Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy Training in the Southern California Range Complex, 60836-60908 [E8-23618]
Download as PDF
60836
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe
PDF file formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolie
Harrison, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, (301) 713–2289, ext. 166.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 216
[Docket No. 0808061069–81171–01]
Availability
RIN 0648–AW91
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: https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental.htm. The Navy’s Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
for SOCAL was published on April 4,
2008, and may be viewed at https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental.htm. NMFS is participating
in the development of the Navy’s EIS as
a cooperating agency under NEPA.
Taking and Importing Marine
Mammals; U.S. Navy Training in the
Southern California Range Complex
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request
from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for
authorization to take marine mammals
incidental to training activities
conducted in the Southern California
Range Complex (SOCAL), which
extends south and southwest off the
southern California coast, for the period
of January 2009 through January 2014.
Pursuant to the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is
proposing regulations to govern that
take and requesting information,
suggestions, and comments on these
proposed regulations.
DATES: Comments and information must
be received no later than November 13,
2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by 0648–AW91, by any one of
the following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal, https://
www.regulations.gov.
• Hand delivery or mailing of paper,
disk, or CD–ROM comments should be
addressed to Michael Payne, Chief,
Permits, Conservation and Education
Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315
East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD
20910–3225.
Instructions: All comments received
are a part of the public record and will
generally be posted to https://
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. Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the
MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct
the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary)
to allow, upon request, the incidental,
but not intentional taking of marine
mammals by U.S. citizens who engage
in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) during periods of
not more than five consecutive years
each if certain findings are made and
regulations are issued or, if the taking is
limited to harassment, notice of a
proposed authorization is provided to
the public for review.
Authorization shall be granted if
NMFS finds that the taking will have a
negligible impact on the species or
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of the
species or stock(s) for subsistence uses,
and if the permissible methods of taking
and requirements pertaining to the
mitigation, monitoring and reporting of
such taking are set forth. NMFS has
defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR
216.103 as:
An impact resulting from the specified
activity that cannot be reasonably expected
to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The National Defense Authorization
Act of 2004 (NDAA) (Pub. L. 108–136)
modified the MMPA by removing the
‘‘small numbers’’ and ‘‘specified
geographical region’’ limitations and
amended the definition of ‘‘harassment’’
as it applies to a ‘‘military readiness
activity’’ to read as follows (Section
3(18)(B) of the MMPA):
(i) any act that injures or has the significant
potential to injure a marine mammal or
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 April 1, 2008, NMFS received an
application from the Navy requesting
authorization for the take of individuals
of 37 species of marine mammals
incidental to upcoming Navy training
activities, maintenance, and research,
development, testing, and evaluation
(RDT&E) activities to be conducted
within SOCAL, which extends
southwest approximately 600 nm in the
general shape of a 200-nm wide
rectangle (see the Navy’s application),
over the course of 5 years. These
training activities are military readiness
activities under the provisions of the
NDAA. The Navy states, and NMFS
concurs, that these military readiness
activities may incidentally take marine
mammals present within SOCAL by
exposing them to sound from midfrequency or high frequency active
sonar (MFAS/HFAS) or underwater
detonations. The Navy requests
authorization to take individuals of 37
species of marine mammals by Level B
Harassment. Further, though they do not
anticipate it to occur, the Navy requests
authorization to take, by injury or
mortality, up to 10 beaked whales over
the course of the 5-yr regulations.
Background of Request
The Navy’s mission is to maintain,
train, and equip combat-ready naval
forces capable of winning wars,
deterring aggression, and maintaining
freedom of the seas. Title 10, U.S. Code
(U.S.C.) 5062 directs the Chief of Naval
Operations to train all naval forces for
combat. The Chief of Naval Operations
meets that direction, in part, by
conducting at-sea training exercises and
ensuring naval forces have access to
ranges, operating areas (OPAREAs) and
airspace where they can develop and
maintain skills for wartime missions
and conduct research, development,
testing, and evaluation (RDT&E) of naval
weapons systems.
The Navy proposes to implement
actions within the SOCAL Range
Complex to:
• Increase training and RDT&E
operations from current levels as
necessary to support the Navy-wide
training plan, known as the Fleet
Readiness Training Plan (FRTP);
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
• Accommodate mission
requirements associated with force
structure changes and introduction of
new weapons and systems to the Fleet;
and
• Implement enhanced range
complex capabilities.
The Proposed Action would result in
selectively focused but critical increases
in training, and range enhancements
(including the establishment and use of
a shallow-water minefield and
construction of a shallow-water training
range) to address testing and training
resource shortfalls, as necessary to
ensure the SOCAL Range Complex
supports Navy and Marine Corps
training and readiness objectives. The
proposed action would result in
approximately a 12-percent increase in
the amount of MFAS/HFAS currently
used.
Overview of SOCAL Range Complex
The U.S. Navy has been training and
operating in the area now defined as the
SOCAL Range Complex for over 70
years. The SOCAL Range Complex has
three primary components: Ocean
Operating Areas (SOCAL OPAREAs),
Special Use Airspace (SUA), and San
Clemente Island (SCI). The Range
Complex is situated between Dana Point
and San Diego, and extends more than
600 nautical miles (nm) (1,111
kilometers (km)) southwest into the
Pacific Ocean (See the Navy’s
application). The components of the
SOCAL Range Complex encompass
120,000 square nm (nm2) (411,600
square km (km2)) of sea space, 113,000
nm2 (387,500 km2) of SUA, and over 42
nm2 (144 km2) of land (SCI). To
facilitate range management and
scheduling, the SOCAL Range Complex
is divided into numerous subcomponent ranges and training areas,
which are described below.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
SOCAL OPAREAS
The ocean areas of the SOCAL Range
Complex include surface and subsurface
OPAREAs extending generally
southwest from the coastline of
southern California between Dana Point
and San Diego for approximately 600
nm into international waters to the west
of Baja California, Mexico. Most of the
SOCAL OPAREAS are located under the
Warning Area 291 Airspace mentioned
below. Several SOCAL OPAREAs do not
lie under W–291. These OPAREAS are
used for ocean surface and subsurface
training. Military aviation activities may
be conducted in airspace that is not
designated as SUA, however, these
aviation activities do not include use of
live or inert ordnance.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
60837
Special Use Airspace (SUA)
Description of Specified Activities
The SOCAL Range Complex includes
military airspace designated as Warning
Area 291 (W–291). W–291 comprises
113,000 nm2 (209,276 km2) of SUA that
generally overlies the SOCAL OPAREAs
and SCI, extending to the southwest
from approximately 12 nm (22 km) off
the coast to approximately 600 nm
(1,111 km). W–291 is the largest
component of SUA in the Navy’s range
inventory.
As mentioned above, the Navy has
requested MMPA authorization to take
marine mammals incidental to training
activities in the SOCAL Range Complex
that would result in the generation of
sound or pressure waves in the water at
or above levels that NMFS has
determined will likely result in take (see
Acoustic Take Criteria Section), either
through the use of MFAS/HFAS or the
detonation of explosives in the water.
These activities are discussed below.
San Clemente Island (SCI)
Activities Utilizing Active Sonar Sources
SCI, a component part of the SOCAL
Range Complex, is comprised of existing
land ranges and training areas that are
integral to training of Pacific Fleet air,
surface, and subsurface units; First
Marine Expeditionary Force (I MEF)
units; Naval Special Warfare (NSW)
units; and selected formal schools. SCI
provides instrumented ranges, operating
areas, and associated facilities to
conduct and evaluate a wide range of
exercises within the scope of naval
warfare. SCI also provides ranges and
services for RDT&E activities. Over 20
Navy and Marine Corps commands
conduct training and testing activities
on SCI. Due to its unique capabilities to
support multiple training operations,
SCI training activities encompass every
Navy primary mission area (PMAR), and
SCI provides critical training resources
for Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG),
Carrier Strike Group (CSG), and Marine
Expeditionary Unit (MEU) certification
exercises.
SCI provides an extensive suite of
range capabilities for tactical training.
SCI includes a Shore Bombardment
Area (SHOBA), landing beaches, several
live-fire training areas and ranges
(TARs) for small arms, maneuver areas,
and other dedicated ranges for the
conduct of training in all Primary
Mission Areas (PMARs). SCI includes
extensive instrumentation, and provides
robust opposing force simulation and
targets for use in land, sea-based, and air
live-fire training. SCI also contains an
airfield and other infrastructure for
training and logistical support.
Overlap With Point Mugu Sea Range for
Certain Anti-Submarine Warfare
Training (ASW)
The Point Mugu Sea Range is a Navy
ocean range area north of and generally
adjacent to the SOCAL Range Complex.
ASW training conducted in the course
of major exercises occurs across the
boundaries of the SOCAL Range
Complex into the Point Mugu Sea
Range. These cross-boundary events are
addressed in this authorization request.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
For the SOCAL Range Complex, the
training activities that utilize active
tactical sonar sources fall into the
category of Anti-submarine Warfare
(ASW) exercises. This section includes
a description of ASW, the active
acoustic devices used in ASW exercises,
as well as the exercise types in which
these acoustic sources are used.
ASW Training and Active Sonar
ASW involves helicopter and sea
control aircraft, ships, and submarines,
operating alone or in combination, in
operations to locate, track, and
neutralize submarines. Controlling the
undersea battlespace is a unique naval
capability and a vital aspect of sea
control. Undersea battlespace
dominance requires proficiency in
ASW. Every deploying strike group and
individual ASW-capable combatant
must possess this capability.
Various types of active and passive
sonars are used by the Navy to
determine water depth, locate mines,
and identify, track, and target
submarines. Passive sonar ‘‘listens’’ for
sound waves by using underwater
microphones, called hydrophones,
which receive, amplify and process
underwater sounds. No sound is
introduced into the water when using
passive sonar. Passive sonar can
indicate the presence, character and
movement of submarines. Passive sonar,
alternatively, provides only a bearing
(direction) to a sound-emitting source; it
does not provide an accurate range
(distance) to the source. Active sonar is
needed to locate objects because active
sonar provides both bearing and range
to the detected contact (such as an
enemy submarine).
Active sonar transmits pulses of
sound that travel through the water,
reflect off objects and return to a
receiver. By knowing the speed of sound
in water and the time taken for the
sound wave to travel to the object and
back, active sonar systems can quickly
calculate direction and distance from
the sonar platform to the underwater
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
object. There are three types of active
sonar: Low-frequency, mid-frequency,
and high-frequency.
Low-frequency sonar operates below 1
kilohertz (kHz) and is designed to detect
extremely quiet diesel-electric
submarines at ranges far beyond the
capabilities of mid-frequency active
sonars. There are only two ships in use
by the U.S. Navy that are equipped with
low-frequency sonar; both are ocean
surveillance vessels operated by
Military Sealift Command. Lowfrequency active sonar is not presently
utilized in the SOCAL Range Complex,
and use of low-frequency active sonar is
not contemplated in the Proposed
Action.
High-frequency active sonar (HFAS),
operates at frequencies greater than 10
kilohertz (kHz). At higher acoustic
frequencies, sound rapidly dissipates in
the ocean environment, resulting in
short detection ranges, typically less
than five nm. High-frequency sonar is
used primarily for determining water
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
depth, hunting mines and guiding
torpedoes.
Mid-frequency active sonar (MFAS)
operates between 1 and 10 kHz, with
detection ranges up to 10 nautical miles
(nm). Because of this detection ranging
capability, MFAS is the Navy’s primary
tool for conducting ASW. Many ASW
experiments and exercises have
demonstrated that this improved
capability for long range detection of
adversary submarines before they are
able to conduct an attack is essential to
U.S. ship survivability. Today, ASW is
the Navy’s #1 war-fighting priority.
Navies across the world utilize modern,
quiet, diesel-electric submarines which
pose the primary threat to the U.S.
Navy’s ability to perform a number of
critically necessary missions. Extensive
training is necessary of sailors, ASWcapable units, and strike groups are to
gain proficiency in using MFAS. If a
strike group does not demonstrate
MFAS proficiency, it cannot be certified
as combat ready.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
Acoustic Sources Used for ASW
Exercises in SOCAL
Modern sonar technology has
developed a multitude of sonar sensor
and processing systems. In concept, the
simplest active sonars emit omnidirectional pulses (‘‘pings’’) and time
the arrival of the reflected echoes from
the target object to determine range.
More sophisticated active sonar emits
an omni-directional ping and then
rapidly scans a steered receiving beam
to provide directional, as well as range,
information. More advanced active
sonars transmit multiple preformed
beams, listening to echoes from several
directions simultaneously and
providing efficient detection of both
direction and range. The types of active
sonar sources employed during ASW
active sonar training exercises in the
SOCAL Range Complex are identified in
Table 1.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
EP14OC08.025
60838
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
ASW sonar systems are deployed
from certain classes of surface ships,
submarines, helicopters, and fixed wing
maritime patrol aircraft (Table 1). The
surface ships used are typically
equipped with hull-mounted sonars
(active and passive) and towed-array
passive sonar for the detection of
submarines. Helicopters equipped with
dipping sonar or sonobuoys are utilized
to locate submarines or submarine
targets within the training area. In
addition, fixed wing marine patrol
aircraft (MPA) are used to deploy both
active and passive sonobuoys to assist
in locating and tracking submarines
during the duration of the exercise.
Submarines are equipped with hullmounted sonars sometimes used to
locate and prosecute other submarines
and/or surface ships during the exercise.
The platforms used in ASW exercises
are identified below.
Surface Ship Sonars—A variety of
surface ships participate in testing and
training events. Some ships (e.g., aircraft
carriers, amphibious assault ships) do
not have any onboard active sonar
systems, other than fathometers. Others,
like guided missile cruisers, are
equipped with active as well as passive
tactical sonars for mine avoidance and
submarine detection and tracking. For
purposes of the analysis, the SQS–53
was modeled as having a nominal
source level of 235 decibels (dB) re
1 µPa @ 1 m, and the SQS–56 was
modeled as having a nominal source
level of 225 decibels (dB) re 1 µPa @ 1
m. Sonar ping transmission durations
were modeled as lasting 1 second per
ping and omni-directional, which is a
conservative assumption that will
overestimate potential effects. Actual
ping durations will be less than 1
second. The SQS–53 hull-mounted
sonar transmits at center frequencies of
2.6 kHz and 3.5 kHz. The SQS–56 sonar
transmits at a center frequency of 7.5
kHz. Details concerning the tactical use
of specific frequencies and the
repetition rate for the sonar pings is
classified but was modeled based on the
required tactical training setting.
Hull-mounted active sonars
occasionally operate in a mode called
‘‘Kingfisher,’’ which is designed to
better detect smaller objects. The
Kingfisher mode uses the same source
level and frequency as normal search
modes, however, it uses a different
waveform (designed for small objects), a
shorter pulse length (< 1 sec), a higher
pulse repetition rate (due to the short
ranges), and the ping is not
omnidirectional, but directed forward.
Submarine Sonars—Submarine active
and passive sonars are used to detect
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
and target enemy submarines and
surface ships. Because submarine MF
active sonar (AN/BQQ–10) use is very
rare and in those rare instances, very
brief (only approximately 2 pings per
hour), it is extremely unlikely that use
of active sonar by submarines would
have any measurable effect on marine
mammals. However, submarine sonar
was included in the modeling for
estimating exposures of marine
mammals to sonar sounds. Estimates of
exposure are also included for the HF
AN/BQQ–15 which is used for
navigation.
Aircraft Sonar Systems—Aircraft
sonar systems that would operate in the
SOCAL Range Complex include DICASS
sonobuoys (AN/SSQ–62; source level of
201 dB) and dipping sonar (AN/AQS–
22). Sonobuoys may be deployed by
maritime patrol aircraft or helicopters;
dipping sonars are used by carrier-based
helicopters. A sonobuoy is an
expendable device used by aircraft for
the detection of underwater acoustic
energy and for conducting vertical water
column temperature measurements.
Most sonobuoys are passive, but some
can generate active acoustic signals, as
well as listen passively. Dipping sonar
is an active or passive sonar device
lowered on cable by helicopters to
detect or maintain contact with
underwater targets. During ASW
training, these systems active modes are
only used briefly for localization of
contacts and are not used in primary
search capacity. Because active mode
dipping sonar use is very brief and has
a lower normal source level than hullmounted active sonars, it is extremely
unlikely its use would have any effect
on marine mammals. However, the AN/
AQS–22 dipping sonar was modeled
based on estimated use during major
training exercises within the SOCAL
Range Complex.
Extended Echo Ranging and Improved
Extended Echo Ranging (EER/IEER)
Systems—EER/IEER are airborne ASW
systems used in conducting large area
searches for submarines. These systems
are made up of airborne avionics, ASW
acoustic processing and sonobuoy types
that are deployed in pairs. The IEER
System’s active sonobuoy component,
the AN/SSQ–110A Sonobuoy, would
generate a sonar ‘‘ping’’ (actually small
explosive detonation) and the passive
AN/SSQ–101A ADAR Sonobuoy would
‘‘listen’’ for the return echo of the sonar
ping that has been bounced off the
surface of a submarine. These
sonobuoys are designed to provide
underwater acoustic data necessary for
naval aircrews to quickly and accurately
detect submerged submarines. The
sonobuoy pairs are dropped from a
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60839
fixed-wing aircraft into the ocean in a
predetermined pattern with a few buoys
covering a very large area. The AN/
SSQ–110A Sonobuoy Series is an
expendable and commandable
sonobuoy. Upon command from the
aircraft, the bottom payload is released
to sink to a designated operating depth.
A second command is required from the
aircraft to cause the second payload to
release and detonate generating a
‘‘ping’’. There is only one detonation in
the pattern of buoys at a time. The AN/
SSQ–110A is listed in this table because
it functions like a sonar ping, however,
the source creates an explosive
detonation and its effects are considered
in the underwater explosive section.
Torpedoes—Torpedoes are the
primary ASW weapon used by surface
ships, aircraft, and submarines. The
guidance systems of these weapons can
be autonomous or electronically
controlled from the launching platform
through an attached wire. The
autonomous guidance systems are
acoustically based. They operate either
passively, exploiting the emitted sound
energy by the target, or actively, by
reflecting a sonar signal off the target
and using the received echoes for
guidance. The MK–48 torpedo was
modeled for active sonar transmissions
during specified training operations
within the SOCAL Range Complex. The
MK–48 sonar with a higher source level
was also conservatively used to account
for MK–46 torpedo exercises.
Other Acoustic Sources—The Navy
also utilizes the sources listed below in
ASW exercises. However, based on
operational characteristics (such as
frequency and source level), the Navy
determined that use of the following
acoustic sources would not likely result
in the take of marine mammals:
• Acoustic Device Countermeasures
(ADC)—Several types of acoustic
counter measure devices could be
deployed during Fleet training
exercises, including the free-floating
submarine launched Acoustic Device
Countermeasure (MK–1, MK–2, MK–3,
MK–4), the free-floating submarine
launched Noise Acoustic Emitter (NAE),
and the surface ship towed AN/SLQ–
25A (NIXIE). Countermeasure devices
are submarine simulators and act as
decoys to avert localization and torpedo
attacks.
• Training Targets—ASW training
targets consisting of MK–30 and/or MK–
39 EMATT are used to simulate
opposition submarines. They are
equipped with one or a combination of
the following devices: (1) Acoustic
projectors emanating sounds to simulate
submarine acoustic signatures; (2) echo
repeaters to simulate the characteristics
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
60840
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
of the echo of a particular sonar signal
reflected from a specific type of
submarine; and (3) magnetic sources to
trigger magnetic detectors.
• Range Sources. Range pingers are
active acoustic devices that allow each
of the in-water platforms on the range
(e.g., ships, submarines, target
simulators, and exercise torpedoes) to
be tracked by the instrumented range
hydrophones on the Southern California
ASW Range (SOAR) west of San
Clemente Island. In addition to
passively tracking the pinger signal from
each range participant, the range
transducer nodes also are capable of
transmitting acoustic signals for a
limited set of functions. These functions
include submarine warning signals,
acoustic commands to submarine target
simulators (acoustic command link),
and occasional voice or data
communications (received by
participating ships and submarines on
range).
Types of ASW Exercises in the SOCAL
The Navy’s ASW training plan,
including the use of active sonar in atsea training scenarios, includes multiple
levels of training. Independent Unitlevel ASW training (such as TRACKEX
and TORPEX exercises) addresses basic
skills such as detection and
classification of contacts, distinguishing
discrete acoustic signatures including
those of ships, submarines, and marine
life, and identifying the characteristics,
functions, and effects of controlled
jamming and evasion devices.
The Navy must execute training
involving ships, aircraft, submarines,
and Marine Corps forces operating in
multiple dimensions (at sea, undersea,
in the air, and on land) in order to
ensure the readiness of naval forces.
Unit training proceeds on a continuum,
ranging from events involving a small
number of ships, submarines, or aircraft
engaged in training tailored to specific
tasks, to large-scale pre-deployment or
readiness exercises involving Strike
Groups. Exercises involving an entire
Strike Group are referred to as major
range events (JTFEX and COMPTUEX).
Smaller, integrated unit-level exercises
are complex events (SHAREM, IAC2, or
sustainment exercise), but of lesser
scope than major range events, which
pursue tailored training objectives for
components of a Strike Group. It is
useful to view larger exercises as being
composed of individual training events
conducted in a coordinated fashion. For
example, the ASW portions of a major
range event might include multiple
TRACKEX and TORPEX events,
conducted simultaneously with aviation
or amphibious training. Table 2, at the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
end of this section, summarizes the
exercise types (both sonar and
explosive) and they are further
described below. Note that the names
and exact composition of these exercises
may change, however, the basic
components are described here and the
total hours of sonar sound source and
explosive use will not exceed those
described in this document.
Antisubmarine Warfare Tracking
Exercise (TRACKEX)
A TRACKEX, which is an
independent unit-level exercise, tests
the Naval Strike Group’s (NSG) ability
to locate and track an unknown or
hostile submarine over a predetermined
time. This operation tests the NSG’s
ability to coordinate the positioning of
assets including surface, air, and
subsurface, and the effective
communication and turnover of
responsibility for maintaining coverage
of the unknown submarine.
The TRACKEX-surface involves a
surface ship employing hull mounted
and/or towed array sonar against a target
which may be an Expendable Mobile
Anti-submarine Warfare Training Target
(EMATT) or live submarine. The target
may be either non-evading and assigned
to a specified track or fully evasive
depending on the state of training of the
ship and crew. Passive and active sonar
may be employed depending on the
type of threat submarine, the tactical
situation, and water conditions that may
affect sonar effectiveness. Active sonar
transmits at varying power levels, pulse
types, and intervals, while passive sonar
listens for noise emitted by the threat
submarine. Passive sonar is typically
employed first for tactical reasons,
followed by active sonar to determine
an exact target location; however, active
sonar may be employed during the
initial search phase against an extremely
quiet submarine or in situations where
the water conditions do not support
acceptable passive reception. There is
no ordnance expended in this exercise.
An ASW TRACKEX-Surface usually
lasts two to four hours.
This exercise may involve a single
ship, or may be undertaken in the
context of a coordinated larger exercise
involving multiple aircraft and/or ships,
including a major range event.
The Navy also conducts Submarine
TRACKEX exercises. However, during
this event, passive sonar is used almost
exclusively; active sonar use is tactically
proscribed because it would reveal the
tracking submarine’s presence to the
target submarine.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Torpedo Exercise (TORPEX)
Anti-submarine Warfare Torpedo
Exercises (ASW TORPEX) operations,
which are independent unit-level
exercises, train crews in tracking and
attack of submerged targets, firing one or
two exercise torpedoes (EXTORPs) or
recoverable exercise torpedoes
(REXTORPs). TORPEX targets used in
the Offshore Areas include live
submarines, MK 48 torpedoes, MK–30
ASW training targets, and MK–39
Expendable Mobile ASW Training
Targets (EMATT). The target may be
non-evading while operating on a
specified track, or it may be fully
evasive, depending on the training
requirements of the operation.
The ASW TORPEX-Surface involves a
surface ship using hull-mounted and
towed sonar arrays to search for, detect,
classify, localize, and track a simulated
threat submarine. Submarines
periodically conduct TORPEXs within
the SOCAL Range Complex. Typical
duration of a submarine TORPEX
exercise is 10 hours, while air and
surface ASW platform TORPEX
operations are considerably shorter.
Ship ASW Readiness and Evaluation
Measuring (SHAREM)
SHAREM is a Chief of Naval
Operations (CNO) chartered program
with the overall objective to collect and
analyze high-quality data to
quantitatively ‘‘assess’’ surface ship
ASW readiness and effectiveness. The
SHAREM is an integrated unit-level
event and will typically involve
multiple ships, submarines, and aircraft
in several coordinated events over a
period of a week or less. A SHAREM
may take place once per year in SOCAL.
Sustainment Exercise
Included in the FRTP is a requirement
to conduct post-deployment
sustainment, training, and maintenance.
The sustainment exercise, which is an
integrated unit-level exercise, ensures
that the components of a Strike Group
maintain an acceptable level of
readiness after returning from
deployment. A sustainment exercise is
an exercise designed to challenge the
strike group in all warfare areas. This
exercise is similar to a COMPTUEX but
of shorter duration. One to two
sustainment exercises may occur each
year in SOCAL.
Integrated ASW Course Phase II (IAC2)
IAC2 exercises are combined aircraft
and surface ship events. The IAC2
consists of two 12-hour events
conducted primarily on SOAR over a 2–
3 day period. SOAR is an undersea
warfare range providing instrumented
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
three dimensional tracking over a 670 sq
nm area within the large Southern
California Offshore Range (SCORE). The
typical participants include four
helicopters, two P–3 aircraft, two
adversary submarines, and two Mk 30 or
Mk 39 targets. Frequently, IAC2s
include the introduction of an off-range
Mk 30 target. Four IAC2 exercises may
occur per year.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Major Range Events
The Navy conducts large-scale
exercises, or major ranges events, in the
SOCAL Range Complex. These exercises
are required for pre-deployment
certification of naval formations. The
composition of the force to be trained,
and the nature of its mission upon
deployment, determines the scope of the
exercise. The Navy currently conducts
up to eight major range events per year.
Major range events bring together the
component elements of a Strike Group
or Strike Force (that is, all of the various
ships, submarines, aircraft, and Marine
Corps forces) to train in complex
command, control, operational
coordination, and logistics functions.
Major range events require vast areas of
sea space and airspace for the exercise
of realistic training, as well as land areas
for conducting land attack training
events. The training space required for
these events is a function of naval
warfighting doctrine, which favors
widely dispersed units capable of
projecting forces and firepower at high
speeds across distances of up to several
hundred miles in a coordinated fashion,
to concentrate on an objective. The
three-dimensional space required to
conduct a major range event involving
a carrier strike group (CSG) or
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
expeditionary strike group (ESG) is a
complicated polygon covering an area as
large as 50,000 nm 2.
A major range event is comprised of
several ‘‘unit level’’ range operations
conducted by several units operating
together while commanded and
controlled by a single commander.
These exercises typically employ an
exercise scenario developed to train and
evaluate the Strike Group/Force in
required naval tactical tasks. In a major
range event, most of the operations and
activities being directed and
coordinated by the Strike Group
commander are identical in nature to
the operations conducted in the course
of individual, crew, and smaller-unit
training events. In a major range event,
however, these disparate training tasks
are conducted in concert, rather than in
isolation.
Major range events include:
• Composite Training Unit Exercise
(COMPTUEX). The COMPTUEX is an
Integration Phase, at-sea, major range
event. For the CSG, this exercise
integrates the aircraft carrier and carrier
air wing with surface and submarine
units in a challenging operational
environment. For the ESG, this exercise
integrates amphibious ships with their
associated air wing, surface ships,
submarines, and Marine Expeditionary
Unit. Live-fire operations that may take
place during COMPTUEX include longrange air strikes, Naval Surface Fire
Support (NSFS), and surface-to-air,
surface-to-surface, and air-to-surface
missile exercises. The MEU also
conducts realistic training based on
anticipated operational requirements
and to further develop the required
coordination between Navy and Marine
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60841
Corps forces. Special Operations
training may also be integrated with the
exercise scenario. The COMPTUEX is
typically 21 days in length. The exercise
is conducted in accordance with a
schedule of events, which may include
two 1-day, scenario-driven, ‘‘mini’’
battle problems, culminating with a
scenario-driven free play (as opposed to
scripted) 3-day Final Battle Problem
where the strike group is required to
respond to dynamic maneuvers.’’
COMPTUEX occurs three to four times
per year.
• Joint Task Force Exercise (JTFEX).
The JTFEX is a dynamic and complex
major range event that is the
culminating exercise in the Sustainment
Phase training and certification event
for the CSGs and ESGs. For an ESG, the
exercise incorporates an Amphibious
Ready Group (ARG) Certification
Exercise (ARG CERT) for the
amphibious ships and a Special
Operations Capable Certification
(SOCCERT) for the MEU. When
schedules align, the JTFEX may be
conducted concurrently for an ESG and
CSG. JTFEX emphasizes mission
planning and effective execution by all
primary and support warfare
commanders, including command and
control, surveillance, intelligence,
logistics support, and the integration of
tactical fires. JTFEX is mostly a free-play
(as opposed to scripted) event. JTFEX is
normally 10 days long, not including a
3-day in-port Force Protection Exercise,
and is the final at-sea exercise for the
CSG or ESG prior to deployment. JTFEX
occurs three to four times per year.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
EP14OC08.026
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60842
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
60843
the water, and so a ‘‘hit’’ is not modeled
(i.e., the energy (either acoustic or
pressure) from the hit is not expected to
reach levels that would result in take of
marine mammals). When a live weapon
misses, it is modeled as exploding
below the water surface at 1 ft (5-inch
naval gunfire, 76-mm rounds), 2 meters
(Maverick, Harpoon, MK–82, MK–83,
MK–84), or 50 ft (MK–48 torpedo) as
shown in Appendix A of the Navy’s
application, Table A–7 (the depth is
chosen to represent the worst case of the
possible scenarios as related to potential
marine mammals impacts). Exercises
may utilize either live or inert ordnance
of the types listed in Table 3.
Additionally, successful hit rates are
known to the Navy and are utilized in
the effects modeling. Training events
that involve explosives and underwater
detonations occur throughout the year
and are described below and
summarized in Table 2.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
• Two-hundred and fifty rounds for a
5-inch gun.
• One MK–48 heavyweight
submarine-launched torpedo.
42 FAST or a MK–58 marker (smoke)
buoy. The gun systems employed
against surface targets include the 5inch, 76 millimeter (mm), 57-mm, 25mm chain gun, 20-mm Close-in Weapon
System (CIWS), and .50 caliber machine
gun. Typical ordnance expenditure for a
single GUNEX is 21–70 rounds of 5inch, 76-mm, or 57-mm ammunition,
and approximately 150 rounds of 25mm or .50-caliber ammunition. Both
live and inert training rounds are used.
After impacting the water, the rounds
and fragments sink to the bottom of the
ocean. A GUNEX lasts up to 2.5 hours,
depending on target services and
weather conditions. The live 5-inch, 57mm and 76-mm rounds are considered
in the underwater detonation modeling.
Naval Surface Fire Support exercises
(NSFS), in which crews train in naval
gunnery against shore targets using the
same ammunition as a GUNEX, are
included with GUNEX both in Table 2
and further discussion (though separate
mitigation is described in the Mitigation
section). NSFS may be conducted in
SOAR, MIR, or SHOBA.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Sinking Exercise (SINKEX)
In a SINKEX, a specially prepared,
deactivated vessel is deliberately sunk
using multiple weapons systems. The
exercise provides training to ship and
aircraft crews in delivering both live
and inert ordnance on a real target.
These target vessels are empty, cleaned,
and environmentally remediated ship
hulk (i.e., a hulk that has been stripped
of all hazardous materials and potential
marine water contaminants in
accordance with the requirements of 40
CFR 229.2 [Transport of target vessels]).
A SINKEX target is towed to sea and set
adrift at the SINKEX location. The
duration of a SINKEX is unpredictable
since it ends when the target sinks,
sometimes immediately after the first
weapon impact and sometimes only
after multiple impacts by a variety of
weapons. Typically, the exercise lasts
for 4 to 8 hours over 1 to 2 days.
SINKEXs occur only occasionally
during SOCAL Range Complex
exercises.
Some or all of the following weapons
may be employed in a SINKEX:
• Three HARPOON surface-to-surface
and air-to-surface missiles.
• Two to eight air-to-surface Maverick
missiles.
• Two to four MK–82 General
Purpose Bombs.
• Two Hellfire air-to-surface missiles.
• One SLAM–ER air-to-surface
missile.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
Air-to-Surface Gunnery Exercise (A–S
GUNEX)
Air-to-Surface GUNEX operations,
which may be conducted in W291, are
conducted by fixed or rotary-wing
aircraft against stationary targets
(Floating at-sea Target [FAST] and
smoke buoy). Rotary-wing aircraft
involved in this operation would
include a single SH–60 using either
7.62-mm or .50-caliber door-mounted
machine guns. A typical A–S GUNEX
will last approximately one hour and
involve the expenditure of
approximately 400 rounds of 0.50caliber or 7.62-mm ammunition. Due to
the inert nature of the ammunition and
the small size of the rounds, they are not
considered to have an underwater
detonation impact.
Surface-to-Surface Gunnery Exercise
(S–S GUNEX)
Surface gunnery exercises (GUNEX)
take place in the open ocean (W291 and
SOAR) to provide gunnery practice for
Navy and Coast Guard ship crews. This
exercise may involve a single firing
ship, or be undertaken in the context of
a coordinated larger exercise involving
multiple ships, including a major range
event. GUNEX training operations
conducted in the Offshore OPAREA
involve stationary targets such as a MK–
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Air-to-Surface Missile Exercise (A–S
MISSILEX)
The air-to-surface missile exercise
(MISSILEX [A–S]) consists of the
attacking platform releasing a forwardfired, guided weapon at the designated
towed target. The exercise involves
locating the target, then designating the
target, usually with a laser. MISSILEX
(A–S) training that does not involve the
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
EP14OC08.027
Activities Utilizing Underwater
Detonations
Underwater detonation activities can
occur at various depths depending on
the activity (sinking exercise [SINKEX]
and mine neutralization), but may also
include activities which may have
detonations at or just below the surface
(SINKEX, gunnery exercise [GUNEX], or
missile exercise [MISSILEX]). When the
weapons hit the target, except for live
torpedo shot, there is no explosion in
60844
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
release of a live weapon can take place
if the attacking platform is carrying a
captive air training missile (CATM)
simulating the weapon involved in the
training. The CATM MISSILEX is
identical to a live-fire exercise in every
aspect except that a weapon is not
released. The operation requires a lasersafe range as the target is designated just
as in a live-fire exercise.
From 1 to 16 aircraft, carrying live,
inert, or CATMs, or flying without
ordnance (dry runs) are used during the
exercise. At sea, seaborne powered
targets (SEPTARs), Improved Surface
Towed Targets (ISTTs), and
decommissioned hulks are used as
targets. MISSILEX (A–S) assets include
helicopters and/or 1 to 16 fixed wing
aircraft with air-to-surface missiles and
anti-radiation missiles (electromagnetic
radiation source seeking missiles).
When a high-speed anti-radiation
missile (HARM) is used, the exercise is
called a HARMEX. Targets include
SEPTARs, ISTTs, and excess ship hulks.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Surface-to-Surface Missile Exercise (S–
S MISSILEX)
Surface-to-surface missile exercise
(MISSILEX [S–S]) involves the attack of
surface targets at sea by use of cruise
missiles or other missile systems,
usually by a single ship conducting
training in the detection, classification,
tracking and engagement of a surface
target. Engagement is usually with
Harpoon missiles or Standard missiles
in the surface-to-surface mode. Targets
could include virtual targets or the
SEPTAR or ship deployed surface target.
MISSILEX (S–S) training is routinely
conducted on individual ships with
embedded training devices.
A MISSILEX (S–S) could include 4 to
20 surface-to-surface missiles,
SEPTARs, a weapons recovery boat, and
a helicopter for environmental and
photo evaluation. All missiles are
equipped with instrumentation
packages or a warhead. Surface-to-air
missiles can also be used in a surfaceto-surface mode. MISSILEX (S–S)
activities are conducted withinW–291.
Each exercise typically lasts five hours.
Future MISSILEX S–S could range from
4 to 35 hours.
S–S MISSILEX exercises only occur
during SINKEX exercises, and the hours
of S–S MISSILEX are included in the
total hours of SINKEX indicated in
Table 2.
Bombing Exercise (BOMBEX)
Fixed-wing aircraft conduct bombing
exercise (BOMBEX [Sea]) operations
against stationary targets (MK–42 FAST
or MK–58 smoke buoy) at sea. An
aircraft will clear the area, deploy a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
smoke buoy or other floating target, and
then set up a racetrack pattern, dropping
on the target with each pass. A
BOMBEX may involve either live or
inert ordnance.
Mine Warfare (MIW)/ Mine
Countermeasures (MCM)
MIW is the naval warfare area
involving the detection, avoidance, and
neutralization of mines to protect Navy
ships and submarines, and offensive
mine laying in naval operations. A naval
mine is a self-contained explosive
device placed in water to destroy ships
or submarines. Naval mines are
deposited and left in place until
triggered by the approach of or a contact
with an enemy ship, or are destroyed or
removed. Naval mines can be laid by
purpose-built minelayers, other ships,
submarines, or airplanes. MIW training
includes Mine Countermeasures (MCM)
Exercises and Mine Laying Exercises
(MINEX). MCM training is currently
conducted on the Kingfisher Range and
offshore areas in the Tanner and Cortes
Banks. MCM training engages ships’
crews in the use of sonar for mine
detection and avoidance, and minefield
navigation and reporting. The proposed
extension of the SOAR is intended for
use in such training. MINEX events
involve aircraft dropping inert training
shapes, and less frequently submarine
mine laying. MINEX events are
conducted on the MINEX Training
Ranges in the Castle Rock, Eel Point,
China Point, and Pyramid Head areas
offshore of SCI.
Mine Neutralization operations
involve the detection, identification,
evaluation, rendering safe, and disposal
of mines and unexploded ordnance
(UXO) that constitutes a threat to ships
or personnel. Mine neutralization
training can be conducted by a variety
of air, surface and sub-surface assets.
Potential harassment would be from
underwater detonation.
Tactics for neutralization of ground or
bottom mines involve the diver placing
a specific amount of explosives, which
when detonated underwater at a specific
distance from a mine results in
neutralization of the mine. Floating, or
moored, mines involve the diver placing
a specific amount of explosives directly
on the mine. Floating mines
encountered by Fleet ships in openocean areas will be detonated at the
surface. In support of an expeditionary
assault, divers and Navy marine
mammal assets deploy in very shallow
water depths (10 to 40 feet) to locate
mines and obstructions. Divers are
transported to the mines by boat or
helicopter. Inert dummy mines are used
in the exercises. The total net explosive
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
weight used against each mine ranges
from less than 1 pound to 20 pounds.
Various types of surveying equipment
may be used during mine detection.
Examples include the Canadian Route
Survey System that hydrographically
maps the ocean floor using multi-beam
side scan sonar and the Bottom Object
Inspection Vehicle used for object
identification. These units can help in
supporting mine detection prior to
Special Warfare Operations
(SPECWAROPS) and amphibious
exercises.
All demolition activities are
conducted in accordance with
established Navy guidelines and
procedures for disposal of explosives at
sea. Before any explosive is detonated,
divers are transported a safe distance
away from the explosive.
Standard practices for tethered mines
in the SOCAL Range Complex require
ground mine explosive charges to be
suspended 10 feet below the surface of
the water.
Mine neutralization exercises would
involve training using Organic Airborne
Mine Countermeasures (OAMCM)
systems employed by helicopters in
simulated threat minefields with the
goal of clearing a safe channel through
the minefield for the passage of friendly
ships. Once a mine shape is located,
mine neutralization is simulated.
Helicopters engaged in MCM training
would be configured with one or more
of the following systems:
• AN/AQS–20 Mine Hunting System:
The AQS–20 is an active high
resolution, side-looking, multibeam
sonar system used for mine hunting of
deeper mine threats along the ocean
bottom. It is towed by a helicopter. A
small diameter electromechanical cable
is used to tow the rapidly-deployable
system that provides real-time sonar
images to operators in the helicopter.
• AN/AES–1 Airborne Laser Mine
Detection System (ALMDS): ALMDS is
a helicopter-mounted system that uses
Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR)
blue-green laser technology to detect,
classify, and localize floating and nearsurface moored mines in shallow water.
• AN/ALQ–220 Organic Airborne
Surface Influence Sweep (OASIS).
OASIS is a helicopter deployed, towedbody, 10 ft long and 20 inches in
diameter that is self-contained, allowing
for the emulation of magnetic and
acoustic signatures of the ships.
• Airborne Mine Neutralization
System (AMNS): AMNS is a helicopterdeployed underwater vehicle that
searches for, locates, and destroys
mines. This vehicle is a self-propelled,
unmanned, wire-guided munition with
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
homing capability that expends itself
during the mine destruction process.
• AN/AWS–2 Rapid Airborne Mine
Clearance System (RAMCIS): RAMICS is
a helicopter-borne weapon system that
fires a 30mm projectile from a gun or
cannon to neutralize surface and nearsurface mines. RAMICS uses LIDAR
technology to detect mines.
Mine neutralization exercises also
would involve shipboard MCM systems,
including the Remote Minehunting
System (RMS). The RMS is an
unmanned, semi-submersible vehicle
that tows a variable-depth sensor to
detect, localize, classify and identify
mines. The RMS includes a shipboard
launch and recovery system.
Mine neutralization exercises also
would involve submarine-deployed
MCM systems, the Long-term Mine
Reconnaissance System (LMRS). The
LMRS employs a self-propelled
underwater vehicle equipped with
forward-looking search sonar and sidelooking classification sonar.
Locations proposed for mine
neutralization training are: Pyramid
Cove; Northwest Harbor; Kingfisher
Training Range; MTR–1, MTR–2, and
Advanced Research Project Agency
(ARPA).
The unusual physical bathymetries,
the low numbers of protected species
and the training routines at the sites
where these exercises are conducted
combine with the unusual pressurewave propagation characteristics of the
Northwest Harbor, where multiple
charges are used, to allow exceptionally
reliable and effective mitigation
procedures. The exceptional reliability
of visual detection of protected species
at these sites allows for complete
mitigation within a radius that extends
out to the distance at which only the
lowest degree of temporary auditory
threshold shift (onset-TTS) would be
expected to occur (if mitigation were not
so effective at the site). Therefore, the
Navy and NMFS do not expect mine
neutralization exercises to result in the
take of marine mammals and no take
authorization pursuant to this activity
type has been proposed.
Shallow Water Minefield
Currently, the Navy conducts mine
countermeasures (MCM) training on two
existing ranges in the SOCAL Range
Complex: the Kingfisher Range off SCI
and the ARPA Training Minefield off La
Jolla. The ARPA has historically been
used for shallow water submarine and
MCM training, and is the desired
location for expanding MCM training.
ARPA currently supports the submarine
training requirement for a shallow water
minefield to train in small object
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
avoidance. Use of the ARPA shallow
water minefield would be expanded
from its current use by submarines to
include surface ships and helicopters.
On the ARPA, 35 mine shapes
approximately 30–35 inches in
diameter, constructed of cylinders
weighted with cement, are placed
approximately 500–700 yards apart,
either moored (no drilling is required)
or simply set on the sea floor. Mine
shapes are recoverable and replaceable,
and typically need maintenance or
cleaning every two years.
In addition to expanded use of the
ARPA, the Navy proposes to establish
an offshore shallow water minefield on
Tanner Banks. The training area would
be approximately 2 by 3 nm in size.
Mine shapes like those used at ARPA
would be placed on the ocean floor,
with a total of 15 mine shapes in three
rows of five. This offshore MCM range
would be utilized by surface ships
training to detect, classify and localize
underwater mines.
MCM training involving ships or
helicopters typically employ mid-to
high-frequency navigation and mine
detecting sonar systems. Once a mine
shape is located, mine neutralization is
simulated. Surface ships engaged in
MCM training at ARPA and Tanner
Banks MCM ranges would utilize the
Remote Mine Hunting System (RMS).
The RMS is an unmanned, semisubmersible vehicle that will be
deployed from both the DDG–51 Class
destroyer and the LCS. The RMS is
launched and recovered by the host ship
using a davit system. After deployment,
the RMS enters the target zone to
perform reconnaissance for bottom-laid
mines. An area search is conducted
following an operator-programmed
search pattern. The RMS searches using
low-power (< 85dB) acoustic sonar.
Upon detecting a mine, the RMS unit
will localize and photograph the object
for classification, and then continue on
its programmed search. When the search
portion of the mission is completed, the
RMS will proceed to a programmed
location for recovery.
The exercises that will be conducted
on these minefields have been described
in previous sections and any expected
take of marine mammals will be
included when those exercise types are
analyzed in later sections. NMFS does
not expect the actual expansion and
formation of the minefields to result in
any take of marine mammals.
Shallow Water Training Range (SWTR)
Extension
The SWTR component of the
Proposed Action would provide
underwater instrumentation for two
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60845
additional areas of the current SOAR,
one 250nm2 (463-km2) area to the west
of the already instrumented (deep
water) section, in the area of Tanner/
Cortes Banks, and one 250 nm2 (463km2) area between the deep water
section and the southern section of SCI
(See Figure 2–3). Once in place, the new
instrumentation in the SWTR would
expand the areas of the Navy’s existing
program on SOAR to enhance the ability
to use passive hydrophones to detect
and track marine mammals. If installed
in these areas, use of the SWTR would
increase the use of these areas for ASW
training involving MFAS.
The proposed instrumentation would
be in the form of undersea cables and
sensor nodes. The cables and sensors
would be similar to those that
instrument the current deep water range
at (SOAR). The new areas would form
an integral SWTR capability for SOAR.
The combination of deep water and
shallow water instrumentation would
support a seamless tracking interface
from deep to shallow water, which is an
essential element of effective ASW
training. The instrumented area would
be connected to shore via multiple trunk
cables.
The SWTR instrumentation would be
an undersea cables system integrated
with hydrophone and underwater
telephone sensors, called nodes,
connected to each other and then
connected by up to eight trunk cable(s)
to a land-based facility where the
collected range data are used to evaluate
the performance of participants in
shallow water (120’-600’deep) training
exercises. The basic proposed features
of the instrumentation and construction
follow.
The transducer nodes are capable of
both transmitting and receiving acoustic
signals from ships operating within the
instrumented areas of SOAR (a
transducer is an instrument that
converts one form of energy into another
[in this case, underwater sound into an
electrical signal or vice-versa]). Some
nodes are configured to only support
receiving signals, some can both
transmit and receive, and others are
transmit-only versions. The acoustic
signals that are sent from the exercise
participants (e.g., submarines,
torpedoes, ships) to the receive-capable
range nodes allow the position of the
participants to be determined and stored
electronically for both real-time and
future evaluation. The transmit-capable
nodes allow communication from the
range to ships or other devices that are
being tracked. More specifically:
• The SWTR extension would consist
of no more than 500 sensor nodes
spread on the ocean floor over a 500-nm
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60846
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
area. The distance between nodes would
vary between 0.5nm and 3nm,
depending on water depth. Each sensor
node would be similar on construction
to the existing SOAR instrumentation.
The sensor nodes are small spherical
shapes of less than 6 inches in diameter.
The sensors would be either suspended
up to 15 feet in the water column or lie
flat on the seafloor. Sensor nodes
located in shallow water with a
presence of commercial fishing activity
would have an additional protective
device surrounding or overlaying a
sensor. These mechanical protective
devices would be 3–4 feet round or
rectangular with a shallow height. The
final physical characteristics of the
sensor nodes would be determined
based upon local geographic conditions
and to accommodate man-made threats
such as fishing activity. Sensor nodes
would be connected to each other by
interconnect cable (standard submarine
telecommunications cable with
diameters less than 1 inch).
Approximately 900nm of interconnect
cable would be deployed.
• A series of sensor nodes would be
connected via the interconnect cable to
an underwater junction box(es) located
in diver-accessible water depths. A
junction box is rectangular in shape
with dimensions of 10–15 feet on each
side. The junction box(es) would
connect to a shore-based facility via
trunk cable(s) (submarine cables up to 2
inch diameter with additional data
capacity). The trunk cable(s) eliminate
the need to have numerous interconnect
cables running to shore. Up to 8 trunk
cables with a combined length of 375nm
would be employed. Trunk cables
would be protected in the sea-shore area
by horizontally directionally drilled
pipes running beneath the shoreline.
• The interconnect and trunk cables
would be deployed using a ship with a
length overall up to 300 feet. The trunk
cable paths would be routed through the
deep water as much as is possible.
Trunk cable deployed in shallow water
may require cable burial. Burial
equipment would cut (hard bottom) or
plow (soft sediment) a furrow 4 inches
(10 cm) wide by up to 36 inches deep.
Burial equipment (tracked vehicle or
towed plow) would be deployed from a
ship. The trunk cable, which passes
through the sea-shore area, would
terminate in SOAR’s current cable
termination facility (CTF) at West Cove.
From there, information gathered on the
SWTR would be transmitted via an
existing microwave datalink to the
Southern California Offshore Range
(SCORE) Range Operations Center
(ROC) on Naval Air Station North
Island. The adjacent SOAR has a single
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
junction box located outside the
nearshore area and places the trunk
cable in a horizontally directionally
drilled bore that terminates on shore.
The size of the SWTR may require up
to 8 junction boxes and 8 trunk cables.
Multiple horizontal bores are in the
SOAR. Every effort would be made to
take advantage of any excess bore
capacity available in the SOAR.
• The in-water instrumentation
system would be structured to achieve
a long operating life, with a goal of 20
years and with a minimum of
maintenance and repair throughout the
life-cycle. This is due to the high cost
of performing at-sea repairs on
transducer nodes and cables, the
inherently long lead-time to plan,
permit, fund and conduct such repairs
(6–18 months) and the loss of range
capability while awaiting completion.
The long life performance would be
achieved by using high quality
components, proven designs, and
multiple levels of redundancy in the
system design. This includes back-up
capacity for key electronic components
and fault tolerance to the loss of
individual sensors or even an entire
sensor string. The use of materials
capable of withstanding long term
exposure to high water pressure and salt
water-induced corrosion is also
important. Periodic inspection and
maintenance in accessible areas also
extends system life.
The Navy would submit cable area
coordinates to the National Geospatial
Intelligence Agency (NGA) and request
that the combined SWTR/SOAR area be
noted on charts within the appropriate
warning area. This area would be noted
in the U.S. Coast Pilot as a Military
Operating Area (MOA), as are other
areas on the West Coast. The Navy may
promulgate a Notice to Mariners
(NOTMAR) and a Notice to Airmen
(NOTAM) within 72 hours of the
training activities, as appropriate.
Installation of the SWTR
instrumentation array may be done in
phases. For example, the Tanner Bank
area could be installed first, followed by
the eastern area. The decision as to
whether or not to proceed in phases,
how many phases, and the order in
which the phases are executed is based
on multiple factors, including weather,
ship availability and capacity,
production schedules for nodes and
cable, installation time, total
environmental impact of installation,
funding availability, and efficiency.
RDT&E
Space and Naval Warfare Systems
Center (SPAWARSYSCEN) conducts
research, development, testing, and
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
evaluation (RDT&E), engineering, and
fleet support for command, control, and
communications systems and ocean
surveillance in the SOCAL Range
Complex, primarily in the vicinity of
SCI. Specific events include ship
tracking and torpedo tests, unmanned
underwater vehicle (UUV) tests; and
sonobuoy quality assurance/quality
control.
The San Diego Division of the Naval
Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) is a
Naval Sea Systems Command
(NAVSEA) organization supporting the
Pacific Fleet. NUWC operates and
maintains the SCI Underwater Range
(SCIUR). NUWC conducts tests,
analysis, and evaluation of submarine
USW exercises and test programs.
NUWC also provides engineering and
technical support for Undersea Warfare
(USW) programs and exercises, design
cognizance of underwater weapons
acoustic and tracking ranges and
associated range equipment, and
provides proof testing and evaluation
for underwater weapons, weapons
systems, and components.
Additional information on the Navy’s
proposed activities may be found in the
LOA Application and Appendix A of
the Navy’s SOCAL DEIS.
