Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy Training in the Virginia Capes Range Complex, 75631-75659 [E8-29498]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 240 (Friday, December 12, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75631-75659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-29498]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 216

RIN 0648-AW78


Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy Training in the 
Virginia Capes 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 within the Virginia Capes (VACAPES) Range Complex for the

[[Page 75632]]

period of April 2009 through April 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 January 
12, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by 0648-AW78, 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 (enter N/A in the required 
fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic 
comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or 
Adobe PDF file formats only.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 713-2289, ext. 137.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability

    A copy of the Navy's application may be obtained by writing to the 
address specified above (See ADDRESSES), telephoning the contact listed 
above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting the internet 
at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. The Navy's 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the VACAPES Range 
Complex was published on June 27, 2008, and may be viewed at https://
www.VACAPESRangeComplexEIS.com. NMFS participated in the development of 
the Navy's DEIS as a cooperating agency under the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) 
direct the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon request, 
the incidental, but not intentional taking of marine mammals by U.S. 
citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial 
fishing) 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) (Public Law 
108-136) removed the ``small numbers'' and ``specified geographical 
region'' limitations and amended the definition of ``harassment'' as it 
applies to a ``military readiness activity'' to read as follows 
(Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA):

    (i) any act that injures or has the significant potential to 
injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A 
Harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a 
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing 
disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not 
limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned 
or significantly altered [Level B Harassment].

Summary of Request

    On March 17, 2008, NMFS received an application from the Navy 
requesting authorization for the take of 13 species of cetacean 
incidental to the proposed training activities in VACAPES Range Complex 
over the course of 5 years. These training activities are classified as 
military readiness activities. The Navy states that these training 
activities may cause various impacts to marine mammal species in the 
proposed VACAPES Range Complex area. The Navy requests an authorization 
to take individuals of these cetacean species by Level B Harassment. 
Further, the Navy requests authorization to take 1 individual Atlantic 
spotted, 20 common, 1 pantropical spotted, and 3 striped dolphins per 
year by injury, and 1 individual common dolphin per year by mortality, 
as a result of the proposed training activities at VACAPES Range 
Complex. Please refer to Table 29 of the LOA application for detailed 
information of the potential exposures from explosive ordnance (per 
year) for marine mammals in the VACAPES Range Complex. However, due to 
the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS does not believe 
the proposed action would result in marine mammal mortalities. 
Therefore, no mortality would be authorized for the Navy's VACAPES 
Range Complex training activities.

Background of Navy 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.) section 
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, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) of naval weapons 
systems.
    The VACAPES Range Complex represents an essential three-dimensional 
space that provides a realistic and safe training area for Navy 
personnel. For nearly a century the area has supported Navy training 
activities, and is now host to a wide range of training every year to 
ensure the U.S. military members are ready for combat.
    The VACAPES Range Complex is the principal training area for air, 
surface and submarine units located in Hampton Roads, Virginia. The 
VACAPES Range Complex is also the primary homeport of the Atlantic 
Fleet. The Hampton Roads area includes more than 80,000 active duty 
Navy personnel. In addition to serving as the site for essential Navy 
training, the VACAPES Range Complex is host to activities for the RDT&E 
of emerging technologies. The RDT&E activities addressed in the VACAPES 
EIS/OEIS are those RDT&E activities that are substantially similar to 
training, involving existing systems or systems with similar operating 
parameters.
    The VACAPES Study Area geographically encompasses offshore, near-
shore, and onshore OPAREAs,

[[Page 75633]]

ranges, and Special Use Airspace (SUA) (Figure 1 of the application). 
The lower Chesapeake Bay is also part of the Study Area, although no 
training involving explosions would be performed in this area. 
Together, components of the VACAPES Study Area encompass:
     27,661 square nautical miles (nm\2\) of sea space (not 
including the portion of the Lower Chesapeake Bay); and
     28,672 nm\2\ of SUA warning areas
    The portions of the VACAPES Study Area addressed in the Navy's 
application consist of the offshore OPAREA (surface and subsurface 
waters) and the SUA warning areas (and not the SUA associated with land 
ranges), and waters extending from the shoreline to the OPAREA boundary 
(Table 1 of the application). Table 6 of the LOA application provides a 
list of marine mammal species that have been confirmed and/or have the 
potential to occur in the VACAPES Study Area.
    The VACAPES OPAREA is a set of operating and maneuver areas with 
defined ocean surface and subsurface operating areas described in 
detail in Table 1 of the application. The OPAREA is located in the 
coastal and offshore waters of the western North Atlantic Ocean 
adjacent to Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina (Figure 1 
of the application; 27,661 nm\2\ of surface waters). The northernmost 
boundary of the OPAREA is located 37 nautical miles (nm) off the 
entrance to Delaware Bay at latitude 38[deg] 45' N, the farthest point 
of the eastern boundary is 184 nm east of Chesapeake Bay at longitude 
72[deg] 41' W, and the southernmost point is 105 nm southeast of Cape 
Hatteras, North Carolina, at latitude of 34[deg] 19' N. The western 
boundary of the OPAREA lies 3 nm from the shoreline at the boundary 
separating state and Federal waters.
    A warning area is airspace of defined dimensions, extending from 3 
nm outward from the U.S. coast, which contains activity that may be 
hazardous to nonparticipating aircraft. The purpose of such warning 
area is to warn nonparticipating pilots of the potential danger. A 
warning area may be located over domestic or international waters or 
both.

