitoring programs (resources, effort, 

money, etc.). 

Adaptive Management 

NMFS proposes to include an 

adaptive management component in the 

final regulations governing the take of 

marine mammals incidental to Navy 

training exercises in the GOMEX Range 

Complex. The use of adaptive 

management will give NMFS the ability 

to consider new data from different 

sources to determine (in coordination 

with the Navy) on an annual basis if 

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, if issued. 

The following are some of the 

possible sources of applicable data: 

• Results from the Navy’s monitoring 

from the previous year (either from 

GOMEX Range Complex 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 GOMEX 

Range Complex or other locations). 

• Results from general marine 

mammal and sound research (funded by 

the Navy 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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
33978 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

coordinate with the Navy to modify or 

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 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 Measures 

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 to 

ensure compliance with the terms and 

conditions of a LOA, and to provide 

NMFS and the Navy with data of the 

highest quality based on the required 

monitoring. As NMFS noted in its 

proposed rule, additional detail has 

been added to the reporting 

requirements since they were outlined 

in the proposed rule. The updated 

reporting requirements are all included 

below. A subset of the information 

provided in the monitoring reports may 

be classified and not releasable to the 

public. 

NMFS will work with the Navy to 

develop tables that allow for efficient 

submission of the information required 

below. 

General Notification of Injured or Dead 

Marine Mammals 

Navy personnel will ensure that 

NMFS (regional stranding coordinator) 

is notified immediately (or as soon as 

operational security allows) if an 

injured or dead marine mammal is 

found during or shortly after, and in the 

vicinity of, any Navy training exercise 

utilizing underwater explosive 

detonations or other activities. 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). 

Annual GOMEX Range Complex 

Monitoring Plan Report 

The Navy shall submit a report 

annually on November 1 describing the 

implementation and results (through 

September 1 of the same year) of the 

GOMEX Range Complex Monitoring 

Plan, described above. Data collection 

methods will be standardized across 

range complexes to allow for 

comparison in different geographic 

locations. Although additional 

information will also be gathered, the 

MMOs collecting marine mammal data 

pursuant to the GOMEX Range Complex 

Monitoring Plan shall, at a minimum, 

provide the same marine mammal 

observation data required in major range 

complex training exercises section of 

the Annual GOMEX Range Complex 

Exercise Report referenced below. 

The GOMEX Range Complex 

Monitoring Plan Report may be 

provided to NMFS within a larger report 

that includes the required Monitoring 

Plan Reports from multiple Range 

Complexes. 

Annual GOMEX Range Complex 

Exercise Report 

The Navy is in the process of 

improving the methods used to track 

explosives used to provide increased 

granularity. 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. 

(i) Total annual number of each type 

of explosive exercise (of those identified 

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

final rule) conducted in the GOMEX 

Range Complex. 

(ii) Total annual expended/detonated 

rounds (missiles, bombs, etc.) for each 

explosive type. 

GOMEX Range Complex 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 

the GOMEX Range Complex exercises 

for which annual reports are required 

(Annual GOMEX Range Complex 

Exercise Reports and GOMEX Range 

Complex Monitoring Plan Reports). This 

report will be submitted at the end of 

the fourth year of the rule (March 2014), 

covering activities that have occurred 

through September 1, 2013. 

Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 

With respect to the MMPA, NMFS’ 

effects assessment serves four primary 

purposes: (1) To prescribe the 

permissible methods of taking (i.e., 

Level B Harassment (behavioral 

harassment), Level A harassment 

(injury), or mortality, including an 

identification of the number and types 

of take that could occur by Level A or 

B harassment or mortality) and to 

prescribe other means of affecting the 

least practicable adverse impact on such 

species or stock and its habitat (i.e., 

mitigation); (2) to determine whether 

the specified activity will have a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stocks of marine mammals (based on 

the likelihood that the activity will 

adversely affect the species or stock 

through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival); (3) to 

determine whether the specified activity 

will have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (however, 

there are no subsistence communities 

that would be affected in the GOMEX 

Range Complex, so this determination is 

inapplicable for this rulemaking); and 

(4) to prescribe requirements pertaining 

to monitoring and reporting. 

In the Assessment of Marine Mammal 

Response to Anthropogenic Sound 

section, NMFS’ analysis identified the 

lethal responses, physical trauma, 

sensory impairment (permanent and 

temporary threshold shifts and acoustic 

masking), physiological responses 

(particular stress responses), and 

behavioral responses that could 

potentially result from explosive 

ordnance exposures. In this section, we 

will relate the potential effects to marine 

mammals from underwater detonation 

of explosives to the MMPA regulatory 

definitions of Level A and Level B 

Harassment and attempt to quantify the 

effects that might occur from the 

specific training activities that the Navy 

is proposing in the GOMEX Range 

Complex. 

Take Calculations 

In estimating the potential for marine 

mammals to be exposed to an acoustic 

source, the Navy completed the 

following actions: 

(1) Evaluated potential effects within 

the context of existing and current 

regulations, thresholds, and criteria; 

(2) Identified all acoustic sources that 

will be used during Navy training 

activities; 

(3) Identified the location, season, and 

duration of the action to determine 

which marine mammal species are 

likely to be present; 

(4) Determined the estimated number 

of marine mammals (i.e., density) of 

each species that will likely be present 

in the respective OPAREAs during the 

Navy training activities; 

(5) Applied the applicable acoustic 

threshold criteria to the predicted sound 

exposures from the proposed activity. 

The results were then evaluated to 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33979 

determine whether the predicted sound 

exposures from the acoustic model 

might be considered harassment; and 

(6) Considered potential harassment 

within the context of the affected 

marine mammal population, stock, and 

species to assess potential population 

viability. Particular focus on 

recruitment and survival are provided to 

analyze whether the effects of the action 

can be considered to have a negligible 

impact on marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Starting with a sound source, the 

attenuation of an emitted sound due to 

propagation loss is determined. Uniform 

animal distribution is overlaid onto the 

calculated sound fields to assess if 

animals are physically present at 

sufficient received sound levels to be 

considered ‘‘exposed’’ to the sound. If 

the animal is determined to be exposed, 

two possible scenarios must be 

considered with respect to the animal’s 

physiology—effects on the auditory 

system and effects on non-auditory 

system tissues. These are not 

independent pathways and both must 

be considered since the same sound 

could affect both auditory and nonauditory tissues. Note that the model 

does not account for any animal 

response; rather the animals are 

considered stationary, accumulating 

energy until the threshold is tripped. 