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of the Specified Activities
The California Current passes through
the SOCAL Range Complex, creating a
mixing of temperate and tropical waters,
and making this area one of the most
productive ocean systems in the world
(Hickey 1979, Hickey 1992, Daily et al.
1993, DoN 2002a). Because of this
productive environment, there is a rich
marine mammal fauna, as evidenced in
abundance and species diversity
(Leatherwood et al., 1988; Bonnell and
Dailey, 1993). In addition to many
marine mammal species that live in the
area year-round and use the region’s
coasts and islands for breeding and
hauling out, there is a community of
seasonal residents and migrants. The
narrow continental shelf along the
Pacific coast and the presence of the
cold California Current sweeping down
from Alaska allows cold-water marine
mammal species to reach nearshore
waters as far south as Baja California.
The Southern California Bight (SCB) is
the major geological region occurring
within the SOCAL Range Complex and
can be described as a complex
combination of islands, ridges, and
basins that exhibit wide ranges in water
temperature. San Diego Bay, a naturally
formed, crescent-shaped embayment is
located along the southern end of the
SCB (Largier, 1995; DoN, 2000); the bay
provides habitat for a number of oceanic
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
and estuarine species as the ebb and
flood of tides within the Bay circulate
and mix ocean and Bay waters, creating
for distinct circulation zones within San
Diego Bay (see Chapter 2 of the
application for further detail regarding
these zones) (Largier et al., 1996; DoN,
2000).
Populations/stocks of forty-one
marine mammal species have been
confirmed or may possibly occur in the
study area off southern California (see
Table 4), including 34 cetacean (whales,
dolphins, and porpoises), six pinniped
(seals, sea lions, and fur seals), and one
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
fissiped species (the sea otter, which is
managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and will not be addressed
further here). Information on marine
mammal occurrence at the Point Mugu
Sea Range (just to the north of the
SOCAL Range Complex) is analyzed in
Koski et al. (1998). Temperate and
warm-water toothed whales often
change their distribution and abundance
as oceanographic conditions vary both
seasonally (Forney and Barlow, 1998)
and interannually (Forney 2000). Forney
and Barlow (1998) noted significant
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60847
north/south shifts in distribution for
Dall’s porpoises, common dolphins, and
Pacific white-sided dolphins, and they
identified significant inshore/offshore
differences for northern right whale
dolphins and humpback whales. Several
authors have noted the impact of the El
˜
Nino events of 1982/1983 and 1997/
1998 on marine mammal occurrence
patterns and population dynamics in
the waters off California (Wells et al.,
1990; Forney and Barlow, 1998; Benson
et al., 2002).
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
The Navy has compiled information
on the abundance, behavior, status and
distribution, and vocalizations of
marine mammal species in SOCAL
Range Complex waters from peer
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
reviewed literature, the Navy Marine
Resource Assessment for the SOCAL
Operating Area, NMFS Stock
Assessment Reports, and marine
mammal surveys using acoustics or
visual observations from aircraft or
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
ships. This information may be viewed
in the Navy’s LOA application and/or
the Navy’s DEIS for SOCAL (see
Availability). Additional information is
available in NMFS Stock Assessment
Reports, which may be viewed at:
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
EP14OC08.028
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60848
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/
species.htm.
Species Not Considered Further
Killer whale, Southern Resident
Stock—The Southern Resident stock of
killer whale is not likely to be present
within Southern California. This stock
is most commonly seen in the inland
waters of Washington state and southern
Vancouver Island; however, individuals
from this stock have been observed in
Monterey Bay, California in January,
2000 and March, 2003, near the Farallon
Islands in February 2005 and off Point
Reyes in January 2006 (Pacific Fishery
Management Council (PFMC) and
NMFS 2006). Based on the above known
information, there is a very low
likelihood of Southern Resident killer
whales being present in the action area,
so this species will not be considered in
greater detail.
North Pacific right whale—The
likelihood of a North Pacific right whale
being present in the action area is
extremely low. It may be the most
endangered of the large whale species
(Perry et al. 1999) and currently there is
no reliable population estimate,
although the population in the eastern
North Pacific Ocean is considered to be
very small, perhaps in the tens to low
hundreds of animals. Despite many
years of systematic aerial and shipbased surveys for marine mammals off
the western coast of the U.S., only seven
documented sightings of right whales
were made from 1990 through 2000
(Waite et al., 2003). Based on this
information, it is highly unlikely for this
species to be present in the action area.
Consequently, this species will not be
considered in greater detail.
Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus)
Eastern Distinct Population Segment—
Steller sea lions are also not expected to
be present in the action area. Steller sea
lions range along the North Pacific Rim
from northern Japan to California
(Loughlin et al., 1984), with centers of
abundance and distribution in the Gulf
of Alaska and Aleutian Islands,
respectively. In U.S. waters, there are
two separate stocks of Steller sea lions:
an eastern U.S. stock, which includes
animals east of Cape Suckling, Alaska
(144° W longitude), and a western U.S.
stock, which includes animals at and
west of Cape Suckling (Loughlin 1997).
The closest rookery to the action area is
˜
Ano Nuevo Island, which declined by
85% between 1970 and 1987 (LeBoeuf
et al., 1991). Steller sea lions are rarely
sighted in Southern California waters
and have not been documented
interacting with southern California
fisheries in over a decade. The last
documented interaction with California-
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
based fisheries was in northern
California, in 1994, with the California/
Oregon drift gillnet fishery (NMFS,
2000). The last sighting of a Steller sea
lion in Southern California was that of
a subadult male that was briefly on San
Miguel Island in 1998 (Thorson et al.,
1998). For the reasons listed above,
Steller sea lions are not likely to be
present in the action area, and will not
be considered in greater detail.
Marine Mammal Density Estimates
The southern California region has
been systematically surveyed for several
years (1991–1993, 1996, 2001, 2005) by
the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), both via aircraft (e.g., Carretta
and Forney, 1993) and vessel (e.g.,
Ferguson and Barlow, 2003; Barlow,
2003; Forney, 2007). The most recent
vessel survey was conducted in the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) out to
300 nm offshore of California, Oregon
and Washington by NMFS in summer
and fall 2005 (Barlow, 2007; Forney,
2007). There has also been regional
survey effort in the area of the proposed
action, particularly around San
Clemente Island and in extreme near
shore areas (e.g., Carretta et al., 2000;
Carretta, 2003). Consequently there are
several density estimates available for
most cetacean species in southern
California.
For this LOA, NMFS Southwest
Fisheries Science Center calculated
marine mammal density estimates based
on compiled densities from vessel
surveys conducted from 1986 to 2005,
and provided it to the Navy as
Government Furnished Information
(GFI). A new multiple-covariate, linetransect approach (Marques and
Buckland, 2003) was used to account for
multiple factors that affect the distance
at which cetaceans can be seen in
different conditions. Other
computational procedures were as
described in Barlow (2007) and Forney
(2007).
These density compilations prorate
densities of ‘‘unidentified’’ species
groups (such as unidentified dolphins,
small whales, rorquals, large whales,
etc.) with densities of identified species,
so likely represent the most
conservative densities at this time for
the southern California region. Densities
are presented for warm (May–October)
and cold water (November–April)
seasons north of 30° N, which is the
southern extent of NMFS marine
mammal survey cruises. Gray whale
densities were taken from Carretta et al.
(2000), and are applicable for January–
April only. The geographic distributions
of cetacean species for which densities
are available off southern California
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60849
overlap completely with all eight sonar
areas (shown in Figure 3–1 of the
application), so further refinement of
densities to sonar areas was not
necessary. Area 8 includes all areas
outside the previous seven areas that are
within the quasi-rectangular region
bounded in latitude by 29° N and 34° N,
and in longitude by 120°30′ W and
116°30′ W but is not indicated in Figure
3–1 of the application.
Pinniped at-sea density is not often
known because pinniped abundance is
obtained via shore counts of animals at
known rookeries and haulouts.
Therefore, densities of pinnipeds were
derived quite differently from those of
cetaceans. Several parameters were
identified from the literature, including
area of stock occurrence, number of
animals (which may vary seasonally)
and season, and those parameters were
then used to calculate density. Once
density per ‘‘pinniped season’’ was
determined, those values were prorated
to fit the warm water (May–October)
and cold water (November–April)
seasons. Pinniped geographic
distributions do not overlap all sonar
areas, so density was further refined as
the percentage of each sonar area
actually overlapped by the species
distribution. Determining density in this
manner is risky as the parameters used
usually contain error (e.g., geographic
range is not exactly known and needs to
be estimated, abundance estimates
usually have large variances) and, as is
true of all density estimates, it assumes
that animals are always distributed
evenly within an area which is likely
never true. However, this remains one of
the few means available to determine atsea density for pinnipeds.
The detailed density estimate
methods and results may be viewed in
Section 3.5 of the Navy’s LOA
application. Density and abundance are
summarized in Table 13.
Depth Distribution of Marine Mammals
There are limited depth distribution
data for most marine mammals. This is
especially true for cetaceans, as they
must be tagged at-sea and by using a tag
that either must be implanted in the
skin/blubber in some manner or adhere
to the skin. There is slightly more data
for some pinnipeds, as they can be
tagged while on shore during breeding
or molting seasons and the tags can be
glued to the pelage rather than
implanted. There are a few different
methodologies/techniques that can be
used to determine depth distribution
percentages, but by far the most widely
used technique currently is the timedepth recorder. These instruments are
attached to the animal for a fairly short
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60850
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
period of time (several hours to a few
days) via a suction cup or glue, and then
retrieved immediately after detachment
or when the animal returns to the beach.
Depth information can also be collected
via satellite tags, sonic tags, digital tags,
and, for sperm whales, via acoustic
tracking of sounds produced by the
animal itself.
There are somewhat suitable depth
distribution data for a few marine
mammal species. Sample sizes are
usually extremely small, nearly always
fewer than 10 animals total and often
only one or two animals. Depth
distribution information often must be
interpreted from other dive and/or
preferred prey characteristics. Depth
distributions for species for which no
data are available can be extrapolated
from similar species.
Density is nearly always reported for
an area, e.g., animals/km2. Analyses of
survey results using Distance Sampling
techniques include correction factors for
animals at the surface but not seen as
well as animals below the surface and
not seen. Therefore, although the area
(e.g., km2) appears to represent only the
surface of the water (two-dimensional),
density actually implicitly includes
animals anywhere within the water
column under that surface area. Density
assumes that animals are uniformly
distributed within the prescribed area,
even though this is likely rarely true.
Marine mammals are usually clumped
in areas of greater importance, for
example, areas of high productivity,
lower predation, safe calving, etc.
Density estimates are typically derived
for large areas by NMFS, for instance the
All California and Point Conception
south stratas presented in Forney and
Barlow, 2007. Often scientific
information on smaller scale
distribution and density within discrete
areas such as the SOCAL modeling areas
used in the acoustic impact analysis is
lacking and larger scale densities have
to be used as an approximate. The
available NMFS derived density
estimates are therefore used in lieu of
small scale density estimates. In
addition, as a further conservative
approach, these densities are evenly
distributed across a given model area
since the degree of daily, seasonal, and
yearly presence/absence or spatial
clumping is currently not well known
for many species.
Assuming that marine mammals are
distributed evenly within the water
column is not accurate. The everexpanding database of marine mammal
behavioral and physiological parameters
obtained through tagging and other
technologies has demonstrated that
marine mammals use the water column
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
in various ways, with some species
capable of regular deep dives (<800 m)
and others regularly diving to <200 m,
regardless of the bottom depth.
Assuming that all species are evenly
distributed from surface to bottom is
almost never appropriate and can
present a distorted view of marine
mammal distribution in any region.
By combining marine mammal
density with depth distribution
information, as is done for the SOCAL
Range Complex, a more accurate threedimensional density estimate is
possible. These 3–D estimates allow
more accurate modeling of potential
marine mammal exposures from specific
noise sources. Complete details on
species biological parameters used in
sonar and explosives modeling are
provided in Appendix F to the SOCAL
DEIS.
Brief Background on Sound
An understanding of the basic
properties of underwater sound is
necessary to comprehend many of the
concepts and analyses presented in this
document. A summary is included
below.
Sound is a wave of pressure variations
propagating through a medium (for the
MFAS/HFAS considered in this
proposed rule, the medium is marine
water). Pressure variations are created
by compressing and relaxing the
medium. Sound measurements can be
expressed in two forms: intensity and
pressure. Acoustic intensity is the
average rate of energy transmitted
through a unit area in a specified
direction and is expressed in watts per
square meter (W/m2). Acoustic intensity
is rarely measured directly, it is derived
from ratios of pressures; the standard
reference pressure for underwater sound
is 1 microPascal (µPa); for airborne
sound, the standard reference pressure
is 20 µPa (Richardson et al., 1995).
Acousticians have adopted a
logarithmic scale for sound intensities,
which is denoted in decibels (dB).
Decibel measurements represent the
ratio between a measured pressure value
and a reference pressure value (in this
case 1 µPa or, for airborne sound, 20
µPa.). The logarithmic nature of the
scale means that each 10 dB increase is
a ten-fold increase in power (e.g., 20 dB
is a 100-fold increase, 30 dB is a 1,000fold increase). Humans perceive a 10-dB
increase in noise as a doubling of
loudness, or a 10 dB decrease in noise
as a halving of loudness. The term
‘‘sound pressure level’’ implies a
decibel measure and a reference
pressure that is used as the denominator
of the ratio. Throughout this document,
NMFS uses 1 microPascal (denoted re:
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1µPa) as a standard reference pressure
unless noted otherwise.
It is important to note that decibels
underwater and decibels in air are not
the same and cannot be directly
compared. To estimate a comparison
between sound in air and underwater,
because of the different densities of air
and water and the different decibel
standards (i.e., reference pressures) in
water and air, a sound with the same
intensity (i.e., power) in air and in water
would be approximately 63 dB quieter
in air. Thus a sound that is 160 dB loud
underwater would have the same
approximate effective intensity as a
sound that is 97 dB loud in air.
Sound frequency is measured in
cycles per second, or Hertz (abbreviated
Hz), and is analogous to musical pitch;
high-pitched sounds contain high
frequencies and low-pitched sounds
contain low frequencies. Natural sounds
in the ocean span a huge range of
frequencies: from earthquake noise at 5
Hz to harbor porpoise clicks at 150,000
Hz (150 kHz). These sounds are so low
or so high in pitch that humans cannot
even hear them; acousticians call these
infrasonic (typically below 20 Hz) and
ultrasonic (typically above 20,000 Hz)
sounds, respectively. A single sound
may be made up of many different
frequencies together. Sounds made up
of only a small range of frequencies are
called ‘‘narrowband’’, and sounds with
a broad range of frequencies are called
‘‘broadband’’; explosives are an example
of a broadband sound source and active
tactical sonars are an example of a
narrowband sound source.
When considering the influence of
various kinds of sound on the marine
environment, it is necessary to
understand that different kinds of
marine life are sensitive to different
frequencies of sound. Based on available
behavioral data, audiograms derived
using auditory evoked potential (AEP)
techniques, anatomical modeling, and
other data, Southall et al. (2007)
designate ‘‘functional hearing groups’’
for marine mammals and estimate the
lower and upper frequencies of
functional hearing of the groups.
Further, the frequency range in which
each group’s hearing is estimated as
being most sensitive is represented in
the flat part of the M-weighting
functions developed for each group. The
functional groups and the associated
frequencies are indicated below
(though, again, animals are less
sensitive to sounds at the outer edge of
their functional range and most
sensitive to sounds of frequencies
within a smaller range somewhere in
the middle of their functional hearing
range):
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
• Low frequency cetaceans (13
species of mysticetes): functional
hearing is estimated to occur between
approximately 7 Hz and 22 kHz;
• Mid-frequency cetaceans (32
species of dolphins, six species of larger
toothed whales, and 19 species of
beaked and bottlenose whales):
functional hearing is estimated to occur
between approximately 150 Hz and 160
kHz;
• High frequency cetaceans (eight
species of true porpoises, six species of
river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana,
and four species of cephalorhynchids):
functional hearing is estimated to occur
between approximately 200 Hz and 180
kHz;
• Pinnipeds in Water: functional
hearing is estimated to occur between
approximately 75 Hz and 75 kHz, with
the greatest sensitivity between
approximately 700 Hz and 20 kHz.
Because ears adapted to function
underwater are physiologically different
from human ears, comparisons using
decibel measurements in air would still
not be adequate to describe the effects
of a sound on a whale. When sound
travels away from its source, its
loudness decreases as the distance
traveled (propagates) by the sound
increases. Thus, the loudness of a sound
at its source is higher than the loudness
of that same sound a kilometer distant.
Acousticians often refer to the loudness
of a sound at its source (typically
measured one meter from the source) as
the source level and the loudness of
sound elsewhere as the received level.
For example, a humpback whale three
kilometers from an airgun that has a
source level of 230 dB may only be
exposed to sound that is 160 dB loud,
depending on how the sound propagates
(in this example, it is spherical
spreading). As a result, it is important
not to confuse source levels and
received levels when discussing the
loudness of sound in the ocean or its
impacts on the marine environment.
As sound travels from a source, its
propagation in water is influenced by
various physical characteristics,
including water temperature, depth,
salinity, and surface and bottom
properties that cause refraction,
reflection, absorption, and scattering of
sound waves. Oceans are not
homogeneous and the contribution of
each of these individual factors is
extremely complex and interrelated.
The physical characteristics that
determine the sound’s speed through
the water will change with depth,
season, geographic location, and with
time of day (as a result, in actual MFAS/
HFAS operations, crews will measure
oceanic conditions, such as sea water
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
temperature and depth, to calibrate
models that determine the path the
sonar signal will take as it travels
through the ocean and how strong the
sound signal will be at a given range
along a particular transmission path). As
sound travels through the ocean, the
intensity associated with the wavefront
diminishes, or attenuates. This decrease
in intensity is referred to as propagation
loss, also commonly called transmission
loss.
Metrics Used in This Document
This section includes a brief
explanation of the two sound
measurements (sound pressure level
(SPL) and sound exposure level (SEL))
frequently used in the discussions of
acoustic effects in this document.
SPL
Sound pressure is the sound force per
unit area, and is usually measured in
micropascals (µPa), where 1 Pa is the
pressure resulting from a force of one
newton exerted over an area of one
square meter. SPL is expressed as the
ratio of a measured sound pressure and
a reference level. The commonly used
reference pressure level in underwater
acoustics is 1 µPa, and the units for
SPLs are dB re: 1 µPa.
SPL (in dB) = 20 log (pressure/
reference pressure).
SPL is an instantaneous measurement
and can be expressed as the peak, the
peak-peak, or the root mean square
(rms). Root mean square, which is the
square root of the arithmetic average of
the squared instantaneous pressure
values, is typically used in discussions
of the effects of sounds on vertebrates
and all references to SPL in this
document refer to the root mean square.
SPL does not take the duration of a
sound into account. SPL is the
applicable metric used in the risk
continuum, which is used to estimate
behavioral harassment takes (see Level
B Harassment Risk Function (Behavioral
Harassment) Section).
SEL
SEL is an energy metric that integrates
the squared instantaneous sound
pressure over a stated time interval. The
units for SEL are dB re: 1 µPa2-s.
SEL = SPL + 10 log (duration in
seconds).
As applied to MFAS/HFAS, the SEL
includes both the SPL of a sonar ping
and the total duration. Longer duration
pings and/or pings with higher SPLs
will have a higher SEL.
If an animal is exposed to multiple
pings, the SEL in each individual ping
is summed to calculate the total SEL.
The total SEL depends on the SPL,
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60851
duration, and number of pings received.
The thresholds that NMFS uses to
indicate at what received level the onset
of temporary threshold shift (TTS) and
permanent threshold shift (PTS) in
hearing are likely to occur are expressed
in SEL.
Potential Effects of Specified Activities
on Marine Mammals
Exposure to MFAS/HFAS
The Navy has requested authorization
for the take of marine mammals that
may occur incidental to training
activities in the SOCAL Range Complex
utilizing MFAS/HFAS or underwater
detonations. The Navy has analyzed the
potential impacts to marine mammals
from training activities in the SOCAL
Range Complex, including ship strike,
entanglement in or direct strike by
expended materials, ship noise, and
others, and in consultation with NMFS
as a cooperating agency for the SOCAL
EIS, has determined that take of marine
mammals incidental to these nonacoustic components of SOCAL is
unlikely and, therefore, has not
requested authorization for take of
marine mammals that might occur
incidental to these non-acoustic
components. In this document, NMFS
analyzes the potential effects on marine
mammals from exposure to MFAS/
HFAS and underwater detonations from
the IEER.
For the purpose of MMPA
authorizations, NMFS’ effects
assessments serve three primary
purposes: (1) to put forth the
permissible methods of taking within
the context of MMPA Level B
Harassment (behavioral harassment),
Level A Harassment (injury), and
mortality (i.e., identify the number and
types of take that will occur); (2) to
determine whether the specified activity
will have a negligible impact on the
affected species or stocks of marine
mammals (based on the likelihood that
the activity will adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival);
and (3) to determine whether the
specified activity will have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for
subsistence uses (however, there are no
subsistence communities that would be
affected in the SOCAL Range Complex,
so this determination is inapplicable for
SOCAL).
More specifically, for activities
involving sonar or underwater
detonations, NMFS’ analysis will
identify the probability of lethal
responses, physical trauma, sensory
impairment (permanent and temporary
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
60852
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
threshold shifts and acoustic masking),
physiological responses (particular
stress responses), behavioral
disturbance (that rises to the level of
harassment), and social responses that
would be classified as behavioral
harassment or injury and/or would be
likely to adversely affect the species or
stock through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival. In this section,
we will focus qualitatively on the
different ways that MFAS/HFAS and
underwater explosive detonations
(IEER) may affect marine mammals
(some of which NMFS would not
classify as harassment). Then, in the
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
Section, NMFS will relate the potential
effects to marine mammals from MFAS/
HFAS and underwater detonation of
explosives to the MMPA regulatory
definitions of Level A and Level B
Harassment and attempt to quantify
those effects.
In its June 21, 2008, Biological
Opinion of the U.S. Navy’s proposal to
conduct MFAS in the Hawaii Range
Complex, NMFS presented a conceptual
model of the potential responses of
endangered and threatened species
upon being exposed to MFAS/HFAS
and the pathways by which those
responses might affect the fitness of
individual animals that have been
exposed, which may then affect the
reproduction and/or survival of those
individuals. Literature supporting the
framework, with examples drawn from
many taxa (both aquatic and terrestrial)
was included in the ‘‘Application of this
Approach’’ and ‘‘Response Analyses’’
sections of that document (available at:
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental.htm). This conceptual
framework may also be used to describe
the responses and pathways for nonendangered and non-threatened species
and is included in Biological Opinion of
the U.S. Navy’s proposal to conduct
MFAS in the Hawaii Range Complex.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Direct Physiological Effects
Based on the literature, there are two
basic ways that MFAS/HFAS might
directly result in physical trauma or
damage: Noise-induced loss of hearing
sensitivity (more commonly called
‘‘threshold shift’’) and acoustically
mediated bubble growth. Separately, an
animal’s behavioral reaction to an
acoustic exposure might lead to
physiological effects that might
ultimately lead to injury or death, which
is discussed later in the Stranding
section.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
Threshold Shift (Noise-Induced Loss of
Hearing)
When animals exhibit reduced
hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds must be
louder for an animal to recognize them)
following exposure to a sufficiently
intense sound, it is referred to as a
noise-induced threshold shift (TS). An
animal can experience temporary
threshold shift (TTS) or permanent
threshold shift (PTS). TTS can last from
minutes or hours to days (i.e., there is
recovery), occurs in specific frequency
ranges (i.e., an animal might only have
a temporary loss of hearing sensitivity
between the frequencies of 1 and 10
kHz), and can be of varying amounts (for
example, an animal’s hearing sensitivity
might be reduced by only 6 dB or
reduced by 30 dB). PTS is permanent
(i.e., there is no recovery), but also
occurs in a specific frequency range and
amount as mentioned above for TTS.
The following physiological
mechanisms are thought to play a role
in inducing auditory TSs: Effects to
sensory hair cells in the inner ear that
reduce their sensitivity, modification of
the chemical environment within the
sensory cells, residual muscular activity
in the middle ear, displacement of
certain inner ear membranes, increased
blood flow, and post-stimulatory
reduction in both efferent and sensory
neural output (Southall et al., 2007).
The amplitude, duration, frequency,
temporal pattern, and energy
distribution of sound exposure all affect
the amount of associated TS and the
frequency range in which it occurs. As
amplitude and duration of sound
exposure increase, so, generally, does
the amount of TS, along with the
recovery time. For continuous sounds,
exposures of equal energy (the same
SEL) will lead to approximately equal
effects. For intermittent sounds, less TS
will occur than from a continuous
exposure with the same energy (some
recovery will occur between
intermittent exposures) (Kryter et al.,
1966; Ward, 1997). For example, one
short but loud (higher SPL) sound
exposure may induce the same
impairment as one longer but softer
sound, which in turn may cause more
impairment than a series of several
intermittent softer sounds with the same
total energy (Ward, 1997). Additionally,
though TTS is temporary, very
prolonged exposure to sound strong
enough to elicit TTS, or shorter-term
exposure to sound levels well above the
TTS threshold, can cause PTS, at least
in terrestrial mammals (Kryter, 1985)
(although in the case of MFAS/HFAS,
animals are not expected to be exposed
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
to levels high enough or durations long
enough to result in PTS).
PTS is considered auditory injury
(Southall et al., 2007). Irreparable
damage to the inner or outer cochlear
hair cells may cause PTS; however,
other mechanisms are also involved,
such as exceeding the elastic limits of
certain tissues and membranes in the
middle and inner ears and resultant
changes in the chemical composition of
the inner ear fluids (Southall et al.,
2007).
Although the published body of
scientific literature contains numerous
theoretical studies and discussion
papers on hearing impairments that can
occur with exposure to a loud sound,
only a few studies provide empirical
information on the levels at which
noise-induced loss in hearing sensitivity
occurs in nonhuman animals. For
cetaceans, published data on the onset
of TTS are limited to the captive
bottlenose dolphin and beluga
(Finneran et al., 2000, 2002b, 2005a;
Schlundt et al., 2000; Nachtigall et al.,
2003, 2004). For pinnipeds in water,
data are limited to Kastak et al.’s
measurement of TTS in one harbor seal,
one elephant seal, and one California
sea lion.
Marine mammal hearing plays a
critical role in communication with
conspecifics, and interpretation of
environmental cues for purposes such
as predator avoidance and prey capture.
Depending on the degree (elevation of
threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery
time), and frequency range of TTS, and
the context in which it is experienced,
TTS can have effects on marine
mammals ranging from discountable to
serious (similar to those discussed in
auditory masking, below). For example,
a marine mammal may be able to readily
compensate for a brief, relatively small
amount of TTS in a non-critical
frequency range that takes place during
a time when the animal is traveling
through the open ocean, where ambient
noise is lower and there are not as many
competing sounds present.
Alternatively, a larger amount and
longer duration of TTS sustained during
time when communication is critical for
successful mother/calf interactions
could have more serious impacts. Also,
depending on the degree and frequency
range, the effects of PTS on an animal
could range in severity, although it is
considered generally more serious
because it is a permanent condition. Of
note, reduced hearing sensitivity as a
simple function of development and
aging has been observed in marine
mammals, as well as humans and other
taxa (Southall et al., 2007), so we can
infer that strategies exist for coping with
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
this condition to some degree, though
likely not without cost. There is no
empirical evidence that exposure to
MFAS/HFAS can cause PTS in any
marine mammals; instead the
probability of PTS has been inferred
from studies of TTS (see Richardson et
al., 1995).
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Acoustically Mediated Bubble Growth
One theoretical cause of injury to
marine mammals is rectified diffusion
(Crum and Mao, 1996), the process of
increasing the size of a bubble by
exposing it to a sound field. This
process could be facilitated if the
environment in which the ensonified
bubbles exist is supersaturated with gas.
Repetitive diving by marine mammals
can cause the blood and some tissues to
accumulate gas to a greater degree than
is supported by the surrounding
environmental pressure (Ridgway and
Howard, 1979). The deeper and longer
dives of some marine mammals (for
example, beaked whales) are
theoretically predicted to induce greater
supersaturation (Houser et al., 2001b). If
rectified diffusion were possible in
marine mammals exposed to high-level
sound, conditions of tissue
supersaturation could theoretically
speed the rate and increase the size of
bubble growth. Subsequent effects due
to tissue trauma and emboli would
presumably mirror those observed in
humans suffering from decompression
sickness.
It is unlikely that the short duration
of MFAS pings would be long enough
to drive bubble growth to any
substantial size, if such a phenomenon
occurs. However, an alternative but
related hypothesis has also been
suggested: Stable bubbles could be
destabilized by high-level sound
exposures such that bubble growth then
occurs through static diffusion of gas
out of the tissues. In such a scenario the
marine mammal would need to be in a
gas-supersaturated state for a long
enough period of time for bubbles to
become of a problematic size.
Yet another hypothesis
(decompression sickness) has
speculated that rapid ascent to the
surface following exposure to a startling
sound might produce tissue gas
saturation sufficient for the evolution of
nitrogen bubbles (Jepson et al., 2003;
Fernandez et al., 2005). In this scenario,
the rate of ascent would need to be
sufficiently rapid to compromise
behavioral or physiological protections
against nitrogen bubble formation.
Collectively, these hypotheses can be
referred to as ‘‘hypotheses of
acoustically mediated bubble growth.’’
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
Although theoretical predictions
suggest the possibility for acoustically
mediated bubble growth, there is
considerable disagreement among
scientists as to its likelihood (Piantadosi
and Thalmann, 2004; Evans and Miller,
2003). Crum and Mao (1996)
hypothesized that received levels would
have to exceed 190 dB in order for there
to be the possibility of significant
bubble growth due to supersaturation of
gases in the blood (i.e., rectified
diffusion). More recent work conducted
by Crum et al. (2005) demonstrated the
possibility of rectified diffusion for
short duration signals, but at SELs and
tissue saturation levels that are highly
improbable to occur in diving marine
mammals. To date, Energy Levels (ELs)
predicted to cause in vivo bubble
formation within diving cetaceans have
not been evaluated (NOAA, 2002b).
Although it has been argued that
traumas from some recent beaked whale
strandings are consistent with gas
emboli and bubble-induced tissue
separations (Jepson et al., 2003), there is
no conclusive evidence of this.
However, Jepson et al. (2003, 2005) and
Fernandez et al. (2004, 2005) concluded
that in vivo bubble formation, which
may be exacerbated by deep, longduration, repetitive dives may explain
why beaked whales appear to be
particularly vulnerable to MFAS/HFAS
exposures. Further investigation is
needed to further assess the potential
validity of these hypotheses. More
information regarding hypotheses that
attempt to explain how behavioral
responses to MFAS/HFAS can lead to
strandings is included in the
Behaviorally Mediated Bubble Growth
Section, after the summary of
strandings.
Acoustic Masking
Marine mammals use acoustic signals
for a variety of purposes, which differ
among species, but include
communication between individuals,
navigation, foraging, reproduction, and
learning about their environment (Erbe
and Farmer, 2000; Tyack, 2000).
Masking, or auditory interference,
generally occurs when sounds in the
environment are louder than and of a
similar frequency to, auditory signals an
animal is trying to receive. Masking is
a phenomenon that affects animals that
are trying to receive acoustic
information about their environment,
including sounds from other members
of their species, predators, prey, and
sounds that allow them to orient in their
environment. Masking these acoustic
signals can disturb the behavior of
individual animals, groups of animals,
or entire populations.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60853
The extent of the masking interference
depends on the spectral, temporal, and
spatial relationships between the signals
an animal is trying to receive and the
masking noise, in addition to other
factors. In humans, significant masking
of tonal signals occurs as a result of
exposure to noise in a narrow band of
similar frequencies. As the sound level
increases, though, the detection of
frequencies above those of the masking
stimulus decreases also. This principle
is expected to apply to marine mammals
as well because of common
biomechanical cochlear properties
across taxa.
Richardson et al. (1995b) argued that
the maximum radius of influence of an
industrial noise (including broadband
low-frequency sound transmission) on a
marine mammal is the distance from the
source to the point at which the noise
can barely be heard. This range is
determined by either the hearing
sensitivity of the animal or the
background noise level present.
Industrial masking is most likely to
affect some species’ ability to detect
communication calls and natural
sounds (i.e., surf noise, prey noise, etc.;
Richardson et al., 1995).
The echolocation calls of toothed
whales are subject to masking by highfrequency sound. Human data indicate
low-frequency sound can mask highfrequency sounds (i.e., upward
masking). Studies on captive
odontocetes by Au et al. (1974, 1985,
1993) indicate that some species may
use various processes to reduce masking
effects (e.g., adjustments in echolocation
call intensity or frequency as a function
of background noise conditions). There
is also evidence that the directional
hearing abilities of odontocetes are
useful in reducing masking at the highfrequencies these cetaceans use to
echolocate, but not at the low-tomoderate frequencies they use to
communicate (Zaitseva et al., 1980). A
recent study by Nachtigall and Supin
(2008) showed that false killer whales
adjust their hearing to compensate for
ambient sounds and the intensity of
returning echolocation signals.
Nachtigall, P.E. and A.Y. Supin. 2008
As mentioned previously, the
functional hearing ranges of mysticetes,
odontocetes, and pinnipeds underwater
all encompass the frequencies of the
MFAS/HFAS sources used in the Navy’s
MFAS/HFAS training exercises.
Additionally, in almost all species,
vocal repertoires span across the
frequencies of these MFAS/HFAS
sources used by the Navy. The closer
the characteristics of the masking signal
to the signal of interest, the more likely
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
60854
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
masking is to occur. For hull-mounted
MFAS/HFAS—which accounts for the
largest part of the takes of marine
mammals (because of the source
strength and number of hours it’s
conducted), the pulse length and duty
cycle of the MFAS/HFAS signal (∼ 1
second pulse twice a minute) makes it
less likely that masking will occur as a
result.
Impaired Communication
In addition to making it more difficult
for animals to perceive acoustic cues in
their environment, anthropogenic sound
presents separate challenges for animals
that are vocalizing. When they vocalize,
animals are aware of environmental
conditions that affect the ‘‘active space’’
of their vocalizations, which is the
maximum area within which their
vocalizations can be detected before it
drops to the level of ambient noise
(Brenowitz, 2004; Brumm et al., 2004;
Lohr et al., 2003). Animals are also
aware of environmental conditions that
affect whether listeners can discriminate
and recognize their vocalizations from
other sounds, which is more important
than simply detecting that a
vocalization is occurring (Brenowitz,
1982; Brumm et al., 2004; Dooling,
2004, Marten and Marler, 1977;
Patricelli et al., 2006). Most animals that
vocalize have evolved with an ability to
make adjustments to their vocalizations
to increase the signal-to-noise ratio,
active space, and recognizability/
distinguishability of their vocalizations
in the face of temporary changes in
background noise (Brumm et al., 2004;
Patricelli et al., 2006). Vocalizing
animals can make one or more of the
following adjustments to their
vocalizations: Adjust the frequency
structure; adjust the amplitude; adjust
temporal structure; or adjust temporal
delivery (see Biological Opinion).
Many animals will combine several of
these strategies to compensate for high
levels of background noise.
Anthropogenic sounds that reduce the
signal-to-noise ratio of animal
vocalizations, increase the masked
auditory thresholds of animals listening
for such vocalizations, or reduce the
active space of an animal’s vocalizations
impair communication between
animals. Most animals that vocalize
have evolved strategies to compensate
for the effects of short-term or temporary
increases in background or ambient
noise on their songs or calls. Although
the fitness consequences of these vocal
adjustments remain unknown, like most
other trade-offs animals must make,
some of these strategies probably come
at a cost (Patricelli et al., 2006). For
example, vocalizing more loudly in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
noisy environments may have energetic
costs that decrease the net benefits of
vocal adjustment and alter a bird’s
energy budget (Brumm, 2004; Wood and
Yezerinac, 2006). Shifting songs and
calls to higher frequencies may also
impose energetic costs (Lambrechts,
1996).
Stress Responses
Classic stress responses begin when
an animal’s central nervous system
perceives a potential threat to its
homeostasis. That perception triggers
stress responses regardless of whether a
stimulus actually threatens the animal;
the mere perception of a threat is
sufficient to trigger a stress response
(Moberg, 2000; Sapolsky et al., 2005;
Seyle, 1950). Once an animal’s central
nervous system perceives a threat, it
mounts a biological response or defense
that consists of a combination of the
four general biological defense
responses: Behavioral responses,
autonomic nervous system responses,
neuroendocrine responses, or immune
response.
In the case of many stressors, an
animal’s first and most economical (in
terms of biotic costs) response is
behavioral avoidance of the potential
stressor or avoidance of continued
exposure to a stressor. An animal’s
second line of defense to stressors
involves the sympathetic part of the
autonomic nervous system and the
classical ‘‘fight or flight’’ response
which includes the cardiovascular
system, the gastrointestinal system, the
exocrine glands, and the adrenal
medulla to produce changes in heart
rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal
activity that humans commonly
associate with ‘‘stress.’’ These responses
have a relatively short duration and may
or may not have significant long-term
effect on an animal’s welfare.
An animal’s third line of defense to
stressors involves its neuroendocrine or
sympathetic nervous systems; the
system that has received the most study
has been the hypothalamus-pituitaryadrenal system (also known as the HPA
axis in mammals or the hypothalamuspituitary-interrenal axis in fish and
some reptiles). Unlike stress responses
associated with the autonomic nervous
system, virtually all neuro-endocrine
functions that are affected by stress—
including immune competence,
reproduction, metabolism, and
behavior—are regulated by pituitary
hormones. Stress-induced changes in
the secretion of pituitary hormones have
been implicated in failed reproduction
(Moberg, 1987; Rivier, 1995) and altered
metabolism (Elasser et al., 2000),
reduced immune competence (Blecha,
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2000) and behavioral disturbance.
Increases in the circulation of
glucocorticosteroids (cortisol,
corticosterone, and aldosterone in
marine mammals; see Romano et al.,
2004) have been equated with stress for
many years.
The primary distinction between
stress (which is adaptive and does not
normally place an animal at risk) and
distress is the biotic cost of the
response. During a stress response, an
animal uses glycogen stores that can be
quickly replenished once the stress is
alleviated. In such circumstances, the
cost of the stress response would not
pose a risk to the animal’s welfare.
However, when an animal does not have
sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the
energetic costs of a stress response,
energy resources must be diverted from
other biotic function, which impairs
those functions that experience the
diversion. For example, when mounting
a stress response diverts energy away
from growth in young animals, those
animals may experience stunted growth.
When mounting a stress response
diverts energy from a fetus, an animal’s
reproductive success and its fitness will
suffer. In these cases, the animals will
have entered a pre-pathological or
pathological state which is called
‘‘distress’’ (sensu Seyle, 1950) or
‘‘allostatic loading’’ (sensu McEwen and
Wingfield, 2003). This pathological state
will last until the animal replenishes its
biotic reserves sufficient to restore
normal function.
Relationships between these
physiological mechanisms, animal
behavior, and the costs of stress
responses have also been documented
fairly well through controlled
experiment; because this physiology
exists in every vertebrate that has been
studied, it is not surprising that stress
responses and their costs have been
documented in both laboratory and freeliving animals (for examples see,
Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998;
Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et al.,
2004; Lankford et al., 2005; Reneerkens
et al., 2002; Thompson and Hamer,
2000). Although no information has
been collected on the physiological
responses of marine mammals to
exposure to anthropogenic sounds,
studies of other marine animals and
terrestrial animals would lead us to
expect some marine mammals to
experience physiological stress
responses and, perhaps, physiological
responses that would be classified as
‘‘distress’’ upon exposure to high
frequency, mid-frequency and lowfrequency sounds.
For example, Jansen (1998) reported
on the relationship between acoustic
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
exposures and physiological responses
that are indicative of stress responses in
humans (for example, elevated
respiration and increased heart rates).
Jones (1998) reported on reductions in
human performance when faced with
acute, repetitive exposures to acoustic
disturbance. Trimper et al. (1998)
reported on the physiological stress
responses of osprey to low-level aircraft
noise while Krausman et al. (2004)
reported on the auditory and physiology
stress responses of endangered Sonoran
pronghorn to military overflights. Smith
et al. (2004a, 2004b) identified noiseinduced physiological transient stress
responses in hearing-specialist fish (i.e.,
goldfish) that accompanied short- and
long-term hearing losses. Welch and
Welch (1970) reported physiological
and behavioral stress responses that
accompanied damage to the inner ears
of fish and several mammals.
Hearing is one of the primary senses
marine mammals use to gather
information about their environment
and to communicate with conspecifics.
Although empirical information on the
relationship between sensory
impairment (TTS, PTS, and acoustic
masking) on marine mammals remains
limited, it seems reasonable to assume
that reducing an animal’s ability to
gather information about its
environment and to communicate with
other members of its species would be
stressful for animals that use hearing as
their primary sensory mechanism.
Therefore, we assume that acoustic
exposures sufficient to trigger onset PTS
or TTS would be accompanied by
physiological stress responses because
terrestrial animals exhibit those
responses under similar conditions
(NRC, 2003). More importantly, marine
mammals might experience stress
responses at received levels lower than
those necessary to trigger onset TTS.
Based on empirical studies of the time
required to recover from stress
responses (Moberg, 2000), NMFS also
assumes that stress responses could
persist beyond the time interval
required for animals to recover from
TTS and might result in pathological
and pre-pathological states that would
be as significant as behavioral responses
to TTS.
Behavioral Disturbance
Behavioral responses to sound are
highly variable and context-specific.
Many different variables can influence
an animal’s perception of and response
to (nature and magnitude) an acoustic
event. An animal’s prior experience
with a sound or sound source effects
whether it is less likely (habituation) or
more likely (sensitization) to respond to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
certain sounds in the future (animals
can also be innately pre-disposed to
respond to certain sounds in certain
ways) (Southall et al., 2007). Related to
the sound itself, the perceived nearness
of the sound, bearing of the sound
(approaching vs. retreating), similarity
of a sound to biologically relevant
sounds in the animal’s environment
(i.e., calls of predators, prey, or
conspecifics), and familiarity of the
sound may effect the way an animal
responds to the sound (Southall et al.,
2007). Individuals (of different age,
gender, reproductive status, etc.) among
most populations will have variable
hearing capabilities, and differing
behavioral sensitivities to sounds that
will be affected by prior conditioning,
experience, and current activities of
those individuals. Often, specific
acoustic features of the sound and
contextual variables (i.e., proximity,
duration, or recurrence of the sound or
the current behavior that the marine
mammal is engaged in or its prior
experience), as well as entirely separate
factors such as the physical presence of
a nearby vessel, may be more relevant
to the animal’s response than the
received level alone.
Exposure of marine mammals to
sound sources can result in (but is not
limited to) the following observable
responses: Increased alertness;
orientation or attraction to a sound
source; vocal modifications; cessation of
feeding; cessation of social interaction;
alteration of movement or diving
behavior; habitat abandonment
(temporary or permanent); and, in
severe cases, panic, flight, stampede, or
stranding, potentially resulting in death
(Southall et al., 2007). A review of
marine mammal responses to
anthropogenic sound was first
conducted by Richardson (1995). A
more recent review (Nowacek et al.,
2007) addresses studies conducted since
1995 and focuses on observations where
the received sound level of the exposed
marine mammal(s) was known or could
be estimated. The following subsections provide examples of behavioral
responses that provide an idea of the
variability in behavioral responses that
would be expected given the differential
sensitivities of marine mammal species
to sound and the wide range of potential
acoustic sources to which a marine
mammal may be exposed. Estimates of
the types of behavioral responses that
could occur for a given sound exposure
should be determined from the
literature that is available for each
species, or extrapolated from closely
related species when no information
exists.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60855
Flight Response—A flight response is
a dramatic change in normal movement
to a directed and rapid movement away
from the perceived location of a sound
source. Relatively little information on
flight responses of marine mammals to
anthropogenic signals exist, although
observations of flight responses to the
presence of predators have occurred
(Connor and Heithaus, 1996). Flight
responses have been speculated as being
a component of marine mammal
strandings associated with MFAS
activities (Evans and England, 2001).
Response to Predator—Evidence
suggests that at least some marine
mammals have the ability to
acoustically identify potential predators.
For example, harbor seals that reside in
the coastal waters off British Columbia
are frequently targeted by certain groups
of killer whales, but not others. The
seals discriminate between the calls of
threatening and non-threatening killer
whales (Deecke et al., 2002), a capability
that should increase survivorship while
reducing the energy required for
attending to and responding to all killer
whale calls.
Diving—Changes in dive behavior can
vary widely. They may consist of
increased or decreased dive times and
surface intervals as well as changes in
the rates of ascent and descent during a
dive. Variations in dive behavior may
reflect interruptions in biologically
significant activities (e.g., foraging) or
they may be of little biological
significance. Variations in dive behavior
may also expose an animal to
potentially harmful conditions (e.g.,
increasing the chance of ship-strike) or
may serve as an avoidance response that
enhances survivorship. The impact of a
variation in diving resulting from an
acoustic exposure depends on what the
animal is doing at the time of the
exposure and the type and magnitude of
the response.
Nowacek et al. (2004) reported
disruptions of dive behaviors in foraging
North Atlantic right whales when
exposed to an alerting stimulus, an
action, they noted, that could lead to an
increased likelihood of ship strike.
However, the whales did not respond to
playbacks of either right whale social
sounds or vessel noise, highlighting the
importance of the sound characteristics
in producing a behavioral reaction.
Conversely, Indo-Pacific humpback
dolphins have been observed to dive for
longer periods of time in areas where
vessels were present and/or
approaching (Ng and Leung, 2003). In
both of these studies, the influence of
the sound exposure cannot be
decoupled from the physical presence of
a surface vessel, thus complicating
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60856
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
interpretations of the relative
contribution of each stimulus to the
response. Indeed, the presence of
surface vessels, their approach and
speed of approach, seemed to be
significant factors in the response of the
Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Ng
and Leung, 2003). Low frequency
signals of the Acoustic Thermometry of
Ocean Climate (ATOC) sound source
were not found to affect dive times of
humpback whales in Hawaiian waters
(Frankel and Clark, 2000) or to overtly
affect elephant seal dives (Costa et al.,
2003). They did, however, produce
subtle effects that varied in direction
and degree among the individual seals,
illustrating the equivocal nature of
behavioral effects and consequent
difficulty in defining and predicting
them.
Due to past incidents of beaked whale
strandings associated with MFAS
operations, feedback paths are provided
between avoidance and diving and
indirect tissue effects. This feedback
accounts for the hypothesis that
variations in diving behavior and/or
avoidance responses can possibly result
in nitrogen tissue supersaturation and
nitrogen off-gassing, possibly to the
point of deleterious vascular bubble
formation (Jepson et al., 2003).
Foraging—Disruption of feeding
behavior can be difficult to correlate
with anthropogenic sound exposure, so
it is usually inferred by observed
displacement from known foraging
areas, the appearance of secondary
indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment
plumes), or changes in dive behavior.
Noise from seismic surveys was not
found to impact the feeding behavior in
western grey whales off the coast of
Russia (Yazvenko et al., 2007) and
sperm whales engaged in foraging dives
did not abandon dives when exposed to
distant signatures of seismic airguns
(Madsen et al., 2006). Balaenopterid
whales exposed to moderate lowfrequency signals similar to the ATOC
sound source demonstrated no variation
in foraging activity (Croll et al., 2001),
whereas five out of six North Atlantic
right whales exposed to an acoustic
alarm interrupted their foraging dives
(Nowacek et al., 2004). Although the
received sound pressure level at the
animals was similar in the latter two
studies, the frequency, duration, and
temporal pattern of signal presentation
were different. These factors, as well as
differences in species sensitivity, are
likely contributing factors to the
differential response. A determination
of whether foraging disruptions incur
fitness consequences will require
information on or estimates of the
energetic requirements of the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
individuals and the relationship
between prey availability, foraging effort
and success, and the life history stage of
the animal.
Breathing—Variations in respiration
naturally vary with different behaviors
and variations in respiration rate as a
function of acoustic exposure can be
expected to co-occur with other
behavioral reactions, such as a flight
response or an alteration in diving.
However, respiration rates in and of
themselves may be representative of
annoyance or an acute stress response.
Mean exhalation rates of gray whales at
rest and while diving were found to be
unaffected by seismic surveys
conducted adjacent to the whale feeding
grounds (Gailey et al., 2007). Studies
with captive harbor porpoises showed
increased respiration rates upon
introduction of acoustic alarms
(Kastelein et al., 2001; Kastelein et al.,
2006a) and emissions for underwater
data transmission (Kastelein et al.,
2005). However, exposure of the same
acoustic alarm to a striped dolphin
under the same conditions did not elicit
a response (Kastelein et al., 2006a),
again highlighting the importance in
understanding species differences in the
tolerance of underwater noise when
determining the potential for impacts
resulting from anthropogenic sound
exposure.
Social relationships—Social
interactions between mammals can be
affected by noise via the disruption of
communication signals or by the
displacement of individuals. Disruption
of social relationships therefore depends
on the disruption of other behaviors
(e.g., caused avoidance, masking, etc.)
and no specific overview is provided
here. However, social disruptions must
be considered in context of the
relationships that are affected. Longterm disruptions of mother/calf pairs or
mating displays have the potential to
affect the growth and survival or
reproductive effort/success of
individuals, respectively.
Vocalizations (also see Masking
Section)—Vocal changes in response to
anthropogenic noise can occur across
the repertoire of sound production
modes used by marine mammals, such
as whistling, echolocation click
production, calling, and singing.
Changes may result in response to a
need to compete with an increase in
background noise or may reflect an
increased vigilance or startle response.
For example, in the presence of lowfrequency active sonar, humpback
whales have been observed to increase
the length of their ‘‘songs’’ (Miller et al.,
2000; Fristrup et al., 2003), possibly due
to the overlap in frequencies between
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the whale song and the low-frequency
active sonar. A similar compensatory
effect for the presence of low frequency
vessel noise has been suggested for right
whales; right whales have been
observed to shift the frequency content
of their calls upward while reducing the
rate of calling in areas of increased
anthropogenic noise (Parks et al., 2007).
Killer whales off the northwestern coast
of the United States have been observed
to increase the duration of primary calls
once a threshold in observing vessel
density (e.g., whale watching) was
reached, which has been suggested as a
response to increased masking noise
produced by the vessels (Foote et al.,
2004). In contrast, both sperm and pilot
whales potentially ceased sound
production during the Heard Island
feasibility test (Bowles et al., 1994),
although it cannot be absolutely
determined whether the inability to
acoustically detect the animals was due
to the cessation of sound production or
the displacement of animals from the
area.
Avoidance—Avoidance is the
displacement of an individual from an
area as a result of the presence of a
sound. Richardson et al. (1995) noted
that avoidance reactions are the most
obvious manifestations of disturbance in
marine mammals. It is qualitatively
different from the flight response, but
also differs in the magnitude of the
response (i.e., directed movement, rate
of travel, etc.). Oftentimes avoidance is
temporary, and animals return to the
area once the noise has ceased. Longer
term displacement is possible, however,
which can lead to changes in abundance
or distribution patterns of the species in
the affected region if they do not
become acclimated to the presence of
the sound (Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder
et al., 2006; Teilmann et al., 2006).
Acute avoidance responses have been
observed in captive porpoises and
pinnipeds exposed to a number of
different sound sources (Kastelein et al.,
2001; Finneran et al., 2003; Kastelein et
al., 2006a; Kastelein et al., 2006b). Short
term avoidance of seismic surveys, low
frequency emissions, and acoustic
deterrents have also been noted in wild
populations of odontocetes (Bowles et
al., 1994; Goold, 1996; 1998; Stone et
al., 2000; Morton and Symonds, 2002)
and to some extent in mysticetes (Gailey
et al., 2007), while longer term or
repetitive/chronic displacement for
some dolphin groups and for manatees
has been suggested to be due to the
presence of chronic vessel noise
(Haviland-Howell et al., 2007; MiksisOlds et al., 2007).
Orientation—A shift in an animal’s
resting state or an attentional change via
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
an orienting response represent
behaviors that would be considered
mild disruptions if occurring alone. As
previously mentioned, the responses
may co-occur with other behaviors; for
instance, an animal may initially orient
toward a sound source, and then move
away from it. Thus, any orienting
response should be considered in
context of other reactions that may
occur.