Description of the Specified Activities

    The Navy requests an authorization for take of marine mammals 
incidental to conducting training operations within the VACAPES Range 
Complex. These training activities consist of surface warfare, mine 
warfare, amphibious warfare, strike warfare, and vessel movement. The 
locations of these activities are described in Figure 1 of the 
application. A description of each of these training activities within 
the VACAPES Range Complex is provided below:

Surface Warfare

    Surface Warfare (SUW) supports defense of a geographical area 
(e.g., a zone or barrier) in cooperation with surface, subsurface, and 
air forces. SUW operations detect, localize, and track surface targets, 
primarily ships. Detected ships are monitored visually and with radar. 
Operations include identifying surface contacts, engaging with weapons, 
disengaging, evasion and avoiding attack, including implementation of 
radio silence and deceptive measures.
    For the proposed VACAPES Range Complex training operations, SUW 
involving the use of explosive ordnance includes air-to-surface Missile 
Exercises and air-to-surface Bombing Exercises that occur at sea.
    (1) Missile Exercise (Air-to-Surface) (MISSILEX (A-S)): This 
exercise would involve fixed winged aircraft crews and helicopter crews 
who launch missiles at at-sea surface targets with the goal of 
destroying or disabling the target. MISSILEX (A-S) training in the 
VACAPES Range Complex can occur during the day or at night in locations 
described in Figure 1 of the LOA application. Table 1 below summarizes 
the levels of MISSILEX planned in the VACAPES Range Complex for the 
proposed action.

                    Table 1. Levels of MISSILEX Planned in the VACAPES Range Complex Per Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Operation                      Platform               System/Ordnance            Number of Events
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missile Exercise (MISSILEX)      MH-60S, HH-60H             AGM-114 (Hellfire          60 sorties (60 missiles)
 (Air to Surface)                                            missile)
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 F/A-18, P-3C, and P-8A     AGM-65 E/F (Maverick       20 sorties (20 missiles)
                                                             missile)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Bombing Exercise (BOMBEX) (A-S): This exercise would involve 
strike fighter aircraft (F/A-18s) delivering explosive bombs against 
at-sea surface targets with the goal of destroying the target. BOMBEX 
(A-S) training in the VACAPES Study Area occurs only during daylight 
hours in the locations described in Figure 1 of the LOA application. 
Table 2 below summarizes the levels of BOMBEX planned in the VACAPES 
Range Complex for the proposed action.

                     Table 2. Levels of BOMBEX Planned in the VACAPES Range Complex Per Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Operation                 Platform              System/Ordnance                Number of Events
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bombing Exercise (BOMBEX)                F/A-18     MK-83/GBU-32 [1,000 lb High     5 events (20 bombs 4 bombs/
 (Air-to-Surface, At-Sea)                                  Explosive (HE) bomb]                          event)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mine Warfare/Mine Exercises

    Mine Warfare (MIW) includes the strategic, operational, and 
tactical use of mines and mine countermine measures (MCM). MIW training 
events are also collectively referred to as Mine Exercises (MINEX). MIW 
training/MINEX utilizes shapes to simulate mines. These shapes are 
either concrete-filled shapes or metal shapes. No actual explosive 
mines are used during MIW training in the VACAPES Range Complex study 
area. MIW training or MINEX is divided into the following.
    (1) Mine laying: Crews practice the laying of mine shapes in 
simulated enemy areas;
    (2) Mine countermeasures: Crews practice ``countering'' simulated 
enemy mines to permit the maneuver of friendly vessels and troops.

[[Page 75634]]

``Countering'' refers to both the detection and identification of enemy 
mines, the marking and maneuver of vessels and troops around identified 
enemy mines and mine fields, and the disabling of enemy mines. A subset 
of mine countermeasures is mine neutralization. Mine neutralization 
refers to the disabling of enemy mines by causing them to self-detonate 
either by setting a small explosive charge in the vicinity of the enemy 
mine, or by using various types of equipment that emit a sound, 
pressure, or a magnetic field that causes the mine to trip and self-
detonate. In all cases, actual explosive (live) mines would not be used 
during training events. Rather, mine shapes are used to simulate real 
enemy mines. Table 3 below summarizes the levels of mine warfare/mine 
exercises planned in the VACAPES Range Complex for the proposed action.

          Table 3. Levels of Mine Warfare/Mine Exercises Planned in the VACAPES Range Complex Per Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Operation                      Platform               System/Ordnance            Number of Events
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Neutralization              MH-60S                     AMNS                       30 rounds
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 EOD                        20 lb charges              24 events
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the VACAPES Range Complex study areas, MIW training/MINEX events 
include the use of explosive charges for two and one types of mine 
countermeasures and neutralization training, respectively. This 
training would use the Airborne Mine Neutralization System (AMNS) and 
underwater detonations of mine shapes by Explosive Ordnance Disposal 
(EOD) divers. MIW training/MINEX would occur only during daylight hours 
in the locations described in Figure 1 of the LOA application.