These modeling results do not take 

into account the mitigation measures 

(detailed in the Mitigation Measure 

section above) that lower the potential 

for exposures to occur given standard 

range clearance procedures and the 

likelihood that these species can be 

readily detected (e.g., small animals 

move quickly throughout the water 

column and are often seen riding the 

bow wave of large ships or in large 

groups). Nevertheless, based on the 

modeling results, 2 Atlantic spotted 

dolphins, 19 bottlenose dolphins, 6 

Clymene dolphins, 2 melon-headed 

whales, 26 pantropical spotted 

dolphins, 2 Risso’s dolphins, 27 spinner 

dolphins, and 8 striped dolphins would 

be taken by Level B harassment (subTTS and TTS) as a result of the Navy 

training activities in the GOMEX Range 

Complex. In addition, 1 individual each 

of pantropical spotted dolphin and 

spinner dolphin would be taken by 

Level A harassment (injury). Please refer 

to Table 6 for a detailed list of marine 

mammals that would be taken as a 

result of the proposed Navy training 

activities within the GOMEX Range 

Complex. NMFS does not believe that 

there would be any mortality of any 

marine mammal resulting from the 

proposed training activities due to the 

sparse training activities and the 

implementation of mitigation and 

monitoring measures described above. 

Therefore, mortality of marine mammals 

would not be authorized. With the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

implemented, the estimated take could 

be further reduced. 

Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat 

Marine mammal habitat and prey 

species could be affected by the 

explosive ordnance testing and the 

sound generated by such activities. 

Based on the analysis contained in the 

Navy’s DEIS and the information below, 

NMFS has determined that the GOMEX 

Range Complex training activities will 

not have adverse or long-term impacts 

on marine mammal habitat or prey 

species. 

Unless the sound source or explosive 

detonation is stationary and/or 

continuous over a long duration in one 

area, the effects of underwater 

detonation and its associated sound 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 be utilized again after the activities 

have ceased. 

Effects on Food Resources 

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 could leave the area 

temporarily. 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. In 

most situations, cause of death in fish 

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 fish 

are generally less susceptible to death or 

injury than small fish. Moreover, 

elongated forms that are round in cross 

section are less at risk than deep-bodied 

forms. Orientation of fish relative to the 

shock wave may also affect the extent of 

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

mackerel) 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 variation in fish 

populations, including numbers, 

species, sizes, and orientation and range 

from the detonation point, makes it very 

difficult to accurately predict mortalities 

at any specific site of detonation. A total 

of 7 hours explosive detonation events, 

with each event lasting for 

approximately 1 hour, are widely 

dispersed in two locations within the 

large GOMEX study area over the 

seasons for each year. Most fish species 

experience a large number of natural 

mortalities, especially during early lifestages, and any small level of mortality 

caused by the GOMEX Range Complex 

training exercises involving explosives 

will likely be insignificant to the 

population as a whole. 

Therefore, potential impacts to marine 

mammal food resources within the 

GOMEX Range Complex are expected to 

be minimal given both 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 GOMEX Range Complex. 

Analysis and Negligible Impact 

Determination 

Pursuant to NMFS’ regulations 

implementing the MMPA, an applicant 

is required to estimate the number of 

animals that will be ‘‘taken’’ by the 

specified activities (i.e., takes by 

harassment only, or takes by 

harassment, injury, and/or death). This 

estimate informs the analysis that NMFS 

must perform to determine whether the 

activity will have a ‘‘negligible impact’’ 

on the species or stock. Level B 

(behavioral) harassment occurs at the 

level of the individual(s) and does not 

assume any resulting population-level 

consequences, though there are known 

avenues through which behavioral 

disturbance of individuals can result in 

population-level effects. 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, 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
33980 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

The Navy’s specified activities have 

been described based on best estimates 

of the planned detonation events the 

Navy would conduct for the proposed 

GOMEX Range Complex training 

activities. The events are generally short 

in duration, with each of the seven 

annual events lasting for about 1 hour. 

Taking the above into account, along 

with the fact that NMFS anticipates no 

mortalities (and few injuries) to result 

from the action, the fact that there are 

no specific areas of reproductive 

importance for marine mammals 

recognized within the GOMEX Range 

Complex, the sections discussed below, 

and dependent upon the 

implementation of the proposed 

mitigation measures, NMFS has 

determined that Navy training exercises 

utilizing underwater detonations will 

have a negligible impact on the affected 

marine mammal species and stocks 

present in the GOMEX Range Complex 

Study Area. 

NMFS’ analysis of potential 

behavioral harassment, temporary 

threshold shifts, permanent threshold 

shifts, injury, and mortality to marine 

mammals as a result of the GOMEX 

Range Complex training activities was 

provided earlier in this proposed rule 

and is analyzed in more detail below. 

Behavioral Harassment 

The Navy plans a total of 1 BOMBEX 

training event (with 4 bombs in 

succession for 1 hour) and 6 small arms 

training events (with 20 live grenades 

for each 1-hour event) annually. The 

total training exercises proposed by the 

Navy in the GOMEX Range Complex 

amount to approximately 7 hours per 

year. These detonation events are 

widely dispersed in two of the 

designated sites within the GOMEX 

Range Complex Study Area. The 

probability that detonation events will 

overlap in time and space with marine 

mammals is low, particularly given the 

densities of marine mammals in the 

GOMEX Range Complex Study Area and 

the implementation of monitoring and 

mitigation measures. Moreover, NMFS 

does not expect animals to experience 

repeat exposures to the same sound 

source as animals will likely move away 

from the source after being exposed. In 

addition, these isolated exposures, 

when received at distances of Level B 

behavioral harassment (i.e., 177 dB re 1 

microPa 2-sec), are expected to cause 

brief startle reactions or short-term 

behavioral modification by the animals. 

These brief reactions and behavioral 

changes are expected to disappear when 

the exposures cease. Therefore, these 

levels of received impulse noise from 

detonation are not expected to affect 

annual rates or recruitment or survival. 