There are few empirical studies of
avoidance responses of free-living
cetaceans to mid-frequency active
sonars. Much more information is
available on the avoidance responses of
free-living cetaceans to other acoustic
sources, such as seismic airguns and
low frequency active sonar, than midfrequency active sonar.
Behavioral Responses (Southall et al.
(2007))
Southall et al. (2007) reports the
results of the efforts of a panel of experts
in acoustic research from behavioral,
physiological, and physical disciplines
that convened and reviewed the
available literature on marine mammal
hearing and physiological and
behavioral responses to human-made
sound with the goal of proposing
exposure criteria for certain effects. This
peer-reviewed compilation of literature
is very valuable, though Southall et al.
(2007) note that not all data are equal,
some have poor statistical power,
insufficient controls, and/or limited
information on received levels,
background noise, and other potentially
important contextual variables—such
data were reviewed and sometimes used
for qualitative illustration but were not
included in the quantitative analysis for
the criteria recommendations. All of the
studies considered, however, contain an
estimate of the received sound level
when the animal exhibited the indicated
response.
In the Southall et al. (2007)
publication, for the purposes of
analyzing responses of marine mammals
to anthropogenic sound and developing
criteria, the authors differentiate
between single pulse sounds, multiple
pulse sounds, and non-pulse sounds.
MFAS/HFAS is considered a non-pulse
sound. Southall et al. (2007) summarize
the studies associated with lowfrequency, mid-frequency, and highfrequency cetacean and pinniped
responses to non-pulse sounds, based
strictly on received level, in Appendix
C of their article (incorporated by
reference and summarized in the three
paragraphs below).
The studies that address responses of
low frequency cetaceans to non-pulse
sounds include data gathered in the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
field and related to several types of
sound sources (of varying similarity to
MFAS/HFAS) including: vessel noise,
drilling and machinery playback, lowfrequency M-sequences (sine wave with
multiple phase reversals) playback,
tactical low-frequency active sonar
playback, drill ships, Acoustic
Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC)
source, and non-pulse playbacks. These
studies generally indicate no (or very
limited) responses to received levels in
the 90 to 120 dB re: 1µPa range and an
increasing likelihood of avoidance and
other behavioral effects in the 120 to
160 dB range. As mentioned earlier,
though, contextual variables play a very
important role in the reported responses
and the severity of effects are not linear
when compared to the received level.
Also, few of the laboratory or field
datasets had common conditions,
behavioral contexts or sound sources, so
it is not surprising that responses differ.
The studies that address responses of
mid-frequency cetaceans to non-pulse
sounds include data gathered both in
the field and the laboratory and related
to several different sound sources (of
varying similarity to MFAS/HFAS)
including: pingers, drilling playbacks,
ship and ice-breaking noise, vessel
noise, Acoustic Harassment Devices
(AHDs), Acoustic Deterrent Devices
(ADDs), MFAS, and non-pulse bands
and tones. Southall et al. (2007) were
unable to come to a clear conclusion
regarding the results of these studies. In
some cases, animals in the field showed
significant responses to received levels
between 90 and 120 dB, while in other
cases these responses were not seen in
the 120 to 150 dB range. The disparity
in results was likely due to contextual
variation and the differences between
the results in the field and laboratory
data (animals typically responded at
lower levels in the field).
The studies that address responses of
high frequency cetaceans to non-pulse
sounds include data gathered both in
the field and the laboratory and related
to several different sound sources (of
varying similarity to MFAS/HFAS)
including: pingers, AHDs, and various
laboratory non-pulse sounds. All of
these data were collected from harbor
porpoises. Southall et al. (2007)
concluded that the existing data
indicate that harbor porpoises are likely
sensitive to a wide range of
anthropogenic sounds at low received
levels (∼90–120 dB), at least for initial
exposures. All recorded exposures
above 140 dB induced profound and
sustained avoidance behavior in wild
harbor porpoises (Southall et al., 2007).
Rapid habituation was noted in some
but not all studies. The Pacific harbor
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60857
porpoise, however, does not normally
occur within Southern California south
of Point Conception, and would
therefore, not be exposed to Navy
activities covered by this proposed rule.
There is no data to indicate whether
other high frequency cetaceans are as
sensitive to anthropogenic sound as
harbor porpoises are.
The studies that address the responses
of pinnipeds in water to non-pulse
sounds include data gathered both in
the field and the laboratory and related
to several different sound sources (of
varying similarity to MFAS/HFAS)
including: AHDs, ATOC, various nonpulse sounds used in underwater data
communication; underwater drilling,
and construction noise. Few studies
exist with enough information to
include them in the analysis. The
limited data suggested that exposures to
non-pulse sounds between 90 and 140
dB generally do not result in strong
behavioral responses in pinnipeds in
water, but no data exist at higher
received levels.
In addition to summarizing the
available data, the authors of Southall et
al. (2007) developed a severity scaling
system with the intent of ultimately
being able to assign some level of
biological significance to a response.
Following is a summary of their scoring
system, a comprehensive list of the
behaviors associated with each score
may be found in the report:
• 0–3 (Minor and/or brief behaviors)
includes, but is not limited to: No
response; minor changes in speed or
locomotion (but with no avoidance);
individual alert behavior; minor
cessation in vocal behavior; minor
changes in response to trained behaviors
(in laboratory)
• 4–6 (Behaviors with higher
potential to affect foraging,
reproduction, or survival) includes, but
is not limited to: Moderate changes in
speed, direction, or dive profile; brief
shift in group distribution; prolonged
cessation or modification of vocal
behavior (duration > duration of sound),
minor or moderate individual and/or
group avoidance of sound; brief
cessation of reproductive behavior; or
refusal to initiate trained tasks (in
laboratory)
• 7–9 (Behaviors considered likely to
affect the aforementioned vital rates)
includes, but is not limited to: Extensive
or prolonged aggressive behavior;
moderate, prolonged or significant
separation of females and dependent
offspring with disruption of acoustic
reunion mechanisms; long-term
avoidance of an area; outright panic,
stampede, stranding; threatening or
attacking sound source (in laboratory)
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
60858
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
received level) that Southall et al. (2007)
compiled in the effort to develop
acoustic criteria.
and respond accordingly, which
includes scanning for the source of the
stimulus or ‘‘vigilance’’ (Cowlishaw et
al., 2004).
Vigilance is normally an adaptive
behavior that helps animals determine
the presence or absence of predators,
assess their distance from conspecifics,
or to attend cues from prey (Bednekoff
and Lima, 1998; Treves, 2000). Despite
those benefits, however, vigilance has a
cost of time: When animals focus their
attention on specific environmental
cues, they are not attending to other
activities such a foraging. These costs
have been documented best in foraging
animals, where vigilance has been
shown to substantially reduce feeding
rates (Saino, 1994; Beauchamp and
Livoreil, 1997; Fritz et al., 2002).
Animals will spend more time being
vigilant, which may translate to less
time foraging or resting, when
disturbance stimuli approach them
more directly, remain at closer
distances, have a greater group size (for
example, multiple surface vessels), or
when they co-occur with times that an
animal perceives increased risk (for
example, when they are giving birth or
accompanied by a calf). Most of the
published literature, however, suggests
that direct approaches will increase the
amount of time animals will dedicate to
being vigilant. For example, bighorn
sheep and Dall’s sheep dedicated more
time to being vigilant, and less time
resting or foraging, when aircraft made
direct approaches over them (Frid, 2001;
Stockwell et al., 1991).
Several authors have established that
long-term and intense disturbance
stimuli can cause population declines
by reducing the body condition of
individuals that have been disturbed,
followed by reduced reproductive
success, reduced survival, or both (Daan
et al., 1996; Madsen, 1994; White,
1983). For example, Madsen (1994)
reported that pink-footed geese (Anser
brachyrhynchus) in undisturbed habitat
gained body mass and had about a 46percent reproductive success rate
compared with geese in disturbed
habitat (being consistently scared off the
fields on which they were foraging)
which did not gain mass and has a 17percent reproductive success rate.
Similar reductions in reproductive
success have been reported for mule
deer (Odocoileus hemionus) disturbed
by all-terrain vehicles (Yarmoloy et al.,
1988), caribou disturbed by seismic
exploration blasts (Bradshaw et al.,
1998), caribou disturbed by lowelevation military jet-fights (Luick et al.,
1996), and caribou disturbed by lowelevation jet flights (Harrington and
Veitch, 1992). Similarly, a study of elk
(Cervus elaphus) that were disturbed
experimentally by pedestrians
concluded that the ratio of young to
mothers was inversely related to
disturbance rate (Phillips and
Alldredge, 2000).
The primary mechanism by which
increased vigilance and disturbance
The different ways that marine
mammals respond to sound are
sometimes indicators of the ultimate
effect that exposure to a given stimulus
will have on the well-being (survival,
reproduction, etc.) of an animal. There
is little marine mammal data
quantitatively relating the exposure of
marine mammals to sound to effects on
reproduction or survival, though data
exists for terrestrial species to which we
can draw comparisons for marine
mammals.
Attention is the cognitive process of
selectively concentrating on one aspect
of an animal’s environment while
ignoring other things (Posner, 1994).
Because animals (including humans)
have limited cognitive resources, there
is a limit to how much sensory
information they can process at any
time. The phenomenon called
‘‘attentional capture’’ occurs when a
stimulus (usually a stimulus that an
animal is not concentrating on or
attending to) ‘‘captures’’ an animal’s
attention. This shift in attention can
occur consciously or unconsciously (for
example, when an animal hears sounds
that it associates with the approach of
a predator) and the shift in attention can
be sudden (Dukas, 2002; van Rij, 2007).
Once a stimulus has captured an
animal’s attention, the animal can
respond by ignoring the stimulus,
assuming a ‘‘watch and wait’’ posture,
or treat the stimulus as a disturbance
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
EP14OC08.029
pinnipeds in water to non-pulse sounds.
This table is included simply to
summarize the findings of the studies
and opportunistic observations (all of
which were capable of estimating
Potential Effects of Behavioral
Disturbance
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
In Table 5 we have summarized the
scores that Southall et al. (2007)
assigned to the papers that reported
behavioral responses of low-frequency
cetaceans, mid-frequency cetaceans, and
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
appear to affect the fitness of individual
animals is by disrupting an animal’s
time budget and, as a result, reducing
the time they might spend foraging and
resting (which increases an animal’s
activity rate and energy demand). For
example, a study of grizzly bears (Ursus
horribilis) reported that bears disturbed
by hikers reduced their energy intake by
an average of 12 kcal/min (50.2 × 103kJ/
min), and spent energy fleeing or acting
aggressively toward hikers (White et al.,
1999). Alternately, Ridgway et al. (2006)
reported that increased vigilance in
bottlenose dolphins exposed to sound
over a five day period did not cause any
sleep deprivation or stress effects such
as changes in cortisol or epinephrine
levels.
On a related note, many animals
perform vital functions, such as feeding,
resting, traveling, and socializing, on a
diel cycle (24-hr cycle). Substantive
behavioral reactions to noise exposure
(such as disruption of critical life
functions, displacement, or avoidance of
important habitat) are more likely to be
significant if they last more than one
diel cycle or recur on subsequent days
(Southall et al., 2007). Consequently, a
behavioral response lasting less than
one day and not recurring on
subsequent days is not considered
particularly severe unless it could
directly affect reproduction or survival
(Southall et al., 2007).
Stranding and Mortality
When a live or dead marine mammal
swims or floats onto shore and becomes
‘‘beached’’ or incapable of returning to
sea, the event is termed a ‘‘stranding’’
(Geraci et al., 1999; Perrin and Geraci,
2002; Geraci and Lounsbury, 2005;
National Marine Fisheries Service,
2007p). The legal definition for a
stranding within the United States is
that (A) ‘‘a marine mammal is dead and
is (i) on a beach or shore of the United
States; or (ii) in waters under the
jurisdiction of the United States
(including any navigable waters); or (B)
a marine mammal is alive and is (i) on
a beach or shore of the United States
and is unable to return to the water; (ii)
on a beach or shore of the United States
and, although able to return to the
water, is in need of apparent medical
attention; or (iii) in the waters under the
jurisdiction of the United States
(including any navigable waters), but is
unable to return to its natural habitat
under its own power or without
assistance.’’ (16 U.S.C. 1421h).
Marine mammals are known to strand
for a variety of reasons, such as
infectious agents, biotoxicosis,
starvation, fishery interaction, ship
strike, unusual oceanographic or
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
weather events, sound exposure, or
combinations of these stressors
sustained concurrently or in series.
However, the cause or causes of most
strandings are unknown (Geraci et al.,
1976; Eaton, 1979, Odell et al., 1980;
Best, 1982). Numerous studies suggest
that the physiology, behavior, habitat
relationships, age, or condition of
cetaceans may cause them to strand or
might pre-dispose them to strand when
exposed to another phenomenon. These
suggestions are consistent with the
conclusions of numerous other studies
that have demonstrated that
combinations of dissimilar stressors
commonly combine to kill an animal or
dramatically reduce its fitness, even
though one exposure without the other
does not produce the same result
(Chroussos, 2000; Creel, 2005; DeVries
et al., 2003; Fair and Becker, 2000; Foley
et al., 2001; Moberg, 2000; Relyea,
2005a; 2005b, Romero, 2004; Sih et al.,
2004).
Several sources have published lists
of mass stranding events of cetaceans
during attempts to identify relationships
between those stranding events and
military active sonar (Hildebrand, 2004;
IWC, 2005; Taylor et al., 2004). For
example, based on a review of stranding
records between 1960 and 1995, the
International Whaling Commission
(2005) identified ten mass stranding
events of Cuvier’s beaked whales that
had been reported and one mass
stranding of four Baird’s beaked whales
(Berardius bairdii). The IWC concluded
that, out of eight stranding events
reported from the mid-1980s to the
summer of 2003, seven had been
coincident with the use of MFAS, one
of those seven had been associated with
the use of tactical low-frequency sonar,
and the remaining stranding event had
been associated with the use of seismic
airguns.
Most of the stranding events reviewed
by the International Whaling
Commission involved beaked whales. A
mass stranding of Cuvier’s beaked
whales in the eastern Mediterranean Sea
occurred in 1996 (Franzis, 1998) and
mass stranding events involving
Gervais’ beaked whales, Blainville’s
beaked whales, and Cuvier’s beaked
whales occurred off the coast of the
Canary Islands in the late 1980s
(Simmonds and Lopez-Jurado, 1991).
The stranding events that occurred in
the Canary Islands and Kyparissiakos
Gulf in the late 1990s and the Bahamas
in 2000 have been the most intensively
studied mass stranding events and have
been associated with naval maneuvers
involving the use of MFAS.
Between 1960 and 2006, 48 strandings
(68 percent) involved beaked whales, 3
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60859
(4 percent) involved dolphins, and 14
(20 percent) involved whale species.
Cuvier’s beaked whales were involved
in the greatest number of these events
(48 or 68 percent), followed by sperm
whales (7 or 10 percent), and
Blainville’s and Gervais’ beaked whales
(4 each or 6 percent). Naval activities
that might have involved active sonar
are reported to have coincided with 9
(13 percent) or 10 (14 percent) of those
stranding events. Between the mid1980s and 2003 (the period reported by
the International Whaling Commission),
we identified reports of 44 mass
cetacean stranding events of which at
least 7 were coincident with naval
exercises that were using mid-frequency
sonar.
Strandings Associated With MFAS
Over the past 12 years, there have
been five stranding events coincident
with military mid-frequency active
sonar use in which exposure to sonar is
believed to have been a contributing
factor: Greece (1996); the Bahamas
(2000); Madeira (2000); Canary Islands
(2002); and Spain (2006). A number of
other stranding events coincident with
the operation of MFAS including the
death of beaked whales or other species
(minke whales, dwarf sperm whales,
pilot whales) have been reported,
however, the majority have not been
investigated to the degree necessary to
determine the cause of the stranding.
Greece (1996)
Twelve Cuvier’s beaked whales
stranded atypically (in both time and
space) along a 38.2-kilometer strand of
the coast of the Kyparissiakos Gulf on
May 12 and 13, 1996 (Frantzis, 1998).
From May 11 through May 15, the
NATO research vessel Alliance was
conducting active sonar tests with
signals of 600 Hz and 3 kHz and source
levels of 228 and 226 dB re: 1µPa,
respectively (D’Amico and Verboom,
1998; D’Spain et al., 2006). The timing
and the location of the testing
encompassed the time and location of
the whale strandings (Frantzis, 1998).
Necropsies of eight of the animals
were performed but were limited to
basic external examination and
sampling of stomach contents, blood,
and skin. No ears or organs were
collected, and no histological samples
were preserved. No apparent
abnormalities or wounds were found
(Frantzis, 2004). Examination of photos
of the animals, taken soon after their
death, revealed that the eyes of at least
four of the individuals were bleeding.
Photos were taken soon after their death
(Frantzis, 2004). Stomach contents
contained the flesh of cephalopods,
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
60860
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
indicating that feeding had recently
taken place (Frantzis, 1998).
All available information regarding
the conditions associated with this
stranding event were compiled, and
many potential causes were examined
including major pollution events,
prominent tectonic activity, unusual
physical or meteorological events,
magnetic anomalies, epizootics, and
conventional military activities
(International Council for the
Exploration of the Sea, 2005a).
However, none of these potential causes
coincided in time or space with the
mass stranding, or could explain its
characteristics (International Council for
the Exploration of the Sea, 2005a). The
robust condition of the animals, plus the
recent stomach contents, is inconsistent
with pathogenic causes (Frantzis, 2004).
In addition, environmental causes can
be ruled out as there were no unusual
environmental circumstances or events
before or during this time period and
within the general proximity (Frantzis,
2004).
It was determined that because of the
rarity of this mass stranding of Cuvier’s
beaked whales in the Kyparissiakos Gulf
(first one in history), the probability for
the two events (the military exercises
and the strandings) to coincide in time
and location, while being independent
of each other, was extremely low
(Frantzis, 1998). However, because full
necropsies had not been conducted, and
no abnormalities were noted, the cause
of the strandings could not be precisely
determined (Cox et al., 2006). The
analysis of this stranding event
provided support for, but no clear
evidence for, the cause-and-effect
relationship of active sonar training
activities and beaked whale strandings
(Cox et al., 2006).
Bahamas (2000)
NMFS and the Navy prepared a joint
report addressing the multi-species
stranding in the Bahamas in 2000,
which took place within 24 hours of
U.S. Navy ships using MFAS as they
passed through the Northeast and
Northwest Providence Channels on
March 15–16, 2000. The ships, which
operated both AN/SQS–53C and AN/
SQS–56, moved through the channel
while emitting MFAS pings
approximately every 24 seconds. Of the
17 cetaceans that stranded over a 36-hr
period (Cuvier’s beaked whales,
Blainville’s beaked whales, Minke
whales, and a spotted dolphin), seven
animals died on the beach (5 Cuvier’s
beaked whales, 1 Blainville’s beaked
whale, and the spotted dolphin), while
the other 10 were returned to the water
alive (though their ultimate fate is
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
unknown). As discussed in the Bahamas
report (DOC/DON, 2001), there is no
likely association between the minke
whale and spotted dolphin strandings
and the operation of MFAS.
Necropsies were performed on five of
the stranded beaked whales. All five
necropsied beaked whales were in good
body condition, showing no signs of
infection, disease, ship strike, blunt
trauma, or fishery related injuries, and
three still had food remains in their
stomachs. Auditory structural damage
was discovered in four of the whales,
specifically bloody effusions or
hemorrhaging around the ears. Bilateral
intracochlear and unilateral temporal
region subarachnoid hemorrhage, with
blood clots in the lateral ventricles,
were found in two of the whales. Three
of the whales had small hemorrhages in
their acoustic fats (located along the jaw
and in the melon).
A comprehensive investigation was
conducted and all possible causes of the
stranding event were considered,
whether they seemed likely at the outset
or not. Based on the way in which the
strandings coincided with ongoing
naval activity involving tactical MFAS
use, in terms of both time and
geography, the nature of the
physiological effects experienced by the
dead animals, and the absence of any
other acoustic sources, the investigation
team concluded that MFAS aboard U.S.
Navy ships that were in use during the
active sonar exercise in question were
the most plausible source of this
acoustic or impulse trauma to beaked
whales. This sound source was active in
a complex environment that included
the presence of a surface duct, unusual
and steep bathymetry, a constricted
channel with limited egress, intensive
use of multiple, active sonar units over
an extended period of time, and the
presence of beaked whales that appear
to be sensitive to the frequencies
produced by these active sonars. The
investigation team concluded that the
cause of this stranding event was the
confluence of the Navy MFAS and these
contributory factors working together,
and further recommended that the Navy
avoid operating MFAS in situations
where these five factors would be likely
to occur. This report does not conclude
that all five of these factors must be
present for a stranding to occur, nor that
beaked whales are the only species that
could potentially be affected by the
confluence of the other factors. Based on
this, NMFS believes that the operation
of MFAS in situations where surface
ducts exist, or in marine environments
defined by steep bathymetry and/or
constricted channels may increase the
likelihood of producing a sound field
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
with the potential to cause cetaceans
(especially beaked whales) to strand,
and therefore, suggests the need for
increased vigilance while operating
MFAS in these areas, especially when
beaked whales (or potentially other
deep divers) are likely present.
Madeira, Spain (2000)
From May 10–14, 2000, three Cuvier’s
beaked whales were found atypically
stranded on two islands in the Madeira
archipelago, Portugal (Cox et al., 2006).
A fourth animal was reported floating in
the Madeiran waters by fisherman but
did not come ashore (Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution, 2005). Joint
NATO amphibious training
peacekeeping exercises involving
participants from 17 countries’ 80
warships, took place in Portugal during
May 2–15, 2000.
The bodies of the three stranded
whales were examined post mortem
(Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,
2005), though only one of the stranded
whales was fresh enough (24 hours after
stranding) to be necropsied (Cox et al.,
2006). Results from the necropsy
revealed evidence of hemorrhage and
congestion in the right lung and both
kidneys (Cox et al., 2006). There was
also evidence of intercochlear and
intracranial hemorrhage similar to that
which was observed in the whales that
stranded in the Bahamas event (Cox et
al., 2006). There were no signs of blunt
trauma, and no major fractures (Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institution, 2005).
The cranial sinuses and airways were
found to be clear with little or no fluid
deposition, which may indicate good
preservation of tissues (Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution, 2005).
Several observations on the Madeira
stranded beaked whales, such as the
pattern of injury to the auditory system,
are the same as those observed in the
Bahamas strandings. Blood in and
around the eyes, kidney lesions, pleural
hemorrhages, and congestion in the
lungs are particularly consistent with
the pathologies from the whales
stranded in the Bahamas, and are
consistent with stress and pressure
related trauma. The similarities in
pathology and stranding patterns
between these two events suggest that a
similar pressure event may have
precipitated or contributed to the
strandings at both sites (Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution, 2005).
Even though no definitive causal link
can be made between the stranding
event and naval exercises, certain
conditions may have existed in the
exercise area that, in their aggregate,
may have contributed to the marine
mammal strandings (Freitas, 2004):
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Exercises were conducted in areas of at
least 547 fathoms (1,000 m) depth near
a shoreline where there is a rapid
change in bathymetry on the order of
547 to 3,281 (1,000–6,000 m) fathoms
occurring across a relatively short
horizontal distance (Freitas, 2004);
multiple ships were operating around
Madeira, though it is not known if
MFAS was used, and the specifics of the
sound sources used are unknown (Cox
et al., 2006, Freitas, 2004); exercises
took place in an area surrounded by
landmasses separated by less than 35
nm (65 km) and at least 10 nm (19 km)
in length, or in an embayment. Exercises
involving multiple ships employing
MFAS near land may produce sound
directed towards a channel or
embayment that may cut off the lines of
egress for marine mammals (Freitas,
2004).
Canary Islands, Spain (2002)
The southeastern area within the
Canary Islands is well known for
aggregations of beaked whales due to its
ocean depths of greater than 547
fathoms (1,000 m) within a few hundred
meters of the coastline (Fernandez et al.,
2005). On September 24, 2002, 14
beaked whales were found stranded on
Fuerteventura and Lanzarote Islands in
the Canary Islands (International
Council for Exploration of the Sea,
2005a). Seven whales died, while the
remaining seven live whales were
returned to deeper waters (Fernandez et
al., 2005). Four beaked whales were
found stranded dead over the next 3
days either on the coast or floating
offshore. These strandings occurred
within near proximity of an
international naval exercise that utilized
MFAS and involved numerous surface
warships and several submarines.
Strandings began about 4 hours after the
onset of MFAS activity (International
Council for Exploration of the Sea,
2005a; Fernandez et al., 2005).
Eight Cuvier’s beaked whales, one
Blainville’s beaked whale, and one
Gervais’ beaked whale were necropsied,
six of them within 12 hours of stranding
(Fernandez et al., 2005). No pathogenic
bacteria were isolated from the carcasses
(Jepson et al., 2003). The animals
displayed severe vascular congestion
and hemorrhage especially around the
tissues in the jaw, ears, brain, and
kidneys, displaying marked
disseminated microvascular
hemorrhages associated with
widespread fat emboli (Jepson et al.,
2003; International Council for
Exploration of the Sea, 2005a). Several
organs contained intravascular bubbles,
although definitive evidence of gas
embolism in vivo is difficult to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
determine after death (Jepson et al.,
2003). The livers of the necropsied
animals were the most consistently
affected organ, which contained
macroscopic gas-filled cavities and had
variable degrees of fibrotic
encapsulation. In some animals,
cavitary lesions had extensively
replaced the normal tissue (Jepson et al.,
2003). Stomachs contained a large
amount of fresh and undigested
contents, suggesting a rapid onset of
disease and death (Fernandez et al.,
2005). Head and neck lymph nodes
were enlarged and congested, and
parasites were found in the kidneys of
all animals (Fernandez et al., 2005).
The association of NATO MFAS use
close in space and time to the beaked
whale strandings, and the similarity
between this stranding event and
previous beaked whale mass strandings
coincident with active sonar use,
suggests that a similar scenario and
causative mechanism of stranding may
be shared between the events. Beaked
whales stranded in this event
demonstrated brain and auditory system
injuries, hemorrhages, and congestion in
multiple organs, similar to the
pathological findings of the Bahamas
and Madeira stranding events. In
addition, the necropsy results of Canary
Islands stranding event lead to the
hypothesis that the presence of
disseminated and widespread gas
bubbles and fat emboli were indicative
of nitrogen bubble formation, similar to
what might be expected in
decompression sickness (Jepson et al.,
2003; Fernandez et al., 2005).
Spain (2006)
The Spanish Cetacean Society
reported an atypical mass stranding of
four beaked whales that occurred
January 26, 2006, on the southeast coast
of Spain, near Mojacar (Gulf of Vera) in
the Western Mediterranean Sea.
According to the report, two of the
whales were discovered the evening of
January 26 and were found to be still
alive. Two other whales were
discovered during the day on January
27, but had already died. The fourth
animal was found dead on the afternoon
of January 27, a few kilometers north of
the first three animals. From January
25–26, 2006, Standing North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) Response
Force Maritime Group Two (five of
seven ships including one U.S. ship
under NATO Operational Control) had
conducted active sonar training against
a Spanish submarine within 50 nm (93
km) of the stranding site.
Veterinary pathologists necropsied
the two male and two female Cuvier’s
beaked whales. According to the
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60861
pathologists, the most likely primary
cause of this type of beaked whale mass
stranding event was anthropogenic
acoustic activities, most probably antisubmarine MFAS used during the
military naval exercises. However, no
positive acoustic link was established as
a direct cause of the stranding. Even
though no causal link can be made
between the stranding event and naval
exercises, certain conditions may have
existed in the exercise area that, in their
aggregate, may have contributed to the
marine mammal strandings (Freitas,
2004): exercises were conducted in
areas of at least 547 fathoms (1,000 m)
depth near a shoreline where there is a
rapid change in bathymetry on the order
of 547 to 3,281 fathoms (1,000—6,000
m) occurring across a relatively short
horizontal distance (Freitas, 2004);
multiple ships (in this instance, five)
were operating MFAS in the same area
over extended periods of time (in this
case, 20 hours) in close proximity;
Exercises took place in an area
surrounded by landmasses, or in an
embayment. Exercises involving
multiple ships employing MFAS near
land may have produced sound directed
towards a channel or embayment that
may have cut off the lines of egress for
the affected marine mammals (Freitas,
2004).
Association Between Mass Stranding
Events and Exposure to MFAS
Several authors have noted
similarities between some of these
stranding incidents: they occurred in
islands or archipelagoes with deep
water nearby, several appeared to have
been associated with acoustic
waveguides like surface ducting, and
the sound fields created by ships
transmitting MFAS (Cox et al., 2006,
D’Spain et al., 2006). Although Cuvier’s
beaked whales have been the most
common species involved in these
stranding events (81 percent of the total
number of stranded animals), other
beaked whales (including Mesoplodon
europeaus, M. densirostris, and
Hyperoodon ampullatus) comprise 14
percent of the total. Other species
(Stenella coeruleoalba, Kogia breviceps
and Balaenoptera acutorostrata) have
stranded, but in much lower numbers
and less consistently than beaked
whales.
Based on the evidence available,
however, we cannot determine whether
(a) Cuvier’s beaked whale is more prone
to injury from high-intensity sound than
other species, (b) their behavioral
responses to sound makes them more
likely to strand, or (c) they are more
likely to be exposed to MFAS than other
cetaceans (for reasons that remain
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
60862
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
unknown). Because the association
between active sonar exposures and
marine mammals mass stranding events
is not consistent—some marine
mammals strand without being exposed
to active sonar and some sonar
transmissions are not associated with
marine mammal stranding events
despite their co-occurrence—other risk
factors or a grouping of risk factors
probably contribute to these stranding
events.
Behaviorally Mediated Responses to
MFAS That May Lead to Stranding
Although the confluence of Navy
MFAS with the other contributory
factors noted in the report was
identified as the cause of the 2000
Bahamas stranding event, the specific
mechanisms that led to that stranding
(or the others) are not understood, and
there is uncertainty regarding the
ordering of effects that led to the
stranding. It is unclear whether beaked
whales were directly injured by sound
(acoustically mediated bubble growth,
addressed above) prior to stranding or
whether a behavioral response to sound
occurred that ultimately caused the
beaked whales to be injured and to
strand.
Although causal relationships
between beaked whale stranding events
and active sonar remain unknown,
several authors have hypothesized that
stranding events involving these species
in the Bahamas and Canary Islands may
have been triggered when the whales
changed their dive behavior in a startled
response to exposure to active sonar or
to further avoid exposure (Cox et al.,
2006, Rommel et al., 2006). These
authors proposed three mechanisms by
which the behavioral responses of
beaked whales upon being exposed to
active sonar might result in a stranding
event. These include: gas bubble
formation caused by excessively fast
surfacing; remaining at the surface too
long when tissues are supersaturated
with nitrogen; or diving prematurely
when extended time at the surface is
necessary to eliminate excess nitrogen.
More specifically, beaked whales that
occur in deep waters that are in close
proximity to shallow waters (for
example, the ‘‘canyon areas’’ that are
cited in the Bahamas stranding event;
see D’Spain and D’Amico, 2006), may
respond to active sonar by swimming
into shallow waters to avoid further
exposures and strand if they were not
able to swim back to deeper waters.
Second, beaked whales exposed to
active sonar might alter their dive
behavior. Changes in their dive behavior
might cause them to remain at the
surface or at depth for extended periods
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
of time which could lead to hypoxia
directly by increasing their oxygen
demands or indirectly by increasing
their energy expenditures (to remain at
depth) and increase their oxygen
demands as a result. If beaked whales
are at depth when they detect a ping
from an active sonar transmission and
change their dive profile, this could lead
to the formation of significant gas
bubbles, which could damage multiple
organs or interfere with normal
physiological function (Cox et al., 2006;
Rommel et al., 2006; Zimmer and
Tyack, 2007). Baird et al. (2005) found
that slow ascent rates from deep dives
and long periods of time spent within
50 m of the surface were typical for both
Cuvier’s and Blainville’s beaked whales,
the two species involved in mass
strandings related to naval MFAS. These
two behavioral mechanisms may be
necessary to purge excessive dissolved
nitrogen concentrated in their tissues
during their frequent long dives (Baird
et al., 2005). Baird et al. (2005) further
suggests that abnormally rapid ascents
or premature dives in response to highintensity active sonar could indirectly
result in physical harm to the beaked
whales, through the mechanisms
described above (gas bubble formation
or non-elimination of excess nitrogen).
Because many species of marine
mammals make repetitive and
prolonged dives to great depths, it has
long been assumed that marine
mammals have evolved physiological
mechanisms to protect against the
effects of rapid and repeated
decompressions. Although several
investigators have identified
physiological adaptations that may
protect marine mammals against
nitrogen gas supersaturation (alveolar
collapse and elective circulation;
Kooyman et al., 1972; Ridgway and
Howard, 1979), Ridgway and Howard
(1979) reported that bottlenose dolphins
(Tursiops truncatus) that were trained to
dive repeatedly had muscle tissues that
were substantially supersaturated with
nitrogen gas. Houser et al. (2001) used
these data to model the accumulation of
nitrogen gas within the muscle tissue of
other marine mammal species and
concluded that cetaceans that dive deep
and have slow ascent or descent speeds
would have tissues that are more
supersaturated with nitrogen gas than
other marine mammals. Based on these
data, Cox et al. (2006) hypothesized that
a critical dive sequence might make
beaked whales more prone to stranding
in response to acoustic exposures. The
sequence began with (1) very deep (to
depths of up to 2 kilometers) and long
(as long as 90 minutes) foraging dives
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
with (2) relatively slow, controlled
ascents, followed by (3) a series of
‘‘bounce’’ dives between 100 and 400
meters in depth (also see Zimmer and
Tyack, 2007). They concluded that
acoustic exposures that disrupted any
part of this dive sequence (for example,
causing beaked whales to spend more
time at surface without the bounce dives
that are necessary to recover from the
deep dive) could produce excessive
levels of nitrogen supersaturation in
their tissues, leading to gas bubble and
emboli formation that produces
pathologies similar to decompression
sickness.
Recently, Zimmer and Tyack (2007)
modeled nitrogen tension and bubble
growth in several tissue compartments
for several hypothetical dive profiles
and concluded that repetitive shallow
dives (defined as a dive where depth
does not exceed the depth of alveolar
collapse, approximately 72 m for
Ziphius), perhaps as a consequence of
an extended avoidance reaction to
active sonar sound, could pose a risk for
decompression sickness and that this
risk should increase with the duration
of the response. Their models also
suggested that unrealistically rapid
ascent rates of ascent from normal dive
behaviors are unlikely to result in
supersaturation to the extent that bubble
formation would be expected. Tyack et
al. (2006) suggested that emboli
observed in animals exposed to MFAS
(Jepson et al., 2003; Fernandez et al.,
2005) could stem from a behavioral
response that involves repeated dives
shallower than the depth of lung
collapse. Given that nitrogen gas
accumulation is a passive process (i.e.,
nitrogen is metabolically inert), a
bottlenose dolphin was trained to
repetitively dive a profile predicted to
elevate nitrogen saturation to the point
that nitrogen bubble formation was
predicted to occur. However, inspection
of the vascular system of the dolphin via
ultrasound did not demonstrate the
formation of asymptomatic nitrogen gas
bubbles (Houser et al., 2007). Baird et al.
(2008), in a beaked whale tagging study
off Hawaii, showed that deep dives are
equally common during day or night,
but ‘‘bounce dives’’ are typically a
daytime behavior, possibly associated
with visual predator avoidance (Baird et
al. 2008). This may indicate that
‘‘bounce dives’’ are associated with
something other than behavioral
regulation of dissolved nitrogen levels,
which would be necessary day and
night.
If marine mammals respond to a Navy
vessel that is transmitting active sonar
in the same way that they might
respond to a predator, their probability
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
of flight responses should increase
when they perceive that Navy vessels
are approaching them directly, because
a direct approach may convey detection
and intent to capture (Burger and
Gochfeld, 1981, 1990; Cooper, 1997,
1998). The probability of flight
responses should also increase as
received levels of active sonar increase
(and the ship is, therefore, closer) and
as ship speeds increase (that is, as
approach speeds increase). For example,
the probability of flight responses in
Dall’s sheep (Ovis dalli dalli) (Frid
2001a, b), ringed seals (Phoca hispida)
(Born et al., 1999), Pacific brant (Branta
bernic nigricans) and Canada geese (B.
canadensis) increased as a helicopter or
fixed-wing aircraft approached groups
of these animals more directly (Ward et
al., 1999). Bald eagles (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) perched on trees
alongside a river were also more likely
to flee from a paddle raft when their
perches were closer to the river or were
closer to the ground (Steidl and
Anthony, 1996).
Despite the many theories involving
bubble formation (both as a direct cause
of injury (see Acoustically Mediated
Bubble Growth Section) and an indirect
cause of stranding (See Behaviorally
Mediated Bubble Growth Section)),
Southall et al. (2007) summarizes that
there is either scientific disagreement or
a lack of information regarding each of
the following important points: (1)
Received acoustical exposure conditions
for animals involved in stranding
events; (2) pathological interpretation of
observed lesions in stranded marine
mammals; (3) acoustic exposure
conditions required to induce such
physical trauma directly; (4) whether
noise exposure may cause behavioral
reactions (such as atypical diving
behavior) that secondarily cause bubble
formation and tissue damage; and (5)
the extent the post mortem artifacts
introduced by decomposition before
sampling, handling, freezing, or
necropsy procedures affect
interpretation of observed lesions.
During SOCAL exercises there will be
use of multiple sonar units in areas
where seven species of beaked whale
species may be present. A surface duct
may be seasonally present in a limited
area for a limited period of time. Some
exercises will occur in areas of high
bathymetric relief. However, none of the
training events will take place in a
location having a constricted channel
less than 35 miles wide or with limited
egress similar to the Bahamas (because
none exist in the SOCAL Range
Complex). Consequently, not all five of
the environmental factors believed to
contribute to the Bahamas stranding
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
(mid-frequency active sonar, beaked
whale presence, surface ducts, steep
bathymetry, and constricted channels
with limited egress) will be present
during SOCAL exercises. However, as
mentioned previously, NMFS
recommends caution when steep
bathymetry, surface ducting conditions,
or a constricted channel is present when
mid-frequency active sonar is employed
and cetaceans (especially beaked
whales) are present.
Exposure to Underwater Detonation of
Explosives
Some of the Navy’s training exercises
include the underwater detonation of
explosives. For many of the exercises
discussed, inert ordnance is used for a
subset of the exercises. For exercises
that involve ‘‘shooting’’ at a target that
is above the surface of the water,
underwater explosions only occur when
the target is missed, which is the
minority of the time (the Navy has
historical hit/miss ratios and uses them
in their exposure estimates). The
underwater explosion from a weapon
would send a shock wave and blast
noise through the water, release gaseous
by-products, create an oscillating
bubble, and cause a plume of water to
shoot up from the water surface. The
shock wave and blast noise are of most
concern to marine animals. Depending
on the intensity of the shock wave and
size, location, and depth of the animal,
an animal can be injured, killed, suffer
non-lethal physical effects, experience
hearing related effects with or without
behavioral responses, or exhibit
temporary behavioral responses or
tolerance from hearing the blast sound.
Generally, exposures to higher levels of
impulse and pressure levels would
result in worse impacts to an individual
animal.
Injuries resulting from a shock wave
take place at boundaries between tissues
of different density. Different velocities
are imparted to tissues of different
densities, and this can lead to their
physical disruption. Blast effects are
greatest at the gas-liquid interface
(Landsberg, 2000). Gas-containing
organs, particularly the lungs and
gastrointestinal tract, are especially
susceptible (Goertner, 1982; Hill, 1978;
Yelverton et al., 1973). In addition, gascontaining organs including the nasal
sacs, larynx, pharynx, trachea, and
lungs may be damaged by compression/
expansion caused by the oscillations of
the blast gas bubble (Reidenberg and
Laitman, 2003). Intestinal walls can
bruise or rupture, with subsequent
hemorrhage and escape of gut contents
into the body cavity. Less severe
gastrointestinal tract injuries include
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60863
contusions, petechiae (small red or
purple spots caused by bleeding in the
skin), and slight hemorrhaging
(Yelverton et al., 1973).
Because the ears are the most
sensitive to pressure, they are the organs
most sensitive to injury (Ketten, 2000).
Sound-related trauma associated with
blast noise can be theoretically distinct
from injury from the shock wave,
particularly farther from the explosion.
If an animal is able to hear a noise, at
some level it can fatigue or damage its
hearing by causing decreased sensitivity
(Ketten, 1995) (See Noise-induced
Threshold Shift Section above). Soundrelated trauma can be lethal or
sublethal. Lethal impacts are those that
result in immediate death or serious
debilitation in or near an intense source
and are not, technically, pure acoustic
trauma (Ketten, 1995). Sublethal
impacts include hearing loss, which is
caused by exposures to perceptible
sounds. Severe damage (from the shock
wave) to the ears includes tympanic
membrane rupture, fracture of the
ossicles, damage to the cochlea,
hemorrhage, and cerebrospinal fluid
leakage into the middle ear. Moderate
injury implies partial hearing loss due
to tympanic membrane rupture and
blood in the middle ear. Permanent
hearing loss also can occur when the
hair cells are damaged by one very loud
event, as well as by prolonged exposure
to a loud noise or chronic exposure to
noise. The level of impact from blasts
depends on both an animal’s location
and, at outer zones, on its sensitivity to
the residual noise (Ketten, 1995).
There have been fewer studies
addressing the behavioral effects of
explosives on marine mammals than
MFAS/HFAS. However, though the
nature of the sound waves emitted from
an explosion is different (in shape and
rise time) from MFAS/HFAS, we still
anticipate the same sorts of behavioral
responses (see Exposure to MFAS/
HFAS:Behavioral Disturbance Section)
to result from repeated explosive
detonations (a smaller range of likely
less severe responses would be expected
to occur as a result of exposure to a
single explosive detonation).
Mitigation
In order to issue an incidental take
authorization (ITA) under Section
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, NMFS must
set forth the ‘‘permissible methods of
taking pursuant to such activity, and
other means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impact on such
species or stock and its habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating
grounds, and areas of similar
significance.’’ The NDAA of 2004
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60864
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
amended the MMPA as it relates to
military-readiness activities and the
incidental take authorization process
such that ‘‘least practicable adverse
impact’’ shall include consideration of
personnel safety, practicality of
implementation, and impact on the
effectiveness of the ‘‘military readiness
activity’’. The training activities
described in the SOCAL application are
considered military readiness activities.
NMFS reviewed the proposed SOCAL
activities and the proposed SOCAL
mitigation measures presented in the
Navy’s application to determine
whether the activities and mitigation
measures were capable of achieving the
least practicable adverse effect on
marine mammals. NMFS determined
that further discussion was necessary
regarding the potential relationship
between the operation of MFAS/HFAS
and marine mammal strandings. NMFS
worked with the Navy to identify
additional practicable and effective
mitigation measures, which included a
careful balancing of the likely benefit of
any particular measure to the marine
mammals with the likely effect of that
measure on personnel safety,
practicality of implementation, and
impact on the ‘‘military-readiness
activity’’.
To address the concern above, NMFS
and the Navy developed a
comprehensive Stranding Response
Plan. Included below are the mitigation
measures the Navy initially proposed
(see ‘‘Mitigation Measures Proposed in
the Navy’s LOA Application’’) and the
Stranding Response Plan that NMFS
and the Navy developed (see
‘‘Additional Measure Developed by
NMFS and the Navy’’ below).
Separately, NMFS has previously
received comments from the public
expressing concerns regarding potential
delays between when marine mammals
are visually detected by watchstanders
and when the active sonar is actually
powered or shut down. NMFS and the
Navy have discussed this issue and
determined the following: Naval
operators and lookouts are aware of the
potential for a very small delay (up to
about 4 seconds) between detecting a
marine mammal and powering down or
shutting down the tactical sonar and
will take the actions necessary to ensure
that MFAS is powered down or shut
down when detected animals are within
the specified powerdown or shutdown
zone (for example, by preparing to shutdown when animals are approaching, so
as to implement shut-down when they
are within the designated distance).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
Mitigation Measures Proposed in the
Navy’s LOA Application
This section includes the protective
measures proposed by the Navy and is
taken directly from their application
(with the exception of headings, which
have been modified for increased clarity
within the context of this proposed
rule). In their proposed mitigation, the
Navy has included measures to protect
sea turtles—those measures are
included here as part of the Navy’s
proposed action. Although measures to
protect sea turtles are important, they
are not required by the MMPA, and
therefore, will not be codified through
this regulation or required in any
subsequent MMPA LOA. Measures to
protect sea turtles will, however, be
addressed in the Endangered Species
Act section 7 consultation.
General Maritime Measures for All
Training at Sea
Personnel Training (for All Training
Types)
The use of shipboard lookouts is a
critical component of all Navy
protective measures. Lookout duties
require that they report all objects
sighted in the water to the officer of the
deck (OOD) (e.g., trash, a periscope,
marine mammals, sea turtles) and all
disturbances (e.g., surface disturbance,
discoloration) that may be indicative of
a threat to the vessel and its crew. There
are personnel serving as lookouts on
station at all times (day and night) when
a ship or surfaced submarine is moving
through the water.
• All commanding officers (COs),
executive officers (XOs), lookouts,
officers of the deck (OODs), junior
OODs (JOODs), maritime patrol aircraft
aircrews, and Anti-submarine Warfare
(ASW)/Mine Warfare (MIW) helicopter
crews will complete the NMFSapproved Marine Species Awareness
Training (MSAT) by viewing the U.S.
Navy MSAT digital versatile disk (DVD).
All bridge lookouts will complete both
parts one and two of the MSAT; part
two is optional for other personnel. This
training addresses the lookout’s role in
environmental protection, laws
governing the protection of marine
species, Navy stewardship
commitments and general observation
information to aid in avoiding
interactions with marine species.
• Navy lookouts will undertake
extensive training in order to qualify as
a watchstander in accordance with the
Lookout Training Handbook (Naval
Education and Training Command
[NAVEDTRA] 12968–D).
• Lookout training will include onthe-job instruction under the
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
supervision of a qualified, experienced
lookout. Following successful
completion of this supervised training
period, lookouts will complete the
Personal Qualification Standard
Program, certifying that they have
demonstrated the necessary skills (such
as detection and reporting of partially
submerged objects). Personnel being
trained as lookouts can be counted
among those listed below as long as
supervisors monitor their progress and
performance.
• Lookouts will be trained in the most
effective means to ensure quick and
effective communication within the
command structure in order to facilitate
implementation of protective measures
if marine species are spotted.
Operating Procedures & Collision
Avoidance
• Prior to major exercises, a Letter of
Instruction, Mitigation Measures
Message or Environmental Annex to the
Operational Order will be issued to
further disseminate the personnel
training requirement and general marine
species protective measures.
• COs will make use of marine
species detection cues and information
to limit interaction with marine species
to the maximum extent possible
consistent with safety of the ship.
• While underway, surface vessels
will have at least two lookouts with
binoculars; surfaced submarines will
have at least one lookout with
binoculars. Lookouts already posted for
safety of navigation and man-overboard
precautions may be used to fill this
requirement. As part of their regular
duties, lookouts will watch for and
report to the OOD the presence of
marine mammals and sea turtles.
• On surface vessels equipped with a
multi-function active sensor, pedestal
mounted ‘‘Big Eye’’ (20 x 10) binoculars
will be properly installed and in good
working order to assist in the detection
of marine mammals and sea turtles in
the vicinity of the vessel.
• Personnel on lookout will employ
visual search procedures employing a
scanning methodology in accordance
with the Lookout Training Handbook
(NAVEDTRA 12968–D).
• After sunset and prior to sunrise,
lookouts will employ Night Lookouts
Techniques in accordance with the
Lookout Training Handbook
(NAVEDTRA 12968–D).
• While in transit, naval vessels will
be alert at all times, use extreme
caution, and proceed at a ‘‘safe speed’’
so that the vessel can take proper and
effective action to avoid a collision with
any marine animal and can be stopped
within a distance appropriate to the
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
prevailing circumstances and
conditions.
• When whales have been sighted in
the area, Navy vessels will increase
vigilance and take reasonable and
practicable actions to avoid collisions
and activities that might result in close
interaction of naval assets and marine
mammals. Actions may include
changing speed and/or direction and
would be dictated by environmental and
other conditions (e.g., safety, weather).
• Floating weeds and kelp, algal mats,
clusters of seabirds, and jellyfish are
good indicators of sea turtles and
marine mammals. Therefore, increased
vigilance in watching for sea turtles and
marine mammals will be taken where
these are present.
• Navy aircraft participating in
exercises at sea will conduct and
maintain, when operationally feasible
and safe, surveillance for marine species
of concern as long as it does not violate
safety constraints or interfere with the
accomplishment of primary operational
duties. Marine mammal detections will
be immediately reported to assigned
Aircraft Control Unit for further
dissemination to ships in the vicinity of
the marine species as appropriate where
it is reasonable to conclude that the
course of the ship will likely result in
a closing of the distance to the detected
marine mammal.
• 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.
Measures for MFAS Operations
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Personnel Training (for MFAS
Operations)
• All lookouts onboard platforms
involved in ASW training events will
review the NMFS-approved Marine
Species Awareness Training material
prior to use of mid-frequency active
sonar.
• All COs, XOs, and officers standing
watch on the bridge will have reviewed
the Marine Species Awareness Training
material prior to a training event
employing the use of mid-frequency
active sonar.
• Navy lookouts will undertake
extensive training in order to qualify as
a watchstander in accordance with the
Lookout Training Handbook (Naval
Educational Training [NAVEDTRA],
12968–D).
• Lookout training will include onthe-job instruction under the
supervision of a qualified, experienced
watchstander. Following successful
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
completion of this supervised training
period, lookouts will complete the
Personal Qualification Standard
program, certifying that they have
demonstrated the necessary skills (such
as detection and reporting of partially
submerged objects). This does not forbid
personnel being trained as lookouts
from being counted as those listed in
previous measures so long as
supervisors monitor their progress and
performance.
• Lookouts will be trained in the most
effective means to ensure quick and
effective communication within the
command structure in order to facilitate
implementation of mitigation measures
if marine species are spotted.
Lookout and Watchstander
Responsibilities
• On the bridge of surface ships, there
will always be at least three people on
watch whose duties include observing
the water surface around the vessel.
• All surface ships participating in
ASW training events will, in addition to
the three personnel on watch noted
previously, have at all times during the
exercise at least two additional
personnel on watch as marine mammal
lookouts.
• Personnel on lookout and officers
on watch on the bridge will have at least
one set of binoculars available for each
person to aid in the detection of marine
mammals.
• On surface vessels equipped with
mid-frequency active sonar, pedestal
mounted ‘‘Big Eye’’ (20 x 110)
binoculars will be present and in good
working order to assist in the detection
of marine mammals in the vicinity of
the vessel.
• Personnel on lookout will employ
visual search procedures employing a
scanning methodology in accordance
with the Lookout Training Handbook
(NAVEDTRA 12968–D).
• After sunset and prior to sunrise,
lookouts will employ Night Lookouts
Techniques in accordance with the
Lookout Training Handbook.
• Personnel on lookout will be
responsible for reporting all objects or
anomalies sighted in the water
(regardless of the distance from the
vessel) to the Officer of the Deck, since
any object or disturbance (e.g., trash,
periscope, surface disturbance,
discoloration) in the water may be
indicative of a threat to the vessel and
its crew or indicative of a marine
species that may need to be avoided as
warranted.
Operating Procedures
• A Letter of Instruction, Mitigation
Measures Message, or Environmental
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60865
Annex to the Operational Order will be
issued prior to major exercises to further
disseminate the personnel training
requirement and general marine
mammal mitigation measures.
• COs will make use of marine
species detection cues and information
to limit interaction with marine species
to the maximum extent possible
consistent with safety of the ship.
• All personnel engaged in passive
acoustic sonar operation (including
aircraft, surface ships, or submarines)
will monitor for marine mammal
vocalizations and report the detection of
any marine mammal to the appropriate
watch station for dissemination and
appropriate action.