Amphibious Warfare

    Amphibious Warfare (AMW) involves the utilization of naval 
firepower and logistics in combination with U.S. Marine Corps landing 
forces to project military power ashore. AMW encompasses a broad 
spectrum of operations involving maneuver from the sea to objectives 
ashore, ranging from shore assaults, boat raids, ship-to-shore 
maneuver, shore bombardment and other naval fire support, and air 
strike and close air support training. AMW that involves the use of 
explosive ordnance is limited to Firing Exercises (FIREX).
    During a FIREX, surface ships use their main battery guns to fire 
from sea at land targets in support of military forces ashore. On the 
east coast, the land ranges where FIREX training can take place are 
limited. Therefore, land masses are simulated during east coast FIREX 
training using the Integrated Maritime Portable Acoustic Scoring and 
Simulation System (IMPASS) system, a system of buoys that simulate a 
land mass. FIREX training using IMPASS would occur only during daylight 
hours in the locations described in Figure 1 of the LOA application. 
Table 4 below summarizes the levels of FIREX and IMPASS planned in the 
VACAPES Range Complex for the proposed action.

                                    Table 4. Levels of FIREX and IMPASS Planned in the VACAPES Range Complex Per Year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Operation                               Platform                System/Ordnance                      Number of Events
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIREX with IMPASS                                                          CG, DDG         5'' gun (IMPASS)                   22 events (858 HE rounds)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Strike Warfare

    Strike Warfare (STW) operations are the applications of offensive 
military power at any chosen time and place to help carry out national 
goals. The systems required to conduct STW include: weapons, launch 
platforms, and command and control systems, intelligence, surveillance, 
reconnaissance, and targeting systems, and pilots or crews to operate 
the systems. STW involving the use of explosive ordnance includes air-
to-air Missile Exercises (MISSILEX (A-A)).
    Strike fighter and electronic attack aircraft use sensors to detect 
radar signals from a simulated threat radar site and either simulate or 
actually launch an explosive or non-explosive high-speed anti-radiation 
missile (HARM) with the goal of destroying or disabling the threat 
radar site. HARM missiles are designed to detonate 30 - 60 ft (9 - 18 
m) above the water surface so as to not destroy the barge target below. 
Therefore HARM missiles are not included in the underwater explosive 
exposure modeling since no marine mammal exposures are anticipated. 
HARM training events are conducted in the daytime and at night in 
locations described in Figure 1 of the LOA application. Table 5 below 
summarizes the levels of HARMEX (A-A) planned in the VACAPES Range 
Complex for the proposed action.

                  Table 5. Levels of HARMEX (A-A) Planned in the VACAPES Range Complex Per Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Operation                    Platform            System/Ordnance             Number of Events
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARM Missile Exercise (HARMEX)                 F/A-18             AGM-88 (HARM)        26 sorties (26 missiles)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vessel Movement

    Vessel movements are associated with most training operations in 
the VACAPES Range Complex and include transits to and from the port. 
Some training operations are strictly vessel movements such as Man 
Overboard Drills, Tow/Be Towed Exercises, Underway Replenishment, 
Aircraft Carrier Flight Operations, and use of the transit lanes by 
submarines when surfaced. Currently, the number of Navy vessels 
operating in the VACAPES Range Complex study area varies based on 
training schedules and can range

[[Page 75635]]

from 0 to about 10 vessels at any given time. Ship sizes range from 362 
ft (110 m) for a SSN to 1,092 ft (333 m) for a CVN and speeds generally 
range from 10 to 14 knots during training operations. Operations 
involving vessel movements occur intermittently and are variable in 
duration, ranging from a few hours up to 2 weeks. These operations are 
widely dispersed throughout the operation areas, which is a vast area 
encompassing 27,661 nm\2\ (an area approximately the size of Indiana) 
for the VACAPES Range Complex. The Navy logs about 1,400 total vessel 
days within the Range Complex during a typical year. Consequently, the 
density of ships within the study area at any given time is extremely 
low (i.e., less than 0.0004 ships/nm\2\).

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activities

    There are 34 marine mammal species with possible or confirmed 
occurrence in the VACAPES Range Complex. As indicated in Table 6, there 
are 33 cetacean species (7 mysticetes and 26 odontocetes) and one 
pinniped species. Table 6 also includes the federal status of these 
marine mammal species. Six marine mammal species listed as federally 
endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) occur in the VACAPES 
Range Complex: the humpback whale, North Atlantic right whale, sei 
whale, fin whale, blue whale, and sperm whale. Although it is possible 
that any of the 34 species of marine mammals may occur in the VACAPES 
Range Complex, only 24 of those species are expected to occur regularly 
in the region.

                        Table 6. Marine Mammal Species Found in the VACAPES Range Complex
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Family and Scientific Name                     Common Name                       Federal Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetacea
-----------------------------------------
Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)
-----------------------------------------
Eubalaena glacialis                       North Atlantic right whale          Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Megaptera novaeangliae                    Humpback whale                      Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Balaenoptera acutorostrata                Minke whale                         ..................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. brydei                                 Bryde's whale                       ..................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. borealis                               Sei whale                           Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. physalus                               Fin whale                           Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. musculus                               Blue whale                          Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)
-----------------------------------------
Physeter macrocephalus                    Sperm whale                         Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kogia breviceps                           Pygmy sperm whale                   ..................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K. sima                                   Dwarf sperm whale                   ..................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ziphius cavirostris                       Cuvier's beaked whale               ..................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mesoplodon minus                          True's beaked whale                 ..................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M. europaeus                              Gervais' beaked whale               ..................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M. bidens                                 Sowerby's beaked whale              ..................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M. densirostris                           Blainville's beaked whale           ..................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steno bredanensis                         Rough-toothed dolphin               ..................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tursiops truncatus                        Bottlenose dolphin                  ..................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stenella attenuata                        Pantropical spotted dolphin         ..................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. frontalis                              Atlantic spotted dolphin            ..................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. longirostris                           Spinner dolphin                     ..................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. clymene                                Clymene dolphin                     ..................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. coeruleoalba                           Striped dolphin                     ..................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delphinus delphis                         Common dolphin                      ..................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lagenodephis hosei                        Fraser's dolphin                    ..................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lagenorhynchus acutus                     Atlantic white-sided dolphin        ..................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 75636]]