TTS 

NMFS and the Navy have estimated 

that individuals of some species of 

marine mammals may sustain some 

level of temporarily threshold shift TTS 

from underwater detonations. TTS can 

last from a few minutes to days, be of 

varying degree, and occur across various 

frequency bandwidths. 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). 

• 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). Since the 

impulse from detonation is extremely 

brief, an animal would have to approach 

very close to the detonation site to 

increase the received SEL. The 

threshold for the onset of TTS for 

detonations is a dual criteria: 182 dB re 

1 microPa2-sec or 23 psi, which might 

be received at distances from 345–2,863 

m from the centers of detonation based 

on the types of NEW involved to receive 

the SEL that causes TTS compared to 

similar source level with longer 

durations (such as sonar signals). 

• Duration of TTS (Recovery time)— 

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. 

• Although the degree of TTS 

depends on the received noise levels 

and exposure time, all studies show that 

TTS is reversible and animals’ 

sensitivity is expected to recover fully 

in minutes to hours. Therefore, NMFS 

expects that TTS would not affect 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

Acoustic Masking or Communication 

Impairment 

As discussed above, it is also possible 

that anthropogenic sound could result 

in masking of marine mammal 

communication and navigation signals. 

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. Impulse sounds from 

underwater detonation are extremely 

brief and the majority of most animals’ 

vocalizations would not be masked. 

Therefore, masking effects from 

underwater detonation are expected to 

be minimal and unlikely. If masking or 

communication impairment were to 

occur briefly, it would be in the 

frequency ranges below 100 Hz, which 

overlaps with some mysticete 

vocalizations; however, it would likely 

not mask the entirety of any particular 

vocalization or communication series 

because of the short impulse. 

PTS, Injury, or Mortality 

The Navy’s model estimated that 1 

pantropical spotted dolphin and 1 

spinner dolphin could experience 50- 

percent tympanic membrane rupture or 

slight lung injury (Level A harassment) 

as a result of the training activities 

utilizing underwater detonation by 

BOMBEX in the GOMEX Range 

Complex Study Area. However, these 

estimates do not take into consideration 

the proposed mitigation and monitoring 

measures. For underwater detonations, 

the animals have to be within an area 

between certain injury zones of 

influence (ZOI) to experience Level A 

harassment. Such injury ZOI varies from 

0.09 km2 to 4.98 km2 (or at distances 

between 169 m to 1,259 m from the 

center of detonation) depending on the 

types of munition used and the season 

of the action. Though it is possible that 

Navy observers could fail to detect an 

animal at a distance of more than 1 km 

(an injury ZOI during BOMBEX, which 

is planned to have 1 event annually), all 

injury ZOIs from small arms trainings 

are smaller than 0.1 km2 (178 m in 

radius) and NMFS believes it is unlikely 

that any marine mammal could be 

detected by lookouts/watchstanders or 

MMOs. As discussed previously, the 

Navy plans to utilize aerial or vessel 

surveys to detect marine mammals for 

mitigation implementation and 

indicated that they are capable of 

effectively monitoring safety zones. 

Based on these assessments, NMFS 

determined that approximately 2 

Atlantic spotted dolphins, 19 bottlenose 

dolphins, 6 Clymene dolphins, 2 melonheaded whales, 26 pantropical spotted 

dolphins, 2 Risso’s dolphins, 27 spinner 

dolphins, and 8 striped dolphins could 

be affected by Level B harassment (TTS 

and sub-TTS) as a result of the proposed 

GOMEX Range Complex training 

activities. These numbers represent 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33981 

approximately 0.01%, 0.51%, 0.09%, 

0.09%, 0.08%, 0.13%, 1.36%, and 

0.24% of Atlantic spotted dolphins, 

bottlenose dolphins (Gulf of Mexico 

oceanic stock), Clymene dolphins, 

melon-headed whales, pantropical 

spotted dolphins, Risso’s dolphins, 

spinner dolphins, and striped dolphins, 

respectively, in the vicinity of the 

proposed GOMEX Range Complex 

Study Area (calculation based on NMFS 

2007 U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 

Marine Mammal Stock Assessment). 

In addition, the Level A takes of 1 

pantropical spotted dolphin and 1 

spinner dolphin represent 0.0029% and 

0.0503% of these species, respectively, 

in the vicinity of the proposed GOMEX 

Range Complex Study Area (calculation 

based on NMFS 2007 U.S. Atlantic and 

Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock 

Assessment). Given these very small 

percentages, NMFS does not expect 

there to be any long-term adverse effect 

on the populations of the 

aforementioned dolphin species. No 

marine mammals are expected to be 

killed as a result of these activities. 

Additionally, the aforementioned take 

estimates do not account for the 

implementation of mitigation measures. 

With the implementation of mitigation 

and monitoring measures, NMFS 

expects that the takes would be reduced 

further. Coupled with the fact that these 

impacts will likely not occur in areas 

and times critical to reproduction, 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the total taking over the 5-year 

period of the regulations and 

subsequent LOAs from the Navy’s 

GOMEX Range Complex training 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on the marine mammal species and 

stocks present in the GOMEX Range 

Complex Study Area. 

Subsistence Harvest of Marine 

Mammals 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the issuance of 5-year regulations 

and subsequent LOAs (as warranted) for 

Navy training exercises in the GOMEX 

Range Complex would not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the affected species or 

stocks for subsistence use since there 

are no such uses in the specified area. 

ESA 

There are six ESA-listed marine 

mammal species that are listed as 

endangered under the ESA with 

confirmed or possible occurrence in the 

GOMEX Range Complex: humpback 

whale, North Atlantic right whale, fin 

whale, blue whale, sei whale, and sperm 

whale. The Navy has begun consultation 

with NMFS pursuant to section 7 of the 

ESA, and NMFS will also consult 

internally on the issuance of an LOA 

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

for training exercises in the GOMEX 

Range Complex. Consultation will be 

concluded prior to a determination on 

the issuance of the final rule and an 

LOA. 

NEPA 

The Navy is preparing an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

for the proposed GOMEX Range 

Complex training activities. A draft EIS 

was released in November 2008 and it 

is available at http:// 

www.gomexrangecomplexeis.com/. 