• During mid-frequency active sonar
operations, personnel will utilize all
available sensor and optical systems
(such as night vision goggles) to aid in
the detection of marine mammals.
• Navy aircraft participating in
exercises at sea will conduct and
maintain, when operationally feasible
and safe, surveillance for marine species
of concern as long as it does not violate
safety constraints or interfere with the
accomplishment of primary operational
duties.
• Aircraft with deployed sonobuoys
will use only the passive capability of
sonobuoys when marine mammals are
detected within 200 yds (183 m) of the
sonobuoy.
• Marine mammal detections will be
immediately reported to assigned
Aircraft Control Unit for further
dissemination to ships in the vicinity of
the marine species as appropriate where
it is reasonable to conclude that the
course of the ship will likely result in
a closing of the distance to the detected
marine mammal.
• Safety Zones—When marine
mammals are detected by any means
(aircraft, shipboard lookout, or
acoustically) within or closing to inside
1,000 yds (914 m) of the sonar dome
(the bow), the ship or submarine will
limit active transmission levels to at
least 6 decibels (dB) below normal
operating levels. (A 6 dB reduction
equates to a 75 percent power reduction.
The reason is that decibel levels are on
a logarithmic scale, not a linear scale.
Thus, a 6 dB reduction results in a
power level only 25 percent of the
original power.)
• Ships and submarines will continue
to limit maximum transmission levels
by this 6-dB factor until the animal has
been seen to leave the area, has not been
detected for 30 minutes, or the vessel
has transited more than 2,000 yds (1,829
m) beyond the location of the last
detection.
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60866
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
• Should a marine mammal be
detected within or closing to inside 500
yds (457 m) of the sonar dome, active
sonar transmissions will be limited to at
least 10 dB below the equipment’s
normal operating level. (A 10 dB
reduction equates to a 90 percent power
reduction from normal operating levels.)
Ships and submarines will continue to
limit maximum ping levels by this 10dB factor until the animal has been seen
to leave the area, has not been detected
for 30 minutes, or the vessel has
transited more than 2,000 yds (1,829 m)
beyond the location of the last
detection.
• Should the marine mammal be
detected within or closing to inside 200
yds (183 m) of the sonar dome, active
sonar transmissions will cease. Active
sonar will not resume until the animal
has been seen to leave the area, has not
been detected for 30 minutes, or the
vessel has transited more than 2,000 yds
(457 m) beyond the location of the last
detection.
• Special conditions applicable for
dolphin and porpoise only: If, after
conducting an initial maneuver to avoid
close quarters with dolphin or porpoise,
the OOD concludes that dolphin or
porpoise are deliberately closing to ride
the vessel’s bow wave, no further
mitigation actions would be necessary
while the dolphin or porpoise continue
to exhibit bow wave riding behavior.
• If the need for power-down should
arise as detailed in ‘‘Safety Zones’’
above, the Navy shall follow the
requirements as though they were
operating at 235 dB—the normal
operating level (i.e., the first powerdown will be to 229 dB, regardless of at
what level above 235 dB active sonar
was being operated).
• Prior to start up or restart of active
sonar, operators will check that the
Safety Zone radius around the sound
source is clear of marine mammals.
• Active sonar levels (generally)—
Navy will operate sonar at the lowest
practicable level, not to exceed 235 dB,
except as required to meet tactical
training objectives.
• Helicopters shall observe/survey
the vicinity of an ASW training event
for 10 minutes before the first
deployment of active (dipping) sonar in
the water.
• Helicopters shall not dip their
active sonar within 200 yds (183 m) of
a marine mammal and shall cease
pinging if a marine mammal closes
within 200 yds (183 m) of the sonar
source after pinging has begun.
• Submarine sonar operators will
review detection indicators of closeaboard marine mammals prior to the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
commencement of ASW training events
involving MFAS.
Measures for Underwater Detonations
Surface-to-Surface Gunnery (5-inch, 76
mm, 20 mm, 25 mm and 30 mm
Explosive Rounds)
• Lookouts will visually survey for
floating weeds and kelp, and algal mats
which may be inhabited by immature
sea turtles in the target area. Intended
impact shall not be within 600 yds (585
m) of known or observed floating weeds
and kelp, and algal mats.
• For exercises using targets towed by
a vessel or aircraft, target-towing
vessels/aircraft shall maintain a trained
lookout for marine mammals and sea
turtles. If a marine mammal or sea turtle
is sighted in the vicinity, the tow
aircraft/vessel will immediately notify
the firing vessel, which will suspend the
exercise until the area is clear.
• A 600-yard radius buffer zone will
be established around the intended
target.
• From the intended firing position,
trained lookouts will survey the buffer
zone for marine mammals and sea
turtles prior to commencement and
during the exercise as long as
practicable. Due to the distance between
the firing position and the buffer zone,
lookouts are only expected to visually
detect breaching whales, whale blows,
and large pods of dolphins and
porpoises.
• The exercise will be conducted only
when the buffer zone is visible and
marine mammals and sea turtles are not
detected within it.
Surface-to-Surface Gunnery (NonExplosive Rounds)
• Lookouts will visually survey for
floating weeds and kelp, and algal mats
which may be inhabited by immature
sea turtles in the target area. Intended
impact will not be within 200 yds (183
m) of known or observed floating weeds
and kelp, and algal mats.
• A 200-yd (183 m) radius buffer zone
will be established around the intended
target.
• From the intended firing position,
trained lookouts will survey the buffer
zone for marine mammals and sea
turtles prior to commencement and
during the exercise as long as
practicable. Due to the distance between
the firing position and the buffer zone,
lookouts are only expected to visually
detect breaching whales, whale blows,
and large pods of dolphins and
porpoises.
• If applicable, target towing vessels
will maintain a lookout. If a marine
mammal or sea turtle is sighted in the
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
vicinity of the exercise, the tow vessel
will immediately notify the firing vessel
in order to secure gunnery firing until
the area is clear.
• The exercise will be conducted only
when the buffer zone is visible and
marine mammals and sea turtles are not
detected within the target area and the
buffer zone.
Surface-to-Air Gunnery (Explosive and
Non-Explosive Rounds)
• Vessels will orient the geometry of
gunnery exercises in order to prevent
debris from falling in the area of sighted
marine mammals, sea turtles, algal mats,
and floating kelp.
• Vessels will expedite the recovery
of any parachute deploying aerial targets
to reduce the potential for entanglement
of marine mammals and sea turtles.
• Target towing aircraft shall
maintain a lookout. If a marine mammal
or sea turtle is sighted in the vicinity of
the exercise, the tow aircraft will
immediately notify the firing vessel in
order to secure gunnery firing until the
area is clear.
Air-to-Surface Gunnery (Explosive and
Non-Explosive Rounds)
• If surface vessels are involved,
lookouts will visually survey for floating
kelp, which may be inhabited by
immature sea turtles, in the target area.
Impact shall not occur within 200 yds
(183 m) of known or observed floating
weeds and kelp or algal mats.
• A 200-yd (183 m) radius buffer zone
will be established around the intended
target.
• If surface vessels are involved,
lookout(s) will visually survey the
buffer zone for marine mammals and sea
turtles prior to and during the exercise.
• Aerial surveillance of the buffer
zone for marine mammals and sea
turtles will be conducted prior to
commencement of the exercise. Aerial
surveillance altitude of 500 feet to 1,500
feet (ft) (152–456 m) is optimum.
Aircraft crew/pilot will maintain visual
watch during exercises. Release of
ordnance through cloud cover is
prohibited: Aircraft must be able to
actually see ordnance impact areas.
• The exercise will be conducted only
if marine mammals and sea turtles are
not visible within the buffer zone.
Small Arms Training—(Grenades,
Explosive and Non-Explosive Rounds)
• Weapons will not be fired in the
direction of known or observed floating
weeds or kelp, algal mats, marine
mammals, sea turtles.
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Air-to-Surface At-Sea Bombing
Exercises (Explosive and NonExplosive)
• If surface vessels are involved,
trained lookouts will survey for floating
kelp, which may be inhabited by
immature sea turtles, and marine
mammals. Ordnance shall not be
targeted to impact within 1,000 yds (914
m) of known or observed floating kelp,
sea turtles, or marine mammals.
• A 1,000 yd (914 m) radius buffer
zone will be established around the
intended target.
• Aircraft will visually survey the
target and buffer zone for marine
mammals and sea turtles prior to and
during the exercise. The survey of the
impact area will be made by flying at
1,500 ft (152 m) or lower, if safe to do
so, and at the slowest safe speed.
Release of ordnance through cloud
cover is prohibited: Aircraft must be
able to actually see ordnance impact
areas. Survey aircraft should employ
most effective search tactics and
capabilities.
• The exercise will be conducted only
if marine mammals and sea turtles are
not visible within the buffer zone.
Air-to-Surface Missile Exercises
(Explosive and Non-Explosive)
• Ordnance shall not be targeted to
impact within 1,800 yds (1,646 m) of
known or observed floating kelp, which
may be inhabited by immature sea
turtles, or coral reefs.
• Aircraft will visually survey the
target area for marine mammals and sea
turtles. Visual inspection of the target
area will be made by flying at 1,500 (457
m) feet or lower, if safe to do so, and at
slowest safe speed. Firing or range
clearance aircraft must be able to
actually see ordnance impact areas.
Explosive ordnance shall not be targeted
to impact within 1,800 yds (1,646 m) of
sighted marine mammals and sea
turtles.
conducted from the surface, by divers,
and/or from the air, and personnel shall
be alert to the presence of any marine
mammal or sea turtle. Should such an
animal be present within the survey
area, the exercise shall be paused until
the animal voluntarily leaves the area.
The Navy will suspend detonation
exercises and ensure the area is clear for
a full 30 minutes prior to detonation.
Personnel will record any protected
species marine mammal and sea turtle
observations during the exercise as well
as measures taken if species are detected
within the exclusion zone.
Post-Exercise Surveys—Surveys
within the same radius shall also be
conducted within 30 minutes after the
completion of the explosive event.
Reporting—If there is evidence that a
marine mammal or sea turtle may have
been stranded, injured or killed by the
action, Navy training activities will be
immediately suspended and the
situation immediately reported by the
participating unit to the Officer in
Charge of the Exercise (OCE), who will
follow Navy procedures for reporting
the incident to Commander, Pacific
Fleet, Commander, Navy Region
Southwest, Environmental Director, and
the chain-of-command. The situation
will also be reported to NMFS (see
Stranding Plan for details).
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Demolitions, Mine Warfare, and Mine
Countermeasures (up to a 20-lb Charge)
Mining Operations
Mining Operations involve aerial
drops of inert training shapes on target
points. Aircrews are scored for their
ability to accurately hit the target points.
This operation does not involve live
ordnance. The probability of a marine
species being in the exact spot in the
ocean where an inert object is dropped
is remote. However, as a conservative
measure, initial target points will be
briefly surveyed prior to inert ordnance
release from an aircraft to ensure the
intended drop area is clear of marine
mammals and sea turtles. To the extent
feasible, the Navy shall retrieve inert
mine shapes dropped during Mining
Operations.
Exclusion Zones—All Mine Warfare
and Mine Countermeasures Operations
involving the use of explosive charges
must include exclusion zones for
marine mammals and sea turtles to
prevent physical and/or acoustic effects
to those species. These exclusion zones
shall extend in a 700-yard arc (640 yd)
radius around the detonation site.
Pre-Exercise Surveys—For Demolition
and Ship Mine Countermeasures
Operations, pre-exercise survey shall be
conducted within 30 minutes prior to
the commencement of the scheduled
explosive event. The survey may be
Sink Exercise
The selection of sites suitable for Sink
Exercises (SINKEXs) involves a balance
of operational suitability, requirements
established under the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act (MPRSA) permit granted to the
Navy (40 Code of Federal Regulations
§ 229.2), and the identification of areas
with a low likelihood of encountering
Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed
species. To meet operational suitability
criteria, locations must be within a
reasonable distance of the target vessels’
originating location. The locations
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60867
should also be close to active military
bases to allow participating assets
access to shore facilities. For safety
purposes, these locations should also be
in areas that are not generally used by
non-military air or watercraft. The
MPRSA permit requires vessels to be
sunk in waters which are at least 6,000
ft (1,829 m) deep and at least 50 nm
from land. In general, most listed
species prefer areas with strong
bathymetric gradients and
oceanographic fronts for significant
biological activity such as feeding and
reproduction. Typical locations include
the continental shelf and shelf-edge.
The Navy has developed range
clearance procedures to maximize the
probability of sighting any ships or
protected species in the vicinity of an
exercise, which are as follows:
• All weapons firing would be
conducted during the period 1 hour
after official sunrise to 30 minutes
before official sunset.
• A marine mammal exclusion zone
with a radius of 1.0 nm will be
established around the target. An
additional safety zone with radius of 2.0
nm surrounding the target will be
monitored. If marine mammals or sea
turtles enter this 2.0 nm radius, they
shall be monitored to the extent
practicable and no weapons release is
authorized until they are clear of the
area
• A series of surveillance overflights
shall be conducted prior to the event to
ensure that no marine mammals or sea
turtles are present in the exclusion zone.
Survey protocol will be as follows:
• Overflights within the exclusion
zone would be conducted in a manner
that optimizes the surface area of the
water observed. This may be
accomplished through the use of the
Navy’s Search and Rescue Tactical Aid,
which provides the best search altitude,
ground speed, and track spacing for the
discovery of small, possibly dark objects
in the water based on the environmental
conditions of the day. These
environmental conditions include the
angle of sun inclination, amount of
daylight, cloud cover, visibility, and sea
state.
• All visual surveillance activities
would be conducted by Navy personnel
trained in visual surveillance. At least
one member of the mitigation team
would have completed the Navy’s
marine mammal training program for
lookouts.
• In addition to the overflights, the
exclusion zone would be monitored by
passive acoustic means, when assets are
available. This passive acoustic
monitoring would be maintained
throughout the exercise. Potential assets
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60868
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
include sonobuoys, which can be
utilized to detect any vocalizing marine
mammals (particularly sperm whales) in
the vicinity of the exercise. The
sonobuoys would be re-seeded as
necessary throughout the exercise.
Additionally, passive sonar onboard
submarines may be utilized to detect
any vocalizing marine mammals in the
area. The OCE would be informed of
any aural detection of marine mammals
and would include this information in
the determination of when it is safe to
commence the exercise.
• On each day of the exercise, aerial
surveillance of the exclusion and safety
zones would commence 2 hours prior to
the first firing.
• The results of all visual, aerial, and
acoustic searches would be reported
immediately to the OCE. No weapons
launches or firing would commence
until the OCE declares the safety and
exclusion zones free of marine
mammals and threatened and
endangered species.
• If a protected species observed
within the exclusion zone is diving,
firing would be delayed until the animal
is re-sighted outside the exclusion zone,
or 30 minutes have elapsed. After 30
minutes, if the animal has not been resighted it would be assumed to have left
the exclusion zone. The OCE would
determine if the listed species is in
danger of being adversely affected by
commencement of the exercise.
• During breaks in the exercise of 30
minutes or more, the exclusion zone
would again be surveyed for any
protected species. If protected species
are sighted within the exclusion zone,
the OCE would be notified, and the
procedure described above would be
followed.
• Upon sinking of the vessel, a final
surveillance of the exclusion zone
would be monitored for 2 hours, or until
sunset, to verify that no listed species
were harmed.
• Aerial surveillance would be
conducted using helicopters or other
aircraft based on necessity and
availability. The Navy has several types
of aircraft capable of performing this
task; however, not all types are available
for every exercise. For each exercise, the
available asset best suited for
identifying objects on and near the
surface of the ocean would be used.
These aircraft would be capable of
flying at the slow safe speeds necessary
to enable viewing of marine vertebrates
with unobstructed, or minimally
obstructed, downward and outward
visibility. The exclusion and safety zone
surveys may be cancelled in the event
that a mechanical problem, emergency
search and rescue, or other similar and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
unexpected event preempts the use of
one of the aircraft onsite for the
exercise.
• Every attempt would be made to
conduct the exercise in sea states that
are ideal for marine mammal sighting,
Beaufort Sea State 3 or less. In the event
of a 4 or above, survey efforts would be
increased within the zones. This would
be accomplished through the use of an
additional aircraft, if available, and
conducting tight search patterns.
• The exercise would not be
conducted unless the exclusion zone
could be adequately monitored visually.
• In the unlikely event that any listed
species are observed to be harmed in the
area, a detailed description of the
animal would be taken, the location
noted, and if possible, photos taken.
This information would be provided to
NMFS via the Navy’s regional
environmental coordinator for purposes
of identification (see the Stranding Plan
for detail).
• An after action report detailing the
exercise’s time line, the time the surveys
commenced and terminated, amount,
and types of all ordnance expended, and
the results of survey efforts for each
event would be submitted to NMFS.
Explosive Source Sonobuoys Used in
EER/IEER (AN/SSQ–110A)
• Crews will conduct visual
reconnaissance of the drop area prior to
laying their intended sonobuoy pattern.
This search should be conducted below
457 m (500 yd) at a slow speed, if
operationally feasible and weather
conditions permit. In dual aircraft
operations, crews are allowed to
conduct coordinated area clearances.
• Crews shall conduct a minimum of
30 minutes of visual and aural
monitoring of the search area prior to
commanding the first post detonation.
This 30-minute observation period may
include pattern deployment time.
• For any part of the briefed pattern
where a post (source/receiver sonobuoy
pair) will be deployed within 914 m
(1,000 yd) of observed marine mammal
activity, deploy the receiver ONLY and
monitor while conducting a visual
search. When marine mammals are no
longer detected within 914 m (1,000 yd)
of the intended post position, co-locate
the explosive source sonobuoy (AN/
SSQ–110A) (source) with the receiver.
• When able, crews will conduct
continuous visual and aural monitoring
of marine mammal activity. This is to
include monitoring of own-aircraft
sensors from first sensor placement to
checking off station and out of RF range
of these sensors.
• Aural Detection—If the presence of
marine mammals is detected aurally,
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
then that should cue the aircrew to
increase the diligence of their visual
surveillance. Subsequently, if no marine
mammals are visually detected, then the
crew may continue multi-static active
search.
• Visual Detection—If marine
mammals are visually detected within
914 m (1,000 yd) of the explosive source
sonobuoy (AN/SSQ–110A) intended for
use, then that payload shall not be
detonated. Aircrews may utilize this
post once the marine mammals have not
been re-sighted for 30 minutes, or are
observed to have moved outside the 914
m (1,000 yd) safety buffer. Aircrews may
shift their multi-static active search to
another post, where marine mammals
are outside the 914 m (1,000 yd) safety
buffer.
• Aircrews shall make every attempt
to manually detonate the unexploded
charges at each post in the pattern prior
to departing the operations area by
using the ‘‘Payload 1 Release’’ command
followed by the ‘‘Payload 2 Release’’
command. Aircrews shall refrain from
using the ‘‘Scuttle’’ command when two
payloads remain at a given post.
Aircrews will ensure that a 914 m (1,000
yd) safety buffer, visually clear of
marine mammals, is maintained around
each post as is done during active
search operations.
• Aircrews shall only leave posts
with unexploded charges in the event of
a sonobuoy malfunction, an aircraft
system malfunction, or when an aircraft
must immediately depart the area due to
issues such as fuel constraints,
inclement weather, and in-flight
emergencies. In these cases, the
sonobuoy will self-scuttle using the
secondary or tertiary method.
• Ensure all payloads are accounted
for. Explosive source sonobuoys (AN/
SSQ–110A) that cannot be scuttled shall
be reported as unexploded ordnance via
voice communications while airborne,
then upon landing via naval message.
• Mammal monitoring shall continue
until out of own-aircraft sensor range.
Additional Mitigation Measure
Developed by NMFS and the Navy
As mentioned above, NMFS worked
with the Navy to identify additional
practicable and effective mitigation
measures to address the potential
relationship between the operation of
MFAS/HFAS and marine mammal
strandings. Any mitigation measure(s)
prescribed by NMFS should be able to
accomplish, have a reasonable
likelihood of accomplishing (based on
current science), or contribute to the
accomplishment of one or more of the
general goals listed below:
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
(a) Avoidance or minimization of
injury or death of marine mammals
wherever possible (goals b, c, and d may
contribute to this goal).
(b) A reduction in the numbers of
marine mammals (total number or
number at biologically important time
or location) exposed to received levels
of MFAS/HFAS, underwater
detonations, or other activities expected
to result in the take of marine mammals
(this goal may contribute to a, above, or
to reducing harassment takes only).
(c) A reduction in the number of times
(total number or number at biologically
important time or location) individuals
would be exposed to received levels of
MFAS/HFAS, underwater detonations,
or other activities expected to result in
the take of marine mammals (this goal
may contribute to a, above, or to
reducing harassment takes only).
(d) A reduction in the intensity of
exposures (either total number or
number at biologically important time
or location) to received levels of MFAS/
HFAS, underwater detonations, or other
activities expected to result in the take
of marine mammals (this goal may
contribute to a, above, or to reducing the
severity of harassment takes only).
(e) A reduction in adverse effects to
marine mammal habitat, paying special
attention to the food base, activities that
block or limit passage to or from
biologically important areas, permanent
destruction of habitat, or temporary
destruction/disturbance of habitat
during a biologically important time.
(f) For monitoring directly related to
mitigation—an increase in the
probability of detecting marine
mammals, thus allowing for more
effective implementation of the
mitigation (shut-down zone, etc.).
NMFS and the Navy had extensive
discussions regarding mitigation and
potential strandings. Ultimately, NMFS
and the Navy developed the proposed
draft SOCAL Stranding Plan
(summarized below), which we believe
supports (or contributes) to the goals
mentioned in (a)–(e) above.
Stranding Response Plan for Major
Navy Training Exercises in the SOCAL
Range Complex
NMFS and the Navy have developed
a draft Stranding Response Plan for
Major Exercises in the SOCAL Range
Complex (available at: https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental.htm). Pursuant to 50 CFR
Section 216.105, the plan will be
included as part of (attached to) the
Navy’s MMPA Letter of Authorization
(LOA), which contains the conditions
under which the Navy is authorized to
take marine mammals pursuant to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
training activities involving MFAS/
HFAS or explosives in the SOCAL
Range Complex. The Stranding
Response plan is specifically intended
to outline the applicable requirements
the authorization is conditioned upon in
the event that a marine mammal
stranding is reported in the SOCAL
Range Complex during a major training
exercise (MTE) (see glossary below). As
mentioned above, NMFS considers all
plausible causes within the course of a
stranding investigation and this plan in
no way presumes that any strandings
that could occur in the SOCAL Range
Complex are related to, or caused by,
Navy training activities, absent a
determination made in a Phase 2
Investigation as outlined in the plan,
indicating that MFAS or explosive
detonation in the SOCAL Range
Complex were a cause of the stranding.
This plan is designed to address the
following three issues:
• Mitigation—When marine
mammals are in a situation that can be
defined as a stranding (see glossary of
plan), they are experiencing
physiological stress. When animals are
stranded, and alive, NMFS believes that
exposing these compromised animals to
additional known stressors would likely
exacerbate the animal’s distress and
could potentially cause its death.
Regardless of the factor(s) that may have
initially contributed to the stranding, it
is NMFS’ goal to avoid exposing these
animals to further stressors. Therefore,
when live stranded cetaceans are in the
water and engaged in what is classified
as an Uncommon Stranding Event (USE)
(see glossary of plan), the shutdown
component of this plan is intended to
minimize the exposure of those animals
to MFAS and explosive detonations,
regardless of whether or not these
activities may have initially played a
role in the event.
• Monitoring—This plan will
enhance the understanding of how
MFAS/HFAS or underwater detonations
(as well as other environmental
conditions) may, or may not, be
associated with marine mammal injury
or strandings. Additionally, information
gained from the investigations
associated with this plan may be used
in the adaptive management of
mitigation or monitoring measures in
subsequent LOAs, if appropriate.
• Compliance—The information
gathered pursuant to this protocol will
inform NMFS’ decisions regarding
compliance with Sections 101(a)(5)(B
and C) of the MMPA.
The Stranding Response Plan has
several components:
Shutdown Procedures—When an
uncommon stranding event (USE—
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60869
defined in the plan) occurs during a
major exercise in the SOCAL Range
Complex, and a live cetacean(s) is in the
water exhibiting indicators of distress
(defined in the plan), NMFS will advise
the Navy that they should cease MFAS/
HFAS operation and explosive
detonations within 14 nm (26 km) of the
live animal involved in the USE (NMFS
and Navy will maintain a dialogue, as
needed, regarding the identification of
the USE and the potential need to
implement shutdown procedures). This
distance is the approximate distance at
which sound from the active sonar
sources is anticipated to attenuate to
145 dB (SPL). The risk function predicts
that less than 1 percent of the animals
exposed to active sonar at this level
(mysticete or odontocete) would
respond in a manner that NMFS
considers Level B Harassment.
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)—
The Navy and NMFS will develop a
MOA, or other mechanism consistent
with federal fiscal law requirements
(and all other applicable laws), that
allows the Navy to assist NMFS with the
Phase 1 and 2 Investigations of USEs
through the provision of in-kind
services, such as (but not limited to) the
use of plane/boat/truck for transport of
stranding responders or animals, use of
Navy property for necropsies or burial,
or assistance with aerial surveys to
discern the extent of a USE. The Navy
may assist NMFS with the
Investigations by providing one or more
of the in-kind services outlined in the
MOA, when available and logistically
feasible and when the provision does
not negatively affect Fleet operational
commitments.
Communication Protocol—Effective
communication is critical to the
successful implementation of this
Stranding Response Plan. Very specific
protocols for communication, including
identification of the Navy personnel
authorized to implement a shutdown
and the NMFS personnel authorized to
advise the Navy of the need to
implement shutdown procedures
(NMFS Protected Resources HQ—senior
administrators) and the associated
phone trees, etc. are currently in
development and will be refined and
finalized for the Stranding Response
Plan prior to the issuance of a final rule
(and updated yearly).
Stranding Investigation—The
Stranding Response Plan also outlines
the way that NMFS plans to investigate
any strandings (providing staff and
resources are available) that occur
during major training exercises in the
SOCAL Range Complex.
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
60870
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Mitigation Conclusions
NMFS believes that the range
clearance procedures and shutdown/
safety zone/exclusion zone measures the
Navy has proposed will enable the Navy
to avoid injuring any marine mammals
and will enable them to minimize the
numbers of marine mammals exposed to
levels associated with TTS for the
following reasons:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
MFAS/HFAS
The Navy’s standard protective
measures indicate that they will ensure
powerdown of MFAS/HFAS by 6 dB
when a marine mammal is detected
within 1,000 yd (914 m), powerdown of
4 more dB (or 10 dB total) when a
marine mammal is detected within 500
yd (457 m), and will cease MFAS/HFAS
transmissions when a marine mammal
is detected within 200 yd (183 m).
PTS/Injury—NMFS believes that the
proposed mitigation measures will
allow the Navy to avoid exposing
marine mammals to received levels of
MFAS/HFAS sound that would result in
injury for the following reasons:
• The estimated distance from the
most powerful source at which
cetaceans and all pinnipeds except
harbor seals would receive a level of 215
dB SEL (threshold for PTS/injury/Level
A Harassment) is approximately 10 m
(10.9 yd). The PTS threshold for harbor
seals is 203 dB SEL, which has an
associated distance of approximately 50
m.
• NMFS believes that the probability
that a marine mammal would approach
within the above distances of the sonar
dome (to the sides or below) without
being seen by the watchstanders (who
would then activate a shutdown if the
animal was within 200 yd (183 m)) is
very low, especially considering that
animals would likely avoid approaching
a source transmitting at that level at that
distance.
• The model predicted that some
animals would be exposed to levels
associated with injury, however, the
model does not consider the mitigation
or likely avoidance behaviors and
NMFS believes that injury is unlikely
when those factors are considered.
TTS—NMFS believes that the
proposed mitigation measures will
allow the Navy to minimize exposure of
marine mammals to received levels of
MFAS/HFAS sound associated with
TTS for the following reasons:
• The estimated range of maximum
distances from the most powerful source
at which an animal would receive 195
dB SEL (the TTS threshold) is from
approximately 140 m from the source in
most operating environments (except for
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
harbor seals for which the distance is
approximately 1,700 m).
• Based on the size of the animals,
average group size, behavior, and
average dive time, NMFS believes that
the probability that Navy watchstanders
will visually detect mysticetes or sperm
whales, dolphins, social pelagic species
(pilot whales, melon-headed whales,
etc.), and sea lions at some point within
the 1,000 yd (914 m) safety zone before
they are exposed to the TTS threshold
levels is high, which means that the
Navy would be able to shutdown or
powerdown to avoid exposing these
species to sound levels associated with
TTS.
• However, seals and more cryptic
(animals that are difficult to detect and
observe), deep-diving cetaceans (beaked
whales and Kogia spp.) are less likely to
be visually detected and could
potentially be exposed to levels of
MFAS/HFAS expected to cause TTS.
Animals at depth in one location would
not be expected to be continuously
exposed to repeated sonar signals,
though, given the typical 5–10+ knot
speed of Navy surface ships during
ASW event. During a typical one-hour
subsurface dive by a beaked whale, the
ship will have moved over 5 to 10 nm
from the original location.
• Additionally, the Navy’s bow-riding
mitigation exception for dolphins may
sometimes allow dolphins to be exposed
to levels of MFAS/HFAS likely to result
in TTS. However, there are
combinations of factors that reduce the
acoustic energy received by dolphins
approaching ships to ride in bow waves.
Dolphins riding ship’s bow wave are
outside of the main beam of the MFAS
vertical beam pattern. Source levels
drop quickly outside of the main beam.
Sidelobes of the radiate beam pattern
that point to the surface are significantly
lower in power. Together with spherical
spreading losses, received levels in the
ship’s bow wave can be more than 42
dB less than typical source level (i.e.,
235 dB¥42 dB = 193 dB). Finally, bow
wave riding dolphins are frequently in
and out of a bubble layer generated by
the breaking bow waves. This bubble
layer is an excellent scatterer of acoustic
energy and can further reduce received
energy.
Underwater Explosives
The Navy utilizes exclusion zones
(wherein explosive detonation will not
begin/continue if animals are within the
zone) for explosive exercises. Table 3
indicates the various explosives, the
estimated distance at which animals
will receive levels associated with take
(see Acoustic Take Criteria Section), and
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the exclusion zone associated with the
explosive types.
Mortality and Injury—NMFS believes
that the mitigation measures will allow
the Navy to avoid exposing marine
mammals to underwater detonations
that would result in injury or mortality
for the following reasons:
• Surveillance for large charges
(which includes aerial and passive
acoustic detection methods, when
available, to ensure clearance) begins
two hours before the exercise and
extends to 2 nm (3,704 m) from the
source. Surveillance for all charges
extends out 2–12 times the farthest
distance from the source at which injury
would be anticipated to occur (see Table
3).
• Animals would need to be within
less than 193–723 m (211–790 yd) (large
explosives) or 24–158 m (26–173 yd)
(smaller charges) from the source to be
injured.
• Unlike for active sonar, an animal
would need to be present at the exact
moment of the explosion(s) (except for
the short series of gunfire example in
GUNEX) to be taken.
• The model predicted only 34 and 7
animals would be exposed to levels
associated with injury and death,
respectively (though for the reasons
above, NMFS does not believe they will
be exposed to those levels).
• When the implementation of the
exclusion zones (i.e., not starting or
continuing to detonate explosives if an
animal is detected within the exclusion
zone) is combined with the above
bullets, NMFS believes that the Navy’s
mitigation will be effective for avoiding
injury and mortality to marine mammals
from explosives.
TTS—NMFS believes that the
proposed mitigation measures will
allow the Navy to minimize the
exposure of marine mammals to
underwater detonations that would
result in TTS for the following reasons:
• A number of animals were
predicted to be exposed to explosive
levels that would result in TTS—and for
the reasons above, NMFS believes that
most modeled TTS takes can be
avoided, especially dolphins, mysticetes
and sperm whales, and social pelagic
species.
• However, pinnipeds and more
cryptic, deep-diving species (beaked
whales and Kogia spp.) are less likely to
be visually detected and could
potentially be exposed to explosive
levels expected to cause TTS.
• Additionally, for two of the exercise
types (SINKEX and BOMBEX), the
distance at which an animal would be
expected to receive sound or pressure
levels associated with TTS (182 dB SEL
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
or 23 psi) is sometimes larger than the
exclusion zone, which means that for
those two exercise types, some
individuals will likely be exposed to
levels associated with TTS outside of
the exclusion zone.
The Stranding Response Plan, another
important component of the mitigation
measures for SOCAL, will minimize the
probability of distressed live-stranded
animals responding to the proximity of
active sonar in a manner that further
stresses them or increases the potential
likelihood of mortality.
NMFS has preliminarily determined
that the Navy’s proposed mitigation
measures (from the LOA application),
along with the Stranding Response Plan
(and when the Adaptive Management
(see Adaptive Management below)
component is taken into consideration)
are adequate means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impacts on marine
mammals species or stocks and their
habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of
similar significance, while also
considering personnel safety,
practicality of implementation, and
impact on the effectiveness of the
military readiness activity.
These mitigation measures may be
refined, modified, removed, or added to
prior to the issuance of the final rule
based on the comments and information
received during the public comment
period.
Research
The Navy provides a significant
amount of funding and support to
marine research. In the past five years
the agency funded over $100 million
($26 million in FY08 alone) to
universities, research institutions,
federal laboratories, private companies,
and independent researchers around the
world to study marine mammals. The
U.S. Navy sponsors seventy percent of
all U.S. research concerning the effects
of human-generated sound on marine
mammals and 50 percent of such
research conducted worldwide. Major
topics of Navy-supported research
include the following:
• Better understanding of marine
species distribution and important
habitat areas,
• Developing methods to detect and
monitor marine species before and
during training,
• Understanding the effects of sound
on marine mammals, sea turtles, fish,
and birds, and
• Developing tools to model and
estimate potential effects of sound.
This research is directly applicable to
Fleet training activities, particularly
with respect to the investigations of the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
potential effects of underwater noise
sources on marine mammals and other
protected species. Proposed training
activities employ active sonar and
underwater explosives, which introduce
sound into the marine environment.
The Marine Life Sciences Division of
the Office of Naval Research currently
coordinates six programs that examine
the marine environment and are
devoted solely to studying the effects of
noise and/or the implementation of
technology tools that will assist the
Navy in studying and tracking marine
mammals. The six programs are as
follows:
• Environmental Consequences of
Underwater Sound,
• Non-Auditory Biological Effects of
Sound on Marine Mammals,
• Effects of Sound on the Marine
Environment,
• Sensors and Models for Marine
Environmental Monitoring,
• Effects of Sound on Hearing of
Marine Animals, and
• Passive Acoustic Detection,
Classification, and Tracking of Marine
Mammals.
The Navy has also developed the
technical reports referenced within this
document, which include the Marine
Resource Assessments and the Navy
OPAREA Density Estimates (NODE)
reports. Furthermore, research cruises
by the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) and by academic
institutions have received funding from
the U.S. Navy.
The Navy has sponsored several
workshops to evaluate the current state
of knowledge and potential for future
acoustic monitoring of marine
mammals. The workshops brought
together acoustic experts and marine
biologists from the Navy and other
research organizations to present data
and information on current acoustic
monitoring research efforts and to
evaluate the potential for incorporating
similar technology and methods on
instrumented ranges. However, acoustic
detection, identification, localization,
and tracking of individual animals still
requires a significant amount of research
effort to be considered a reliable method
for marine mammal monitoring. The
Navy supports research efforts on
acoustic monitoring and will continue
to investigate the feasibility of passive
acoustics as a potential mitigation and
monitoring tool.
Overall, the Navy will continue to
fund ongoing marine mammal research,
and is planning to coordinate long term
monitoring/studies of marine mammals
on various established ranges and
operating areas. The Navy will continue
to research and contribute to university/
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60871
external research to improve the state of
the science regarding marine species
biology and acoustic effects. These
efforts include mitigation and
monitoring programs; data sharing with
NMFS and via the literature for research
and development efforts; and future
research as described previously.
Long-Term Prospective Study
Apart from this proposed rule, NMFS,
with input and assistance from the Navy
and several other agencies and entities,
will perform a longitudinal
observational study of marine mammal
strandings to systematically observe for
and record the types of pathologies and
diseases and investigate the relationship
with potential causal factors (e.g., active
sonar, seismic, weather). The study will
not be a true ‘‘cohort’’ study, because we
will be unable to quantify or estimate
specific active sonar or other sound
exposures for individual animals that
strand. However, a cross-sectional or
correlational analysis, a method of
descriptive rather than analytical
epidemiology, can be conducted to
compare population characteristics, e.g.,
frequency of strandings and types of
specific pathologies between general
periods of various anthropogenic
activities and non-activities within a
prescribed geographic space. In the
long-term study, we will more fully and
consistently collect and analyze data on
the demographics of strandings in
specific locations and consider
anthropogenic activities and physical,
chemical, and biological environmental
parameters. This approach in
conjunction with true cohort studies
(tagging animals, measuring received
sounds, and evaluating behavior or
injuries) in the presence of activities
and non-activities will provide critical
information needed to further define the
impacts of MTEs and other
anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic
stressors. In coordination with the Navy
and other Federal and non-federal
partners, the comparative study will be
designed and conducted for specific
sites during intervals of the presence of
anthropogenic activities such as active
sonar transmission or other sound
exposures and absence to evaluate
demographics of morbidity and
mortality, lesions found, and cause of
death or stranding. Additional data that
will be collected and analyzed in an
effort to control potential confounding
factors include variables such as average
sea temperature (or just season),
meteorological or other environmental
variables (e.g., seismic activity), fishing
activities, etc. All efforts will be made
to include appropriate controls (i.e., no
active sonar or no seismic);
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
60872
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
environmental variables may complicate
the interpretation of ‘‘control’’
measurements. The Navy and NMFS
along with other partners are evaluating
mechanisms for funding this study.
Monitoring
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
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 Section 216.104 (a)(13)
indicate that requests for LOAs must
include the suggested means of
accomplishing the necessary monitoring
and reporting that will result in
increased knowledge of the species and
of the level of taking or impacts on
populations of marine mammals that are
expected to be present.
Monitoring measures prescribed by
NMFS should accomplish one or more
of the following general goals:
(a) An increase in the probability of
detecting marine mammals, both within
the safety zone (thus allowing for more
effective implementation of the
mitigation) and in general to generate
more data to contribute to the analyses
mentioned below.
(b) An increase in our understanding
of how many marine mammals are
likely to be exposed to levels of MFAS/
HFAS (or explosives or other stimuli)
that we associate with specific adverse
effects, such as behavioral harassment,
TTS, or PTS.
(c) An increase in our understanding
of how marine mammals respond to
MFAS/HFAS (at specific received
levels), explosives, or other stimuli
expected to result in take and how
anticipated adverse effects on
individuals (in different ways and to
varying degrees) may impact the
population, species, or stock
(specifically through effects on annual
rates of recruitment or survival) through
any of the following methods:
• Behavioral observations in the
presence of MFAS/HFAS compared to
observations in the absence of active
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
sonar (need to be able to accurately
predict received level and report
bathymetric conditions, distance from
source, and other pertinent
information).
• Physiological measurements in the
presence of MFAS/HFAS compared to
observations in the absence of active
sonar (need to be able to accurately
predict received level and report
bathymetric conditions, distance from
source, and other pertinent
information).
• Pre-planned (i.e., well designed
protocols in place) and thorough
investigation of stranding events that
occur coincident to naval activities.
• Distribution and/or abundance
comparisons in times or areas with
concentrated MFAS/HFAS versus times
or areas without MFAS/HFAS.
(d) An increased knowledge of the
affected species.
(e) An increase in our understanding
of the effectiveness of certain mitigation
and monitoring measures
Proposed Monitoring Plan for the
SOCAL Range Complex
The Navy has submitted a draft
Monitoring Plan for the SOCAL Range
Complex, which may be viewed at
NMFS’ Web site: https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental.htm. NMFS and the Navy
have worked together on the
development of this plan in the months
preceding the publication of this
proposed rule; however, we are still
refining the plan and anticipate that it
will contain more details by the time it
is finalized in advance of the issuance
of the final rule. Additionally, the plan
may be modified or supplemented based
on comments or new information
received from the public during the
public comment period. A summary of
the primary components of the plan
follows.
The draft Monitoring Plan for SOCAL
has been designed as a collection of
focused ‘‘studies’’ (described fully in the
SOCAL draft Monitoring Plan) to gather
data that will allow the Navy to address
the following questions:
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(a) Are marine mammals exposed to
MFAS, especially at levels associated
with adverse effects (i.e., based on
NMFS’ criteria for behavioral
harassment, TTS, or PTS)? If so, at what
levels are they exposed?
(b) If marine mammals are exposed to
MFAS in the SOCAL Range Complex,
do they redistribute geographically as a
result of continued exposure? If so, how
long does the redistribution last?
(c) If marine mammals are exposed to
MFAS, what are their behavioral
responses to various levels?
(d) Is the Navy’s suite of mitigation
measures for MFAS (e.g., measures
agreed to by the Navy through
permitting) effective at avoiding TTS,
injury, and mortality of marine
mammals?
Data gathered in these studies will be
collected by qualified, professional
marine mammal biologists that are
experts in their field. They will use a
combination of the following methods
to collect data:
• Contracted vessel and aerial
surveys.
• Passive acoustics.
• Marine mammal observers on Navy
ships.
In the five proposed study designs (all
of which cover multiple years), the
above methods will be used separately
or in combination to monitor marine
mammals in different combinations
before, during, and after training
activities utilizing MFAS/HFAS. Table 6
contains a summary of the Monitoring
effort that is planned for each study in
each year.
This monitoring plan has been
designed to gather data on all species of
marine mammals that are observed in
the SOCAL. The Plan recognizes that
deep-diving and cryptic species of
marine mammals such as beaked whales
have a low probability of detection
(Barlow and Gisiner, 2006). Therefore,
methods will be utilized to attempt to
address this issue (e.g., passive acoustic
monitoring).
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
In addition to the Monitoring Plan for
SOCAL, by the end of 2009, the Navy
will have completed an Integrated
Comprehensive Monitoring Program
(ICMP). The ICMP will provide the
overarching structure and coordination
that will, over time, compile data from
both range specific monitoring plans
(such as AFAST, the Hawaii Range
complex, and the Southern California
Range Complex) as well as Navy funded
research and development (R&D)
studies. The primary objectives of the
ICMP are to:
• Monitor Navy training events,
particularly those involving MFAS and
underwater detonations, for compliance
with the terms and conditions of ESA
Section 7 consultations or MMPA
authorizations;
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
• Collect data to support estimating
the number of individuals exposed to
sound levels above current regulatory
thresholds;
• Assess the efficacy of the Navy’s
current marine species mitigation;
• Add to the knowledge base on
potential behavioral and physiological
effects to marine species from midfrequency active sonar and underwater
detonations; and,
• Assess the practicality and
effectiveness of a number of mitigation
tools and techniques (some not yet in
use).
More information about the ICMP
may be found in the draft Monitoring
Plan for SOCAL.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60873
Past Monitoring in the SOCAL Range
Complex
NMFS has received ten total after
action reports (AARs) addressing 12
MFAS exercises in the SOCAL Range
Complex since 2006 (the Navy has only
been required to submit reports to
NMFS since 2006 pursuant to the terms
and conditions of the associated
biological opinions). NMFS has
reviewed these reports and has
summarized the results, as related to
marine mammal observations, in Table
7. The data contained in the After
Action Reports (AAR) have been
considered in developing mitigation and
monitoring measures for the proposed
activities contained in this rule. The
Navy’s AARs may be viewed at:
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental.htm.
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
EP14OC08.030
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
General Conclusions Drawn From
Review of Monitoring Reports
The data included in the after action
reports provided by the Navy thus far
comes from Navy watchstander
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
observations, not independent aerial or
vessel-based observers (though they
would be required by these regulations
and any accompanying LOA (see
Monitoring)), and therefore it is difficult
to draw biological conclusions.
However, NMFS can draw some general
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
conclusions from the content of the
monitoring reports:
(a) Data from watchstanders is
generally useful to indicate the presence
or absence of marine mammals within
the safety zones (and sometimes
without) and to document the
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
EP14OC08.031
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60874
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
implementation of mitigation measures,
but does not provide useful species’
specific information or behavioral data.
Though a few observations identified
pilot or gray whales specifically, the
vast majority of the observations
identified marine mammals as dolphins,
whales, large whales, small whales, sea
lions, pinnipeds, or unknown. Data
gathered by independent observers can
provide very valuable information at a
level of detail not possible with
watchstanders (such as data gathered by
independent, biologist monitors in
Hawaii and submitted to NMFS in a
monitoring report, which indicated the
presence of sub-adult sei whales in the
Hawaiian Islands in fall, potentially
indicating the use of the area for
breeding).
(b) Though it is by no means
conclusory, it is worth noting that no
instances of obvious behavioral
disturbance were reported by the Navy
watchstanders in their 704 marine
mammal sightings totaling 7435
animals. Though of course, these
observations only cover the animals that
were at the surface (or slightly below in
the case of aerial surveys) and within
the distance that the observers can see
with the big-eye binoculars or from the
aircraft.
(c) NMFS and the Navy need to more
carefully designate what information
should be gathered during monitoring,
as some reports contain different
information, making cross-report
comparisons difficult. NMFS and Navy
will work on this issue prior to the
issuance of the final rule for the SOCAL
activities.
Adaptive Management
Adaptive Management was addressed
above in the context of the Stranding
Response Plan because that Section will
be a stand-alone document. More
specifically, the final regulations
governing the take of marine mammals
incidental to Navy training exercises in
the SOCAL Range Complex will contain
an adaptive management component.
Our understanding of the effects of
MFAS/HFAS and explosives on marine
mammals is still in its relative infancy,
and yet the science in this field is
evolving fairly quickly. These
circumstances make the inclusion of an
adaptive management component both
valuable and necessary within the
context of 5-year regulations for
activities that have been associated with
marine mammal mortality in certain
circumstances and locations (though not
the SOCAL Range Complex in the
Navy’s over 70 years of use of the area
for testing and training). The use of
adaptive management will give NMFS
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
the ability to consider new data from
different sources to determine (in
coordination with the Navy), on an
annual basis if new or modified
mitigation or monitoring measures are
appropriate for subsequent annual
LOAs. Following are some of the
possible sources of applicable data:
• Results from the Navy’s monitoring
from the previous year (either from the
SOCAL Range Complex or other
locations).
• Results from specific stranding
investigations (either from the SOCAL
Range Complex or other locations, and
involving coincident MFAS/HFAS or
explosives training or not involving
coincident use).
• Results from the Long Term
Prospective Study described below.
• Results from general marine
mammal and sound research (funded by
the Navy (described below) or
otherwise).
Mitigation measures could be
modified or added if new data suggests
that such modifications would have a
reasonable likelihood of reducing
adverse effects to marine mammals and
if the measures are practicable. NMFS
could also coordinate with the Navy to
modify or add to the existing monitoring
requirements if the new data suggest
that the addition of a particular measure
would likely fill in a specifically
important data gap.
Reporting
In order to issue an ITA for an
activity, Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the
MMPA states that NMFS must set forth
‘‘requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such
taking’’. Effective reporting is critical
both to compliance as well as ensuring
that the most value is obtained from the
required monitoring. Some of the
reporting requirements are still in
development and the final rule may
contain additional details not contained
in the proposed rule. Additionally,
proposed reporting requirements may be
modified, removed, or added based on
information or comments received
during the public comment period.
Currently, there are several different
reporting requirements pursuant to
these proposed regulations:
General Notification of Injured or Dead
Marine Mammals
Navy personnel will ensure that
NMFS (regional stranding coordinator)
is notified immediately (or as soon as
clearance procedures allow) if an
injured or dead marine mammal is
found during or shortly after, and in the
vicinity of, any Navy training exercise
utilizing MFAS, HFAS, or underwater
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60875
explosive detonations. The Navy will
provide NMFS with species or
description of the animal(s), the
condition of the animal(s) (including
carcass condition if the animal is dead),
location, time of first discovery,
observed behaviors (if alive), and photo
or video (if available). The SOCAL
Stranding Response Plan contains more
specific reporting requirements for
specific circumstances.
SINKEX, GUNEX, MISSILEX, BOMBEX,
Mine Warfare/Countermeasures, and
NSFS
A yearly report detailing the
exercise’s timeline, the time the surveys
commenced and terminated, amount,
and types of all ordnance expended, and
the results of marine mammal survey
efforts for each event will be submitted
to NMFS.
IEER
A yearly report detailing the number
of exercises along with the hours of
associated marine mammal survey and
associated marine mammal sightings,
number of times employment was
delayed by marine mammal sightings,
and the number of total detonated
charges and self-scuttled charges will be
submitted to NMFS.
MFAS/HFAS Mitigation/Navy
Watchstanders
The Navy will submit an After Action
Report to the Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, within 120 days of
the completion of a Major or
Coordinated Training Exercise
(Sustainment, IAC2, SHAREM,
COMPTUEX, or JTFEX). For other ASW
exercises the Navy will submit a yearly
summary report. These reports will, at
a minimum, include the following
information:
• The estimated total number of
hours of active sonar operation and the
types of sonar used in the exercise.
• If possible, the total number of
hours of observation effort (including
observation time when active sonar was
not operating).
• A report of all marine mammal
sightings (at any distance—not just
within a particular distance) to include,
when possible and to the best of their
ability, and if not classified:
› Species or animal type.
› Number of animals sighted.
› Location of marine mammal
sighting (where not classified).
› Distance of animal from any
operating active sonar sources.
› Whether animal is fore, aft, port,
starboard.
› Direction animal is moving in
relation to source (away, towards,
parallel).
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
60876
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
› Any observed behaviors of marine
mammals.
• The status of any active sonar
sources (what sources were in use) and
whether or not they were powered
down or shut down as a result of the
marine mammal observation.
• The platform type that the marine
mammals were sighted from.
Monitoring Report From Monitoring
Plan
Although the draft Monitoring Plan
for SOCAL contains a general
description of the monitoring that the
Navy plans to conduct (and that NMFS
has analyzed) in the SOCAL Range
Complex, the detailed analysis and
reporting protocols that will be used for
the SOCAL monitoring plan are still
being refined at this time. The draft
SOCAL Monitoring plan may be viewed
at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
permits/incidental.htm. Navy will
standardize data collection methods
across ranges to allow for comparison in
different geographic locations. Reports
of the required monitoring will be
submitted to NMFS on an annual basis
as well as in the form of a multi-year
report that compiles all five years worth
of monitoring data (reported at end of
fourth year of rule—in future rules will
include the last year of the prior rule).
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
SOCAL Comprehensive Report
The Navy will submit to NMFS a draft
report that analyzes and summarizes all
of the multi-year marine mammal
information gathered during ASW and
explosive exercises for which individual
reports are required. This report will be
submitted at the end of the fourth year
of the rule (December 2012), covering
activities that have occurred through
June 1, 2012. The Navy will respond to
NMFS comments on the draft
comprehensive report if submitted
within 3 months of receipt. The report
will be considered final after the Navy
has addressed NMFS’ comments, or
three months after the submittal of the
draft if NMFS does not comment by
then. The activities authorized by this
LOA that are not covered in this report
(i.e., those that occur between June 2012
and January 2014) will be covered in the
comprehensive report of the next 5-yr
regulations for SOCAL, if issued.
Comprehensive National ASW Report
The Navy will submit a draft
Comprehensive National ASW Report
that analyzes, compares, and
summarizes the data gathered from the
watchstanders and pursuant to the
implementation of the Monitoring Plans
for AFAST, the Hawaii Range Complex,
the Southern California (SOCAL) Range
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
Complex, the Northwest Training Range
Complex (NWTRC) and the Marianas
range Complex. This report will be
submitted by June 2014, covering
activities that have occurred in these
four ranges through June 1, 2013. The
Navy will respond to NMFS comments
on the draft comprehensive report if
submitted within 3 months of receipt.
The report will be considered final after
the Navy has addressed NMFS’
comments, or three months after the
submittal of the draft if NMFS does not
comment by then.