 
Grampus griseus                           Risso's dolphin                     ..................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peponocephala electra                     Melon-headed whale                  ..................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feresa attenuata                          Pygmy killer whale                  ..................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pseudorca crassidens                      False killer whale                  ..................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orcinus orca                              Killer whale                        ..................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Globicephala melas                        Long-finned pilot whale             ..................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. macrorhynchus                          Short-finned pilot whale            ..................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phocoena phocoena                         Harbor porpoise                     ..................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora
-----------------------------------------
Suborder Pinnipedia
-----------------------------------------
Phoca vitulina                            Harbor seal                         ..................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The information contained herein relies heavily on the data 
gathered in the Marine Resource Assessments (MRAs). The Navy MRA 
Program was implemented by the Commander, Fleet Forces Command, to 
initiate collection of data and information concerning the protected 
and commercial marine resources found in the Navy's OPAREAs. 
Specifically, the goal of the MRA program is to describe and document 
the marine resources present in each of the Navy's OPAREAs. The MRA for 
the VACAPES OPAREA was recently updated in 2007 (DoN, 2008).
    The MRA data were used to provide a regional context for each 
species. The MRA represents a compilation and synthesis of available 
scientific literature (for example, journals, periodicals, theses, 
dissertations, project reports, and other technical reports published 
by government agencies, private businesses, or consulting firms), and 
NMFS reports including stock assessment reports, recovery plans, and 
survey reports.
    The density estimates that were used in previous Navy environmental 
documents have been recently updated to provide a compilation of the 
most recent data and information on the occurrence, distribution, and 
density of marine mammals. The updated density estimates used for the 
analyses are derived from the Navy OPAREA Density Estimates (NODE) for 
the Southeast OPAREAS report (DON, 2007).
    Density estimates for cetaceans were either modeled using available 
line-transect survey data or derived using available data in order of 
preference: (1) through spatial models using line-transect survey data 
provided by NMFS; (2) using abundance estimates from Mullin and Fulling 
(2003); (3) or based on the cetacean abundance estimates found in the 
most current NMFS stock assessment report (SAR) (Waring et al., 2007), 
which can be viewed at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm.
    For the model-based approach, density estimates were calculated for 
each species within areas containing survey effort. A relationship 
between these density estimates and the associated
    environmental parameters such as depth, slope, distance from the 
shelf break, sea surface temperature, and chlorophyll a concentration 
was formulated using generalized additive models. This relationship was 
then used to generate a two-dimensional density surface for the region 
by predicting densities in areas where no survey data exist.
    The analyses for cetaceans were based on sighting data collected 
through shipboard surveys conducted by NMFS-Northeast Fisheries Science 
Center (NEFSC) and Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) between 
1998 and 2005. Species-specific density estimates derived through 
spatial modeling were compared with abundance estimates found in the 
most current NMFS SAR to ensure consistency. All spatial models and 
density estimates were reviewed by and coordinated with NMFS Science 
Center technical staff and scientists with the University of St. 
Andrews, Scotland, Centre for Environmental and Ecological Modeling 
(CREEM). For a more detailed description of the methodology involved in 
calculating the density estimates provided in this LOA, please refer to 
the NODE report for the Southeast (DON 2007).

Potential Impacts to Marine Mammal Species

    The Navy considers that explosions associated with BOMBEX, 
MISSILEX, FIREX, and MINEX are the activities with the potential to 
result in Level A or Level B harassment or mortality of marine mammals. 
Vessel strikes were also analyzed for their potential effect to marine 
mammals.

Vessel Strikes

    Ship strikes are known to affect large whales and sirenians in the 
VACAPES Study Area. The most vulnerable marine mammals are those that 
spend extended periods of time at the surface in order to restore 
oxygen levels within their tissues after deep dives (e.g., the sperm 
whale). In addition, some baleen whales, such as the North Atlantic 
right whale seem generally unresponsive to vessel sound, making them 
more susceptible to vessel collisions (Nowacek et al., 2004). These 
species are primarily large, slow moving whales. Smaller marine 
mammals, for example, Atlantic bottlenose and Atlantic spotted 
dolphins-move quickly throughout the water column and are often seen 
riding the bow wave of large ships. Marine mammal responses to vessels 
may include avoidance and changes in dive pattern (NRC, 2003).
    After reviewing historical records and computerized stranding 
databases for evidence of ship strikes involving baleen and sperm 
whales, Laist et al. (2001) found that accounts of large whale ship 
strikes involving motorized