NMFS is a cooperating agency (as 

defined by the Council on 

Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1501.6)) 

in the preparation of the EIS. NMFS has 

reviewed the Draft EIS and will be 

working with the Navy on the Final EIS 

(FEIS). 

NMFS intends to adopt the Navy’s 

FEIS, if adequate and appropriate, and 

we believe that the Navy’s FEIS will 

allow NMFS to meet its responsibilities 

under NEPA for the issuance of the 5- 

year regulation and LOAs for training 

activities in the GOMEX Range 

Complex. If the Navy’s FEIS is not 

adequate, NMFS will supplement the 

existing analysis and documents to 

ensure that we comply with NEPA prior 

to the issuance of the final rule or LOA. 

Preliminary Determination 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat and dependent upon 

the implementation of the mitigation 

measures, NMFS preliminarily finds 

that the total taking from Navy training 

exercises utilizing underwater 

explosives in the GOMEX Range 

Complex will have a negligible impact 

on the affected marine mammal species 

or stocks. NMFS has proposed 

regulations for these exercises that 

prescribe the means of affecting the least 

practicable adverse impact on marine 

mammals and their habitat and set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of that taking. 

Classification 

This action does not contain a 

collection of information requirement 

for purposes of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be 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 rule, if 

adopted, would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The 

Regulatory Flexibility Act requires 

Federal agencies to prepare an analysis 

of a rule’s impact on small entities 

whenever the agency is required to 

publish a notice of proposed 

rulemaking. However, a Federal agency 

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

Section 605 (b), that the action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The Navy is the entity that will be 

affected by this rulemaking, not a small 

governmental jurisdiction, small 

organization or small business, as 

defined by the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. This rulemaking authorizes the take 

of marine mammals incidental to a 

specified activity. The specified activity 

defined in the proposed rule includes 

the use of underwater detonations 

during training activities that are only 

conducted by the U.S. Navy. 

Additionally, the proposed regulations 

are specifically written for ‘‘military 

readiness’’ activities, as defined by the 

NDAA, which means they cannot apply 

to small businesses. Consequently, any 

requirements imposed by a Letter of 

Authorization issued pursuant to these 

regulations, and any monitoring or 

reporting requirements imposed by 

these regulations, will be applicable 

only to the Navy. Because this action, if 

adopted, would directly affect the Navy 

and not a small entity, NMFS concludes 

the action would not result in a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. As 

a result, an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis is not required and none has 

been prepared. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 218 

Exports, Fish, Imports, Incidental 

take, Indians, Labeling, Marine 

mammals, Navy, Penalties, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Seafood, Sonar, Transportation. 

Dated: July 7, 2009. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, 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. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
33982 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

2. Subpart D is added to part 218 to 

read as follows: 

Subpart D—Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to U.S. Navy Training in the Gulf 

of Mexico Range Complex (GOMEX Range 

Complex) 

Sec. 

218.30 Specified activity and specified 

geographical area. 

218.31 Permissible methods of taking. 

218.32 Prohibitions. 

218.33 Mitigation. 

218.34 Requirements for monitoring and 

reporting. 

218.35 Applications for Letters of 

Authorization. 

218.36 Letters of Authorization. 

218.37 Renewal of Letters of Authorization 

and adaptive management. 

218.38 Modifications to Letters of 

Authorization. 

Subpart D—Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to U.S. Navy Training in the 

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 

(GOMEX Range Complex) 

§ 218.30 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 GOMEX Range Complex 

Operation Areas (OPAREAs), which is 

located along the southern east coast of 

the U.S. described in Figures 1 and 2 of 

the LOA application and consist of the 

BOMBEX Hotbox (surface and 

subsurface waters) and underwater 

detonation (UNDET) Area E3 (surface 

and subsurface waters), located within 

the territorial waters off Padre Island, 

Texas, near Corpus Christi NAS. 

(1) The northernmost boundary of the 

BOMBEX Hotbox is located 23 nm (42.6 

km) from the coast of the Florida 

panhandle at latitude 30° N, the eastern 

boundary is approximately 200 nm 

(370.4 km) from the coast of the Florida 

peninsula at longitude 86°48′ W. 

(2) The UNDET Area E3 is a defined 

surface and subsurface area located in 

the waters south of Corpus Christi NAS 

and offshore of Padre Island, Texas. The 

westernmost boundary is located 7.5 nm 

(13.9 km) from the coast of Padre Island 

at 97°9′33′ W and 27°24′26′′ N at the 

westernmost corner. It lies entirely 

within the territorial waters (0 to 12 nm, 

or 0 to 22.2 km) of the U.S. and the 

majority of it lies within Texas state 

waters (0 to 9 nm, or 0 to 16.7 km). It 

is a very shallow water training area 

with depths ranging from 20 to 26 m. 

(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 detonation of the underwater 

explosives indicated in paragraph 

(c)(1)(i) of this section conducted as part 

of the training events indicated in 

paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section: 

(i) Underwater Explosives: 

(A) MK–83 (1,000 lb High Explosive 

bomb); 

(B) MK3A2 anti-swimmer concussion 

grenades (0.5 lbs NEW). 

(ii) Training Events: 

(A) BOMBEX (Air-to-Surface)—up to 

5 events over the course of 5 years (an 

average of 1 event per year, with 4 

bombs in succession for each event); 

(B) Small Arms Training with MK3A2 

anti-swimmer concussion grenade—up 

to 30 events over the course of 5 years 

(an average 6 events per year, with 20 

live grenades used for each event). 

(2) [Reserved] 

§ 218.31 Permissible methods of taking. 

(a) Under Letters of Authorization 

issued pursuant to § 216.106 of this 

chapter and § 218.36, the Holder of the 

Letter of Authorization may 

incidentally, but not intentionally, take 

marine mammals within the area 

described in § 218.30(b), provided the 

activity is in compliance with all terms, 

conditions, and requirements of this 

subpart and the appropriate Letter of 

Authorization. 