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
As mentioned previously, for the
purposes of MMPA authorizations,
NMFS’ effects assessments have two
primary purposes (in the context of the
SOCAL rulemaking and LOA process,
where subsistence communities are not
present): (1) To set forth the permissible
methods of taking within the context of
MMPA Level B Harassment (behavioral
harassment), Level A Harassment
(injury), and mortality (i.e., identify the
number and types of take that will
occur); and (2) to determine whether the
specified activity will have a negligible
impact on the affected species or stocks
of marine mammals (based on the
likelihood that the activity will
adversely affect the species or stock
through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival).
In the Potential Effects of Exposure of
Marine Mammal to MFAS/HFAS and
Underwater Detonations section, NMFS’
analysis identified the lethal responses,
physical trauma, sensory impairment
(permanent and temporary threshold
shifts and acoustic masking),
physiological responses (particular
stress responses), and behavioral
responses that could potentially result
from exposure to MFAS/HFAS or
underwater explosive detonations. In
this section, we will relate the potential
effects to marine mammals from MFAS/
HFAS and underwater detonation of
explosives to the MMPA statutory
definitions of Level A and Level B
Harassment and attempt to quantify the
effects that might occur from the
specific training activities that the Navy
is proposing in the SOCAL Range
Complex.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
mammal stock in the wild by causing
disruption of natural behavioral
patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering, to a point where
such behavioral patterns are abandoned
or significantly altered [Level B
Harassment].
Level B Harassment
Of the potential effects that were
described in the Potential Effects of
Exposure of Marine Mammal to MFAS/
HFAS and Underwater Detonations
Section, the following are the types of
effects that fall into the Level B
Harassment category:
Behavioral Harassment—Behavioral
disturbance that rises to the level
described in the definition above, when
resulting from exposures to MFAS/
HFAS or underwater detonations, is
considered Level B Harassment. Some
of the lower level physiological stress
responses discussed in the Potential
Effects of Exposure of Marine Mammal
to MFAS/HFAS and Underwater
Detonations Section: Stress Section will
also likely co-occur with the predicted
harassments, although these responses
are more difficult to detect and fewer
data exist relating these responses to
specific received levels of sound. When
Level B Harassment is predicted based
on estimated behavioral responses,
those takes may have a stress-related
physiological component as well.
In the effects section above, we
described the Southall et al. (2007)
severity scaling system and listed some
examples of the three broad categories
of behaviors: (0–3: Minor and/or brief
behaviors); 4–6 (Behaviors with higher
potential to affect foraging,
reproduction, or survival); 7–9
(Behaviors considered likely to affect
the aforementioned vital rates).
Generally speaking, MMPA Level B
Harassment, as defined in this
document, would include the behaviors
described in the 7–9 category, and a
subset, dependent on context and other
considerations, of the behaviors
described in the 4–6 categories.
Behavioral harassment does not
generally include behaviors ranked 0–3
in Southall et al. (2007).
Acoustic Masking and
Communication Impairment—Acoustic
masking is considered Level B
Harassment as it can disrupt natural
behavioral patterns by interrupting or
limiting the marine mammal’s receipt or
transmittal of important information or
environmental cues.
TTS—As discussed previously, TTS
can affect how an animal behaves in
response to the environment, including
conspecifics, predators, and prey. The
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
following physiological mechanisms are
thought to play a role in inducing
auditory fatigue: Effects to sensory hair
cells in the inner ear that reduce their
sensitivity, modification of the chemical
environment within the sensory cells,
residual muscular activity in the middle
ear, displacement of certain inner ear
membranes, increased blood flow, and
post-stimulatory reduction in both
efferent and sensory neural output.
Ward (1997) suggested that when these
effects result in TTS rather than PTS,
they are within the normal bounds of
physiological variability and tolerance
and do not represent a physical injury.
Additionally, Southall et al. (2007)
indicate that although PTS is a tissue
injury, TTS is not, because the reduced
hearing sensitivity following exposure
to intense sound results primarily from
fatigue, not loss, of cochlear hair cells
and supporting structures and is
reversible. Accordingly, NMFS classifies
TTS (when resulting from exposure to
either MFAS/HFAS or underwater
detonations) as Level B Harassment, not
Level A Harassment (injury).
Level A Harassment
Of the potential effects that were
described in the Potential Effects of
Exposure of Marine Mammals to MFAS/
HFAS and Underwater Detonations
Section, following are the types of
effects that fall into the Level A
Harassment category:
PTS—PTS (resulting either from
exposure to MFAS/HFAS or explosive
detonations) is irreversible and
considered an injury. PTS results from
exposure to intense sounds that cause a
permanent loss of inner or outer
cochlear hair cells or exceed the elastic
limits of certain tissues and membranes
in the middle and inner ears and result
in changes in the chemical composition
of the inner ear fluids.
Tissue Damage due to Acoustically
Mediated Bubble Growth—A few
theories suggest ways in which gas
bubbles become enlarged through
exposure to intense sounds (MFAS/
HFAS) to the point where tissue damage
results. In rectified diffusion, exposure
to a sound field would cause bubbles to
increase in size. A short duration of
active sonar pings (such as that which
an animal exposed to MFAS would be
most likely to encounter) would not
likely be long enough to drive bubble
growth to any substantial size.
Alternately, bubbles could be
destabilized by high-level sound
exposures such that bubble growth then
occurs through static diffusion of gas
out of the tissues. The degree of
supersaturation and exposure levels
observed to cause microbubble
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
destabilization are unlikely to occur,
either alone or in concert because of
how close an animal would need to be
to the sound source to be exposed to
high enough levels, especially
considering the likely avoidance of the
sound source and the required
mitigation. Still, possible tissue damage
from either of these processes would be
considered an injury.
Tissue Damage due to Behaviorally
Mediated Bubble Growth—Several
authors suggest mechanisms in which
marine mammals could behaviorally
respond to exposure to MFAS/HFAS by
altering their dive patterns in a manner
(unusually rapid ascent, unusually long
series of surface dives, etc.) that might
result in unusual bubble formation or
growth ultimately resulting in tissue
damage (emboli, etc.) In this scenario,
the rate of ascent would need to be
sufficiently rapid to compromise
behavioral or physiological protections
against nitrogen bubble formation.
There is considerable disagreement
among scientists as to the likelihood of
this phenomenon (Piantadosi and
Thalmann, 2004; Evans and Miller,
2003). Although it has been argued that
traumas from recent beaked whale
strandings are consistent with gas
emboli and bubble-induced tissue
separations (Jepson et al., 2003;
Fernandez et al., 2005), nitrogen bubble
formation as the cause of the traumas
has not been verified. If tissue damage
does occur by this phenomenon, it
would be considered an injury.
Physical Disruption of Tissues
Resulting from Explosive Shock Wave—
Physical damage of tissues resulting
from a shock wave (from an explosive
detonation) is classified as an injury.
Blast effects are greatest at the gas-liquid
interface (Landsberg, 2000) and gascontaining organs, particularly the lungs
and gastrointestinal tract, are especially
susceptible (Goertner, 1982; Hill 1978;
Yelverton et al., 1973). Nasal sacs,
larynx, pharynx, trachea, and lungs may
be damaged by compression/expansion
caused by the oscillations of the blast
gas bubble (Reidenberg and Laitman,
2003). Severe damage (from the shock
wave) to the ears can include tympanic
membrane rupture, fracture of the
ossicles, damage to the cochlea,
hemorrhage, and cerebrospinal fluid
leakage into the middle ear.
Acoustic Take Criteria
For the purposes of an MMPA
incidental take authorization, three
types of take are identified: Level B
Harassment; Level A Harassment; and
mortality (or serious injury leading to
mortality). The categories of marine
mammal responses (physiological and
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60877
behavioral) that fall into the two
harassment categories were described in
the previous section.
Because the physiological and
behavioral responses of the majority of
the marine mammals exposed to MFAS/
HFAS and underwater detonations
cannot be detected or measured (not all
responses visible external to animal,
portion of exposed animals underwater
(so not visible), many animals located
many miles from observers and covering
very large area, etc.) and because NMFS
must authorize take prior to the impacts
to marine mammals, a method is needed
to estimate the number of individuals
that will be taken, pursuant to the
MMPA, based on the proposed action.
To this end, NMFS developed acoustic
criteria that estimate at what received
level (when exposed to MFAS/HFAS or
explosive detonations) Level B
Harassment, Level A Harassment, and
mortality (for explosives) of marine
mammals would occur. The acoustic
criteria for MFAS/HFAS and
Underwater Detonations (IEER) are
discussed below.
MFAS/HFAS Acoustic Criteria
Because relatively few applicable data
exist to support acoustic criteria
specifically for HFAS and because such
a small percentage of the active sonar
pings that marine mammals will likely
be exposed to incidental to this activity
come from a HFAS source (the vast
majority come from MFAS sources),
NMFS will apply the criteria developed
for the MFAS to the HFAS as well.
NMFS utilizes three acoustic criteria
for MFAS/HFAS: PTS (injury—Level A
Harassment), TTS (Level B Harassment),
and behavioral harassment (Level B
Harassment). Because the TTS and PTS
criteria are derived similarly and the
PTS criteria was extrapolated from the
TTS data, the TTS and PTS acoustic
criteria will be presented first, before
the behavioral criteria.
For more information regarding these
criteria, please see the Navy’s DEIS for
SOCAL.
Level B Harassment Threshold (TTS)
As mentioned above, behavioral
disturbance, acoustic masking, and TTS
are all considered Level B Harassment.
Marine mammals would usually be
behaviorally disturbed at lower received
levels than those at which they would
likely sustain TTS, so the levels at
which behavioral disturbance are likely
to occur is considered the onset of Level
B Harassment. The behavioral responses
of marine mammals to sound are
variable, context specific, and, therefore,
difficult to quantify (see Risk Function
section, below). Alternately, TTS is a
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60878
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
physiological effect that has been
studied and quantified in laboratory
conditions. Because data exist to
support an estimate of at what received
levels marine mammals will incur TTS,
NMFS uses an acoustic criteria to
estimate the number of marine
mammals that might sustain TTS. TTS
is a subset of Level B Harassment (along
with sub-TTS behavioral harassment)
and we are not specifically required to
estimate those numbers; however, the
more specifically we can estimate the
affected marine mammal responses, the
better the analysis.
A number of investigators have
measured TTS in marine mammals.
These studies measured hearing
thresholds in trained marine mammals
before and after exposure to intense
sounds. The existing cetacean TTS data
are summarized in the following bullets.
• Schlundt et al. (2000) reported the
results of TTS experiments conducted
with 5 bottlenose dolphins and 2
belugas exposed to 1-second tones. This
paper also includes a reanalysis of
preliminary TTS data released in a
technical report by Ridgway et al.
(1997). At frequencies of 3, 10, and 20
kHz, sound pressure levels (SPLs)
necessary to induce measurable
amounts (6 dB or more) of TTS were
between 192 and 201 dB re 1 µPa (EL
= 192 to 201 dB re 1 µPa2-s). The mean
exposure SPL and EL for onset-TTS
were 195 dB re 1 µPa and 195 dB re
1 µPa2-s, respectively.
• Finneran et al. (2001, 2003, 2005)
described TTS experiments conducted
with bottlenose dolphins exposed to 3kHz tones with durations of 1, 2, 4, and
8 seconds. Small amounts of TTS (3 to
6 dB) were observed in one dolphin
after exposure to ELs between 190 and
204 dB re 1 uPa2-s. These results were
consistent with the data of Schlundt et
al. (2000) and showed that the Schlundt
et al. (2000) data were not significantly
affected by the masking sound used.
These results also confirmed that, for
tones with different durations, the
amount of TTS is best correlated with
the exposure EL rather than the
exposure SPL.
• Nachtigall et al. (2003) measured
TTS in a bottlenose dolphin exposed to
octave-band sound centered at 7.5 kHz.
Nachtigall et al. (2003a) reported TTSs
of about 11 dB measured 10 to 15
minutes after exposure to 30 to 50
minutes of sound with SPL 179 dB re
1 µPa (EL about 213 dB re µPa2-s). No
TTS was observed after exposure to the
same sound at 165 and 171 dB re 1 µPa.
Nachtigall et al. (2004) reported TTSs of
around 4 to 8 dB 5 minutes after
exposure to 30 to 50 minutes of sound
with SPL 160 dB re 1 µPa (EL about 193
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
to 195 dB re 1 µPa2-s). The difference in
results was attributed to faster postexposure threshold measurement—TTS
may have recovered before being
detected by Nachtigall et al. (2003).
These studies showed that, for longduration exposures, lower sound
pressures are required to induce TTS
than are required for short-duration
tones.
• Finneran et al. (2000, 2002)
conducted TTS experiments with
dolphins and belugas exposed to
impulsive sounds similar to those
produced by distant underwater
explosions and seismic waterguns.
These studies showed that, for very
short-duration impulsive sounds, higher
sound pressures were required to
induce TTS than for longer-duration
tones.
• Finneran et al. (2007) conducted
TTS experiments with bottlenose
dolphins exposed to intense 20 kHz
fatiguing tone. Behavioral and auditory
evoked potentials (using sinusoidal
amplitude modulated tones creating
auditory steady state response [AASR])
were used to measure TTS. The
fatiguing tone was either 16 (mean = 193
re 1uPa, SD = 0.8) or 64 seconds (185–
186 re 1uPa) in duration. TTS ranged
from 19–33db from behavioral
measurements and 40–45dB from ASSR
measurements.
• Kastak et al. (1999a, 2005)
conducted TTS experiments with three
species of pinnipeds, California sea lion,
northern elephant seal and a Pacific
harbor seal, exposed to continuous
underwater sounds at levels of 80 and
95 dB sensation level at 2.5 and 3.5 kHz
for up to 50 minutes. Mean TTS shifts
of up to 12.2 dB occurred with the
harbor seals showing the largest shift of
28.1 dB. Increasing the sound duration
had a greater effect on TTS than
increasing the sound level from 80 to 95
dB.
Some of the more important data
obtained from these studies are onsetTTS levels (exposure levels sufficient to
cause a just-measurable amount of TTS)
often defined as 6 dB of TTS (for
example, Schlundt et al., 2000) and the
fact that energy metrics (sound exposure
levels (SEL), which include a duration
component) better predict when an
animal will sustain TTS than pressure
(SPL) alone. NMFS’ TTS criteria (which
indicate the received level at which
onset TTS (>6dB) is induced) for MFAS/
HFAS are as follows:
• Cetaceans—195 dB re 1 µPa2-s
(based on mid-frequency cetaceans—no
published data exist on auditory effects
of noise in low- or high-frequency
cetaceans (Southall et al. (2007)).
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
• Harbor Seals (and closely related
species)—183 dB re 1 µPa2-s
• Northern Elephant Seals (and
closely related species)—204 dB re 1
µPa2-s
• California Sea Lions (and closely
related species)—206 dB re 1 µPa2-s.
A detailed description of how TTS
criteria were derived from the results of
the above studies may be found in
Chapter 3 of Southall et al. (2007), as
well as the Navy’s SOCAL LOA
application. Because they are both
otariids, the California sea lion criteria
is used to estimate take of northern fur
seals for this authorization.
Level A Harassment Threshold (PTS)
For acoustic effects, because the
tissues of the ear appear to be the most
susceptible to the physiological effects
of sound, and because threshold shifts
tend to occur at lower exposures than
other more serious auditory effects,
NMFS has determined that PTS is the
best indicator for the smallest degree of
injury that can be measured. Therefore,
the acoustic exposure associated with
onset-PTS is used to define the lower
limit of the Level A harassment.
PTS data do not currently exist for
marine mammals and are unlikely to be
obtained due to ethical concerns.
However, PTS levels for these animals
may be estimated using TTS data from
marine mammals and relationships
between TTS and PTS that have been
discovered through study of terrestrial
mammals. NMFS uses the following
acoustic criteria for injury:
• Cetaceans—215 dB re 1 µPa2-s
(based on mid-frequency cetaceans—no
published data exist on auditory effects
of noise in low-or high-frequency
cetaceans (Southall et al. (2007))
• Harbor Seals (and closely related
species)—203 dB re 1 µPa2-s
• Northern Elephant Seals (and
closely related species)—224 dB re 1
µPa2-s
• California Sea Lions (and closely
related species)—226 dB re 1 µPa2-s
These criteria are based on a 20 dB
increase in SEL over that required for
onset-TTS. Extrapolations from
terrestrial mammal data indicate that
PTS occurs at 40 dB or more of TS, and
that TS growth occurs at a rate of
approximately 1.6 dB TS per dB
increase in EL. There is a 34-dB TS
difference between onset-TTS (6 dB)
and onset-PTS (40 dB). Therefore, an
animal would require approximately 20
dB of additional exposure (34 dB
divided by 1.6 dB) above onset-TTS to
reach PTS. A detailed description of
how TTS criteria were derived from the
results of the above studies may be
found in Chapter 3 of Southall et al.
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Level B Harassment Risk Function
(Behavioral Harassment)
In 2006, NMFS issued the only
MMPA authorization that has, as yet,
authorized the take of marine mammals
incidental to MFAS (to the Navy for the
Rim of the Pacific Exercises (RIMPAC)).
For that authorization, NMFS used 173
dB SEL as the criterion for the onset of
behavioral harassment (Level B
Harassment). This type of single number
criterion is referred to as a step function,
in which (in this example) all animals
estimated to be exposed to received
levels above 173 db SEL would be
predicted to be taken by Level B
Harassment and all animals exposed to
less than 173 dB SEL would not be
taken by Level B Harassment. As
mentioned previously, marine mammal
behavioral responses to sound are
highly variable and context specific
(affected by differences in acoustic
conditions; differences between species
and populations; differences in gender,
age, reproductive status, or social
behavior; or the prior experience of the
individuals), which does not support
the use of a step function to estimate
behavioral harassment.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
Unlike step functions, acoustic risk
continuum functions (which are also
called ‘‘exposure-response functions,’’
‘‘dose-response functions,’’ or ‘‘stressresponse functions’’ in other risk
assessment contexts) allow for
probability of a response that NMFS
would classify as harassment to occur
over a range of possible received levels
(instead of one number) and assume that
the probability of a response depends
first on the ‘‘dose’’ (in this case, the
received level of sound) and that the
probability of a response increases as
the ‘‘dose’’ increases (see Figure 3a).
The Navy and NMFS have previously
used acoustic risk functions to estimate
the probable responses of marine
mammals to acoustic exposures for
other training and research programs.
Examples of previous application
include the Navy FEISs on the
SURTASS LFA sonar (U.S. Department
of the Navy, 2001c), the North Pacific
Acoustic Laboratory experiments
conducted off the Island of Kauai (Office
of Naval Research, 2001), the
Supplemental EIS for SURTASS LFA
sonar (U.S. Department of the Navy,
2007d) and the FEIS for the Navy’s
Hawaii Range Complex (U.S.
Department of the Navy, 2008). As
discussed in the Effects section, factors
other than received level (such as
distance from or bearing to the sound
source) can affect the way that marine
mammals respond; however, data to
support a quantitative analysis of those
(and other factors) do not currently
exist. NMFS will continue to modify
these criteria as new data become
available.
The particular acoustic risk functions
developed by NMFS and the Navy (see
Figures 2a and 2b) estimate the
probability of behavioral responses to
MFAS/HFAS (interpreted as the
percentage of the exposed population)
that NMFS would classify as harassment
for the purposes of the MMPA given
exposure to specific received levels of
MFAS/HFAS. The mathematical
function (below) underlying this curve
is a cumulative probability distribution
adapted from a solution in Feller (1968)
and was also used in predicting risk for
the Navy’s SURTASS LFA MMPA
authorization as well.
−A
L−B
1−
K
R=
−2 A
L−B
1−
K
Where:
R = Risk (0–1.0)
L = Received level (dB re: 1 µPa)
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
B = Basement received level = 120 dB re: 1
µPa
K = Received level increment above B where
50 percent risk = 45 dB re: 1 µPa
A = Risk transition sharpness parameter = 10
(odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 8
(mysticetes)
In order to use this function to
estimate the percentage of an exposed
population that would respond in a
manner that NMFS classifies as Level B
Harassment, based on a given received
level, the values for B, K and A need to
be identified.
B Parameter (Basement)—The B
parameter is the estimated received
level below which the probability of
disruption of natural behavioral
patterns, such as migration, surfacing,
nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering,
to a point where such behavioral
patterns are abandoned or significantly
altered approaches zero for the MFAS/
HFAS risk assessment. At this received
level, the curve would predict that the
percentage of the exposed population
that would be taken by Level B
Harassment approaches zero. For
MFAS/HFAS, NMFS has determined
that B = 120 dB. This level is based on
a broad overview of the levels at which
many species have been reported
responding to a variety of sound
sources.
K Parameter (representing the 50
percent Risk Point)—The K parameter is
based on the received level that
corresponds to 50 percent risk, or the
received level at which we believe 50
percent of the animals exposed to the
designated received level will respond
in a manner that NMFS classifies as
Level B Harassment. The K parameter
(K = 45 dB) is based on three data sets
in which marine mammals exposed to
mid-frequency sound sources were
reported to respond in a manner that
NMFS would classify as Level B
Harassment. There is widespread
consensus that marine mammal
responses to MFA sound signals need to
be better defined using controlled
exposure experiments (Cox et al., 2006;
Southall et al., 2007). The Navy is
contributing to an ongoing behavioral
response study in the Bahamas that is
expected to provide some initial
information on beaked whales, the
species identified as the most sensitive
to MFAS. NMFS is leading this
international effort with scientists from
various academic institutions and
research organizations to conduct
studies on how marine mammals
respond to underwater sound
exposures. Additionally, the Navy
recently tagged whales in conjunction
with the 2008 RIMPAC exercises. Until
additional data are available, however,
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
EP14OC08.054
(2007), as well as the Navy’s SOCAL
LOA application. Southall et al. (2007)
recommend a precautionary dual
criteria for TTS (230 dB re 1 µPa (SPL
peak pressure) in addition to 215 dB re
1 µPa2-s (SEL)) to account for the
potentially damaging transients
embedded within non-pulse exposures.
However, in the case of MFAS/HFAS,
the distance at which an animal would
receive 215 dB (SEL) is farther from the
source (i.e., more conservative) than the
distance at which they would receive
230 dB (SPL peak pressure) and
therefore, it is not necessary to consider
230 dB peak.
We note here that behaviorally
mediated injuries (such as those that
have been hypothesized as the cause of
some beaked whale strandings) could
potentially occur in response to
received levels lower than those
believed to directly result in tissue
damage. As mentioned previously, data
to support a quantitative estimate of
these potential effects (for which the
exact mechanism is not known and in
which factors other than received level
may play a significant role) do not exist.
However, based on the number of years
(more than 40) and number of hours of
MFAS per year that the U.S. (and other
countries) has operated compared to the
reported (and verified) cases of
associated marine mammal strandings,
NMFS believes that the probability of
these types of injuries is very low.
60879
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60880
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
NMFS and the Navy have determined
that the following three data sets are
most applicable for the direct use in
establishing the K parameter for the
MFAS/HFAS risk function. These data
sets, summarized below, represent the
only known data that specifically relate
altered behavioral responses (that NMFS
would consider Level B Harassment) to
exposure—at specific received levels—
to MFAS and sources within or having
components within the range of MFAS
(1–10 kHz).
Even though these data are considered
the most representative of the proposed
specified activities, and therefore the
most appropriate on which to base the
K parameter (which basically
determines the midpoint) of the risk
function, these data have limitations,
which are discussed in Appendix F of
the Navy’s DEIS for SOCAL.
1. Controlled Laboratory Experiments
with Odontocetes (SSC Data set)—Most
of the observations of the behavioral
responses of toothed whales resulted
from a series of controlled experiments
on bottlenose dolphins and beluga
whales conducted by researchers at
SSC’s facility in San Diego, California
(Finneran et al., 2001, 2003, 2005;
Finneran and Schlundt, 2004; Schlundt
et al., 2000). In experimental trials
(designed to measure TTS) with marine
mammals trained to perform tasks when
prompted, scientists evaluated whether
the marine mammals still performed
these tasks when exposed to midfrequency tones. Altered behavior
during experimental trials usually
involved refusal of animals to return to
the site of the sound stimulus, but also
included attempts to avoid an exposure
in progress, aggressive behavior, or
refusal to further participate in tests.
Finneran and Schlundt (2004)
examined behavioral observations
recorded by the trainers or test
coordinators during the Schlundt et al.
(2000) and Finneran et al. (2001, 2003,
2005) experiments. These included
observations from 193 exposure sessions
(fatiguing stimulus level > 141 dB re 1
µPa) conducted by Schlundt et al.
(2000) and 21 exposure sessions
conducted by Finneran et al. (2001,
2003, 2005). The TTS experiments that
supported Finneran and Schlundt
(2004) are further explained below:
• Schlundt et al. (2000) provided a
detailed summary of the behavioral
responses of trained marine mammals
during TTS tests conducted at SSC San
Diego with 1-sec tones and exposure
frequencies of 0.4 kHz, 3 kHz, 10 kHz,
20 kHz and 75 kHz. Schlundt et al.
(2000) reported eight individual TTS
experiments. The experiments were
conducted in San Diego Bay. Because of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
the variable ambient noise in the bay,
low-level broadband masking noise was
used to keep hearing thresholds
consistent despite fluctuations in the
ambient noise. Schlundt et al. (2000)
reported that ‘‘behavioral alterations,’’
or deviations from the behaviors the
animals being tested had been trained to
exhibit, occurred as the animals were
exposed to increasing fatiguing stimulus
levels.
• Finneran et al. (2001, 2003, 2005)
conducted 2 separate TTS experiments
using 1-sec tones at 3 kHz. The test
methods were similar to that of
Schlundt et al. (2000) except the tests
were conducted in a pool with very low
ambient noise level (below 50 dB re
1 µPa2/hertz [Hz]), and no masking
noise was used. In the first, fatiguing
sound levels were increased from 160 to
201 dB SPL. In the second experiment,
fatiguing sound levels between 180 and
200 dB SPL were randomly presented.
Bottlenose dolphins exposed to 1second (sec) intense tones exhibited
short-term changes in behavior above
received sound levels of 178 to 193 dB
re
1 µPa (rms), and beluga whales did so
at received levels of 180 to 196 dB and
above.
2. Mysticete Field Study (Nowacek et
al., 2004)—The only available and
applicable data relating mysticete
responses to exposure to mid-frequency
sound sources is from Nowacek et al.
(2004). Nowacek et al. (2004)
documented observations of the
behavioral response of North Atlantic
right whales exposed to alert stimuli
containing mid-frequency components
in the Bay of Fundy. Investigators used
archival digital acoustic recording tags
(DTAG) to record the behavior (by
measuring pitch, roll, heading, and
depth) of right whales in the presence
of an alert signal, and to calibrate
received sound levels. The alert signal
was 18 minutes of exposure consisting
of three 2-minute signals played
sequentially three times over. The three
signals had a 60 percent duty cycle and
consisted of: (1) Alternating 1-sec pure
tones at 500 Hz and 850 Hz; (2) a 2-sec
logarithmic down-sweep from 4,500 Hz
to 500 Hz; and (3) a pair of low (1,500
Hz)-high (2,000 Hz) sine wave tones
amplitude modulated at 120 Hz and
each 1-sec long. The purposes of the
alert signal were (a) to pique the
mammalian auditory system with
disharmonic signals that cover the
whales’ estimated hearing range; (b) to
maximize the signal to noise ratio
(obtain the largest difference between
background noise) and (c) to provide
localization cues for the whale. The
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
maximum source level used was 173 dB
SPL.
Nowacek et al. (2004) reported that
five out of six whales exposed to the
alert signal with maximum received
levels ranging from 133 to 148 dB re 1
µPa significantly altered their regular
behavior and did so in identical fashion.
Each of these five whales: (i)
Abandoned their current foraging dive
prematurely as evidenced by curtailing
their ‘‘bottom time’’; (ii) executed a
shallow-angled, high power (i.e.
significantly increased fluke stroke rate)
ascent; (iii) remained at or near the
surface for the duration of the exposure,
an abnormally long surface interval; and
(iv) spent significantly more time at
subsurface depths (1–10 m) compared
with normal surfacing periods when
whales normally stay within 1 m (1.1
yd) of the surface.
3. Odontocete Field Data (Haro
Strait—USS SHOUP)—In May 2003,
killer whales (Orcinus orca) were
observed exhibiting behavioral
responses generally described as
avoidance behavior while the U.S. Ship
(USS) SHOUP was engaged in MFAS in
the Haro Strait in the vicinity of Puget
Sound, Washington. Those observations
have been documented in three reports
developed by Navy and NMFS (NMFS,
2005; Fromm, 2004a, 2004b; DON,
2003). Although these observations were
made in an uncontrolled environment,
the sound field that may have been
associated with the active sonar
operations was estimated using standard
acoustic propagation models that were
verified (for some but not all signals)
based on calibrated in situ
measurements from an independent
researcher who recorded the sounds
during the event. Behavioral
observations were reported for the group
of whales during the event by an
experienced marine mammal biologist
who happened to be on the water
studying them at the time. The
observations associated with the USS
SHOUP provide the only data set
available of the behavioral responses of
wild, non-captive animals upon actual
exposure to AN/SQS–53 sonar.
U.S. Department of Commerce
(National Marine Fisheries, 2005a); U.S.
Department of the Navy (2004b); Fromm
(2004a, 2004b) documented
reconstruction of sound fields produced
by USS SHOUP associated with the
behavioral response of killer whales
observed in Haro Strait. Observations
from this reconstruction included an
approximate closest approach time
which was correlated to a reconstructed
estimate of received level. Observations
from this reconstruction included an
estimate of 169.3 dB SPL which
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
represents the mean level at a point of
closest approach within a 500 m wide
area which the animals were exposed.
Within that area, the estimated received
levels varied from approximately 150 to
180 dB SPL.
Calculation of K Parameter—NMFS
and the Navy used the mean of the
following values to define the midpoint
of the function: (1) The mean of the
lowest received levels (185.3 dB) at
which individuals responded with
altered behavior to 3 kHz tones in the
SSC data set; (2) the estimated mean
received level value of 169.3 dB
produced by the reconstruction of the
USS SHOUP incident in which killer
whales exposed to MFAS (range
modeled possible received levels: 150 to
180 dB); and (3) the mean of the 5
maximum received levels at which
Nowacek et al. (2004) observed
significantly altered responses of right
whales to the alert stimuli than to the
control (no input signal) is 139.2 dB
SPL. The arithmetic mean of these three
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
mean values is 165 dB SPL. The value
of K is the difference between the value
of B (120 dB SPL) and the 50 percent
value of 165 dB SPL; therefore, K = 45.
A Parameter (Steepness)—NMFS
determined that a steepness parameter
(A) = 10 is appropriate for odontocetes
(except harbor porpoises) and pinnipeds
and A = 8 is appropriate for mysticetes.
The use of a steepness parameter of
A = 10 for odontocetes for the MFAS/
HFAS risk function was based on the
use of the same value for the SURTASS
LFA risk continuum, which was
supported by a sensitivity analysis of
the parameter presented in Appendix D
of the SURTASS/LFA FEIS (U.S.
Department of the Navy, 2001c). As
concluded in the SURTASS FEIS/EIS,
the value of A = 10 produces a curve
that has a more gradual transition than
the curves developed by the analyses of
migratory gray whale studies (Malme et
al., 1984; Buck and Tyack, 2000; and
SURTASS LFA Sonar EIS, Subchapters
1.43, 4.2.4.3 and Appendix D, and
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60881
National Marine Fisheries Service,
2008).
NMFS determined that a lower
steepness parameter (A = 8), resulting in
a shallower curve, was appropriate for
use with mysticetes and MFAS/HFAS.
The Nowacek et al. (2004) dataset
contains the only data illustrating
mysticete behavioral responses to a
sound source that encompasses
frequencies in the mid-frequency sound
spectrum. A shallower curve (achieved
by using A = 8) better reflects the risk
of behavioral response at the relatively
low received levels at which behavioral
responses of right whales were reported
in the Nowacek et al. (2004) data.
Compared to the odontocete curve, this
adjustment results in an increase in the
proportion of the exposed population of
mysticetes being classified as
behaviorally harassed at lower RLs,
such as those reported in and is
supported by the only dataset currently
available.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
Basic Application of the Risk
Function—The risk function is used to
estimate the percentage of an exposed
population that is likely to exhibit
behaviors that would qualify as
harassment (as that term is defined by
the MMPA applicable to military
readiness activities, such as the Navy’s
testing and training with MFAS) at a
given received level of sound. For
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
example, at 165 dB SPL (dB re: 1 µPa
rms), the risk (or probability) of
harassment is defined according to this
function as 50 percent, and Navy/NMFS
applies that by estimating that 50
percent of the individuals exposed at
that received level are likely to respond
by exhibiting behavior that NMFS
would classify as behavioral
harassment. The risk function is not
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
applied to individual animals, only to
exposed populations.
The data primarily used to produce
the risk function (the K parameter) were
compiled from four species that had
been exposed to sound sources in a
variety of different circumstances. As a
result, the risk function represents a
general relationship between acoustic
exposures and behavioral responses that
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
EP14OC08.032
60882
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
criteria above (i.e., number of takes); (3)
post-modeling corrections refine
estimates to make them more accurate;
and, (4) mitigation is taken into
consideration. More information
regarding the models used, the
assumptions used in the models, and
the process of estimating take is
Estimating the take that will result
from the proposed activities entails the
following four general steps: (1)
Propagation model estimates animals
exposed to sources at different levels;
(2) further modeling determines number
of exposures to levels indicated in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
Harbor Porpoise Behavioral Harassment
Criteria
The information currently available
regarding these inshore species that
inhabit shallow and coastal waters
suggests a very low threshold level of
response for both captive and wild
animals. Threshold levels at which both
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
captive (e.g. Kastelein et al., 2000;
Kastelein et al., 2005; Kastelein et al.,
2006; Kastelein et al., 2008) and wild
harbor porpoises (e.g. Johnston, 2002)
responded to sound (e.g. acoustic
harassment devices (ADHs), acoustic
deterrent devices (ADDs), or other nonpulsed sound sources) is very low (e.g.
∼120 dB SPL), although the biological
significance of the disturbance is
uncertain. Therefore, a step function
threshold of 120 dB SPL was used to
estimate take of harbor porpoises
instead of the risk functions used for
other species (i.e., we assume for the
purpose of estimating take that all
harbor porpoises exposed to 120 dB or
higher MFAS/HFAS will be taken by
Level B behavioral harassment).
Explosive Detonation Criteria (for IEER)
The criteria for mortality, Level A
Harassment, and Level B Harassment
resulting from explosive detonations
were initially developed for the Navy’s
Seawolf and Churchill ship-shock trials
and have not changed since other
MMPA authorizations issued for
explosive detonations. The criteria,
which are applied to cetaceans and
pinnipeds, are summarized in Table 8.
Additional information regarding the
derivation of these criteria is available
in the Navy’s DEIS for the SOCAL and
in the Navy’s CHURCHILL FEIS (U.S.
Department of the Navy, 2001c).
available in Appendix F of the Navy’s
DEIS for SOCAL.
(1) In order to quantify the types of
take described in previous sections that
are predicted to result from the Navy’s
specified activities, the Navy first uses
a sound propagation model that predicts
the number of animals that will be
exposed to a range of levels of pressure
and energy (of the metrics used in the
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
EP14OC08.033
mentioned previously, the distance from
the sound source and whether it is
perceived as approaching or moving
away can affect the way an animal
responds to a sound (Wartzok et al.,
2003). In the SOCAL example, animals
exposed to received levels between 120
and 130 dB may be 22–65 nm (41–120
km) from a sound source depending on
seasonal variations; those distances
could influence whether those animals
perceive the sound source as a potential
threat, and their behavioral responses to
that threat. Though there are data
showing response of certain marine
mammal species to mid-frequency
sound sources at that received level,
NMFS does not currently have any data
that describe the response of marine
mammals to mid-frequency sounds at
that distance, much less data that
compare responses to similar sound
levels at varying distances (much less
for MFAS/HFAS). However, if data were
to become available, NMFS would reevaluate the risk function and to
incorporate any additional variables
into the ‘‘take’’ estimates.
Estimates of Potential Marine Mammal
Exposure
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
is then applied to specific
circumstances. That is, the risk function
represents a relationship that is deemed
to be generally true, based on the
limited, best-available science, but may
not be true in specific circumstances. In
particular, the risk function, as currently
derived, treats the received level as the
only variable that is relevant to a marine
mammal’s behavioral response.
However, we know that many other
variables—the marine mammal’s
gender, age, and prior experience; the
activity it is engaged in during an
exposure event, its distance from a
sound source, the number of sound
sources, and whether the sound sources
are approaching or moving away from
the animal—can be critically important
in determining whether and how a
marine mammal will respond to a sound
source (Southall et al., 2007). The data
that are currently available do not allow
for incorporation of these other
variables in the current risk functions;
however, the risk function represents
the best use of the data that are
available.
As more specific and applicable data
become available for MFAS/HFAS
sources, NMFS can use these data to
modify the outputs generated by the risk
function to make them more realistic.
Ultimately, data may exist to justify the
use of additional, alternate, or multivariate functions. For example, as
60883
60884
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
criteria) from MFAS/HFAS and
explosive detonations based on several
important pieces of information,
including:
• Characteristics of the sound sources.
› Active sonar source characteristics
include: Source level (with
horizontal and vertical directivity
corrections), source depth, center
frequency, source directivity
(horizontal/vertical beam width and
horizontal/vertical steer direction),
and ping spacing.
› Explosive source characteristics
include: The weight of an
explosive, the type of explosive, the
detonation depth, number of
successive explosions.
• Transmission loss (in 13
representative environmental
provinces across 8 sonar modeling
areas in two seasons) based on: Water
depth; sound speed variability
throughout the water column (warm
season exhibits a weak surface duct,
cold season exhibits a relatively
strong surface duct); bottom geoacoustic properties (bathymetry); and
wind speed.
• The estimated density of each marine
mammal species in the SOCAL (see
Table 13), horizontally distributed
uniformly and vertically distributed
according to dive profiles based on
field data.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
(2) Next, the criteria discussed in the
previous section are applied to the
estimated exposures to predict the
number of exposures that exceed the
criteria, i.e., the number of takes by
Level B Harassment, Level A
Harassment, and mortality.
(3) During the development of the EIS
for SOCAL, NMFS and the Navy
determined that the output of the model
could be made more realistic by
applying post-modeling corrections to
account for the following:
• Acoustic footprints for active sonar
sources must account for land masses
(by subtracting them out).
• Acoustic footprints for active sonar
sources should not be added
independently, rather, the degree to
which the footprints from multiple
ships participating in the same exercise
would typically overlap needs to be
taken into consideration.
• Acoustic modeling should account
for the maximum number of individuals
of a species that could potentially be
exposed to active sonar within the
course of 1 day or a discreet continuous
sonar event if less than 24 hours.
(4) Mitigation measures are taken into
consideration by NMFS and
adjustments may be applied to the
numbers produced by the Navy’s
modeled estimates. For example, in
some cases the raw modeled numbers of
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
exposures to levels predicted to result in
Level A Harassment from exposure to
MFAS/HFAS might indicate that 1 fin
whale would be exposed to levels of
active sonar anticipated to result in
PTS—However, a fin whale would need
to be within approximately 10 m of the
source vessel in order to be exposed to
these levels. Because of the mitigation
measures (watchstanders and shutdown
zone), size of fin whales, and nature of
fin whale behavior, it is highly unlikely
that a fin whale would be exposed to
those levels, and therefore the Navy
would not request authorization for
Level A Harassment of 1 fin whale.
Table 9 contains the Navy’s estimated
take estimates.
(5) Last, the Navy’s specified activities
have been described based on best
estimates of the number of MFAS/HFAS
hours that the Navy will conduct. The
exact number of hours may vary from
year to year, but will not exceed the 5year total indicated in Table 10 (by
multiplying the yearly estimate by 5) by
more than 10 percent. NMFS estimates
that a 10-percent increase in active
sonar hours would result in
approximately a 10-percent increase in
the number of takes, and we have
considered this possibility in our
analysis.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Mortality
Evidence from five beaked whale
strandings, all of which have taken
place outside the SOCAL Range
Complex, and have occurred over
approximately a decade, suggests that
the exposure of beaked whales to MFAS
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
in the presence of certain conditions
(e.g., multiple units using active sonar,
steep bathymetry, constricted channels,
strong surface ducts, etc.) may result in
strandings, potentially leading to
mortality. Although these physical
factors believed to have contributed to
the likelihood of beaked whale
strandings are not present, in their
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60885
aggregate, in the SOCAL Study Area,
scientific uncertainty exists regarding
what other factors, or combination of
factors, may contribute to beaked whale
strandings. Accordingly, to account for
scientific uncertainty regarding
contributing causes of beaked whale
strandings and the exact behavioral or
physiological mechanisms that can lead
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
EP14OC08.034 EP14OC08.035
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
60886
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
to the ultimate physical effects
(stranding and/or death), the Navy has
requested authorization for take, by
serious injury or mortality of 10 beaked
whales over the course of the 5-yr
regulations. Neither NMFS nor the Navy
anticipates that marine mammal
strandings or mortality will result from
the operation of MFAS during Navy
exercises within the SOCAL Range
Complex.
Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat
The Navy’s proposed training
exercises could potentially affect marine
mammal habitat through the
introduction of sound into the water
column, impacts to the prey species of
marine mammals, bottom disturbance,
or changes in water quality. Each of
these components was considered in the
SOCAL DEIS and was determined by
the Navy to have no effect on marine
mammal habitat. Based on the
information below and the supporting
information included in the Navy’s
DEIS, NMFS has preliminarily
determined that the SOCAL training
activities will not have adverse or longterm impacts on marine mammal
habitat. A summary of the conclusions
is included in subsequent sections.
There is no marine mammal critical
habitat (designated under the ESA) or
known specific breeding areas within
the SOCAL Range Complex with the
exception of pinnipeds (e.g., seals and
sea lions). Much is unknown about the
specifics of dolphin mating, but it is
presumed that these species mate
throughout their habitat and possibly
throughout the year. Even less is known
about the mating habits of beaked
whales. Most of the offshore area within
the SOCAL Range Complex study area
could potentially be utilized for active
sonar activities or underwater
detonations. The Navy assumes that
active sonar activities could take place
within potential mating areas of these
toothed whale species within SOCAL,
although current state of knowledge is
very limited and there may be seasonal
components to distribution that could
account for breeding activities outside
of the SOCAL Range Complex. Baleen
whales and sperm whales breed in deep
tropical and subtropical waters south
and west of the SOCAL Range Complex.
Unless the sound source or explosive
detonation is stationary and/or
continuous over a long duration in one
area, the effects of the introduction of
sound into the environment are
generally considered to have a less
severe impact on marine mammal
habitat than the physical alteration of
the habitat. Marine mammals may be
temporarily displaced from areas where
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
Navy training is occurring, but the area
will be utilized again after the activities
have ceased.
Effects on Food Resources
Fish
The Navy’s DEIS includes a detailed
discussion of the effects of active sonar
on marine fish. In summary, studies
have indicated that acoustic
communication and orientation of fish
may be restricted by anthropogenic
sound in their environment. However,
the vast majority of fish species studied
to date are hearing generalists and
cannot hear sounds above 500 to 1,500
Hz (0.5 to 1.5 kHz) (depending upon the
species), and therefore, there are not
likely to be behavioral effects on these
species from higher frequency sounds
such as MFAS/HFAS. Moreover, even
those marine species that may hear
above 1.5 kHz, such as a few sciaenids
and the clupeids (and relatives), have
relatively poor hearing above 1.5 kHz as
compared to their hearing sensitivity at
lower frequencies, so it is likely that the
fish will only actually hear the sounds
if the fish and source were fairly close
to one another. And, finally, since the
vast majority of sounds that are of
biological relevance to fish are below 1
kHz (e.g., Zelick et al., 1999; Ladich and
Popper, 2004), even if a fish detects a
mid- or high-frequency sound, these
sounds will not likely mask detection of
lower frequency biologically relevant
sounds. Thus, a reasonable conclusion,
even without more data, is that there
will be few, and more likely no, impacts
on the behavior of fish from active
sonar.
Though mortality has been shown to
occur in one species, a hearing
specialist, as a result of exposure to nonimpulsive sources, the available
evidence does not suggest that
exposures such as those anticipated
from MFAS/HFAS would result in
significant fish mortality on a
population level. The mortality that was
observed was considered insignificant
in light of natural daily mortality rates.
Experiments have shown that exposure
to loud sound can result in significant
threshold shifts in certain fish that are
classified as hearing specialists (but not
those classified as hearing generalists).
Threshold shifts are temporary, and
considering the best available data, no
data exist that demonstrate any longterm negative effects on marine fish
from underwater sound associated with
active sonar activities. Further, while
fish may respond behaviorally to midfrequency sources, this behavioral
modification is only expected to be brief
and not biologically significant.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
There are currently no wellestablished thresholds for estimating
effects to fish from explosives other than
mortality models. Fish that are located
in the water column, in proximity to the
source of detonation could be injured,
killed, or disturbed by the impulsive
sound and possibly temporarily leave
the area. Continental Shelf Inc. (2004)
summarized a few studies conducted to
determine effects associated with
removal of offshore structures (e.g., oil
rigs) in the Gulf of Mexico. Their
findings revealed that at very close
range, underwater explosions are lethal
to most fish species regardless of size,
shape, or internal anatomy. For most
situations, cause of death in fishes has
been massive organ and tissue damage
and internal bleeding. At longer range,
species with gas-filled swimbladders
(e.g., snapper, cod, and striped bass) are
more susceptible than those without
swimbladders (e.g., flounders, eels).
Studies also suggest that larger fishes
are generally less susceptible to death or
injury than small fishes. Moreover,
elongated forms that are round in cross
section are less at risk than deep-bodied
forms; and orientation of fish relative to
the shock wave may affect the extent of
injury. Open water pelagic fish (e.g.,
mackerel) also seem to be less affected
than reef fishes. The results of most
studies are dependent upon specific
biological, environmental, explosive,
and data recording factors.
The huge variations in the fish
population, including numbers, species,
sizes, and orientation and range from
the detonation point, make it very
difficult to accurately predict mortalities
at any specific site of detonation.
However, most fish species experience a
large number of natural mortalities,
especially during early life-stages, and
any small level of mortality caused by
the SOCAL training exercises involving
explosives will likely be insignificant to
the population as a whole.
Invertebrates
Oceanographic features and bottom
topography south of Point Conception
produce localized turbulence, mixing,
and increased surface nutrients which
in turn support aggregations of primary
and secondary production such as krill
(Euphausiids) (Fiedler et al., 1998). Off
the California coast, zooplankton
biomass tends to reach its maximum
abundance in the summer months and
main prey species for marine mammals
found within Southern California
include Euphausia pacifica and
Thysanoessa spinifera both of which are
relatively cold water species, produced
locally along the southern California
coast (Brinton, 1976; Brinton, 1981).
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Swarms of E. pacifica are most
abundant off Channel Island shelf edges
between 150–200 m during daylight,
with vertical migration to the surface at
night (Fiedler et al., 1998). T. spinifera
is a more coastal species, highly favored
by blue whales (Balaenoptera
musculus), and found during daylight
from 50–150 m particularly on shelf
areas northwest of San Miguel Island,
and north of Santa Rosa Island (Fiedler
et al., 1998).
Very little is known about sound
detection and use of sound by
invertebrates (see Budelmann, 1992a, b;
Popper et al., 2001 for reviews). The
limited data shows that some crabs are
able to detect sound, and there has been
the suggestion that some other groups of
invertebrates are also able to detect
sounds. In addition, cephalopods
(octopus and squid) and decapods
(lobster, shrimp, and crab) are thought
to sense low-frequency sound
(Budelmann, 1992b). Packard et al.,
(1990) reported sensitivity to sound
vibrations between 1–100 Hz for three
species of cephalopods. McCauley et al.,
(2000) found evidence that squid
exposed to seismic airguns show a
behavioral response including inking.
However, these were caged animals, and
it is not clear how unconfined animals
may have responded to the same signal
and at the same distances used. In
another study, Wilson et al., (2007)
played back echolocation clicks of killer
whales to two groups of squid (Loligo
pealeii) in a tank. The investigators
observed no apparent behavioral effects
or any acoustic debilitation from
playback of signals up to 199 to 226 dB
re 1 µPa. It should be noted, however,
that the lack of behavioral response by
the squid may have been because the
animals were in a tank rather than being
in the wild. In another report on squid,
Guerra et al. (2004) claimed that dead
giant squid turned up around the time
of seismic airgun operations off of
Spain. The authors suggested, based on
analysis of carcasses, that the damage to
the squid was unusual when compared
to other dead squid found at other
times. However, the report presents
conclusions based on a correlation to
the time of finding of the carcasses and
seismic testing, but the evidence in
support of an effect of airgun activity
was totally circumstantial. Moreover,
the data presented showing damage to
tissue is highly questionable since there
was no way to differentiate between
damage due to some external cause (e.g.,
the seismic airgun) and normal tissue
degradation that takes place after death,
or due to poor fixation and preparation
of tissue. To date, this work has not
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
been published in peer reviewed
literature, and detailed images of the
reportedly damaged tissue are also not
available.
In summary, baleen whales feed on
the aggregations of krill and small
schooling fish within Southern
California, while toothed whales feed on
epipelagic, mesoplegic, and
bathypelagic fish and squid. As
summarized above and in the SOCAL
Range Complex DEIS in more detail,
potential impacts to marine mammal
food resources within the SOCAL Range
Complex is negligible given both lack of
hearing sensitivity to MFAS, 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 SOCAL Range Complex.
Bottom Disturbance
The current Shallow Water Training
Range (SWTR) instrumentation is to be
extended out from SOAR, to include
one 250-nm2 (463-km2) area to the west
in the area of the Tanner/Cortes Banks,
and one 250-nm2 (463-km2) area
between SOAR and the southern section
of SCI. The SWTR instrumentation is a
system of underwater acoustic
transducer devices, called nodes,
connected by cable to each other and to
a land-based facility where the collected
range data are used to evaluate the
performance of participants in shallow
water training exercises. The transducer
nodes are capable of both transmitting
and receiving acoustic signals from
ships operating within the SWTR
Extension.
Since the exact cable route has not
been decided, it is not possible to
determine if sensitive habitat will be
affected by the SWTR Extension. The
marine biological resource that could be
most affected is the white abalone, and
anywhere the cable crosses between 65
to 196 ft (20 to 60 m) and there is rocky
substrate, there is the possibility of
affecting white abalone or disrupting
abalone habitat. Assuming that rocky
substrate is avoided throughout the
cable corridor, the activities that could
affect marine biological resources are
associated with the construction of the
SWTR Extension. Direct impact and
mortality of marine invertebrates at each
node and from burial of the trunk cable
would occur. Assuming that 300
transducer nodes will be used,
approximately 65,400 ft2 (6,075 m2) of
soft bottom habitat would be affected,
and also assuming that 14 nm (25.9 km)
of the trunk cable will be buried
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60887
(assuming a width of 7.8 inches [20 cm],
which is twice the wide of the trench to
account for sidecasted material),
approximately 55,757 ft2 (5,180 m2) of
soft bottom habitat would be affected.
Soft bottom habitats are not considered
sensitive habitats and generally support
lower biological diversity than hard
substrate habitats. Soft bottom
organisms are also generally
opportunistic and would be expected to
rapidly re-colonize the disturbed areas.
Localized turbidity during installation
may also temporarily impact suspension
feeding invertebrates in the vicinity of
the cable corridor and nodes. Therefore,
assuming that rocky substrate is
avoided, impacts to marine biological
resources from the SWTR Extension are
anticipated to be minimal.
Water Quality
The SOCAL Range Complex EIS
analyzed the potential effects to water
quality from sonobuoy, Acoustic Device
Countermeasures (ADC), and
Expendable Mobile Acoustic Training
Target (EMATT) batteries; explosive
packages associated with the explosive
source sonobuoy (AN/SSQ–110A), and
Otto Fuel (OF) II combustion
byproducts associated with torpedoes.
Expendable Bathythermographs do not
have batteries and were not included in
the analysis. In addition, sonobuoys
were not analyzed since, once scuttled,
their electrodes are largely exhausted
during operations and residual
constituent dissolution occurs more
slowly than the releases from activated
seawater batteries. As such, only the
potential effects of batteries and
explosions on marine water quality in
and surrounding the sonobuoy
operation area were completed. It was
determined that there would be no
significant effect to water quality from
seawater batteries, lithium batteries, and
thermal batteries associated with
scuttled sonobuoys. ADCs and EMATTs
use lithium sulfur dioxide batteries. The
constituents in the battery react to form
soluble hydrogen gas and lithium
dithionite. The hydrogen gas eventually
enters the atmosphere and the lithium
hydroxide dissociates, forming lithium
ions and hydroxide ions. The hydroxide
is neutralized by the hydronium formed
from hydrolysis of the acidic sulfur
dioxide, ultimately forming water.