[[Page 75637]]

boats in the area date back to at least the late 1800s. Ship collisions 
remained infrequent until the 1950s, after which point they increased. 
Laist et al. (2001) report that both the number and speed of motorized 
vessels have increased over time for trans-Atlantic passenger services, 
which transit through the area. They concluded that most strikes occur 
over or near the continental shelf, that ship strikes likely have a 
negligible effect on the status of most whale populations, but that for 
small populations or segments of populations the impact of ship strikes 
may be significant.
    Although ship strikes may result in the mortality of a limited 
number of whales within a population or stock, Laist et al. (2001) also 
concluded that, when considered in combination with other human-related 
mortalities in the area (e.g., entanglement in fishing gear), these 
ship strikes may present a concern for whale populations.
    Of 11 species known to be hit by ships, fin whales are struck most 
frequently; right whales, humpback whales, sperm whales, and gray 
whales are all hit commonly (Laist et al., 2001). In some areas, one-
third of all fin whale and right whale strandings appear to involve 
ship strikes. Sperm whales spend long periods (typically up to 10 
minutes; Jacquet et al., 1996) ``rafting'' at the surface between deep 
dives. This could make them exceptionally vulnerable to ship strikes. 
Berzin (1972) noted that there were ``many'' reports of sperm whales of 
different age classes being struck by vessels, including passenger 
ships and tug boats. There were also instances in which sperm whales 
approached vessels too closely and were cut by the propellers (NMFS, 
2006d).
    The east coast is a principal migratory corridor for North Atlantic 
right whales that travel between the calving/nursery areas in the 
Southeastern United States and feeding grounds in the northeast U.S. 
and Canada. Transit to the Study Area from mid-Atlantic ports requires 
Navy vessels to cross the migratory route of North Atlantic right 
whales. Southward right whale migration generally occurs from mid- to 
late November, although some right whales may arrive off the Florida 
coast in early November and stay into late March (Kraus et al., 1993). 
The northbound migration generally takes place between January and late 
March. Data indicate that during the spring and fall migration, right 
whales typically occur in shallow water immediately adjacent to the 
coast, with over half the sightings (63 percent) occurring within 18.5 
km (10 NM), and 94.1 percent reported within 55 km (30 NM) of the coast 
(Knowlton et al., 2002). Given the low abundance of North Atlantic 
right whales relative to other species, the frequency of occurrence of 
vessel collisions to right whales suggests that the threat of ship 
strikes is proportionally greater to this species (Jensen and Silber, 
2003). Therefore, in 2004, NMFS proposed a right whale vessel collision 
reduction strategy to consider the establishment of operational 
measures for the shipping industry to reduce the potential for large 
vessel collisions with North Atlantic right whales while transiting to 
and from mid-Atlantic ports during right whale migratory periods. 
Although Navy vessel traffic generally represents only 2 - 3 percent of 
overall large vessel traffic, based on this biological characteristic 
and the presence of critical Navy ports along the whales of mid-
Atlantic migratory corridor, the Navy was the first Federal agency to 
proactively adopt additional mitigation measures for transits in the 
vicinity of mid-Atlantic ports during right whale migration. For 
purposes of these measures, the mid-Atlantic is defined broadly to 
include ports south and east of Block Island Sound southward to South 
Carolina.
    Accordingly, the Navy has proposed mitigation measures to reduce 
the potential for collisions with surfaced marine mammals (for more 
details refer to Proposed Mitigation section below). Based on the 
implementation of Navy mitigation measures, especially during times of 
anticipated right whale occurrence, and the relatively low density of 
Navy ships in the Study Area the likelihood that a vessel collision 
would occur is very low.

Assessment of Marine Mammal Response to Anthropogenic Sound

    Marine mammals respond to various types of anthropogenic sounds 
introduced into the ocean environment. Responses are typically subtle 
and can include shorter surfacings, shorter dives, fewer blows per 
surfacing, longer intervals between blows (breaths), ceasing or 
increasing vocalizations, shortening or lengthening vocalizations, and 
changing frequency or intensity of vocalizations (NRC, 2005). However, 
it is not known how these responses relate to significant effects 
(e.g., long-term effects or population consequences). The following is 
an assessment of marine mammal responses and disturbances when exposed 
to anthropogenic sound.
I. Physiology
    Potential impacts to the auditory system are assessed by 
considering the characteristics of the received sound (e.g., amplitude, 
frequency, duration) and the sensitivity of the exposed animals. Some 
of these assessments can be numerically based (e.g., temporary 
threshold shift [TTS] of hearing sensitivity, permanent threshold shift 
[PTS] of hearing sensitivity, perception). Others will be necessarily 
qualitative, due to lack of information, or will need to be 
extrapolated from other species for which information exists.
    Potential physiological responses to the sound exposure are ranked 
in descending order, with the most severe impact (auditory trauma) 
occurring at the top and the least severe impact occurring at the 
bottom (the sound is not perceived).
    Auditory trauma represents direct mechanical injury to hearing 
related structures, including tympanic membrane rupture, 
disarticulation of the middle ear ossicles, and trauma to the inner ear 
structures such as the organ of Corti and the associated hair cells. 
Auditory trauma is always injurious that could result in PTS. Auditory 
trauma is always assumed to result in a stress response.
    Auditory fatigue refers to a loss of hearing sensitivity after 
sound stimulation. The loss of sensitivity persists after, sometimes 
long after, the cessation of the sound. The mechanisms responsible for 
auditory fatigue differ from auditory trauma and would primarily 
consist of metabolic exhaustion of the hair cells and cochlear tissues. 
The features of the exposure (e.g., amplitude, frequency, duration, 
temporal pattern) and the individual animal's susceptibility would 
determine the severity of fatigue and whether the effects were 
temporary (TTS) or permanent (PTS). Auditory fatigue (PTS or TTS) is 
always assumed to result in a stress response.
    Sounds with sufficient amplitude and duration to be detected among 
the background ambient noise are considered to be perceived. This 
category includes sounds from the threshold of audibility through the 
normal dynamic range of hearing (i.e., not capable of producing 
fatigue).
    To determine whether an animal perceives the sound, the received 
level, frequency, and duration of the sound are compared to what is 
known of the species' hearing sensitivity.
    Since audible sounds may interfere with an animal's ability to 
detect other sounds at the same time, perceived sounds have the 
potential to result in