(b) The activities identified in 

§ 218.30(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 § 218.30(c) is limited to the following 

species, by the indicated method of take 

and the indicated number of times: 

(1) Level B Harassment: 

(i) Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops 

truncatus )—95 (an average of 19 

annually); 

(ii) Pantropical spotted dolphin 

(Stenella attenuata )—130 (an average of 

26 annually); 

(iii) Clymene dolphin (S. clymene)— 

30 (an average of 6 annually); 

(iv) Atlantic spotted dolphin (S. 

frontalis)—10 (an average of 2 annually); 

(v) Spinner dolphin (S. longirostris)— 

135 (an average of 27 annually); 

(vi) Striped dolphin (S. 

coeruleoalba)—40 (an average of 8 

annually); 

(vii) Risso’s dolphin (Grampus 

griseus)—10 (an average of 2 annually); 

(viii) Melon-headed whales 

(Peponocephala electra)—10 (an 

average of 2 annually); 

(2) Level A Harassment (injury): 

(i) Pantropical spotted dolphin—5 (an 

average of 1 annually); 

(ii) Spinner dolphin—5 (an average of 

1 annually); 

§ 218.32 Prohibitions. 

Notwithstanding takings 

contemplated in § 218.31 and 

authorized by a Letter of Authorization 

issued under § 216.106 of this chapter 

and § 218.36, no person in connection 

with the activities described in § 218.30 

may: 

(a) Take any marine mammal not 

specified in § 218.31(c); 

(b) Take any marine mammal 

specified in § 218.31(c) other than by 

incidental take as specified in 

§ 218.31(c)(1) and (2); 

(c) Take a marine mammal specified 

in § 218.31(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 

this Subpart or a Letter of Authorization 

issued under § 216.106 of this chapter 

and § 218.36. 

§ 218.33 Mitigation. 

(a) When conducting training 

activities identified in § 218.30(c), the 

mitigation measures contained in the 

Letter of Authorization issued under 

§ 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.36 

must be implemented. These mitigation 

measures include, but are not limited to: 

(1) General Maritime Measures: 

(i) Personnel Training—Lookouts: 

(A) All bridge personnel, 

Commanding Officers, Executive 

Officers, officers standing watch on the 

bridge, maritime patrol aircraft aircrews, 

and Mine Warfare (MIW) helicopter 

crews shall complete Marine Species 

Awareness Training (MSAT). 

(B) Navy lookouts shall undertake 

extensive training to qualify as a 

watchstander in accordance with the 

Lookout Training Handbook 

(NAVEDTRA 12968–D). 

(C) 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). 

(D) Lookouts shall be trained in the 

most effective means to ensure quick 

and effective communication within the 

command structure to facilitate 

implementation of protective measures 

if marine species are spotted. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33983 

(E) Surface lookouts shall scan the 

water from the ship to the horizon and 

be responsible for all contacts in their 

sector. In searching the assigned sector, 

the lookout shall always start at the 

forward part of the sector and search aft 

(toward the back). To search and scan, 

the lookout shall hold the binoculars 

steady so the horizon is in the top third 

of the field of vision and direct the eyes 

just below the horizon. The lookout 

shall scan for approximately five 

seconds in as many small steps as 

possible across the field seen through 

the binoculars. They shall search the 

entire sector in approximately fivedegree steps, pausing between steps for 

approximately five seconds to scan the 

field of view. At the end of the sector 

search, the glasses shall be lowered to 

allow the eyes to rest for a few seconds, 

and then the lookout shall search back 

across the sector with the naked eye. 

(F) At night, lookouts shall scan the 

horizon in a series of movements that 

would allow their eyes to come to 

periodic rests as they scan the sector. 

When visually searching at night, they 

shall look a little to one side and out of 

the corners of their eyes, paying 

attention to the things on the outer 

edges of their field of vision. Lookouts 

shall also have night vision devices 

available for use. 

(ii) Operating Procedures & 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 

training requirement and general marine 

species mitigation measures. 

(B) Commanding Officers 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 shall watch for and 

report to the OOD the presence of 

marine mammals. 

(D) Personnel on lookout shall employ 

visual search procedures employing a 

scanning method in accordance with the 

Lookout Training Handbook 

(NAVEDTRA 12968–D). 

(E) After sunset and prior to sunrise, 

lookouts shall employ Night Lookouts 

Techniques in accordance with the 

Lookout Training Handbook 

(NAVEDTRA 12968–D). 

(F) While in transit, naval vessels 

shall be alert at all times, use extreme 

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

(the minimum speed at which mission 

goals or safety will not be compromised) 

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. 

(G) When marine mammals have been 

sighted in the area, Navy vessels shall 

increase vigilance and implement 

measures to avoid collisions with 

marine mammals and avoid activities 

that might result in close interaction of 

naval assets and marine mammals. Such 

measures shall include changing speed 

and/or course direction and would be 

dictated by environmental and other 

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

(H) Naval vessels shall maneuver to 

keep at least 500 yds (460 m) away from 

any observed whale and avoid 

approaching whales head-on. This 

requirement does not apply if a vessel’s 

safety is threatened, such as when 

change of course will create an 

imminent and serious threat to a person, 

vessel, or aircraft, and to the extent 

vessels are restricted in their ability to 

maneuver. Vessels shall take reasonable 

steps to alert other vessels in the 

vicinity of the whale. 

(I) Where feasible and consistent with 

mission and safety, vessels shall avoid 

closing to within 200-yd (183 m) of 

marine mammals other than whales 

(whales addressed above). 

(J) 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. 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. 

(K) All vessels shall maintain logs and 

records documenting training 

operations should they be required for 

event reconstruction purposes. Logs and 

records shall be kept for a period of 30 

days following completion of a major 

training exercise. 

(2) Coordination and Reporting 

Requirements: 

(i) The Navy shall coordinate with the 

local NMFS Stranding Coordinator for 

any unusual marine mammal behavior 

and any stranding, beached live/dead, 

or floating marine mammals that may 

occur at any time during or within 24 

hours after completion of training 

activities. 

(ii) The Navy shall follow internal 

chain of command reporting procedures 

as promulgated through Navy 

instructions and orders. 

(3) Proposed Mitigation Measures for 

Specific At-sea Training Events—If a 

marine mammal is injured or killed as 

a result of the proposed Navy training 

activities (e.g., instances in which it is 

clear that munitions explosions caused 

death), the Navy shall suspend its 

activities immediately and report such 

incident to NMFS. 

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

Exercises (250-lbs to 2,000-lbs explosive 

bombs): 

(A) This activity shall only occur in 

W–155A/B (hot box) area of the GOMEX 

Range Complex OPAREA. 