Sulfur dioxide, a gas that is highly
soluble in water, is the major reactive
component in the battery. The sulfur
dioxide ionizes in the water, forming
bisulfite (HSO3) that is easily oxidized
to sulfate in the slightly alkaline
environment of the ocean. Sulfur is
present as sulfate in large quantities
(i.e., 885 milligrams per liter [mg/L]) in
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
60888
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
the ocean. Thus, it was determined that
there would be no significant effect to
water quality from lithium sulfur
batteries associated with scuttled ADCs
and EMATTs.
Only a very small percentage of the
available hydrogen fluoride explosive
product in the explosive source
sonobuoy (AN/SSQ–110A) is expected
to become solubilized prior to reaching
the surface and the rapid dilution would
occur upon mixing with the ambient
water. As such, it was determined that
there would be no significant effect to
water quality from the explosive
product associated with the explosive
source sonobuoy (AN/SSQ–110A).
OF II is combusted in the torpedo
engine and the combustion byproducts
are exhausted into the torpedo wake,
which is extremely turbulent and causes
rapid mixing and diffusion. Combustion
byproducts include carbon dioxide,
carbon monoxide, water, hydrogen gas,
nitrogen gas, ammonia, hydrogen
cyanide, and nitrogen oxides. All of the
byproducts, with the exception of
hydrogen cyanide, are below the United
States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) water quality criteria. Hydrogen
cyanide is highly soluble in seawater
and dilutes below the USEPA criterion
within 6.3 m (20.7 ft) of the torpedo.
Therefore, it was determined there
would be no significant effect to water
quality as a result of OF II.
Analysis and Negligible Impact
Determination
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Pursuant to NMFS regulations
implementing the MMPA, an applicant
is required to estimate the number of
animals that will be ‘‘taken’’ by the
specified activities (i.e., takes by
harassment only, or takes by
harassment, injury, and/or death). This
estimate informs the analysis that NMFS
must perform to determine whether the
activity will have a ‘‘negligible impact’’
on the affected species or stock. Level B
(behavioral) harassment occurs at the
level of the individual(s) and does not
assume any resulting population-level
consequences, though there are known
avenues through which behavioral
disturbance of individuals can result in
population-level effects (for example:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
pink-footed geese (Anser
brachyrhynchus) in undisturbed habitat
gained body mass and had about a 46percent reproductive success compared
with geese in disturbed habitat (being
consistently scared off the fields on
which they were foraging) which did
not gain mass and has a 17-percent
reproductive success). A negligible
impact finding is based on the lack of
likely adverse effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number
of Level B harassment takes, alone, is
not enough information on which to
base an impact determination. In
addition to considering estimates of the
number of marine mammals that might
be ‘‘taken’’ through behavioral
harassment, NMFS must consider other
factors, such as the likely nature of any
responses (their intensity, duration,
etc.), the context of any responses
(critical reproductive time or location,
migration, etc.), or any of the other
variables mentioned in the first
paragraph (if known), as well as the
number and nature of estimated Level A
takes, the number of estimated
mortalities, and effects on habitat.
Generally speaking, and especially with
other factors being equal, the Navy and
NMFS anticipate more severe effects
from takes resulting from exposure to
higher received levels (though this is in
no way a strictly linear relationship
throughout species, individuals, or
circumstances) and less severe effects
from takes resulting from exposure to
lower received levels.
The Navy’s specified activities have
been described based on best estimates
of the number of MFAS/HFAS hours
that the Navy will conduct. The exact
number of hours (or torpedoes, or pings,
whatever unit the source is estimated
in) may vary from year to year, but will
not exceed the 5-year total indicated in
Table 10 (by multiplying the yearly
estimate by 5) by more than 10 percent.
NMFS estimates that a 10 percent
increase in active sonar hours
(torpedoes, pings, etc.) would result in
approximately a 10 percent increase in
the number of takes, and we have
considered this possibility and the effect
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of the additional active sonar use in our
analysis.
Taking the above into account,
considering the sections discussed
below, and dependent upon the
implementation of the proposed
mitigation measures, NMFS has
preliminarily determined that Navy
training exercises utilizing MFAS/HFAS
and underwater detonations will have a
negligible impact on the marine
mammal species and stocks present in
the SOCAL Range Complex.
Behavioral Harassment
As discussed in the Potential Effects
of Exposure of Marine Mammals to
MFAS/HFAS and illustrated in the
conceptual framework, marine
mammals can respond to MFAS/HFAS
in many different ways, a subset of
which qualify as harassment (see
Behavioral Harassment Section). One
thing that the take estimates do not take
into account is the fact that most marine
mammals will likely avoid strong sound
sources to one extent or another.
Although an animal that avoids the
sound source will likely still be taken in
some instances (such as if the avoidance
results in a missed opportunity to feed,
interruption of reproductive behaviors,
etc.) in other cases avoidance may result
in fewer instances of take than were
estimated or in the takes resulting from
exposure to a lower received level than
was estimated, which could result in a
less severe response. For MFAS/HFAS,
the Navy provided information (Table
11) estimating what percentage of the
total takes that will occur within the 10dB bins (without considering mitigation
or avoidance) that are within the
received levels considered in the risk
continuum and for TTS and PTS. This
table applies specifically to 53C hullmounted active sonar (the most
powerful source), with less powerful
sources the percentages would increase
slightly in the lower received levels and
correspondingly decrease in the higher
received levels. As mentioned above, an
animal’s exposure to a higher received
level is more likely to result in a
behavioral response that is more likely
to adversely affect the health of the
animals.
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
Because the Navy has only been
monitoring specifically to discern the
effects of MFAS/HFAS on marine
mammals since approximately 2006,
and because of the overall data gap
regarding the effects of MFAS/HFAS on
marine mammals, not a lot is known
regarding how marine mammals in the
SOCAL Range Complex will respond to
MFAS/HFAS. For the 12 MTEs for
which NMFS has received a monitoring
report, no instances of obvious
behavioral disturbance were observed
by the Navy watchstanders in the 704
marine mammal sightings of 7435
animals (9000+ hours of effort, though
only 4 of the 12 reports reported the
total number of hours of observation).
One cannot conclude from these results
that marine mammals were not harassed
from MFAS/HFAS, as a portion of
animals within the area of concern were
not seen (especially those more cryptic,
deep-diving species, such as beaked
whales or Kogia spp.) and some of the
non-biologist watchstanders might not
be well-qualified to characterize
behaviors. However, one can say that
the animals that were observed did not
respond in any of the obviously more
severe ways, such as panic, aggression,
or anti-predator response.
In addition to the monitoring that will
be required pursuant to these
regulations and any corresponding
LOAs, which is specifically designed to
help us better understand how marine
mammals respond to sound, the Navy
and NMFS have developed, funded, and
begun conducting a controlled exposure
experiment with beaked whales in the
Bahamas. Separately, the Navy and
NMFS conducted an opportunistic
tagging experiment with beaked whales
in the area of the 2008 Rim of the Pacific
training exercises in the HRC.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
Diel Cycle
As noted previously, many animals
perform vital functions, such as feeding,
resting, traveling, and socializing on a
diel cycle (24-hr cycle). Substantive
behavioral reactions to noise exposure
(such as disruption of critical life
functions, displacement, or avoidance of
important habitat) are more likely to be
significant if they last more than one
diel cycle or recur on subsequent days
(Southall et al., 2007). Consequently, a
behavioral response lasting less than
one day and not recurring on
subsequent days is not considered
particularly severe unless it could
directly affect reproduction or survival
(Southall et al., 2007).
In the previous section, we discussed
the fact that potential behavioral
responses to MFAS/HFAS that fall into
the category of harassment could range
in severity. By definition, the takes by
behavioral harassment involve the
disturbance of a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild by
causing disruption of natural behavioral
patterns (such as migration, surfacing,
nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering)
to a point where such behavioral
patterns are abandoned or significantly
altered. These reactions would,
however, be more of a concern if they
were expected to last over 24 hours or
be repeated in subsequent days. For
hull-mounted active sonar (the highest
power source), approximately 27
percent of the hours of source use are
comprised of Unit Level Training or
maintenance activities that occur in
events of 4 hours or less. Integrated Unit
Level Training or Major Training events
typically last more than one day,
however, active sonar use is not
continuous and the exercises take place
over very large areas, up to 50,000 nm2).
Additionally, during times of
continuous sonar use (parts of some
ASW exercises), vessels with hull-
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60889
mounted active sonar are typically
moving at speeds of 10–12 knots. NMFS
believes that it is unlikely that animals
would be exposed to MFAS/HFAS at
levels or for a duration likely to result
in a substantive response that would
then be carried on for more than one
day or on successive days.
TTS
NMFS and the Navy have estimated
that some individuals of some species of
marine mammals may sustain some
level of TTS from MFAS/HFAS. As
mentioned previously, TTS can last
from a few minutes to days, be of
varying degree, and occur across various
frequency bandwidths. Table 9 indicates
the estimated number of animals that
might sustain TTS from exposure to
MFAS/HFAS. The TTS sustained by an
animal is primarily classified by three
characteristics:
• Frequency—Available data (of midfrequency hearing specialists exposed to
mid to high frequency sounds—Southall
et al., 2007) suggest that most TTS
occurs in the frequency range of the
source up to one octave higher than the
source (with the maximum TTS at 1⁄2
octave above). The two hull-mounted
MFAS sources, the DICASS sonobuoys,
and the helicopter dipping sonar have
center frequencies between 3.5 and 8
kHz and the other unidentified MF
sources are, by definition, less than 10
kHz, which suggests that TTS induced
by any of these MF sources would be in
a frequency band somewhere between
approximately 2 and 20 kHz. There are
far fewer hours of HF source use and the
sounds would attenuate more quickly,
but if an animal were to incur TTS from
these sources, it would cover a higher
frequency range (sources are between 20
and 100 kHz, which means that TTS
could range up to 200 kHz, however, HF
systems are typically used less
frequently and for shorter time periods
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
EP14OC08.036
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
than surface ship and aircraft MF
systems, so TTS from these sources is
even less likely). TTS from explosives
would be broadband. Tables 12a and
12b summarize the vocalization data for
each species.
• Degree of the shift (i.e., how many
dB is the sensitivity of the hearing
reduced by)—generally, both the degree
of TTS and the duration of TTS will be
greater if the marine mammal is exposed
to a higher level of energy (which would
occur when the peak dB level is higher
or the duration is longer). The threshold
for the onset of TTS (> 6 dB) is 195 dB
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
(SEL), which might be received at
distances of up to 140 m from the most
powerful MFAS source, the AN/SQS–53
(the maximum ranges to TTS from other
sources would be less, as modeled for
SOCAL). An animal would have to
approach closer to the source or remain
in the vicinity of the sound source
appreciably longer to increase the
received SEL, which would be difficult
considering the watchstanders and the
nominal speed of an active sonar vessel
(10–12 knots). Of all TTS studies, some
using exposures of almost an hour in
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
duration or up to 217 SEL, most of the
TTS induced was 15 dB or less, though
Finneran et al. (2007) induced 43 dB of
TTS with a 64-sec exposure to a 20 kHz
source (MFAS emits a 1-s ping 2 times/
minute).
• Duration of TTS (Recovery time)—
see above. Of all TTS laboratory studies,
some using exposures of almost an hour
in duration or up to 217 SEL, almost all
recovered within 1 day (or less, often in
minutes), though in one study (Finneran
et al. (2007)), recovery took 4 days.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
EP14OC08.037
60890
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
Based on the range of degree and
duration of TTS reportedly induced by
exposures to non-pulse sounds of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
energy higher than that to which freeswimming marine mammals in the field
are likely to be exposed during MFAS/
HFAS training exercises, it is unlikely
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60891
that marine mammals would sustain a
TTS from MFAS that alters their
sensitivity by more than 20 dB for more
than a few days (and the majority would
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
EP14OC08.038
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
60892
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
be far less severe). Also, for the same
reasons discussed in the Diel Cycle
section, and because of the short
distance within which animals would
need to approach the sound source, it is
unlikely that animals would be exposed
to the levels necessary to induce TTS in
subsequent time periods such that their
recovery were impeded. Additionally
(see Tables 12a and 12b), though the
frequency range of TTS that marine
mammals might sustain would overlap
with some of the frequency ranges of
their vocalization types, the frequency
range of TTS from MFAS (the source
from which TTS would more likely be
sustained because the higher source
level and slower attenuation make it
more likely that an animal would be
exposed to a higher level) would not
usually span the entire frequency range
of one vocalization type, much less span
all types of vocalizations. If impaired,
marine mammals would typically be
aware of their impairment and
implement behaviors to compensate for
it (see Communication Impairment
Section), though these compensations
may incur energetic costs.
Acoustic Masking or Communication
Impairment
Table 12 is also informative regarding
the nature of the masking or
communication impairment that could
potentially occur from MFAS (again,
center frequencies are 3.5 and 7.5 kHz
for the two types of hull-mounted active
sonar). However, masking only occurs
during the time of the signal (and
potential secondary arrivals of indirect
rays), versus TTS, which occurs
continuously for its duration. Standard
MFAS pings last on average one second
and occur about once every 24–30
seconds for hull-mounted sources.
When hull-mounted active sonar is used
in the Kingfisher mode, pulse length is
shorter, but pings are much closer
together (both in time and space, since
the vessel goes slower when operating
in this mode). For the sources for which
we know the pulse length, most are
significantly shorter than hull-mounted
active sonar, on the order of several
microseconds to 10s of micro seconds.
For hull-mounted active sonar, though
some of the vocalizations that marine
mammals make are less than one second
long, there is only a 1 in 24 chance that
they would occur exactly when the ping
was received, and when vocalizations
are longer than one second, only parts
of them are masked. Alternately, when
the pulses are only several
microseconds long, the majority of most
animals’ vocalizations would not be
masked. Masking effects from MFAS/
HFAS are expected to be minimal. If
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
masking or communication impairment
were to occur briefly, it would be in the
frequency range of MFAS, which
overlaps with some marine mammal
vocalizations, however, it would likely
not mask the entirety of any particular
vocalization or communication series
because the pulse length, frequency, and
duty cycle of the MFAS/HFAS signal
does not perfectly mimic the
characteristics of any marine mammal’s
vocalizations.
PTS, Injury, or Mortality
The Navy’s model estimated that the
following numbers of individuals of the
indicated species would be exposed to
levels of MFAS/HFAS associated with
the likelihood of resulting in PTS:
bottlenose dolphin-47; blue whale—1;
gray whale—1: Long-beaked common
dolphin—1; short-beaked common
dolphin—6; striped dolphin—1; and
Pacific harbor seal—9. However, these
estimates do not take into consideration
either the mitigation measures or the
likely avoidance behaviors of some of
the animals exposed. NMFS believes
that many marine mammals would
deliberately avoid exposing themselves
to the received levels of active sonar
necessary to induce injury (i.e.,
approaching to within approximately 10
m (10.9 yd) of the source) by moving
away from or at least modifying their
path to avoid a close approach.
Additionally, in the unlikely event that
an animal approaches the sonar vessel
at a close distance, NMFS believes that
the mitigation measures (i.e., shutdown/
powerdown zones for MFAS/HFAS)
further ensure that animals would not
be exposed to injurious levels of sound.
As discussed previously, the Navy
utilizes both aerial (when available) and
passive acoustic monitoring (during all
ASW exercises) in addition to
watchstanders on vessels to detect
marine mammals for mitigation
implementation and indicated that they
are capable of effectively monitoring a
1000-meter (1093-yd) safety zone at
night using night vision goggles,
infrared cameras, and passive acoustic
monitoring. When these two points are
considered, NMFS does not believe that
any marine mammals will incur PTS
from exposure to MFAS/HFAS.
The Navy’s model estimated that 34
total animals (dolphins and pinnipeds)
would be exposed to explosive
detonations at levels that could result in
injury and that 4 dolphins and 7
pinnipeds would be exposed to levels
that could result in death—however,
those estimates do not consider
mitigation measures. Because of the
surveillance conducted prior to and
during the exercises, the associated
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
exclusion zones (see table 3 and the
Mitigation section), and the distance
within which the animal would have to
be from the explosive, NMFS does not
think that any animals will be exposed
to levels of sound or pressure from
explosives that will result in injury or
death.
As discussed previously, marine
mammals could potentially respond to
MFAS at a received level lower than the
injury threshold in a manner that
indirectly results in the animals
stranding. The exact mechanisms of this
potential response, behavioral or
physiological, are not known. However,
based on the number of occurrences
where strandings have been definitively
associated with military active sonar
versus the number of hours of active
sonar training that have been
conducted, we suggest that the
probability is small that this will occur.
Additionally, an active sonar shutdown
protocol for strandings involving live
animals milling in the water minimizes
the chances that these types of events
turn into mortalities.
Though NMFS does not expect it to
occur, because of the uncertainty
surrounding the mechanisms that link
exposure to MFAS to stranding
(especially in beaked whales), NMFS is
proposing to authorize the injury or
mortality of 10 beaked whales over the
course of the 5-yr regulations.
40 Years of Navy Training Exercises
Using MFAS/HFAS in the SOCAL Range
Complex
The Navy has been conducting
MFAS/HFAS training exercises in the
SOCAL Range Complex for over forty
years. Although monitoring specifically
in conjunction with training exercises to
determine the effects of active sonar on
marine mammals was not being
conducted by the Navy prior to 2006
and the symptoms indicative of
potential acoustic trauma were not as
well recognized prior to the midnineties, people have been collecting
stranding data in the SOCAL Range
Complex for approximately 25 years.
Though not all dead or injured animals
are expected to end up on the shore
(some may be eaten or float out to sea),
one might expect that if marine
mammals were being harmed by active
sonar with any regularity, more
evidence would have been detected over
the 40-yr period.
Species-Specific Analysis
In the discussions below, the
‘‘acoustic analysis’’ refers to the Navy’s
analysis, which includes the use of
several models and other applicable
calculations as described in the
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Estimates of Potential Marine Mammal
Exposure section. The numbers
predicted by the ‘‘acoustic analysis’’ are
based on a uniform and stationary
distribution of marine mammals and do
not take into consideration the
implementation of mitigation measures
or potential avoidance behaviors of
marine mammals, and therefore, are
likely overestimates of potential
exposures to the indicated thresholds
(PTS, TTS, behavioral harassments).
Consequently, NMFS has factored in the
mitigation measures and avoidance to
make both quantitative and qualitative
adjustments to the take estimates
predicted by the Navy’s ‘‘acoustic
analysis’’. The revised take estimates
(and proposed take authorization)
depict a more realistic scenario than
those adopted directly from the Navy’s
acoustic analysis.
Although NMFS is not required to
identify the number of animals that will
be taken specifically by TTS versus
behavioral harassment (Level B
Harassment takes include both), we
have attempted to make more realistic
estimates by quantitatively refining the
Navy’s TTS estimates by modifying the
estimate produced by the acoustic
analysis by a specific amount if certain
circumstances are present as described
below:
For MFAS/HFAS, some animals are
likely to avoid the source to some
degree (which could decrease the
number exposed to TTS levels). Adding
to that, in the following circumstances
(discussed in more detail in the
individual sections below) the indicated
multipliers were applied to the TTS
estimates predicted by the acoustic
analysis:
• When animals are highly visible
(such as melon-headed whales,
humpback whales), we assume that
lookouts will see them in time to cease
sonar operation before the animals are
exposed to levels associated with TTS,
which reach to about 140 m from the
sonar source. In this case we estimate 0
animals will incur TTS.
• When animals are deep divers and
very cryptic at the surface (such as
beaked whales), though some may avoid
the source, we assume that most will
not be sighted, and therefore we
estimated that 50–100 percent of the
number predicted by the Navy’s
acoustic analysis might actually incur
TTS.
• When animals are more likely to be
visually detected than beaked whales,
but less likely than the highly visible
species, we estimate that 0–100 percent
of the number of these species (sperm
whales, some pinnipeds) predicted by
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
the Navy’s acoustic analysis might
actually incur TTS.
• Though dolphins are highly visible,
because the mitigation includes a
provision to allow bow-riding, not all
TTS take of dolphins will necessarily be
avoided. Therefore, we estimated that
0–50 percent of the number of dolphins
predicted by the Navy’s acoustic
analysis might actually incur TTS.
For explosives, all TTS will likely not
be avoided for any species because for
a couple of the larger explosives, the
distance at which an animal could incur
TTS is somewhat greater than the
Navy’s exclusion zone for a couple of
the exercise types (see Table 3). Adding
to that, in the following circumstances
(discussed in more detail in the
individual sections below) the indicated
multipliers were applied to the TTS
estimates predicted by the acoustic
analysis:
• When marine mammals are highly
detectable, NMFS estimated that 0–50
percent of the number of those species
predicted by the Navy’s acoustic
analysis might actually incur TTS.
• When marine mammals are less
than highly detectable, NMFS estimated
that 50–100 percent of the number of
those species predicted by the Navy’s
acoustic analysis might actually incur
TTS.
Humpback Whale
Acoustic analysis indicates that up to
15 exposures of humpback whales to
sound levels likely to result in Level B
harassment may occur from MFAS/
HFAS and explosives. This estimate
represents the total number of takes and
not necessarily the number of
individuals taken, as a single individual
may be taken multiple times over the
course of a year. These Level B takes are
anticipated to be in the form of
behavioral disturbance as described in
the Definition of Harassment: Level B
Harassment section section. Although 2
of the modeled Level B Harassment
takes were predicted to be in the form
of TTS from MFAS/HFAS, NMFS
believes it is unlikely that any
humpback whales will incur TTS
because of the distance within which
they would have to approach the active
sonar source (depending on conditions,
within a range of 140 m for the most
powerful source), the fact that many
animals will likely avoid active sonar
sources to some degree, and the high
likelihood that Navy monitors would
detect these animals (due to their large
size, surface behavior, and pronounced
blow) prior to an approach within this
distance and implement active sonar
powerdown or shutdown. Acoustic
analysis estimates that no humpback
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60893
whales will be exposed to MFAS/HFAS
sound levels likely to result in Level A
harassment.
Modeling of the explosive sources
predicts that no take of humpback
whales will result from the detonation
of underwater explosives.
Humpback whales in southern
California are primarily from the Eastern
North Pacific Stock. The current best
estimate of population size for this stock
is 1,391 (Caretta et al., 2007). No areas
of specific importance for reproduction
or feeding for humpback whales have
been identified in the SOCAL Range
Complex.
Sei Whales and Bryde’s Whales
Both Sei whales and Bryde’s whales
are considered rare in SOCAL (less than
3 sightings in last 30 years, only one
confirmed sighting in California,
respectively). Because of their very low
density in the area, the Navy’s acoustic
analysis indicates that no sei whales or
Bryde’s whales will be exposed to
sound levels or explosive detonations
likely to result in take and the Navy has
not requested authorization to take any
individuals of these species.
Fin Whales
Acoustic analysis indicates that up to
167 exposures of fin whales to sound
levels likely to result in Level B
harassment may result from MFAS/
HFAS and explosives. This estimate
represents the total number of takes and
not necessarily the number of
individuals taken, as a single individual
may be taken multiple times over the
course of a year. These Level B takes are
anticipated to primarily be in the form
of behavioral harassment as described in
the Definition of Harassment: Level B
Harassment section. Although 12 of the
modeled Level B Harassment takes were
predicted to be in the form of TTS from
MFAS/HFAS, NMFS believes it is
unlikely that any fin whales will incur
TTS because of the distance within
which they would have to approach the
MFAS source (approximately 140 m for
the most powerful source for TTS), the
fact that many animals will likely avoid
active sonar sources to some degree, and
the likelihood that Navy monitors
would detect these animals prior to an
approach within this distance and
implement active sonar powerdown or
shutdown. Navy lookouts will likely
detect a group of fin whales because of
their large size, mean group size (3), and
pronounced blow.
Acoustic analysis also predicted that
1 TTS take of fin whales from
explosives would occur. For the same
reasons listed above, NMFS anticipates
that the Navy watchstanders would
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
60894
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
likely detect these species and
implement the mitigation to avoid
exposure. However, the range to TTS for
a few of the larger explosives is larger
than the associated exclusion zones for
BOMBEX, MISSILEX, or SINKEX (see
Table 3), and therefore NMFS
anticipates that TTS might not be
entirely avoided during those exercises,
so NMFS estimates that up to 1 TTS
take of a fin whale might result from
explosive detonations.
Acoustic analysis estimates that no fin
whales will be exposed to MFAS/HFAS
sound levels or explosives expected to
result in injury or death. Further, NMFS
believes that many marine mammals
would avoid exposing themselves to the
received levels necessary to induce
injury (and avoid getting as close to the
vessel as they would need to: within
approximately 10 m (10.9 yd)) by
moving away from or at least modifying
their path to avoid a close approach.
Also, NMFS believes that the mitigation
measures would be effective at avoiding
injurious exposures to animal that
approached within the explosive safety
zone, especially in the case of these
large animals.
Fin whales in the Southern California
Range Complex belong to the California/
Oregon/Washington stock. The best
population estimate for this stock is
2,099. No areas of specific importance
for reproduction or feeding for fin
whales have been identified in the
SOCAL Range Complex.
Blue Whales
Acoustic analysis indicates that up to
609 exposures of blue whales to MFAS/
HFAS or explosive detonations at sound
or pressure levels likely to result in
Level B harassment may occur. This
estimate represents the total number of
takes and not necessarily the number of
individuals taken, as a single individual
may be taken multiple times over the
course of a year. These Level B takes are
anticipated to be primarily in the form
of behavioral disturbance as described
in the Definition of Harassment: Level B
Harassment section. Although 67 of the
modeled Level B Harassment takes were
predicted to be in the form of TTS from
MFAS/HFAS exposure, NMFS believes
it is unlikely that any blue whales will
incur TTS because of the distance
within which they would have to
approach the MFAS source
(approximately 140 m for the most
powerful source for TTS), the fact that
many animals will likely avoid active
sonar sources to some degree, and the
likelihood that Navy monitors would
detect these animals prior to an
approach within this distance and
implement active sonar powerdown or
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
shutdown. Navy lookouts will likely
detect a group of blue whales given their
large size, average group size (2–3), and
pronounced vertical blow. The acoustic
analysis also predicted that 1 animal
would be exposed to MFAS/HFAS
sound levels that would result in Level
A Harassment (PTS—injury). However,
for the same reasons listed above for
TTS (and because animals would need
to approach within 10 m of the sonar
dome), NMFS does not believe that any
animals will incur PTS or be otherwise
injured by MFAS/HFAS.
Acoustic analysis also predicted that
2 blue whales would be exposed to
sound or pressure from explosives at
levels expected to result in TTS. For the
same reasons listed above, NMFS
anticipates that the Navy watchstanders
would likely detect these species and
implement the mitigation to avoid
exposure. However, the range to TTS for
a few of the larger explosives is larger
than the associated exclusion zones for
BOMBEX, MISSILEX, or SINKEX (see
Table 3), therefore NMFS anticipates
that TTS might not be entirely avoided
during those exercises, so NMFS
estimates that up to 1 TTS take of a blue
whale might result from explosive
detonations. Acoustic analysis estimates
that no blue whales will be exposed to
explosive levels likely to result in PTS
or mortality.
Blue whales in the Southern
California Range Complex belong to the
Eastern North Pacific stock. The best
population estimate for this stock is
1,744 (Caretta et al., 2007). No areas of
specific importance for reproduction or
feeding for blue whales have been
identified in the SOCAL Range
Complex.
Gray Whales
Acoustic analysis indicates that up to
5,460 exposures of gray whales to
MFAS/HFAS or explosive detonations
at sound or pressure levels likely to
result in Level B harassment may occur.
This estimate represents the total
number of takes and not necessarily the
number of individuals taken, as a single
individual may be taken multiple times
over the course of a year. These Level
B takes are anticipated to primarily be
in the form of behavioral disturbance as
described in the Definition of
Harassment: Level B Harassment section
section. Although 544 of the modeled
Level B Harassment takes were
predicted to be in the form of TTS from
MFAS/HFAS exposure, NMFS believes
it is unlikely that any gray whales will
incur TTS because of the distance
within which they would have to
approach the MFAS source
(approximately 140 m for the most
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
powerful source for TTS, 10 m for
injury), the fact that many animals will
likely avoid active sonar sources to
some degree, and the likelihood that
Navy monitors would detect these
animals prior to an approach within this
distance and implement active sonar
powerdown or shutdown. Navy
lookouts will likely detect a group of
gray whales given their large size,
pronounced blow and mean group size
of about 3 animals. The acoustic
analysis also predicted that 1 animal
would be exposed to MFAS/HFAS
sound levels that would result in Level
A Harassment (PTS—injury). However,
for the same reasons listed above for
TTS (and because animals would need
to approach within 10 m of the sonar
dome), NMFS does not believe that any
animals will incur PTS or be otherwise
injured by MFAS/HFAS.
Acoustic analysis also predicted that
7 gray whales would be exposed to
sound or pressure from explosives at
levels expected to result in TTS. For the
same reasons listed above, NMFS
anticipates that the Navy watchstanders
would likely detect these species and
implement the mitigation to avoid
exposure. However, the range to TTS for
a few of the larger explosives is larger
than the associated exclusion zones for
BOMBEX, MISSILEX, or SINKEX (see
Table 3), and therefore NMFS
anticipates that TTS might not be
entirely avoided during those exercises,
so NMFS estimates that up to 4 TTS
take of a gray whale might result from
explosive detonations. Acoustic analysis
predicts that no gray whales will be
exposed to explosive levels likely to
result either in Level A harassment or
mortality.
Gray whales in the Southern
California Range Complex belong to the
Eastern North Pacific stock, for which
the best population estimate is 26,635
(Angliss and Outlaw, 2007). No areas of
specific importance for reproduction or
feeding for gray whales have been
identified in the SOCAL Range
Complex.
Minke Whales
Acoustic analysis indicates that up to
126 exposures of minke whales to
MFAS/HFAS or explosive detonations
at sound or pressure levels likely to
result in Level B harassment may occur.
This estimate represents the total
number of Level B takes and not
necessarily the number of individuals
taken, as a single individual may be
taken multiple times over the course of
a year. These Level B takes are
anticipated to be in the form of
behavioral disturbance as described in
the Definition of Harassment: Level B
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Harassment section. Although 16 of the
modeled Level B Harassment takes were
predicted to be in the form of TTS from
MFAS/HFAS exposure, NMFS believes
it is unlikely that all 16 whales will
incur TTS because of the distance
within which they would have to
approach the active sonar source
(approximately 140 m for the most
powerful source), the fact that many
animals will likely avoid active sonar
sources to some degree, and the
likelihood that Navy monitors would
detect some of these animals prior to an
approach within this distance and
implement active sonar powerdown or
shutdown. However, because of their
cryptic behavior/profile at the surface,
NMFS believes that some animals may
approach undetected within the
distance in which TTS would likely be
incurred (although, they can be detected
well using passive acoustic monitoring).
Therefore, NMFS estimates that 0–16
Minke whales may incur TTS from
exposure to MFAS/HFAS.
As indicated in Table 12, known
minke whale vocalizations are largely
below 1 kHz and would not likely
overlap with MFAS/HFAS TTS, which
would be in the range of 2–20 kHz. As
noted previously, NMFS does not
anticipate TTS of a long duration or
severe degree to occur as a result of
exposure to MFA/HFAS.
Acoustic analysis predicts that no
minke whales will be exposed to MFAS/
HFAS sound levels likely to result
either in Level A harassment or
mortality. Additionally, acoustic
analysis predicts that no take of minke
whales will result form exposure to
explosive detonations. No areas of
specific importance for reproduction or
feeding for minke whales have been
identified in the SOCAL Range
Complex.
Minke whales in the Southern
California Range Complex belong to the
California/Oregon/Washington stock, for
which the best population estimate is
823 (Barlow and Forney, 2007).
Sperm Whales
Acoustic analysis indicates that up to
148 exposures of sperm whales to
MFAS/HFAS or explosive detonations
at sound or pressure levels likely to
result in Level B harassment may occur.
This estimate represents the total
number of Level B takes and not
necessarily the number of individuals
taken, as a single individual may be
taken multiple times over the course of
a year. These Level B takes are
anticipated to primarily be in the form
of behavioral disturbance as described
in the Definition of Harassment: Level B
Harassment section. Although 8 of the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
modeled Level B Harassment takes were
predicted to be in the form of TTS from
MFAS/HFAS exposure, NMFS believes
it is unlikely that all eight whales will
incur TTS because of the distance
within which they would have to
approach the MFAS source
(approximately 140 m for the most
powerful source), the fact that many
animals will likely avoid active sonar
sources to some degree, and the
likelihood that Navy monitors would
detect some of these animals at the
surface prior to an approach within this
distance and implement active sonar
powerdown or shutdown. However,
because of their long, deep diving
behavior (up to 2-hour dives), NMFS
believes that some animals may
approach undetected within the
distance in which TTS would likely be
incurred. Therefore, NMFS estimates
that 0–8 sperm whales may incur some
degree of TTS from exposure to MFAS/
HFAS.
As indicated in Table 12, some (but
not all) sperm whale vocalizations
might overlap with the MFAS/HFAS
TTS frequency range (2–20 kHz), which
could potentially temporarily decrease
an animal’s sensitivity to the calls of
conspecifics or returning echolocation
signals. However, as noted previously,
NMFS does not anticipate TTS of a long
duration or severe degree to occur as a
result of exposure to MFA/HFAS. No
sperm whales are predicted to be
exposed to MFAS/HFAS sound levels
associated with PTS or injury.
Acoustic analysis also predicted that
one sperm whale would be exposed to
sound or pressure from explosives at
levels expected to result in TTS. For the
same reasons listed above, NMFS
anticipates that the Navy watchstanders
would likely detect these species in
most instances and implement the
mitigation to avoid exposure. However,
the range to TTS for a few of the larger
explosives is larger than the associated
exclusion zones for BOMBEX,
MISSILEX, or SINKEX (see Table 3), and
therefore NMFS anticipates that TTS
might not be entirely avoided during
those exercises, so NMFS estimates that
up to one TTS take of a sperm whale
might result from explosive detonations.
Acoustic analysis predicts that no sperm
whales will be exposed to explosive
levels likely to result either in Level A
harassment or mortality.
No areas of specific importance for
reproduction or feeding for sperm
whales have been identified in the
SOCAL Range Complex. Sperm whales
in the Southern California Range
Complex belong to the California/
Oregon/Washington stock, for which the
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60895
best population estimate is 1,233
(Caretta et al., 2007).
Pygmy and Dwarf Sperm Whales
Acoustic analysis indicates that up to
159 exposures of pygmy sperm whales
to MFAS/HFAS or explosive
detonations at sound or pressure levels
likely to result in Level B harassment
may occur. This estimate represents the
total number of Level B takes and not
necessarily the number of individuals
taken, as a single individual may be
taken multiple times over the course of
a year. These Level B takes are
anticipated to primarily be in the form
of behavioral disturbance as described
in the Definition of Harassment: Level B
Harassment section. Sixteen of the
modeled Level B Harassment takes were
predicted to be in the form of TTS from
MFAS/HFAS exposure. NMFS believes
it is unlikely that all 16 whales will
incur TTS because of the distance
within which they would have to
approach the MFAS source
(approximately 140 m for the most
powerful source) and the fact that many
animals will likely avoid active sonar
sources to some degree. However, the
likelihood that Navy monitors would
detect most of these animals at the
surface prior to an approach within this
distance is low because of their small
size, non-gregarious nature, and cryptic
behavior and profile. Therefore, NMFS
estimates that 8–16 pygmy sperm
whales may incur some degree of TTS
from exposure to MFAS/HFAS.
As indicated in Table 12, some Kogia
spp. vocalizations might overlap with
the MFAS/HFAS TTS frequency range
(2–20 kHz), but the limited information
for Kogia sp. indicates that the majority
of their clicks are at a much higher
frequency and that their maximum
hearing sensitivity is between 90 and
150 kHz. However, as noted previously,
NMFS does not anticipate TTS of a long
duration or severe degree to occur as a
result of exposure to MFA/HFAS. No
pygmy sperm whales are predicted to be
exposed to MFAS/HFAS sound levels
associated with PTS or injury.
Acoustic analysis also predicted that
one pygmy sperm whale would be
exposed to sound or pressure from
explosives at levels expected to result in
TTS. For the same reasons listed above,
NMFS anticipates that the Navy
watchstanders would not always detect
these species to implement the
mitigation to avoid exposure.
Additionally, the range to TTS for a few
of the larger explosives is larger than the
associated exclusion zones for
BOMBEX, MISSILEX, or SINKEX (see
Table 3), and therefore NMFS
anticipates that TTS might not be
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
60896
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
entirely avoided during those exercises,
so NMFS estimates that one TTS take of
a pygmy sperm whale would result from
explosive detonations. Acoustic analysis
predicts that no sperm whales will be
exposed to explosive levels likely to
result either in Level A harassment or
mortality.
Dwarf sperm whales are considered
rare in the SOCAL Range Complex and
no information is available to estimate
the population size of dwarf sperm
whales off the U.S. West Coast (Caretta
et al., 2007). NMFS and the Navy do not
anticipate take of this species occurring,
but NMFS is proposing to authorize 20
Level B Harassment takes for this
species annually to ensure MMPA
compliance should the Navy
unexpectedly encounter an individual
of this species while operating active
sonar.
No areas of specific importance for
reproduction or feeding for pygmy or
dwarf sperm whales have been
identified in the SOCAL Range
Complex. Pygmy sperm whales in the
Southern California Range Complex
belong to the California/Oregon/
Washington stock, for which the most
recent population estimate is 247
(Caretta et al., 2007).
Beaked Whales
Due to the difficulty in differentiating
Mesoplodon species from each other,
the management unit (California/
Oregon/Washington stock of
Mesoplodont beaked whales) is defined
to include all the mesoplodon
populations (Blainville’s, Hubb’s,
Perrin’s, pygmy, and ginkgo-toothed
beaked whales) and anticipated take of
these 5 species is combined in Table 9.
Acoustic analysis indicates that 13
Baird’s beaked whales, 428 Cuvier’s
beaked whales, and 131 Mesoplodon
species will likely be exposed to MFAS/
HFAS or explosives at pressure or
sound levels likely to result in Level B
harassment. The analysis also further
estimates that 97 unidentified beaked
whales may be taken by Level B
Harassment. These estimates represent
the total number of exposures and not
necessarily the number of individuals
exposed, as a single individual may be
exposed multiple times over the course
of a year.
One (Baird’s), 37 (Cuvier’s), and 13
(Mesoplodon) of the modeled Level B
Harassment takes were predicted to be
in the form of TTS from MFAS/HFAS
exposure. NMFS believes it is unlikely
that all 51 beaked whales will incur TTS
because of the distance within which
they would have to approach the active
sonar source (approximately 140 m for
the most powerful source) and the fact
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
that many animals will likely avoid
active sonar sources to some degree.
However, the likelihood that Navy
monitors would detect most of these
animals at the surface prior to an
approach within this distance is low
because of their non-gregarious nature,
cryptic behavior and profile, and the
fact that they often dive for up to an
hour. Therefore, NMFS estimates that 1
Baird’s, 19–37 Cuvier’s, and 7–13
Mesoplodon beaked whales may incur
some degree of TTS from exposure to
MFAS/HFAS.
As indicated in Table 12, some
beaked whale vocalizations might
overlap with the MFAS/HFAS TTS
frequency range (2–20 kHz), which
could potentially temporarily decrease
an animal’s sensitivity to the calls of
conspecifics or returning echolocation
signals. However, as noted previously,
NMFS does not anticipate TTS of a long
duration or severe degree to occur as a
result of exposure to MFA/HFAS. No
beaked whales are predicted to be
exposed to MFAS/HFAS sound levels
associated with PTS or injury.
Acoustic analysis also predicted that
3 Cuvier’s and 1 Mesoplodon beaked
whale would be exposed to sound or
pressure from explosives at levels
expected to result in TTS. For the same
reasons listed above, NMFS anticipates
that the Navy watchstanders would not
likely always detect these species and
implement the mitigation to avoid
exposure. Additionally, the range to
TTS for a few of the larger explosives is
larger than the associated exclusion
zones for BOMBEX, MISSILEX, or
SINKEX (see Table 3), therefore NMFS
anticipates that TTS might not be
entirely avoided during those exercises.
NMFS estimates that up to 1 TTS take
of a Mesoplodon species and up to 3
TTS takes of a Cuvier’s beaked whale
would result from explosive
detonations. Acoustic analysis predicts
that no beaked whales will be exposed
to explosive levels likely to result either
in Level A harassment or mortality.
No areas of specific importance for
reproduction or feeding for beaked
whales have been identified in the
SOCAL Range Complex. The California/
Oregon/Washington stock of
Mesoplodon whales has estimated
population of 1,777 (Barlow and Forney,
2007). The population size of the
California/Oregon/Washington stock of
Cuvier’s beaked whale is estimated at
4,342 (Barlow and Forney, 2007). The
population size of the California/
Oregon/Washington stock of Baird’s
beaked whale is estimated at 1,005
(Barlow and Forney, 2007).
As discussed previously, scientific
uncertainty exists regarding the
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
potential contributing causes of beaked
whale strandings and the exact
behavioral or physiological mechanisms
that can potentially lead to the ultimate
physical effects (stranding and/or death)
that have been documented in a few
cases. Although NMFS does not expect
injury or mortality of any of these seven
species to occur as a result of the
MFAS/HFAS training exercises (see
Mortality paragraph above), there
remains the potential for the operation
of MFAS to contribute to the mortality
of beaked whales. Consequently, NMFS
intends to authorize mortality and we
consider the 10 potential mortalities
from across the seven species
potentially effected over the course of 5
years in our negligible impact
determination (NMFS only intends to
authorize a total of 10 beaked whale
mortality takes, but since they could be
of any of the species, we consider the
effects of 10 mortalities of any of the
seven species).
Social Pelagic Species (killer whales,
short-finned pilot whales, false killer
whales, pygmy killer whales, and
melon-headed whales)
Acoustic analysis indicates that 7
killer whales and 45 short-finned pilot
whales will be exposed to MFAS/HFAS
or explosive detonations at sound or
pressure levels likely to result in Level
B harassment. This estimate represents
the total number of Level B takes and
not necessarily the number of
individuals taken, as a single individual
may be taken multiple times over the
course of a year. These Level B takes are
anticipated to be in the form of
behavioral disturbance as described in
the Definition of Harassment: Level B
harassment section. Acoustic analysis
predicts that neither of these species
will be exposed to levels of MFAS/
HFAS associated with PTS or injury.
Although 1 and 6 (killer whale and
pilot whale, respectively) of the
modeled Level B Harassment takes were
predicted to be in the form of TTS from
MFAS/HFAS exposure, NMFS believes
it is unlikely that any killer whales or
short-finned pilot whales will incur TTS
because of the distance within which
they would have to approach the active
sonar source (approximately 140 m for
the most powerful source for TTS), the
fact that many animals will likely avoid
active sonar sources to some degree, and
the likelihood that Navy monitors
would detect these animals prior to an
approach within this distance and
implement active sonar powerdown or
shutdown. Navy lookouts will likely
detect a group of killer whales or shortfinned pilot whales given their large
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
individual size and mean large group
size (6.5 and 22.5, respectively).
Acoustic analysis predicts that neither
of these species will be exposed to
levels of sound or pressure from
explosives that would be expected to
result in any form of take. No areas of
specific importance for reproduction or
feeding for beaked whales have been
identified in the SOCAL Range
Complex.
The low density of killer whales in
California consists primarily of
individuals from the Offshore Eastern
North Pacific stock and the Transient
stock (as mentioned previously,
individuals from the eastern north
Pacific southern resident stock are not
expected to be encountered in SOCAL).
The combined population of these three
stocks is estimated at 1,340 (Caretta et
al., 2007). Population size of the
California/Oregon/Washington stock of
the short-finned pilot whale is estimated
at 350 (Barlow and Forney 2007).
Pygmy killer, false killer, and melonheaded whales are considered rare in
the SOCAL Range Complex and no
stocks have been designated for these
species on the west coast of the U.S.
NMFS and the Navy do not anticipate
take of this species occurring, but NMFS
is proposing to authorize 20 Level B
Harassment takes for each of these
species annually to ensure MMPA
compliance should the Navy
unexpectedly encounter an individual
of this species while operating MFAS/
HFAS.
Dolphins and Dall’s Porpoise
The acoustic analysis predicts that the
following numbers of Level B behavioral
harassments of the associated species
will occur: 1472 (bottlenose dolphins),
4583 (long-beaked common dolphin),
39404 (short-beaked common dolphin),
1503 (northern right whale dolphin),
1360 (Pacific white-sided dolphin),
1830 (striped dolphin), 622 (Dall’s
porpoise). This estimate represents the
total number of exposures and not
necessarily the number of individuals
exposed, as a single individual may be
exposed multiple times over the course
of a year.
Although a portion (191 (bottlenose
dolphins), 432 (long-beaked common
dolphin), 3727 (short-beaked common
dolphin), 166 (northern right whale
dolphin), 189 (Pacific white-sided
dolphin), 249 (striped dolphin), 88
(Dall’s porpoise)) of the modeled Level
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
B Harassment takes for all of these
species were predicted to be in the form
of TTS, NMFS believes it is unlikely
that all of the individuals estimated will
incur TTS because of the distance
within which they would have to
approach the active sonar source
(approximately 140 m for the most
powerful source), the fact that many
animals will likely avoid active sonar
sources to some degree, and the
likelihood that Navy monitors would
detect these animals prior to an
approach within this distance and
implement active sonar powerdown or
shutdown. Navy lookouts will likely
detect a group of dolphins given their
relatively short dives, gregarious
behavior, and large average group size.
However, the Navy’s proposed
mitigation has a provision that allows
the Navy to continue operation of MFAS
if the animals are clearly bow-riding
even after the Navy has initially
maneuvered to try and avoid closing
with the animals. Since these animals
sometimes bow-ride and could
potentially be exposed to levels
associated with TTS as they approach or
depart from bow-riding, we estimate
that half or less of the number of
animals modeled for MFAS/HFAS TTS
would sustain TTS (see table 9). As
mentioned above and indicated in Table
12, some dolphin vocalizations might
overlap with the MFAS/HFAS TTS
frequency range (2–20 kHz), which
could potentially temporarily decrease
an animal’s sensitivity to the calls of
conspecifics or returning echolocation
signals. However, as noted previously,
NMFS does not anticipate TTS of a long
duration or severe degree to occur as a
result of exposure to MFA/HFAS.
The acoustic analysis also predicted
that 1 long-beaked common dolphin, 6
short-beaked common dolphins, and 1
striped dolphin would be exposed to
MFAS/HFAS sound levels that would
result in Level A Harassment (PTS—
injury). However, for the same reasons
listed above for TTS (and because
animals would need to approach within
10 m of the sonar dome), NMFS does
not believe that any animals will incur
PTS or be otherwise injured by MFAS/
HFAS. Of note, the directionality of the
sonar dome is such that dolphins would
not likely be exposed to injurious levels
of sound while bow-riding.
Acoustic analysis also predicted that
10 bottlenose dolphins, 41 long-beaked
common dolphins, 354 short-beaked
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60897
common dolphins, 12 northern right
whale dolphins, 9 Pacific white-sided
dolphins, 6 striped dolphins, and 2
Dall’s porpoises would be exposed to
sound or pressure from explosives at
levels expected to result in TTS. For the
same reasons listed above, NMFS
anticipates that the Navy watchstanders
would likely detect these species and
implement the mitigation to avoid
exposure. However, the range to TTS for
a few of the larger explosives is larger
than the associated exclusion zones for
BOMBEX, MISSILEX, or SINKEX (see
Table 3), and therefore NMFS
anticipates that TTS might not be
entirely avoided during those exercises,
so NMFS estimates that up to half of the
estimated explosive detonation TTS
takes of dolphins might occur.
Acoustic analysis also predicted that
1 long-beaked dolphin, 1 Risso’s
dolphin, and 12 short-beaked common
dolphins might be exposed to sound or
pressure from explosive detonations
that would result in PTS or injury, and
that 4 short-beaked common dolphins
would be exposed to levels that would
result in mortality. For the same reasons
listed above (group size, dive and social
behavior), NMFS anticipates that the
Navy watchstanders would detect these
species and implement the mitigation
measures to avoid exposure. In the case
of all explosive exercises, the exclusion
zones are 2–12 times larger than the
estimated distance at which an animal
would be exposed to injurious sounds
or pressure waves. Therefore, no takes
by injury or death are anticipated or
authorized.
No areas of specific importance for
reproduction or feeding for dolphins
have been identified in the SOCAL
Range Complex. Table 13 shows the
estimated abundance of the affected
stocks of dolphins and Dall’s porpoise.
Pantropical spotted, rough-toothed,
and spinner dolphins are considered
rare in the SOCAL Range Complex and
no stocks have been designated for these
species on the west coast of the U.S.
NMFS and the Navy do not anticipate
take of this species occurring, but NMFS
is proposing to authorize 20 Level B
Harassment takes for each of these
species annually to ensure MMPA
compliance should the Navy
unexpectedly encounter an individual
of this species while operating MFAS/
HFAS.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
Pinnipeds (Guadalupe fur seal,
Northern fur seal, California sea lion,
Northern elephant seal, and Pacific
harbor seal).
The Navy’s acoustic analysis predicts
that the following numbers of Level B
behavioral harassments of the associated
species will occur: 1064 (Guadalupe fur
seal), 1229 (Northern fur seal), 55443
(California sea lion), 955 (northern
elephant seal), and 5625 (Pacific harbor
seal). This estimate represents the total
number of exposures and not
necessarily the number of individuals
exposed, as a single individual may be
exposed multiple times over the course
of a year.
A portion (190 Guadalupe fur seal, 3
Northern fur seal, 3 California sea lion,
5 northern elephant seal, and 4559
Pacific harbor seal) of the modeled
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
Level B Harassment takes for all of these
species were predicted to be in the form
of TTS. For Guadalupe fur seals,
Northern fur seals, and California sea
lions, for which the TTS threshold is
206 dB SEL, NMFS believes it is
unlikely that any of these pinnipeds
will incur TTS because of the distance
within which they would have to
approach the MFAS source
(approximately 40 m for the most
powerful source for), the fact that many
animals will likely avoid active sonar
sources to some degree, and the
likelihood that Navy monitors would
detect these pinnipeds (because of the
relatively short duration of their dives
and their tendency to rest near the
surface) prior to an approach within this
distance and implement active sonar
powerdown or shutdown. Because
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
elephant seals typically dive for longer
periods (20–30 minutes) and only spend
about 10 percent of their time at the
surface, some animals will likely not be
detected by Navy monitors and will
likely incur TTS. Also of note though,
elephant seals make extensive foraging
migrations to the North Pacific and Gulf
of Alaska outside of SOCAL returning
two times a year California haul-out
sites for breeding and molting. Northern
elephant seals would not be exposed
during the times they are foraging
outside of SOCAL (Stewart and DeLong
1995, Le Boeuf et al., 2000, Crocker et
al., 2006, Bearzi et al., 2008). NMFS
estimates that less than half of the
estimated elephant seal TTS takes may
occur (0–3). Though harbor seals have
generally short dive times, they are
smaller (harder to see) and the TTS
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
EP14OC08.039
60898
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
threshold for this species is
substantively lower (183 dB SEL),
which means that they can be exposed
to levels expected to result in TTS at a
substantially larger distance from the
source (approximately 1650 m).
Therefore, though some TTS takes will
likely be avoided through mitigation
implementation, NMFS estimates that
more than half of the estimated TTS
takes will still actually occur (2280–
4559). As mentioned above and
indicated in Table 12, some pinniped
vocalizations might overlap with the
MFAS/HFAS TTS frequency range
(2–20 kHz), which could potentially
temporarily decrease an animal’s
sensitivity to the calls of conspecifics or
returning echolocation signals.