[[Page 75638]]

auditory masking. Unlike auditory fatigue, which always results in a 
stress response because the sensory tissues are being stimulated beyond 
their normal physiological range, masking may or may not result in a 
stress response, depending on the degree and duration of the masking 
effect. Masking may also result in a unique circumstance where an 
animal's ability to detect other sounds is compromised without the 
animal's knowledge. This could conceivably result in sensory impairment 
and subsequent behavior change; in this case, the change in behavior is 
the lack of a response that would normally be made if sensory 
impairment did not occur. For this reason, masking also may lead 
directly to behavior change without first causing a stress response.
    The features of perceived sound (e.g., amplitude, duration, 
temporal pattern) are also used to judge whether the sound exposure is 
capable of producing a stress response. Factors to consider in this 
decision include the probability of the animal being naive or 
experienced with the sound (i.e., what are the known/unknown 
consequences of the exposure).
    The received level is not of sufficient amplitude, frequency, and 
duration to be perceptible by the animal. By extension, this does not 
result in a stress response (not perceived).
    Potential impacts to tissues other than those related to the 
auditory system are assessed by considering the characteristics of the 
sound (e.g., amplitude, frequency, duration) and the known or estimated 
response characteristics of nonauditory tissues. Some of these 
assessments can be numerically based (e.g., exposure required for 
rectified diffusion). Others will be necessarily qualitative, due to 
lack of information. Each of the potential responses may or may not 
result in a stress response.
    Direct tissue effects - Direct tissue responses to sound 
stimulation may range from tissue shearing (injury) to mechanical 
vibration with no resulting injury. Any tissue injury would produce a 
stress response, whereas noninjurious stimulation may or may not.
    Indirect tissue effects - Based on the amplitude, frequency, and 
duration of the sound, it must be assessed whether exposure is 
sufficient to indirectly affect tissues. For example, the hypothesis 
that rectified diffusion occurs is based on the idea that bubbles that 
naturally exist in biological tissues can be stimulated to grow by an 
acoustic field. Under this hypothesis, one of three things could 
happen: (a) bubbles grow to the extent that tissue hemorrhage occurs 
(injury); (b) bubbles develop to the extent that a complement immune 
response is triggered or nervous tissue is subjected to enough 
localized pressure that pain or dysfunction occurs (a stress response 
without injury); or (c) the bubbles are cleared by the lung without 
negative consequence to the animal.
    No tissue effects - The received sound is insufficient to cause 
either direct (mechanical) or indirect effects to tissues. No stress 
response occurs.
II. The Stress Response
    The acoustic source is considered a potential stressor if, by its 
action on the animal, via auditory or nonauditory means, it may produce 
a stress response in the animal. The term ``stress'' has taken on an 
ambiguous meaning in the scientific literature, but with respect to the 
later discussions of allostasis and allostatic loading, the stress 
response will refer to an increase in energetic expenditure that 
results from exposure to the stressor and which is predominantly 
characterized by either the stimulation of the sympathetic nervous 
system (SNS) or the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis (Reeder 
and Kramer, 2005). The SNS response to a stressor is immediate and 
acute and is characterized by the release of the catecholamine 
neurohormones norepinephrine and epinephrine (i.e., adrenaline). These 
hormones produce elevations in the heart and respiration rate, increase 
awareness, and increase the availability of glucose and lipids for 
energy. The HPA response is ultimately defined by increases in the 
secretion of the glucocorticoid steroid hormones, predominantly 
cortisol in mammals. The amount of increase in circulating 
glucocorticoids above baseline may be an indicator of the overall 
severity of a stress response (Hennessy et al., 1979). Each component 
of the stress response is variable in time; e.g., adrenalines are 
released nearly immediately and are used or cleared by the system 
quickly, whereas cortisol levels may take long periods of time to 
return to baseline.
    The presence and magnitude of a stress response in an animal 
depends on a number of factors. These include the animal's life history 
stage (e.g., neonate, juvenile, adult), the environmental conditions, 
reproductive or developmental state, and experience with the stressor. 
Not only will these factors be subject to individual variation, but 
they will also vary within an individual over time. In considering 
potential stress responses of marine mammals to acoustic stressors, 
each of these should be considered. For example, is the acoustic 
stressor in an area where animals engage in breeding activity? Are 
animals in the region resident and likely to have experience with the 
stressor (i.e., repeated exposures)? Is the region a foraging ground or 
are the animals passing through as transients? What is the ratio of 
young (naive) to old (experienced) animals in the population? It is 
unlikely that all such questions can be answered from empirical data; 
however, they should be addressed in any qualitative assessment of a 
potential stress response as based on the available literature.
    The stress response may or may not result in a behavioral change, 
depending on the characteristics of the exposed animal. However, 
provided a stress response occurs, we assume that some contribution is 
made to the animal's allostatic load. Allostasis is the ability of an 
animal to maintain stability through change by adjusting its physiology 
in response to both predictable and unpredictable events (McEwen and 
Wingfield, 2003). The same hormones associated with the stress response 
vary naturally throughout an animal's life, providing support for 
particular life history events (e.g., pregnancy) and predictable 
environmental conditions (e.g., seasonal changes). The allostatic load 
is the cumulative cost of allostasis incurred by an animal and is 
generally characterized with respect to an animal's energetic 
expenditure. Perturbations to an animal that may occur with the 
presence of a stressor, either biological (e.g., predator) or 
anthropogenic (e.g., construction), can contribute to the allostatic 
load (Wingfield, 2003). Additional costs are cumulative and additions 
to the allostatic load over time may contribute to reductions in the 
probability of achieving ultimate life history functions (e.g., 
survival, maturation, reproductive effort and success) by producing 
pathophysiological states. The contribution to the allostatic load from 
a stressor requires estimating the magnitude and duration of the stress 
response, as well as any secondary contributions that might result from 
a change in behavior.
    If the acoustic source does not produce tissue effects, is not 
perceived by the animal, or does not produce a stress response by any 
other means, we assume that the exposure does not contribute to the 
allostatic load. Additionally, without a stress response or auditory 
masking, it is assumed that there can be no behavioral change. 
Conversely, any immediate effect of exposure that produces an injury is 
assumed to also produce a stress response and contribute to the 
allostatic load.