(B) Aircraft shall visually survey the 

target and buffer zone for marine 

mammals prior to and during the 

exercise. The survey of the impact area 

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

m) altitude 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. 

(C) A buffer zone of a 5,100-yard 

(4,663-m) radius shall be established 

around the intended target zone. The 

exercises shall be conducted only if the 

buffer zone is clear of sighted marine 

mammals. 

(D) At-sea BOMBEXs using live 

ordnance shall occur during daylight 

hours only. 

(ii) Small Arms Training—Explosive 

hand grenades (such as the MK3A2 

grenades): 

(A) Lookouts shall visually survey for 

marine mammals prior to and during 

exercise. 

(B) A 200-yd (182-m) radius buffer 

zone shall be established around the 

intended target. The exercises shall be 

conducted only if the buffer zone is 

clear of marine mammals. 

(b) [Reserved] 

§ 218.34 Requirements for monitoring and 

reporting. 

(a) The Holder of the Letter of 

Authorization issued pursuant to 

§ 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.36 

for activities described in § 218.30(c) is 

required to cooperate with the NMFS 

when monitoring the impacts of the 

activity on marine mammals. 

(b) The Holder of the Authorization 

must notify NMFS immediately (or as 

soon as clearance procedures allow) if 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
33984 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

the specified activity identified in 

§ 218.30(c) is thought to have resulted in 

the mortality or serious injury of any 

marine mammals, or in any take of 

marine mammals not identified in 

§ 218.31(c). 

(c) The Navy must conduct all 

monitoring and required reporting 

under the Letter of Authorization, 

including abiding by the GOMEX Range 

Complex Monitoring Plan, which is 

incorporated herein by reference, and 

which requires the Navy to implement, 

at a minimum, the monitoring activities 

summarized below. 

(1) Vessel or aerial surveys. 

(i) The Holder of this Authorization 

shall visually survey a minimum of 1 

explosive event per year. One of the 

vessel or aerial surveys should involve 

NMFS-approved marine mammal 

observers (MMOs). If it is impossible to 

conduct the required surveys due to 

lack of training exercises, the missed 

annual survey requirement shall roll 

into the subsequent year to ensure that 

the appropriate number of surveys (i.e., 

total of five) occurs over the 5-year 

period of effectiveness of this subject. 

(ii) When operationally feasible, for 

specified training events, aerial or vessel 

surveys shall be used 1–2 days prior to, 

during (if reasonably safe), and 1–5 days 

post detonation. 

(iii) Surveys shall include any 

specified exclusion zone around a 

particular detonation point plus 2,000 

yards beyond the border of the 

exclusion zone (i.e., the circumference 

of the area from the border of the 

exclusion zone extending 2,000 yards 

outwards). For vessel based surveys a 

passive acoustic system (hydrophone or 

towed array) could be used to determine 

if marine mammals are in the area 

before and/or after a detonation event. 

(iv) When conducting a particular 

survey, the survey team shall collect: 

(A) Location of sighting; 

(B) Species (if not possible, indicate 

whale, dolphin or pinniped); 

(C) Number of individuals; 

(D) Whether calves were observed; 

(E) Initial detection sensor; 

(F) Length of time observers 

maintained visual contact with marine 

mammal; 

(G) Wave height; 

(H) Visibility; 

(I) Whether sighting was before, 

during, or after detonations/exercise, 

and how many minutes before or after; 

(J) Distance of marine mammal from 

actual detonations (or target spot if not 

yet detonated); 

(K) Observed behavior— 

Watchstanders shall report, in plain 

language and without trying to 

categorize in any way, the observed 

behavior of the animal(s) (such as 

animal closing to bow ride, paralleling 

course/speed, floating on surface and 

not swimming, etc.), including speed 

and direction; 

(L) Resulting mitigation 

implementation—Indicate whether 

explosive detonations were delayed, 

ceased, modified, or not modified due to 

marine mammal presence and for how 

long; and 

(M) If observation occurs while 

explosives are detonating in the water, 

indicate munitions type in use at time 

of marine mammal detection. 

(2) Passive acoustic monitoring—the 

Navy shall conduct passive acoustic 

monitoring when operationally feasible. 

(i) Any time a towed hydrophone 

array is employed during shipboard 

surveys the towed array shall be 

deployed during daylight hours for each 

of the days the ship is at sea. 

(ii) The towed hydrophone array shall 

be used to supplement the ship-based 

systematic line-transect surveys 

(particularly for species such as beaked 

whales that are rarely seen). 

(iii) The array should have the 

capability of detecting low frequency 

vocalizations (<1,000 Hz) for baleen 

whales and relatively high frequency 

(up to 30 kHz) for odontocetes. The use 

of two simultaneously deployed arrays 

can also allow more accurate 

localization and determination of diving 

patterns. 

(3) Marine mammal observers on 

Navy platforms: 

(i) As required in § 218.34(c)(1), 

MMOs who are selected for aerial or 

vessel surveys shall be placed on a Navy 

platform during one of the explosive 

exercises being monitored per year, the 

other designated exercise shall be 

monitored by the Navy lookouts/ 

watchstanders. 

(ii) The MMO must possess expertise 

in species identification of regional 

marine mammal species and experience 

collecting behavioral data. 

(iii) MMOs shall not be placed aboard 

Navy platforms for every Navy training 

event or major exercise, but during 

specifically identified opportunities 

deemed appropriate for data collection 

efforts. The events selected for MMO 

participation shall take into account 

safety, logistics, and operational 

concerns. 

(iv) MMOs shall observe from the 

same height above water as the 

lookouts. 

(v) The MMOs shall not be part of the 

Navy’s formal reporting chain of 

command during their data collection 

efforts; Navy lookouts shall continue to 

serve as the primary reporting means 

within the Navy chain of command for 

marine mammal sightings. The only 

exception is that if an animal is 

observed within the shutdown zone that 

has not been observed by the lookout, 

the MMO shall inform the lookout of the 

sighting and the lookout shall take the 

appropriate action through the chain of 

command. 

(vi) The MMOs shall collect species 

identification, behavior, direction of 

travel relative to the Navy platform, and 

distance first observed. Information 

collected by MMOs should be the same 

as those collected by Navy lookout/ 

watchstanders described in 

§ 218.34(c)(1)(iv). 