However, as noted previously, NMFS
does not anticipate TTS of a long
duration or severe degree to occur as a
result of exposure to MFAS/HFAS.
The acoustic analysis also predicted
that 9 Pacific harbor seals animal would
be exposed to MFAS/HFAS sound
levels that would result in Level A
Harassment (PTS—injury). However,
because of the distance within which
they would have to approach the MFAS
source (approximately 50 m for the most
powerful source for) and the fact that
animals will likely avoid active sonar
sources to some degree, NMFS does not
believe that any animals will incur PTS
or be otherwise injured by MFAS/
HFAS.
Acoustic analysis also predicted that
2 Guadalupe fur seals, 64 Northern fur
seals, 510 California sea lions, 41
northern elephant seals, and 26 Pacific
harbor seals would be exposed to sound
or pressure from explosives at levels
expected to result in TTS. For the same
reasons listed above, NMFS anticipates
that the Navy watchstanders would
likely detect the majority of the
individual Guadalupe fur seals,
northern fur seals, and California sea
lions and implement the mitigation
measures to avoid exposure. However,
the range to TTS for a few of the larger
explosives is larger than the associated
exclusion zones for BOMBEX,
MISSILEX, or SINKEX (see Table 3),
therefore NMFS anticipates that TTS
might not be entirely avoided during
those exercises, so NMFS estimates that
up to half of the TTS takes predicted by
the acoustic analysis might actually be
incurred (0–1 Guadalupe fur seals, 0–32
northern fur seals, and 0–255 California
sea lions). NMFS estimates that of all of
the pinnipeds, fewer elephant seals and
harbor seals would likely be detected,
and therefore we estimate that a larger
portion of predicted exposures of
elephant seals and harbor seals might be
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
in the form of TTS (20–41 elephant
seals, 13–26 harbor seals).
Acoustic analysis also predicted that
20 pinnipeds might be exposed to levels
of sound or pressure from explosives
that would result in PTS or other injury
and that 7 pinnipeds mortalities would
result from explosive detonations.
NMFS anticipates that the Navy
watchstanders would likely detect these
species and implement the mitigation
measures to avoid exposure. In the case
of all explosive exercises, the exclusion
zones are 2–12 times larger than the
estimated distance at which an animal
would be exposed to injurious sounds
or pressure waves. Therefore, no takes
by injury or death are anticipated or
authorized. Table 13 shows the
estimated abundance of the affected
stocks of dolphins and Dall’s porpoise.
Preliminary Determination
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals
and their habitat and dependent upon
the implementation of the mitigation
and monitoring measures, NMFS
preliminarily finds that the total taking
from Navy training exercises utilizing
MFAS/HFAS and underwater
explosives in the SOCAL Range
Complex will have a negligible impact
on the affected species or stocks. NMFS
has proposed regulations for these
exercises that prescribe the means of
affecting the least practicable adverse
impact on marine mammals and their
habitat and set forth requirements
pertaining to the monitoring and
reporting of that taking.
Subsistence Harvest of Marine
Mammals
NMFS has preliminarily determined
that the issuance of 5-year regulations
and subsequent LOAs for Navy training
exercises in the SOCAL 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 marine mammal species
and six sea turtle species that are listed
as endangered under the ESA with
confirmed or possible occurrence in the
study area: humpback whale, sei whale,
fin whale, blue whale, sperm whale,
Guadalupe fur seal, loggerhead sea
turtle, the green sea turtle, leatherback
sea turtle, and the olive ridley sea turtle.
The Navy has begun consultation with
NMFS pursuant to section 7 of the ESA,
and NMFS will also consult internally
on the issuance of an LOA under section
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60899
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA for SOCAL
activities. Consultation will be
concluded prior to a determination on
the issuance of the final rule and an
LOA.
NEPA
NMFS has participated as a
cooperating agency on the Navy’s Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
for SOCAL, which was published on
April 4, 2008. The Navy’s DEIS is
posted on NMFS’ Web site: https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental.htm. NMFS intends to adopt
the Navy’s Final EIS (FEIS), if adequate
and appropriate. Currently, we believe
that the adoption of the Navy’s FEIS
will allow NMFS to meet its
responsibilities under NEPA for the
issuance of an LOA for SOCAL. If the
Navy’s FEIS is deemed not to be
adequate, NMFS would supplement the
existing analysis to ensure that we
comply with NEPA prior to the issuance
of the final rule or LOA.
Classification
This action does not contain any
collection of information requirements
for purposes of the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
The Office of Management and Budget
has determined that this proposed rule
is 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 sole entity that will be
affected by this rulemaking, not a small
governmental jurisdiction, small
organization or small business, as
defined by the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA). Any requirements imposed
by a Letter of Authorization issued
pursuant to these regulations, and any
monitoring or reporting requirements
imposed by these regulations, will be
applicable only to the Navy. NMFS does
not expect the issuance of these
regulations or the associated LOAs to
result in any impacts to small entities
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
60900
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pursuant to the RFA. Because this
action, if adopted, would directly affect
the Navy and not a small entity, NMFS
concludes the action would not result in
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Dated: September 25, 2008.
James Balsiger,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
For reasons set forth in the preamble,
50 CFR part 216 is proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 216—REGULATIONS
GOVERNING THE TAKING AND
IMPORTING OF MARINE MAMMALS
1. The authority citation for part 216
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
2. Subpart X is added to part 216 to
read as follows:
Subpart X—Taking and Importing Marine
Mammals; U.S. Navy’s Southern California
Range Complex (SOCAL)
Sec.
216.270 Specified activity and specified
geographical region.
216.271 Definitions.
216.272 Permissible methods of taking.
216.273 Prohibitions.
216.274 Mitigation.
216.275 Requirements for monitoring and
reporting.
216.276 Applications for Letters of
Authorization.
216.277 Letters of Authorization.
216.278 Renewal of Letters of Authorization
and adaptive management.
216.279 Modifications to Letters of
Authorization.
Table 1 to Subpart X—‘‘Summary of
monitoring effort proposed in draft
Monitoring Plan for SOCAL’’
Subpart X—Taking and Importing
Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy’s
Southern California Range Complex
(SOCAL)
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
§ 216.270 Specified activity and specified
geographical region.
(a) Regulations in this subpart apply
only to the U.S. Navy for the taking of
marine mammals that occurs in the area
outlined in paragraph (b) of this section
and that occur incidental to the
activities described in paragraph (c) of
this section.
(b) The taking of marine mammals by
the Navy is only authorized if it occurs
within the SOCAL Range Complex (as
depicted in Figure ES–1 in the Navy’s
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for SOCAL), which extends southwest
from southern California in an
approximately 700 by 200 nm rectangle
with the seaward corners at 27°30′00″ N.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
lat.; 127°10′04″ W. long. and 24°00′01″
N. lat.; 125°00′03″ W. long.
(c) The taking of marine mammals by
the Navy is only authorized if it occurs
incidental to the following activities
within the designated amounts of use:
(1) The use of the following midfrequency active sonar (MFAS) sources,
high frequency active sonar (HFAS)
sources for U.S. Navy anti-submarine
warfare (ASW), mine warfare (MIW)
training, maintenance, or research,
development, testing, and evaluation
(RDT&E) in the amounts indicated
below (±10 percent):
(i) AN/SQS–53 (hull-mounted active
sonar)—up to 9,885 hours over the
course of 5 years (an average of 1,977
hours per year).
(ii) AN/SQS–56 (hull-mounted active
sonar)—up to 2,470 hours over the
course of 5 years (an average of 494
hours per year).
(iii) AN/BQQ–10 (submarine active
sonar)—up to 4,075 hours over the
course of 5 years (an average of 815
hours per year) (an average of 2 pings
per hour during training events, 60
pings per hour for maintenance).
(iv) AN/AQS–22 or 13 (active
helicopter dipping sonar)—up to 13,595
dips over the course of 5 years (an
average of 2,719 dips per year—10 pings
per dip).
(v) SSQ–62 (Directional Command
Activated Sonobuoy System (DICASS)
sonobuoys)—up to 21,275 sonobuoys
over the course of 5 years (an average of
4,255 sonobuoys per year).
(vi) MK–48 (heavyweight
torpedoes)—up to 435 torpedoes over
the course of 5 years (an average of 87
torpedoes per year).
(vii) AN/BQQ–15 (submarine
navigational sonar)—up to 610 hours
over the course of 5 years (an average of
122 hours per year).
(viii) MK–46 (lightweight
torpedoes)—up to 420 torpedoes over
the course of 5 years (an average of 84
torpedoes per year).
(ix) AN/SLQ–25A NIXIE—up to 1,135
hours over the course of 5 years (an
average of 227 hours per year).
(2) The detonation of the underwater
explosives indicated in this paragraph
(c)(2)(i) conducted as part of the training
exercises indicated in this paragraph
(c)(2)(ii):
(i) Underwater Explosives:
(A) 5″; Naval Gunfire (9.5 lbs).
(B) 76 mm rounds (1.6 lbs).
(C) Maverick (78.5 lbs).
(D) Harpoon (448 lbs).
(E) MK–82 (238 lbs).
(F) MK–83 (574 lbs).
(G) MK–84 (945 lbs).
(H) MK–48 (851 lbs).
(I) Demolition Charges (20 lbs).
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(J) AN/SSQ–110A (IEER explosive
sonobuoy—5 lbs).
(ii) Training Events:
(A) Surface-to-surface Gunnery
Exercises (S–S GUNEX)—up to 2,010
exercises over the course of 5 years (an
average of 402 per year).
(B) Air-to-surface Missile Exercises
(A–S MISSILEX)—up to 250 exercises
over the course of 5 years (an average of
50 per year).
(C) Bombing Exercises (BOMBEX)—
up to 200 exercises over the course of
5 years (an average of 40 per year).
(D) Sinking Exercises (SINKEX)—up
to 10 exercises over the course of 5 years
(an average of 2 per year).
(E) Extended Echo Ranging and
Improved Extended Echo Ranging (EER/
IEER) Systems—up to 15 exercises over
the course of 5 years (an average of 3 per
year).
§ 216.271
Definitions.
(a) The following definitions are
utilized in these regulations:
(1) Uncommon Stranding Event
(USE)—A stranding event that takes
place during a major training exercise
(MTE) and involves any one of the
following:
(i) Two or more individuals of any
cetacean species (not including mother/
calf pairs, unless of species of concern
listed in § 216.271(b)(1)(ii) found dead
or live on shore within a two-day period
and occurring within 30 miles of one
another.
(ii) A single individual or mother/calf
pair of any of the following marine
mammals of concern: Beaked whale of
any species, dwarf or pygmy sperm
whales, short-finned pilot whales,
humpback whales, sperm whales, blue
whales, fin whales, or sei whales.
(iii) A group of 2 or more cetaceans
of any species exhibiting indicators of
distress as defined in § 216.271(b)(3).
(2) Shutdown—The cessation of
MFAS/HFAS operation or detonation of
explosives within 14 nm of any live, in
the water, animal involved in a USE.
(3) Exhibiting Indicators of Distress—
Animals exhibiting an uncommon
combination of behavioral and
physiological indicators typically
associated with distressed or stranded
animals. This situation would be
identified by a qualified individual and
typically includes, but is not limited to,
some combination of the following
characteristics:
(i) Marine mammals continually
circling or moving haphazardly in a
tightly packed group—with or without a
member occasionally breaking away and
swimming towards the beach.
(ii) Abnormal respirations including
increased or decreased rate or volume of
breathing, abnormal content or odor.
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
(iii) Presence of an individual or
group of a species that has not
historically been seen in a particular
habitat, for example a pelagic species in
a shallow bay when historic records
indicate that it is a rare event.
(iv) Abnormal behavior for that
species, such as abnormal surfacing or
swimming pattern, listing, and
abnormal appearance.
(4) Major Training Exercise—MTEs,
within the context of the SOCAL
Stranding Plan, include:
(i) Composite Training Unit Exercise
(COMPTUEX)—3–4 events annually, 21
days per entire event.
(ii) Joint Task Force Exercise
(JTFEX)—3–4 events annually, 10 days
per entire event.
(iii) Ship Anti-submarine warfare
(ASW) Readiness and Evaluation
Measuring (SHAREM)—1 event
annually, less than a week long.
(iv) Sustainment Exercise—2 events
annually, shorter than COMPTUEX.
(v) Integrated ASW Course (IAC2)—4
events annually, 2 12-hour exercises
over 2 days.
(b) [Reserved]
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
§ 216.272
Permissible methods of taking.
(a) Under Letters of Authorization
issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 and
216.277, the Holder of the Letter of
Authorization (hereinafter ‘‘Navy’’) may
incidentally, but not intentionally, take
marine mammals within the area
described in § 216.270(b), provided the
activity is in compliance with all terms,
conditions, and requirements of these
regulations and the appropriate Letter of
Authorization.
(b) The activities identified in
§ 216.270(c) must be conducted in a
manner that minimizes, to the greatest
extent practicable, any adverse impacts
on marine mammals and their habitat.
(c) The incidental take of marine
mammals under the activities identified
in § 216.270(c) is limited to the
following species, by the indicated
method of take and the indicated
number of times (estimated based on the
authorized amounts of sound source
operation):
(1) Level B Harassment (+/¥10
percent of the take estimate indicated
below):
(i) Mysticetes:
(A) Humpback whale (Megaptera
novaeangliae)—15.
(B) Fin whale (Balaenoptera
physalus)—167.
(C) Blue whale (Balaenoptera
musculus)—609.
(D) Minke whale (Balaenoptera
acutorostrata)—126.
(E) Gray whale (Eschrichtius
robustus)—5460.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
(ii) Odontocetes:
(A) Sperm whales (Physeter
macrocephalus)—148.
(B) Pygmy sperm whales (Kogia
breviceps)—159.
(C) Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima)—
20.
(D) Mesoplodont beaked whales
(Blainville’s, Hubb’s, Perrin’s, pygmy,
and ginkgo-toothed) (Mesoplodon
densirostris, M. carlhubbsi, M. perrini,
M. peruvianus, M. ginkgodens)—131.
(E) Cuvier’s beaked whales (Ziphius
cavirostris)—428.
(F) Baird’s beaked whales (Berardius
bairdii)—13.
(G) Unidentified beaked whales—97.
(H) Rough-toothed dolphin (Steno
bredanensis)—20.
(I) Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops
truncatus)—1,509.
(J) Pan-tropical spotted dolphin
(Stenella attenuata)—20.
(K) Spinner dolphin (Stenella
longirostris)—20.
(L) Striped dolphin (Stenella
coeruleoalba)—1,830.
(M) Long-beaked common dolphin
(Delphinus capensis)—4,622.
(N) Risso’s dolphin (Grampus
griseus)—3,592.
(O) Northern right whale dolphin
(Lissodelphis borealis)—1,540.
(P) Pacific white-sided dolphin
(Lagenorhynchus obliquidens)—1,397.
(Q) Short-beaked common dolphin
(Delphinus delphis)—39,441.
(R) Melon-headed whale
(Peponocephala electra)—20.
(S) Pygmy killer whale (Feresa
attenuata)—20.
(T) False killer whale (Pseudorca
crassidens)—20.
(U) Killer whale (Orcinus orca)—7.
(V) Short-finned pilot whale
(Globicephala macrorynchus)—45.
(W) Dall’s porpoise (Phocoenoides
dalli)—622.
(ii) Pinnipeds:
(A) Northern elephant seal (Mirounga
angustirostris)—955.
(B) Pacific harbor seal (Phoca
vitulina)—5,672.
(C) California sea lion (Zalophus
californianus)—55,502.
(D) Northern fur seal (Callorhinus
ursinus)—1,229.
(E) Guadelupe fur seal (Arctocephalus
townsendi)—1,064.
(2) Level A Harassment and/or
mortality of no more than 10 beaked
whales (total), of any of the species
listed in § 216.272(c)(1)(ii)(D–F) over the
course of the 5-year regulations.
§ 216.273
Prohibitions.
No person in connection with the
activities described in § 216.270 may:
(a) Take any marine mammal not
specified in § 216.272(c);
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60901
(b) Take any marine mammal
specified in § 216.272(c) other than by
incidental take as specified in
§ 216.272(c)(1) and (c)(2);
(c) Take a marine mammal specified
in § 216.272(c) if such taking results in
more than a negligible impact on the
species or stocks of such marine
mammal; or
(d) Violate, or fail to comply with, the
terms, conditions, and requirements of
these regulations or a Letter of
Authorization issued under §§ 216.106
and 216.277.
§ 216.274
Mitigation.
(a) The activities identified in
§ 216.270(c) must be conducted in a
manner that minimizes, to the greatest
extent practicable, adverse impacts on
marine mammals and their habitats.
(b) When conducting training,
maintenance, or RDT&E activities and
utilizing the sound sources or
explosives identified in § 216.270(c), the
mitigation measures contained in the
Letter of Authorization issued under
§§ 216.106 and 216.277 must be
implemented. These mitigation
measures include, but are not limited to:
(1) Navy’s General Maritime Measures
for All Training at Sea:
(i) Personnel Training (for all Training
Types):
(A) All commanding officers (COs),
executive officers (XOs), lookouts,
Officers of the Deck (OODs), junior
OODs (JOODs), maritime patrol aircraft
aircrews, and Anti-submarine Warfare
(ASW)/Mine Warfare (MIW) helicopter
crews shall complete the NMFSapproved Marine Species Awareness
Training (MSAT) by viewing the U.S.
Navy MSAT digital versatile disk (DVD).
All bridge lookouts shall complete both
parts one and two of the MSAT; part
two is optional for other personnel.
(B) Navy lookouts shall undertake
extensive training in order to qualify as
a watchstander in accordance with the
Lookout Training Handbook (Naval
Education and Training Command
[NAVEDTRA] 12968–D).
(C) Lookout training shall include onthe-job instruction under the
supervision of a qualified, experienced
lookout. Following successful
completion of this supervised training
period, lookouts shall complete the
Personal Qualification Standard
Program, certifying that they have
demonstrated the necessary skills (such
as detection and reporting of partially
submerged objects). Personnel being
trained as lookouts can be counted
among required lookouts as long as
supervisors monitor their progress and
performance.
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60902
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
(D) Lookouts shall be trained in the
most effective means to ensure quick
and effective communication within the
command structure in order to facilitate
implementation of protective measures
if marine species are spotted.
(ii) Operating Procedures and
Collision Avoidance:
(A) Prior to major exercises, a Letter
of Instruction, Mitigation Measures
Message or Environmental Annex to the
Operational Order shall be issued to
further disseminate the personnel
training requirement and general marine
species protective measures.
(B) COs shall make use of marine
species detection cues and information
to limit interaction with marine species
to the maximum extent possible
consistent with safety of the ship.
(C) While underway, surface vessels
shall have at least two lookouts with
binoculars; surfaced submarines shall
have at least one lookout with
binoculars. Lookouts already posted for
safety of navigation and man-overboard
precautions may be used to fill this
requirement. As part of their regular
duties, lookouts will watch for and
report to the OOD the presence of
marine mammals.
(D) On surface vessels equipped with
a multi-function active sensor, pedestal
mounted ‘‘Big Eye’’ (20x10) binoculars
shall be properly installed and in good
working order to assist in the detection
of marine mammals in the vicinity of
the vessel.
(E) Personnel on lookout shall employ
visual search procedures employing a
scanning methodology in accordance
with the Lookout Training Handbook
(NAVEDTRA 12968–D).
(F) After sunset and prior to sunrise,
lookouts shall employ Night Lookouts
Techniques in accordance with the
Lookout Training Handbook.
(NAVEDTRA 12968–D).
(G) While in transit, naval vessels
shall be alert at all times, use extreme
caution, and proceed at a ‘‘safe speed’’
so that the vessel can take proper and
effective action to avoid a collision with
any marine animal and can be stopped
within a distance appropriate to the
prevailing circumstances and
conditions.
(H) When marine mammals have been
sighted in the area, Navy vessels shall
increase vigilance and take reasonable
and practicable actions to avoid
collisions and activities that might
result in close interaction of naval assets
and marine mammals. Actions may
include changing speed and/or direction
and are dictated by environmental and
other conditions (e.g., safety, weather).
(I) Floating weeds and kelp, algal
mats, clusters of seabirds, and jellyfish
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
are good indicators of marine mammals.
Therefore, where these circumstances
are present, the Navy shall exercise
increased vigilance in watching for
marine mammals.
(J) Navy aircraft participating in
exercises at sea shal conduct and
maintain, when operationally feasible
and safe, surveillance for marine
mammals as long as it does not violate
safety constraints or interfere with the
accomplishment of primary operational
duties. Marine mammal detections shall
be immediately reported to assigned
Aircraft Control Unit for further
dissemination to ships in the vicinity of
the marine species as appropriate when
it is reasonable to conclude that the
course of the ship will likely result in
a closing of the distance to the detected
marine mammal.
(K) All vessels shall 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.
(2) Navy’s Measures for MFAS
Operations.
(i) Personnel Training (for MFAS
Operations):
(A) All lookouts onboard platforms
involved in ASW training events shall
review the NMFS-approved Marine
Species Awareness Training material
prior to use of mid-frequency active
sonar.
(B) All COs, XOs, and officers
standing watch on the bridge shall have
reviewed the Marine Species Awareness
Training material prior to a training
event employing the use of midfrequency active sonar.
(C) Navy lookouts shall undertake
extensive training in order to qualify as
a watchstander in accordance with the
Lookout Training Handbook (Naval
Educational Training [NAVEDTRA],
12968–D).
(D) Lookout training shall include onthe-job instruction under the
supervision of a qualified, experienced
watchstander. Following successful
completion of this supervised training
period, lookouts shall complete the
Personal Qualification Standard
program, certifying that they have
demonstrated the necessary skills (such
as detection and reporting of partially
submerged objects). This does not forbid
personnel being trained as lookouts
from being counted as those listed in
previous measures so long as
supervisors monitor their progress and
performance.
(E) Lookouts shall be trained in the
most effective means to ensure quick
and effective communication within the
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
command structure in order to facilitate
implementation of mitigation measures
if marine species are spotted.
(ii) Lookout and Watchstander
Responsibilities:
(A) On the bridge of surface ships,
there shall always be at least three
people on watch whose duties include
observing the water surface around the
vessel.
(B) All surface ships participating in
ASW training events shall, in addition
to the three personnel on watch noted
previously, have at all times during the
exercise at least two additional
personnel on watch as marine mammal
lookouts.
(C) Personnel on lookout and officers
on watch on the bridge shall have at
least one set of binoculars available for
each person to aid in the detection of
marine mammals.
(D) On surface vessels equipped with
mid-frequency active sonar, pedestal
mounted ‘‘Big Eye’’ (20x110) binoculars
shall be present and in good working
order to assist in the detection of marine
mammals in the vicinity of the vessel.
(E) Personnel on lookout shall employ
visual search procedures employing a
scanning methodology in accordance
with the Lookout Training Handbook
(NAVEDTRA 12968–D).
(F) After sunset and prior to sunrise,
lookouts shall employ Night Lookouts
Techniques in accordance with the
Lookout Training Handbook.
(G) Personnel on lookout shall be
responsible for reporting all objects or
anomalies sighted in the water
(regardless of the distance from the
vessel) to the Officer of the Deck, since
any object or disturbance (e.g., trash,
periscope, surface disturbance,
discoloration) in the water may be
indicative of a threat to the vessel and
its crew or indicative of a marine
species that may need to be avoided as
warranted.
(iii) Operating Procedures:
(A) A Letter of Instruction, Mitigation
Measures Message, or Environmental
Annex to the Operational Order shall be
issued prior to the exercise to further
disseminate the personnel training
requirement and general marine
mammal mitigation measures.
(B) COs shall make use of marine
species detection cues and information
to limit interaction with marine species
to the maximum extent possible
consistent with safety of the ship.
(C) All personnel engaged in passive
acoustic sonar operation (including
aircraft, surface ships, or submarines)
shall monitor for marine mammal
vocalizations and report the detection of
any marine mammal to the appropriate
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
watch station for dissemination and
appropriate action.
(D) During mid-frequency active sonar
operations, personnel shall utilize all
available sensor and optical systems
(such as night vision goggles) to aid in
the detection of marine mammals.
(E) 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.
(F) Aircraft with deployed sonobuoys
shall use only the passive capability of
sonobuoys when marine mammals are
detected within 200 yds (183 m) of the
sonobuoy.
(G) 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.
(H) Safety Zones—When marine
mammals are detected by any means
(aircraft, shipboard lookout, or
acoustically) within or closing to inside
1,000 yds (914 m) of the sonar dome
(the bow), the ship or submarine shall
limit active transmission levels to at
least 6 decibels (dB) below normal
operating levels.
(1) Ships and submarines shall
continue to limit maximum
transmission levels by this 6-dB factor
until the animal has been seen to leave
the area, has not been detected for 30
minutes, or the vessel has transited
more than 2,000 yds (1829 m) beyond
the location of the last detection.
(2) Should a marine mammal be
detected within or closing to inside 500
yds (457 m) of the sonar dome, active
sonar transmissions shall be limited to
at least 10-dB below the equipment’s
normal operating level. Ships and
submarines shall continue to limit
maximum ping levels by this 10-dB
factor until the animal has been seen to
leave the area, has not been detected for
30 minutes, or the vessel has transited
more than 2,000 yds (1829 m) beyond
the location of the last detection.
(3) Should the marine mammal be
detected within or closing to inside 200
yds (183 m) of the sonar dome, active
sonar transmissions shall cease. Sonar
shall not resume until the animal has
been seen to leave the area, has not been
detected for 30 minutes, or the vessel
has transited more than 2,000 yds (1829
m) beyond the location of the last
detection.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
(4) Special conditions applicable for
dolphins and porpoises only: If, after
conducting an initial maneuver to avoid
close quarters with dolphins or
porpoises, the OOD concludes that
dolphins or porpoises are deliberately
closing to ride the vessel’s bow wave, no
further mitigation actions are necessary
while the dolphins or porpoises
continue to exhibit bow wave riding
behavior.
(5) If the need for power-down should
arise as detailed in ‘‘Safety Zones’’
above, the Navy shall follow the
requirements as though they were
operating at 235 dB—the normal
operating level (i.e., the first powerdown will be to 229 dB, regardless of at
what level above 235 dB active sonar
was being operated).
(I) Prior to startup or restart of active
sonar, operators will check that the
Safety Zone radius around the sound
source is clear of marine mammals.
(J) Active sonar levels (generally)—
Navy shall operate active sonar at the
lowest practicable level, not to exceed
235 dB, except as required to meet
tactical training objectives.
(K) Helicopters shall observe/survey
the vicinity of an ASW training event
for 10 minutes before the first
deployment of active (dipping) sonar in
the water.
(L) Helicopters shall not dip their
active sonar within 200 yds (183 m) of
a marine mammal and shall cease
pinging if a marine mammal closes
within 200 yds (183 m) after pinging has
begun.
(M) Submarine sonar operators shall
review detection indicators of closeaboard marine mammals prior to the
commencement of ASW training events
involving active mid-frequency sonar.
(3) Navy’s Measures for Underwater
Detonations
(i) Surface-to-Surface Gunnery (5inch, 76 mm, 57 mm, 20 mm, 25 mm
and 30 mm explosive rounds)
(A) Lookouts shall visually survey for
floating weeds and kelp. Intended
impact shall not be within 600 yds (585
m) of known or observed floating weeds
and kelp, and algal mats.
(B) For exercises using targets towed
by a vessel or aircraft, target-towing
vessels/aircraft shall maintain a trained
lookout for marine mammals. If a
marine mammal is sighted in the
vicinity, the tow aircraft/vessel shall
immediately notify the firing vessel,
which shall suspend the exercise until
the area is clear.
(C) A 600-yard radius buffer zone
shall be established around the intended
target.
(D) From the intended firing position,
trained lookouts shall survey the buffer
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60903
zone for marine mammals prior to
commencement and during the exercise
as long as practicable.
(E) The exercise shall be conducted
only when the buffer zone is visible and
marine mammals are not detected
within it.
(ii) Surface-to-Surface Gunnery (nonexplosive rounds)
(A) Lookouts shall visually survey for
floating weeds and kelp, and algal mats.
Intended impact will not be within 200
yds (183 m) of known or observed
floating weeds and kelp, and algal mats.
(B) A 200-yd (183 m) radius buffer
zone shall be established around the
intended target.
(C) From the intended firing position,
trained lookouts shall survey the buffer
zone for marine mammals prior to
commencement and during the exercise
as long as practicable.
(D) If applicable, target towing vessels
shall maintain a lookout. If a marine
mammal is sighted in the vicinity of the
exercise, the tow vessel shall
immediately notify the firing vessel in
order to secure gunnery firing until the
area is clear.
(E) The exercise shall be conducted
only when the buffer zone is visible and
marine mammals are not detected
within the target area and the buffer
zone.
(iii) Surface-to-Air Gunnery
(explosive and non-explosive rounds)
(A) Vessels shall orient the geometry
of gunnery exercises in order to prevent
debris from falling in the area of sighted
marine mammals.
(B) Vessels will expedite the recovery
of any parachute deploying aerial targets
to reduce the potential for entanglement
of marine mammals.
(C) Target towing aircraft shall
maintain a lookout. If a marine mammal
is sighted in the vicinity of the exercise,
the tow aircraft shall immediately notify
the firing vessel in order to secure
gunnery firing until the area is clear.
(iv) Air-to-Surface Gunnery (explosive
and non-explosive rounds)
(A) If surface vessels are involved,
lookouts will visually survey for floating
kelp in the target area. Impact shall not
occur within 200 yds (183 m) of known
or observed floating weeds and kelp or
algal mats.
(B) A 200 yd (183 m) radius buffer
zone shall be established around the
intended target.
(C) If surface vessels are involved,
lookout(s) shall visually survey the
buffer zone for marine mammals prior to
and during the exercise.
(D) Aerial surveillance of the buffer
zone for marine mammals shall be
conducted prior to commencement of
the exercise. Aerial surveillance altitude
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60904
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
of 500 feet to 1,500 feet (ft) (152—456
m) is optimum. Aircraft crew/pilot shall
maintain visual watch during exercises.
Release of ordnance through cloud
cover is prohibited: Aircraft must be
able to actually see ordnance impact
areas.
(E) The exercise shall be conducted
only if marine mammals and are not
visible within the buffer zone.
(v) Small Arms Training (grenades,
explosive and non-explosive rounds)—
Lookouts will visually survey for
floating weeds or kelp, algal mats, and
marine mammals. Weapons shall not be
fired in the direction of known or
observed floating weeds or kelp, algal
mats, or marine mammals.
(vi) Air-to-Surface At-sea Bombing
Exercises (explosive and non-explosive):
(A) If surface vessels are involved,
trained lookouts shall survey for floating
kelp and marine mammals. Ordnance
shall not be targeted to impact within
1,000 yds (914 m) of known or observed
floating kelp or marine mammals.
(B) A 1,000 yd (914 m) radius buffer
zone shall be established around the
intended target.
(C) Aircraft shall visually survey the
target and buffer zone for marine
mammals prior to and during the
exercise. The survey of the impact area
shall be made by flying at 1,500 ft (152
m) or lower, if safe to do so, and at the
slowest safe speed. Release of ordnance
through cloud cover is prohibited:
Aircraft must be able to actually see
ordnance impact areas. Survey aircraft
should employ most effective search
tactics and capabilities.
(D) The exercise will be conducted
only if marine mammals are not visible
within the buffer zone.
(vii) Air-to-Surface Missile Exercises
(explosive and non-explosive):
(A) Ordnance shall not be targeted to
impact within 1,800 yds (1646 m) of
known or observed floating kelp.
(B) Aircraft shall visually survey the
target area for marine mammals. Visual
inspection of the target area shall be
made by flying at 1,500 (457 m) feet or
lower, if safe to do so, and at slowest
safe speed. Firing or range clearance
aircraft must be able to actually see
ordnance impact areas. Explosive
ordnance shall not be targeted to impact
within 1,800 yds (1646 m) of sighted
marine mammals.
(viii) Demolitions, Mine Warfare, and
Mine Countermeasures (up to a 20-lb
charge):
(A) Exclusion Zones—All Mine
Warfare and Mine Countermeasures
Operations involving the use of
explosive charges must include
exclusion zones for marine mammals to
prevent physical and/or acoustic effects
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
to those species. These exclusion zones
shall extend in a 700-yard arc radius
around the detonation site.
(B) Pre-Exercise Surveys—For
Demolition and Ship Mine
Countermeasures Operations, preexercise survey shall be conducted
within 30 minutes prior to the
commencement of the scheduled
explosive event. The survey may be
conducted from the surface, by divers,
and/or from the air, and personnel shall
be alert to the presence of any marine
mammal. Should such an animal be
present within the survey area, the
exercise shall be paused until the
animal voluntarily leaves the area. The
Navy shall suspend detonation exercises
and ensure the area is clear for a full 30
minutes prior to detonation. Personnel
shall record any marine mammal
observations during the exercise.
(C) Post-Exercise Surveys—Surveys
within the same radius shall also be
conducted within 30 minutes after the
completion of the explosive event.
(D) Reporting—If there is evidence
that a marine mammal may have been
stranded, injured or killed by the action,
Navy training activities shall be
immediately suspended and the
situation immediately reported by the
participating unit to the Officer in
Charge of the Exercise (OCE), who will
follow Navy procedures for reporting
the incident to Commander, Pacific
Fleet, Commander, Navy Region
Southwest, Environmental Director, and
the chain-of-command. The situation
shall also be reported to NMFS (see
Stranding Plan for details).
(ix) Mining Operations—initial target
points shall be briefly surveyed prior to
inert ordnance (no live ordnance used)
release from an aircraft to ensure the
intended drop area is clear of marine
mammals. To the extent feasible, the
Navy shall retrieve inert mine shapes
dropped during Mining Operations.
(x) Sink Exercise:
(A) All weapons firing shall be
conducted during the period 1 hour
after official sunrise to 30 minutes
before official sunset.
(B) Prior to conducting the exercise,
remotely sensed sea surface temperature
maps shall be reviewed. SINKEX shall
not be conducted within areas where
strong temperature discontinuities are
present, thereby indicating the existence
of oceanographic fronts. These areas
shall be avoided because concentrations
of some listed species, or their prey, are
known to be associated with these
oceanographic features.
(C) An exclusion zone with a radius
of 1.0 nm shall be established around
each target. An additional buffer of 0.5
nm shall be added to account for errors,
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
target drift, and animal movements.
Additionally, a safety zone, which
extends from the exclusion zone at 1.0
nm out an additional 0.5 nm, shall be
surveyed. Together, the zones extend
out 2 nm from the target.
(D) A series of surveillance overflights shall be conducted within the
exclusion and the safety zones, prior to
and during the exercise, when feasible.
Survey protocol shall be as follows:
(1) Overflights within the exclusion
zone shall be conducted in a manner
that optimizes the surface area of the
water observed. This may be
accomplished through the use of the
Navy’s Search and Rescue Tactical Aid,
which provides the best search altitude,
ground speed, and track spacing for the
discovery of small, possibly dark objects
in the water based on the environmental
conditions of the day. These
environmental conditions include the
angle of sun inclination, amount of
daylight, cloud cover, visibility, and sea
state.
(2) All visual surveillance activities
shall be conducted by Navy personnel
trained in visual surveillance. At least
one member of the mitigation team
would have completed the Navy’s
marine mammal training program for
lookouts.
(3) In addition to the overflights, the
exclusion zone shall be monitored by
passive acoustic means, when assets are
available. This passive acoustic
monitoring would be maintained
throughout the exercise. Potential assets
include sonobuoys, which can be
utilized to detect any vocalizing marine
mammals (particularly sperm whales) in
the vicinity of the exercise. The
sonobuoys shall be re-seeded as
necessary throughout the exercise.
Additionally, passive sonar onboard
submarines may be utilized to detect
any vocalizing marine mammals in the
area. The OCE would be informed of
any aural detection of marine mammals
and would include this information in
the determination of when it is safe to
commence the exercise.
(4) On each day of the exercise, aerial
surveillance of the exclusion and safety
zones shall commence 2 hours prior to
the first firing.
(5) The results of all visual, aerial, and
acoustic searches shall be reported
immediately to the OCE. No weapons
launches or firing may commence until
the OCE declares the safety and
exclusion zones free of marine
mammals.
(6) If a protected species observed
within the exclusion zone is diving,
firing shall be delayed until the animal
is re-sighted outside the exclusion zone,
or 30 minutes have elapsed. After 30
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
minutes, if the animal has not been resighted it would be assumed to have left
the exclusion zone.
(7) During breaks in the exercise of 30
minutes or more, the exclusion zone
shall again be surveyed for any
protected species. If marine mammals
are sighted within the exclusion zone,
the OCE shall be notified, and the
procedure described above would be
followed.
(8) Upon sinking of the vessel, a final
surveillance of the exclusion zone shall
be monitored for 2 hours, or until
sunset, to verify that no marine
mammals were harmed.
(E) Aerial surveillance shall be
conducted using helicopters or other
aircraft based on necessity and
availability. The Navy has several types
of aircraft capable of performing this
task; however, not all types are available
for every exercise. For each exercise, the
available asset best suited for
identifying objects on and near the
surface of the ocean would be used.
These aircraft would be capable of
flying at the slow safe speeds necessary
to enable viewing of marine vertebrates
with unobstructed, or minimally
obstructed, downward and outward
visibility. The exclusion and safety zone
surveys may be cancelled in the event
that a mechanical problem, emergency
search and rescue, or other similar and
unexpected event preempts the use of
one of the aircraft onsite for the
exercise.
(F) Every attempt would be made to
conduct the exercise in sea states that
are ideal for marine mammal sighting,
Beaufort Sea State 3 or less. In the event
of a 4 or above, survey efforts shall be
increased within the zones. This shall
be accomplished through the use of an
additional aircraft, if available, and
conducting tight search patterns.
(G) The exercise shall not be
conducted unless the exclusion zone
could be adequately monitored visually.
(H) In the event that any marine
mammals are observed to be harmed in
the area, a detailed description of the
animal shall be taken, the location
noted, and if possible, photos taken.
This information shall be provided to
NMFS via the Navy’s regional
environmental coordinator for purposes
of identification (see the Stranding Plan
for detail).
(I) An after action report detailing the
exercise’s time line, the time the surveys
commenced and terminated, amount,
and types of all ordnance expended, and
the results of survey efforts for each
event shall be submitted to NMFS.
(xi) Extended Echo Ranging/Improved
Extended Echo Ranging (EER/IEER):
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
(A) Crews shall conduct visual
reconnaissance of the drop area prior to
laying their intended sonobuoy pattern.
This search shall be conducted at an
altitude below 457 m (500 yd) at a slow
speed, if operationally feasible and
weather conditions permit. In dual
aircraft operations, crews are allowed to
conduct coordinated area clearances.
(B) Crews shall conduct a minimum
of 30 minutes of visual and aural
monitoring of the search area prior to
commanding the first post detonation.
This 30-minute observation period may
include pattern deployment time.
(C) For any part of the briefed pattern
where a post (source/receiver sonobuoy
pair) will be deployed within 914 m
(1,000 yd) of observed marine mammal
activity, the Navy shall deploy the
receiver ONLY and monitor while
conducting a visual search. When
marine mammals are no longer detected
within 914 m (1,000 yd) of the intended
post position, the Navy shall co-locate
the explosive source sonobuoy (AN/
SSQ–110A) (source) with the receiver.
(D) When able, Navy crews shall
conduct continuous visual and aural
monitoring of marine mammal activity.
This is to include monitoring of ownaircraft sensors from first sensor
placement to checking off station and
out of RF range of these sensors.
(E) Aural Detection—If the presence
of marine mammals is detected aurally,
then that shall cue the Navy aircrew to
increase the diligence of their visual
surveillance. Subsequently, if no marine
mammals are visually detected, then the
crew may continue multi-static active
search.
(F) Visual Detection—If marine
mammals are visually detected within
914 m (1,000 yd) of the explosive source
sonobuoy (AN/SSQ–110A) intended for
use, then that payload shall not be
detonated. Aircrews may utilize this
post once the marine mammals have not
been re-sighted for 30 minutes, or are
observed to have moved outside the 914
m (1,000 yd) safety buffer. Aircrews may
shift their multi-static active search to
another post, where marine mammals
are outside the 914 m (1,000 yd) safety
buffer.
(G) Aircrews shall make every attempt
to manually detonate the unexploded
charges at each post in the pattern prior
to departing the operations area by
using the ‘‘Payload 1 Release’’ command
followed by the ‘‘Payload 2 Release’’
command. Aircrews shall refrain from
using the ‘‘Scuttle’’ command when two
payloads remain at a given post.
Aircrews will ensure that a 914 m (1,000
yd) safety buffer, visually clear of
marine mammals, is maintained around
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60905
each post as is done during active
search operations.
(H) Aircrews shall only leave posts
with unexploded charges in the event of
a sonobuoy malfunction, an aircraft
system malfunction, or when an aircraft
must immediately depart the area due to
issues such as fuel constraints,
inclement weather, and in-flight
emergencies. In these cases, the
sonobuoy will self-scuttle using the
secondary or tertiary method.
(I) The Navy shall ensure all payloads
are accounted for. Explosive source
sonobuoys (AN/SSQ–110A) that can not
be scuttled shall be reported as
unexploded ordnance via voice
communications while airborne, then
upon landing via naval message.
(J) Mammal monitoring shall continue
until out of own-aircraft sensor range.
(4) The Navy shall abide by the letter
of the ‘‘Stranding Response Plan for
Major Navy Training Exercises in the
SOCAL Range Complex’’ (available at:
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental.htm), to include the
following measures:
(i) Shutdown Procedures—When an
Uncommon Stranding Event (USE—
defined in § 216.271) occurs during a
Major Training Exercise (MTE) (as
defined in the Stranding Plan, meaning
including Sustainment, SHAREM, IAC2,
JTFEX, or COMPTUEX) in the SOCAL
Range Complex, the Navy shall
implement the procedures described
below.
(A) The Navy shall implement a
Shutdown (as defined § 216.271) when
advised by a NMFS Office of Protected
Resources Headquarters Senior Official
designated in the SOCAL Stranding
Communication Protocol that a USE
involving live animals has been
identified and that at least one live
animal is located in the water. NMFS
and the Navy shall communicate, as
needed, regarding the identification of
the USE and the potential need to
implement shutdown procedures.
(B) Any shutdown in a given area
shall remain in effect in that area until
NMFS advises the Navy that the
subject(s) of the USE at that area die or
are euthanized, or that all live animals
involved in the USE at that area have
left the area (either of their own volition
or herded).
(C) If the Navy finds an injured or
dead marine mammal floating at sea
during an MTE, the Navy shall notify
NMFS immediately or as soon as
operational security considerations
allow. The Navy shall provide NMFS
with species or description of the
animal (s), the condition of the animal
(s) including carcass condition if the
animal(s) is/are dead), location, time of
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60906
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
first discovery, observed behaviors (if
alive), and photo or video (if available).
Based on the information provided,
NMFS shall determine if, and advise the
Navy whether a modified shutdown is
appropriate on a case-by-case basis.
(D) In the event, following a USE,
that: (a) qualified individuals are
attempting to herd animals back out to
the open ocean and animals are not
willing to leave, or (b) animals are seen
repeatedly heading for the open ocean
but turning back to shore, NMFS and
the Navy shall coordinate (including an
investigation of other potential
anthropogenic stressors in the area) to
determine if the proximity of MFAS/
HFAS training activities or explosive
detonations, though farther than 14 nm
from the distressed animal(s), is likely
decreasing the likelihood that the
animals return to the open water. If so,
NMFS and the Navy shall further
coordinate to determine what measures
are necessary to further minimize that
likelihood and implement those
measures as appropriate.
(ii) Within 72 hours of NMFS
notifying the Navy of the presence of a
USE, the Navy shall provide available
information to NMFS (per the SOCAL
Communication Protocol) regarding the
location, number and types of acoustic/
explosive sources, direction and speed
of units using MFAS/HFAS, and marine
mammal sightings information
associated with training activities
occurring within 80 nm (148 km) and 72
hours prior to the USE event.
Information not initially available
regarding the 80 nm (148 km), 72 hours,
period prior to the event shall be
provided as soon as it becomes
available. The Navy shall provide NMFS
investigative teams with additional
relevant unclassified information as
requested, if available.
(iii) Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA)—The Navy and NMFS shall
develop an MOA, or other mechanism
consistent with federal fiscal law
requirements (and all other applicable
laws), that allows the Navy to assist
NMFS with the Phase 1 and 2
Investigations of USEs through the
provision of in-kind services, such as
(but not limited to) the use of plane/
boat/truck for transport of personnel
involved in the stranding response or
investigation or animals, use of Navy
property for necropsies or burial, or
assistance with aerial surveys to discern
the extent of a USE. The Navy may
assist NMFS with the Investigations by
providing one or more of the in-kind
services outlined in the MOA, when
available and logistically feasible and
when the assistance does not negatively
affect Fleet operational commitments.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
§ 216.275 Requirements for monitoring
and reporting.
(a) The Navy is required to cooperate
with the NMFS, and any other Federal,
state or local agency monitoring the
impacts of the activity on marine
mammals.
(b) As outlined in the SOCAL
Stranding Communication Plan, the
Navy must notify NMFS immediately
(or as soon as clearance procedures
allow) if the specified activity identified
in § 216.270(b) is thought to have
resulted in the mortality or injury of any
marine mammals, or in any take of
marine mammals not identified in
§ 216.270(c).
(c) The Navy must conduct all
monitoring and/or research required
under the Letter of Authorization
including abiding by the letter of the
SOCAL Monitoring Plan, which requires
the Navy to implement, at a minimum,
the monitoring activities summarized in
Table 1 below (and described in more
detail in the SOCAL Monitoring Plan,
which may be viewed at: https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental.htm).
(d) Report on Monitoring required in
sub-paragraph (c) of this section—The
Navy shall submit a report annually on
September 1 describing the
implementation and results (through
June 1 of the same year) of the
monitoring required in paragraph c,
above. Navy will standardize data
collection methods across ranges to
allow for comparison in different
geographic locations.
(e) SINKEX, GUNEX, MISSILEX,
BOMBEX, Mine Warfare/
Countermeasures, and Naval Surface
Fire Support—A yearly report detailing
the exercise’s timelines, the time the
surveys commenced and terminated,
amount, and types of all ordnance
expended, and the results of marine
mammal survey efforts for each event
will be submitted to NMFS.
(f) IEER exercises—A yearly report
detailing the number of exercises along
with the hours of associated marine
mammal survey and associated marine
mammal sightings, number of times
employment was delayed by marine
mammal sightings, and the number of
total detonated charges and self-scuttled
charges shall be submitted to NMFS.
(g) MFAS/HFAS exercises—The Navy
shall submit an After Action Report to
the Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, within 120 days of the
completion of any Major Training or
Integrated Unit-Level Exercise
(Sustainment Exercise, IAC2, SHAREM,
COMPTUEX, JTFEX). For other ASW
exercises, the Navy shall submit a yearly
summary report. These reports (the
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
AARs and the annual reports) shall, at
a minimum, include the following
information:
(1) The estimated total number of
hours of active sonar operation and the
types of sonar utilized in the exercise;
(2) The total number of hours of
observation effort (including
observation time when active sonar was
not operating), if obtainable; and;
(3) All marine mammal sightings (at
any distance—not just within a
particular distance) to include, when
possible, and if not classified:
(i) Species,
(ii) Number of animals sighted,
(iii) Geographic location of marine
mammal sighting,
(iv) Distance of animal from any ship
with observers,
(v) Whether animal is fore, aft, port,
or starboard,
(vi) Direction of animal movement in
relation to boat (towards, away,
parallel),
(vii) Any observed behaviors of
marine mammals.
(4) The status of any active sonar
sources (what sources were in use) and
whether or not they were powered
down or shut down as a result of the
marine mammal observation; and
(5) The platform that the marine
mammals were initially sighted from.
(h) SOCAL Comprehensive Report—
The Navy shall submit to NMFS a draft
report that analyzes and summarizes all
of the multi-year marine mammal
information gathered during all training
for which individual reports are
required in § 216.175 (d through f). This
report shall be submitted at the end of
the fourth year of the rule (November
2012), covering activities that have
occurred through June 1, 2012.
(i) The Navy shall respond to NMFS
comments on the draft SOCAL
comprehensive report if NMFS provides
the Navy with comments on the draft
report within 3 months of receipt. The
report shall be considered final after the
Navy has addressed NMFS’ comments,
or 3 months after the submittal of the
draft if NMFS does not comment by
then.
(j) Comprehensive National Sonar
Report—By June 2014, the Navy shall
submit a draft National Report that
analyzes, compares, and summarizes the
active sonar data gathered (through
November 2013) from the watchstanders
and pursuant to the implementation of
the Monitoring Plans for SOCAL, the
Hawaii Range Complex (HRC), the
Southern California (SOCAL) Range
Complex, the Marianas Range Complex,
and the Northwest Training Range.
(k) The Navy shall respond to NMFS
comments on the draft comprehensive
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
National Sonar report if NMFS provides
the Navy with comments on the draft
report within 3 months of receipt. The
report will be considered final after the
Navy has addressed NMFS’ comments,
or 3 months after the submittal of the
draft if NMFS does not comment by
then.
§ 216.276 Applications for Letters of
Authorization.
To incidentally take marine mammals
pursuant to these regulations, the U.S.
Citizen (as defined by § 216.103)
conducting the activity identified in
§ 216.270(c) (i.e., the Navy) must apply
for and obtain either an initial Letter of
Authorization in accordance with
§ 216.277 or a renewal under § 216.278.
§ 216.277
Letter of Authorization.
(a) A Letter of Authorization, unless
suspended or revoked, will be valid for
a period of time not to exceed the period
of validity of this subpart, but must be
renewed annually subject to annual
renewal conditions in § 216.278.
(b) Each Letter of Authorization shall
set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental
taking;
(2) Means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impact on the
species, its habitat, and on the
availability of the species for
subsistence uses (i.e., mitigation); and
(3) Requirements for mitigation,
monitoring and reporting.
(c) Issuance and renewal of the Letter
of Authorization shall be based on a
determination that the total number of
marine mammals taken by the activity
as a whole will have no more than a
negligible impact on the affected species
or stock of marine mammal(s).
§ 216.278 Renewal of Letters of
Authorization and adaptive management.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
(a) A Letter of Authorization issued
under § 216.106 and § 216.177 for the
activity identified in § 216.170(c) will be
renewed annually upon:
(1) Notification to NMFS that the
activity described in the application
submitted under § 216.246 will be
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
undertaken and that there will not be a
substantial modification to the
described work, mitigation or
monitoring undertaken during the
upcoming 12 months;
(2) Receipt of the monitoring reports
and notifications within the indicated
timeframes required under § 216.275(b
through j); and
(3) A determination by the NMFS that
the mitigation, monitoring and reporting
measures required under § 216.274 and
the Letter of Authorization issued under
§§ 216.106 and 216.277, were
undertaken and will be undertaken
during the upcoming annual period of
validity of a renewed Letter of
Authorization.
(b) Adaptive Management—Based on
new information, NMFS may modify or
augment the existing mitigation
measures if new data suggests that such
modifications would have a reasonable
likelihood of reducing adverse effects to
marine mammals and if the measures
are practicable. Similarly, NMFS may
coordinate with the Navy to modify or
augment the existing monitoring
requirements if the new data suggest
that the addition of a particular measure
would likely fill in a specifically
important data gap. The following are
some possible sources of new and
applicable data:
(1) Results from the Navy’s
monitoring from the previous year
(either from the SOCAL Range Complex
or other locations);
(2) Results from specific stranding
investigations (either from the SOCAL
Range Complex or other locations, and
involving coincident MFAS/HFAS
training or not involving coincident use)
or NMFS’ long term prospective
stranding investigation discussed in the
preamble to this proposed rule;
(3) Results from general marine
mammal and sound research (funded by
the Navy or otherwise).
(c) If a request for a renewal of a Letter
of Authorization issued under
§§ 216.106 and 216.278 indicates that a
substantial modification to the
described work, mitigation or
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60907
monitoring undertaken during the
upcoming season will occur, or if NMFS
utilizes the adaptive management
mechanism addressed in paragraph (b)
of this section to modify or augment the
mitigation or monitoring measures, the
NMFS shall provide the public a period
of 30 days for review and comment on
the request. Review and comment on
renewals of Letters of Authorization
would be restricted to:
(1) New cited information and data
indicating that the determinations made
in this document are in need of
reconsideration, and
(2) Proposed changes to the mitigation
and monitoring requirements contained
in these regulations or in the current
Letter of Authorization.
(d) A notice of issuance or denial of
a renewal of a Letter of Authorization
will be published in the Federal
Register.
§ 216.279 Modifications to Letters of
Authorization.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(b) of this section, no substantive
modification (including withdrawal or
suspension) to the Letter of
Authorization by NMFS, issued
pursuant to §§ 216.106 and 216.277 and
subject to the provisions of this subpart,
shall be made until after notification
and an opportunity for public comment
has been provided. For purposes of this
paragraph, a renewal of a Letter of
Authorization under § 216.278, without
modification (except for the period of
validity), is not considered a substantive
modification.
(b) If the Assistant Administrator
determines that an emergency exists
that poses a significant risk to the wellbeing of the species or stocks of marine
mammals specified in § 216.270(b), a
Letter of Authorization issued pursuant
to §§ 216.106 and 216.277 may be
substantively modified without prior
notification and an opportunity for
public comment. Notification will be
published in the Federal Register
within 30 days subsequent to the action.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
60908
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
[FR Doc. E8–23618 Filed 10–10–08; 8:45 am]
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Oct 10, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\14OCP3.SGM
14OCP3
EP14OC08.040
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 14, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60836-60908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23618]
[[Page 60835]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 216
Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy Training in the Southern
California Range Complex; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 60836]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 216
[Docket No. 0808061069-81171-01]
RIN 0648-AW91
Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy Training in the
Southern California Range Complex
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for
authorization to take marine mammals incidental to training activities
conducted in the Southern California Range Complex (SOCAL), which
extends south and southwest off the southern California coast, for the
period of January 2009 through January 2014. Pursuant to the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is proposing regulations to govern
that take and requesting information, suggestions, and comments on
these proposed regulations.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than November
13, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by 0648-AW91, by any one
of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal, https://
www.regulations.gov.
Hand delivery or mailing of paper, disk, or CD-ROM
comments should be addressed to Michael Payne, Chief, Permits,
Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver
Spring, MD 20910-3225.
Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted to https://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. Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or
Adobe PDF file formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolie Harrison, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 713-2289, ext. 166.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability
A copy of the Navy's application may be obtained by writing to the
address specified above (see ADDRESSES), telephoning the contact listed
above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting the internet
at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. The Navy's
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for SOCAL was published on
April 4, 2008, and may be viewed at https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
permits/incidental.htm. NMFS is participating in the development of the
Navy's EIS as a cooperating agency under NEPA.
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
direct the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon request,
the incidental, but not intentional taking of marine mammals by U.S.
citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial
fishing) during periods of not more than five consecutive years each if
certain findings are made and regulations are issued or, if the taking
is limited to harassment, notice of a proposed authorization is
provided to the public for review.
Authorization shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will
have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or
stock(s) for subsistence uses, and if the permissible methods of taking
and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting
of such taking are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in
50 CFR 216.103 as:
An impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2004 (NDAA) (Pub. L. 108-
136) modified the MMPA by removing the ``small numbers'' and
``specified geographical region'' limitations and amended the
definition of ``harassment'' as it applies to a ``military readiness
activity'' to read as follows (Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA):
(i) any act that injures or has the significant potential to
injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A
Harassment]; or
(ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of
natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to
a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or
significantly altered [Level B Harassment].
Summary of Request
On April 1, 2008, NMFS received an application from the Navy
requesting authorization for the take of individuals of 37 species of
marine mammals incidental to upcoming Navy training activities,
maintenance, and research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E)
activities to be conducted within SOCAL, which extends southwest
approximately 600 nm in the general shape of a 200-nm wide rectangle
(see the Navy's application), over the course of 5 years. These
training activities are military readiness activities under the
provisions of the NDAA. The Navy states, and NMFS concurs, that these
military readiness activities may incidentally take marine mammals
present within SOCAL by exposing them to sound from mid-frequency or
high frequency active sonar (MFAS/HFAS) or underwater detonations. The
Navy requests authorization to take individuals of 37 species of marine
mammals by Level B Harassment. Further, though they do not anticipate
it to occur, the Navy requests authorization to take, by injury or
mortality, up to 10 beaked whales over the course of the 5-yr
regulations.
Background of Request
The Navy's mission is to maintain, train, and equip combat-ready
naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression, and
maintaining freedom of the seas. Title 10, U.S. Code (U.S.C.) 5062
directs the Chief of Naval Operations to train all naval forces for
combat. The Chief of Naval Operations meets that direction, in part, by
conducting at-sea training exercises and ensuring naval forces have
access to ranges, operating areas (OPAREAs) and airspace where they can
develop and maintain skills for wartime missions and conduct research,
development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E) of naval weapons systems.
The Navy proposes to implement actions within the SOCAL Range
Complex to:
Increase training and RDT&E operations from current levels
as necessary to support the Navy-wide training plan, known as the Fleet
Readiness Training Plan (FRTP);
[[Page 60837]]
Accommodate mission requirements associated with force
structure changes and introduction of new weapons and systems to the
Fleet; and
Implement enhanced range complex capabilities.
The Proposed Action would result in selectively focused but
critical increases in training, and range enhancements (including the
establishment and use of a shallow-water minefield and construction of
a shallow-water training range) to address testing and training
resource shortfalls, as necessary to ensure the SOCAL Range Complex
supports Navy and Marine Corps training and readiness objectives. The
proposed action would result in approximately a 12-percent increase in
the amount of MFAS/HFAS currently used.
Overview of SOCAL Range Complex
The U.S. Navy has been training and operating in the area now
defined as the SOCAL Range Complex for over 70 years. The SOCAL Range
Complex has three primary components: Ocean Operating Areas (SOCAL
OPAREAs), Special Use Airspace (SUA), and San Clemente Island (SCI).
The Range Complex is situated between Dana Point and San Diego, and
extends more than 600 nautical miles (nm) (1,111 kilometers (km))
southwest into the Pacific Ocean (See the Navy's application). The
components of the SOCAL Range Complex encompass 120,000 square nm
(nm\2\) (411,600 square km (km\2\)) of sea space, 113,000 nm\2\
(387,500 km\2\) of SUA, and over 42 nm\2\ (144 km\2\) of land (SCI). To
facilitate range management and scheduling, the SOCAL Range Complex is
divided into numerous sub-component ranges and training areas, which
are described below.
SOCAL OPAREAS
The ocean areas of the SOCAL Range Complex include surface and
subsurface OPAREAs extending generally southwest from the coastline of
southern California between Dana Point and San Diego for approximately
600 nm into international waters to the west of Baja California,
Mexico. Most of the SOCAL OPAREAS are located under the Warning Area
291 Airspace mentioned below. Several SOCAL OPAREAs do not lie under W-
291. These OPAREAS are used for ocean surface and subsurface training.
Military aviation activities may be conducted in airspace that is not
designated as SUA, however, these aviation activities do not include
use of live or inert ordnance.
Special Use Airspace (SUA)
The SOCAL Range Complex includes military airspace designated as
Warning Area 291 (W-291). W-291 comprises 113,000 nm2
(209,276 km2) of SUA that generally overlies the SOCAL
OPAREAs and SCI, extending to the southwest from approximately 12 nm
(22 km) off the coast to approximately 600 nm (1,111 km). W-291 is the
largest component of SUA in the Navy's range inventory.
San Clemente Island (SCI)
SCI, a component part of the SOCAL Range Complex, is comprised of
existing land ranges and training areas that are integral to training
of Pacific Fleet air, surface, and subsurface units; First Marine
Expeditionary Force (I MEF) units; Naval Special Warfare (NSW) units;
and selected formal schools. SCI provides instrumented ranges,
operating areas, and associated facilities to conduct and evaluate a
wide range of exercises within the scope of naval warfare. SCI also
provides ranges and services for RDT&E activities. Over 20 Navy and
Marine Corps commands conduct training and testing activities on SCI.
Due to its unique capabilities to support multiple training operations,
SCI training activities encompass every Navy primary mission area
(PMAR), and SCI provides critical training resources for Expeditionary
Strike Group (ESG), Carrier Strike Group (CSG), and Marine
Expeditionary Unit (MEU) certification exercises.
SCI provides an extensive suite of range capabilities for tactical
training. SCI includes a Shore Bombardment Area (SHOBA), landing
beaches, several live-fire training areas and ranges (TARs) for small
arms, maneuver areas, and other dedicated ranges for the conduct of
training in all Primary Mission Areas (PMARs). SCI includes extensive
instrumentation, and provides robust opposing force simulation and
targets for use in land, sea-based, and air live-fire training. SCI
also contains an airfield and other infrastructure for training and
logistical support.
Overlap With Point Mugu Sea Range for Certain Anti-Submarine Warfare
Training (ASW)
The Point Mugu Sea Range is a Navy ocean range area north of and
generally adjacent to the SOCAL Range Complex. ASW training conducted
in the course of major exercises occurs across the boundaries of the
SOCAL Range Complex into the Point Mugu Sea Range. These cross-boundary
events are addressed in this authorization request.
Description of Specified Activities
As mentioned above, the Navy has requested MMPA authorization to
take marine mammals incidental to training activities in the SOCAL
Range Complex that would result in the generation of sound or pressure
waves in the water at or above levels that NMFS has determined will
likely result in take (see Acoustic Take Criteria Section), either
through the use of MFAS/HFAS or the detonation of explosives in the
water. These activities are discussed below.
Activities Utilizing Active Sonar Sources
For the SOCAL Range Complex, the training activities that utilize
active tactical sonar sources fall into the category of Anti-submarine
Warfare (ASW) exercises. This section includes a description of ASW,
the active acoustic devices used in ASW exercises, as well as the
exercise types in which these acoustic sources are used.
ASW Training and Active Sonar
ASW involves helicopter and sea control aircraft, ships, and
submarines, operating alone or in combination, in operations to locate,
track, and neutralize submarines. Controlling the undersea battlespace
is a unique naval capability and a vital aspect of sea control.
Undersea battlespace dominance requires proficiency in ASW. Every
deploying strike group and individual ASW-capable combatant must
possess this capability.
Various types of active and passive sonars are used by the Navy to
determine water depth, locate mines, and identify, track, and target
submarines. Passive sonar ``listens'' for sound waves by using
underwater microphones, called hydrophones, which receive, amplify and
process underwater sounds. No sound is introduced into the water when
using passive sonar. Passive sonar can indicate the presence, character
and movement of submarines. Passive sonar, alternatively, provides only
a bearing (direction) to a sound-emitting source; it does not provide
an accurate range (distance) to the source. Active sonar is needed to
locate objects because active sonar provides both bearing and range to
the detected contact (such as an enemy submarine).
Active sonar transmits pulses of sound that travel through the
water, reflect off objects and return to a receiver. By knowing the
speed of sound in water and the time taken for the sound wave to travel
to the object and back, active sonar systems can quickly calculate
direction and distance from the sonar platform to the underwater
[[Page 60838]]
object. There are three types of active sonar: Low-frequency, mid-
frequency, and high-frequency.
Low-frequency sonar operates below 1 kilohertz (kHz) and is
designed to detect extremely quiet diesel-electric submarines at ranges
far beyond the capabilities of mid-frequency active sonars. There are
only two ships in use by the U.S. Navy that are equipped with low-
frequency sonar; both are ocean surveillance vessels operated by
Military Sealift Command. Low-frequency active sonar is not presently
utilized in the SOCAL Range Complex, and use of low-frequency active
sonar is not contemplated in the Proposed Action.
High-frequency active sonar (HFAS), operates at frequencies greater
than 10 kilohertz (kHz). At higher acoustic frequencies, sound rapidly
dissipates in the ocean environment, resulting in short detection
ranges, typically less than five nm. High-frequency sonar is used
primarily for determining water depth, hunting mines and guiding
torpedoes.
Mid-frequency active sonar (MFAS) operates between 1 and 10 kHz,
with detection ranges up to 10 nautical miles (nm). Because of this
detection ranging capability, MFAS is the Navy's primary tool for
conducting ASW. Many ASW experiments and exercises have demonstrated
that this improved capability for long range detection of adversary
submarines before they are able to conduct an attack is essential to
U.S. ship survivability. Today, ASW is the Navy's 1 war-
fighting priority. Navies across the world utilize modern, quiet,
diesel-electric submarines which pose the primary threat to the U.S.
Navy's ability to perform a number of critically necessary missions.
Extensive training is necessary of sailors, ASW-capable units, and
strike groups are to gain proficiency in using MFAS. If a strike group
does not demonstrate MFAS proficiency, it cannot be certified as combat
ready.
Acoustic Sources Used for ASW Exercises in SOCAL
Modern sonar technology has developed a multitude of sonar sensor
and processing systems. In concept, the simplest active sonars emit
omni-directional pulses (``pings'') and time the arrival of the
reflected echoes from the target object to determine range. More
sophisticated active sonar emits an omni-directional ping and then
rapidly scans a steered receiving beam to provide directional, as well
as range, information. More advanced active sonars transmit multiple
preformed beams, listening to echoes from several directions
simultaneously and providing efficient detection of both direction and
range. The types of active sonar sources employed during ASW active
sonar training exercises in the SOCAL Range Complex are identified in
Table 1.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC08.025
[[Page 60839]]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
ASW sonar systems are deployed from certain classes of surface
ships, submarines, helicopters, and fixed wing maritime patrol aircraft
(Table 1). The surface ships used are typically equipped with hull-
mounted sonars (active and passive) and towed-array passive sonar for
the detection of submarines. Helicopters equipped with dipping sonar or
sonobuoys are utilized to locate submarines or submarine targets within
the training area. In addition, fixed wing marine patrol aircraft (MPA)
are used to deploy both active and passive sonobuoys to assist in
locating and tracking submarines during the duration of the exercise.
Submarines are equipped with hull-mounted sonars sometimes used to
locate and prosecute other submarines and/or surface ships during the
exercise. The platforms used in ASW exercises are identified below.
Surface Ship Sonars--A variety of surface ships participate in
testing and training events. Some ships (e.g., aircraft carriers,
amphibious assault ships) do not have any onboard active sonar systems,
other than fathometers. Others, like guided missile cruisers, are
equipped with active as well as passive tactical sonars for mine
avoidance and submarine detection and tracking. For purposes of the
analysis, the SQS-53 was modeled as having a nominal source level of
235 decibels (dB) re 1 [mu]Pa @ 1 m, and the SQS-56 was modeled as
having a nominal source level of 225 decibels (dB) re 1 [mu]Pa @ 1 m.
Sonar ping transmission durations were modeled as lasting 1 second per
ping and omni-directional, which is a conservative assumption that will
overestimate potential effects. Actual ping durations will be less than
1 second. The SQS-53 hull-mounted sonar transmits at center frequencies
of 2.6 kHz and 3.5 kHz. The SQS-56 sonar transmits at a center
frequency of 7.5 kHz. Details concerning the tactical use of specific
frequencies and the repetition rate for the sonar pings is classified
but was modeled based on the required tactical training setting.
Hull-mounted active sonars occasionally operate in a mode called
``Kingfisher,'' which is designed to better detect smaller objects. The
Kingfisher mode uses the same source level and frequency as normal
search modes, however, it uses a different waveform (designed for small
objects), a shorter pulse length (< 1 sec), a higher pulse repetition
rate (due to the short ranges), and the ping is not omnidirectional,
but directed forward.
Submarine Sonars--Submarine active and passive sonars are used to
detect and target enemy submarines and surface ships. Because submarine
MF active sonar (AN/BQQ-10) use is very rare and in those rare
instances, very brief (only approximately 2 pings per hour), it is
extremely unlikely that use of active sonar by submarines would have
any measurable effect on marine mammals. However, submarine sonar was
included in the modeling for estimating exposures of marine mammals to
sonar sounds. Estimates of exposure are also included for the HF AN/
BQQ-15 which is used for navigation.
Aircraft Sonar Systems--Aircraft sonar systems that would operate
in the SOCAL Range Complex include DICASS sonobuoys (AN/SSQ-62; source
level of 201 dB) and dipping sonar (AN/AQS-22). Sonobuoys may be
deployed by maritime patrol aircraft or helicopters; dipping sonars are
used by carrier-based helicopters. A sonobuoy is an expendable device
used by aircraft for the detection of underwater acoustic energy and
for conducting vertical water column temperature measurements. Most
sonobuoys are passive, but some can generate active acoustic signals,
as well as listen passively. Dipping sonar is an active or passive
sonar device lowered on cable by helicopters to detect or maintain
contact with underwater targets. During ASW training, these systems
active modes are only used briefly for localization of contacts and are
not used in primary search capacity. Because active mode dipping sonar
use is very brief and has a lower normal source level than hull-mounted
active sonars, it is extremely unlikely its use would have any effect
on marine mammals. However, the AN/AQS-22 dipping sonar was modeled
based on estimated use during major training exercises within the SOCAL
Range Complex.
Extended Echo Ranging and Improved Extended Echo Ranging (EER/IEER)
Systems--EER/IEER are airborne ASW systems used in conducting large
area searches for submarines. These systems are made up of airborne
avionics, ASW acoustic processing and sonobuoy types that are deployed
in pairs. The IEER System's active sonobuoy component, the AN/SSQ-110A
Sonobuoy, would generate a sonar ``ping'' (actually small explosive
detonation) and the passive AN/SSQ-101A ADAR Sonobuoy would ``listen''
for the return echo of the sonar ping that has been bounced off the
surface of a submarine. These sonobuoys are designed to provide
underwater acoustic data necessary for naval aircrews to quickly and
accurately detect submerged submarines. The sonobuoy pairs are dropped
from a fixed-wing aircraft into the ocean in a predetermined pattern
with a few buoys covering a very large area. The AN/SSQ-110A Sonobuoy
Series is an expendable and commandable sonobuoy. Upon command from the
aircraft, the bottom payload is released to sink to a designated
operating depth. A second command is required from the aircraft to
cause the second payload to release and detonate generating a ``ping''.
There is only one detonation in the pattern of buoys at a time. The AN/
SSQ-110A is listed in this table because it functions like a sonar
ping, however, the source creates an explosive detonation and its
effects are considered in the underwater explosive section.
Torpedoes--Torpedoes are the primary ASW weapon used by surface
ships, aircraft, and submarines. The guidance systems of these weapons
can be autonomous or electronically controlled from the launching
platform through an attached wire. The autonomous guidance systems are
acoustically based. They operate either passively, exploiting the
emitted sound energy by the target, or actively, by reflecting a sonar
signal off the target and using the received echoes for guidance. The
MK-48 torpedo was modeled for active sonar transmissions during
specified training operations within the SOCAL Range Complex. The MK-48
sonar with a higher source level was also conservatively used to
account for MK-46 torpedo exercises.
Other Acoustic Sources--The Navy also utilizes the sources listed
below in ASW exercises. However, based on operational characteristics
(such as frequency and source level), the Navy determined that use of
the following acoustic sources would not likely result in the take of
marine mammals:
Acoustic Device Countermeasures (ADC)--Several types of
acoustic counter measure devices could be deployed during Fleet
training exercises, including the free-floating submarine launched
Acoustic Device Countermeasure (MK-1, MK-2, MK-3, MK-4), the free-
floating submarine launched Noise Acoustic Emitter (NAE), and the
surface ship towed AN/SLQ-25A (NIXIE). Countermeasure devices are
submarine simulators and act as decoys to avert localization and
torpedo attacks.
Training Targets--ASW training targets consisting of MK-30
and/or MK-39 EMATT are used to simulate opposition submarines. They are
equipped with one or a combination of the following devices: (1)
Acoustic projectors emanating sounds to simulate submarine acoustic
signatures; (2) echo repeaters to simulate the characteristics
[[Page 60840]]
of the echo of a particular sonar signal reflected from a specific type
of submarine; and (3) magnetic sources to trigger magnetic detectors.
Range Sources. Range pingers are active acoustic devices
that allow each of the in-water platforms on the range (e.g., ships,
submarines, target simulators, and exercise torpedoes) to be tracked by
the instrumented range hydrophones on the Southern California ASW Range
(SOAR) west of San Clemente Island. In addition to passively tracking
the pinger signal from each range participant, the range transducer
nodes also are capable of transmitting acoustic signals for a limited
set of functions. These functions include submarine warning signals,
acoustic commands to submarine target simulators (acoustic command
link), and occasional voice or data communications (received by
participating ships and submarines on range).
Types of ASW Exercises in the SOCAL
The Navy's ASW training plan, including the use of active sonar in
at-sea training scenarios, includes multiple levels of training.
Independent Unit-level ASW training (such as TRACKEX and TORPEX
exercises) addresses basic skills such as detection and classification
of contacts, distinguishing discrete acoustic signatures including
those of ships, submarines, and marine life, and identifying the
characteristics, functions, and effects of controlled jamming and
evasion devices.
The Navy must execute training involving ships, aircraft,
submarines, and Marine Corps forces operating in multiple dimensions
(at sea, undersea, in the air, and on land) in order to ensure the
readiness of naval forces. Unit training proceeds on a continuum,
ranging from events involving a small number of ships, submarines, or
aircraft engaged in training tailored to specific tasks, to large-scale
pre-deployment or readiness exercises involving Strike Groups.
Exercises involving an entire Strike Group are referred to as major
range events (JTFEX and COMPTUEX). Smaller, integrated unit-level
exercises are complex events (SHAREM, IAC2, or sustainment exercise),
but of lesser scope than major range events, which pursue tailored
training objectives for components of a Strike Group. It is useful to
view larger exercises as being composed of individual training events
conducted in a coordinated fashion. For example, the ASW portions of a
major range event might include multiple TRACKEX and TORPEX events,
conducted simultaneously with aviation or amphibious training. Table 2,
at the end of this section, summarizes the exercise types (both sonar
and explosive) and they are further described below. Note that the
names and exact composition of these exercises may change, however, the
basic components are described here and the total hours of sonar sound
source and explosive use will not exceed those described in this
document.
Antisubmarine Warfare Tracking Exercise (TRACKEX)
A TRACKEX, which is an independent unit-level exercise, tests the
Naval Strike Group's (NSG) ability to locate and track an unknown or
hostile submarine over a predetermined time. This operation tests the
NSG's ability to coordinate the positioning of assets including
surface, air, and subsurface, and the effective communication and
turnover of responsibility for maintaining coverage of the unknown
submarine.
The TRACKEX-surface involves a surface ship employing hull mounted
and/or towed array sonar against a target which may be an Expendable
Mobile Anti-submarine Warfare Training Target (EMATT) or live
submarine. The target may be either non-evading and assigned to a
specified track or fully evasive depending on the state of training of
the ship and crew. Passive and active sonar may be employed depending
on the type of threat submarine, the tactical situation, and water
conditions that may affect sonar effectiveness. Active sonar transmits
at varying power levels, pulse types, and intervals, while passive
sonar listens for noise emitted by the threat submarine. Passive sonar
is typically employed first for tactical reasons, followed by active
sonar to determine an exact target location; however, active sonar may
be employed during the initial search phase against an extremely quiet
submarine or in situations where the water conditions do not support
acceptable passive reception. There is no ordnance expended in this
exercise. An ASW TRACKEX-Surface usually lasts two to four hours.
This exercise may involve a single ship, or may be undertaken in
the context of a coordinated larger exercise involving multiple
aircraft and/or ships, including a major range event.
The Navy also conducts Submarine TRACKEX exercises. However, during
this event, passive sonar is used almost exclusively; active sonar use
is tactically proscribed because it would reveal the tracking
submarine's presence to the target submarine.
Torpedo Exercise (TORPEX)
Anti-submarine Warfare Torpedo Exercises (ASW TORPEX) operations,
which are independent unit-level exercises, train crews in tracking and
attack of submerged targets, firing one or two exercise torpedoes
(EXTORPs) or recoverable exercise torpedoes (REXTORPs). TORPEX targets
used in the Offshore Areas include live submarines, MK 48 torpedoes,
MK-30 ASW training targets, and MK-39 Expendable Mobile ASW Training
Targets (EMATT). The target may be non-evading while operating on a
specified track, or it may be fully evasive, depending on the training
requirements of the operation.
The ASW TORPEX-Surface involves a surface ship using hull-mounted
and towed sonar arrays to search for, detect, classify, localize, and
track a simulated threat submarine. Submarines periodically conduct
TORPEXs within the SOCAL Range Complex. Typical duration of a submarine
TORPEX exercise is 10 hours, while air and surface ASW platform TORPEX
operations are considerably shorter.
Ship ASW Readiness and Evaluation Measuring (SHAREM)
SHAREM is a Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) chartered program with
the overall objective to collect and analyze high-quality data to
quantitatively ``assess'' surface ship ASW readiness and effectiveness.
The SHAREM is an integrated unit-level event and will typically involve
multiple ships, submarines, and aircraft in several coordinated events
over a period of a week or less. A SHAREM may take place once per year
in SOCAL.
Sustainment Exercise
Included in the FRTP is a requirement to conduct post-deployment
sustainment, training, and maintenance. The sustainment exercise, which
is an integrated unit-level exercise, ensures that the components of a
Strike Group maintain an acceptable level of readiness after returning
from deployment. A sustainment exercise is an exercise designed to
challenge the strike group in all warfare areas. This exercise is
similar to a COMPTUEX but of shorter duration. One to two sustainment
exercises may occur each year in SOCAL.
Integrated ASW Course Phase II (IAC2)
IAC2 exercises are combined aircraft and surface ship events. The
IAC2 consists of two 12-hour events conducted primarily on SOAR over a
2-3 day period. SOAR is an undersea warfare range providing
instrumented
[[Page 60841]]
three dimensional tracking over a 670 sq nm area within the large
Southern California Offshore Range (SCORE). The typical participants
include four helicopters, two P-3 aircraft, two adversary submarines,
and two Mk 30 or Mk 39 targets. Frequently, IAC2s include the
introduction of an off-range Mk 30 target. Four IAC2 exercises may
occur per year.
Major Range Events
The Navy conducts large-scale exercises, or major ranges events, in
the SOCAL Range Complex. These exercises are required for pre-
deployment certification of naval formations. The composition of the
force to be trained, and the nature of its mission upon deployment,
determines the scope of the exercise. The Navy currently conducts up to
eight major range events per year. Major range events bring together
the component elements of a Strike Group or Strike Force (that is, all
of the various ships, submarines, aircraft, and Marine Corps forces) to
train in complex command, control, operational coordination, and
logistics functions. Major range events require vast areas of sea space
and airspace for the exercise of realistic training, as well as land
areas for conducting land attack training events. The training space
required for these events is a function of naval warfighting doctrine,
which favors widely dispersed units capable of projecting forces and
firepower at high speeds across distances of up to several hundred
miles in a coordinated fashion, to concentrate on an objective. The
three-dimensional space required to conduct a major range event
involving a carrier strike group (CSG) or expeditionary strike group
(ESG) is a complicated polygon covering an area as large as 50,000 nm
\2\.
A major range event is comprised of several ``unit level'' range
operations conducted by several units operating together while
commanded and controlled by a single commander. These exercises
typically employ an exercise scenario developed to train and evaluate
the Strike Group/Force in required naval tactical tasks. In a major
range event, most of the operations and activities being directed and
coordinated by the Strike Group commander are identical in nature to
the operations conducted in the course of individual, crew, and
smaller-unit training events. In a major range event, however, these
disparate training tasks are conducted in concert, rather than in
isolation.
Major range events include:
Composite Training Unit Exercise (COMPTUEX). The COMPTUEX
is an Integration Phase, at-sea, major range event. For the CSG, this
exercise integrates the aircraft carrier and carrier air wing with
surface and submarine units in a challenging operational environment.
For the ESG, this exercise integrates amphibious ships with their
associated air wing, surface ships, submarines, and Marine
Expeditionary Unit. Live-fire operations that may take place during
COMPTUEX include long-range air strikes, Naval Surface Fire Support
(NSFS), and surface-to-air, surface-to-surface, and air-to-surface
missile exercises. The MEU also conducts realistic training based on
anticipated operational requirements and to further develop the
required coordination between Navy and Marine Corps forces. Special
Operations training may also be integrated with the exercise scenario.
The COMPTUEX is typically 21 days in length. The exercise is conducted
in accordance with a schedule of events, which may include two 1-day,
scenario-driven, ``mini'' battle problems, culminating with a scenario-
driven free play (as opposed to scripted) 3-day Final Battle Problem
where the strike group is required to respond to dynamic maneuvers.''
COMPTUEX occurs three to four times per year.
Joint Task Force Exercise (JTFEX). The JTFEX is a dynamic
and complex major range event that is the culminating exercise in the
Sustainment Phase training and certification event for the CSGs and
ESGs. For an ESG, the exercise incorporates an Amphibious Ready Group
(ARG) Certification Exercise (ARG CERT) for the amphibious ships and a
Special Operations Capable Certification (SOCCERT) for the MEU. When
schedules align, the JTFEX may be conducted concurrently for an ESG and
CSG. JTFEX emphasizes mission planning and effective execution by all
primary and support warfare commanders, including command and control,
surveillance, intelligence, logistics support, and the integration of
tactical fires. JTFEX is mostly a free-play (as opposed to scripted)
event. JTFEX is normally 10 days long, not including a 3-day in-port
Force Protection Exercise, and is the final at-sea exercise for the CSG
or ESG prior to deployment. JTFEX occurs three to four times per year.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 60842]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC08.026
[[Page 60843]]
Activities Utilizing Underwater Detonations
Underwater detonation activities can occur at various depths
depending on the activity (sinking exercise [SINKEX] and mine
neutralization), but may also include activities which may have
detonations at or just below the surface (SINKEX, gunnery exercise
[GUNEX], or missile exercise [MISSILEX]). When the weapons hit the
target, except for live torpedo shot, there is no explosion in the
water, and so a ``hit'' is not modeled (i.e., the energy (either
acoustic or pressure) from the hit is not expected to reach levels that
would result in take of marine mammals). When a live weapon misses, it
is modeled as exploding below the water surface at 1 ft (5-inch naval
gunfire, 76-mm rounds), 2 meters (Maverick, Harpoon, MK-82, MK-83, MK-
84), or 50 ft (MK-48 torpedo) as shown in Appendix A of the Navy's
application, Table A-7 (the depth is chosen to represent the worst case
of the possible scenarios as related to potential marine mammals
impacts). Exercises may utilize either live or inert ordnance of the
types listed in Table 3. Additionally, successful hit rates are known
to the Navy and are utilized in the effects modeling. Training events
that involve explosives and underwater detonations occur throughout the
year and are described below and summarized in Table 2.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC08.027
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Sinking Exercise (SINKEX)
In a SINKEX, a specially prepared, deactivated vessel is
deliberately sunk using multiple weapons systems. The exercise provides
training to ship and aircraft crews in delivering both live and inert
ordnance on a real target. These target vessels are empty, cleaned, and
environmentally remediated ship hulk (i.e., a hulk that has been
stripped of all hazardous materials and potential marine water
contaminants in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 229.2
[Transport of target vessels]). A SINKEX target is towed to sea and set
adrift at the SINKEX location. The duration of a SINKEX is
unpredictable since it ends when the target sinks, sometimes
immediately after the first weapon impact and sometimes only after
multiple impacts by a variety of weapons. Typically, the exercise lasts
for 4 to 8 hours over 1 to 2 days. SINKEXs occur only occasionally
during SOCAL Range Complex exercises.
Some or all of the following weapons may be employed in a SINKEX:
Three HARPOON surface-to-surface and air-to-surface
missiles.
Two to eight air-to-surface Maverick missiles.
Two to four MK-82 General Purpose Bombs.
Two Hellfire air-to-surface missiles.
One SLAM-ER air-to-surface missile.
Two-hundred and fifty rounds for a 5-inch gun.
One MK-48 heavyweight submarine-launched torpedo.
Air-to-Surface Gunnery Exercise (A-S GUNEX)
Air-to-Surface GUNEX operations, which may be conducted in W291,
are conducted by fixed or rotary-wing aircraft against stationary
targets (Floating at-sea Target [FAST] and smoke buoy). Rotary-wing
aircraft involved in this operation would include a single SH-60 using
either 7.62-mm or .50-caliber door-mounted machine guns. A typical A-S
GUNEX will last approximately one hour and involve the expenditure of
approximately 400 rounds of 0.50-caliber or 7.62-mm ammunition. Due to
the inert nature of the ammunition and the small size of the rounds,
they are not considered to have an underwater detonation impact.
Surface-to-Surface Gunnery Exercise (S-S GUNEX)
Surface gunnery exercises (GUNEX) take place in the open ocean
(W291 and SOAR) to provide gunnery practice for Navy and Coast Guard
ship crews. This exercise may involve a single firing ship, or be
undertaken in the context of a coordinated larger exercise involving
multiple ships, including a major range event. GUNEX training
operations conducted in the Offshore OPAREA involve stationary targets
such as a MK-42 FAST or a MK-58 marker (smoke) buoy. The gun systems
employed against surface targets include the 5-inch, 76 millimeter
(mm), 57-mm, 25-mm chain gun, 20-mm Close-in Weapon System (CIWS), and
.50 caliber machine gun. Typical ordnance expenditure for a single
GUNEX is 21-70 rounds of 5-inch, 76-mm, or 57-mm ammunition, and
approximately 150 rounds of 25-mm or .50-caliber ammunition. Both live
and inert training rounds are used. After impacting the water, the
rounds and fragments sink to the bottom of the ocean. A GUNEX lasts up
to 2.5 hours, depending on target services and weather conditions. The
live 5-inch, 57-mm and 76-mm rounds are considered in the underwater
detonation modeling.
Naval Surface Fire Support exercises (NSFS), in which crews train
in naval gunnery against shore targets using the same ammunition as a
GUNEX, are included with GUNEX both in Table 2 and further discussion
(though separate mitigation is described in the Mitigation section).
NSFS may be conducted in SOAR, MIR, or SHOBA.
Air-to-Surface Missile Exercise (A-S MISSILEX)
The air-to-surface missile exercise (MISSILEX [A-S]) consists of
the attacking platform releasing a forward-fired, guided weapon at the
designated towed target. The exercise involves locating the target,
then designating the target, usually with a laser. MISSILEX (A-S)
training that does not involve the
[[Page 60844]]
release of a live weapon can take place if the attacking platform is
carrying a captive air training missile (CATM) simulating the weapon
involved in the training. The CATM MISSILEX is identical to a live-fire
exercise in every aspect except that a weapon is not released. The
operation requires a laser-safe range as the target is designated just
as in a live-fire exercise.
From 1 to 16 aircraft, carrying live, inert, or CATMs, or flying
without ordnance (dry runs) are used during the exercise. At sea,
seaborne powered targets (SEPTARs), Improved Surface Towed Targets
(ISTTs), and decommissioned hulks are used as targets. MISSILEX (A-S)
assets include helicopters and/or 1 to 16 fixed wing aircraft with air-
to-surface missiles and anti-radiation missiles (electromagnetic
radiation source seeking missiles). When a high-speed anti-radiation
missile (HARM) is used, the exercise is called a HARMEX. Targets
include SEPTARs, ISTTs, and excess ship hulks.
Surface-to-Surface Missile Exercise (S-S MISSILEX)
Surface-to-surface missile exercise (MISSILEX [S-S]) involves the
attack of surface targets at sea by use of cruise missiles or other
missile systems, usually by a single ship conducting training in the
detection, classification, tracking and engagement of a surface target.
Engagement is usually with Harpoon missiles or Standard missiles in the
surface-to-surface mode. Targets could include virtual targets or the
SEPTAR or ship deployed surface target. MISSILEX (S-S) training is
routinely conducted on individual ships with embedded training devices.
A MISSILEX (S-S) could include 4 to 20 surface-to-surface missiles,
SEPTARs, a weapons recovery boat, and a helicopter for environmental
and photo evaluation. All missiles are equipped with instrumentation
packages or a warhead. Surface-to-air missiles can also be used in a
surface-to-surface mode. MISSILEX (S-S) activities are conducted
withinW-291. Each exercise typically lasts five hours. Future MISSILEX
S-S could range from 4 to 35 hours.
S-S MISSILEX exercises only occur during SINKEX exercises, and the
hours of S-S MISSILEX are included in the total hours of SINKEX
indicated in Table 2.
Bombing Exercise (BOMBEX)
Fixed-wing aircraft conduct bombing exercise (BOMBEX [Sea])
operations against stationary targets (MK-42 FAST or MK-58 smoke buoy)
at sea. An aircraft will clear the area, deploy a smoke buoy or other
floating target, and then set up a racetrack pattern, dropping on the
target with each pass. A BOMBEX may involve either live or inert
ordnance.
Mine Warfare (MIW)/ Mine Countermeasures (MCM)
MIW is the naval warfare area involving the detection, avoidance,
and neutralization of mines to protect Navy ships and submarines, and
offensive mine laying in naval operations. A naval mine is a self-
contained explosive device placed in water to destroy ships or
submarines. Naval mines are deposited and left in place until triggered
by the approach of or a contact with an enemy ship, or are destroyed or
removed. Naval mines can be laid by purpose-built minelayers, other
ships, submarines, or airplanes. MIW training includes Mine
Countermeasures (MCM) Exercises and Mine Laying Exercises (MINEX). MCM
training is currently conducted on the Kingfisher Range and offshore
areas in the Tanner and Cortes Banks. MCM training engages ships' crews
in the use of sonar for mine detection and avoidance, and minefield
navigation and reporting. The proposed extension of the SOAR is
intended for use in such training. MINEX events involve aircraft
dropping inert training shapes, and less frequently submarine mine
laying. MINEX events are conducted on the MINEX Training Ranges in the
Castle Rock, Eel Point, China Point, and Pyramid Head areas offshore of
SCI.
Mine Neutralization operations involve the detection,
identification, evaluation, rendering safe, and disposal of mines and
unexploded ordnance (UXO) that constitutes a threat to ships or
personnel. Mine neutralization training can be conducted by a variety
of air, surface and sub-surface assets. Potential harassment would be
from underwater detonation.
Tactics for neutralization of ground or bottom mines involve the
diver placing a specific amount of explosives, which when detonated
underwater at a specific distance from a mine results in neutralization
of the mine. Floating, or moored, mines involve the diver placing a
specific amount of explosives directly on the mine. Floating mines
encountered by Fleet ships in open-ocean areas will be detonated at the
surface. In support of an expeditionary assault, divers and Navy marine
mammal assets deploy in very shallow water depths (10 to 40 feet) to
locate mines and obstructions. Divers are transported to the mines by
boat or helicopter. Inert dummy mines are used in the exercises. The
total net explosive weight used against each mine ranges from less than
1 pound to 20 pounds.
Various types of surveying equipment may be used during mine
detection. Examples include the Canadian Route Survey System that
hydrographically maps the ocean floor using multi-beam side scan sonar
and the Bottom Object Inspection Vehicle used for object
identification. These units can help in supporting mine detection prior
to Special Warfare Operations (SPECWAROPS) and amphibious exercises.
All demolition activities are conducted in accordance with
established Navy guidelines and procedures for disposal of explosives
at sea. Before any explosive is detonated, divers are transported a
safe distance away from the explosive.
Standard practices for tethered mines in the SOCAL Range Complex
require ground mine explosive charges to be suspended 10 feet below the
surface of the water.
Mine neutralization exercises would involve training using Organic
Airborne Mine Countermeasures (OAMCM) systems employed by helicopters
in simulated threat minefields with the goal of clearing a safe channel
through the minefield for the passage of friendly ships. Once a mine
shape is located, mine neutralization is simulated. Helicopters engaged
in MCM training would be configured with one or more of the following
systems:
AN/AQS-20 Mine Hunting System: The AQS-20 is an active
high resolution, side-looking, multibeam sonar system used for mine
hunting of deeper mine threats along the ocean bottom. It is towed by a
helicopter. A small diameter electromechanical cable is used to tow the
rapidly-deployable system that provides real-time sonar images to
operators in the helicopter.
AN/AES-1 Airborne Laser Mine Detection System (ALMDS):
ALMDS is a helicopter-mounted system that uses Light Detection and
Ranging (LIDAR) blue-green laser technology to detect, classify, and
localize floating and near-surface moored mines in shallow water.
AN/ALQ-220 Organic Airborne Surface Influence Sweep
(OASIS). OASIS is a helicopter deployed, towed-body, 10 ft long and 20
inches in diameter that is self-contained, allowing for the emulation
of magnetic and acoustic signatures of the ships.
Airborne Mine Neutralization System (AMNS): AMNS is a
helicopter-deployed underwater vehicle that searches for, locates, and
destroys mines. This vehicle is a self-propelled, unmanned, wire-guided
munition with
[[Page 60845]]
homing capability that expends itself during the mine destruction
process.
AN/AWS-2 Rapid Airborne Mine Clearance System (RAMCIS):
RAMICS is a helicopter-borne weapon system that fires a 30mm projectile
from a gun or cannon to neutralize surface and near-surface mines.
RAMICS uses LIDAR technology to detect mines.
Mine neutralization exercises also would involve shipboard MCM
systems, including the Remote Minehunting System (RMS). The RMS is an
unmanned, semi-submersible vehicle that tows a variable-depth sensor to
detect, localize, classify and identify mines. The RMS includes a
shipboard launch and recovery system.
Mine neutralization exercises also would involve submarine-deployed
MCM systems, the Long-term Mine Reconnaissance System (LMRS). The LMRS
employs a self-propelled underwater vehicle equipped with forward-
looking search sonar and side-looking classification sonar.
Locations proposed for mine neutralization training are: Pyramid
Cove; Northwest Harbor; Kingfisher Training Range; MTR-1, MTR-2, and
Advanced Research Project Agency (ARPA).
The unusual physical bathymetries, the low numbers of protected
species and the training routines at the sites where these exercises
are conducted combine with the unusual pressure-wave propagation
characteristics of the Northwest Harbor, where multiple charges are
used, to allow exceptionally reliable and effective mitigation
procedures. The exceptional reliability of visual detection of
protected species at these sites allows for complete mitigation within
a radius that extends out to the distance at which only the lowest
degree of temporary auditory threshold shift (onset-TTS) would be
expected to occur (if mitigation were not so effective at the site).
Therefore, the Navy and NMFS do not expect mine neutralization
exercises to result in the take of marine mammals and no take
authorization pursuant to this activity type has been proposed.
Shallow Water Minefield
Currently, the Navy conducts mine countermeasures (MCM) training on
two existing ranges in the SOCAL Range Complex: the Kingfisher Range
off SCI and the ARPA Training Minefield off La Jolla. The ARPA has
historically been used for shallow water submarine and MCM training,
and is the desired location for expanding MCM training. ARPA currently
supports the submarine training requirement for a shallow water
minefield to train in small object avoidance. Use of the ARPA shallow
water minefield would be expanded from its current use by submarines to
include surface ships and helicopters.
On the ARPA, 35 mine shapes approximately 30-35 inches in diameter,
constructed of cylinders weighted with cement, are placed approximately
500-700 yards apart, either moored (no drilling is required) or simply
set on the sea floor. Mine shapes are recoverable and replaceable, and
typically need maintenance or cleaning every two years.
In addition to expanded use of the ARPA, the Navy proposes to
establish an offshore shallow water minefield on Tanner Banks. The
training area would be approximately 2 by 3 nm in size. Mine shapes
like those used at ARPA would be placed on the ocean floor, with a
total of 15 mine shapes in three rows of five. This offshore MCM range
would be utilized by surface ships training to detect, classify and
localize underwater mines.
MCM training involving ships or helicopters typically employ mid-to
high-frequency navigation and mine detecting sonar systems. Once a mine
shape is located, mine neutralization is simulated. Surface ships
engaged in MCM training at ARPA and Tanner Banks MCM ranges would
utilize the Remote Mine Hunting System (RMS). The RMS is an unmanned,
semi-submersible vehicle that will be deployed from both the DDG-51
Class destroyer and the LCS. The RMS is launched and recovered by the
host ship using a davit system. After deployment, the RMS enters the
target zone to perform reconnaissance for bottom-laid mines. An area
search is conducted following an operator-programmed search pattern.
The RMS searches using low-power (< 85dB) acoustic sonar. Upon
detecting a mine, the RMS unit will localize and photograph the object
for classification, and then continue on its programmed search. When
the search portion of the mission is completed, the RMS will proceed to
a programmed location for recovery.
The exercises that will be conducted on these minefields have been
described in previous sections and any expected take of marine mammals
will be included when those exercise types are analyzed in later
sections. NMFS does not expect the actual expansion and formation of
the minefields to result in any take of marine mammals.
Shallow Water Training Range (SWTR) Extension
The SWTR component of the Proposed Action would provide underwater
instrumentation for two additional areas of the current SOAR, one
250nm\2\ (463-km\2\) area to the west of the already instrumented (deep
water) section, in the area of Tanner/Cortes Banks, and one 250 nm\2\
(463-km\2\) area between the deep water section and the southern
section of SCI (See Figure 2-3). Once in place, the new instrumentation
in the SWTR would expand the areas of the Navy's existing program on
SOAR to enhance the ability to use passive hydrophones to detect and
track marine mammals. If installed in these areas, use of the SWTR
would increase the use of these areas for ASW training involving MFAS.
The proposed instrumentation would be in the form of undersea
cables and sensor nodes. The cables and sensors would be similar to
those that instrument the current deep water range at (SOAR). The new
areas would form an integral SWTR capability for SOAR. The combination
of deep water and shallow water instrumentation would support a
seamless tracking interface from deep to shallow water, which is an
essential element of effective ASW training. The instrumented area
would be connected to shore via multiple trunk cables.
The SWTR instrumentation would be an undersea cables system
integrated with hydrophone and underwater telephone sensors, called
nodes, connected to each other and then connected by up to eight trunk
cable(s) to a land-based facility where the collected range data are
used to evaluate the performance of participants in shallow water
(120'-600'deep) training exercises. The basic proposed features of the
instrumentation and construction follow.
The transducer nodes are capable of both transmitting and receiving
acoustic signals from ships operating within the instrumented areas of
SOAR (a transducer is an instrument that converts one form of energy
into another [in this case, underwater sound into an electrical signal
or vice-versa]). Some nodes are configured to only support receiving
signals, some can both transmit and receive, and others are transmit-
only versions. The acoustic signals that are sent from the exercise
participants (e.g., submarines, torpedoes, ships) to the receive-
capable range nodes allow the position of the participants to be
determined and stored electronically for both real-time and future
evaluation. The transmit-capable nodes allow communication from the
range to ships or other devices that are being tracked. More
specifically:
The SWTR extension would consist of no more than 500
sensor nodes spread on the ocean floor over a 500-nm
[[Page 60846]]
area. The distance between nodes would vary between 0.5nm and 3nm,
depending on water depth. Each sensor node would be similar on
construction to the existing SOAR instrumentation. The sensor nodes are
small spherical shapes of less than 6 inches in diameter. The sensors
would be either suspended up to 15 feet in the water column or lie flat
on the seafloor. Sensor nodes located in shallow water with a presence
of commercial fishing activity would have an additional protective
device surrounding or overlaying a sensor. These mechanical protective
devices would be 3-4 feet round or rectangular with a shallow height.
The final physical characteristics of the sensor nodes would be
determined based upon local geographic conditions and to accommodate
man-made threats such as fishing activity. Sensor nodes would be
connected to each other by interconnect cable (standard submarine
telecommunications cable with diameters less than 1 inch).
Approximately 900nm of interconnect cable would be deployed.
A series of sensor nodes would be connected via the
interconnect cable to an underwater junction box(es) located in diver-
accessible water depths. A junction box is rectangular in shape with
dimensions of 10-15 feet on each side. The junction box(es) would
connect to a shore-based facility via trunk cable(s) (submarine cables
up to 2 inch diameter with additional data capacity). The trunk
cable(s) eliminate the need to have numerous interconnect cables
running to shore. Up to 8 trunk cables with a combined length of 375nm
would be employed. Trunk cables would be protected in the sea-shore
area by horizontally directionally drilled pipes running beneath the
shoreline.
The interconnect and trunk cables would be deployed using
a ship with a length overall up to 300 feet. The trunk cable paths
would be routed through the deep water as much as is possible. Trunk
cable deployed in shallow water may require cable burial. Burial
equipment would cut (hard bottom) or plow (soft sediment) a furrow 4
inches (10 cm) wide by up to 36 inches deep. Burial equipment (tracked
vehicle or towed plow) would be deployed from a ship. The trunk cable,
which passes through the sea-shore area, would terminate in SOAR's
current cable termination facility (CTF) at West Cove. From there,
information gathered on the SWTR would be transmitted via an existing
microwave datalink to the Southern California Offshore Range (SCORE)
Range Operations Center (ROC) on Naval Air Station North Island. The
adjacent SOAR has a single junction box located outside the nearshore
area and places the trunk cable in a horizontally directionally drilled
bore that terminates on shore. The size of the SWTR may require up to 8
junction boxes and 8 trunk cables. Multiple horizontal bores are in the
SOAR. Every effort would be made to take advantage of any excess bore
capacity available in the SOAR.
The in-water instrumentation system would be structured to
achieve a long operating life, with a goal of 20 years and with a
minimum of maintenance and repair throughout the life-cycle. This is
due to the high cost of performing at-sea repairs on transducer nodes
and cables, the inherently long lead-time to plan, permit, fund and
conduct such repairs (6-18 months) and the loss of range capability
while awaiting completion. The long life performance would be achieved
by using high quality components, proven designs, and multiple levels
of redundancy in the system design. This includes back-up capacity for
key electronic components and fault tolerance to the loss of individual
sensors or even an entire sensor string. The use of materials capable
of withstanding long term exposure to high water pressure and salt
water-induced corrosion is also important. Periodic inspection and
maintenance in accessible areas also extends system life.
The Navy would submit cable area coordinates to the National
Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) and request that the combined
SWTR/SOAR area be noted on charts within the appropriate warning area.
This area would be noted in the U.S. Coast Pilot as a Military
Operating Area (MOA), as are other areas on the West Coast. The Navy
may promulgate a Notice to Mariners (NOTMAR) and a Notice to Airmen
(NOTAM) within 72 hours of the training activities, as appropriate.
Installation of the SWTR instrumentation array may be done in
phases. For example, the Tanner Bank area could be installed first,
followed by the eastern area. The decision as to whether or not to
proceed in phases, how many phases, and the order in which the phases
are executed is based on multiple factors, including weather, ship
availability and capacity, production schedules for nodes and cable,
installation time, total environmental impact of installation, funding
availability, and efficiency.
RDT&E
Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWARSYSCEN) conducts
research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E), engineering,
and fleet support for command, control, and communications systems and
ocean surveillance in the SOCAL Range Complex, primarily in the
vicinity of SCI. Specific events include ship tracking and torpedo
tests, unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV) tests; and sonobuoy quality
assurance/quality control.
The San Diego Division of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC)
is a Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) organization supporting the
Pacific Fleet. NUWC operates and maintains the SCI Underwater Range
(SCIUR). NUWC conducts tests, analysis, and evaluation of submarine USW
exercises and test programs. NUWC also provides engineering and
technical support for Undersea Warfare (USW) programs and exercises,
design cognizance of underwater weapons acoustic and tracking ranges
and associated range equipment, and provides proof testing and
evaluation for underwater weapons, weapons systems, and components.
Additional information on the Navy's proposed activities may be
found in the LOA Application and Appendix A of the Navy's SOCAL DEIS.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activities
The California Current passes through the SOCAL Range Complex,
creating a mixing of temperate and tropical waters, and making this
area one of the most productive ocean systems in the world (Hickey
1979, Hickey 1992, Daily et al. 1993, DoN 2002a). Because of this
productive environment, there is a rich marine mammal fauna, as
evidenced in abundance and species diversity (Leatherwood et al., 1988;
Bonnell and Dailey, 1993). In addition to many marine mammal species
that live in the area year-round and use the region's coasts and
islands for breeding and hauling out, there is a community of seasonal
residents and migrants. The narrow continental shelf along the Pacific
coast and the presence of the cold California Current sweeping down
from Alaska allows cold-water marine mammal species to reach nearshore
waters as far south as Baja California. The Southern California Bight
(SCB) is the major geological region occurring within the SOCAL Range
Complex and can be described as a complex combination of islands,
ridges, and basins that exhibit wide ranges in water temperature. San
Diego Bay, a naturally formed, crescent-shaped embayment is located
along the southern end of the SCB (Largier, 1995;