[[Page 75639]]

III. Behavior
    Changes in marine mammal behavior are expected to result from an 
acute stress response. This expectation is based on the idea that some 
sort of physiological trigger must exist to change any behavior that is 
already being performed. The exception to this rule is the case of 
auditory masking. The presence of a masking sound may not produce a 
stress response, but may interfere with the animal's ability to detect 
and discriminate biologically relevant signals. The inability to detect 
and discriminate biologically relevant signals hinders the potential 
for normal behavioral responses to auditory cues and is thus considered 
a behavioral change.
    Impulsive sounds from explosions have very short durations as 
compared to other sounds like sonar or ship noise, which are more 
likely to produce auditory masking. Additionally the explosive sources 
analyzed in this document are used infrequently and the training events 
are typically of short duration. Therefore, the potential for auditory 
masking is unlikely and no impacts to marine mammals due to auditory 
masking are anticipated due to implementing the proposed action.
    Numerous behavioral changes can occur as a result of stress 
response. For each potential behavioral change, the magnitude in the 
change and the severity of the response needs to be estimated. Certain 
conditions, such as stampeding (i.e., flight response) or a response to 
a predator, might have a probability of resulting in injury. For 
example, a flight response, if significant enough, could produce a 
stranding event. Each altered behavior may also have the potential to 
disrupt biologically significant events (e.g., breeding or nursing) and 
may need to be classified as Level B harassment. All behavioral 
disruptions have the potential to contribute to the allostatic load. 
This secondary potential is signified by the feedback from the 
collective behaviors to allostatic loading.
IV. Life Function

IV.1. Proximate Life Functions

    Proximate life history functions are the functions that the animal 
is engaged in at the time of acoustic exposure. The disruption of these 
functions, and the magnitude of the disruption, is something that must 
be considered in determining how the ultimate life history functions 
are affected. Consideration of the magnitude of the effect to each of 
the proximate life history functions is dependent upon the life stage 
of the animal. For example, an animal on a breeding ground which is 
sexually immature will suffer relatively little consequence to 
disruption of breeding behavior when compared to an actively displaying 
adult of prime reproductive age.

IV.2. Ultimate Life Functions

    The ultimate life functions are those that enable an animal to 
contribute to the population (or stock, or species, etc.). The impact 
to ultimate life functions will depend on the nature and magnitude of 
the perturbation to proximate life history functions. Depending on the 
severity of the response to the stressor, acute perturbations may have 
nominal to profound impacts on ultimate life functions. For example, 
unit-level use of sonar by a vessel transiting through an area that is 
utilized for foraging, but not for breeding, may disrupt feeding by 
exposed animals for a brief period of time. Because of the brevity of 
the perturbation, the impact to ultimate life functions may be 
negligible. By contrast, weekly training over a period of years may 
have a more substantial impact because the stressor is chronic. 
Assessment of the magnitude of the stress response from the chronic 
perturbation would require an understanding of how and whether animals 
acclimate to a specific, repeated stressor and whether chronic 
elevations in the stress response (e.g., cortisol levels) produce 
fitness deficits.
    The proximate life functions are loosely ordered in decreasing 
severity of impact. Mortality (survival) has an immediate effect, in 
that no future reproductive success is feasible and there is no further 
addition to the population resulting from reproduction. Severe injuries 
may also lead to reduced survivorship (longevity) and prolonged 
alterations in behavior. The latter may further affect an animal's 
overall reproductive success and reproductive effort. Disruptions of 
breeding have an immediate impact on reproductive effort and may impact 
reproductive success. The magnitude of the effect will depend on the 
duration of the disruption and the type of behavior change that was 
provoked. Disruptions to feeding and migration can affect all of the 
ultimate life functions; however, the impacts to reproductive effort 
and success are not likely to be as severe or immediate as those 
incurred by mortality and breeding disruptions.

Explosive Ordnance Exposure Analysis

    The underwater explosion from a weapon would send a shock wave and 
blast noise through the water, release gaseous by-products, create an 
oscillating bubble, and cause a plume of water to shoot up from the 
water surface. The shock wave and blast noise are of most concern to 
marine animals. The effects of an underwater explosion on a marine 
mammal depends on many factors, including the size, type, and depth of 
both the animal and the explosive charge; the depth of the water 
column; and the standoff distance between the charge and the animal, as 
well as the sound propagation properties of the environment. Potential 
impacts can range from brief effects (such as behavioral disturbance), 
tactile perception, physical discomfort, slight injury of the internal 
organs and the auditory system, to death of the animal (Yelverton et 
al., 1973; O'Keeffe and Young, 1984; DoN, 2001). Non-lethal injury 
includes slight injury to internal organs and the auditory system; 
however, delayed lethality can be a result of individual or cumulative 
sublethal injuries (DoN, 2001). Immediate lethal injury would be a 
result of massive combined trauma to internal organs as a direct result 
of proximity to the point of detonation (DoN, 2001). Generally, 
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, gas-containing organs 
including the nasal sacs, larynx, pharynx, trachea, and lungs may be 
damaged by compression/expansion caused by the oscillations of the 
blast gas bubble (Reidenberg and Laitman, 2003). Intestinal walls can 
bruise or rupture, with subsequent hemorrhage and escape of gut 
contents into the body cavity. Less severe gastrointestinal tract 
injuries include contusions, petechiae (small red or purple spots 
caused by bleeding in the skin), and slight hemorrhaging (Yelverton et 
al., 1973).
    Because the ears are the most sensitive to pressure, they are the 
organs most sensitive to injury (Ketten, 2000). Sound-related damage 
associated with blast noise can be theoretically distinct from injury 
from the shock wave, particularly farther from the explosion. If an 
animal is able to hear a noise, at some level it can damage its hearing 
by

[[Page 75640]]

causing decreased sensitivity (Ketten, 1995) (See Assessment of Marine 
Mammal Response to Anthropogenic Sound Section above). Sound-related 
trauma can be lethal or sublethal. Lethal impacts are those that result 
in immediate death or serious debilitation in or near an intense source 
and are not, technically, pure acoustic trauma (Ketten, 1995). 
Sublethal impacts include hearing loss, which is caused by exposures to 
perceptible sounds. Severe damage (from the shock wave) to the ears 
includes tympanic membrane rupture, fracture of the ossicles, damage to 
the cochlea, hemorrhage, and cerebrospinal fluid leakage into the 
middle ear. Moderate injury implies partial hearing loss due to 
tympanic membrane rupture and blood in the middle ear. Permanent 
hearing loss also can occur when the hair cells are damaged by one very 
loud event, as well as by prolonged exposure to a loud noise or chronic 
exposure to noise. The level of impact from blasts depends on both an 
animal's location and, at outer zones, on its sensitivity to the 
residual noise (Ketten, 1995).
    The exercises that use explosives include: FIREX with IMPASS, 
MISSILEX, BOMBEX, and MINEX. Table 7 summarizes the number of events 
(per year by season) and specific areas where each occurs for each type 
of explosive ordnance used. For most of the operations, there is no 
difference in how many events take place between the different seasons. 
Fractional values are a result of evenly distributing the annual totals 
over the four seasons. For example, there are 45 Hellfire events per 
year that can take place in Air Kilo during any season, so there are 
11.25 events modeled for each season. However, the 20 lb charge MINEX 
events are more likely to take place in the summer and this is 
represented in the seasonal allocation of events.

                                          Table 7. Number of Explosive Events within the VACAPES Range Complex
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Sub-Area                  Ordnance              Winter               Spring              Summer               Fall            Annual Totals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               MISSILEX             ...................  ...................  ..................  ..................  106
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-K                          Hellfire             11.25                11.25                11.25               11.25               ..................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W-72A (2)                      Hellfire             3.75                 3.75                 3.75                3.75                ..................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-E, F, I, J                 Harm                 6.50                 6.50                 6.50                6.50                ..................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-K                          Maverick             5                    5                    5                   5                   ..................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               FIREX                ...................  ...................  ..................  ..................  22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5C/D                           5'' rounds           1.83                 1.83                 1.83                1.83                ..................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7C/D and 8C/D                  5'' rounds           1.83                 1.83                 1.83                1.83                ..................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1C1/2                          5'' rounds           1.83                 1.83                 1.83                1.83                ..................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               MINEX                ...................  ...................  ..................  ..................  54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W-50 UNDET                     5 LB*                7.50                 7.50                 7.50                7.50                ..................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W-50 UNDET                     20 LB                4.00                 4.00                 12.00               4.00                ..................
--------------------------------------------