(d) The Navy shall complete an 

Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring 

Program (ICMP) Plan in 2009. This 

planning and adaptive management tool 

shall include: 

(1) A method for prioritizing 

monitoring projects that clearly 

describes the characteristics of a 

proposal that factor into its priority. 

(2) A method for annually reviewing, 

with NMFS, monitoring results, Navy 

R&D, and current science to use for 

potential modification of mitigation or 

monitoring methods. 

(3) A detailed description of the 

Monitoring Workshop to be convened in 

2011 and how and when Navy/NMFS 

will subsequently utilize the findings of 

the Monitoring Workshop to potentially 

modify subsequent monitoring and 

mitigation. 

(4) An adaptive management plan, 

(5) A method for standardizing data 

collection for GOMEX Range Complex 

and across range complexes, 

(e) General Notification of Injured or 

Dead Marine Mammals—Navy 

personnel shall ensure that NMFS 

(regional stranding coordinator) is 

notified immediately (or as soon as 

clearance procedures allow) if an 

injured or dead marine mammal is 

found during or shortly after, and in the 

vicinity of, any Navy training exercise 

utilizing underwater explosive 

detonations. The Navy shall provide 

NMFS with species or description of the 

animal(s), the condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead), location, time of first 

discovery, observed behaviors (if alive), 

and photo or video (if available). 

(f) Annual GOMEX Range Complex 

Monitoring Plan Report—The Navy 

shall submit a report annually on 

November 1 describing the 

implementation and results (through 

September 1 of the same year) of the 

GOMEX Range Complex Monitoring 

Plan. Data collection methods shall be 

standardized across range complexes to 

allow for comparison in different 

geographic locations. Although 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33985 

additional information will also be 

gathered, the MMOs collecting marine 

mammal data pursuant to the GOMEX 

Range Complex Monitoring Plan shall, 

at a minimum, provide the same marine 

mammal observation data required in 

the data required in § 218.34(g). The 

GOMEX Range Complex Monitoring 

Plan Report may be provided to NMFS 

within a larger report that includes the 

required Monitoring Plan Reports from 

GOMEX Range Complex and multiple 

range complexes. 

(g) Annual GOMEX Range Complex 

Exercise Report—The Navy shall 

provide the information described 

below for all of their explosive 

exercises. Until the Navy is able to 

report in full the information below, 

they shall provide an annual update on 

the Navy’s explosive tracking methods, 

including improvements from the 

previous year. 

(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 the GOMEX 

Range Complex. 

(2) Total annual expended/detonated 

rounds (missiles, bombs, etc.) for each 

explosive type. 

(h) GOMEX Range Complex 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 the GOMEX Range 

Complex exercises for which annual 

reports are required (Annual GOMEX 

Range Complex Exercise Reports and 

GOMEX Range Complex Monitoring 

Plan Reports). This report shall be 

submitted at the end of the fourth year 

of the rule (March 2014), covering 

activities that have occurred through 

September 1, 2013. 

(i) The Navy shall respond to NMFS 

comments and requests for additional 

information or clarification on the 

GOMEX Range Complex Comprehensive 

Report, the Annual GOMEX Range 

Complex Exercise Report, or the Annual 

GOMEX Range Complex Monitoring 

Plan Report (or the multi-Range 

Complex Annual Monitoring Plan 

Report, if that is how the Navy chooses 

to submit the information) if submitted 

within 3 months of receipt. These 

reports will be considered final after the 

Navy has addressed NMFS’ comments 

or provided the requested information, 

or three months after the submittal of 

the draft if NMFS does not comment by 

then. 

(j) In 2011, the Navy shall convene a 

Monitoring Workshop in which the 

Monitoring Workshop participants will 

be asked to review the Navy’s 

Monitoring Plans and monitoring results 

and make individual recommendations 

(to the Navy and NMFS) of ways of 

improving the Monitoring Plans. The 

recommendations shall be reviewed by 

the Navy, in consultation with NMFS, 

and modifications to the Monitoring 

Plan shall be made, as appropriate. 

§ 218.35 Applications for Letters of 

Authorization. 

To incidentally take marine mammals 

pursuant to these regulations, the U.S. 

citizen (as defined by § 216.103 of this 

chapter) conducting the activity 

identified in § 218.30(a) (the U.S. Navy) 

must apply for and obtain either an 

initial Letter of Authorization in 

accordance with § 218.26 or a renewal 

under § 218.27. 

§ 218.36 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 § 218.37. 

(b) Each Letter of Authorization will 

set forth: 

(1) Permissible methods of incidental 

taking; 

(2) Means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact on the 

species, its habitat, and on the 

availability of the species for 

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

(3) Requirements for mitigation, 

monitoring and reporting. 

(c) Issuance and renewal of the Letter 

of Authorization will be based on a 

determination that the total number of 

marine mammals taken by the activity 

as a whole will have no more than a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stock of marine mammal(s). 

§ 218.37 Renewal of Letters of 

Authorization and adaptive management. 

(a) A Letter of Authorization issued 

under §§ 216.106 and 218.36 of this 

chapter for the activity identified in 

§ 218.30(c) will be renewed annually 

upon: 

(1) Notification to NMFS that the 

activity described in the application 

submitted under § 218.35 shall be 

undertaken and that there will not be a 

substantial modification to the 

described work, mitigation or 

monitoring undertaken during the 

upcoming 12 months; 

(2) Timely receipt of the monitoring 

reports required under § 218.34; and 

(3) A determination by the NMFS that 

the mitigation, monitoring and reporting 

measures required under § 218.33 and 

the Letter of Authorization issued under 

§§ 216.106 and 218.36 of this chapter, 

were undertaken and will be undertaken 

during the upcoming annual period of 

validity of a renewed Letter of 

Authorization. 

(b) If a request for a renewal of a 

Letter of Authorization issued under 

§ 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.37 

indicates that a substantial modification 

to the described work, mitigation or 

monitoring undertaken during the 

upcoming season will occur, the NMFS 

will provide the public a period of 30 

days for review and comment on the 

request. Review and comment on 

renewals of Letters of Authorization are 

restricted to: 

(1) New cited information and data 

indicating that the determinations made 

in this document are in need of 

reconsideration, and 

(2) Proposed changes to the mitigation 

and monitoring requirements contained 

in these regulations or in the current 

Letter of Authorization. 

(c) A notice of issuance or denial of 

a renewal of a Letter of Authorization 

will be published in the Federal 

Register. 

(d) NMFS, in response to new 

information and in consultation with 

the Navy, may modify the mitigation or 

monitoring measures in subsequent 

LOAs if doing so creates a reasonable 

likelihood of more effectively 

accomplishing the goals of mitigation 

and monitoring set forth in the preamble 

of these regulations. Below are some of 

the possible sources of new data that 

could contribute to the decision to 

modify the mitigation or monitoring 

measures: 

(1) Results from the Navy’s 

monitoring from the previous year 

(either from GOMEX Study Area or 

other locations). 

(2) Findings of the Monitoring 

Workshop that the Navy will convene in 

2011 (§ 218.34(j)). 

(3) Compiled results of Navy funded 

research and development (R&D) studies 

(presented pursuant to the ICMP 

(§ 218.34(d)). 

(4) Results from specific stranding 

investigations (either from the GOMEX 

Range Complex Study Area or other 

locations). 

(5) Results from general marine 

mammal and sound research (funded by 

the Navy (described below) or 

otherwise). 

(6) 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. 

§ 218.38 Modifications to Letters of 

Authorization. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, no substantive 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
33986 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

modification (including withdrawal or 

suspension) to the Letter of 

Authorization by NMFS, issued 

pursuant to §§ 216.106 and 218.36 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 § 218.37, 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 § 218.30(b), a 

Letter of Authorization issued pursuant 

to §§ 216.106 and 218.36 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. E9–16537 Filed 7–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

RIN 0648–AY00 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

Provisions; Fisheries of the 

Northeastern United States; Atlantic 

Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish 

Fisheries; Amendment 10 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of a fishery 

management plan amendment; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council (Council) has submitted 

Amendment 10 to the Atlantic 

Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) 

Fishery Management Plan (FMP) 

(Amendment 10), incorporating the 

public hearing document and the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), 

for review by the Secretary of Commerce 

and is requesting comments from the 

public. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 14, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: A final supplemental 

environmental impact statement (FSEIS) 

was prepared for Amendment 10 that 

describes the proposed action and other 

considered alternatives and provides a 

thorough analysis of the impacts of the 

proposed measures and alternatives. 

Copies of Amendment 10, including the 

FSEIS, the Regulatory Impact Review 

(RIR), and the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are 

available from: Daniel Furlong, 

Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council, Room 

2115, Federal Building, 300 South New 

Street, Dover, DE 19904–6790. The 

FSEIS/RIR/IRFA is accessible via the 

Internet at http://www.nero.nmfs.gov. 

You may submit comments on this 

notice of availability, identified by 

‘‘0648–AY00’’, by any one of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov; 

• Fax: (978) 281–9135, Attn: Carrie 

Nordeen; 

• Mail to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional 

Administrator, NMFS, Northeast 

Regional Office, 55 Great Republic 

Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the 

outside of the envelope ‘‘Comments on 

MSB Amendment 10.’’ 

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 

(e.g., name, address, etc.) voluntarily 

submitted by the commenter may be 

publicly accessible. Do not submit 

Confidential Business Information or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. NMFS will accept 

anonymous comments. Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or 

Adobe PDF formats only. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In February 2005, NMFS notified the 

Council that the butterfish stock was 

overfished, which triggered MSA 

requirements to implement rebuilding 

measures for the stock. In response, 

Amendment 10 to the MSB FMP was 

initiated by the Council in October 

2005. Management measures for 

rebuilding butterfish are designed to 

reduce the fishing mortality on 

butterfish that occurs through 

discarding, which is the primary source 

of fishing mortality. Measures that 

reduce butterfish discards are expected 

to also reduce the bycatch of other 

finfish species in MSB fisheries. 

The purpose of Amendment 10 is to 

bring the MSB FMP into compliance 

with Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(MSA) requirements by: 1) Establishing 

a rebuilding program that allows the 

butterfish stock to rebuild and 

permanently protects the long-term 

health and stability of the stock; and 2) 

minimizing bycatch and the fishing 

mortality of unavoidable bycatch, to the 

extent practicable, in the MSB fisheries. 

Amendment 10 would increase the 

minimum codend mesh requirement for 

the Loligo squid (Loligo) fishery; 

establish a butterfish rebuilding 

program with a butterfish mortality cap 

program for the Loligo fishery; establish 

a 72–hr trip notification requirement for 

the Loligo fishery; and require an annual 

assessment of the butterfish rebuilding 

program by the Council’s Scientific and 

Statistical Committee (SSC). 

Initially, Amendment 9 to the MSB 

FMP (Amendment 9) was intended to 

bring the MSB FMP into compliance 

with MSA bycatch requirements, and 

contained several management 

measures intended to address 

deficiencies in the FMP that relate to 

discarding, especially as they affect 

butterfish. Specifically, those 

management measures would have 

attempted to reduce finfish discards by 

MSB small-mesh fisheries through mesh 

size increases in the directed Loligo 

fishery, removal of mesh size 

exemptions for the directed Illex squid 

fishery, and establishment of seasonal 

Gear Restricted Areas (GRAs). However, 

those specific management alternatives 

were developed in 2004, prior to the 

butterfish stock being declared 

overfished. On June 13, 2007, the 

Council recommended that all 

management measures developed as 

part of Amendment 9 to correct 

deficiencies in the FMP related to 

bycatch of finfish, especially butterfish, 

be considered in Amendment 10. 

Accordingly, no action was taken in 

Amendment 9 (73 FR 37382, July 1, 

2008) to address bycatch. 

The Council held three public 

meetings on Amendment 10 during June 

2008. Following the public comment 

period that ended on June 23, 2008, the 

Council adopted Amendment 10 on 

October 16, 2008. In Amendment 10, 

measures recommended by the Council 

would: 

• Establish a minimum mesh increase 

to 2–1/8 inches (54 mm) (from 1–7/8 

inches ( 48 mm)) for the Loligo fishery 

during Trimesters I (Jan–Apr) and III 

(Sep–Dec), starting in 2010; 

• Establish a butterfish mortality cap 

program for the Loligo fishery, starting 

in 2011; 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS