Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Military Training Activities Conducted Within the Gulf of Alaska (GoA) Temporary Maritime Activities Area (TMAA), 64508-64583 [2010-25230]
Download as PDF
64508
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 218
[Docket No. 100817363–0365–02]
RIN 0648–BA14
Taking and Importing Marine
Mammals; Military Training Activities
Conducted Within the Gulf of Alaska
(GoA) Temporary Maritime Activities
Area (TMAA)
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS has received a request
from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for
authorization to take marine mammals
incidental to training activities
conducted in the Gulf of Alaska (GoA)
Temporary Maritime Activities Area
(TMAA) for the period December 2010
through December 2015. Pursuant to the
Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA), NMFS proposes regulations to
govern that take and requests
information, suggestions, and comments
on these proposed regulations.
Specifically, we encourage the public to
recommend effective, regionally specific
methods for augmenting existing marine
mammal density, distribution, and
abundance information in the GoA
TMAA and to prioritize the specific
density and distribution data needs in
the area (species, time of year, etc.). This
information will ensure the design of
the most effective Monitoring Plan with
the resources available.
DATES: Comments and information must
be received no later than November 18,
2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by 0648–BA14, by any one of
the following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal 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.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
All Personal Identifying Information (for
example, name, address, etc.)
voluntarily submitted by the commenter
may be publicly accessible. Do not
submit Confidential Business
Information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information.
NMFS will accept anonymous
comments (enter N/A in the required
fields if you wish to remain
anonymous). Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft
Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe
PDF file formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolie
Harrison, Brian D. Hopper, or Michelle
Magliocca, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 713–2289.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability
A copy of the Navy’s application, as
well as the draft Monitoring Plan and
the draft Stranding Response Plan for
GoA TMAA, may be obtained by writing
to the address specified above (See
ADDRESSES), telephoning the contact
listed above (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting
the internet at: https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental.htm#applications. The
Navy’s Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) for GoA TMAA was
published on December 11, 2009 and
may be viewed at https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental.htm#applications. NMFS
participates in the development of the
Navy’s EIS as a cooperating agency
under NEPA.
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the
MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct
the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary)
to allow, upon request, the incidental,
but not intentional taking of marine
mammals by U.S. citizens who engage
in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) during periods of
not more than five consecutive years
each if certain findings are made and
regulations are issued or, if the taking is
limited to harassment, notice of a
proposed authorization is provided to
the public for review.
Authorization shall be granted if
NMFS finds that the taking will have a
negligible impact on the species or
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of the
species or stock(s) for subsistence uses,
and if the permissible methods of taking
and requirements pertaining to the
mitigation, monitoring and reporting of
such taking are set forth. NMFS has
defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
216.103 as an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The National Defense Authorization
Act of 2004 (NDAA) (Pub. L. 108–136)
modified the MMPA by removing the
‘‘small numbers’’ and ‘‘specified
geographical region’’ limitations and
amended the definition of ‘‘harassment’’
as it applies to a ‘‘military readiness
activity’’ to read as follows (Section
3(18)(B) of the MMPA): any act that
injures or has the significant potential to
injure a marine mammal or marine
mammal stock in the wild [Level A
Harassment]; or any act that disturbs or
is likely to disturb a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild by
causing disruption of natural behavioral
patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering, to a point where
such behavioral patterns are abandoned
or significantly altered [Level B
Harassment].
Summary of Request
In March 2009, NMFS received an
application from the Navy requesting
authorization to take individuals of 20
species of marine mammals (15
cetaceans and 5 pinnipeds) incidental to
upcoming training activities to be
conducted from December 2010 through
December 2015 in the GoA TMAA,
which is a 42,146 square nautical mile
(nm 2) (145,482 km 2) polygon roughly
the shape of a 300 nm (555.6 km) by 150
nm (277.8 km) rectangle oriented
northwest to southeast in the long
direction. NMFS subsequently
requested additional information, which
was provided in November 2009 in the
form of a revised application. These
training activities are classified as
military readiness activities under the
provisions of the NDAA of 2004. These
military readiness activities may
incidentally take marine mammals
within the TMAA by exposing them to
sound from mid-frequency or highfrequency active sonar (MFAS/HFAS) or
underwater detonations. The Navy
requests authorization to take
individuals of 20 species of cetaceans
and pinnipeds by Level B Harassment.
Further, although it does not anticipate
that it will occur, the Navy requests
authorization to take, by injury or
mortality, up to 15 individual beaked
whales (of any of the following species:
Baird’s beaked whale, Cuvier’s beaked
whale, Stejneger’s beaked whale) over
the course of the 5-year regulations.
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Description of Specified Activities
Purpose and Background
The Navy’s mission is to maintain,
train, and equip combat-ready naval
forces capable of winning wars,
deterring aggression, and maintaining
freedom of the seas. Section 5062 of
Title 10 of the United States Code
directs the Chief of Naval Operations to
train all military forces for combat. The
Chief of Naval Operations meets that
direction, in part, by conducting at-sea
training exercises and ensuring naval
forces have access to ranges, operating
areas (OPAREAs) and airspace where
they can develop and maintain skills for
wartime missions and conduct research,
development, testing, and evaluation
(RDT&E) of naval systems.
The specified training activities
addressed in this proposed rule are a
subset of the Proposed Action described
in the GoA TMAA DEIS, which would
support and maintain Department of
Defense training and assessments of
current capabilities. Training does not
include combat operations, operations
in direct support of combat, or other
activities conducted primarily for
purposes other than training. The
Department of Defense proposes to
implement actions within the GoA
TMAA to:
• Increase the number of training
activities from current levels (up to 14
days) as necessary to support Fleet
exercise requirements (that could last
up to 21 days between April and
October);
• Conduct training in the Primary
Mission Areas (PMARs) including AntiAir Warfare (AAW), Anti-Surface
Warfare (ASUW), Anit-Submarine
Warfare (ASW), Naval Special Warfare
(NSW), Strike Warfare (STW), and
Electronic Combat (EC). Conduct of
training may include that necessary for
newer systems, instrumentation, and
platforms, including the EA–18G
Growler aircraft, Guided Missile
Submarines (SSGN), P–8 Poseidon
Multimission Maritime Aircraft (MMA),
Guided Missile Destroyer (DDG) 1000
(Zumwalt Class) destroyer, and several
types of Unmanned Aerial Systems
(UASs);
• Accommodate training
enhancement instrumentation, to
include the use of a Portable Undersea
Tracking Range (PUTR);
• Conduct an additional Carrier
Strike Group (CSG) exercise during the
months of April through October, which
could also last up to 21 days (first CSG
exercise being part of the baseline No
Action Alternative); and
• Conduct a Sinking Exercise
(SINKEX) during each summertime
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
exercise (maximum of two) in the
TMAA.
The proposed action would result in
the following increases (above those
conducted in previous years, i.e., the No
Action Alternative in the Navy’s DEIS)
in activities associated with the annual
take of marine mammals:
• Helicopter Anti-submarine Warfare
(ASW) tracking exercise (TRACKEX)
(includes use of MFAS and HFAS
dipping sonar and sonobuoys)
• Surface ASW TRACKEX (includes
use of hull-mounted MFAS)
• Submarine ASW (includes use of
hull-mounted MFAS and HFAS)
• Fixed-wing Marine Patrol Aircraft
(MPA) ASW TRACKEX (includes use of
sonobuoys)
• Extended Echo Ranging ASW
(includes explosive sonobuoys)
• Bombing Exercises (BOMBEX)
• Sinking Exercises (SINKEX)
• Gunnery Exercises (GUNEX)
Overview of the GoA TMAA
Since the 1990s, the Navy has
participated in a major joint training
exercise that involves the Departments
of the Navy, Army, Air Force, and Coast
Guard participants reporting to a unified
or joint commander who coordinates the
activities planned to demonstrate and
evaluate the ability of the services to
engage in a conflict and carry out plans
in response to a threat to national
security. Previous exercises in the
TMAA have occurred in the summer
(April–October) timeframe due to the
extreme cold weather and sea state
conditions in the TMAA during the
winter months. The areas making up the
Alaska Training Areas (ATAs) (see
figure 1–1 in the Navy’s application)
consist of 3 components: (1) TMAA; (2)
U.S. Air Force over-land Special Use
Airspace (SUA) and air routes over the
GoA and State of Alaska; and (3) U.S.
Army training lands.
Within the northeastern GoA, the
TMAA is comprised of the 42,146
square nautical miles (nm2) (145,482
square kilometer (km2) of surface and
subsurface area and 88,731 nm2
(305,267 km2)) of special use airspace
(SUA) (not including the portion of
Warning Area 612 [W–612] that falls
outside of the TMAA). The TMAA is
roughly rectangular and oriented from
northwest to southeast, approximately
300 nautical miles (nm) (556 kilometer
(km)) long by 150 nm (278 km) wide,
situated south of Prince William Sound
and east of Kodiak Island. With the
exception of Cape Cleare on Montague
Island located over 12 nm (22 km) from
the northern point of the TMAA, the
nearest shoreline (Kenai Peninsula) is
located approximately 24 nm (44 km)
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64509
north of the TMAA’s northern
boundary. The approximate middle of
the TMAA is located 140 nm (259 km)
offshore.
The abyssal plain in the GoA
gradually shoals from a 16,400 feet (ft)
(5,000 meter (m)) depth in the
southwestern GoA to less than 9,843 ft
(3,000 m) in the northeastern expanses
of the Gulf. Maximal depths exceed
22,965 ft (7,000 m) near the central
Aleutian Trench along the continental
slope south of the Aleutian Islands.
Numerous seamounts, remnants of
submarine volcanoes, are scattered
across the central basin. Several of the
seamounts rise to within a few hundred
meters of the sea surface.
Ocean circulation in the GoA is
defined by the cyclonic motion of the
Pacific subpolar gyre (also referred to as
the Alaska Gyre), which is composed of
the North Pacific Current, the Alaska
Current, and the Alaskan Stream.
Circulation patterns along the shelf
divide the region into the inner shelf (or
Alaska Coastal Current domain), the
mid-shelf, and the outer shelf including
the shelf break (DoN, 2006). The center
of the gyre is located at approximately
52 to 53 °N and 145 to 155 °W.
Nearshore flow is dominated by the
Alaskan Coastal Current and is less
organized than the flow found along the
shelf break and slope. The northwestern
GoA also includes several prominent
geological features that influence the
regional oceanography. For example,
Kayak Island extends 50 km across the
continental shelf to the east of the
Copper River. This island can deflect
shelf waters farther offshore delivering
high concentrations of suspended
sediment to the outer shelf (DoN, 2006).
During winter months, intense
circulation over the GoA produces
easterly coastal winds and
downwelling, both of which result in a
well-mixed water column. During the
summer, stratification develops due to
decreased winds, increased freshwater
discharge, and increased solar radiation.
Under summer and fall conditions, the
shelf waters are stratified with the upper
water column temperatures at their
maximum and salinities at their
minimum. On longer time scales, there
is evidence of interannual variation in
the circulation patterns within the GoA.
These variations result from the climatic
˜
variability of the El Nino Southern
Oscillation (ENSO) and the Pacific
Decadal Oscillation (PDO) (DoN, 2006).
Generally, two surface temperature
regimes characterize the northern
expanses of the GoA throughout the
year. Relatively warm surface water
occurs over the continental shelf, while
colder water is found farther offshore
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
64510
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
beyond the shelf break. Thermal
stratification remains weak until late
May or June, then strong stratification
persists through the summer months. As
winds intensify in the fall, stratification
dissipates, due to stronger vertical
mixing and increased downwelling,
surface waters sink along the coast, and
the thermocline deepens throughout the
region. Along the continental shelf and
within the coastal fjords, waters are
often highly stratified by both salinity
and temperature; an intense thermocline
occurs at approximately 82 ft (25 m).
Farther offshore in the Alaskan Stream,
maximal stratification occurs between
depths of 328 ft to 984 ft (100 to 300 m)
and is associated primarily with a
permanent halocline in the GoA (DoN,
2006).
Specified Activities
As mentioned above, the Navy has
requested MMPA authorization to take
marine mammals incidental to training
in the GoA TMAA that would result in
the generation of sound or pressure
waves in the water at or above levels
that NMFS has determined will likely
result in take (see Acoustic Take Criteria
Section), either through the use of
MFAS/HFAS or the detonation of
explosives in the water. These activities
are discussed in the subsections below.
In addition to use of active sonar
sources and explosives, these activities
include the operation and movement of
vessels that are necessary to conduct the
training, and the effects of this part of
the activities are also analyzed in this
document.
The Navy’s application also briefly
summarizes Air Combat Maneuvers
(ACM), Visit Board Search and Seizure/
Vessels of Interest (VBSS/VOI),
Maritime Interdiction (MI), Chaff
Exercises, Sea Surface Control (SSC),
and Naval Special Warfare Insertion/
Extraction exercises; however, these
activities are primarily air or land based
and do not utilize sound sources or
explosives in the water. No take of
marine mammals is anticipated to result
from these activities and, therefore, they
are not discussed further.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Activities Utilizing Active Sonar
Sources
For the GoA TMAA, the training
activities that utilize active tactical
sonar sources fall primarily into the
category of Anti-submarine Warfare
(ASW). This section includes a
description of ASW, the active acoustic
devices used in ASW exercises, and the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
exercise types in which these acoustic
sources are used.
ASW Training and Active Sonar
ASW training involves helicopter and
sea control aircraft, ships, and
submarines, operating alone or in
combination, to locate, track, and
neutralize submarines. Various types of
active and passive sonar are used by the
Navy to determine water depth, locate
mines, and identify, track, and target
submarines. Passive sonar ‘‘listens’’ for
sound waves by using underwater
microphones, called hydrophones,
which receive, amplify, and process
underwater sounds. No sound is
introduced into the water when using
passive sonar. Passive sonar can
indicate the presence, character, and
movement of submarines. However,
passive sonar only provides information
about the bearing (direction) to a soundemitting source; it does not provide an
accurate range (distance) to the source.
Also, passive sonar relies on the
underwater target itself to provide
sufficient sound to be detected by
hydrophones. Active sonar is needed to
locate objects that emit little or no noise
(such as mines or diesel-electric
submarines operating in electric mode)
and to establish both bearing and range
to the detected contact.
Active sonar transmits pulses of
sound that travel through the water,
reflect off objects, and return to a
receiver. By knowing the speed of sound
in water and the time taken for the
sound wave to travel to the object and
back, active sonar systems can quickly
calculate direction and distance from
the sonar platform to the underwater
object. There are three frequency range
classifications for active sonar: Lowfrequency (LF), mid-frequency (MF),
and high-frequency (HF).
MFAS, as defined in the Navy’s GoA
TMAA LOA application, operates
between 1 and 10 kHz, with detection
ranges up to 10 nm (19 km). Because of
this detection ranging capability, MFAS
is the Navy’s primary tool for
conducting ASW. Many ASW
experiments and exercises have
demonstrated that the improved
capability (of MFAS over other sources)
for mid-range detection of adversary
submarines before they are able to
conduct an attack is essential to U.S.
ship survivability. Today, ASW is the
Navy’s number one war-fighting
priority. Navies across the world utilize
modern, quiet, diesel-electric
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
submarines that pose the primary threat
to the U.S. Navy’s ability to perform a
number of critical missions. Extensive
ASW training is necessary for sailors on
ships and in strike groups to gain
proficiency using MFAS. Moreover, if a
strike group does not demonstrate
MFAS proficiency, it cannot be certified
as combat ready.
HFAS, as defined in the Navy’s GoA
TMAA LOA application, operates at
frequencies greater than 10 kilohertz
(kHz). At higher acoustic frequencies,
sound rapidly dissipates in the ocean
environment, resulting in short
detection ranges, typically less than five
nm (9 km). High-frequency sonar is used
primarily for determining water depth,
hunting mines, and guiding torpedoes,
which are all short range applications.
Training exercises in the GoA TMAA
will include the use of HFAS.
Low-frequency sources operate below
1 kHz. Sonar in this frequency range is
designed to detect extremely quiet
diesel-electric submarines at ranges far
beyond the capabilities of MFA sonars.
Currently, there are only two ships in
use by the Navy equipped with lowfrequency sonar; both are ocean
surveillance vessels operated by
Military Sealift Command. While
Surveillance Towed Array Sensor
System (SURTASS) low-frequency
active sonar was analyzed in a separate
EIS/OEIS, use of low-frequency active
sonar is not part of the planned training
activities considered for the GoA
TMAA.
Acoustic Sources Used for ASW
Exercises in the GoA TMAA
Modern sonar technology has
developed a multitude of sonar sensor
and processing systems. In concept, the
simplest active sonars emit omnidirectional pulses (‘‘pings’’) and time the
arrival of the reflected echoes from the
target object to determine range. More
sophisticated active sonars emit an
omni-directional ping and then rapidly
scan a steered receiving beam to provide
directional, as well as range,
information. More advanced active
sonars transmit multiple preformed
beams, listening to echoes from several
directions simultaneously and
providing efficient detection of both
direction and range. The types of active
sonar and other sound sources
employed during training exercises in
the GoA TMAA are identified in Table
1.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
ASW sonar systems are deployed
from certain classes of surface ships,
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64511
submarines, helicopters, and fixed-wing
maritime patrol aircraft (MPA).
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
EP19OC10.005
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64512
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Maritime patrol aircraft is a category of
fixed-wing aircraft that includes the
current P–3C Orion, and the future P–
8 Poseidon multimission maritime
aircraft. The surface ships used are
typically equipped with hull-mounted
sonars (passive and active) for the
detection of submarines. During an
exercise, fixed-wing MPA may be used
to deploy both active and passive
sonobuoys to assist in locating and
tracking submarines or ASW targets.
Helicopters may also be used during an
exercise to deploy both active and
passive sonobuoys to assist in locating
and tracking submarines or ASW
targets, and to deploy dipping sonar.
Submarines are equipped with both
passive and active sonar sensors that
may be used to locate and prosecute
other submarines and/or surface ships
during the exercise. The platforms and
systems used in ASW exercises are
identified below.
Surface Ship Sonar—A variety of
surface ships participate in training
events, including the Fast Frigate (FFG),
the Guided Missile Destroyer (DDG),
and the Guided Missile Cruiser (CG).
These three classes of ships are
equipped with active as well as passive
tactical sonar for mine avoidance and
submarine detection and tracking. DDG
and CG class ships are equipped with
the AN/SQS–53 sonar system (the most
powerful system), with a nominal
source level of 235 decibels (dB) re 1
μPa @ 1 m. The FFG class ship uses the
SQS–56 sonar system, with a nominal
source level of 225 decibels (dB) re 1
μPa @ 1 m. Sonar ping transmission
durations were modeled as lasting 1
second per ping and omni-directional,
which is a conservative assumption that
will overestimate potential effects
because actual ping durations will be
less than 1 second. The AN/SQS–53
hull-mounted sonar transmits at a center
frequency of 3.5 kHz. The SQS–56
transmits at a center frequency of 7.5
kHz. Details concerning the tactical use
of specific frequencies and the
repetition rate for the sonar pings are
classified but were modeled based on
the required tactical training setting.
Submarine Sonars—Submarines use
sonar (e.g., AN/BQQ–10) to detect and
target enemy submarines and surface
ships. Because submarine active sonar
use is very rare and in those rare
instances, very brief, it is extremely
unlikely that use of active sonar by
submarines would have any measurable
effect on marine mammals. In addition,
submarines use high-frequency sonar
(AN/BQS–15 or BQQ–24) for navigation
safety, mine avoidance, and a
fathometer that is not unlike a standard
fathometer in source level or output.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
There is, at present, no mine training
range in the GoA TMAA. Therefore,
given their limited use and rapid
attenuation as high frequency sources,
the AN/BQS–15 and BQQ–24 are not
expected to result in the take of marine
mammals.
Aircraft Sonar Systems—Aircraft
sonar systems that would operate in the
GoA TMAA include sonobuoys from
fixed and rotary-wing aircraft and
dipping sonar from helicopters.
Sonobuoys may be deployed by
maritime patrol aircraft or helicopters;
dipping sonars are used by carrier-based
helicopters. A sonobuoy is an
expendable device used by aircraft for
the detection of underwater acoustic
energy and for conducting vertical water
column temperature measurements.
Most sonobuoys are passive, but some
can also generate active acoustic signals.
Dipping sonar is an active or passive
sonar device lowered by cable from
helicopters to detect or maintain contact
with underwater targets. During ASW
training, these systems’ active modes are
only used briefly for localization of
contacts and are not used in primary
search capacity. Helicopters and MPA
(P–3 or P–8 in approximately 2013) may
deploy sonobuoys in the GoA TMAA
during ASW training exercises.
Extended Echo Ranging/Improved
Extended Echo Ranging (EER/IEER)
Systems—EER/IEER are airborne ASW
systems used to conduct ‘‘large area’’
searches for submarines. These systems
are made up of airborne avionics ASW
acoustic processing and sonobuoy types
that are deployed in pairs. The EER/
IEER system’s active sonobuoy has two
components: An AN/SSQ–110A
Sonobuoy, which generates an explosive
sound impulse; and a passive receiver
sonobuoy (SSQ–77), which ‘‘listens’’ for
the return echo that has been bounced
off the surface of a submarine. These
sonobuoys are designed to provide
underwater acoustic data necessary for
naval aircrews to quickly and accurately
detect submerged submarines. The
sonobuoy pairs are dropped from a
maritime patrol aircraft into the ocean
in a predetermined pattern with a few
buoys covering a very large area. The
AN/SSQ–110A Sonobuoy Series is an
expendable and commandable
sonobuoy. In other words, the
equipment is not retrieved after
deployment and, once deployed, it can
be remotely controlled. For example,
upon command from the aircraft, the
explosive charge would detonate,
creating the sound impulse. Within the
sonobuoy pattern, only one detonation
is commanded at a time. Sixteen to
twenty SSQ–110A source sonobuoys
may be used in a typical exercise. Both
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
charges of each sonobuoy would be
detonated independently during the
course of the training. The first
detonation would be for tactical
reasons—to locate the submarine; and
the second occurs when the sonobuoy is
commanded to scuttle at the conclusion
of the exercise. The AN/SSQ–110A is
listed in Table 1 because it functions
like a sonar ping; however, the source
creates an explosive detonation and its
effects are considered in the underwater
explosive section.
Multistatic Active Coherent (MAC)
system–Formerly referred to as the
Advanced Extended Echo Ranging
(AEER) system, the proposed SSQ–125
MAC sonobuoy system is operationally
similar to the existing EER/IEER system.
The MAC system will use the same Air
Deployed Active Receiver (ADAR)
sonobuoy (SSQ–101A) as the acoustic
receiver and will be used for a large area
ASW search capability in both shallow
and deep water. However, instead of
using an explosive AN/SSQ–110A as an
impulsive source for the active acoustic
wave, the MAC system will use a battery
powered (electronic) source for the AN/
SSQ 125 sonobuoy. The output and
operational parameters for the AN/SSQ–
125 sonobuoy (source levels, frequency,
wave forms, etc.) are classified.
However, this sonobuoy is intended to
replace the EER/IEER’s use of explosives
and is scheduled to enter the fleet in
2011. For purposes of analysis,
replacement of the EER/IEER system by
the MAC system will be assumed to
occur at 25 percent per year as follows:
2011—25 percent replacement; 2012—
50 percent replacement; 2013—75
percent replacement; 2014—100 percent
replacement with no further use of the
EER/IEER system beginning in 2015 and
beyond.
Torpedoes—Torpedoes are the
primary ASW weapon used by surface
ships, aircraft, and submarines. The
guidance systems of these weapons can
be autonomous or electronically
controlled from the launching platform
through an attached wire. The
autonomous guidance systems are
acoustically based. They operate either
passively, exploiting the emitted sound
energy by the target, or actively,
ensonifying the target and using the
received echoes for guidance. With the
exception of SINKEX, torpedoes will not
be used in the GoA TMAA during the
proposed training activities.
Portable Undersea Tracking Range
(PUTR)—The PUTR is a self-contained,
portable, undersea tracking capability
that employs modern technologies to
support coordinated undersea warfare
training in numerous locations. The
system tracks submarines, surface ships,
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
weapons, targets, and unmanned
undersea vehicles and then distributes
the data to a data processing and display
system, either aboard ship or at a shore
site. The PUTR may be deployed to
support ASW or other training in the
GoA TMAA. The PUTR would
temporarily place hydrophones on the
seafloor in areas 25–100 nm2 (46.3–
185.2 km2) or smaller and provide highfidelity feedback and scoring of crew
performance during ASW training
activities. No on-shore construction
would take place. Seven electronics
packages, each approximately 3 ft (0.9
m) long by 2 ft (0.6 m) in diameter,
would be temporarily installed on the
seafloor by a range boat. The anchors
used to keep the electronics packages on
the seafloor consist of either concrete or
sand bags, each of which are
approximately 1.5 ft-by-1.5 ft (0.45 mby-0.45 m) and 300 pounds (136
kilograms). PUTR equipment can be
recovered for maintenance or when
training is completed. Two separate
sound sources are associated with the
operation of the PUTR:
Range tracking pingers—Range
tracking pingers would be used on
ships, submarines, and ASW targets
when training is conducted on the
PUTR. A typical MK 84 range tracking
pinger generates a 12.93 kHz sine wave
in pulses with a maximum duty cycle of
30 milliseconds and has a design power
of 194 dB re 1 micro-Pascal at 1 meter.
Ping rate is selectable and typically one
pulse every two seconds. Under the
proposed action, up to four range
pingers would operate simultaneously
for 4 hours each of the 20 PUTR
operating days per year. Total time
operated would be 80 hours annually.
Transponders—Each transponder
package consists of a hydrophone that
receives pinger signals, and a transducer
that sends an acoustic ‘‘uplink’’ of
locating data to the range boat. The
uplink signal is transmitted at 8.8 kHz,
17 kHz, or 40 kHz, at a source level of
190 dB at 40 kHz, and 186 dB at 8.8
kHz. The uplink frequency is selectable
and typically uses the 40 kHz signal,
however the lower frequency may be
used when PUTR is deployed in deep
waters where conditions may not permit
the 40 kHz signal to establish and
maintain the uplink. The PUTR system
also incorporates an emergency
underwater voice capability that
transmits at 8–11 kHz and a source level
of 190 dB. Under the proposed action,
the uplink transmitters would operate
20 days per year, for 4 hours each day
of use. Total time operated would be 80
hours annually.
Training Targets—ASW training
targets are used to simulate opposition
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
submarines. They are equipped with
one or a combination of the following
devices: (1) Acoustic projectors
emanating sounds to simulate
submarine acoustic signatures; (2) echo
repeaters to simulate the characteristics
of the echo of a particular sonar signal
reflected from a specific type of
submarine; and (3) magnetic sources to
trigger magnetic detectors. Two ASW
training target types may be used in the
TMAA: The MK–30, which is recovered
after each use and the MK–39
Expendable Mobile ASW Training
Target (EMATT), which is not
recovered. Under the proposed action,
approximately 12 EMATTs may be
expended annually during training in
the TMAA. A small percentage of these
EMATTS may be replaced by the more
costly yet recoverable MK–30.
As described above, ASW training
exercises are the primary type of
exercises that utilize MFAS and HFAS
sources in the GoA TMAA. Unit level
tracking and torpedo ASW exercises
may occur over the course of several
days during the proposed training
period in the GoA TMAA. Under the
Navy’s preferred alternative, in a single
year the GoA TMAA may have two
exercises lasting up to 21 days, both of
which may involve one ASW unit
(aircraft, ship, or submarine) versus one
target (usually a MK–39 EMATT or live
submarine). ASW exercise descriptions
are included below and summarized
(along with the exercises utilizing
explosives) in Table 2.
ASW Tracking Exercise (TRACKEX)—
Generally, TRACKEXs train aircraft,
ship, and submarine crews in tactics,
techniques, and procedures for search,
detection, localization, and tracking of
submarines with the goal of determining
a firing solution that could be used to
launch a torpedo and destroy the
submarine. Use of torpedoes is not a
proposed activity in the TMAA, with
the exception of SINKEX. ASW
Tracking Exercises occur during both
day and night. A typical unit-level
exercise involves one (1) ASW unit
(aircraft, ship, or submarine) versus one
(1) target—either a MK–39 (EMATT), or
a live submarine. The target may be
non-evading while operating on a
specified track or fully evasive.
Participating units use active and
passive sensors, including hull-mounted
sonar, towed arrays, dipping sonar,
variable-depth sonar, and sonobuoys for
tracking.
ASW training activities will take
place during the summer months, in the
form of one or two major exercises or
focused activity periods. These
exercises or activity periods would each
last up to 21 days and consist of
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64513
multiple component training activities.
Unlike Navy Training activities in other
areas, the GOA TMAA is not a Range
Complex and as such, there are no other
or ongoing small scale Navy Training
activities conducted outside these
activity periods. Descriptions of each
ASW tracking exercise type are
provided below.
Helicopter ASW TRACKEX
A helicopter ASW TRACKEX
typically involves one or two MH–60R
helicopters using both passive and
active sonar for tracking submarine
targets. For passive tracking, the MH–
60R may deploy patterns of passive
sonobuoys to receive underwater
acoustic signals, providing the
helicopter crew with locating
information on the target. Active
sonobuoys may also be used. An active
sonobuoy, as in any active sonar system,
emits an acoustic pulse that travels
through the water, returning echoes if
any objects, such as a submarine, are
within the range of acoustic detection.
For active sonar tracking, the MH–60R
crew will rely primarily on its AQS–22
Dipping Sonar. The sonar is lowered
into the ocean while the helicopter
hovers within 50 ft (15m) of the surface.
Similar to the active sonobuoy, the
dipping sonar emits acoustic energy and
receives any returning echoes,
indicating the presence of an
underwater object. Use of dipping sonar
has the potential to disturb a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock
resulting in MMPA Level B harassment
as defined for military readiness
activities.
The target for this exercise is either an
EMATT or live submarine which may
be either nonevading and assigned to a
specified track or fully evasive
depending on the state of training of the
helicopter crew. A Helicopter
TRACKEX usually takes 2 to 4 hours.
No torpedoes are fired during this
exercise. A total of 192 AQS–22 ‘‘dips’’
annually were analyzed for potential
acoustic impacts under the proposed
training activities.
MPA 1 ASW TRACKEX
During these exercises, a typical
scenario involves a single MPA
dropping sonobuoys, from an altitude
below 3,000 ft (914 m), into specific
patterns designed for both the
anticipated threat submarine and the
specific water conditions. These
patterns vary in size and coverage area
based on anticipated threat and water
1 MPA currently refers to the P–3C Orion aircraft.
The P–8 Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft is
scheduled to replace the P–3C as the Navy’s MPA.
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
64514
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TRACKEX in that the SSQ–110A
sonobuoy uses two explosive charges
per buoy for the acoustic source. Other
active sonobuoys use an electrically
generated ‘‘ping.’’ Use of explosive
sonobuoys has the potential to disturb a
marine mammal or marine mammal
stock resulting in MMPA Level B
harassment as defined for military
readiness activities.
A typical EER/IEER exercise lasts
approximately 6 hours. The aircrew will
first deploy 16 to 20 SSQ–110A
sonobuoys and 16 to 20 passive
sonobuoys in 1 hour. For the next 5
hours, the sonobuoy charges will be
detonated, while the EER/IEER system
analyzes the returns for evidence of a
submarine. This exercise may or may
not include a practice target. For
potential acoustic impacts, the annual
deployments of 40 SSQ–110 (two
explosions per buoy) sonobuoys were
analyzed under the proposed training
activities.
In the future, the SSQ–125 MAC
sonobuoy will be deployed in the GoA
TMAA as a replacement for the SSQ–
110 in EER/IEER exercises.
EER/IEER ASW Training Exercises
ASW TRACKEX (Surface Ship)
This is an at-sea flying exercise
designed to train MPA crews in the
deployment and use of the EER/IEER
sonobuoy systems. This system uses the
SSQ–110A as the signal source and the
SSQ–77 as the receiver buoy. This
activity differs from the MPA ASW
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
conditions. Typically, passive
sonobuoys will be used first, so the
threat submarine is not alerted. Active
sonobuoys will be used as required
either to locate extremely quiet
submarines or to further localize and
track submarines previously detected by
passive buoys. Use of sonobuoys has the
potential to disturb a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock resulting in
MMPA Level B harassment as defined
for military readiness activities.
The MPA will typically operate below
3,000 ft (914 m) to drop sonobuoys, will
sometimes be as low as 400 ft (122 m),
then may climb to several thousand feet
after the buoy pattern is deployed. The
higher altitude allows monitoring of the
buoys over a much larger search pattern
area. The target for this exercise is either
an EMATT or live submarine, which
may be either non-evading and assigned
to a specified track or fully evasive
depending on the state of training of the
MPA. An MPA TRACKEX usually takes
2 to 4 hours. The annual use of a total
of 266 DICASS sonobuoys was analyzed
for potential acoustic impacts under the
proposed training activities.
Surface ships operating in the GoA
TMAA would use hull-mounted active
sonar to conduct ASW Tracking
exercises. Typically, this exercise would
involve the coordinated use of other
ASW assets, to include MPA,
helicopters, and other ships. A total of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
578 hours of SQS–53 and 52 hours of
SQS–56 sonar annually were analyzed
for potential acoustic impacts under the
proposed training activities. Acoustic
cumulative and synergistic effects are
incorporated into the modeling as
detailed in Appendix B of the Navy’s
LOA application (see SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for information on
obtaining copies of supporting
documents). Use of active sonar by
surface ships for ASW has the potential
to disturb a marine mammal or marine
mammal stock resulting in MMPA Level
B harassment as defined for military
readiness activities.
ASW or Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW)
(Submarine)
During these exercises, submarines
use passive sonar sensors to search,
detect, classify, localize, and track the
threat submarine with the goal of
developing a firing solution that could
be used to launch a torpedo and destroy
the threat submarine. However, no
torpedoes are fired during this exercise.
Submarines also use their highfrequency sonar for object avoidance
and navigation safety. Sonar use by
submarines has the potential to disturb
a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock resulting in MMPA Level B
harassment as defined for military
readiness activities.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
64515
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
EP19OC10.006
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
64516
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Activities Utilizing Underwater
Detonations
Underwater detonation activities can
occur at various depths. They may
include activities with detonations at or
just below the surface (such as SINKEX
or gunnery exercises (GUNEX)). When
the weapons hit the target, there is no
explosion in the water, and so a ‘‘hit’’ is
not modeled (i.e., the energy (either
acoustic or pressure) from the hit is not
expected to reach levels that would
result in take of marine mammals).
When a live weapon misses, it is
modeled to explode below the water
surface at 1 ft (5-inch naval gunfire, 76mm rounds), 2 meters (Maverick,
Harpoon, MK–82, MK–83, MK–84), or
50 ft (MK–48 torpedo) as shown in
Appendix A of the Navy’s application
(the depth is chosen to represent the
worst case of the possible scenarios as
related to potential marine mammals
impacts). Exercises may utilize either
live or inert ordnance of the types listed
in Table 2. Additionally, successful hit
rates are known to the Navy and are
utilized in the effects modeling.
Training events that involve explosives
and underwater detonations are
described below and summarized in
Table 3.
TABLE 3—SOURCES OF AT-SEA EXPLOSIVES USED IN GOA TMAA FOR WHICH TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS IS
ANTICIPATED
Net
explosive
weight
(in lbs.)
Ordnance/explosive
5″ Naval gunfire ...................................................
76 mm Rounds ....................................................
MK–82 ..................................................................
MK–83 ..................................................................
MK–84 ..................................................................
SSQ–110 IEER ....................................................
MK–48 ..................................................................
Sub-TTS
177dB
9.54
1.6
238
574
945
5
851
TTS
Injury
Mortality
182 SEL/23psi
50% TM
rupture, 205db
or 23 psi-ms
Onset massive
lung injury or
31 psi-ms
227/269
95/150
1584/809
2374/1102
3050/1327
325/271
2588/1198
43
19
302
468
611
155
762
23
13
153
195
226
76
442
413
168
2720
4056
5196
NA
NA
Exclusion
zone
Used (m)
549
549
914
914
914
914
1852
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Table Also Indicates Range to Indicated Threshold and Size of Navy Exclusion Zone Used in Mitigation. Units Are Meters.
Sinking Exercise (SINKEX)—In a
SINKEX, a specially prepared,
deactivated vessel is deliberately sunk
using multiple weapons systems. The
exercise provides training to ship and
aircraft crews in delivering both live
and inert ordnance on a real target.
These target vessels are empty, cleaned,
and environmentally-remediated ship
hulks. A SINKEX target is towed to sea
and set adrift at the SINKEX location.
The duration of a SINKEX is
unpredictable since it ends when the
target sinks, sometimes immediately
after the first weapon impact and
sometimes only after multiple impacts
by a variety of weapons. Typically, the
exercise lasts for 4 to 8 hours over 1 to
2 days. The Navy proposes to conduct
one SINKEX during each summertime
exercise in the GoA TMAA (maximum
of two). Potential harassment would be
from underwater detonation. SINKEX
events have been conducted in the
Pacific at Navy training range
complexes off Southern California, the
Pacific Northwest, Hawaii, and the
Mariana Islands, in compliance with 40
CFR 229.2.
The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) grants the Navy a general permit
through the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act to
transport vessels ‘‘for the purpose of
sinking such vessels in ocean waters
* * *’’ (40 CFR 229.2). Subparagraph
(a)(3) of this regulation states ‘‘All such
vessel sinkings shall be conducted in
water at least 1,000 fathoms (6,000 feet)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
deep and at least 50 nautical miles from
land.’’
SINKEX events typically include at
least one surface combatant (frigate,
destroyer, or cruiser); one submarine;
and numerous fixed-wing and rotarywing aircraft. One surface ship will
serve as a surveillance platform to
ensure the hulk does not pose a hazard
to navigation prior to and during the
SINKEX. The weapons actually
expended during a SINKEX can vary
greatly. Table 1–7 in the Navy’s
application indicates the typical
ordnance that may be used in a SINKEX,
which may include missiles, bombs, 5’’
gunfire, and a single MK–48 torpedo.
This table reflects the planning for
weapons, which may be expended
during one SINKEX in the GoA TMAA.
This level of ordnance is expected for
each of the two possible SINKEX events
in the GoA TMAA. With the exception
of the single torpedo, which is designed
to explode below the target hulk in the
water column, the weapons deployed
during a SINKEX are intended to strike
the target hulk, and thus not explode
within the water column.
Surface-to-Surface Gunnery Exercise
(S–S GUNEX)—These exercises train
surface ship crews in high-speed surface
engagement procedures against mobile
(towed or self-propelled) seaborne
targets. Both live and inert training
rounds are used against the targets. The
training consists of the pre-attack phase,
including locating, identifying, and
tracking the threat vessel, and the attack
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
phase in which the missile is launched
and flies to the target. In a live-fire
event, aircraft conduct a surveillance
flight to ensure that the range is clear of
nonparticipating ships. These activities
may occur within the GoA TMAA and
have the potential to disturb a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock
resulting in MMPA Level B harassment
as defined for military readiness
activities.
For S–S GUNEX from a Navy ship,
gun crews engage surface targets at sea
with their main battery 5-inch and
76mm guns as well as smaller surface
targets with 25mm, 0.50-caliber (cal), or
7.62mm machine guns, with the goal of
disabling or destroying the threat target.
For a surface-to-surface GUNEX from a
Navy small boat, the weapon used is
typically a 0.50 cal, 7.62-mm, or 40-mm
machine gun.
The number of rounds fired depends
on the weapon used for S–S GUNEX.
For 0.50-cal, 7.62-mm, or 40-mm
ordnance, the number of rounds is
approximately 200, 800, and 10 rounds,
respectively. For the ship main battery
guns, the gun crews typically fire
approximately 60 rounds of 5-inch or
76-mm ordnance during one exercise.
These activities may occur within the
GoA TMAA.
Air-to-Surface Gunnery Exercise (A–S
GUNEX)—Strike fighter aircraft and
helicopter crews, including embarked
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Naval Special Warfare (NSW) personnel
use guns to attack surface maritime
targets, day or night, with the goal of
destroying or disabling enemy ships,
boats, or floating or near-surface mines.
These training activities have the
potential to disturb a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock resulting in
MMPA Level B harassment as defined
for military readiness activities.
For fixed-wing A–S GUNEX, a flight
of two F/A–18 aircraft will begin a
descent to the target from an altitude of
about 3,000 ft (914 m) while still several
miles away. Within a distance of 4,000
ft (1,219 m) from the target, each aircraft
will fire a burst of about 30 rounds
before reaching an altitude of 1,000 ft
(305 m), then break off and reposition
for another strafing run until each
aircraft expends its exercise ordnance
allowance of about 250 rounds from its
20mm cannon.
For rotary-wing A–S GUNEX, a single
helicopter will carry several air
crewmen needing gunnery training and
fly at an altitude between 50 and 100 ft
(15 to 30 m) in a 300-ft (91-m) racetrack
pattern around an at-sea target. Each
gunner will expend about 200 rounds of
0.50 cal and 800 rounds of 7.62-mm
ordnance in each exercise. The target is
normally a noninstrumented floating
object such as an expendable smoke
float, steel drum, or cardboard box, but
may be a remote-controlled speed boat
or jet ski type target. The exercise lasts
about 1 hour and occurs within the GoA
TMAA.
Air-to-Surface Missile Exercise (A–S
MISSILEX)—An air-to-surface
MISSILEX involves fixed-winged
aircraft and helicopter crews launching
missiles at surface maritime targets, day
and night, with the goal of training to
destroy or disable enemy ships or boats.
These activities may occur within the
TMAA; however, all missile launches
would be simulated; therefore,
MISSILEX activities are not likely to
disturb a marine mammal or marine
mammal stock resulting in MMPA Level
B harassment as defined for military
readiness activities.
For helicopter A–S MISSILEX, one or
two MH–60R/S helicopters approach
and acquire an at-sea surface target,
which is then designated with a laser to
guide an AGM–114 Hellfire missile to
the target. The laser designator may be
onboard the helicopter firing the
hellfire, another helicopter, or another
source. The helicopter simulates
launching a missile from an altitude of
about 300 ft (91 m) against a specially
prepared target with an expendable
target area on a nonexpendable
platform. The platform fitted with the
expendable target could be a stationary
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
barge, a remote-controlled speed boat, or
a jet ski towing a trimaran whose
infrared signature has been augmented
with a heat source (charcoal or propane)
to better represent a typical threat
vessel. All missile firings would be
simulated.
For an air-to-surface MISSILEX fired
from fixed-wing aircraft, the simulated
missile used is typically an AGM–84
Standoff Land Attack Missile-Expanded
Response (SLAM–ER), an AGM–84
Harpoon, or an AGM–65 Maverick. A
flight of one or two aircraft approach an
at-sea surface target from an altitude
between 40,000 ft (12,192 m) and 25,000
ft (7,620 m) for SLAM–ER or Harpoon,
and between 25,000 ft (7,620 m) and
5,000 ft (1,524 m) for Maverick,
complete the internal targeting process,
and simulate launching the weapon at
the target from beyond 150 nm (278 km)
for SLAM–ER and from beyond 12 nm
(22 km) for Maverick. The majority of
unit level exercises involve the use of
captive carry (inert, no release) training
missiles; the aircraft perform all
detection, tracking, and targeting
requirements without actually releasing
a missile. These activities may occur
within the GoA TMAA and all missile
launches would be simulated.
Air-to-Surface Bombing Exercise
(BOMBEX)—During an air-to-surface
BOMBEX, maritime patrol aircraft
(MPA) or F/A–18 deliver free-fall bombs
against surface maritime targets, with
the goal of destroying or disabling
enemy ships or boats.
A flight of one or two aircraft will
approach the target from an altitude of
15,000 ft (4,570 m) to less than 3,000 ft
(914 m) while adhering to designated
ingress and egress routes. Typical bomb
release altitude is below 3,000 ft (914 m)
and within a range of 1,000 yards (yd)
(914 m) for unguided munitions, and
above 15,000 ft (4,572 m) and in excess
of 10 nm (18 km) for precision-guided
munitions. Exercises at night will
normally be done with captive carry (no
drop) weapons because of safety
considerations. Laser designators from
aircraft releasing ordnance or a support
aircraft are used to illuminate certified
targets for use with lasers when using
laser guided weapons. Bombs used
could include BDU–45 (inert) or MK–
82/83/84 (live and inert). These
activities may occur within the GoA
TMAA and have the potential to disturb
a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock resulting in MMPA Level B
harassment as defined for military
readiness activities. In the near future,
the Navy will be transitioning all carrier
based MK–80 series bombs to BLU 110,
111, and 117 live and inert bombs. The
difference is that the BLU-series bombs
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64517
contain insensitive (less likely to
accidently explode) high explosives,
which make them safer for carrier-based
operations. All other attributes would
remain the same.
EER–IEER AN/SSQ–110A—The
Extended Echo Ranging and Improved
Extended Echo Ranging (EER/IEER)
systems are airborne ASW systems used
in conducting ‘‘large area’’ searches for
submarines. These systems are made up
of airborne avionics ASW acoustic
processing and sonobuoy types that are
deployed in pairs. The IEER system’s
active sonobuoy has two components:
An AN/SSQ–110A Sonobuoy, which
generates a sound similar to a ‘‘sonar
ping’’ using a small explosive; and a
passive AN/SSQ–77 Sonobuoy, which
‘‘listens’’ for the return echo of the
‘‘sonar ping’’ that has been bounced off
the surface of a submarine. These
sonobuoys are designed to provide
underwater acoustic data necessary for
naval aircrews to quickly and accurately
detect submerged submarines. The
sonobuoy pairs are dropped from a
fixed-wing aircraft into the ocean in a
predetermined pattern with a few buoys
covering a very large area. The AN/
SSQ–110A Sonobuoy Series is an
expendable and commandable
sonobuoy. Upon command from the
aircraft, the bottom payload is released
to sink to a designated operating depth.
A second command is required from the
aircraft to cause the second payload to
release and detonate the explosive to
generate a ‘‘ping.’’ There is only one
detonation in the pattern of buoys at a
time. Potential harassment would be
from underwater detonations.
The MAC system (described in the
sonar source section) will eventually
replace the EER/IEER system and was
analyzed for this proposed rule.
Vessel Movement
Many of the proposed activities
within the GoA TMAA involve
maneuvers by various types of surface
ships, boats, and submarines
(collectively referred to as vessels).
According to the Navy’s application, up
to seven Navy vessels (six surface ships
and one submarine) may be operating
within the GoA TMAA. In addition, the
Navy’s DEIS stated that under the
preferred alternative (Alternative 2) 19
contracted support vessels may also be
operating within the GoA TMAA.
Within the maximum two summer
exercises, the length of the exercise, the
number of vessels, and the allotted atsea time within the GoA TMAA during
an exercise will be variable between
years. These variations cannot be
predicted given unknowns including
the availability of participants for the
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
64518
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
annual exercise(s), which is a direct
result of factors such as Navy responses
to real-world events (e.g., tactical
deployments, disaster relief,
humanitarian assistance, etc.), planned
and unplanned deployments, vessel
availability due to funding and
maintenance cycles, and logistic
concerns with conducting an exercise in
the GoA.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Vessel movements have the potential
to affect marine mammals by directly
striking or disturbing individual
animals. The probability of vessel and
marine mammal interactions occurring
in the GoA TMAA is dependent on
several factors including numbers,
types, and speeds of vessels; the
regularity, duration, and spatial extent
of activities; the presence/absence and
density of marine mammals; and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
protective measures implemented by the
Navy. During training activities, speeds
vary and depend on the specific training
activity. In general, Navy vessels move
in a coordinated manner, but can be
separated by many miles in distance.
These activities are widely dispersed
throughout the GoA TMAA, which is a
vast area encompassing 42,146 nm2
(145,458 km2). Consequently, the
density of Navy vessels within the GoA
TMAA at any given time is extremely
low.
Additional information on the Navy’s
proposed activities may be found in the
LOA Application and the Navy’s GoA
TMAA DEIS.
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of the Specified Activities
Twenty-six marine mammal species
or populations/stocks have confirmed or
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
possible occurrence within or adjacent
to the GoA, including seven species of
baleen whales (mysticetes), 13 species
of toothed whales (odontocetes), five
species of seals (pinnipeds), and the sea
otter (mustelid). Nine of these species
are ESA-listed and considered depleted
under the MMPA: Blue whale, fin
whale, humpback whale, sei whale,
sperm whale, North Pacific right whale,
Cook Inlet beluga whale, Steller sea
lion, and sea otter. Table 4 summarizes
their abundance, Endangered Species
Act (ESA) status, occurrence, density,
and likely occurrence in the TMAA
during the April to October timeframe.
The sea otter is managed by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and will not
be addressed further here.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
Species Not Considered Further
Cook Inlet Beluga Whale—The
likelihood of a Cook Inlet beluga whale
(Delphinapterus leucas) occurring in the
TMAA is extremely low. Only 28
sightings of beluga whales in the GoA
have been reported from 1936 to 2000
(Laidre et al., 2000). The nearest beluga
whales to the TMAA are in Cook Inlet
with a 2008 abundance estimate of 375
whales in the Cook Inlet stock (NMFS
2008). In October 2008, the Cook Inlet
beluga whale distinct population
segment was listed as endangered under
the ESA (73 FR 62919, October 22,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
2008). Prior to listing, the population
had been designated as depleted under
the MMPA (NMFS, 2008). Cook Inlet is
approximately 70 nm (129.6 km) from
the nearest edge of the TMAA and the
Cook Inlet beluga whales do not leave
the waters of Cook Inlet (NMFS, 2007,
2008). Based on this information, it is
highly unlikely for a Cook Inlet beluga
whale to be present in the action area.
Consequently, this distinct population
segment will not be considered in the
remainder of this analysis.
False Killer Whale—The likelihood of
a false killer whale (Pseudorca
crassidens) being present in the TMAA
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64519
is extremely low. False killer whales are
found in tropical and temperate waters,
generally between 50° S and 50° N
latitude (Baird et al., 1989; Odell and
McClune, 1999). The southernmost
point boundary of the TMAA is well
north of 55° N latitude. There have been
records of false killer whale sightings as
far north as the Aleutian Islands and
Prince William Sound in the past
(Leatherwood et al., 1988). In addition,
a false killer whale was sighted in May
2003 near Juneau, but this was
considered to be far north of its normal
range (DoN, 2006). There are no
abundance estimates available for this
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
EP19OC10.007
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64520
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
species in the NMFS stock assessment
report for this area of the Pacific. In
summary, false killer whales are
considered extralimital to the TMAA
and will not be considered further in
this analysis.
Northern Right Whale Dolphin—The
likelihood of a northern right whale
dolphin (Lissodelphis borealis)
occurring in the TMAA is extremely
low. This species occurs in North
Pacific oceanic waters and along the
outer continental shelf and slope in cool
temperate waters colder than 20° C. This
species is distributed approximately
from 30° N to 55° N and 145° W to 118°
E (both south and east of the TMAA).
There are two records of northern right
whale dolphins in the GoA (one just
south of Kodiak Island), but these are
considered extremely rare (DoN, 2006).
There are no abundance estimates for
this species in the NMFS stock
assessment report for this area of the
Pacific. Given the extremely low
likelihood of this species occurrence in
the action area, the northern right whale
dolphin will not be considered further
in this analysis.
Risso’s Dolphin—The likelihood of
Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus)
occurring in the action area is extremely
low. The Risso’s dolphin is distributed
worldwide in tropical to warmtemperate waters, roughly between 60°
N and 60° S, where surface water
temperature is usually greater than 10°
C (Kruse et al., 1999). The average sea
surface temperature for the GoA is
reported to be approximately 9.6° C and
has undergone a warming trend since
1957 (Aquarone and Adams, 2008). The
average summer temperature within the
upper 328 ft (100 m) of the TMAA is
approximately 11° C based on data as
presented in the modeling analysis
undertaken by the Navy. In the eastern
Pacific, Risso’s dolphins range from the
GoA to Chile (Leatherwood et al., 1980;
Reimchen, 1980; Braham, 1983;
Olavarria et al., 2001). Water
temperature appears to be a factor that
affects the distribution of Risso’s
dolphins in the Pacific (Leatherwood et
al., 1980; Kruse et al., 1999). Risso’s
dolphins are expected to be extralimital
in the TMAA. They prefer tropical to
warm temperate waters and have
seldom been sighted in the cold waters
of the GoA. Records of Risso’s dolphins
near the TMAA include sightings near
Chirikof Island (southwest of Kodiak
Island) and offshore in the GoA, just
south of the TMAA boundary
(Consiglieri et al., 1980; Braham, 1983).
Given the extremely low likelihood of
this species occurrence in the action
area, the Risso’s dolphin will not be
considered further in this analysis.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
Short-Finned Pilot Whale—Shortfinned pilot whales (Globicephala
macrohynchus) are not expected to
occur in the GoA TMAA. This species
is found in tropical to warm temperate
seas, generally in deep offshore areas,
and they do not usually range north of
50° N (DoN, 2006). There are two
records of this species in Alaskan
waters. In 1937, a short-finned pilot
whale was taken near Katanak on the
Alaska Peninsula and a group of five
short-finned pilot whales were sighted
just southeast of Kodiak Island in May
1977 (DoN, 2006). There are no
abundance estimates available for this
species in the NMFS stock assessment
report for this area of the Pacific. Given
the extremely low likelihood of this
species’ occurrence in the action area,
the short-finned pilot whale will not be
considered further in this analysis.
The Navy has compiled information
on the abundance, behavior, status and
distribution, and vocalizations of
marine mammal species in the GoA
TMAA waters from the Navy Marine
Resource Assessment and has
supplemented this information with
additional citations derived from new
survey efforts and scientific
publications. NMFS has designated
stocks of marine mammals in the waters
surrounding the GoA TMAA and,
therefore, compiles stock assessment
reports for this area. This information
may be viewed in the Navy’s LOA
application and/or the Navy’s DEIS for
the GoA TMAA (see Availability), and
is incorporated by reference herein.
There are no designated marine
mammal critical habitats or known
foraging areas within the GoA TMAA;
however, critical habitats for two ESAlisted species have been designated in
the vicinity of the GoA TMAA. On April
8, 2008, NMFS designated two areas as
North Pacific right whale critical
habitat—one in the GoA and one in the
Bering Sea (73 FR 19000). The GoA
critical habitat is located approximately
16 nm (30 km) west of the southwest
corner of the TMAA. NMFS designated
critical habitat for Steller sea lions on
August 27, 1993 (58 FR 45269). For the
western Distinct Population Segment
(DPS), ‘‘aquatic zone’’ critical habitat
surrounding haulouts and rookeries
extends 20 nm (37 km) seaward in state
and federally managed waters, portions
of which are adjacent to the TMAA.
Much is unknown about the feeding
habits of the dolphin and porpoise
species in the GoA TMAA, but they are
thought to feed opportunistically
throughout their range (like better
studied species and stocks are known to
do) and possibly throughout the year.
Even less is known about the feeding
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
habits of beaked whales. Baleen whales
and sperm whales are thought to forage
seasonally in areas within and around
the GoA TMAA. For example, Moore et
al. (2007) provided evidence of a yearround occurrence of gray whales and a
noteworthy feeding area in the
northeastern GoA (southeast of Kodiak
Island).
Marine Mammal Hearing and
Vocalizations
Cetaceans have an auditory anatomy
that follows the basic mammalian
pattern, with some changes to adapt to
the demands of hearing underwater. The
typical mammalian ear is divided into
an outer ear, middle ear, and inner ear.
The outer ear is separated from the
inner ear by a tympanic membrane, or
eardrum. In terrestrial mammals, the
outer ear, eardrum, and middle ear
transmit airborne sound to the inner ear,
where the sound waves are propagated
through the cochlear fluid. Since the
impedance of water is close to that of
the tissues of a cetacean, the outer ear
is not required to transduce sound
energy as it does when sound waves
travel from air to fluid (inner ear).
Sound waves traveling through the
inner ear cause the basilar membrane to
vibrate. Specialized cells, called hair
cells, respond to the vibration and
produce nerve pulses that are
transmitted to the central nervous
system. Acoustic energy causes the
basilar membrane in the cochlea to
vibrate. Sensory cells at different
positions along the basilar membrane
are excited by different frequencies of
sound (Pickles, 1998). Baleen whales
have inner ears that appear to be
specialized for low-frequency hearing.
Conversely, dolphins and porpoises
have ears that are specialized to hear
high frequencies.
Marine mammal vocalizations often
extend both above and below the range
of human hearing; vocalizations with
frequencies lower than 18 Hz are
labeled as infrasonic and those higher
than 20 kHz as ultrasonic (National
Research Council (NRC), 2003; Figure
4–1). Measured data on the hearing
abilities of cetaceans are sparse,
particularly for the larger cetaceans such
as the baleen whales. The auditory
thresholds of some of the smaller
odontocetes have been determined in
captivity. It is generally believed that
cetaceans should at least be sensitive to
the frequencies of their own
vocalizations. Comparisons of the
anatomy of cetacean inner ears and
models of the structural properties and
the response to vibrations of the ear’s
components in different species provide
an indication of likely sensitivity to
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
various sound frequencies. The ears of
small toothed whales are optimized for
receiving high-frequency sound, while
baleen whale inner ears are best in low
to infrasonic frequencies (Ketten, 1992;
1997; 1998).
Baleen whale vocalizations are
composed primarily of frequencies
below 1 kHz, and some contain
fundamental frequencies as low as 16
Hz (Watkins et al., 1987; Richardson et
al., 1995; Rivers, 1997; Moore et al.,
1998; Stafford et al., 1999; Wartzok and
Ketten, 1999) but can be as high as 24
kHz (humpback whale; Au et al., 2006).
Clark and Ellison (2004) suggested that
baleen whales use low-frequency
sounds not only for long-range
communication, but also as a simple
form of echo ranging, using echoes to
navigate and orient relative to physical
features of the ocean. Information on
auditory function in mysticetes is
extremely lacking. Sensitivity to lowfrequency sound by baleen whales has
been inferred from observed
vocalization frequencies, observed
reactions to playback of sounds, and
anatomical analyses of the auditory
system. Although there is apparently
much variation, the source levels of
most baleen whale vocalizations lie in
the range of 150–190 dB re 1 μPa at 1
m. Low-frequency vocalizations made
by baleen whales and their
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
corresponding auditory anatomy suggest
that they have good low-frequency
hearing (Ketten, 2000), although specific
data on sensitivity, frequency or
intensity discrimination, or localization
abilities are lacking. Marine mammals,
like all mammals, have typical Ushaped audiograms that begin with
relatively low sensitivity (high
threshold) at some specified low
frequency with increased sensitivity
(low threshold) to a species specific
optimum followed by a generally steep
rise at higher frequencies (high
threshold) (Fay, 1988).
The toothed whales produce a wide
variety of sounds, which include
species-specific broadband ‘‘clicks’’ with
peak energy between 10 and 200 kHz,
individually variable ‘‘burst pulse’’ click
trains, and constant frequency or
frequency-modulated (FM) whistles
ranging from 4 to 16 kHz (Wartzok and
Ketten, 1999). The general consensus is
that the tonal vocalizations (whistles)
produced by toothed whales play an
important role in maintaining contact
between dispersed individuals, while
broadband clicks are used during
echolocation (Wartzok and Ketten,
1999). Burst pulses have also been
strongly implicated in communication,
with some scientists suggesting that
they play an important role in agonistic
encounters (McCowan and Reiss, 1995),
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64521
while others have proposed that they
represent ‘‘emotive’’ signals in a broader
sense, possibly representing graded
communication signals (Herzing, 1996).
Sperm whales, however, are known to
produce only clicks, which are used for
both communication and echolocation
(Whitehead, 2003). Most of the energy of
toothed whale social vocalizations is
concentrated near 10 kHz, with source
levels for whistles as high as 100 to 180
dB re 1 μPa at 1 m (Richardson et al.,
1995). No odontocete has been shown
audiometrically to have acute hearing
(<80 dB re 1 μPa) below 500 Hz (DoN,
2001). Sperm whales produce clicks,
which may be used to echolocate
(Mullins et al., 1988), with a frequency
range from less than 100 Hz to 30 kHz
and source levels up to 230 dB re 1 μPa
1 m or greater (Mohl et al., 2000).
Table 5a and Table 5b list the species
found in the GoA TMAA and include a
summary of their vocalizations, if
available. The ‘‘Brief Background on
Sound’’ section below contains a
description of the functional hearing
groups designated by Southall et al.
(2007), which includes the functional
hearing range of various marine
mammal groups (i.e., what frequencies
that can actually hear).
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
EP19OC10.008
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64522
64523
BILLING CODE 35–22–C
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
EP19OC10.009
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64524
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Marine Mammal Density Estimates
Understanding the distribution and
abundance of a particular marine
mammal species or stock is necessary to
analyze the potential impacts of an
action on that species or stock.
Furthermore, it is necessary to know the
density of the animals in the affected
area in order to quantitatively assess the
likely acoustic impacts of a potential
action on individuals and estimate take
(discussed further in the Estimated Take
section).
Density is nearly always reported for
an area (e.g., animals per km 2).
Analyses of survey results using
distance sampling techniques include
correction factors for animals at the
surface but not seen as well as animals
below the surface and not seen.
Therefore, although the area (e.g., km2)
appears to represent only the surface of
the water (two-dimensional), density
actually implicitly includes animals
anywhere within the water column
under that surface area. In addition,
density assumes that animals are
uniformly distributed within the
prescribed area, even though this is
likely a rare occurrence. Marine
mammals are usually concentrated in
areas of greater importance, such as
areas of high productivity, low
predation, safe calving, etc. Density can
occasionally be calculated for smaller
areas that are regularly used by marine
mammals, but more often than not,
there are insufficient data to calculate
density for small areas. Therefore,
assuming an even distribution within
the prescribed area remains the norm.
Recent survey data for marine
mammals in the GoA is limited and
most survey efforts were localized and
extremely nearshore. In addition to the
visual surveys, there is evidence of
several species based on acoustic
studies, but these do not provide
measurements of abundance (e.g.,
Stafford, 2009).
In April 2009, the Navy funded and
NMFS conducted the Gulf of Alaska
Line-Transect Survey (GOALS) to
address the data needs for this analysis
(Rone et al., 2009). Line-transect survey
visual data to support distance sampling
statistics and acoustic data were
collected over a 10-day period both
within and outside the TMAA. This
survey resulted in sightings of several
species and allowed for the derivation
of densities for fin and humpback whale
(Rone et al., 2009). In addition to this
latest survey, two previous vessel
surveys conducted in the nearshore
region of the TMAA were also used to
derive the majority of the density data
used in acoustic modeling for this
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
analysis. The methods used to derive
density estimates for all remaining
species in the TMAA are detailed in
Appendix B of the LOA application and
summarized below.
Zerbini et al. (2006) conducted
dedicated vessel surveys for large
whales in summer 2001–2003 from
Resurrection Bay on the Kenai
Peninsula to Amchitka Island in the
Aleutian Islands. Survey effort near the
TMAA was nearshore (within
approximately 46 nm (85 km) of shore),
and is delineated as ‘‘Block 1’’ in the
original paper. Densities for this region
were published for fin and humpback
whales.
Waite (2003) conducted vessel
surveys for cetaceans near Kenai
Peninsula, within Prince William Sound
and around Kodiak Island, during
acoustic-trawl surveys for pollock in
summer 2003. Surveys extended
offshore to the 1,000 m isobaths and
therefore overlapped with some of the
TMAA. Waite (2003) did not calculate
densities, but did provide some of the
elements necessary for calculating
density (please see Appendix B of the
LOA application for more information).
Mysticetes occurring in the GoA
include blue, fin, gray, humpback,
minke, North Pacific right, and sei
whales (Angliss and Allen, 2008; Rone
et al., 2009). Blue, North Pacific right,
and sei whales are considered rare, and
are included here only for discussion
purposes due to their designations as
‘‘depleted’’ under the MMPA and
‘‘endangered’’ under the ESA.
Gray whale density was calculated
from data obtained during nearshore
feeding studies in the GoA. Gray whales
are found almost exclusively in near
shore areas; therefore, they would not be
expected to be found in the majority of
the TMAA (≤50 nm (93 km) offshore
and >5,997 ft (1,828 m) depth) (DoN,
2006). The recent 2009 survey
encountered one group of two gray
whales on the shelf within the western
edge of the TMAA and two groups well
outside the TMAA near shore at Kodiak
Island (Rone et al., 2009).
Odontocetes occurring regularly
include sperm whale, Cuvier’s, Baird’s,
and Stejneger’s beaked whales, killer
whale, Pacific white-sided dolphin, and
Dall’s porpoise (Angliss and Allen,
2008; Rone et al., 2009). In Alaska
waters, harbor porpoise inhabit coastal
waters where depths are less than 328
ft (100 m) in depth (DoN, 2006; Angliss
and Allen, 2008). The majority of the
TMAA is well offshore of the normal
habitat range for harbor porpoise. There
is no density data available for this
species in the nearshore portion of the
TMAA that overlaps the harbor porpoise
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
range. An estimated quantification of
impacts for harbor porpoise was,
however, undertaken as described in the
Potential Effects of Specified Activities
on Marine Mammals section.
Pinnipeds occurring regularly include
Steller sea lion, northern fur seal, and
northern elephant seal. The range of
California sea lions extends as far north
as the Pribolof Islands in the Bering Sea.
Tagging data indicate that most northern
fur seal foraging and migration takes
place to the west of the TMAA (Ream
et al., 2005), although the derived
density for this species assumed the
population would be present in the area
for modeling purposes. Harbor seals are
primarily a coastal species and are
rarely found more than 12 mi (20 km)
from shore (DoN, 2006). Harbor seals
should be very rare in the TMAA and
there was no attempt to model for this
species.
Pinniped at-sea density is not often
available because pinniped abundance
is obtained via shore counts of animals
at known rookeries and haulouts.
Lacking any other available means of
quantification, densities of pinnipeds
were derived using shore counts.
Several parameters were identified for
pinnipeds from the literature, including
area of stock occurrence, number of
animals (which may vary seasonally)
and season, and those parameters were
then used to calculate density. Once
density per ‘‘pinniped season’’ was
determined, those values were prorated
to fit the warm water (June through
October) and cold water (November
through May) seasons. Determining
density in this manner is risky because
the parameters used usually contain
error (e.g., geographic range is not
exactly known and needs to be
estimated and abundance estimates
usually have large variances). As is true
of all density estimates, they assume
that the animals are always distributed
evenly within an area which is likely
never true.
Brief Background on Sound
An understanding of the basic
properties of underwater sound is
necessary to comprehend many of the
concepts and analyses presented in this
document. A summary is included
below.
Sound is a wave of pressure variations
propagating through a medium (for the
MFAS/HFAS considered in this
proposed rule, the medium is marine
water). Pressure variations are created
by compressing and relaxing the
medium. Sound measurements can be
expressed in two forms: Intensity and
pressure. Acoustic intensity is the
average rate of energy transmitted
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
through a unit area in a specified
direction and is expressed in watts per
square meter (W/m2). Acoustic intensity
is rarely measured directly, but rather
from ratios of pressures; the standard
reference pressure for underwater sound
is 1 microPascal (μPa); for airborne
sound, the standard reference pressure
is 20 μPa (Richardson et al., 1995).
Acousticians have adopted a
logarithmic scale for sound intensities,
which is denoted in decibels (dB).
Decibel measurements represent the
ratio between a measured pressure value
and a reference pressure value (in this
case 1 μPa or, for airborne sound, 20
μPa). The logarithmic nature of the scale
means that each 10 dB increase is a tenfold increase in power (e.g., 20 dB is a
100-fold increase over 10 dB, 30 dB is
a 1,000-fold increase over 10 dB).
Humans perceive a 10 dB increase in
noise as a doubling of loudness, or a 10
dB decrease in noise as a halving of
loudness. The term ‘‘sound pressure
level’’ implies a decibel measure and a
reference pressure that is used as the
denominator of the ratio. Throughout
this document, NMFS uses 1
microPascal (denoted re: 1μPa) as a
standard reference pressure unless
noted otherwise.
It is important to note that decibels
underwater and decibels in air are not
the same and cannot be directly
compared. Because of the different
densities of air and water and the
different decibel standards (i.e.,
reference pressures) in air and water, a
sound with the same intensity (i.e.,
power) in air and in water would be
approximately 63 dB quieter in air.
Thus, a sound that measures 160 dB
underwater would have the same
approximate effective intensity as a
sound that is 97 dB in air.
Sound frequency is measured in
cycles per second, or Hertz (abbreviated
Hz), and is analogous to musical pitch;
high-pitched sounds contain high
frequencies and low-pitched sounds
contain low frequencies. Natural sounds
in the ocean span a huge range of
frequencies: from earthquake noise at 5
Hz to harbor porpoise clicks at 150,000
Hz (150 kHz). These sounds are so low
or so high in pitch that humans cannot
even hear them; acousticians call these
infrasonic (typically below 20 Hz) and
ultrasonic (typically above 20,000 Hz)
sounds, respectively. A single sound
may be made up of many different
frequencies together. Sounds made up
of only a small range of frequencies are
called ‘‘narrowband’’, and sounds with a
broad range of frequencies are called
‘‘broadband’’; explosives are an example
of a broadband sound source and active
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
tactical sonars are an example of a
narrowband sound source.
When considering the influence of
various kinds of sound on the marine
environment, it is necessary to
understand that different kinds of
marine life are sensitive to different
frequencies of sound. Based on available
behavioral data, audiograms derived
using auditory evoked potential (AEP)
techniques, anatomical modeling, and
other data, Southall et al. (2007)
designate ‘‘functional hearing groups’’
for marine mammals and estimate the
lower and upper frequencies of
functional hearing of the groups.
Further, the frequency range in which
each group’s hearing is estimated as
being most sensitive is represented in
the flat part of the M-weighting
functions (which are derived from the
audiograms described above; see Figure
1 in Southall et al., 2007) developed for
each group. The functional groups and
the associated frequencies are indicated
below (though, again, animals are less
sensitive to sounds at the outer edge of
their functional range and most
sensitive to sounds of frequencies
within a smaller range somewhere in
the middle of their functional hearing
range):
• Low-frequency cetaceans (13
species of mysticetes): functional
hearing is estimated to occur between
approximately 7 Hz and 22 kHz;
• Mid-frequency cetaceans (32
species of dolphins, six species of larger
toothed whales, and 19 species of
beaked and bottlenose whales):
functional hearing is estimated to occur
between approximately 150 Hz and 160
kHz;
• High-frequency cetaceans (eight
species of true porpoises, six species of
river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana,
and four species of cephalorhynchids):
functional hearing is estimated to occur
between approximately 200 Hz and 180
kHz;
• Pinnipeds in water: functional
hearing is estimated to occur between
approximately 75 Hz and 75 kHz, with
the greatest sensitivity between
approximately 700 Hz and 20 kHz.
Because ears adapted to function
underwater are physiologically different
from human ears, comparisons using
decibel measurements in air would still
not be adequate to describe the effects
of a sound on a whale. When sound
travels (propagates) away from its
source, its loudness decreases as the
distance traveled by the sound
increases. Thus, the loudness of a sound
at its source is higher than the loudness
of that same sound a kilometer distant.
Acousticians often refer to the loudness
of a sound at its source (typically
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64525
measured one meter from the source) as
the source level and the loudness of
sound elsewhere as the received level.
For example, a humpback whale 3 km
from an airgun that has a source level
of 230 dB may only be exposed to sound
that is 160 dB loud, depending on how
the sound propagates (in this example,
it is spherical spreading). As a result, it
is important not to confuse source levels
and received levels when discussing the
loudness of sound in the ocean or its
impacts on the marine environment.
As sound travels from a source, its
propagation in water is influenced by
various physical characteristics,
including water temperature, depth,
salinity, and surface and bottom
properties that cause refraction,
reflection, absorption, and scattering of
sound waves. Oceans are not
homogeneous and the contribution of
each of these individual factors is
extremely complex and interrelated.
The physical characteristics that
determine the sound’s speed through
the water will change with depth,
season, geographic location, and with
time of day (as a result, in actual MFAS/
HFAS operations, crews will measure
oceanic conditions, such as sea water
temperature and depth, to calibrate
models that determine the path the
sonar signal will take as it travels
through the ocean and how strong the
sound signal will be at a given range
along a particular transmission path). As
sound travels through the ocean, the
intensity associated with the wavefront
diminishes, or attenuates. This decrease
in intensity is referred to as propagation
loss, also commonly called transmission
loss.
Metrics Used in This Document
This section includes a brief
explanation of the two sound
measurements (sound pressure level
(SPL) and sound exposure level (SEL))
frequently used in the discussions of
acoustic effects in this document.
SPL
Sound pressure is the sound force per
unit area, and is usually measured in
micropascals (μPa), where 1 Pa is the
pressure resulting from a force of one
newton exerted over an area of one
square meter. SPL is expressed as the
ratio of a measured sound pressure and
a reference level. The commonly used
reference pressure level in underwater
acoustics is 1 μPa, and the units for
SPLs are dB re: 1 μPa.
SPL (in dB) = 20 log (pressure/reference
pressure)
SPL is an instantaneous measurement
and can be expressed as the peak, the
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
64526
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
peak-peak, or the root mean square
(rms). Root mean square, which is the
square root of the arithmetic average of
the squared instantaneous pressure
values, is typically used in discussions
of the effects of sounds on vertebrates
and all references to SPL in this
document refer to the root mean square.
SPL does not take the duration of a
sound into account. SPL is the
applicable metric used in the risk
continuum, which is used to estimate
behavioral harassment takes (see Level
B Harassment Risk Function (Behavioral
Harassment) Section).
SEL
SEL is an energy metric that integrates
the squared instantaneous sound
pressure over a stated time interval. The
units for SEL are dB re: 1 μPa2-s.
SEL = SPL + 10log(duration in seconds)
As applied to MFAS/HFAS, the SEL
includes both the SPL of a sonar ping
and the total duration. Longer duration
pings and/or pings with higher SPLs
will have a higher SEL. If an animal is
exposed to multiple pings, the SEL in
each individual ping is summed to
calculate the total SEL. The total SEL
depends on the SPL, duration, and
number of pings received. The
thresholds that NMFS uses to indicate at
what received level the onset of
temporary threshold shift (TTS) and
permanent threshold shift (PTS) in
hearing are likely to occur are expressed
in SEL.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Potential Effects of Specified Activities
on Marine Mammals
The Navy has requested authorization
for the take of marine mammals that
may occur incidental to training
activities in the GoA TMAA utilizing
MFAS/HFAS or underwater
detonations. In addition to MFAS/HFAS
and underwater detonations, the Navy
has analyzed other potential impacts to
marine mammals from training
activities in the GoA TMAA DEIS,
including ship strike, aerial overflights,
ship noise and movement, and others,
and, in consultation with NMFS as a
cooperating agency for the GoA TMAA
DEIS, has determined that take of
marine mammals incidental to these
non-acoustic components of the GoA
TMAA is unlikely and, therefore, has
not requested authorization for take of
marine mammals that might occur
incidental to these non-acoustic
components. In this document, NMFS
analyzes the potential effects on marine
mammals from exposure to MFAS/
HFAS and underwater detonations, but
also includes some additional analysis
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
of the potential impacts from vessel
operations in the GoA TMAA.
For the purpose of MMPA
authorizations, NMFS’ effects
assessments serve four primary
purposes: (1) To help identify the
permissible methods of taking, or the
nature of the take (e.g., resulting from
anthropogenic noise vs. from ship
strike, etc.); the regulatory level of take
(i.e., mortality vs. Level A or Level B
harassment); and the amount of take; (2)
to inform the prescription of means of
effecting the least practicable adverse
impact on such species or stock and its
habitat (i.e., mitigation); (3) to support
the determination of whether the
specified activity will have a negligible
impact on the affected species or stocks
of marine mammals (based on the
likelihood that the activity will
adversely affect the species or stock
through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival); and (4) to
determine whether the specified activity
will have an unmitigable adverse impact
on the availability of the species or
stock(s) for subsistence uses.
More specifically, for activities
involving sonar or underwater
detonations, NMFS’ analysis will
identify the probability of lethal
responses, physical trauma, sensory
impairment (permanent and temporary
threshold shifts and acoustic masking),
physiological responses (particular
stress responses), behavioral
disturbance (that rises to the level of
harassment), and social responses that
would be classified as behavioral
harassment or injury and/or would be
likely to adversely affect the species or
stock through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival. In this section,
we will focus qualitatively on the
different ways that MFAS/HFAS and
underwater explosive detonations may
affect marine mammals (some of which
NMFS would not classify as
harassment). Then, in the Estimated
Take of Marine Mammals Section,
NMFS will relate the potential effects to
marine mammals from MFAS/HFAS
and underwater detonation of
explosives to the MMPA regulatory
definitions of Level A and Level B
Harassment and attempt to quantify
those effects.
Exposure to MFAS/HFAS
In the subsections below, the
following types of impacts are discussed
in more detail: Direct physiological
impacts, stress responses, acoustic
masking and impaired communication,
behavioral disturbance, and strandings.
An additional useful graphic tool for
better understanding the layered nature
of potential marine mammal responses
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
to anthropogenic sound is presented in
Figure 11 of NMFS’ June 28, 2010,
biological opinion for the Mariana
Islands Range Complex (available at:
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental.htm#applications). That
document presents a conceptual model
of the potential responses of endangered
and threatened species upon being
exposed to active sonar and the
pathways by which those responses
might affect the fitness of individual
animals that have been exposed, and the
resulting impact on the individual
animal’s ability to reproduce or survive.
Literature supporting the framework,
with examples drawn from many taxa
(both aquatic and terrestrial) was
included in the ‘‘Application of this
Approach’’ and ‘‘Response Analyses’’
sections of that document.
Direct Physiological Effects
Based on the literature, there are two
basic ways that MFAS/HFAS might
directly result in physical trauma or
damage: Noise-induced loss of hearing
sensitivity (more commonly called
‘‘threshold shift’’) and acoustically
mediated bubble growth. Separately, an
animal’s behavioral reaction to an
acoustic exposure might lead to
physiological effects that might
ultimately lead to injury or death, which
is discussed later in the Stranding
section.
Threshold Shift (Noise-Induced Loss of
Hearing)
When animals exhibit reduced
hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds must be
louder for an animal to recognize them)
following exposure to a sufficiently
intense sound, it is referred to as a
noise-induced threshold shift (TS). An
animal can experience temporary
threshold shift (TTS) or permanent
threshold shift (PTS). TTS can last from
minutes or hours to days (i.e., there is
recovery), occurs in specific frequency
ranges (i.e., an animal might only have
a temporary loss of hearing sensitivity
between the frequencies of 1 and 10
kHz), and can be of varying amounts
(e.g., an animal’s hearing sensitivity
might be reduced by only 6 dB or
reduced by 30 dB). PTS is permanent
(i.e., there is no recovery), but also
occurs in a specific frequency range and
amount as mentioned above for TTS.
The following physiological
mechanisms are thought to play a role
in inducing auditory TS: Effects to
sensory hair cells in the inner ear that
reduce their sensitivity, modification of
the chemical environment within the
sensory cells, residual muscular activity
in the middle ear, displacement of
certain inner ear membranes, increased
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
blood flow, and post-stimulatory
reduction in both efferent and sensory
neural output (Southall et al., 2007).
The amplitude, duration, frequency,
temporal pattern, and energy
distribution of sound exposure all affect
the amount of associated TS and the
frequency range in which it occurs. As
amplitude and duration of sound
exposure increase, so, generally, does
the amount of TS, along with the
recovery time. Human non-impulsive
noise exposure guidelines are based on
exposures of equal energy (the same
SEL) producing equal amounts of
hearing impairment regardless of how
the sound energy is distributed in time
(NIOSH, 1998). Until recently, previous
marine mammal TTS studies have also
generally supported this equal energy
relationship (Southall et al., 2007).
Three newer studies, two by Mooney et
al. (2009a, 2009b) on a single bottlenose
dolphin either exposed to playbacks of
Navy MFAS or octave-band noise (4–8
kHz) and one by Kastak et al. (2007) on
a single California sea lion exposed to
airborne octave-band noise (centered at
2.5 kHz), concluded that for all noise
exposure situations the equal energy
relationship may not be the best
indicator to predict TTS onset levels.
All three of these studies highlight the
inherent complexity of predicting TTS
onset in marine mammals, as well as the
importance of considering exposure
duration when assessing potential
impacts. Generally, with sound
exposures of equal energy, those that
were quieter (lower SPL) with longer
duration were found to induce TTS
onset more than those of louder (higher
SPL) and shorter duration (more similar
to MFAS). For intermittent sounds, less
TS will occur than from a continuous
exposure with the same energy (some
recovery will occur between
intermittent exposures) (Kryter et al.,
1966; Ward, 1997). For example, one
short but loud (higher SPL) sound
exposure may induce the same
impairment as one longer but softer
sound, which in turn may cause more
impairment than a series of several
intermittent softer sounds with the same
total energy (Ward, 1997). Additionally,
though TTS is temporary, very
prolonged exposure to sound strong
enough to elicit TTS, or shorter-term
exposure to sound levels well above the
TTS threshold, can cause PTS, at least
in terrestrial mammals (Kryter, 1985)
(although in the case of MFAS/HFAS,
animals are not expected to be exposed
to levels high enough or durations long
enough to result in PTS).
PTS is considered auditory injury
(Southall et al., 2007). Irreparable
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
damage to the inner or outer cochlear
hair cells may cause PTS; however,
other mechanisms are also involved,
such as exceeding the elastic limits of
certain tissues and membranes in the
middle and inner ears and resultant
changes in the chemical composition of
the inner ear fluids (Southall et al.,
2007).
Although the published body of
scientific literature contains numerous
theoretical studies and discussion
papers on hearing impairments that can
occur with exposure to a loud sound,
only a few studies provide empirical
information on the levels at which
noise-induced loss in hearing sensitivity
occurs in nonhuman animals. For
cetaceans, published data on the onset
of TTS are limited to the captive
bottlenose dolphin and beluga
(Finneran et al., 2000, 2002b, 2005a;
Schlundt et al., 2000; Nachtigall et al.,
2003, 2004). For pinnipeds in water,
data are limited to Kastak et al.’s
measurement of TTS in one harbor seal,
one elephant seal, and one California
sea lion.
Marine mammal hearing plays a
critical role in communication with
conspecifics and in interpretation of
environmental cues for purposes such
as predator avoidance and prey capture.
Depending on the degree (elevation of
threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery
time), and frequency range of TTS, and
the context in which it is experienced,
TTS can have effects on marine
mammals ranging from discountable to
serious (similar to those discussed in
auditory masking, below). For example,
a marine mammal may be able to readily
compensate for a brief, relatively small
amount of TTS in a non-critical
frequency range that takes place during
a time when the animal is traveling
through the open ocean, where ambient
noise is lower and there are not as many
competing sounds present.
Alternatively, a larger amount and
longer duration of TTS sustained during
a time when communication is critical
for successful mother/calf interactions
could have more serious impacts if it
were in the same frequency band as the
necessary vocalizations and of a severity
that it impeded communication. The
fact that animals exposed to levels and
durations of sound that would be
expected to result in this physiological
response would also be expected to
have behavioral responses of a
comparatively more severe or sustained
nature is also notable and potentially of
more importance than the simple
existence of a TTS.
Also, depending on the degree and
frequency range, the effects of PTS on
an animal could range in severity,
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64527
although it is considered generally more
serious than TTS because it is a
permanent condition. Of note, reduced
hearing sensitivity as a simple function
of development and aging has been
observed in marine mammals, as well as
humans and other taxa (Southall et al.,
2007), so we can infer that strategies
exist for coping with this condition to
some degree, though likely not without
cost. There is no empirical evidence that
exposure to MFAS/HFAS can cause PTS
in any marine mammals; instead, the
probability of PTS has been inferred
from studies of TTS (see Richardson et
al., 1995).
Acoustically Mediated Bubble Growth
One theoretical cause of injury to
marine mammals is rectified diffusion
(Crum and Mao, 1996), the process of
increasing the size of a bubble by
exposing it to a sound field. This
process could be facilitated if the
environment in which the ensonified
bubbles exist is supersaturated with gas.
Repetitive diving by marine mammals
can cause the blood and some tissues to
accumulate gas to a greater degree than
is supported by the surrounding
environmental pressure (Ridgway and
Howard, 1979). The deeper and longer
dives of some marine mammals (e.g.,
beaked whales) are theoretically
predicted to induce greater
supersaturation (Houser et al., 2001b),
although recent preliminary empirical
data suggests that there is no increase in
blood nitrogen levels or formation of
bubbles in diving bottlenose dolphins
(Houser, 2008). If rectified diffusion
were possible in marine mammals
exposed to high-level sound, conditions
of tissue supersaturation could
theoretically speed the rate and increase
the size of bubble growth. Subsequent
effects due to tissue trauma and emboli
would presumably mirror those
observed in humans suffering from
decompression sickness.
It is unlikely that the short duration
of MFAS pings would be long enough
to drive bubble growth to any
substantial size, if such a phenomenon
occurs. However, an alternative but
related hypothesis has also been
suggested; stable bubbles could be
destabilized by high-level sound
exposures such that bubble growth then
occurs through static diffusion of gas
out of the tissues. In such a scenario the
marine mammal would need to be in a
gas-supersaturated state for a long
enough period of time for bubbles to
become of a problematic size.
Yet another hypothesis
(decompression sickness) speculates
that rapid ascent to the surface
following exposure to a startling sound
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64528
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
might produce tissue gas saturation
sufficient for the evolution of nitrogen
bubbles (Jepson et al., 2003; Fernandez
et al., 2005). In this scenario, the rate of
ascent would need to be sufficiently
rapid to compromise behavioral or
physiological protections against
nitrogen bubble formation.
Alternatively, Tyack et al. (2006)
studied the deep diving behavior of
beaked whales and concluded that:
‘‘Using current models of breath-hold
diving, we infer that their natural diving
behavior is inconsistent with known
problems of acute nitrogen
supersaturation and embolism.’’
Collectively, these hypotheses can be
referred to as ‘‘hypotheses of
acoustically mediated bubble growth.’’
Although theoretical predictions
suggest the possibility for acoustically
mediated bubble growth, there is
considerable disagreement among
scientists as to its likelihood (Piantadosi
and Thalmann, 2004; Evans and Miller,
2003; Cox et al., 2006; Rommel et al.,
2006). Crum and Mao (1996)
hypothesized that received levels would
have to exceed 190 dB in order for there
to be the possibility of significant
bubble growth due to supersaturation of
gases in the blood (i.e., rectified
diffusion). More recent work conducted
by Crum et al. (2005) demonstrated the
possibility of rectified diffusion for
short duration signals, but at SELs and
tissue saturation levels that are highly
improbable to occur in diving marine
mammals. To date, energy levels (ELs)
predicted to cause in vivo bubble
formation within diving cetaceans have
not been evaluated (NOAA, 2002b).
Although it has been argued that
traumas from some recent beaked whale
strandings are consistent with gas
emboli and bubble-induced tissue
separations (Jepson et al., 2003), there is
no conclusive evidence of this (Rommel
et al., 2006). However, Jepson et al.
(2003, 2005) and Fernandez et al. (2004,
2005) concluded that in vivo bubble
formation, which may be exacerbated by
deep, long-duration, repetitive dives,
may explain why beaked whales appear
to be particularly vulnerable to MFAS/
HFAS exposures. Further investigation
is needed to further assess the potential
validity of these hypotheses. More
information regarding hypotheses that
attempt to explain how behavioral
responses to MFAS/HFAS can lead to
strandings is included in the
Behaviorally Mediated Bubble Growth
Section, after the summary of
strandings.
Acoustic Masking
Marine mammals use acoustic signals
for a variety of purposes, which differ
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
among species, but include
communication between individuals,
navigation, foraging, reproduction, and
learning about their environment (Erbe
and Farmer, 2000; Tyack, 2000).
Masking, or auditory interference,
generally occurs when sounds in the
environment are louder than, and of a
similar frequency as, auditory signals an
animal is trying to receive. Masking is
a phenomenon that affects animals that
are trying to receive acoustic
information about their environment,
including sounds from other members
of their species, predators, prey, and
sounds that allow them to orient in their
environment. Masking these acoustic
signals can disturb the behavior of
individual animals, groups of animals,
or entire populations.
The extent of the masking interference
depends on the spectral, temporal, and
spatial relationships between the signals
an animal is trying to receive and the
masking noise, in addition to other
factors. In humans, significant masking
of tonal signals occurs as a result of
exposure to noise in a narrow band of
similar frequencies. As the sound level
increases, the detection of frequencies
above those of the masking stimulus
decreases. This principle is expected to
apply to marine mammals as well
because of common biomechanical
cochlear properties across taxa.
Richardson et al. (1995b) argued that
the maximum radius of influence of an
industrial noise (including broadband
low-frequency sound transmission) on a
marine mammal is the distance from the
source to the point at which the noise
can barely be heard. This range is
determined by either the hearing
sensitivity of the animal or the
background noise level present.
Industrial masking is most likely to
affect some species’ ability to detect
communication calls and natural
sounds (i.e., surf noise, prey noise, etc.)
(Richardson et al., 1995).
The echolocation calls of toothed
whales are subject to masking by highfrequency sound. Human data indicate
that low-frequency sounds can mask
high-frequency sounds (i.e., upward
masking). Studies on captive
odontocetes by Au et al. (1974, 1985,
1993) indicate that some species may
use various processes to reduce masking
effects (e.g., adjustments in echolocation
call intensity or frequency as a function
of background noise conditions). There
is also evidence that the directional
hearing abilities of odontocetes are
useful in reducing masking at the higher
frequencies these cetaceans use to
echolocate, but not at the low-tomoderate frequencies they use to
communicate (Zaitseva et al., 1980). A
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
recent study by Nachtigall and Supin
(2008) showed that false killer whales
adjust their hearing to compensate for
ambient sounds and the intensity of
returning echolocation signals.
As mentioned previously, the
functional hearing ranges of
odontocetes, pinnipeds underwater, and
mysticetes all overlap with the
frequencies of the MFAS/HFAS sources
used in the Navy’s MFAS/HFAS
training exercises (although some
mysticetes’ best hearing capacities are
likely at frequencies somewhat lower
than MFAS). Additionally, in almost all
species, vocal repertoires span across
the frequencies of these MFAS/HFAS
sources used by the Navy. The closer
the characteristics of the masking signal
to the signal of interest, the more likely
masking is to occur. For hull-mounted
MFAS/HFAS, which accounts for the
largest takes of marine mammals
(because of the source strength and
number of hours it’s conducted), the
pulse length and duty cycle of the
MFAS/HFAS signal (∼ 1 second pulse
twice a minute) makes it less likely that
masking will occur as a result.
Impaired Communication
In addition to making it more difficult
for animals to perceive acoustic cues in
their environment, anthropogenic sound
presents separate challenges for animals
that are vocalizing. When they vocalize,
animals are aware of environmental
conditions that affect the ‘‘active space’’
of their vocalizations, which is the
maximum area within which their
vocalizations can be detected before
they drop to the level of ambient noise
(Brenowitz, 2004; Brumm et al., 2004;
Lohr et al., 2003). Animals are also
aware of environmental conditions that
affect whether listeners can discriminate
and recognize their vocalizations from
other sounds, which is more important
than simply detecting that a
vocalization is occurring (Brenowitz,
1982; Brumm et al., 2004; Dooling,
2004, Marten and Marler, 1977;
Patricelli et al., 2006). Most animals that
vocalize have evolved with an ability to
make adjustments to their vocalizations
to increase the signal-to-noise ratio,
active space, and recognizability/
distinguishability of their vocalizations
in the face of temporary changes in
background noise (Brumm et al., 2004;
Patricelli et al., 2006). Vocalizing
animals can make adjustments to
vocalization characteristics such as the
frequency structure, amplitude,
temporal structure and temporal
delivery.
Many animals will combine several of
these strategies to compensate for high
levels of background noise.
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Anthropogenic sounds that reduce the
signal-to-noise ratio of animal
vocalizations, increase the masked
auditory thresholds of animals listening
for such vocalizations, or reduce the
active space of an animal’s vocalizations
to impair communication between
animals. Most animals that vocalize
have evolved strategies to compensate
for the effects of short-term or temporary
increases in background or ambient
noise on their songs or calls. Although
the fitness consequences of these vocal
adjustments remain unknown, like most
other trade-offs animals must make,
some of these strategies probably come
at a cost (Patricelli et al., 2006). For
example, vocalizing more loudly in
noisy environments may have energetic
costs that decrease the net benefits of
vocal adjustment and alter a bird’s
energy budget (Brumm, 2004; Wood and
Yezerinac, 2006). Shifting songs and
calls to higher frequencies may also
impose energetic costs (Lambrechts,
1996).
Stress Responses
Classic stress responses begin when
an animal’s central nervous system
perceives a potential threat to its
homeostasis. That perception triggers
stress responses regardless of whether a
stimulus actually threatens the animal;
the mere perception of a threat is
sufficient to trigger a stress response
(Moberg, 2000; Sapolsky et al., 2005;
Seyle, 1950). Once an animal’s central
nervous system perceives a threat, it
mounts a biological response or defense
that consists of a combination of the
four general biological defense
responses: Behavioral responses,
autonomic nervous system responses,
neuroendocrine responses, or immune
responses.
In the case of many stressors, an
animal’s first and most economical (in
terms of biotic costs) response is
behavioral avoidance of the potential
stressor or avoidance of continued
exposure to a stressor. An animal’s
second line of defense to stressors
involves the sympathetic part of the
autonomic nervous system and the
classical ‘‘fight or flight’’ response which
includes the cardiovascular system, the
gastrointestinal system, the exocrine
glands, and the adrenal medulla to
produce changes in heart rate, blood
pressure, and gastrointestinal activity
that humans commonly associate with
‘‘stress.’’ These responses have a
relatively short duration and may or
may not have significant long-term
effect on an animal’s welfare.
An animal’s third line of defense to
stressors involves its neuroendocrine or
sympathetic nervous systems; the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
system that has received the most study
has been the hypothalmus-pituitaryadrenal system (also known as the HPA
axis in mammals or the hypothalamuspituitary-interrenal axis in fish and
some reptiles). Unlike stress responses
associated with the autonomic nervous
system, virtually all neuro-endocrine
functions that are affected by stress—
including immune competence,
reproduction, metabolism, and
behavior—are regulated by pituitary
hormones. Stress-induced changes in
the secretion of pituitary hormones have
been implicated in failed reproduction
(Moberg, 1987; Rivier, 1995), altered
metabolism (Elasser et al., 2000),
reduced immune competence (Blecha,
2000), and behavioral disturbance.
Increases in the circulation of
glucocorticosteroids (cortisol,
corticosterone, and aldosterone in
marine mammals; see Romano et al.,
2004) have been equated with stress for
many years.
The primary distinction between
stress (which is adaptive and does not
normally place an animal at risk) and
distress is the biotic cost of the
response. During a stress response, an
animal uses glycogen stores that can be
quickly replenished once the stress is
alleviated. In such circumstances, the
cost of the stress response would not
pose a risk to the animal’s welfare.
However, when an animal does not have
sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the
energetic costs of a stress response,
energy resources must be diverted from
other biotic functions, which impair
those functions that experience the
diversion. For example, when mounting
a stress response diverts energy away
from growth in young animals, those
animals may experience stunted growth.
When mounting a stress response
diverts energy from a fetus, an animal’s
reproductive success and fitness will
suffer. In these cases, the animals will
have entered a pre-pathological or
pathological state which is called
‘‘distress’’ (sensu Seyle, 1950) or
‘‘allostatic loading’’ (sensu McEwen and
Wingfield, 2003). This pathological state
will last until the animal replenishes its
biotic reserves sufficient to restore
normal function. Note that these
examples involved a long-term (days or
weeks) stress response exposure to
stimuli.
Relationships between these
physiological mechanisms, animal
behavior, and the costs of stress
responses have also been documented
fairly well through controlled
experiment; because this physiology
exists in every vertebrate that has been
studied, it is not surprising that stress
responses and their costs have been
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64529
documented in both laboratory and freeliving animals (for examples see,
Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998;
Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et al.,
2004; Lankford et al., 2005; Reneerkens
et al., 2002; Thompson and Hamer,
2000). Although no information has
been collected on the physiological
responses of marine mammals to
anthropogenic sound exposure, studies
of other marine animals and terrestrial
animals would lead us to expect some
marine mammals to experience
physiological stress responses and,
perhaps, physiological responses that
would be classified as ‘‘distress’’ upon
exposure to high-frequency and midfrequency sounds.
For example, Jansen (1998) reported
on the relationship between acoustic
exposures and physiological responses
that are indicative of stress responses in
humans (e.g., elevated respiration and
increased heart rates). Jones (1998)
reported on reductions in human
performance when faced with acute,
repetitive exposures to acoustic
disturbance. Trimper et al. (1998)
reported on the physiological stress
responses of osprey to low-level aircraft
noise while Krausman et al. (2004)
reported on the auditory and physiology
stress responses of endangered Sonoran
pronghorn to military overflights. Smith
et al. (2004a, 2004b) identified noiseinduced physiological transient stress
responses in hearing-specialist fish (i.e.,
goldfish) that accompanied short- and
long-term hearing losses. Welch and
Welch (1970) reported physiological
and behavioral stress responses that
accompanied damage to the inner ears
of fish and several mammals.
Hearing is one of the primary senses
marine mammals use to gather
information about their environment
and communicate with conspecifics.
Although empirical information on the
relationship between sensory
impairment (TTS, PTS, and acoustic
masking) on marine mammals remains
limited, it seems reasonable to assume
that reducing an animal’s ability to
gather information about its
environment and to communicate with
other members of its species would be
stressful for animals that use hearing as
their primary sensory mechanism.
Therefore, we assume that acoustic
exposures sufficient to trigger onset PTS
or TTS would be accompanied by
physiological stress responses because
terrestrial animals exhibit those
responses under similar conditions
(NRC, 2003). More importantly, marine
mammals might experience stress
responses at received levels lower than
those necessary to trigger onset TTS.
Based on empirical studies of the time
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
64530
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
required to recover from stress
responses (Moberg, 2000), NMFS also
assumes that stress responses could
persist beyond the time interval
required for animals to recover from
TTS and might result in pathological
and pre-pathological states that would
be as significant as behavioral responses
to TTS.
Behavioral Disturbance
Behavioral responses to sound are
highly variable and context-specific.
Many different variables can influence
an animal’s perception of and response
to (in both nature and magnitude) an
acoustic event. An animal’s prior
experience with a sound or sound
source affects whether it is less likely
(habituation) or more likely
(sensitization) to respond to certain
sounds in the future (animals can also
be innately pre-disposed to respond to
certain sounds in certain ways)
(Southall et al., 2007). Related to the
sound itself, the perceived nearness of
the sound, bearing of the sound
(approaching vs. retreating), similarity
of the sound to biologically relevant
sounds in the animal’s environment
(i.e., calls of predators, prey, or
conspecifics), and familiarity of the
sound may affect the way an animal
responds to the sound (Southall et al.,
2007). Individuals (of different age,
gender, reproductive status, etc.) among
most populations will have variable
hearing capabilities, and differing
behavioral sensitivities to sounds that
will be affected by prior conditioning,
experience, and current activities of
those individuals. Often, specific
acoustic features of the sound and
contextual variables (i.e., proximity,
duration, or recurrence of the sound or
the current behavior that the marine
mammal is engaged in or its prior
experience), as well as entirely separate
factors such as the physical presence of
a nearby vessel, may be more relevant
to the animal’s response than the
received level alone.
Exposure of marine mammals to
sound sources can result in, but is not
limited to, no response or any of the
following observable responses:
Increased alertness; orientation or
attraction to a sound source; vocal
modifications; cessation of feeding;
cessation of social interaction; alteration
of movement or diving behavior;
avoidance; habitat abandonment
(temporary or permanent); and, in
severe cases, panic, flight, stampede, or
stranding, potentially resulting in death
(Southall et al., 2007). A review of
marine mammal responses to
anthropogenic sound was first
conducted by Richardson (1995). A
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
more recent review (Nowacek et al.,
2007) addresses studies conducted since
1995 and focuses on observations where
the received sound level of the exposed
marine mammal(s) was known or could
be estimated. The following subsections
provide examples of behavioral
responses that provide an idea of the
variability in behavioral responses that
would be expected given the differential
sensitivities of marine mammal species
to sound and the wide range of potential
acoustic sources to which a marine
mammal may be exposed. Estimates of
the types of behavioral responses that
could occur for a given sound exposure
should be determined from the
literature that is available for each
species, or extrapolated from closely
related species when no information
exists.
Alteration of Diving or Movement—
Changes in dive behavior can vary
widely. They may consist of increased
or decreased dive times and surface
intervals as well as changes in the rates
of ascent and descent during a dive.
Variations in dive behavior may reflect
interruptions in biologically significant
activities (e.g., foraging) or they may be
of little biological significance.
Variations in dive behavior may also
expose an animal to potentially harmful
conditions (e.g., increasing the chance
of ship-strike) or may serve as an
avoidance response that enhances
survivorship. The impact of a variation
in diving resulting from an acoustic
exposure depends on what the animal is
doing at the time of the exposure and
the type and magnitude of the response.
Nowacek et al. (2004) reported
disruptions of dive behaviors in foraging
North Atlantic right whales when
exposed to an alerting stimulus, a
reaction, they noted, that could lead to
an increased likelihood of ship strike.
However, the whales did not respond to
playbacks of either right whale social
sounds or vessel noise, highlighting the
importance of the sound characteristics
in producing a behavioral reaction.
Conversely, Indo-Pacific humpback
dolphins have been observed to dive for
longer periods of time in areas where
vessels were present and/or
approaching (Ng and Leung, 2003). In
both of these studies, the influence of
the sound exposure cannot be
decoupled from the physical presence of
a surface vessel, thus complicating
interpretations of the relative
contribution of each stimulus to the
response. Indeed, the presence of
surface vessels, their approach, and the
speed of approach, all seemed to be
significant factors in the response of the
Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Ng
and Leung, 2003). Low-frequency
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
signals of the Acoustic Thermometry of
Ocean Climate (ATOC) sound source
were not found to affect dive times of
humpback whales in Hawaiian waters
(Frankel and Clark, 2000) or to overtly
affect elephant seal dives (Costa et al.,
2003). They did, however, produce
subtle effects that varied in direction
and degree among the individual seals,
illustrating the varied nature of
behavioral effects and consequent
difficulty in defining and predicting
them.
Foraging—Disruption of feeding
behavior can be difficult to correlate
with anthropogenic sound exposure, so
it is usually inferred by observed
displacement from known foraging
areas, the appearance of secondary
indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment
plumes), or changes in dive behavior.
Noise from seismic surveys was not
found to impact the feeding behavior of
western gray whales off the coast of
Russia (Yazvenko et al., 2007) and
sperm whales engaged in foraging dives
did not abandon dives when exposed to
distant signatures of seismic airguns
(Madsen et al., 2006). Balaenopterid
whales exposed to moderate SURTASS
LFA demonstrated no variation in
foraging activity (Croll et al., 2001),
whereas five out of six North Atlantic
right whales exposed to an acoustic
alarm interrupted their foraging dives
(Nowacek et al., 2004). Although the
received sound pressure level was
similar in the latter two studies, the
frequency, duration, and temporal
pattern of signal presentation were
different. These factors, as well as
differences in species sensitivity, are
likely contributing factors to the
differential response. A determination
of whether foraging disruptions incur
fitness consequences will require
information on or estimates of the
energetic requirements of the
individuals and the relationship
between prey availability, foraging effort
and success, and the life history stage of
the animal.
Brownell (2004) reported the
behavioral responses of western gray
whales off the northeast coast of
Sakhalin Island to sounds produced by
local seismic activities. In 1997, the gray
whales responded to seismic activities
by changing their swimming speed and
orientation, respiration rates, and
distribution in waters around the
seismic surveys. In 2001, seismic
activities were conducted in a known
foraging ground and the whales left the
area and moved farther south to the Sea
of Okhotsk. They only returned to the
foraging ground several days after the
seismic activities stopped. The potential
fitness consequences of displacing these
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
whales, especially mother-calf pairs and
‘‘skinny whales,’’ outside of their normal
feeding area are not known; however,
because gray whales, like other large
whales, must gain enough energy during
the summer foraging season to last them
the entire year, sounds or other stimuli
that cause them to abandon a foraging
area for several days could disrupt their
energetics and force them to make tradeoffs like delaying their migration south,
delaying reproduction, reducing growth,
or migrating with reduced energy
reserves.
Social Relationships—Social
interactions between mammals can be
affected by noise via the disruption of
communication signals or by the
displacement of individuals. Sperm
whales responded to military sonar,
apparently from a submarine, by
dispersing from social aggregations,
moving away from the sound source,
remaining relatively silent, and
becoming difficult to approach (Watkins
et al., 1985). In contrast, sperm whales
in the Mediterranean that were exposed
to submarine sonar continued calling (J.
Gordon pers. comm. cited in Richardson
et al., 1995). Social disruptions must be
considered, however, in context of the
relationships that are affected. While
some disruptions may not have
deleterious effects, long-term or
repeated disruptions of mother/calf
pairs or interruption of mating
behaviors have the potential to affect the
growth and survival or reproductive
effort/success of individuals,
respectively.
Vocalizations (also see Masking
Section)—Vocal changes in response to
anthropogenic noise can occur across
the repertoire of sound production
modes used by marine mammals, such
as whistling, echolocation click
production, calling, and singing.
Changes may result in response to a
need to compete with an increase in
background noise or may reflect an
increased vigilance or startle response.
For example, in the presence of lowfrequency active sonar, humpback
whales have been observed to increase
the length of their ’’songs’’ (Miller et al.,
2000; Fristrup et al., 2003), possibly due
to the overlap in frequencies between
the whale song and the low-frequency
active sonar. A similar compensatory
effect for the presence of low-frequency
vessel noise has been suggested for right
whales; right whales have been
observed to shift the frequency content
of their calls upward while reducing the
rate of calling in areas of increased
anthropogenic noise (Parks et al., 2007).
Killer whales off the northwestern coast
of the United States have been observed
to increase the duration of primary calls
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
once a threshold in observing vessel
density (e.g., whale watching) was
reached, which has been suggested as a
response to increased masking noise
produced by the vessels (Foote et al.,
2004). In contrast, both sperm and pilot
whales potentially ceased sound
production during the Heard Island
feasibility test (Bowles et al., 1994),
although it cannot be absolutely
determined whether the inability to
acoustically detect the animals was due
to the cessation of sound production or
the displacement of animals from the
area.
Avoidance—Avoidance is the
displacement of an individual from an
area as a result of the presence of a
sound. Richardson et al. (1995) noted
that avoidance reactions are the most
obvious manifestations of disturbance in
marine mammals. Avoidance is
qualitatively different from the flight
response, but also differs in the
magnitude of the response (i.e., directed
movement, rate of travel, etc.).
Oftentimes, avoidance is temporary and
animals return to the area once the noise
has ceased. However, longer term
displacement is possible and can lead to
changes in abundance or distribution
patterns of the species in the affected
region if animals do not become
acclimated to the presence of the
chronic sound (Blackwell et al., 2004;
Bejder et al., 2006; Teilmann et al.,
2006). Acute avoidance responses have
been observed in captive porpoises and
pinnipeds exposed to a number of
different sound sources (Kastelein et al.,
2001; Finneran et al., 2003; Kastelein et
al., 2006a; Kastelein et al., 2006b).
Short-term avoidance of seismic
surveys, low-frequency emissions, and
acoustic deterrents have also been noted
in wild populations of odontocetes
(Bowles et al., 1994; Goold, 1996, 1998;
Stone et al., 2000; Morton and
Symonds, 2002) and to some extent in
mysticetes (Gailey et al., 2007), while
long-term or repetitive/chronic
displacement for some dolphin groups
and for manatees has been suggested to
result from the presence of chronic
vessel noise (Haviland-Howell et al.,
2007; Miksis-Olds et al., 2007).
Maybaum (1993) conducted sound
playback experiments to assess the
effects of mid-frequency active sonar on
humpback whales in Hawaiian waters.
Specifically, she exposed focal pods to
sounds of a 3.3-kHz sonar pulse, a sonar
frequency sweep from 3.1 to 3.6 kHz,
and a control (blank) tape while
monitoring the behavior, movement,
and underwater vocalizations. The two
types of sonar signals (which both
contained both mid- and low-frequency
components) differed in their effects on
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64531
the humpback whales, but both resulted
in avoidance behavior. The whales
responded to the pulse by increasing
their distance from the sound source
and responded to the frequency sweep
by increasing their swimming speeds
and track linearity. In the Caribbean,
sperm whales avoided exposure to midfrequency submarine sonar pulses, in
the range of 1000 Hz to 10,000 Hz (IWC
2005).
Kvadsheim et al., (2007) conducted a
controlled exposure experiment in
which killer whales (Orcinus orca)
fitted with D-tags were exposed to midfrequency active sonar (Source A: a 1.0
s upsweep 209 dB @ 1–2 kHz every 10
seconds for 10 minutes; Source B: with
a 1.0 s upsweep 197 dB @ 6–7 kHz every
10 s for 10 min). When exposed to
Source A, a tagged whale and the group
it was traveling with did not appear to
avoid the source. When exposed to
Source B, the tagged whales along with
other whales that had been carousel
feeding, ceased feeding during the
approach of the sonar and moved
rapidly away from the source. When
exposed to Source B, Kvadsheim and
his co-workers reported that a tagged
killer whale seemed to try to avoid
further exposure to the sound field by
the following behaviors: immediately
swimming away (horizontally) from the
source of the sound; engaging in a series
of erratic and frequently deep dives that
seemed to take it below the sound field;
or swimming away while engaged in a
series of erratic and frequently deep
dives. Although the sample sizes in this
study are too small to support statistical
analysis, the behavioral responses of the
orcas were consistent with the results of
other studies.
In 2007, the first in a series of
behavioral response studies conducted
by NMFS and other scientists showed
one beaked whale (Mesoplodon
densirostris) responding to an MFAS
playback. The BRS–07 cruise report
indicates that the playback began when
the tagged beaked whale was vocalizing
at depth (at the deepest part of a typical
feeding dive), following a previous
control with no sound exposure. The
whale appeared to stop clicking
significantly earlier than usual, when
exposed to mid-frequency signals in the
130–140 dB (rms) received level range.
After a few more minutes of the
playback, when the received level
reached a maximum of 140–150 dB, the
whale ascended on the slow side of
normal ascent rates with a longer than
normal ascent, at which point the
exposure was terminated. The BRS–07
cruise report notes that the results are
from a single experiment and that a
greater sample size is needed before
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64532
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
robust and definitive conclusions can be
drawn (NMFS, 2008a).
The preliminary BRS–08 cruise report
has been published. Although the
extensive data sets emerging from this
study will require detailed analysis,
researchers have identified an emerging
pattern of responses. For example,
Blainville’s beaked whales—a resident
species within the study area—appear to
be sensitive to noise at levels well below
expected TTS (∼160 dB re1μPa). This
sensitivity is manifest by an adaptive
movement away from a sound source.
This response was observed irrespective
of whether the signal transmitted was
within the band width of MFAS, which
suggests that beaked whales may not
respond to the specific sound
signatures. Instead, they may be
sensitive to any pulsed sound from a
point source in this frequency range.
The response to such stimuli appears to
involve maximizing the distance from
the sound source (NMFS, 2008b).
Flight Response—A flight response is
a dramatic change in normal movement
to a directed and rapid movement away
from the perceived location of a sound
source. Relatively little information on
flight responses of marine mammals to
anthropogenic signals exist, although
observations of flight responses to the
presences of predators have occurred
(Connor and Heithaus, 1996). Flight
responses have been speculated as being
a component of marine mammal
strandings associated with MFAS
activities (Evans and England, 2001). If
marine mammals respond to Navy
vessels that are transmitting active sonar
in the same way that they might
respond to a predator, their probability
of flight responses should increase
when they perceive that Navy vessels
are approaching them directly, because
a direct approach may convey detection
and intent to capture (Burger and
Gochfeld, 1981, 1990; Cooper, 1997,
1998). The probability of avoidance and
flight responses should also increase as
received levels of active sonar increase
(and the ship is, therefore, closer) and
as ship speeds increase (that is, as
approach speeds increase). For example,
the probability of flight responses in
Dall’s sheep Ovis dalli dalli (Frid 2001a,
2001b), ringed seals Phoca hispida
(Born et al., 1999), Pacific brant (Branta
bernicl nigricans), and Canada geese (B.
Canadensis) increased as a helicopter or
fixed-wing aircraft more directly
approached groups of these animals
(Ward et al., 1999). Bald eagles
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) perched on
trees alongside a river were also more
likely to flee from a paddle raft when
their perches were closer to the river or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
were closer to the ground (Steidl and
Anthony, 1996).
Breathing—Variations in respiration
naturally occur with different behaviors.
Variations in respiration rate as a
function of acoustic exposure can cooccur with other behavioral reactions,
such as a flight response or an alteration
in diving. However, respiration rates in
and of themselves may be representative
of annoyance or an acute stress
response. Mean exhalation rates of gray
whales at rest and while diving were
found to be unaffected by seismic
surveys conducted adjacent to foraging
grounds (Gailey et al., 2007). Studies
with captive harbor porpoises showed
increased respiration rates upon
introduction of acoustic alarms
(Kastelein et al., 2001; Kastelein et al.,
2006a) and emissions for underwater
data transmission (Kastelein et al.,
2005). However, exposing the same
acoustic alarm to a striped dolphin
under the same conditions did not elicit
a response (Kastelein et al., 2006a),
again highlighting the importance of
understanding species differences in the
tolerance of underwater noise when
determining the potential for impacts
resulting from anthropogenic sound
exposure.
Continued Pre-disturbance Behavior
and Habituation—Under some
circumstances, some of the individual
marine mammals that are exposed to
active sonar transmissions will continue
their normal behavioral activities; in
other circumstances, individual animals
will respond to sonar transmissions at
lower received levels and move to avoid
additional exposure or exposures at
higher received levels (Richardson et
al., 1995).
It is difficult to distinguish between
animals that continue their predisturbance behavior without stress
responses, animals that continue their
behavior but experience stress responses
(that is, animals that cope with
disturbance), and animals that habituate
to disturbance (that is, they may have
experienced low-level stress responses
initially, but those responses abated
over time). Watkins (1986) reviewed
data on the behavioral reactions of fin,
humpback, right and minke whales that
were exposed to continuous, broadband
low-frequency shipping and industrial
noise in Cape Cod Bay. He concluded
that underwater sound was the primary
cause of behavioral reactions in these
species of whales and that the whales
responded behaviorally to acoustic
stimuli within their respective hearing
ranges. Watkins also noted that whales
showed the strongest behavioral
reactions to sounds in the 15 Hz to 28
kHz range, although negative reactions
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(avoidance, interruptions in
vocalizations, etc.) were generally
associated with sounds that were either
unexpected, too loud, suddenly louder
or different, or perceived as being
associated with a potential threat (such
as an approaching ship on a collision
course). In particular, whales seemed to
react negatively when they were within
100 m of the source or when received
levels increased suddenly in excess of
12 dB relative to ambient sounds. At
other times, the whales ignored the
source of the signal and all four species
habituated to these sounds.
Nevertheless, Watkins concluded that
whales ignored most sounds in the
background of ambient noise, including
sounds from distant human activities
even though these sounds may have had
considerable energies at frequencies
well within the whales’ range of
hearing. Further, he noted that of the
whales observed, fin whales were the
most sensitive of the four species,
followed by humpback whales; right
whales were the least likely to be
disturbed and generally did not react to
low-amplitude engine noise. By the end
of his period of study, Watkins (1986)
concluded that fin and humpback
whales have generally habituated to the
continuous and broad-band noise of
Cape Cod Bay while right whales did
not appear to change their response. As
mentioned above, animals that habituate
to a particular disturbance may have
experienced low-level stress responses
initially, but those responses abated
over time. In most cases, this likely
means a lessened immediate potential
effect from a disturbance; however,
concern exists where the habituation
occurs in a potentially more harmful
situation, for example: animals may
become more vulnerable to vessel
strikes once they habituate to vessel
traffic (Swingle et al., 1993; Wiley et al.,
1995).
Aicken et al., (2005) monitored the
behavioral responses of marine
mammals to a new low-frequency active
sonar system that was being developed
for use by the British Navy. During
those trials, fin whales, sperm whales,
Sowerby’s beaked whales, long-finned
pilot whales (Globicephala melas),
Atlantic white-sided dolphins, and
common bottlenose dolphins were
observed and their vocalizations were
recorded. These monitoring studies
detected no evidence of behavioral
responses that the investigators could
attribute to exposure to the lowfrequency active sonar during these
trials.
Behavioral Responses—Southall et al.
(2007) reports the results of the efforts
of a panel of experts in acoustic research
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
from behavioral, physiological, and
physical disciplines that convened and
reviewed the available literature on
marine mammal hearing and
physiological and behavioral responses
to human-made sound with the goal of
proposing exposure criteria for certain
effects. This peer-reviewed compilation
of literature is very valuable, though
Southall et al. (2007) note that not all
data are equal, some have poor
statistical power, insufficient controls,
and/or limited information on received
levels, background noise, and other
potentially important contextual
variables. Such data were reviewed and
sometimes used for qualitative
illustration, but were not included in
the quantitative analysis for the criteria
recommendations. All of the studies
considered, however, contain an
estimate of the received sound level
when the animal exhibited the indicated
response.
In the Southall et al. (2007)
publication, for the purposes of
analyzing responses of marine mammals
to anthropogenic sound and developing
criteria, the authors differentiate
between single pulse sounds, multiple
pulse sounds, and non-pulse sounds.
MFAS/HFAS is considered a non-pulse
sound. Southall et al. (2007) summarize
the studies associated with lowfrequency, mid-frequency, and highfrequency cetacean and pinniped
responses to non-pulse sounds, based
strictly on received level, in Appendix
C of their article (incorporated by
reference and summarized in the three
paragraphs below).
The studies that address responses of
low-frequency cetaceans to non-pulse
sounds include data gathered in the
field and related to several types of
sound sources (of varying similarity to
MFAS/HFAS), including: Vessel noise,
drilling and machinery playback, lowfrequency M-sequences (sine wave with
multiple phase reversals) playback,
tactical low-frequency active sonar
playback, drill ships, Acoustic
Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC)
source, and non-pulse playbacks. These
studies generally indicate no (or very
limited) responses to received levels in
the 90 to 120 dB re: 1 μPa range and an
increasing likelihood of avoidance and
other behavioral effects in the 120 to
160 dB range. As mentioned earlier,
though, contextual variables play a very
important role in the reported responses
and the severity of effects are not linear
when compared to received level. Also,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:42 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
few of the laboratory or field datasets
had common conditions, behavioral
contexts, or sound sources, so it is not
surprising that responses differ.
The studies that address responses of
mid-frequency cetaceans to non-pulse
sounds include data gathered both in
the field and the laboratory and related
to several different sound sources (of
varying similarity to MFAS/HFAS)
including: Pingers, drilling playbacks,
ship and ice-breaking noise, vessel
noise, Acoustic Harassment Devices
(AHDs), Acoustic Deterrent Devices
(ADDs), MFAS, and non-pulse bands
and tones. Southall et al. (2007) were
unable to come to a clear conclusion
regarding the results of these studies. In
some cases, animals in the field showed
significant responses to received levels
between 90 and 120 dB, while in other
cases these responses were not seen in
the 120 to 150 dB range. The disparity
in results was likely due to contextual
variation and the differences between
the results in the field and laboratory
data (animals typically responded at
lower levels in the field).
The studies that address responses of
high-frequency cetaceans to non-pulse
sounds include data gathered both in
the field and the laboratory and related
to several different sound sources (of
varying similarity to MFAS/HFAS),
including: Pingers, AHDs, and various
laboratory non-pulse sounds. All of
these data were collected from harbor
porpoises. Southall et al. (2007)
concluded that the existing data
indicate that harbor porpoises are likely
sensitive to a wide range of
anthropogenic sounds at low received
levels (~90–120 dB), at least for initial
exposures. All recorded exposures
above 140 dB induced profound and
sustained avoidance behavior in wild
harbor porpoises (Southall et al., 2007).
Rapid habituation was noted in some
but not all studies. There is no data to
indicate whether other high-frequency
cetaceans are as sensitive to
anthropogenic sound as harbor
porpoises.
The studies that address the responses
of pinnipeds in water to non-pulse
sounds include data gathered both in
the field and the laboratory and related
to several different sound sources (of
varying similarity to MFAS/HFAS),
including: AHDs, ATOC, various nonpulse sounds used in underwater data
communication, underwater drilling,
and construction noise. Few studies
exist with enough information to
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64533
include them in the analysis. The
limited data suggest that exposures to
non-pulse sounds between 90 and 140
dB generally do not result in strong
behavioral responses of pinnipeds in
water, but no data exist at higher
received levels.
In addition to summarizing the
available data, the authors of Southall et
al. (2007) developed a severity scaling
system with the intent of ultimately
being able to assign some level of
biological significance to a response.
Following is a summary of their scoring
system (a comprehensive list of the
behaviors associated with each score
may be found in the report):
• 0–3 (Minor and/or brief behaviors)
includes, but is not limited to: No
response; minor changes in speed or
locomotion (but with no avoidance);
individual alert behavior; minor
cessation in vocal behavior; minor
changes in response to trained behaviors
(in laboratory)
• 4–6 (Behaviors with higher
potential to affect foraging,
reproduction, or survival) includes, but
is not limited to: Moderate changes in
speed, direction, or dive profile; brief
shift in group distribution; prolonged
cessation or modification of vocal
behavior (duration > duration of sound);
minor or moderate individual and/or
group avoidance of sound; brief
cessation of reproductive behavior; or
refusal to initiate trained tasks (in
laboratory)
• 7–9 (Behaviors considered likely to
affect the aforementioned vital rates)
includes, but is not limited to: Extensive
or prolonged aggressive behavior;
moderate, prolonged, or significant
separation of females and dependent
offspring with disruption of acoustic
reunion mechanisms; long-term
avoidance of an area; outright panic,
stampede, stranding; threatening or
attacking sound source (in laboratory)
In Table 6 we have summarized the
scores that Southall et al. (2007)
assigned to the papers that reported
behavioral responses of low-frequency
cetaceans, mid-frequency cetaceans, and
pinnipeds in water to non-pulse sounds.
This table is included simply to
summarize the findings of the studies
and opportunistic observations (all of
which were capable of estimating
received level) that Southall et al. (2007)
compiled in an effort to develop
acoustic criteria.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Potential Effects of Behavioral
Disturbance
The different ways that marine
mammals respond to sound are
sometimes indicators of the ultimate
effect that exposure to a given stimulus
will have on the well-being (survival,
reproduction, etc.) of an animal. There
are few quantitative marine mammal
data relating the exposure of marine
mammals to sound to effects on
reproduction or survival, though data
exist for terrestrial species to which we
can draw comparisons for marine
mammals. Several authors have
reported that disturbance stimuli cause
animals to abandon nesting and foraging
sites (Sutherland and Crockford, 1993),
cause animals to increase their activity
levels and suffer premature deaths or
reduced reproductive success when
their energy expenditures exceed their
energy budgets (Daan et al., 1996; Feare
1976; Giese 1996; Mullner et al., 2004;
Waunters et al., 1997), or cause animals
to experience higher predation rates
when they adopt risk-prone foraging or
migratory strategies (Frid and Dill,
2002). Each of these studies addressed
the consequences of animals shifting
from one behavioral state (e.g., resting or
foraging) to another behavioral state
(e.g., avoidance or escape behavior)
because of human disturbance or
disturbance stimuli.
One consequence of behavioral
avoidance results from the changes in
energetics of marine mammals because
of the energy required to avoid surface
vessels or the sound field associated
with active sonar (Frid and Dill, 2002).
Most animals can avoid that energetic
cost by swimming away at slow speeds
or speeds that minimize the cost of
transport (Miksis-Olds, 2006), as has
been demonstrated in Florida manatees
(Hartman, 1979; Miksis-Olds, 2006).
Those costs increase, however, when
animals shift from a resting state, which
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
is designed to conserve an animal’s
energy, to an active state that consumes
energy the animal would have
conserved had it not been disturbed.
Marine mammals that have been
disturbed by anthropogenic noise and
vessel approaches are commonly
reported to shift from resting behavioral
states to active behavioral states, which
would imply that they incur an energy
cost. Morete et al., (2007) reported that
undisturbed humpback whale cows that
were accompanied by their calves were
frequently observed resting while their
calves circled them (milling). When
vessels approached, the amount of time
cows and calves spent resting and
milling declined significantly,
respectively. These results are similar to
those reported by Scheidat et al. (2004)
for the humpback whales they observed
off the coast of Ecuador.
Constantine and Brunton (2001)
reported that bottlenose dolphins in the
Bay of Islands, New Zealand only
engaged in resting behavior 5 percent of
the time when vessels were within 300
m compared with 83 percent of the time
when vessels were not present. MiksisOlds (2006) and Miksis-Olds et al.
(2005) reported that Florida manatees in
Sarasota Bay, Florida, reduced the
amount of time they spent milling and
increased the amount of time they spent
feeding when background noise levels
increased. Although the acute costs of
these changes in behavior are not likely
to exceed an animal’s ability to
compensate, the chronic costs of these
behavioral shifts are uncertain.
Attention is the cognitive process of
selectively concentrating on one aspect
of an animal’s environment while
ignoring other things (Posner, 1994).
Because animals (including humans)
have limited cognitive resources, there
is a limit to how much sensory
information they can process at any
time. The phenomenon called
‘‘attentional capture’’ occurs when a
stimulus (usually a stimulus that an
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
animal is not concentrating on or
attending to) ‘‘captures’’ an animal’s
attention. This shift in attention can
occur consciously or unconsciously
(e.g., when an animal hears sounds that
it associates with the approach of a
predator) and the shift in attention can
be sudden (Dukas, 2002; van Rij, 2007).
Once a stimulus has captured an
animal’s attention, the animal can
respond by ignoring the stimulus,
assuming a ‘‘watch and wait’’ posture, or
treating the stimulus as a disturbance
and responding accordingly, which
includes scanning for the source of the
stimulus or ‘‘vigilance’’ (Cowlishaw et
al., 2004).
Vigilance is normally an adaptive
behavior that helps animals determine
the presence or absence of predators,
assess their distance from conspecifics,
or attend to cues from prey (Bednekoff
and Lima, 1998; Treves, 2000). Despite
those benefits, however, vigilance has a
cost of time; when animals focus their
attention on specific environmental
cues, they are not attending to other
activities, such a foraging. These costs
have been documented best in foraging
animals, where vigilance has been
shown to substantially reduce feeding
rates (Saino, 1994; Beauchamp and
Livoreil, 1997; Fritz et al., 2002).
Animals will spend more time being
vigilant, which may translate to less
time foraging or resting, when
disturbance stimuli approach them
more directly, remain at closer
distances, have a greater group size (e.g.,
multiple surface vessels), or when they
co-occur with times that an animal
perceives increased risk (e.g., when they
are giving birth or accompanied by a
calf). Most of the published literature,
however, suggests that direct
approaches will increase the amount of
time animals will dedicate to being
vigilant. For example, bighorn sheep
and Dall’s sheep dedicated more time to
being vigilant, and less time resting or
foraging, when aircraft made direct
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
EP19OC10.010
64534
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
approaches over them (Frid, 2001;
Stockwell et al., 1991).
Several authors have established that
long-term and intense disturbance
stimuli can cause population declines
by reducing the physical condition of
individuals that have been disturbed,
followed by reduced reproductive
success, reduced survival, or both (Daan
et al., 1996; Madsen, 1994; White,
1983). For example, Madsen (1994)
reported that pink-footed geese (Anser
brachyrhynchus) in undisturbed habitat
gained body mass and had about a 46
percent reproductive success rate
compared with geese in disturbed
habitat (being consistently scared off the
fields on which they were foraging)
which did not gain mass and had a 17
percent reproductive success rate.
Similar reductions in reproductive
success have been reported for mule
deer (Odocoileus hemionus) disturbed
by all-terrain vehicles (Yarmoloy et al.,
1988), caribou disturbed by seismic
exploration blasts (Bradshaw et al.,
1998), and caribou disturbed by lowelevation military jet flights (Luick et
al., 1996; Harrington and Veitch, 1992).
Similarly, a study of elk (Cervus
elaphus) that were disturbed
experimentally by pedestrians
concluded that the ratio of young to
mothers was inversely related to
disturbance rate (Phillips and
Alldredge, 2000).
The primary mechanism by which
increased vigilance and disturbance
appear to affect the fitness of individual
animals is by disrupting an animal’s
time budget and, as a result, reducing
the time they might spend foraging and
resting (which increases an animal’s
activity rate and energy demand). For
example, a study of grizzly bears (Ursus
horribilis) reported that bears disturbed
by hikers reduced their energy intake by
an average of 12 kcal/min (50.2 × 103 kJ/
min), and spent energy fleeing or acting
aggressively toward hikers (White et al.,
1999). Alternately, Ridgway et al.
(2006), reported that increased vigilance
in bottlenose dolphins exposed to sound
over a five-day period did not cause any
sleep deprivation or stress effects such
as changes in cortisol or epinephrine
levels.
On a related note, many animals
perform vital functions, such as feeding,
resting, traveling, and socializing, on a
diel cycle (24-hr cycle). Behavioral
reactions to noise exposure (such as
disruption of critical life functions,
displacement, or avoidance of important
habitat) are more likely to be significant
if they last more than one diel cycle or
recur on subsequent days (Southall et
al., 2007). Consequently, a behavioral
response lasting less than one day and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
not recurring on subsequent days is not
considered particularly severe unless it
could directly affect reproduction or
survival (Southall et al., 2007).
Stranding and Mortality
When a live or dead marine mammal
swims or floats onto shore and becomes
‘‘beached’’ or incapable of returning to
sea, the event is termed a ‘‘stranding’’
(Geraci et al., 1999; Perrin and Geraci,
2002; Geraci and Lounsbury, 2005;
NMFS, 2007). The legal definition for a
stranding within the United States is
that ‘‘(A) a marine mammal is dead and
is (i) on a beach or shore of the United
States; or (ii) in waters under the
jurisdiction of the United States
(including any navigable waters); or (B)
a marine mammal is alive and is (i) on
a beach or shore of the United States
and is unable to return to the water; (ii)
on a beach or shore of the United States
and, although able to return to the
water, is in need of apparent medical
attention; or (iii) in the waters under the
jurisdiction of the United States
(including any navigable waters), but is
unable to return to its natural habitat
under its own power or without
assistance’’ (16 U.S.C. 1421h).
Marine mammals are known to strand
for a variety of reasons, such as
infectious agents, biotoxicosis,
starvation, fishery interaction, ship
strike, unusual oceanographic or
weather events, sound exposure, or
combinations of these stressors
sustained concurrently or in series.
However, the cause or causes of most
strandings are unknown (Geraci et al.,
1976; Eaton, 1979; Odell et al., 1980;
Best, 1982). Numerous studies suggest
that the physiology, behavior, habitat
relationships, age, or condition of
cetaceans may cause them to strand or
might pre-dispose them to strand when
exposed to another phenomenon. These
suggestions are consistent with the
conclusions of numerous other studies
that have demonstrated that
combinations of dissimilar stressors
commonly combine to kill an animal or
dramatically reduce its fitness, even
though one exposure without the other
does not produce the same result
(Chroussos, 2000; Creel, 2005; DeVries
et al., 2003; Fair and Becker, 2000; Foley
et al., 2001; Moberg, 2000; Relyea,
2005a, 2005b; Romero, 2004; Sih et al.,
2004).
Several sources have published lists
of mass stranding events of cetaceans in
an attempt to identify relationships
between those stranding events and
military active sonar (Hildebrand, 2004;
IWC, 2005; Taylor et al., 2004). For
example, based on a review of stranding
records between 1960 and 1995, the
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64535
International Whaling Commission
(2005) identified ten mass stranding
events of Cuvier’s beaked whales that
had been reported and one mass
stranding of four Baird’s beaked whale
(Berardius bairdii). The IWC concluded
that, out of eight stranding events
reported from the mid-1980s to the
summer of 2003, seven had been
coincident with the use of MFAS, one
had been associated with the use of
tactical low-frequency sonar, and the
remaining stranding event had been
associated with the use of seismic
airguns.
Most of the stranding events reviewed
by the IWC involved beaked whales. A
mass stranding of Cuvier’s beaked
whales in the eastern Mediterranean Sea
occurred in 1996 (Franzis, 1998) and
mass stranding events involving
Gervais’ beaked whales, Blainville’s
beaked whales, and Cuvier’s beaked
whales occurred off the coast of the
Canary Islands in the late 1980s
(Simmonds and Lopez-Jurado, 1991).
The stranding events that occurred in
the Canary Islands and Kyparissiakos
Gulf in the late 1990s and the Bahamas
in 2000 have been the most intensivelystudied mass stranding events and have
been associated with naval exercises
involving the use of MFAS.
Strandings Associated With MFAS
Over the past 12 years, there have
been five stranding events coincident
with military mid-frequency active
sonar use in which exposure to sonar is
believed by NMFS and the Navy to have
been a contributing factor: Greece
(1996); the Bahamas (2000); Madeira
(2000); Canary Islands (2002); and Spain
(2006). Additionally, in 2004, during the
2008 Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC)
exercises, between 150 and 200 usually
pelagic melon-headed whales occupied
the shallow waters of the Hanalei Bay,
Kaua’i, Hawaii for over 28 hours. NMFS
determined that the mid-frequency
sonar was a plausible, if not likely,
contributing factor in what may have
been a confluence of events that led to
the Hanalei Bay stranding. A number of
other stranding events coincident with
the operation of MFAS including the
death of beaked whales or other species
(minke whales, dwarf sperm whales,
pilot whales) have been reported;
however, the majority have not been
investigated to the degree necessary to
determine the cause of the stranding
and only one of these exercises was
conducted by the U.S. Navy.
Greece (1996)
Twelve Cuvier’s beaked whales
stranded atypically (in both time and
space) along a 38.2-km strand of the
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64536
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
coast of the Kyparissiakos Gulf on May
12 and 13, 1996 (Frantzis, 1998). From
May 11 through May 15, the NATO
research vessel, Alliance, was
conducting active sonar tests with
signals of 600 Hz and 3 kHz and source
levels of 228 and 226 dB re: 1μPa,
respectively (D’Amico and Verboom,
1998; D’Spain et al., 2006). The timing
and location of the testing encompassed
the time and location of the whale
strandings (Frantzis, 1998).
Necropsies of eight of the animals
were performed but were limited to
basic external examination and
sampling of stomach contents, blood,
and skin. No ears or organs were
collected, and no histological samples
were preserved. No apparent
abnormalities or wounds were found
(Frantzis, 2004). Examination of photos
of the animals, taken soon after their
death, revealed that the eyes of at least
four of the individuals were bleeding.
Photos were taken soon after their death
(Frantzis, 2004). Stomach contents
contained the flesh of cephalopods,
indicating that feeding had recently
taken place (Frantzis, 1998).
All available information regarding
the conditions associated with this
stranding event were compiled, and
many potential causes were examined,
including major pollution events,
prominent tectonic activity, unusual
physical or meteorological events,
magnetic anomalies, epizootics, and
conventional military activities
(International Council for the
Exploration of the Sea, 2005a).
However, none of these potential causes
coincided in time or space with the
mass stranding, or could explain its
characteristics (International Council for
the Exploration of the Sea, 2005a). The
robust condition of the animals, plus the
recent stomach contents, is inconsistent
with pathogenic causes (Frantzis, 2004).
In addition, environmental causes can
be ruled out as there were no unusual
environmental circumstances or events
before or during this time period and
within the general proximity (Frantzis,
2004).
Because of the rarity of this mass
stranding of Cuvier’s beaked whales in
the Kyparissiakos Gulf (first one in
history), the probability for the two
events (the military exercises and the
strandings) to coincide in time and
location, while being independent of
each other, was thought to be extremely
low (Frantzis, 1998). However, because
full necropsies had not been conducted,
and no abnormalities were noted, the
cause of the strandings could not be
precisely determined (Cox et al., 2006).
A Bioacoustics Panel convened by
NATO concluded that the evidence
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
available did not allow them to accept
or reject sonar exposures as a causal
agent in these stranding events. Their
official finding was: ‘‘An acoustic link
can neither be clearly established, nor
eliminated as a direct or indirect cause
for the May 1996 strandings.’’ The
analysis of this stranding event
provided support for, but no clear
evidence for, the cause-and-effect
relationship of active sonar training
activities and beaked whale strandings
(Cox et al., 2006).
Bahamas (2000)
NMFS and the Navy prepared a joint
report addressing the multi-species
stranding in the Bahamas in 2000,
which took place within 24 hours of
U.S. Navy ships using MFAS as they
passed through the Northeast and
Northwest Providence Channels on
March 15 and March 16, 2000. The
ships, which operated both AN/SQS–53
and AN/SQS–56, moved through the
channel while emitting MFAS pings
approximately every 24 seconds. Of the
17 cetaceans that stranded over a 36-hr
period (Cuvier’s beaked whales,
Blainville’s beaked whales, minke
whales, and a spotted dolphin), seven
animals died on the beach (5 Cuvier’s
beaked whales, 1 Blainville’s beaked
whale, and the spotted dolphin), while
the other ten were returned to the water
alive (though their ultimate fate is
unknown). As discussed in the Bahamas
report (DOC/DON, 2001), there is no
likely association between the minke
whale and spotted dolphin strandings
and the operation of MFAS.
Necropsies were performed on five of
the stranded beaked whales. All five
necropsied beaked whales were in good
body condition, showing no signs of
infection, disease, ship strike, blunt
trauma, or fishery related injuries, and
three still had food remains in their
stomachs. Auditory structural damage
was discovered in four of the whales,
specifically bloody effusions or
hemorrhaging around the ears. Bilateral
intracochlear and unilateral temporal
region subarachnoid hemorrhage, with
blood clots in the lateral ventricles,
were found in two of the whales. Three
of the whales had small hemorrhages in
their acoustic fats (located along the jaw
and in the melon).
A comprehensive investigation was
conducted and all possible causes of the
stranding event were considered,
whether they seemed likely at the outset
or not. Based on the way in which the
strandings coincided with ongoing
naval activity involving tactical MFAS
use, in terms of both time and
geography, the nature of the
physiological effects experienced by the
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
dead animals, and the absence of any
other acoustic sources, the investigation
team concluded that MFAS aboard U.S.
Navy ships that were in use during the
active sonar exercise in question were
the most plausible source of this
acoustic or impulse trauma to beaked
whales. This sound source was active in
a complex environment that included
the presence of a surface duct, unusual
and steep bathymetry, a constricted
channel with limited egress, intensive
use of multiple, active sonar units over
an extended period of time, and the
presence of beaked whales that appear
to be sensitive to the frequencies
produced by these active sonars. The
investigation team concluded that the
cause of this stranding event was the
confluence of the Navy MFAS and these
contributory factors working together,
and further recommended that the Navy
avoid operating MFAS in situations
where these five factors would be likely
to occur. This report does not conclude
that all five of these factors must be
present for a stranding to occur, nor that
beaked whales are the only species that
could potentially be affected by the
confluence of the other factors. Based on
this, NMFS believes that the operation
of MFAS in situations where surface
ducts exist, or in marine environments
defined by steep bathymetry and/or
constricted channels may increase the
likelihood of producing a sound field
with the potential to cause cetaceans
(especially beaked whales) to strand,
and therefore, suggests the need for
increased vigilance while operating
MFAS in these areas, especially when
beaked whales (or potentially other
deep divers) are likely present.
Madeira, Spain (2000)
From May 10 to May 14, 2000, three
Cuvier’s beaked whales were found
atypically stranded on two islands in
the Madeira archipelago, Portugal (Cox
et al., 2006). A fourth animal was
reported floating in the Madeiran waters
by fishermen but did not come ashore
(Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,
2005). Joint NATO amphibious training
peacekeeping exercises, involving
participants from 17 countries and 80
warships, took place in Portugal
between May 2 and May 15, 2000.
The bodies of the three stranded
whales were examined post mortem
(Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,
2005), though only one of the stranded
whales was fresh enough (24 hours after
stranding) to be necropsied (Cox et al.,
2006). Results from the necropsy
revealed evidence of hemorrhage and
congestion in the right lung and both
kidneys (Cox et al., 2006). There was
also evidence of intercochlear and
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
intracranial hemorrhage similar to that
which was observed in the whales that
stranded in the Bahamas event (Cox et
al., 2006). There were no signs of blunt
trauma, and no major fractures (Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institution, 2005).
The cranial sinuses and airways were
found to be clear with little or no fluid
deposition, which may indicate good
preservation of tissues (Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution, 2005).
Several observations on the Madeira
stranded beaked whales, such as the
pattern of injury to the auditory system,
are the same as those observed in the
Bahamas strandings. Blood in and
around the eyes, kidney lesions, pleural
hemorrhages, and congestion in the
lungs are particularly consistent with
the pathologies from the whales
stranded in the Bahamas, and are
consistent with stress and pressurerelated trauma. The similarities in
pathology and stranding patterns
between these two events suggest that a
similar pressure event may have
precipitated or contributed to the
strandings at both sites (Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution, 2005).
Even though no definitive causal link
can be made between the stranding
event and naval exercises, certain
conditions may have existed in the
exercise area that, in their aggregate,
may have contributed to the marine
mammal strandings (Freitas, 2004):
Exercises were conducted in areas of at
least 547 fathoms (1,000 m) depth near
a shoreline where there is a rapid
change in bathymetry on the order of
547 to 3,281 (1,000 to 6,000 m) fathoms
occurring across a relatively short
horizontal distance (Freitas, 2004);
multiple ships were operating around
Madeira, though it is not known if
MFAS was used, and the specifics of the
sound sources used are unknown (Cox
et al., 2006; Freitas, 2004); exercises
took place in an area surrounded by
land masses separated by less than 35
nm (65 km) and at least 10 nm (19 km)
in length, or in an embayment. Exercises
involving multiple ships employing
MFAS near land may produce sound
directed towards a channel or
embayment that may cut off the lines of
egress for marine mammals (Freitas,
2004).
Canary Islands, Spain (2002)
The southeastern area within the
Canary Islands is well known for
aggregations of beaked whales due to its
ocean depths of greater than 547
fathoms (1,000 m) within a few hundred
meters of the coastline (Fernandez et al.,
2005). On September 24, 2002, 14
beaked whales were found stranded on
Fuerteventura and Lanzarote Islands in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
the Canary Islands (International
Council for Exploration of the Sea,
2005a). Seven whales died, while the
remaining seven live whales were
returned to deeper waters (Fernandez et
al., 2005). Four beaked whales were
found stranded dead over the next 3
days either on the coast or floating
offshore. These strandings occurred
within near proximity of an
international naval exercise that utilized
MFAS and involved numerous surface
warships and several submarines.
Strandings began about 4 hours after the
onset of MFAS activity (International
Council for Exploration of the Sea,
2005a; Fernandez et al., 2005).
Eight Cuvier’s beaked whales, one
Blainville’s beaked whale, and one
Gervais’ beaked whale were necropsied,
six of them within 12 hours of stranding
(Fernandez et al., 2005). No pathogenic
bacteria were isolated from the carcasses
(Jepson et al., 2003). The animals
displayed severe vascular congestion
and hemorrhage especially around the
tissues in the jaw, ears, brain, and
kidneys, displaying marked
disseminated microvascular
hemorrhages associated with
widespread fat emboli (Jepson et al.,
2003; International Council for
Exploration of the Sea, 2005a). Several
organs contained intravascular bubbles,
although definitive evidence of gas
embolism in vivo is difficult to
determine after death (Jepson et al.,
2003). The livers of the necropsied
animals were the most consistently
affected organ, which contained
macroscopic gas-filled cavities and had
variable degrees of fibrotic
encapsulation. In some animals,
cavitary lesions had extensively
replaced the normal tissue (Jepson et al.,
2003). Stomachs contained a large
amount of fresh and undigested
contents, suggesting a rapid onset of
disease and death (Fernandez et al.,
2005). Head and neck lymph nodes
were enlarged and congested, and
parasites were found in the kidneys of
all animals (Fernandez et al., 2005).
The association of NATO MFAS use
close in space and time to the beaked
whale strandings, and the similarity
between this stranding event and
previous beaked whale mass strandings
coincident with active sonar use,
suggests that a similar scenario and
causative mechanism of stranding may
be shared between the events. Beaked
whales stranded in this event
demonstrated brain and auditory system
injuries, hemorrhages, and congestion in
multiple organs, similar to the
pathological findings of the Bahamas
and Madeira stranding events. In
addition, the necropsy results of the
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64537
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 alive on the
evening of January 26. Two other
whales were discovered during the day
on January 27, but had already died.
The fourth animal was found dead on
the afternoon of January 27, a few
kilometers north of the first three
animals. Between January 25 and 26,
2006, Standing North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) Response Force
Maritime Group Two (five of seven
ships including one U.S. ship under
NATO Operational Control) had
conducted active sonar training against
a Spanish submarine within 50 nm (93
km) of the stranding site.
Veterinary pathologists necropsied
the two male and two female Cuvier’s
beaked whales. According to the
pathologists, the most likely primary
cause of this type of beaked whale mass
stranding event was anthropogenic
acoustic activities, most probably antisubmarine MFAS used during the
military naval exercises. However, no
positive acoustic link was established as
a direct cause of the stranding. Even
though no causal link can be made
between the stranding event and naval
exercises, certain conditions may have
existed in the exercise area that, in their
aggregate, may have contributed to the
marine mammal strandings (Freitas,
2004): exercises were conducted in
areas of at least 547 fathoms (1,000 m)
depth near a shoreline where there is a
rapid change in bathymetry on the order
of 547 to 3,281 fathoms (1,000 to 6,000
m) occurring across a relatively short
horizontal distance (Freitas, 2004);
multiple ships (in this instance, five)
were operating MFAS in the same area
over extended periods of time (in this
case, 20 hrs) in close proximity; and
exercises took place in an area
surrounded by landmasses, or in an
embayment. Exercises involving
multiple ships employing MFAS near
land may have produced sound directed
towards a channel or embayment that
may have cut off the lines of egress for
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
64538
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
the affected marine mammals (Freitas,
2004).
Hanalei Bay (2004)
On July 3 and 4, 2004, approximately
150 to 200 melon-headed whales
occupied the shallow waters of the
Hanalei Bay, Kaua’i, Hawaii for over 28
hrs. Attendees of a canoe blessing
observed the animals entering the Bay
in a single wave formation at 7 a.m. on
July 3, 2004. The animals were observed
moving back into the shore from the
mouth of the Bay at 9 a.m. The usually
pelagic animals milled in the shallow
bay and were returned to deeper water
with human assistance beginning at 9:30
a.m. on July 4, 2004, and were out of
sight by 10:30 a.m.
Only one animal, a calf, was known
to have died following this event. The
animal was noted alive and alone in the
Bay on the afternoon of July 4, 2004 and
was found dead in the Bay the morning
of July 5, 2004. A full necropsy,
magnetic resonance imaging, and
computerized tomography examination
were performed on the calf to determine
the manner and cause of death. The
combination of imaging, necropsy and
histological analyses found no evidence
of infectious, internal traumatic,
congenital, or toxic factors. Cause of
death could not be definitively
determined, but it is likely that maternal
separation, poor nutritional condition,
and dehydration contributed to the final
demise of the animal. Although we do
not know when the calf was separated
from its mother, the animals’ movement
into the Bay and subsequent milling and
re-grouping may have contributed to the
separation or lack of nursing, especially
if the maternal bond was weak or this
was a primiparous calf.
Environmental factors, abiotic and
biotic, were analyzed for any anomalous
occurrences that would have
contributed to the animals entering and
remaining in Hanalei Bay. The Bay’s
bathymetry is similar to many other
sites within the Hawaiian Island chain
and dissimilar to sites that have been
associated with mass strandings in other
parts of the United States. The weather
conditions appeared to be normal for
that time of year with no fronts or other
significant features noted. There was no
evidence of unusual distribution,
occurrence of predator or prey species,
or unusual harmful algal blooms,
although Mobley et al., 2007 suggested
that the full moon cycle that occurred at
that time may have influenced a run of
squid into the Bay. Weather patterns
and bathymetry that have been
associated with mass strandings
elsewhere were not found to occur in
this instance.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
The Hanalei event was spatially and
temporally correlated with RIMPAC.
Official sonar training and tracking
exercises in the Pacific Missile Range
Facility (PMRF) warning area did not
commence until approximately 8 a.m.
on July 3 and were thus ruled out as a
possible trigger for the initial movement
into the Bay. However, six naval surface
vessels transiting to the operational area
on July 2 intermittently transmitted
active sonar (for approximately 9 hours
total from 1:15 p.m. to 12:30 a.m.) as
they approached from the south. The
potential for these transmissions to have
triggered the whales’ movement into
Hanalei Bay was investigated. Analyses
with the information available indicated
that animals to the south and east of
Kaua’i could have detected active sonar
transmissions on July 2, and reached
Hanalei Bay on or before 7 a.m. on July
3, 2004. However, data limitations
regarding the position of the whales
prior to their arrival in the Bay, the
magnitude of sonar exposure, behavioral
responses of melon-headed whales to
acoustic stimuli, and other possible
relevant factors preclude a conclusive
finding regarding the role of sonar in
triggering this event. Propagation
modeling suggest that transmissions
from sonar use during the July 3
exercise in the PMRF warning area may
have been detectable at the mouth of the
Bay. If the animals responded negatively
to these signals, it may have contributed
to their continued presence in the Bay.
The U.S. Navy ceased all active sonar
transmissions during exercises in this
range on the afternoon of July 3, 2004.
Subsequent to the cessation of sonar
use, the animals were herded out of the
Bay.
While causation of this stranding
event may never be unequivocally
determined, we consider the active
sonar transmissions of July 2–3, 2004, a
plausible, if not likely, contributing
factor in what may have been a
confluence of events. This conclusion is
based on the following: (1) The
evidently anomalous nature of the
stranding; (2) its close spatiotemporal
correlation with wide-scale, sustained
use of sonar systems previously
associated with stranding of deep-diving
marine mammals; (3) the directed
movement of two groups of transmitting
vessels toward the southeast and
southwest coast of Kauai; (4) the results
of acoustic propagation modeling and
an analysis of possible animal transit
times to the Bay; and (5) the absence of
any other compelling causative
explanation. The initiation and
persistence of this event may have
resulted from an interaction of
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
biological and physical factors. The
biological factors may have included the
presence of an apparently uncommon,
deep-diving cetacean species (and
possibly an offshore, non-resident
group), social interactions among the
animals before or after they entered the
Bay, and/or unknown predator or prey
conditions. The physical factors may
have included the presence of nearby
deep water, multiple vessels transiting
in a directed manner while transmitting
active sonar over a sustained period, the
presence of surface sound ducting
conditions, and/or intermittent and
random human interactions while the
animals were in the Bay.
A separate event involving melonheaded whales and rough-toothed
dolphins took place over the same
period of time in the Northern Mariana
Islands (Jefferson et al., 2006), which is
several thousand miles from Hawaii.
Some 500 to 700 melon-headed whales
came into Sasanhaya Bay on July 4,
2004 near the island of Rota and then
left of their own accord after 5.5 hrs; no
known active sonar transmissions
occurred in the vicinity of that event.
The Rota incident led to scientific
debate regarding what, if any,
relationship the event had to the
simultaneous events in Hawaii and
whether they might be related by some
common factor (e.g., there was a full
moon on July 2, 2004 as well as during
other melon-headed whale strandings
and nearshore aggregations (Brownell et
al., 2009; Lignon et al., 2007; Mobley et
al., 2007). Brownell et al. (2009)
compared the two incidents, along with
one other stranding incident at Nuka
Hiva in French Polynesia and normal
resting behaviors observed at Palmyra
Island, in regard to physical features in
the areas, melon-headed whale
behavior, and lunar cycles. Brownell et
al., (2009) concluded that the rapid
entry of the whales into Hanalei Bay,
their movement into very shallow water
far from the 100-m contour, their
milling behavior (typical pre-stranding
behavior), and their reluctance to leave
the bay constituted an unusual event
that was not similar to the events that
occurred at Rota (but was similar to the
events at Palmyra), which appear to be
similar to observations of melon-headed
whales resting normally at Palmyra
Island. Additionally, there was no
correlation between lunar cycle and the
types of behaviors observed in the
Brownell et al. (2009) examples.
Association Between Mass Stranding
Events and Exposure to MFAS
Several authors have noted
similarities between some of these
stranding incidents: they occurred in
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
islands or archipelagoes with deep
water nearby, several appeared to have
been associated with acoustic
waveguides like surface ducting, and
the sound fields created by ships
transmitting MFAS (Cox et al., 2006,
D’Spain et al., 2006). Although Cuvier’s
beaked whales have been the most
common species involved in these
stranding events (81 percent of the total
number of stranded animals), other
beaked whales (including Mesoplodon
europeaus, M. densirostris, and
Hyperoodon ampullatus) comprise 14
percent of the total. Other species, such
as Kogia breviceps, have stranded in
association with the operation of MFAS,
but in much lower numbers and less
consistently than beaked whales.
Based on the evidence available,
however, we cannot determine whether
(a) Cuvier’s beaked whale is more prone
to injury from high-intensity sound than
other species, (b) their behavioral
responses to sound make them more
likely to strand, or (c) they are more
likely to be exposed to MFAS than other
cetaceans (for reasons that remain
unknown). Because the association
between active sonar exposures and
marine mammal mass stranding events
is not consistent—some marine
mammals strand without being exposed
to active sonar and some sonar
transmissions are not associated with
marine mammal stranding events
despite their co-occurrence—other risk
factors or a grouping of risk factors
probably contribute to these stranding
events.
Behaviorally Mediated Responses to
MFAS That May Lead to Stranding
Although the confluence of Navy
MFAS with the other contributory
factors noted in the report was
identified as the cause of the 2000
Bahamas stranding event, the specific
mechanisms that led to that stranding
(or the others) are not understood, and
there is uncertainty regarding the
ordering of effects that led to the
stranding. It is unclear whether beaked
whales were directly injured by sound
(e.g., acoustically mediated bubble
growth, as addressed above) prior to
stranding or whether a behavioral
response to sound occurred that
ultimately caused the beaked whales to
be injured and to strand.
Although causal relationships
between beaked whale stranding events
and active sonar remain unknown,
several authors have hypothesized that
stranding events involving these species
in the Bahamas and Canary Islands may
have been triggered when the whales
changed their dive behavior in a startled
response to exposure, to active sonar, or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
to further avoid exposure (Cox et al.,
2006; Rommel et al., 2006). These
authors proposed three mechanisms by
which the behavioral responses of
beaked whales upon being exposed to
active sonar might result in a stranding
event. These include the following: Gas
bubble formation caused by excessively
fast surfacing; remaining at the surface
too long when tissues are supersaturated
with nitrogen; or diving prematurely
when extended time at the surface is
necessary to eliminate excess nitrogen.
More specifically, beaked whales that
occur in deep waters that are in close
proximity to shallow waters (e.g., the
‘‘canyon areas’’ that are cited in the
Bahamas stranding event; see D’Spain
and D’Amico, 2006), may respond to
active sonar by swimming into shallow
waters to avoid further exposures and
strand if they were not able to swim
back to deeper waters. Furthermore,
beaked whales exposed to active sonar
might alter their dive behavior. Changes
in dive behavior might cause them to
remain at the surface or at depth for
extended periods of time which could
lead to hypoxia by increasing their
oxygen demands or increasing their
energy expenditures (i.e., the energy
needed to remain at depth, which
would increase their oxygen demand). If
beaked whales are at depth when they
detect a ping from an active sonar
transmission and change their dive
profile, this could lead to the formation
of significant gas bubbles, which could
damage multiple organs or interfere
with normal physiological function (Cox
et al., 2006; Rommel et al., 2006;
Zimmer and Tyack, 2007). Baird et al.
(2005) found that slow ascent rates from
deep dives and long periods of time
spent within 50 m of the surface were
typical for both Cuvier’s and Blainville’s
beaked whales, the two species involved
in mass strandings related to naval
MFAS. These two behavioral
mechanisms may be necessary to purge
excessive dissolved nitrogen
concentrated in their tissues during
their frequent long dives (Baird et al.,
2005). Baird et al. (2005) further
suggests that abnormally rapid ascents
or premature dives in response to highintensity active sonar could indirectly
result in physical harm to the beaked
whales, through the mechanisms
described above (gas bubble formation
or non-elimination of excess nitrogen).
Because many species of marine
mammals make repetitive and
prolonged dives to great depths, it has
long been assumed that marine
mammals have evolved physiological
mechanisms to protect against the
effects of rapid and repeated
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64539
decompressions. Although several
investigators have identified
physiological adaptations that may
protect marine mammals against
nitrogen gas supersaturation (e.g.,
alveolar collapse and elective
circulation; Kooyman et al., 1972;
Ridgway and Howard, 1979), Ridgway
and Howard (1979) reported that
bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops
truncatus) that were trained to dive
repeatedly had muscle tissues that were
substantially supersaturated with
nitrogen gas. Houser et al. (2001) used
these data to model the accumulation of
nitrogen gas within the muscle tissue of
other marine mammal species and
concluded that cetaceans that dive deep
and have slow ascent or descent speeds
would have tissues that are more
supersaturated with nitrogen gas than
other marine mammals. Based on these
data, Cox et al. (2006) hypothesized that
a critical dive sequence might make
beaked whales more prone to stranding
in response to acoustic exposures. The
sequence began with (1) Very deep (up
to 2 kilometers) and long (up to 90
minutes) foraging dives with (2)
relatively slow, controlled ascents,
followed by (3) a series of ‘‘bounce’’
dives between 100 and 400 meters in
depth (also see Zimmer and Tyack,
2007). They concluded that acoustic
exposures that disrupted any part of this
dive sequence (e.g., causing beaked
whales to spend more time at surface
without the bounce dives that are
necessary for recovery) could produce
excessive levels of nitrogen
supersaturation in their tissues, leading
to gas bubble and emboli formation that
produces pathologies similar to
decompression sickness.
Recently, Zimmer and Tyack (2007)
modeled nitrogen tension and bubble
growth in several tissue compartments
for several hypothetical dive profiles
and concluded that repetitive shallow
dives (defined as a dive where depth
does not exceed the depth of alveolar
collapse, approximately 72 m for
Ziphius), perhaps as a consequence of
an extended avoidance reaction to
active sonar sound, could pose a risk for
decompression sickness and that this
risk should increase with the duration
of the response. Their models also
suggested that unrealistically rapid rates
of ascent from normal dive behaviors
are unlikely to result in supersaturation
to the extent that bubble formation
would be expected. Tyack et al. (2006)
suggested that emboli observed in
animals exposed to MFAS (Jepson et al.,
2003; Fernandez et al., 2005) could stem
from a behavioral response that involves
repeated dives shallower than the depth
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64540
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
of lung collapse. Given that nitrogen gas
accumulation is a passive process (i.e.,
nitrogen is metabolically inert), a
bottlenose dolphin was trained to
repetitively dive a profile predicted to
elevate nitrogen saturation to the point
that nitrogen bubble formation was
predicted to occur. However, inspection
of the vascular system of the dolphin via
ultrasound did not demonstrate the
formation of asymptomatic nitrogen gas
bubbles (Houser et al., 2007). Baird et al.
(2008), in a beaked whale tagging study
off Hawaii, showed that deep dives are
equally common during day or night,
but ‘‘bounce dives’’ are typically a
daytime behavior, possibly associated
with visual predator avoidance (Baird et
al., 2008). This may indicate that
‘‘bounce dives’’ are associated with
something other than behavioral
regulation of dissolved nitrogen levels,
which would be necessary day and
night.
Despite the many theories involving
bubble formation (both as a direct cause
of injury (see Acoustically Mediated
Bubble Growth Section) and an indirect
cause of stranding (see Behaviorally
Mediated Bubble Growth Section),
Southall et al. (2007) summarizes that
there is either scientific disagreement or
a lack of information regarding each of
the following important points: (1)
Received acoustical exposure conditions
for animals involved in stranding
events; (2) pathological interpretation of
observed lesions in stranded marine
mammals; (3) acoustic exposure
conditions required to induce such
physical trauma directly; (4) whether
noise exposure may cause behavioral
reactions (such as atypical diving
behavior) that secondarily cause bubble
formation and tissue damage; and (5)
the extent the post mortem artifacts
introduced by decomposition before
sampling, handling, freezing, or
necropsy procedures affect
interpretation of observed lesions.
Although not all of the five
environmental factors believed to have
contributed to the Bahamas stranding (at
least three surface vessel MFAS sources
operating simultaneously or in
conjunction with one another, beaked
whale presence, surface ducts, steep
bathymetry, and constricted channels
with limited egress) will be present
during exercises in the GoA TMAA,
NMFS recommends caution when either
steep bathymetry, surface ducting
conditions, or a constricted channel is
present when mid-frequency active
sonar is employed by multiple surface
vessels simultaneously and cetaceans
(especially beaked whales) are present.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
Exposure to Underwater Detonation of
Explosives
Some of the Navy’s training exercises
include the underwater detonation of
explosives. For many of the exercises
discussed, inert ordnance is used for a
subset of the exercises. For exercises
that involve ‘‘shooting’’ at a target that is
above the surface of the water,
underwater explosions only occur when
the target is missed, which is the
minority of the time (the Navy has
historical hit/miss ratios and uses them
in their exposure estimates). The
underwater explosion from a weapon
would send a shock wave and blast
noise through the water, release gaseous
by-products, create an oscillating
bubble, and cause a plume of water to
shoot up from the water surface. The
effects of an underwater explosion on a
marine mammal depend on many
factors, including the size, type, and
depth of both the animal and the
explosive charge; the depth of the water
column; and the standoff distance
between the charge and the animals, as
well as the sound propagation
properties of the environment. Potential
impacts can range from brief effects
(such as behavioral disturbance), tactile
perception, physical discomfort, and
slight injury of the internal organs and
the auditory system, to death of the
animal (Yelverton et al., 1973; O’Keeffe
and Young, 1984; DoN, 2001). Nonlethal injury includes slight injury to
internal organs and the auditory system;
however, delayed lethality can be a
result of individual or cumulative
sublethal injuries (DoN, 2001).
Immediate lethal injury would be a
result of massive combined trauma to
internal organs as a direct result of
proximity to the point of detonation
(DoN, 2001). Generally, exposures to
higher levels of impulse and pressure
levels would result in worse impacts to
an individual animal.
Injuries resulting from a shock wave
take place at boundaries between tissues
of different densities. Different
velocities are imparted to tissues of
different densities, and this can lead to
their physical disruption. Blast effects
are greatest at the gas-liquid interface
(Landsberg, 2000). Gas-containing
organs, particularly the lungs and
gastrointestinal tract, are especially
susceptible (Goertner, 1982; Hill, 1978;
Yelverton et al., 1973). In addition, gascontaining organs including the nasal
sacs, larynx, pharynx, trachea, and
lungs may be damaged by compression/
expansion caused by the oscillations of
the blast gas bubble (Reidenberg and
Laitman, 2003). Intestinal walls can
bruise or rupture, with subsequent
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
hemorrhage and escape of gut contents
into the body cavity. Less severe
gastrointestinal tract injuries include
contusions, petechiae (small red or
purple spots caused by bleeding in the
skin), and slight hemorrhaging
(Yelverton et al., 1973).
Because the ears are the most
sensitive to pressure, they are the organs
most sensitive to injury (Ketten, 2000).
Sound-related trauma associated with
blast noise can be theoretically distinct
from injury from the shock wave,
particularly farther from the explosion.
If an animal is able to hear a noise, at
some level it can fatigue or damage its
hearing by causing decreased sensitivity
(see Noise-induced Threshold Shift
Section above; Ketten, 1995). Soundrelated trauma can be lethal or
sublethal. Lethal impacts are those that
result in immediate death or serious
debilitation in or near an intense source
and are not, technically, pure acoustic
trauma (Ketten, 1995). Sublethal
impacts include hearing loss, which is
caused by exposures to perceptible
sounds. Severe damage (from the shock
wave) to the ears includes tympanic
membrane rupture, fracture of the
ossicles, damage to the cochlea,
hemorrhage, and cerebrospinal fluid
leakage into the middle ear. Moderate
injury implies partial hearing loss due
to tympanic membrane rupture and
blood in the middle ear. Permanent
hearing loss also can occur when the
hair cells are damaged by one very loud
event, as well as by prolonged exposure
to a loud noise or chronic exposure to
noise. The level of impact from blasts
depends on both an animal’s location
and, at outer zones, on its sensitivity to
the residual noise (Ketten, 1995).
There have been fewer studies
addressing the behavioral effects of
explosives on marine mammals than
MFAS/HFAS. However, though the
nature of the sound waves emitted from
an explosion is different (in shape and
rise time) from MFAS/HFAS, we still
anticipate the same sorts of behavioral
responses (see Exposure to MFAS/
HFAS: Behavioral Disturbance Section)
to result from repeated explosive
detonations (a smaller range of likely
less severe responses would be expected
to occur as a result of exposure to a
single explosive detonation).
Potential Effects of Vessel Movement
and Collisions
Vessel movement in the vicinity of
marine mammals has the potential to
result in either a behavioral response or
a direct physical interaction. Both
scenarios are discussed below.
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Vessel Movement
There are limited data concerning
marine mammal behavioral responses to
vessel traffic and vessel noise, and a
lack of consensus among scientists with
respect to what these responses mean or
whether they result in short-term or
long-term adverse effects. In those cases
where there is a busy shipping lane or
where there is a large amount of vessel
traffic, marine mammals may
experience acoustic masking
(Hildebrand, 2005) if they are present in
the area (e.g., killer whales in Puget
Sound; Foote et al., 2004; Holt et al.,
2008). In cases where vessels actively
approach marine mammals (e.g., whale
watching or dolphin watching boats),
scientists have documented that animals
exhibit altered behavior such as
increased swimming speed, erratic
movement, and active avoidance
behavior (Bursk, 1983; Acevedo, 1991;
Baker and MacGibbon, 1991; Trites and
Bain, 2000; Williams et al., 2002;
Constantine et al., 2003), reduced blow
interval (Ritcher et al., 2003), disruption
of normal social behaviors (Lusseau,
2003; 2006), and the shift of behavioral
activities which may increase energetic
costs (Constantine et al., 2003; 2004)). A
detailed review of marine mammal
reactions to ships and boats is available
in Richardson et al. (1995). For each of
the marine mammal taxonomy groups,
Richardson et al. (1995) provides the
following assessment regarding cetacean
reactions to vessel traffic:
Toothed whales: ‘‘In summary,
toothed whales sometimes show no
avoidance reaction to vessels, or even
approach them. However, avoidance can
occur, especially in response to vessels
of types used to chase or hunt the
animals. This may cause temporary
displacement, but we know of no clear
evidence that toothed whales have
abandoned significant parts of their
range because of vessel traffic.’’
Baleen whales: ‘‘When baleen whales
receive low-level sounds from distant or
stationary vessels, the sounds often
seem to be ignored. Some whales
approach the sources of these sounds.
When vessels approach whales slowly
and non-aggressively, whales often
exhibit slow and inconspicuous
avoidance maneuvers. In response to
strong or rapidly changing vessel noise,
baleen whales often interrupt their
normal behavior and swim rapidly
away. Avoidance is especially strong
when a boat heads directly toward the
whale.’’
It is important to recognize that
behavioral responses to stimuli are
complex and influenced to varying
degrees by a number of factors, such as
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
species, behavioral contexts,
geographical regions, source
characteristics (moving or stationary,
speed, direction, etc.), prior experience
of the animal, and physical status of the
animal. For example, studies have
shown that beluga whales reacted
differently when exposed to vessel noise
¨
and traffic. In some cases, naıve beluga
whales exhibited rapid swimming from
ice-breaking vessels up to 80 km away,
and showed changes in surfacing,
breathing, diving, and group
composition in the Canadian high
Arctic where vessel traffic is rare (Finley
et al., 1990). In other cases, beluga
whales were more tolerant of vessels,
but responded differentially to certain
vessels and operating characteristics by
reducing their calling rates (especially
older animals) in the St. Lawrence River
where vessel traffic is common (Blane
and Jaakson, 1994). In Bristol Bay,
Alaska, beluga whales continued to feed
when surrounded by fishing vessels and
resisted dispersal even when
purposefully harassed (Fish and Vania,
1971).
In reviewing more than 25 years of
whale observation data, Watkins (1986)
concluded that whale reactions to vessel
traffic were ‘‘modified by their previous
experience and current activity:
Habituation often occurred rapidly,
attention to other stimuli or
preoccupation with other activities
sometimes overcame their interest or
wariness of stimuli.’’ Watkins noticed
that over the years of exposure to ships
in the Cape Cod area, minke whales
(Balaenoptera acutorostrata) changed
from frequent positive interest (e.g.,
approaching vessels) to generally
uninterested reactions; finback whales
(B. physalus) changed from mostly
negative (e.g., avoidance) to
uninterested reactions; right whales
(Eubalaena glacialis) apparently
continued the same variety of responses
(negative, uninterested, and positive
responses) with little change; and
humpbacks (Megaptera novaeangliae)
dramatically changed from mixed
responses that were often negative to
reactions that were often strongly
positive. Watkins (1986) summarized
that ‘‘whales near shore, even in regions
with low vessel traffic, generally have
become less wary of boats and their
noises, and they have appeared to be
less easily disturbed than previously. In
particular locations with intense
shipping and repeated approaches by
boats (such as the whale-watching areas
of Stellwagen Bank), more and more
whales had P [positive] reactions to
familiar vessels, and they also
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64541
occasionally approached other boats
and yachts in the same ways.’’
Although the radiated sound from
Navy vessels will be audible to marine
mammals over a large distance, it is
unlikely that animals will respond
behaviorally (in a manner that NMFS
would consider MMPA harassment) to
low-level distant shipping noise as the
animals in the area are likely to be
habituated to such noises (Nowacek et
al., 2004). In light of these facts, NMFS
does not expect the Navy’s vessel
movements to result in Level B
harassment.
Vessel Strike
Commercial and Navy ship strikes of
cetaceans can cause major wounds,
which may lead to the death of the
animal. An animal at the surface could
be struck directly by a vessel, a
surfacing animal could hit the bottom of
a vessel, or an animal just below the
surface could be cut by a vessel’s
propeller. The severity of injuries
typically depends on the size and speed
of the vessel (Knowlton and Kraus,
2001; Laist et al., 2001; Vanderlaan and
Taggart, 2007).
The most vulnerable marine mammals
are those that spend extended periods of
time at the surface in order to restore
oxygen levels within their tissues after
deep dives (e.g., the sperm whale). In
addition, some baleen whales, such as
the North Atlantic right whale, seem
generally unresponsive to vessel sound,
making them more susceptible to vessel
collisions (Nowacek et al., 2004). These
species are primarily large, slow moving
whales. Smaller marine mammals (e.g.,
bottlenose dolphin) move quickly
through the water column and are often
seen riding the bow wave of large ships.
Marine mammal responses to vessels
may include avoidance and changes in
dive pattern (NRC, 2003).
An examination of all known ship
strikes from all shipping sources
(civilian and military) indicates vessel
speed is a principal factor in whether a
vessel strike results in death (Knowlton
and Kraus, 2001; Laist et al., 2001;
Jensen and Silber, 2003; Vanderlaan and
Taggart, 2007). In assessing records in
which vessel speed was known, Laist et
al. (2001) found a direct relationship
between the occurrence of a whale
strike and the speed of the vessel
involved in the collision. The authors
concluded that most deaths occurred
when a vessel was traveling in excess of
13 knots.
Jensen and Silber (2003) detailed 292
records of known or probable ship
strikes of all large whale species from
1975 to 2002. Of these, vessel speed at
the time of collision was reported for 58
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64542
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
cases. Of these cases, 39 (or 67 percent)
resulted in serious injury or death (19 of
those resulted in serious injury as
determined by blood in the water,
propeller gashes or severed tailstock,
and fractured skull, jaw, vertebrae,
hemorrhaging, massive bruising or other
injuries noted during necropsy and 20
resulted in death). Operating speeds of
vessels that struck various species of
large whales ranged from 2 to 51 knots.
The majority (79 percent) of these
strikes occurred at speeds of 13 knots or
greater. The average speed that resulted
in serious injury or death was 18.6
knots. Pace and Silber (2005) found that
the probability of death or serious injury
increased rapidly with increasing vessel
speed. Specifically, the predicted
probability of serious injury or death
increased from 45 percent to 75 percent
as vessel speed increased from 10 to 14
knots, and exceeded 90 percent at 17
knots. Higher speeds during collisions
result in greater force of impact, but
higher speeds also appear to increase
the chance of severe injuries or death by
pulling whales toward the vessel.
Computer simulation modeling showed
that hydrodynamic forces pulling
whales toward the vessel hull increase
with increasing speed (Clyne, 1999;
Knowlton et al., 1995).
The Jensen and Silber (2003) report
notes that the database represents a
minimum number of collisions, because
the vast majority probably goes
undetected or unreported. In contrast,
Navy vessels are likely to detect any
strike that does occur, and they are
required to report all ship strikes
involving marine mammals. Overall, the
percentages of Navy traffic relative to
overall large shipping traffic are very
small (on the order of 2 percent).
The probability of vessel and marine
mammal interactions occurring in the
GoA TMAA is dependent upon several
factors including numbers, types, and
speeds of vessels; the regularity,
duration, and spatial extent of training
events; the presence/absence and
density of marine mammals; and
mitigation measures implemented by
the Navy. Currently, the number of
Navy vessels that may be operating in
the GoA TMAA varies based on training
schedules and can typically range from
zero to about ten vessels per 21-day
exercise cycle. Ship sizes range from
362 ft (110 m) for a nuclear submarine
(SSN) to 1,092 ft (331 m) for a nuclear
aircraft carrier (CVN). Smaller boats,
such as rigid-hulled inflatable boats
(RHIBs), may also be utilized in the GoA
TMAA. The smaller boats do not
contain acoustic sound sources. Speeds
are typically within 10 to 14 knots;
however, slower or faster speeds are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
possible depending upon the specific
training scenario. Training involving
vessel movements occurs intermittently
and is variable in duration, ranging from
a few hours to three weeks. These
training events are widely dispersed;
consequently, the density of ships
within the GoA TMAA at any given
time is extremely low (i.e.,
approximately 0.0002 ships/nm2).
Moreover, naval vessels transiting the
GoA TMAA or engaging in the training
exercises will not actively or
intentionally approach a marine
mammal. While in transit, naval vessels
will be alert at all times, use extreme
caution, and proceed at a ‘‘safe speed’’ so
that the vessel can take proper and
effective action to avoid a collision with
any marine animal and can be stopped
within a distance appropriate to the
prevailing circumstances and
conditions. When whales have been
sighted in the area, Navy vessels will
increase vigilance and take reasonable
and practicable actions to avoid
collisions and activities that might
result in close interaction of naval assets
and marine mammals. Actions may
include changing speed and/or direction
and would be dictated by environmental
and other conditions (e.g., safety,
weather). For a thorough discussion of
mitigation measures, please see the
Mitigation section.
Additionally, the majority of ships
participating in GoA TMAA training
activities have a number of advantages
for avoiding ship strikes as compared to
most commercial merchant vessels,
including the following: Navy ships
have their bridges positioned forward,
offering good visibility ahead of the
bow; crew size is much larger than that
of merchant ships allowing for more
potential observers on the bridge;
dedicated lookouts are posted during a
training activity scanning the ocean for
anything detectable in the water,
anything detected is reported to the
Officer of the Deck; Navy lookouts
receive extensive training including
Marine Species Awareness Training
designed to provide marine species
detection cues and information
necessary to detect marine mammals;
and Navy ships are generally much
more maneuverable than commercial
merchant vessels.
Based on the implementation of Navy
mitigation measures and the low density
of Navy ships in the GoA TMAA, NMFS
has concluded, preliminarily, that the
probability of a ship strike is very low,
especially for dolphins and porpoises,
killer whales, social pelagic odontocetes
and pinnipeds that are highly visible,
and/or comparatively small and
maneuverable. Though more probable,
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
NMFS also believes that the likelihood
of a Navy vessel striking a mysticete or
sperm whale is low. The Navy did not
request take from a ship strike and
based on our preliminary determination,
NMFS is not recommending that they
modify their request at this time.
However, both NMFS and the Navy are
currently engaged in a Section 7
consultation under the ESA, and that
consultation will further inform our
final decision.
Mitigation
In order to issue an incidental take
authorization (ITA) under Section
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, NMFS must
set forth the ‘‘permissible methods of
taking pursuant to such activity, and
other means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impact on such
species or stock and its habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating
grounds, and areas of similar
significance.’’ The NDAA of 2004
amended the MMPA as it relates to
military-readiness activities and the ITA
process such that ‘‘least practicable
adverse impact’’ shall include
consideration of personnel safety,
practicality of implementation, and
impact on the effectiveness of the
‘‘military readiness activity.’’ The
training activities described in the GoA
TMAA application are considered
military readiness activities.
NMFS reviewed the proposed GoA
TMAA activities and the proposed GoA
TMAA mitigation measures as described
in the Navy’s LOA application to
determine if they would result in the
least practicable adverse effect on
marine mammals, which includes a
careful balancing of the likely benefit of
any particular measure to the marine
mammals with the likely effect of that
measure on personnel safety,
practicality of implementation, and
impact on the effectiveness of the
‘‘military-readiness activity.’’ NMFS
identified the need to further flesh out
the Navy’s plan for how to respond in
the event of a stranding in the GoA, and
the Navy and NMFS subsequently
coordinated and produced the draft
Stranding Response Plan for the GoA,
which is summarized below and
available at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications.
Included below are the mitigation
measures the Navy initially proposed
(see ‘‘Mitigation Measures Proposed in
the Navy’s LOA Application’’) and the
Stranding Response Plan that NMFS
and the Navy developed (see
‘‘Additional Measure Developed by
NMFS and the Navy’’ below).
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Mitigation Measures Proposed in the
Navy’s LOA Application
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Personnel Training—Watchstanders and
Lookouts
The use of shipboard lookouts is a
critical component of all Navy
mitigation measures. Navy shipboard
lookouts (also referred to as
‘‘watchstanders’’) are highly qualified
and experienced observers of the marine
environment. Their duties require that
they report all objects sighted in the
water to the Officer of the Deck (OOD)
(e.g., trash, a periscope, marine
mammals, sea turtles) and all
disturbances (e.g., surface disturbance,
discoloration) that may be indicative of
a threat to the vessel and its crew. There
are personnel serving as lookouts on
station at all times (day and night) when
a ship or surfaced submarine is moving
through the water.
All Commanding Officers (COs),
Executive Officers (XOs), lookouts,
OODs, Junior OODs (JOODs), maritime
patrol aircraft aircrews, and Antisubmarine Warfare (ASW) helicopter
crews would complete the NMFSapproved Marine Species Awareness
Training (MSAT) by viewing the U.S.
Navy MSAT digital versatile disk (DVD).
MSAT may also be viewed on-line at
https://portal.navfac.navy.mil/go/msat.
MSAT training must be reviewed at
least annually and again prior to the
first use of mid-frequency active sonar
(MFAS) and/or IEER during major ASW
exercises. This training addresses the
lookout’s role in environmental
protection, laws governing the
protection of marine species, Navy
stewardship commitments, and general
observation information to aid in
avoiding interactions with marine
species, and must be recorded in the
individual’s training record.
Navy lookouts shall undertake
extensive training in order to qualify as
a watchstander in accordance with the
Lookout Training Handbook (Naval
Education and Training Command
(NAVEDTRA) 12968–D).
Lookout training will include on-thejob instruction under the supervision of
a qualified, experienced watchstander.
Following successful completion of this
supervised training period, lookouts
will complete the Personal Qualification
Standard Program, certifying that they
have demonstrated the necessary skills
(such as detection and reporting of
partially submerged objects). Personnel
being trained as lookouts can be
counted among the number of lookouts
required by a particular mitigation
measure as long as supervisors monitor
their progress and performance.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
Lookouts shall be trained in the most
effective means to ensure quick and
effective communication within the
command structure in order to facilitate
implementation of protective measures
if marine species are spotted.
Operating Procedures and Collision
Avoidance (for All Training Types)
Prior to major exercises, a Letter of
Instruction, Mitigation Measures
Message, or Environmental Annex to the
Operational Order will be issued to
further disseminate the personnel
training requirement and general marine
species protective measures.
COs will make use of marine species
detection cues and information to limit
interaction with marine species to the
maximum extent possible consistent
with safety of the ship.
While underway, surface vessels will
have at least two lookouts with
binoculars; surfaced submarines would
have at least one lookout with
binoculars. Lookouts already posted for
safety of navigation and man-overboard
precautions may be used to fill this
requirement. As part of their regular
duties, lookouts shall watch for and
report to the OOD the presence of
marine mammals.
All surface ships participating in
ASW training events shall have, in
addition to the three personnel on
watch constantly, at least two additional
personnel on watch as lookouts at all
times during the exercise.
Personnel on lookout and officers on
watch on the bridge will have at least
one set of binoculars available for each
person to aid in the detection of marine
mammals.
On surface vessels equipped with a
multi-function active sensor, pedestal
mounted ‘‘Big Eye’’ (20x110) binoculars
will be properly installed and in good
working order to assist in the detection
of marine mammals in the vicinity of
the vessel.
Personnel on lookout shall employ
visual search procedures employing a
scanning methodology in accordance
with the Lookout Training Handbook
(NAVEDTRA 12968–D).
After sunset and prior to sunrise,
lookouts will employ Night Lookout
Techniques in accordance with the
Lookout Training Handbook
(NAVEDTRA 12968–D).
Personnel on lookout shall be
responsible for reporting all objects or
anomalies sighted in the water
(regardless of the distance from the
vessel) to the OOD, since any object or
disturbance (e.g., trash, periscope,
surface disturbance, discoloration) in
the water may be indicative of a threat
to the vessel and its crew, or indicative
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64543
of a marine species that may need to be
avoided as warranted. Navy
environmental compliance relies
heavily on the abilities of lookouts to
detect and avoid protected species.
Therefore, it is critical that lookouts be
vigilant in their reporting.
While in transit, naval vessels shall be
alert at all times, use extreme caution,
and proceed at a ‘‘safe speed’’ so that the
vessel could take proper and effective
action to avoid a collision with any
marine animal and could be stopped
within a short distance appropriate to
the prevailing circumstances and
conditions.
When marine mammals have been
sighted in the area, Navy vessels will
increase vigilance and take reasonable
and practicable actions to avoid
collisions and activities that might
result in close interaction of naval assets
and marine mammals. Actions may
include changing speed and/or direction
and would be dictated by environmental
and other conditions (e.g., safety,
weather).
Navy vessels will maneuver to keep at
least 1,500 ft (500 yd or 457 m) away
from any observed whale in the vessel’s
path and avoid approaching whales
head-on. These requirements do not
apply if a vessel’s safety is threatened,
such as when change of course would
create an imminent and serious threat to
a person, vessel, or aircraft, and to the
extent vessels are restricted in their
ability to maneuver. Restricted
maneuverability includes, but is not
limited to, situations when vessels are
engaged in dredging, submerged
activities, launching and recovering
aircraft or landing craft, minesweeping
activities, replenishment while
underway, and towing activities that
severely restrict a vessel’s ability to
deviate course. Vessels will take
reasonable steps to alert other vessels in
the vicinity of the whale. Given rapid
swimming speeds and maneuverability
of many dolphin species, naval vessels
shall maintain normal course and speed
on sighting dolphins unless some
condition indicated a need for the vessel
to maneuver.
Navy aircraft participating in
exercises at sea will conduct and
maintain, when operationally feasible
and safe, surveillance for marine
mammals as long as it does not violate
safety constraints or interfere with the
accomplishment of primary operational
duties. Marine mammal detections
would be immediately reported to the
assigned Aircraft Control Unit for
further dissemination to ships in the
vicinity of the marine species as
appropriate when it is reasonable to
conclude that the course of the ship
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
64544
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
would likely result in a closing of the
distance to the detected marine
mammal.
Floating weeds and kelp, algal mats,
clusters of seabirds, and jellyfish are
good indicators of marine mammals.
Therefore, where these circumstances
are present, the Navy will exercise
increased vigilance in watching for
marine mammals.
All vessels will maintain logs and
records documenting training
operations should they be required for
event reconstruction purposes. Logs and
records are kept and archived following
completion of a major training exercise.
Operating Procedures (for MidFrequency Active Sonar Activities)
All personnel engaged in passive
acoustic sonar operation (including
aircraft, surface ships, or submarines)
will monitor for marine mammal
vocalizations and report the detection of
any marine mammal to the appropriate
watch station for dissemination and
appropriate action.
During MFAS operations, personnel
will utilize all available sensor and
optical systems (such as night vision
goggles) to aid in the detection of
marine mammals.
Aircraft with deployed sonobuoys
will use only the passive capability of
sonobuoys when marine mammals are
detected within 200 yd (183 m) of the
sonobuoy.
Helicopters shall observe/survey the
vicinity of an ASW exercise for 10
minutes before the first deployment of
active (dipping) sonar in the water.
Helicopters shall not dip their sonar
within 200 yd (183 m) of a marine
mammal and shall cease pinging if a
marine mammal closes within 200 yd
(183 m) after pinging has begun.
Safety Zones—When marine
mammals are detected by any means
(aircraft, shipboard lookout, or
acoustically) the Navy shall ensure that
sonar transmission levels are limited to
at least 6 dB below normal operating
levels if any detected marine mammals
are within 1,000 yd (914 m) of the sonar
dome (the bow) (i.e., limit to at most 229
dB for AN/SQS–53 and 219 dB for AN/
SQS–56, etc.). Ships and submarines
shall continue to limit maximum
transmission levels by this 6-dB factor
until the animal has been seen to leave
the 1,000-yd safety zone, has not been
detected for 30 minutes, or the vessel
has transited more than 2,000 yd (1829
m) beyond the location of the last
detection.
When marine mammals are detected
by any means (aircraft, shipboard
lookout, or acoustically) the Navy shall
ensure that sonar transmission levels are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
limited to at least 10 dB below normal
operating levels if any detected marine
mammals are within 500 yd (457 m) of
the sonar dome (the bow). Ships and
submarines shall continue to limit
maximum ping levels by this 10-dB
factor until the animal has been seen to
leave the 500-yd safety zone, has not
been detected for 30 minutes, or the
vessel has transited more than 2,000 yd
(1,829 m) beyond the location of the last
detection.
When marine mammals are detected
by any means (aircraft, shipboard
lookout, or acoustically) the Navy shall
ensure that sonar transmission ceases if
any detected marine mammals are
within 200 yd (183 m) of the sonar
dome (the bow). Sonar shall not resume
until the animal has been seen to leave
the 200-yd safety zone, has not been
detected for 30 minutes, or the vessel
has transited more than 2,000 yd (457
m) beyond the location of the last
detection.
Special conditions applicable for
dolphins and porpoises only: If, after
conducting an initial maneuver to avoid
close quarters with dolphins or
porpoises, the OOD concludes that
dolphins or porpoises are deliberately
closing to ride the vessel’s bow wave, no
further mitigation actions are necessary
while the dolphins or porpoises
continue to exhibit bow wave riding
behavior.
Prior to start up or restart of active
sonar, operators will check that the
1,000-m safety zone radius around the
sound source is clear of marine
mammals.
Active sonar levels (generally)—Navy
shall operate active sonar at the lowest
practicable level, not to exceed 235 dB,
except as required to meet tactical
training objectives.
Submarine sonar operators will
review detection indicators of closeaboard marine mammals prior to the
commencement of ASW training events
involving MFAS.
If the need for power-down should
arise when the Navy is operating a hullmounted or sub-mounted source above
235 dB (infrequent), the Navy shall
follow the requirements as though they
were operating at 235 dB—the normal
operating level (i.e., the first powerdown will be to 229 dB, regardless of at
what level above 235 dB active sonar
was being operated).
tow vessel will immediately notify the
firing vessel, which will suspend the
exercise until the area is clear.
A 600 yd (585 m) radius buffer zone
will be established around the intended
target.
From the intended firing position,
trained lookouts will survey the buffer
zone for marine mammals prior to
commencement and during the exercise
as long as practicable. Due to the
distance between the firing position and
the buffer zone, lookouts are only
expected to visually detect breaching
whales, whale blows, and large pods of
dolphins and porpoises.
The exercise will be conducted only
when the buffer zone is visible and
marine mammals are not detected
within it.
Surface-to-Surface Gunnery (Up to 5Inch Explosive Rounds)
For exercises using targets towed by a
vessel, target-towing vessels shall
maintain a trained lookout for marine
mammals when feasible. If a marine
mammal is sighted in the vicinity, the
Air-to-Surface Gunnery (Explosive and
Non-Explosive Rounds)
A 200-yd (183 m) radius buffer zone
will be established around the intended
target.
If surface vessels are involved, the
lookouts would visually survey the
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Surface-to-Surface Gunnery (NonExplosive Rounds)
A 200-yd (183 m) radius buffer zone
shall be established around the intended
target.
From the intended firing position,
trained lookouts shall survey the buffer
zone for marine mammals prior to
commencement and during the exercise
as long as practicable.
If available, target towing vessels shall
maintain a lookout (unmanned towing
vessels will not have a lookout
available). If a marine mammal is
sighted in the vicinity of the exercise,
the tow vessel shall immediately notify
the firing vessel in order to secure
gunnery firing until the area is clear.
The exercise shall be conducted only
when the buffer zone is visible and
marine mammals are not detected
within the target area and the buffer
zone.
Surface-to-Air Gunnery (Explosive and
Non-Explosive Rounds)
Vessels will orient the geometry of
gunnery exercises in order to prevent
debris from falling in the area of sighted
marine mammals.
Vessels will attempt to recover any
parachute deploying aerial targets to the
extent practicable (and their parachutes
if feasible) to reduce the potential for
entanglement of marine mammals.
Target towing aircraft shall maintain a
lookout if feasible. If a marine mammal
is sighted in the vicinity of the exercise,
the tow aircraft will immediately notify
the firing vessel in order to secure
gunnery firing until the area is clear.
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
buffer zone for marine mammals prior to
and during the exercise.
Aerial surveillance of the buffer zone
for marine mammals will be conducted
prior to commencement of the exercise.
Aerial surveillance altitude of 500 feet
to 1,500 feet (152–456 m) is optimum.
Aircraft crew/pilot will maintain visual
watch during exercises. Release of
ordnance through cloud cover is
prohibited; aircraft must be able to
actually see ordnance impact areas.
The exercise will be conducted only
if marine mammals are not visible
within the buffer zone.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Air-to-Surface At-Sea Bombing
Exercises (Explosive and Non-Explosive
Bombs)
If surface vessels are involved, trained
lookouts shall survey for marine
mammals. Ordnance shall not be
targeted to impact within 1,000 yds (914
m) of known or observed marine
mammals.
A 1,000 yd (914 m) radius buffer zone
shall be established around the intended
target.
Aircraft shall visually survey the
target and buffer zone for marine
mammals prior to and during the
exercise. The survey of the impact area
shall be made by flying at 1,500 ft (152
m) or lower, if safe to do so, and at the
slowest safe speed. When safety or other
considerations require the release of
weapons without the releasing pilot
having visual sight of the target area, a
second aircraft, the ‘‘wingman,’’ will
clear the target area and perform the
clearance and observation functions
required before the dropping plane may
release its weapons. Both planes must
have direct communication to assure
immediate notification to the dropping
plane that the target area may have been
fouled by encroaching animals or
people. The clearing aircraft will assure
it has visual site of the target area at a
maximum height of 1,500 ft (457 m).
The clearing plane will remain within
visual sight of the target until required
to clear the area for safety reasons.
Survey aircraft shall employ most
effective search tactics and capabilities.
The exercises will be conducted only
if marine mammals are not visible
within the buffer zone.
Air-to-Surface Missile Exercises
(Explosive and Non-Explosive)
Aircraft will visually survey the target
area for marine mammals. Visual
inspection of the target area will be
made by flying at 1,500 ft (457 m) feet
or lower, if safe to do so, and at slowest
safe speed. Firing or range clearance
aircraft must be able to actually see
ordnance impact areas.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
Explosive ordnance shall not be
targeted to impact within 1,800 yds
(1646 m) of sighted marine mammals.
Sinking Exercises (SINKEX)
The selection of sites suitable for
SINKEX involves a balance of
operational suitability and requirements
established under the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act (MPRSA) permit granted to the
Navy (40 CFR § 229.2). To meet
operational suitability criteria, SINKEX
locations must be within a reasonable
distance of the target vessels’ originating
location. The locations should also be
close to active military bases to allow
participating assets access to shore
facilities. For safety purposes, these
locations should also be in areas that are
not generally used by non-military air or
watercraft. The MPRSA permit requires
vessels to be sunk in waters which are
at least 1,000 fathoms (6,000 ft (1828 m))
deep and at least 50 nm (92.6 km) from
land, which may incidentally avoid
adverse impacts to marine mammals. In
general, most marine mammals prefer
areas with strong bathymetric gradients
and oceanographic fronts for significant
biological activity such as feeding and
reproduction. Typical locations include
the continental shelf and shelf-edge.
In addition, the Magnuson-Stevens
Fisheries Conservation and Management
Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), as amended
by the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA),
mandated identification and
conservation of Essential Fish Habitat
(EFH) as well as subset of EFH known
as Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
(HAPC). The guidelines for designating
EFH identify HAPCs as types or areas of
habitat within EFH that are defined
based on one or more of the following
considerations: The importance of the
ecological function provided by the
habitat; the extent to which the habitat
is sensitive to human-induced
environmental degradation; whether,
and to what extent, development
activities are or will be stressing the
habitat type; and the rarity of the habitat
type (50 CFR 600.815(a)(8)). The
following HAPCs have been established
in the GoA: 10 Gulf of Alaska Slope
Habitat Conservation Areas
(GOASHCAs), 15 Alaska Seamount
Habitat Protection Areas (ASHPAs); and
5 Gulf of Alaska Coral Habitat
Protection Areas (NMFS 2006). Within
the TMAA, one GOASHCA (Cable) and
three ASHPAs (Dall, Giacomini, and
Quinn Seamounts) occur almost entirely
within the TMAA. Other areas, such as
the Kodiak Seamount and Middleton
West GOASHCA are partially located in
the TMAA. The Navy has agreed not to
conduct SINKEXs—the activity with the
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64545
greatest potential to impact HAPCs—
within these areas.
The following mitigation measures
shall be applied when conducting a
SINKEX in the GoA TMAA:
All weapons firing shall be conducted
during the period 1 hour after official
sunrise to 30 minutes before official
sunset.
An exclusion zone with a radius of
1.0 nm (1.9 km) will be established
around each target. An additional buffer
of 0.5 nm (0.9 km) will be added to
account for errors, target drift, and
animal movements. Additionally, a
safety zone, which will extend beyond
the buffer zone by an additional 0.5 nm
(0.9 km), shall be surveyed. Together,
the zone extends out 2 nm (3.7 km) from
the target.
A series of surveillance over-flights
shall be conducted within the 2 nm (3.7
km) zone around the target, prior to and
during the exercise, when feasible.
Survey protocol shall be as follows:
Overflights within the 2 nm (3.7 km)
zone around the target shall be
conducted in a manner that optimizes
the surface area of the water observed.
This may be accomplished through the
use of the Navy’s Search and Rescue
Tactical Aid, which provides the best
search altitude, ground speed, and track
spacing for the discovery of small,
possibly dark objects in the water based
on the environmental conditions of the
day. These environmental conditions
include the angle of sun inclination,
amount of daylight, cloud cover,
visibility, and sea state.
All visual surveillance activities shall
be conducted by Navy personnel trained
in visual surveillance. At least one
member of the mitigation team will have
completed the Navy’s marine mammal
training program for lookouts.
In addition to the overflights, the 2nm (3.7 km) zone around the target shall
be monitored by passive acoustic
means, when assets are available. This
passive acoustic monitoring will be
maintained throughout the exercise.
Additionally, passive sonar onboard
submarines may be utilized to detect
any vocalizing marine mammals in the
area. The OCE will be informed of any
aural detection of marine mammals and
will include this information in the
determination of when it is safe to
commence the exercise.
On each day of the exercise, aerial
surveillance of the 2 nm (3.7 km) zone
around the target shall commence 2
hours prior to the first firing.
The results of all visual, aerial, and
acoustic searches shall be reported
immediately to the OCE. No weapons
launches or firing may commence until
the OCE declares this 2 nm (3.7 km)
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64546
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
zone around the target is free of marine
mammals.
If a marine mammal is observed
within the 2 nm (3.7 km) zone around
the target, firing will be delayed until
the animal is re-sighted outside the 2
nm (3.7 km) zone around the target, or
30 minutes have elapsed. After 30
minutes, if the animal has not been resighted it can be assumed to have left
the 2 nm (3.7 km) zone around the
target. The OCE will determine if the
marine mammal is in danger of being
adversely affected by commencement of
the exercise.
During breaks in the exercise of 30
minutes or more, the 2 nm (3.7 km) zone
around the target shall again be
surveyed for any marine mammal. If
marine mammals are sighted within the
2 nm (3.7 km) zone around the target,
the OCE shall be notified, and the
procedure described above shall be
followed.
Upon sinking of the vessel, a final
surveillance of the 2 nm (3.7 km) zone
around the target shall be monitored for
2 hours, or until sunset, to verify that no
marine mammals were harmed.
Aerial surveillance shall be conducted
using helicopters or other aircraft based
on necessity and availability. The Navy
has several types of aircraft capable of
performing this task; however, not all
types are available for every exercise.
For each exercise, the available asset
best suited for identifying objects on
and near the surface of the ocean shall
be used. These aircraft shall be capable
of flying at the slow safe speeds
necessary to enable viewing of marine
vertebrates with unobstructed, or
minimally obstructed, downward and
outward visibility. The exclusion and
safety zone surveys may be cancelled in
the event that a mechanical problem,
emergency search and rescue, or other
similar and unexpected event preempts
the use of one of the aircraft onsite for
the exercise.
Every attempt shall be made to
conduct the exercise in sea states that
are ideal for marine mammal sighting,
Beaufort Sea State 3 or less. In the event
of a 4 or above, survey efforts shall be
increased within the 2 nm (3.7 km) zone
around the target. This shall be
accomplished through the use of an
additional aircraft, if available, and
conducting tight search patterns.
The exercise shall not be conducted
unless the 2 nm (3.7 km) zone around
the target could be adequately
monitored visually. Should low cloud
cover or surface visibility prevent
adequate visual monitoring as described
previously, the exercise would be
delayed until conditions improved, and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
all of the above monitoring criteria
could be met.
In the event that any marine mammals
are observed to be harmed in the area,
a detailed description of the animal
shall be taken, the location noted, and
if possible, photos taken of the marine
mammal. This information shall be
provided to NMFS via the Navy’s
regional environmental coordinator for
purposes of identification (see the
Stranding Plan for detail).
An after action report detailing the
exercise’s time line, the time the surveys
commenced and terminated, amount,
and types of all ordnance expended, and
the results of survey efforts for each
event shall be submitted to NMFS.
Explosive Source Sonobuoys (SSQ–
110A)
AN/SSQ–110A Pattern Deployment—
The following mitigation measures shall
be used with the employment of IEER/
AEER sonobuoys:
Crews shall conduct visual
reconnaissance of the drop area prior to
laying their intended sonobuoy pattern.
This search shall be conducted at an
altitude below 500 yd (457 m) at a slow
speed, if operationally feasible and
weather conditions permit. In dual
aircraft operations, crews are allowed to
conduct coordinated area clearances.
For IEER (AN/SSQ–110A), crews shall
conduct a minimum of 30 minutes of
visual and aural monitoring of the
search area prior to commanding the
first post detonation. This 30-minute
observation period may include pattern
deployment time.
For any part of the intended sonobuoy
pattern where a post (source/receiver
sonobuoy pair) will be deployed within
1,000 yd (914 m) of observed marine
mammal activity, the Navy shall deploy
the receiver only (i.e., not the source)
and monitor while conducting a visual
search. When marine mammals are no
longer detected within 1,000 yd (914 m)
of the intended post position, the source
sonobuoy (AN/SSQ–110A/SSQ–125)
will be co-located with the receiver.
When operationally feasible, Navy
crews shall conduct continuous visual
and aural monitoring of marine mammal
activity. This shall include monitoring
of own-aircraft sensors from the time of
the first sensor placement until the
aircraft have left the area and are out of
RF range of these sensors.
AN/SSQ–110A Pattern Employment
Aural Detection—If the presence of
marine mammals is detected aurally,
then that shall cue the Navy aircrew to
increase the diligence of their visual
surveillance. Subsequently, if no marine
mammals are visually detected, then the
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
crew may continue multi-static active
search.
Visual Detection—If marine mammals
are visually detected within 1,000 yd
(914 m) of the explosive source
sonobuoy (AN/SSQ–110A/SSQ–125)
intended for use, then that payload shall
not be activated. Aircrews may utilize
this post once the marine mammals
have not been re-sighted for 30 minutes,
or are observed to have moved outside
the 1,000 yd (914 m) safety buffer.
Aircrews may shift their multi-static
active search to another post, where
marine mammals are outside the 1,000
yd (914 m) safety buffer.
AN/SSQ–110A Scuttling Sonobuoys
For IEER (AN/SSQ–110A), aircrews
shall make every attempt to manually
detonate the unexploded charges at each
post in the pattern prior to departing the
operations area by using the ‘‘Payload 1
Release’’ command followed by the
‘‘Payload 2 Release’’ command. Aircrews
shall refrain from using the ‘‘Scuttle’’
command when two payloads remain at
a given post. Aircrews shall ensure that
a 1,000 yd (914 m) safety buffer, visually
clear of marine mammals, is maintained
around each post as is done during
active search operations.
Aircrews shall only leave posts with
unexploded charges in the event of a
sonobuoy malfunction, an aircraft
system malfunction, or when an aircraft
must immediately depart the area due to
issues such as fuel constraints,
inclement weather, and in-flight
emergencies. In these cases, the
sonobuoy will self-scuttle using the
secondary or tertiary method.
The Navy shall ensure all payloads
are accounted for. Explosive source
sonobuoys (AN/SSQ–110A) that cannot
be scuttled shall be reported as
unexploded ordnance via voice
communications while airborne, then
upon landing via naval message.
Mammal monitoring shall continue
until out of own-aircraft sensor range.
Mitigation Conclusions
NMFS has carefully evaluated the
Navy’s proposed mitigation measures
and considered a broad range of other
measures in the context of ensuring that
NMFS prescribes the means of effecting
the least practicable adverse impact on
the affected marine mammal species
and stocks and their habitat. Our
evaluation of potential measures
included consideration of the following
factors in relation to one another: The
manner in which, and the degree to
which, the successful implementation of
the measure is expected to minimize
adverse impacts to marine mammals;
the proven or likely efficacy of the
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
specific measure to minimize adverse
impacts as planned; and the
practicability of the measure for
applicant implementation, including
consideration of personnel safety,
practicality of implementation, and
impact on the effectiveness of the
military readiness activity.
In some cases, additional mitigation
measures are required beyond those that
the applicant proposes. Any mitigation
measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should
be able to accomplish, have a reasonable
likelihood of accomplishing (based on
current science), or contribute to the
accomplishment of one or more of the
general goals listed below:
(a) Avoidance or minimization of
injury or death of marine mammals
wherever possible (goals b, c, and d may
contribute to this goal).
(b) A reduction in the numbers of
marine mammals (total number or
number at biologically important time
or location) exposed to received levels
of MFAS/HFAS, underwater
detonations, or other activities expected
to result in the take of marine mammals
(this goal may contribute to a, above, or
to reducing harassment takes only).
(c) A reduction in the number of times
(total number or number at biologically
important time or location) individuals
would be exposed to received levels of
MFAS/HFAS, underwater detonations,
or other activities expected to result in
the take of marine mammals (this goal
may contribute to a, above, or to
reducing harassment takes only).
(d) A reduction in the intensity of
exposures (either total number or
number at biologically important time
or location) to received levels of MFAS/
HFAS, underwater detonations, or other
activities expected to result in the take
of marine mammals (this goal may
contribute to a, above, or to reducing the
severity of harassment takes only).
(e) Avoidance or minimization of
adverse effects to marine mammal
habitat, paying special attention to the
food base, activities that block or limit
passage to or from biologically
important areas, permanent destruction
of habitat, or temporary destruction/
disturbance of habitat during a
biologically important time.
(f) For monitoring directly related to
mitigation—an increase in the
probability of detecting marine
mammals, thus allowing for more
effective implementation of the
mitigation (shut-down zone, etc.).
Based on our evaluation of the Navy’s
proposed measures, as well as other
measures considered by NMFS or
recommended by the public, NMFS has
determined preliminarily that the
Navy’s proposed mitigation measures
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
(especially when the Adaptive
Management component is taken into
consideration (see Adaptive
Management, below)) are adequate
means of effecting the least practicable
adverse impacts on marine mammals
species or stocks and their habitat,
paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance, while also considering
personnel safety, practicality of
implementation, and impact on the
effectiveness of the military readiness
activity. Further detail is included
below.
The proposed rule comment period
will afford the public an opportunity to
submit recommendations, views, and/or
concerns regarding this action and the
proposed mitigation measures. While
NMFS has determined preliminarily
that the Navy’s proposed mitigation
measures would effect the least
practicable adverse impact on the
affected species or stocks and their
habitat, NMFS will consider all public
comments to help inform our final
decision. Consequently, the proposed
mitigation measures may be refined,
modified, removed, or added to prior to
the issuance of the final rule based on
public comments received, and where
appropriate, further analysis of any
additional mitigation measures.
NMFS believes that the range
clearance procedures and shutdown/
safety zone/exclusion zone measures the
Navy has proposed will enable the Navy
to avoid injuring marine mammals and
will enable them to minimize the
numbers of marine mammals exposed to
levels associated with TTS for the
following reasons:
MFAS/HFAS
The Navy’s standard protective
measures indicate that they would
ensure power-down of MFAS/HFAS by
6 dB when a marine mammal is
detected within 1,000 yd (914 m),
power-down of 4 more dB (or 10 dB
total) when a marine mammal is
detected within 500 yd (457 m), and
would cease MFAS/HFAS transmissions
when a marine mammal is detected
within 200 yd (183 m).
PTS/Injury—NMFS believes that the
proposed mitigation measures would
allow the Navy to avoid exposing
marine mammals to received levels of
MFAS/HFAS sound that would result in
injury for the following reasons: The
estimated distance from the most
powerful source at which cetaceans
would receive levels at or above the
threshold for PTS/injury/Level A
Harassment is approximately 33 ft (10
m); and NMFS believes that the
probability that a marine mammal
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64547
would approach within the above
distances of the sonar dome (to the sides
or below) without being seen by the
watchstanders (who would then activate
a shutdown if the animal was within
200 yd (183 m)) is very low, especially
considering that animals would likely
avoid approaching a source transmitting
at that level at that distance.
TTS—NMFS believes that the
proposed mitigation measures would
allow the Navy to minimize exposure of
marine mammals to received levels of
MFAS/HFAS sound associated with
TTS for the following reasons: The
estimated maximum distance from the
most powerful source at which
cetaceans would receive levels at or
above the threshold for TTS is
approximately 584 ft (178 m) from the
source in most operating environments;
based on the size of the animals, average
group size, behavior, and average dive
time, NMFS believes that the probability
that Navy watchstanders would visually
detect marine mammals at some point
within the 1,000 yd (914 km) safety
zone before they are exposed to the TTS
threshold levels is high, which means
that the Navy would often be able to
shut down or power-down to avoid
exposing these species to sound levels
associated with TTS; more cryptic
animals that are difficult to detect and
observe, such as deep-diving cetaceans
(i.e., beaked whales), are less likely to be
visually detected and could potentially
be exposed to levels of MFAS/HFAS
expected to cause TTS. However,
animals at depth in one location would
not be expected to be continuously
exposed to repeated sonar signals given
the typical 10–14 knot speed of Navy
surface ships during ASW events.
During a typical 1-hr subsurface dive by
a beaked whale, the ship would have
moved over 5 to 10 nm from the original
location; and, the Navy’s bow riding
mitigation exception for dolphins may
sometimes result in dolphins being
exposed to levels of MFAS/HFAS likely
to result in TTS. However, there are
combinations of factors that reduce the
acoustic energy received by dolphins
approaching ships to ride in bow waves.
Dolphins riding a ship’s bow wave are
outside of the main beam of the MFAS
vertical beam pattern. Source levels
drop quickly outside of the main beam.
Sidelobes of the radiate beam pattern
that point to the surface are significantly
lower in power. Together with spherical
spreading losses, received levels in the
ship’s bow wave can be more than 42
dB less than typical source level (i.e.,
235 dB ¥ 42 dB = 193 dB SPL). Finally,
bow wave riding dolphins are
frequently in and out of a bubble layer
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
64548
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
generated by the breaking bow waves.
This bubble layer is an excellent
scatterer of acoustic energy and can
further reduce received energy.
The Stranding Response Plan will
minimize the probability of distressed
live-stranded animals responding to the
proximity of sonar in a manner that
further stresses them or increases the
potential likelihood of mortality.
Underwater Explosives
The Navy utilizes exclusion zones
(wherein explosive detonation will not
begin/continue if animals are within the
zone) for explosive exercises. Table 3
identifies the various explosives, the
estimated distance at which animals
will receive levels associated with take
(see Acoustic Take Criteria Section), and
the exclusion zone associated with the
explosive types.
Mortality and Injury—NMFS believes
that the mitigation measures will allow
the Navy to avoid exposing marine
mammals to underwater detonations
that would result in injury or mortality
for the following reasons: Surveillance
for large charges (which includes aerial
and passive acoustic detection methods,
when available, to ensure clearance)
begins two hours before the exercise and
extends to 2 nm (3704 m) from the
source. Surveillance for all charges
extends out 3–50 times the farthest
distance from the source at which injury
would be anticipated to occur (see Table
3). Animals would need to be less than
611 m (688 yd) (large explosives) or 19
m (20.7 yd) (smaller charges) from the
source to be injured. Unlike for active
sonar, an animal would need to be
present at the exact moment of the
explosion(s) (except for the short series
of gunfire example in GUNEX) to be
taken. The model predicted that four
animals (three Dall’s porpoises and one
Northern fur seal) would be exposed to
explosive levels associated with injury
or death. When the implementation of
the exclusion zones (i.e., the fact that
the Navy will not start a detonation or
will not continue to detonate explosives
if an animal is detected within the
exclusion zone) is considered in
combination with the factors described
in the above bullets, NMFS believes that
the Navy’s mitigation will prevent
injury and mortality to marine mammals
from explosives.
TTS—NMFS believes that the
proposed mitigation measures will
allow the Navy to minimize the
exposure of marine mammals to
underwater detonations that would
result in TTS for the following reasons:
Seventy animals annually were
predicted to be exposed to explosive
levels that would result in TTS. For the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
reasons explained above, NMFS
believes that most modeled TTS takes
can be avoided, especially dolphins,
mysticetes and sperm whales, and social
pelagic species. However, more cryptic,
deep-diving species (e.g., beaked
whales) are less likely to be visually
detected and could potentially be
exposed to explosive levels expected to
cause TTS. The model estimated that
two beaked whales would be exposed to
TTS levels. Additionally, for SINKEXs,
the distance at which an animal would
be expected to receive sound or pressure
levels associated with TTS (182 dB SEL
or 23 psi) is sometimes (when the
largest explosive type, the MK–84, is
used) larger than the exclusion zone,
which means that for those two exercise
types, some individuals will likely be
exposed to levels associated with TTS
outside of the exclusion zone.
Research
The Navy provides a significant
amount of funding and support to
marine research. In the past five years
the agency funded over $100 million
($26 million in Fiscal Year 08 alone) to
universities, research institutions,
federal laboratories, private companies,
and independent researchers around the
world to study marine mammals. The
U.S. Navy sponsors 70 percent of all
U.S. research concerning the effects of
human-generated sound on marine
mammals and 50 percent of such
research conducted worldwide. Major
topics of Navy-supported research
include the following:
• Better understanding of marine
species distribution and important
habitat areas;
• Developing methods to detect and
monitor marine species before and
during training;
• Understanding the effects of sound
on marine mammals, sea turtles, fish,
and birds; and
• Developing tools to model and
estimate potential effects of sound.
This research is directly applicable to
fleet training activities, particularly with
respect to the investigations of the
potential effects of underwater noise
sources on marine mammals and other
protected species. Proposed training
activities employ active sonar and
underwater explosives, which introduce
sound into the marine environment.
The Marine Life Sciences Division of
the Office of Naval Research currently
coordinates six programs that examine
the marine environment and are
devoted solely to studying the effects of
noise and/or the implementation of
technology tools that will assist the
Navy in studying and tracking marine
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
mammals. The six programs are as
follows:
• Environmental Consequences of
Underwater Sound
• Non-Auditory Biological Effects of
Sound on Marine Mammals
• Effects of Sound on the Marine
Environment
• Sensors and Models for Marine
Environmental Monitoring
• Effects of Sound on Hearing of
Marine Animals
• Passive Acoustic Detection,
Classification, and Tracking of Marine
Mammals
The Navy has also developed the
technical reports referenced within this
document, which include the Marine
Resource Assessment. Furthermore,
research cruises by NMFS and by
academic institutions have received
funding from the U.S. Navy. For
example, in April 2009, the U.S. Pacific
Fleet contributed approximately
$250,000 to support a NMFS marine
mammal density survey of the GoA’s
offshore waters. The goal of this
validation monitoring was to increase
the state of awareness on marine
mammal occurrence, density, and
distribution within the GoA. The Navy
funded vessel-based line-transect survey
conducted from onboard the NOAA
ship Oscar Dyson determined marine
mammal species distribution and
abundance in the GoA TMAA. The
survey cruise employed multiple
observation techniques, including visual
and passive acoustic observations, as
well as photographic identifications
(Rone et al., 2009). In addition to the
U.S. Pacific Fleet-funded monitoring
initiative, the Chief of Naval Operations
Environmental Readiness Division and
the Office of Naval Research have
developed a coordinated Science &
Technology and Research &
Development program focused on
marine mammals and sound. Total
Investment in this program between
2004 and 2008 was $100 million. Fiscal
Year 09 funding was $22 million and
continued funding at levels greater than
$14 million is foreseen in subsequent
years (beyond 2010).
The Navy has sponsored several
workshops to evaluate the current state
of knowledge and potential for future
acoustic monitoring of marine
mammals. The workshops brought
together acoustic experts and marine
biologists from the Navy and other
research organizations to present data
and information on current acoustic
monitoring research efforts and to
evaluate the potential for incorporating
similar technology and methods on
instrumented ranges. However, acoustic
detection, identification, localization,
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
and tracking of individual animals still
requires a significant amount of research
effort to be considered a reliable method
for marine mammal monitoring. The
Navy supports research efforts on
acoustic monitoring and will continue
to investigate the feasibility of passive
acoustics as a potential mitigation and
monitoring tool.
Overall, the Navy will continue to
fund ongoing marine mammal research,
and is planning to coordinate long-term
monitoring/studies of marine mammals
on various established ranges and
operating areas. The Navy will continue
to research and contribute to university/
external research to improve the state of
the science regarding marine species
biology and acoustic effects. These
efforts include mitigation and
monitoring programs; data sharing with
NMFS and via the literature for research
and development efforts; and future
research as described previously.
Monitoring
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA
states that in order to issue an ITA for
an activity, NMFS must set forth
‘‘requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such
taking’’. The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13)
indicate that requests for LOAs must
include the suggested means of
accomplishing the necessary monitoring
and reporting that will result in
increased knowledge of the species and
of the level of taking or impacts on
populations of marine mammals that are
expected to be present.
Monitoring measures prescribed by
NMFS should accomplish one or more
of the following general goals:
(a) An increase in our understanding
of how many marine mammals are
likely to be exposed to levels of MFAS/
HFAS (or explosives or other stimuli)
that we associate with specific adverse
effects, such as behavioral harassment,
TTS, or PTS.
(b) An increase in our understanding
of how individual marine mammals
respond (behaviorally or
physiologically) to MFAS/HFAS (at
specific received levels), explosives, or
other stimuli expected to result in take.
(c) An increase in our understanding
of how anticipated takes of individuals
(in different ways and to varying
degrees) may impact the population,
species, or stock (specifically through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival).
(d) An increase in knowledge of the
affected species.
(e) An increase in our understanding
of the effectiveness of certain mitigation
and monitoring measures.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
(f) A better understanding and record
of the manner in which the authorized
entity complies with the incidental take
authorization.
(g) An increase in the probability of
detecting marine mammals, both within
the safety zone (thus allowing for more
effective implementation of the
mitigation) and in general to better
achieve the above goals.
Proposed Monitoring Plan for the GoA
TMAA
The Navy submitted a draft
Monitoring Plan for the GoA TMAA
which may be viewed at NMFS’ Web
site: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
permits/incidental.htm#applications.
The plan may be modified or
supplemented based on comments or
new information received from the
public during the public comment
period. A summary of the primary
components of the plan follows.
Navy Monitoring Plans are typically
designed as a collection of focused
‘‘studies’’ to gather data that will allow
the Navy to address one or more of the
following questions:
(a) Are marine mammals exposed to
MFAS/HFAS (1–10 kHz), especially at
levels associated with adverse effects
(i.e., based on NMFS’ criteria for
behavioral harassment, TTS, or PTS)? If
so, at what levels are they exposed?
(b) If marine mammals are exposed to
MFAS/HFAS, do they redistribute
geographically as a result of continued
exposure? If so, how long does the
redistribution last?
(c) If marine mammals are exposed to
MFAS/HFAS, what are their behavioral
responses to various levels?
(d) What are the behavioral responses
of marine mammals that are exposed to
explosives at specific levels?
(e) Is the Navy’s suite of mitigation
measures for MFAS/HFAS and
explosives (e.g., Protective Measures
Assessment Protocol, major exercise
measures agreed to by the Navy through
permitting) effective at avoiding TTS,
injury, and mortality of marine
mammals?
Given the larger scope of training
events within other Navy range
complexes as compared to the GoA, not
all of these original five study questions
would necessarily be addressed within
the GoA TMAA Monitoring Plan.
Rather, data collected from the GoA
monitoring efforts would be used to
supplement a consolidated range
complex marine mammal monitoring
report incorporating data from the
Hawaii Range Complex, Marianas Island
Range Complex, Northwest Training
Range Complex, and Southern
California Range Complex.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64549
Data gathered in these studies will be
collected by qualified, professional
marine mammal biologists that are
experts in their field.
Monitoring methods proposed for the
GoA include use of passive acoustic
monitoring (PAM) to primarily focus on
providing additional data or study
questions (b) and (c).
This monitoring plan has been
designed to gather data on all species of
marine mammals that are observed in
the GoA TMAA study area; however,
the Navy will prioritize monitoring
efforts for ESA-listed species and
beaked whale species. The Plan
recognizes that deep-diving and cryptic
species of marine mammals, such as
beaked whales and sperm whales, may
have low probability of visual detection
(Barlow and Gisiner, 2006). Therefore,
methods will be utilized to address this
issue (e.g., PAM).
During the comment period on the
Notice of Receipt (75 FR 5575, February
3, 2010) for the GoA TMAA action,
NMFS received multiple public
comments suggesting that there are
inadequate density, distribution, and
abundance data for marine mammals in
the GoA TMAA. As mentioned
previously, the Navy funded a $250,000
density survey in the off-shore waters of
the GoA TMAA in April, 2009. As noted
above, the Navy’s draft monitoring plan
was developed specifically to address
distribution and abundance of marine
mammals, and the year-round PAM
recorders may fill in some of the
seasonal data-gaps. NMFS believes that
we should vigorously target this
baseline information need with the
monitoring plan and we will continue to
work with the Navy on the draft plan,
and in consideration of the public
comments that we receive on this
proposed rule. During the public
comment period, we encourage the
public to recommend the most effective
regionally specific methods for
gathering the needed marine mammal
density, distribution, and abundance
information and to prioritize the
specific data needs (species, time of
year, etc.). This information will ensure
the design of the most effective
Monitoring Plan with the resources
available.
In addition to the Monitoring Plan for
the GoA, the Navy has established an
Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring
Program (ICMP). The ICMP is a Navywide monitoring framework that will
provide an overarching structure and
coordination that will, over time,
compile data from all Navy rangespecific monitoring plans; the GoA
TMAA plan is just one component of
the ICMP. The overall objective of the
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
64550
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
ICMP is to assimilate relevant data
collected across Navy range complexes
in order to answer questions pertaining
to the impact of MFAS and underwater
explosive detonations on marine
animals. Top priorities of the ICMP
include: Monitor Navy training events,
particularly those involving MFAS and
underwater detonations; collect data to
support estimating the number of
individuals exposed to sound levels
above current regulatory thresholds;
assess the efficacy and practicability of
monitoring and mitigation tools and
techniques and the Navy’s current
mitigation methods; and add to the
overall knowledge base on potential
behavioral and physiological effects to
marine species from MFAS and
underwater detonations. More
information about the ICMP may be
found in the draft Monitoring Plan for
the GoA.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Monitoring Workshop
The Navy, with guidance and support
from NMFS, will convene a Monitoring
Workshop, including marine mammal
and acoustic experts as well as other
interested parties, in 2011. The
Monitoring Workshop participants will
review the monitoring results from other
Navy rules and LOAs (e.g., the Southern
California Range Complex (SOCAL),
Hawaii Range Complex (HRC), etc.). The
Monitoring Workshop participants will
provide their individual
recommendations to the Navy and
NMFS on the monitoring plan(s) after
also considering the current science
(including Navy research and
development) and working within the
framework of available resources and
feasibility of implementation. NMFS
and the Navy will then analyze the
input from the Monitoring Workshop
participants and determine the best way
forward from a national perspective.
Subsequent to the Monitoring
Workshop, modifications will be
applied to monitoring plans as
appropriate.
Adaptive Management
The final regulations governing the
take of marine mammals incidental to
Navy training exercises in the GoA
TMAA will contain an adaptive
management component. Our
understanding of the effects of MFAS
and explosives on marine mammals is
still in its relative infancy, and yet the
science in this field is evolving fairly
quickly. These circumstances make the
inclusion of an adaptive management
component both valuable and necessary
within the context of 5-year regulations
for activities that have been associated
with marine mammal mortality in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
certain circumstances and locations
(though not in the Pacific Ocean). The
use of adaptive management will allow
NMFS to consider new information
from different sources to determine
(with input from the Navy regarding
practicability) on an annual or biennial
basis if mitigation or monitoring
measures should be modified (including
additions or deletions) if new data
suggest that such modifications are
appropriate for subsequent annual or
biennial LOAs.
The following are some of the
possible sources of applicable data: (1)
Findings of the Workshop that the Navy
will convene in 2011 to analyze
monitoring results to date, review
current science, and recommend
modifications, as appropriate, to the
monitoring protocols to increase
monitoring effectiveness; (2) compiled
results of Navy funded research and
development (R&D) studies (presented
pursuant to the ICMP, which is
discussed elsewhere in this document);
(3) results from specific stranding
investigations (involving coincident
MFAS or explosives training or not
involving coincident use); (4) results
from general marine mammal and sound
research; and (5) any information which
reveals that marine mammals may have
been taken in a manner, extent or
number not authorized by these
regulations or subsequent Letters of
Authorization.
Separately, in July 2010, NMFS and
the Navy convened the ‘‘Marine
Mammals and Sound’’ workshop, which
brought together science and policy
experts from the government, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations with the
goals of prioritizing marine mammal
research needs and opening up a broad
discussion of (and potentially making
recommendations regarding) some of
the current management issues related
to marine mammals and sound. After
the information and ideas gathered
during this workshop are sorted,
compiled, and assessed, NMFS will use
them, as appropriate, to inform our
management decisions on issues such as
appropriate mitigation and monitoring.
In addition to considering these
workshop products in the broader
context of all MMPA authorizations that
the Office of Protected Resources, they
will also be considered as NMFS and
the Navy work through the Adaptive
Management process outlined for the
GOA below.
Mitigation measures could be
modified, added, or deleted if new
information suggests that such
modifications would have a reasonable
likelihood of accomplishing the goals of
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
mitigation laid out in this proposed rule
and if the measures are practicable.
NMFS would also coordinate with the
Navy to modify, add, or delete the
existing monitoring requirements if the
new data suggest that the addition of (or
deletion of) a particular measure would
more effectively accomplish the goals of
monitoring laid out in this proposed
rule. The reporting requirements
associated with this proposed rule are
designed to provide NMFS with
monitoring data from the previous year
to allow NMFS to consider the data and
issue LOAs. NMFS and the Navy will
meet, prior to LOA issuance, to discuss
the monitoring reports, Navy R&D
developments, and current science and
whether mitigation or monitoring
modifications are appropriate.
Reporting
In order to issue an ITA for an
activity, Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the
MMPA states that NMFS must set forth
‘‘requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such
taking’’. Effective reporting is critical
both to compliance as well as ensuring
that the most value is obtained from the
required monitoring. Proposed reporting
requirements may be modified,
removed, or added based on information
or comments received during the public
comment period. Currently, there are
several different reporting requirements
pursuant to these proposed regulations:
General Notification of Injured or Dead
Marine Mammals
Navy personnel will ensure that
NMFS is notified immediately (see
Communication Plan) or as soon as
clearance procedures allow if an
injured, stranded, or dead marine
mammal is found during or shortly
after, and in the vicinity of, any Navy
training exercise utilizing MFAS, HFAS,
or underwater explosive detonations.
The Navy will provide NMFS with
species or description of the animal(s),
the condition of the animal(s) (including
carcass condition if the animal is dead),
location, time of first discovery,
observed behaviors (if alive), and photo
or video (if available). The GoA TMAA
Stranding Response Plan contains more
specific reporting requirements for
specific circumstances.
In the event that an injured, stranded,
or dead marine mammal is found by the
Navy that is not in the vicinity of, or
found during or shortly after MFAS,
HFAS, or underwater explosive
detonations, the Navy will report the
same information as listed above as
soon as operationally feasible and
clearance procedures allow.
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
General Notification of a Ship Strike
In the event of a ship strike by any
Navy vessel, at any time or place, the
Navy shall do the following:
• Immediately report to NMFS the
species identification (if known),
location (lat/long) of the animal (or the
strike if the animal has disappeared),
and whether the animal is alive or dead
(or unknown);
• Report to NMFS as soon as
operationally feasible the size and
length of the animal, an estimate of the
injury status (e.g., dead, injured but
alive, injured and moving, unknown,
etc.), vessel class/type and operational
status;
• Report to NMFS the vessel length,
speed, and heading as soon as feasible;
and
• Provide NMFS a photo or video, if
equipment is available.
Annual GoA TMAA Monitoring Plan
Report
The Navy shall submit a report
annually on December 15 describing the
implementation and results (April
through October of the same year) of the
GoA TMAA Monitoring Plan, described
above. Data collection methods will be
standardized across range complexes to
allow for comparison in different
geographic locations. Although
additional information will also be
gathered, the marine mammal observers
(MMOs) collecting marine mammal data
pursuant to the GoA TMAA Monitoring
Plan shall, at a minimum, provide the
same marine mammal observation data
required in the MFAS/HFAS major
Training Exercises section of the Annual
GoA TMAA Exercise Report referenced
below.
The GoA TMAA Monitoring Plan
Report may be provided to NMFS
within a larger report that includes the
required Monitoring Plan Reports from
multiple Range Complexes.
Annual GoA TMAA Exercise Report
The Navy will submit an Annual GoA
TMAA Report on December 15 of every
year (covering data gathered from April
through October). This report shall
contain the subsections and information
indicated below.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
MFAS/HFAS Training Exercises
This section shall contain the
following information for the following
Coordinated and Strike Group exercises:
Joint Multi-strike Group Exercises; Joint
Expeditionary Exercises; and Marine Air
Ground Task Force TMAA:
(a) Exercise Information (for each
exercise)
(i) Exercise designator
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
(ii) Date that exercise began and
ended
(iii) Location
(iv) Number and types of active
sources used in the exercise
(v) Number and types of passive
acoustic sources used in exercise
(vi) Number and types of vessels,
aircraft, etc., participating in exercise
(vii) Total hours of observation by
watchstanders
(viii) Total hours of all active sonar
source operation
(ix) Total hours of each active sonar
source (along with an explanation of
how hours are calculated for sources
typically quantified in alternate way
(buoys, torpedoes, etc.)).
(x) Wave height (high, low, and
average during exercise)
(b) Individual marine mammal
sighting info (for each sighting in each
exercise)
(i) Location of sighting
(ii) Species (if not possible—
indication of whale/dolphin/pinniped)
(iii) Number of individuals
(iv) Calves observed (y/n)
(v) Initial Detection Sensor
(vi) Indication of specific type of
platform observation made from
(including, for example, what type of
surface vessel, i.e., FFG, DDG, or CG)
(vii) Length of time observers
maintained visual contact with marine
mammal(s)
(viii) Wave height (in feet)
(ix) Visibility
(x) Sonar source in use (y/n)
(xi) Indication of whether animal is
<200 yd, 200–500 yd, 500–1,000 yd,
1,000–2,000 yd, or >2,000 yd from sonar
source in (x) above
(xiii) Mitigation Implementation—
Whether operation of sonar sensor was
delayed, or sonar was powered or shut
down, and how long the delay was
(xiv) If source in use (x) is
hullmounted, true bearing of animal
from ship, true direction of ship’s travel,
and estimation of animal’s motion
relative to ship (opening, closing,
parallel)
(xv) Observed behavior—
Watchstanders shall report, in plain
language and without trying to
categorize in any way, the observed
behavior of the animals (such as animal
closing to bow ride, paralleling course/
speed, floating on surface and not
swimming, etc.)
(c) An evaluation (based on data
gathered during all of the exercises) of
the effectiveness of mitigation measures
designed to avoid exposing marine
mammals to MFAS, that shall identify
the specific observations that support
any conclusions the Navy reaches about
the effectiveness of the mitigation
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64551
ASW Summary
This section shall include the
following information as summarized
from non-major training exercises (unitlevel exercises, such as TRACKEXs):
(a) Total Hours—Total annual hours
of each type of sonar source (along with
explanation of how hours are calculated
for sources typically quantified in
alternate way (buoys, torpedoes, etc.))
(b) Cumulative Impacts—To the
extent practicable, the Navy, in
coordination with NMFS, shall develop
and implement a method of annually
reporting non-major training (i.e., ULT)
utilizing hull-mounted sonar. The report
shall present an annual (and seasonal,
where practicable) depiction of nonmajor training exercises geographically
across the GoA TMAA. The Navy shall
include (in the GoA TMAA annual
report) a brief annual progress update
on the status of the development of an
effective and unclassified method to
report this information until an agreedupon (with NMFS) method has been
developed and implemented.
Sonar Exercise Notification
The Navy shall submit to the NMFS
Office of Protected Resources (specific
contact information to be provided in
LOA) either an electronic (preferably) or
verbal report within fifteen calendar
days after the completion of any MTER
indicating:
(1) Location of the exercise
(2) Beginning and end dates of the
exercise
(3) Type of exercise
Improved Extended Echo-Ranging
System (IEER)/Advanced Extended
Echo-Ranging System (AEER) Summary
This section shall include an annual
summary of the following IEER and
AEER information:
(i) Total number of IEER and AEER
events conducted in GoA TMAA Study
Area
(ii) Total expended/detonated rounds
(buoys)
(iii) Total number of self-scuttled
IEER rounds
Sinking Exercises (SINKEXs)
This section shall include the
following information for each SINKEX
completed that year:
(a) Exercise information:
(i) Location
(ii) Date and time exercise began and
ended
(iii) Total hours of observation by
watchstanders before, during, and after
exercise
(iv) Total number and types of rounds
expended/explosives detonated
(v) Number and types of passive
acoustic sources used in exercise
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64552
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(vi) Total hours of passive acoustic
search time
(vii) Number and types of vessels,
aircraft, etc., participating in exercise
(viii) Wave height in feet (high, low
and average during exercise)
(ix) Narrative description of sensors
and platforms utilized for marine
mammal detection and timeline
illustrating how marine mammal
detection was conducted
(b) Individual marine mammal
observation during SINKEX (by Navy
lookouts) information:
(i) Location of sighting
(ii) Species (if not possible—
indication of whale/dolphin/pinniped)
(iii) Number of individuals
(iv) Calves observed (y/n)
(v) Initial detection sensor
(vi) Length of time observers
maintained visual contact with marine
mammal
(vii) Wave height
(viii) Visibility
(ix) Whether sighting was before,
during, or after detonations/exercise,
and how many minutes before or after
(x) Distance of marine mammal from
actual detonations (or target spot if not
yet detonated)—use four categories to
define distance: (1) The modeled injury
threshold radius for the largest
explosive used in that exercise type in
that OPAREA (762 m for SINKEX in the
GoA TMAA); (2) the required exclusion
zone (1 nm for SINKEX in the GoA
TMAA); (3) the required observation
distance (if different than the exclusion
zone (2 nm for SINKEX in the GoA
TMAA); and (4) greater than the
required observed distance. For
example, in this case, the observer
would indicate if <762 m, from 762 m
to 1 nm, from 1 nm to 2 nm, and >2 nm.
(xi) Observed behavior—
Watchstanders will report, in plain
language and without trying to
categorize in any way, the observed
behavior of the animals (such as animal
closing to bow ride, paralleling course/
speed, floating on surface and not
swimming etc.), including speed and
direction.
(xii) Resulting mitigation
implementation—Indicate whether
explosive detonations were delayed,
ceased, modified, or not modified due to
marine mammal presence and for how
long.
(xiii) If observation occurs while
explosives are detonating in the water,
indicate munitions type in use at time
of marine mammal detection.
Explosives Summary
The Navy is in the process of
improving the methods used to track
explosive use to provide increased
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
granularity. To the extent practicable,
the Navy will provide the information
described below for all of their
explosive exercises. Until the Navy is
able to report in full the information
below, they will provide an annual
update on the Navy’s explosive tracking
methods, including improvements from
the previous year.
(a) Total annual number of each type
of explosive exercise (of those identified
as part of the ‘‘specified activity’’ in this
propsed rule) conducted in the GoA
TMAA
(b) Total annual expended/detonated
rounds (missiles, bombs, etc.) for each
explosive type
GoA TMAA 5-Yr Comprehensive Report
The Navy shall submit to NMFS a
draft report that analyzes and
summarizes all of the multi-year marine
mammal information gathered during
ASW and explosive exercises for which
annual reports are required (Annual
GoA TMAA Exercise Reports and GoA
TMAA Monitoring Plan Reports). This
report shall be submitted at the end of
the fourth year of the rule (December
2014), covering activities that have
occurred through October 2014.
Comprehensive National ASW Report
By June 2014, the Navy shall submit
a draft National Report that analyzes,
compares, and summarizes the active
sonar data gathered (through January 1,
2014) from the watchstanders and
pursuant to the implementation of the
Monitoring Plans for the Northwest
Training Range Complex, the Southern
California Range Complex, the Atlantic
Fleet Active Sonar Training, the Hawaii
Range Complex, the Mariana Islands
Range Complex, and the Gulf of Alaska.
The Navy shall respond to NMFS
comments and requests for additional
information or clarification on the GoA
TMAA Comprehensive Report, the
Comprehensive National ASW report,
the Annual GoA TMAA Exercise Report,
or the Annual GoA TMAA Monitoring
Plan Report (or the multi-Range
Complex Annual Monitoring Plan
Report, if that is how the Navy chooses
to submit the information) if submitted
within 3 months of receipt. These
reports will be considered final after the
Navy has adequately addressed NMFS’
comments or provided the requested
information, or three months after the
submittal of the draft if NMFS does not
comment by then.
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
As mentioned previously, one of the
main purposes of NMFS’ effects
assessments is to identify the
permissible methods of taking, meaning:
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The nature of the take (e.g., resulting
from anthropogenic noise vs. from ship
strike, etc.); the regulatory level of take
(i.e., mortality vs. Level A or Level B
harassment) and the amount of take.
The Potential Effects section identified
the lethal responses, physical trauma,
sensory impairment (permanent and
temporary threshold shifts and acoustic
masking), physiological responses
(particular stress responses), and
behavioral responses that could
potentially result from exposure to
MFAS/HFAS or underwater explosive
detonations. This section will relate the
potential effects to marine mammals
from MFAS/HFAS and underwater
detonation of explosives to the MMPA
statutory definitions of Level A and
Level B Harassment and attempt to
quantify the effects that might occur
from the specific training activities that
the Navy is proposing in the GoA.
As mentioned previously, behavioral
responses are context-dependent,
complex, and influenced to varying
degrees by a number of factors other
than just received level. For example, an
animal may respond differently to a
sound emanating from a ship that is
moving towards the animal than it
would to an identical received level
coming from a vessel that is moving
away, or to a ship traveling at a different
speed or at a different distance from the
animal. At greater distances, though, the
nature of vessel movements could also
potentially not have any effect on the
animal’s response to the sound. In any
case, a full description of the suite of
factors that elicited a behavioral
response would require a mention of the
vicinity, speed and movement of the
vessel, or other factors. So, while sound
sources and the received levels are the
primary focus of the analysis and those
that are laid out quantitatively in the
regulatory text, it is with the
understanding that other factors related
to the training are sometimes
contributing to the behavioral responses
of marine mammals, although they
cannot be quantified.
Definition of Harassment
As mentioned previously, with
respect to military readiness activities,
Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA defines
‘‘harassment’’ as: (i) Any act that injures
or has the significant potential to injure
a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild [Level A Harassment];
or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely
to disturb a marine mammal or marine
mammal stock in the wild by causing
disruption of natural behavioral
patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering, to a point where
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
such behavioral patterns are abandoned
or significantly altered [Level B
Harassment].
Level B Harassment
Of the potential effects that were
described in the previous sections, the
following are the types of effects that
fall into the Level B Harassment
category:
Behavioral Harassment—Behavioral
disturbance that rises to the level
described in the definition above, when
resulting from exposures to MFAS/
HFAS or underwater detonations (or
another stressor), is considered Level B
Harassment. Louder sounds (when other
factors are not considered) are generally
expected to elicit a stronger response.
Some of the lower level physiological
stress responses discussed in the
previous sections will also likely cooccur with the predicted harassments,
although these responses are more
difficult to detect and fewer data exist
relating these responses to specific
received levels of sound. When Level B
Harassment is predicted based on
estimated behavioral responses, those
takes may have a stress-related
physiological component as well.
In the effects section above, we
described the Southall et al. (2007)
severity scaling system and listed some
examples of the three broad categories
of behaviors (0–3: Minor and/or brief
behaviors; 4–6: Behaviors with higher
potential to affect foraging,
reproduction, or survival; 7–9:
Behaviors considered likely to affect the
aforementioned vital rates). Generally
speaking, MMPA Level B Harassment,
as defined in this document, would
include the behaviors described in the
7–9 category, and a subset, dependent
on context and other considerations, of
the behaviors described in the 4–6
category. Behavioral harassment would
not typically include behaviors ranked
0–3 in Southall et al. (2007).
Acoustic Masking and
Communication Impairment—The
severity or importance of an acoustic
masking event can vary based on the
length of time that the masking occurs,
the frequency of the masking signal
(which determines which sounds are
masked, which may be of varying
importance to the animal), and other
factors. Some acoustic masking would
be considered Level B Harassment, if it
can disrupt natural behavioral patterns
by interrupting or limiting the marine
mammal’s receipt or transmittal of
important information or environmental
cues.
TTS—As discussed previously, TTS
can disrupt behavioral patterns by
inhibiting an animal’s ability to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
communicate with conspecifics and
interpret other environmental cues
important for predator avoidance and
prey capture. However, depending on
the degree (elevation of threshold in
dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and
frequency range of TTS, and the context
in which it is experienced, TTS can
have effects on marine mammals
ranging from discountable to serious
(similar to those discussed in auditory
masking). For example, a marine
mammal may be able to readily
compensate for a brief, relatively small
amount of TTS in a non-critical
frequency range that takes place during
a time when the animal is traveling
through the open ocean, where ambient
noise is lower and there are not as many
competing sounds present.
Alternatively, a larger amount and
longer duration of TTS sustained during
a time when communication is critical
for successful mother/calf interactions
could have more serious impacts if it
was in the same frequency band as the
necessary vocalizations and of a severity
that impeded communication.
The following physiological
mechanisms are thought to play a role
in inducing auditory fatigue: Effects to
sensory hair cells in the inner ear that
reduce their sensitivity; modification of
the chemical environment within the
sensory cells; residual muscular activity
in the middle ear; displacement of
certain inner ear membranes; increased
blood flow; and post-stimulatory
reduction in both efferent and sensory
neural output. Ward (1997) suggested
that when these effects result in TTS
rather than PTS, they are within the
normal bounds of physiological
variability and tolerance and do not
represent a physical injury.
Additionally, Southall et al. (2007)
indicates that although PTS is a tissue
injury, TTS is not, because the reduced
hearing sensitivity following exposure
to intense sound results primarily from
fatigue, not loss, of cochlear hair cells
and supporting structures and is
reversible. Accordingly, NMFS classifies
TTS (when resulting from exposure to
either MFAS/HFAS or underwater
detonations) as Level B Harassment, not
Level A Harassment (injury).
Level A Harassment
Of the potential effects that were
described in the previous sections,
following are the types of effects that
fall into the Level A Harassment
category:
PTS—PTS (resulting from either
exposure to MFAS/HFAS or explosive
detonations) is irreversible and
considered an injury. PTS results from
exposure to intense sounds that cause a
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64553
permanent loss of inner or outer
cochlear hair cells or exceed the elastic
limits of certain tissues and membranes
in the middle and inner ears and result
in changes in the chemical composition
of the inner ear fluids. Although PTS is
considered an injury, the effects of PTS
on the fitness of an individual can vary
based on the degree of TTS and the
frequency band that it is in.
Tissue Damage Due to Acoustically
Mediated Bubble Growth–A few theories
suggest ways in which gas bubbles
become enlarged through exposure to
intense sounds (MFAS/HFAS) to the
point where tissue damage results. In
rectified diffusion, exposure to a sound
field would cause bubbles to increase in
size. A short duration of active sonar
pings (such as that which an animal
exposed to MFAS would be most likely
to encounter) would not likely be long
enough to drive bubble growth to any
substantial size. Alternately, bubbles
could be destabilized by high-level
sound exposures such that bubble
growth then occurs through static
diffusion of gas out of the tissues. The
degree of supersaturation and exposure
levels observed to cause microbubble
destabilization are unlikely to occur,
either alone or in concert because of
how close an animal would need to be
to the sound source to be exposed to
high enough levels, especially
considering the likely avoidance of the
sound source and the required
mitigation. Still, possible tissue damage
from either of these processes would be
considered an injury or, potentially,
mortality.
Tissue Damage Due to Behaviorally
Mediated Bubble Growth—Several
authors suggest mechanisms in which
marine mammals could behaviorally
respond to exposure to MFAS/HFAS by
altering their dive patterns in a manner
(unusually rapid ascent, unusually long
series of surface dives, etc.) that might
result in unusual bubble formation or
growth ultimately resulting in tissue
damage (e.g., emboli). In this scenario,
the rate of ascent would need to be
sufficiently rapid to compromise
behavioral or physiological protections
against nitrogen bubble formation.
There is considerable disagreement
among scientists as to the likelihood of
this phenomenon (Piantadosi and
Thalmann, 2004; Evans and Miller,
2003). Although it has been argued that
the tissue effects observed from recent
beaked whale strandings are consistent
with gas emboli and bubble-induced
tissue separations (Jepson et al., 2003;
Fernandez et al., 2005; Tyack et al.,
2006), nitrogen bubble formation as the
cause of the traumas has not been
verified. If tissue damage does occur by
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
64554
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
this phenomenon, it would be
considered an injury or, potentially,
mortality.
Physical Disruption of Tissues
Resulting From Explosive Shock Wave—
Physical damage of tissues resulting
from a shock wave (from an explosive
detonation) is classified as an injury.
Blast effects are greatest at the gas-liquid
interface (Landsberg, 2000) and gascontaining organs, particularly the lungs
and gastrointestinal tract, are especially
susceptible (Goertner, 1982; Hill 1978;
Yelverton et al., 1973). Nasal sacs,
larynx, pharynx, trachea, and lungs may
be damaged by compression/expansion
caused by the oscillations of the blast
gas bubble (Reidenberg and Laitman,
2003). Severe damage (from the shock
wave) to the ears can include tympanic
membrane rupture, fracture of the
ossicles, damage to the cochlea,
hemorrhage, and cerebrospinal fluid
leakage into the middle ear.
Vessel Strike, Ordnance Strike,
Entanglement—Although not
anticipated (or authorized) to occur,
vessel strike, ordnance strike, or
entanglement in materials associated
with the specified action are considered
Level A Harassment or mortality.
Acoustic Take Criteria
For the purposes of an MMPA
incidental take authorization, three
types of take are identified: Level B
Harassment; Level A Harassment; and
mortality (or serious injury leading to
mortality). The categories of marine
mammal responses (physiological and
behavioral) that fall into the two
harassment categories were described in
the previous section.
Because the physiological and
behavioral responses of the majority of
the marine mammals exposed to MFAS/
HFAS and underwater detonations
cannot be detected or measured
(because, e.g., not all responses are
visible external to animal, a portion of
exposed animals are underwater, many
animals are located many miles from
observers and covering very large area,
etc.) and because NMFS must authorize
take prior to the impacts to marine
mammals, a method is needed to
estimate the number of individuals that
will be taken, pursuant to the MMPA,
based on the proposed action. To this
end, NMFS developed acoustic criteria
that estimate at what received level
(when exposed to MFAS/HFAS or
explosive detonations) Level B
Harassment, Level A Harassment, and
mortality (for explosives) of marine
mammals would occur. The acoustic
criteria for MFAS/HFAS and
Underwater Detonations (IEER) are
discussed below.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
MFAS/HFAS Acoustic Criteria
Because relatively few applicable data
exist to support acoustic criteria
specifically for HFAS and because such
a small percentage of the active sonar
pings that marine mammals will likely
be exposed to incidental to this activity
come from an HFAS source (the vast
majority come from MFAS sources),
NMFS will apply the criteria developed
for the MFAS to the HFAS as well.
NMFS utilizes three acoustic criteria
to assess impacts from MFAS/HFAS:
PTS (injury—Level A Harassment), TTS
(Level B Harassment), and behavioral
harassment (Level B Harassment).
Because there is related quantitative
data, the TTS criterion is a valuable tool
for more specifically identifying the
likely impacts to marine mammals from
MFAS/HFAS, plus the PTS criteria are
extrapolated from it. However, TTS is
simply a subset of Level B Harassment—
the likely ultimate effects of which are
not anticipated to necessarily be any
more severe than the behavioral impacts
that would be expected to occur at the
same received levels. Because the TTS
and PTS criteria are derived similarly
and the PTS criteria are extrapolated
from the TTS data, the TTS and PTS
acoustic criteria will be presented first,
before the behavioral criteria.
For more information regarding these
criteria, please see the Navy’s DEIS for
the GoA.
Level B Harassment Threshold (TTS)
As mentioned above, behavioral
disturbance, acoustic masking, and TTS
are all considered Level B Harassment.
Marine mammals would usually be
behaviorally disturbed at lower received
levels than those at which they would
likely sustain TTS, so the levels at
which behavioral disturbances are likely
to occur are considered the onset of
Level B Harassment. The behavioral
responses of marine mammals to sound
are variable, context specific, and,
therefore, difficult to quantify (see Risk
Function section, below). Conversely,
TTS is a physiological effect that has
been studied and quantified in
laboratory conditions. Because data
exist to support an estimate of the
received levels at which marine
mammals will incur TTS, NMFS uses an
acoustic criterion to estimate the
number of marine mammals that might
sustain TTS. TTS is a subset of Level B
Harassment.
A number of investigators have
measured TTS in marine mammals.
These studies measured hearing
thresholds in trained marine mammals
before and after exposure to intense
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
sounds. The existing cetacean TTS data
are summarized in the following bullets:
• Schlundt et al. (2000) reported the
results of TTS experiments conducted
with five bottlenose dolphins and two
belugas exposed to 1-second tones. This
paper also includes a reanalysis of
preliminary TTS data released in a
technical report by Ridgway et al.
(1997). At frequencies of 3, 10, and 20
kHz, sound pressure levels (SPLs)
necessary to induce measurable
amounts (6 dB or more) of TTS were
between 192 and 201 dB re 1 μPa
(exposure level (EL) = 192 to 201 dB re
1 μPa2-s). The mean exposure SPL and
EL for onset-TTS were 195 dB re 1 μPa
and 195 dB re 1 μPa2-s, respectively.
• Finneran et al. (2001, 2003, 2005)
described TTS experiments conducted
with bottlenose dolphins exposed to 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 μPa2-s. These results were
consistent with the data of Schlundt et
al. (2000) and showed that the Schlundt
et al. (2000) data were not significantly
affected by the masking sound used.
These results also confirmed that, for
tones with different durations, the
amount of TTS is best correlated with
the exposure EL rather than the
exposure SPL.
• Nachtigall et al. (2003) measured
TTS in a bottlenose dolphin exposed to
octave-band sound centered at 7.5 kHz.
Nachtigall et al. (2003a) reported TTSs
of about 11 dB measured 10 to 15
minutes after exposure to 30 to 50
minutes of sound with SPL 179 dB re
1 μPa (EL about 213 dB re μPa2-s). No
TTS was observed after exposure to the
same sound at 165 and 171 dB re 1 μPa.
Nachtigall et al. (2004) reported TTSs of
around 4 to 8 dB 5 minutes after
exposure to 30 to 50 minutes of sound
with SPL 160 dB re 1 μPa (EL about 193
to 195 dB re 1 μPa2-s). The difference in
results was attributed to faster postexposure threshold measurement; TTS
may have recovered before being
detected by Nachtigall et al. (2003).
These studies showed that, for longduration exposures, lower sound
pressures are required to induce TTS
than are required for short-duration
tones.
• Finneran et al. (2000, 2002)
conducted TTS experiments with
dolphins and belugas exposed to
impulsive sounds similar to those
produced by distant underwater
explosions and seismic waterguns.
These studies showed that, for very
short-duration impulsive sounds, higher
sound pressures were required to
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
induce TTS than for longer duration
tones.
• Finneran et al. (2007) conducted
TTS experiments with bottlenose
dolphins exposed to intense 20 kHz
fatiguing tone. Behavioral and auditory
evoked potentials (using sinusoidal
amplitude modulated tones creating
auditory steady state response [AASR])
were used to measure TTS. The
fatiguing tone was either 16 (mean = 193
re 1μPa, SD = 0.8) or 64 seconds (185–
186 re 1μPa) in duration. TTS ranged
from 19–33 dB from behavioral
measurements and 40–45 dB from ASSR
measurements.
• Kastak et al. (1999a, 2005)
conducted TTS experiments with three
species of pinnipeds. California sea lion,
northern elephant seal, and a Pacific
harbor seal were exposed to continuous
underwater sounds at levels of 80 and
95 dB sensation level at 2.5 and 3.5 kHz
for up to 50 minutes. Mean TTS shifts
of up to 12.2 dB occurred with the
harbor seals showing the largest shift of
28.1 dB. Increasing the sound duration
had a greater effect on TTS than
increasing the sound level from 80 to 95
dB.
Some of the more important data
obtained from these studies are onsetTTS levels (exposure levels sufficient to
cause a just-measurable amount of TTS)
often defined as 6 dB of TTS (e.g.,
Schlundt et al., 2000) and the fact that
energy metrics (sound exposure levels
(SEL) which include a duration
component) better predict when an
animal will sustain TTS than pressure
(SPL) alone. NMFS’ TTS criterion
(which indicates the received level at
which onset TTS (<6 dB) is induced) for
MFAS/HFAS and cetaceans is 195 dB re
1 μPa2-s (based on mid-frequency
cetaceans; no published data exist on
auditory effects of noise in low- or highfrequency cetaceans) (Southall et al.
(2007)).
A detailed description of how this
TTS criterion was derived from the
results of the above studies may be
found in Chapter 3 of Southall et al.
(2007), as well as the Navy’s GoA LOA
application.
Level A Harassment Threshold (PTS)
For acoustic effects, because the
tissues of the ear appear to be the most
susceptible to the physiological effects
of sound, and because threshold shifts
tend to occur at lower exposures than
other more serious auditory effects,
NMFS has determined that PTS is the
best indicator for the smallest degree of
injury that can be measured. Therefore,
the acoustic exposure associated with
onset-PTS is used to define the lower
limit of Level A harassment.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
PTS data do not currently exist for
marine mammals and are unlikely to be
obtained due to ethical concerns.
However, PTS levels for these animals
may be estimated using TTS data from
marine mammals and relationships
between TTS and PTS that have been
discovered through study of terrestrial
mammals. NMFS uses the following
acoustic criterion for injury of
cetaceans: 215 dB re 1 μPa2-s (based on
mid-frequency cetaceans; no published
data exist on auditory effects of noise in
low- or high-frequency cetaceans)
(Southall et al. (2007)).
This criterion is based on a 20-dB
increase in SEL over that required for
onset-TTS. Extrapolations from
terrestrial mammal data indicate that
PTS occurs at 40 dB or more of TS, and
that TS growth occurs at a rate of
approximately 1.6 dB TS per dB
increase in EL. There is a 34-dB TS
difference between onset-TTS (6 dB)
and onset-PTS (40 dB). Therefore, an
animal would require approximately 20
dB of additional exposure (34 dB
divided by 1.6 dB) above onset-TTS to
reach PTS. A detailed description of
how TTS criteria were derived from the
results of the above studies may be
found in Chapter 3 of Southall et al.
(2007), as well as the Navy’s GoA LOA
application. Southall et al. (2007)
recommend a precautionary dual
criteria for TTS (230 dB re 1 μPa (SPL
peak pressure) in addition to 215 dB re
1 μPa2-s (SEL)) to account for the
potentially damaging transients
embedded within non-pulse exposures.
However, in the case of MFAS/HFAS,
the distance at which an animal would
receive 215 dB (SEL) is farther from the
source (i.e., more conservative) than the
distance at which they would receive
230 dB (SPL peak pressure) and
therefore, it is not necessary to consider
230 dB peak.
We note here that behaviorally
mediated injuries (such as those that
have been hypothesized as the cause of
some beaked whale strandings) could
potentially occur in response to
received levels lower than those
believed to directly result in tissue
damage. As mentioned previously, data
to support a quantitative estimate of
these potential effects (for which the
exact mechanism is not known and in
which factors other than received level
may play a significant role) does not
exist. However, based on the number of
years (more than 60) and number of
hours of MFAS per year that the U.S.
(and other countries) has operated
compared to the reported (and verified)
cases of associated marine mammal
strandings, NMFS believes that the
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64555
probability of these types of injuries is
very low.
Level B Harassment Risk Function
(Behavioral Harassment)
In 2006, NMFS issued the first MMPA
authorization to allow the take of
marine mammals incidental to MFAS
(to the Navy for RIMPAC). For that
authorization, NMFS used 173 dB SEL
as the criterion for the onset of
behavioral harassment (Level B
Harassment). This type of single number
criterion is referred to as a step function,
in which (in this example) all animals
estimated to be exposed to received
levels above 173 db SEL would be
predicted to be taken by Level B
Harassment and all animals exposed to
less than 173dB SEL would not be taken
by Level B Harassment. As mentioned
previously, marine mammal behavioral
responses to sound are highly variable
and context specific (affected by
differences in acoustic conditions;
differences between species and
populations; differences in gender, age,
reproductive status, or social behavior;
or the prior experience of the
individuals), which does not support
the use of a step function to estimate
behavioral harassment.
Unlike step functions, acoustic risk
continuum functions (which are also
called ‘‘exposure-response functions,’’
‘‘dose-response functions,’’ or ‘‘stressresponse functions’’ in other risk
assessment contexts) allow for
probability of a response that NMFS
would classify as harassment to occur
over a range of possible received levels
(instead of one number) and assume that
the probability of a response depends
first on the ‘‘dose’’ (in this case, the
received level of sound) and that the
probability of a response increases as
the ‘‘dose’’ increases (see Figure 1a). In
January 2009, NMFS issued three final
rules governing the incidental take of
marine mammals (Navy’s Hawaii Range
Complex, Southern California Range
Complex, and Atlantic Fleet Active
Sonar Training) that used a risk
continuum to estimate the percent of
marine mammals exposed to various
levels of MFAS that would respond in
a manner NMFS considers harassment.
The Navy and NMFS have previously
used acoustic risk functions to estimate
the probable responses of marine
mammals to acoustic exposures for
other training and research programs.
Examples of previous application
include the Navy FEISs on the
SURTASS LFA sonar (U.S. Department
of the Navy, 2001c); the North Pacific
Acoustic Laboratory experiments
conducted off the Island of Kauai (Office
of Naval Research, 2001), and the
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
64556
Supplemental EIS for SURTASS LFA
sonar (U.S. Department of the Navy,
2007d). As discussed in the Effects
section, factors other than received level
(such as distance from or bearing to the
sound source) can affect the way that
marine mammals respond; however,
data to support a quantitative analysis of
those (and other factors) do not
currently exist. NMFS will continue to
modify these criteria as new data that
meet NMFS standards of quality become
available and can be appropriately and
effectively incorporated.
The particular acoustic risk functions
developed by NMFS and the Navy (see
Figures 1a and 1b) estimate the
probability of behavioral responses to
MFAS/HFAS (interpreted as the
percentage of the exposed population)
that NMFS would classify as harassment
for the purposes of the MMPA given
exposure to specific received levels of
MFAS/HFAS. The mathematical
function (below) underlying this curve
is a cumulative probability distribution
adapted from a solution in Feller (1968)
and was also used in predicting risk for
the Navy’s SURTASS LFA MMPA
authorization as well.
−A
⎛ L−B⎞
1− ⎜
⎟
⎝ K ⎠
R=
−2 A
⎛ L−B⎞
1− ⎜
⎟
⎝ K ⎠
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Where:
R = Risk (0–1.0)
L = Received level (dB re: 1 μPa)
B = Basement received level = 120 dB re: 1
μPa
K = Received level increment above B where
50-percent risk = 45 dB re: 1 μPa
A = Risk transition sharpness parameter = 10
(odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 8
(mysticetes)
In order to use this function to
estimate the percentage of an exposed
population that would respond in a
manner that NMFS classifies as Level B
Harassment, based on a given received
level, the values for B, K and A need to
be identified.
B Parameter (Basement)—The B
parameter is the estimated received
level below which the probability of
disruption of natural behavioral
patterns, such as migration, surfacing,
nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering,
to a point where such behavioral
patterns are abandoned or significantly
altered approaches zero for the MFAS/
HFAS risk assessment. At this received
level, the curve would predict that the
percentage of the exposed population
that would be taken by Level B
Harassment approaches zero. For
MFAS/HFAS, NMFS has determined
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
that B = 120 dB. This level is based on
a broad overview of the levels at which
many species have been reported
responding to a variety of sound
sources.
K Parameter (representing the 50
percent Risk Point)—The K parameter is
based on the received level that
corresponds to 50 percent risk, or the
received level at which we believe 50
percent of the animals exposed to the
designated received level would
respond in a manner that NMFS
classifies as Level B Harassment. The K
parameter (K = 45 dB) is based on three
datasets in which marine mammals
exposed to mid-frequency sound
sources were reported to respond in a
manner that NMFS would classify as
Level B Harassment. There is
widespread consensus that marine
mammal responses to MFA sound
signals need to be better defined using
controlled exposure experiments (Cox et
al., 2006; Southall et al., 2007). The
Navy is contributing to an ongoing
three-phase behavioral response study
in the Bahamas that is expected to
provide some initial information on
beaked whales, the species identified as
the most sensitive to MFAS. NMFS is
leading this international effort with
scientists from various academic
institutions and research organizations
to conduct studies on how marine
mammals respond to underwater sound
exposures. The results from Phase 1 of
this study are discussed in the Potential
Effects of Specified Activities on Marine
Mammals section, and the preliminary
results from Phase 2 became available in
October 2008. Phase 3 was conducted in
the Mediterranean Sea in the summer of
2009. Additionally, the Navy recently
tagged whales in conjunction with the
2008 RIMPAC exercises; however,
analyses of these data are not yet
complete. Until additional appropriate
data are available, however, NMFS and
the Navy have determined that the
following three data sets are most
applicable for direct use in establishing
the K parameter for the MFAS/HFAS
risk function. These data sets,
summarized below, represent the only
known data that specifically relate
altered behavioral responses (that NMFS
would consider Level B Harassment) to
exposure—at specific received levels—
to MFAS and sources within or having
components within the range of MFAS
(1–10 kHz).
Even though these data are considered
the most representative of the proposed
specified activities, and therefore the
most appropriate on which to base the
K parameter (which basically
determines the midpoint) of the risk
function, these data have limitations,
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
which are discussed in Appendix D of
the Navy’s DEIS for the GoA.
1. Controlled Laboratory Experiments
With Odontocetes (SSC Dataset)—Most
of the observations of the behavioral
responses of toothed whales resulted
from a series of controlled experiments
on bottlenose dolphins and beluga
whales conducted by researchers at
SSC’s facility in San Diego, California
(Finneran et al., 2001, 2003, 2005;
Finneran and Schlundt, 2004; Schlundt
et al., 2000). In experimental trials
(designed to measure TTS) with captive
marine mammals trained to perform
tasks on command, scientists evaluated
whether the marine mammals still
performed these tasks when exposed to
mid-frequency tones. Altered behavior
during experimental trials usually
involved refusal of animals to return to
the site of the sound stimulus, but also
included attempts to avoid an exposure
in progress, aggressive behavior, or
refusal to further participate in tests.
Finneran and Schlundt (2004)
examined behavioral observations
recorded by the trainers or test
coordinators during the Schlundt et al.
(2000) and Finneran et al. (2001, 2003,
2005) experiments. These included
observations from 193 exposure sessions
(fatiguing stimulus level > 141 dB re
1μPa) conducted by Schlundt et al.
(2000) and 21 exposure sessions
conducted by Finneran et al. (2001,
2003, 2005). The TTS experiments that
supported Finneran and Schlundt
(2004) are further explained below.
Schlundt et al. (2000) provided a
detailed summary of the behavioral
responses of trained marine mammals
during TTS tests conducted at SSC San
Diego with 1-sec tones and exposure
frequencies of 0.4 kHz, 3 kHz, 10 kHz,
20 kHz and 75 kHz. Schlundt et al.
(2000) reported eight individual TTS
experiments. The experiments were
conducted in San Diego Bay. Because of
the variable ambient noise in the bay,
low-level broadband masking noise was
used to keep hearing thresholds
consistent despite fluctuations in the
ambient noise. Schlundt et al. (2000)
reported that ‘‘behavioral alterations,’’ or
deviations from the behaviors the
animals being tested had been trained to
exhibit, occurred as the animals were
exposed to increasing fatiguing stimulus
levels.
Finneran et al. (2001, 2003, 2005)
conducted two separate TTS
experiments using 1-sec tones at 3 kHz.
The test methods were similar to that of
Schlundt et al. (2000) except the tests
were conducted in a pool with very low
ambient noise level (below 50 dB re 1
μPa2/hertz [Hz]), and no masking noise
was used. In the first, fatiguing sound
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
EP19OC10.011
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
levels were increased from 160 to 201
dB SPL. In the second experiment,
fatiguing sound levels between 180 and
200 dB SPL were randomly presented.
Bottlenose dolphins exposed to 1-sec
intense tones exhibited short-term
changes in behavior above received
sound levels of 178 to 193 dB re 1 μPa
(rms), and beluga whales did so at
received levels of 180 to 196 dB and
above.
2. Mysticete Field Study (Nowacek et
al., 2004)—The only available and
applicable data relating mysticete
responses to exposure to mid-frequency
sound sources is from Nowacek et al.
(2004). Nowacek et al. (2004)
documented observations of the
behavioral response of North Atlantic
right whales exposed to alert stimuli
containing mid-frequency components
in the Bay of Fundy. Investigators used
archival digital acoustic recording tags
(DTAG) to record the behavior (by
measuring pitch, roll, heading, and
depth) of right whales in the presence
of an alert signal, and to calibrate
received sound levels. The alert signal
was 18 minutes of exposure consisting
of three 2-min signals played
sequentially three times over. The three
signals had a 60 percent duty cycle and
consisted of: (1) Alternating 1-sec pure
tones at 500 Hz and 850 Hz; (2) a 2-sec
logarithmic down-sweep from 4,500 Hz
to 500 Hz; and (3) a pair of low (1,500
Hz)-high (2,000 Hz) sine wave tones
amplitude modulated at 120 Hz and
each 1-sec long. The purposes of the
alert signal were (a) to pique the
mammalian auditory system with
disharmonic signals that cover the
whales’ estimated hearing range; (b) to
maximize the signal to noise ratio
(obtain the largest difference between
background noise); and (c) to provide
localization cues for the whale. The
maximum source level used was 173 dB
SPL.
Nowacek et al. (2004) reported that
five out of six whales exposed to the
alert signal with maximum received
levels ranging from 133 to 148 dB re 1
μPa significantly altered their regular
behavior and did so in identical fashion.
Each of these five whales did the
following: (i) Abandoned their current
foraging dive prematurely as evidenced
by curtailing their ‘‘bottom time’’; (ii)
executed a shallow-angled, high power
(i.e. significantly increased fluke stroke
rate) ascent; (iii) remained at or near the
surface for the duration of the exposure,
an abnormally long surface interval; and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
(iv) spent significantly more time at
subsurface depths (1–10 m) compared
with normal surfacing periods when
whales normally stay within 1.1 yd (1
m) of the surface.
3. Odontocete Field Data (Haro
Strait—U.S. Ship (USS) SHOUP)—In
May 2003, killer whales (Orcinus orca)
were observed exhibiting behavioral
responses generally described as
avoidance behavior while the USS
SHOUP was engaged in MFAS in the
Haro Strait in the vicinity of Puget
Sound, Washington. Those observations
have been documented in three reports
developed by the Navy and NMFS
(NMFS, 2005; Fromm, 2004a, 2004b;
DON, 2003). Although these
observations were made in an
uncontrolled environment, the sound
field that may have been associated with
the active sonar operations was
estimated using standard acoustic
propagation models that were verified
(for some but not all signals) based on
calibrated in situ measurements from an
independent researcher who recorded
the sounds during the event. Behavioral
observations were reported for the group
of whales during the event by an
experienced marine mammal biologist
who happened to be on the water
studying them at the time. The
observations associated with the USS
SHOUP provide the only data set
available of the behavioral responses of
wild, non-captive animals upon actual
exposure to AN/SQS–53 sonar.
The U.S. Department of Commerce
(NMFS, 2005a), U.S. Department of the
Navy (2004b), and Fromm (2004a,
2004b) documented reconstruction of
sound fields produced by USS SHOUP
associated with the behavioral response
of killer whales observed in Haro Strait.
Observations from this reconstruction
included an approximate closest
approach time which was correlated to
a reconstructed estimate of received
level. Observations from this
reconstruction included an estimate of
169.3 dB SPL which represents the
mean level at a point of closest
approach within a 500-m wide area
which the animals were exposed.
Within that area, the estimated received
levels varied from approximately 150 to
180 dB SPL.
Calculation of K Parameter—NMFS
and the Navy used the mean of the
following values to define the midpoint
of the function: (1) The mean of the
lowest received levels (185.3 dB) at
which individuals responded with
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64557
altered behavior to 3 kHz tones in the
SSC data set; (2) the estimated mean
received level value of 169.3 dB
produced by the reconstruction of the
USS SHOUP incident in which killer
whales exposed to MFAS (range
modeled possible received levels: 150 to
180 dB); and (3) the mean of the five
maximum received levels at which
Nowacek et al. (2004) observed
significantly altered responses of right
whales to the alert stimuli than to the
control (no input signal) is 139.2 dB
SPL. The arithmetic mean of these three
mean values is 165 dB SPL. The value
of K is the difference between the value
of B (120 dB SPL) and the 50 percent
value of 165 dB SPL; therefore, K = 45.
A Parameter (Steepness)—NMFS
determined that a steepness parameter
(A) = 10 is appropriate for odontocetes
(except harbor porpoises) and pinnipeds
and A = 8 is appropriate for mysticetes.
The use of a steepness parameter of A
= 10 for odontocetes for the MFAS/
HFAS risk function was based on the
use of the same value for the SURTASS
LFA risk continuum, which was
supported by a sensitivity analysis of
the parameter presented in Appendix D
of the SURTASS/LFA FEIS (DoN,
2001c). As concluded in the SURTASS
FEIS/EIS, the value of A = 10 produces
a curve that has a more gradual
transition than the curves developed by
the analyses of migratory gray whale
studies (Malme et al., 1984; Buck and
Tyack, 2000; and SURTASS LFA Sonar
EIS, Subchapters 1.43, 4.2.4.3 and
Appendix D, and NMFS, 2008).
NMFS determined that a lower
steepness parameter (A = 8), resulting in
a shallower curve, was appropriate for
use with mysticetes and MFAS/HFAS.
The Nowacek et al. (2004) dataset
contains the only data illustrating
mysticete behavioral responses to a
sound source that encompasses
frequencies in the mid-frequency sound
spectrum. A shallower curve (achieved
by using A = 8) better reflects the risk
of behavioral response at the relatively
low received levels at which behavioral
responses of right whales were reported
in the Nowacek et al. (2004) data.
Compared to the odontocete curve, this
adjustment results in an increase in the
proportion of the exposed population of
mysticetes being classified as
behaviorally harassed at lower RLs,
such as those reported in the Novacek
report, and is supported by the only
representative dataset currently
available.
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
Basic Application of the Risk
Function—The risk function is used to
estimate the percentage of an exposed
population that is likely to exhibit
behaviors that would qualify as
harassment (as that term is defined by
the MMPA applicable to military
readiness activities, such as the Navy’s
testing and training with MFAS) at a
given received level of sound. For
example, at 165 dB SPL (dB re: 1μPa
rms), the risk (or probability) of
harassment is defined according to this
function as 50 percent, and Navy/NMFS
applies that by estimating that 50
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
percent of the individuals exposed at
that received level are likely to respond
by exhibiting behavior that NMFS
would classify as behavioral
harassment. The risk function is not
applied to individual animals, only to
exposed populations.
The data primarily used to produce
the risk function (the K parameter) were
compiled from four species that had
been exposed to sound sources in a
variety of different circumstances. As a
result, the risk function represents a
general relationship between acoustic
exposures and behavioral responses that
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
EP19OC10.013
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
EP19OC10.012
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64558
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
64559
use of additional, alternate, or multivariate functions. For example, as
mentioned previously, the distance from
the sound source and whether it is
perceived as approaching or moving
away can affect the way an animal
responds to a sound (Wartzok et al.,
2003). In the GoA TMAA example,
animals exposed to received levels
between 120 and 130 dB will likely be
76 to 105 km away from a sound source;
those distances could influence whether
those animals perceive the sound source
as a potential threat, and their
behavioral responses to that threat.
Though there are data showing
responses of certain marine mammal
species to mid-frequency sound sources
at that received level, NMFS does not
currently have any data that describe
the response of marine mammals to
mid-frequency sounds at that distance,
much less data that compare responses
to similar sound levels at varying
distances (much less for MFAS/HFAS).
However, if applicable data meeting
NMFS standards were to become
available, NMFS would re-evaluate the
risk function and incorporate any
additional variables into the ‘‘take’’
estimates.
Estimates of Potential Marine Mammal
Exposure
following three general steps: (1)
Propagation model estimates animals
exposed to sources at different levels;
(2) further modeling determines number
of exposures to levels indicated in
criteria above (i.e., number of takes);
and (3) post-modeling corrections refine
estimates to make them more accurate.
Estimating the take that will result
from the proposed activities entails the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Explosive Detonation Criteria
The criteria for mortality, Level A
Harassment, and Level B Harassment
resulting from explosive detonations
were initially developed for the Navy’s
Seawolf and Churchill ship-shock trials
and have not changed. The criteria,
which are applied to cetaceans and
pinnipeds, are summarized in Table 7.
Additional information regarding the
derivation of these criteria is available
in the Navy’s DEIS for the GoA TMAA,
the LOA application, and in the Navy’s
CHURCHILL FEIS (DoN, 2001c).
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
EP19OC10.014
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
sound source, the number of sound
sources, and whether the sound sources
are approaching or moving away from
the animal—can be critically important
in determining whether and how a
marine mammal will respond to a sound
source (Southall et al., 2007). The data
that are currently available do not allow
for incorporation of these other
variables in the current risk functions;
however, the risk function represents
the best use of the data that are
available. Additionally, although these
other factors cannot be taken into
consideration quantitatively in the risk
function, NMFS considers these other
variables qualitatively in our analysis,
when applicable data are available.
As more specific and applicable data
become available for MFAS/HFAS
sources, NMFS can use these data to
modify the outputs generated by the risk
function to make them more realistic.
Ultimately, data may exist to justify the
64560
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
More information regarding the models
used, the assumptions used in the
models, and the process of estimating
take is available in either Appendix B of
the Navy’s Application or Appendix D
of the Navy’s DEIS.
(1) In order to quantify the types of
take described in previous sections that
are predicted to result from the Navy’s
specified activities, the Navy first uses
a sound propagation model that predicts
the number of animals that will be
exposed to a range of levels of pressure
and energy (of the metrics used in the
criteria) from MFAS/HFAS and
explosive detonations based on several
important pieces of information,
including:
• Characteristics of the sound sources
• Active sonar source characteristics
include: Source level (with horizontal
and vertical directivity corrections),
source depth, center frequency, source
directivity (horizontal/vertical beam
width and horizontal/vertical steer
direction), and ping spacing
• Explosive source characteristics
include: The weight of an explosive, the
type of explosive, the detonation depth,
and number of successive explosions
• Transmission loss (in up to 20
representative environmental provinces
in two seasons) based on: Water depth;
sound speed variability throughout the
water column (warm season exhibits a
weak surface duct, cold season exhibits
a relatively strong surface duct); bottom
geo-acoustic properties (bathymetry);
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
and surface roughness, as determined by
wind speed
• The estimated density of each
marine mammal species in the GoA
TMAA (see Table 4), horizontally
distributed uniformly and vertically
distributed according to dive profiles
based on field data
(2) Next, the criteria discussed in the
previous section are applied to the
estimated exposures to predict the
number of exposures that exceed the
criteria, i.e., the number of takes by
Level B Harassment, Level A
Harassment, and mortality.
(3) During the development of the EIS
for GoA TMAA, NMFS and the Navy
determined that the output of the model
could be made more realistic by
applying post-modeling corrections to
account for the following:
• Acoustic footprints for active sonar
sources must account for land masses
(by subtracting them out)
• Acoustic footprints for active sonar
sources should not be added
independently, rather, the degree to
which the footprints from multiple
ships participating in the same exercise
would typically overlap needs to be
taken into consideration
• Acoustic modeling should account
for the maximum number of individuals
of a species that could potentially be
exposed to active sonar within the
course of 1 day or a discrete continuous
sonar event if less than 24 hrs
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 8 (by
multiplying the yearly estimate by 5) by
more than 10 percent. NMFS estimates
that a 10-percent increase in active
sonar hours would result in
approximately a 10-percent increase in
the number of takes, and we have
considered this possibility in our
analysis.
The Navy’s model provides a
systematic and repeatable way of
estimating the number of animals that
will be taken by Level A and Level B
Harassment. The model is based on the
sound propagation characteristics of the
sound sources, physical characteristics
of the surrounding environment, and a
uniform density of marine mammals. As
mentioned in the previous sections,
many other factors will likely affect how
and the degree to which marine
mammals are impacted both at the
individual and species level by the
Navy’s activity (such as social ecology
of the animals, long term exposures in
one area, etc.); however, in the absence
of quantitative data, NMFS has, and will
continue, to evaluate that sort of
information qualitatively.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
64561
EP19OC10.015
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
64562
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Mortality
Evidence from five beaked whale
strandings, all of which have taken
place outside the GoA TMAA, and have
occurred over approximately a decade,
suggests that the exposure of beaked
whales to MFAS in the presence of
certain conditions (e.g., multiple units
using active sonar, steep bathymetry,
constricted channels, strong surface
ducts, etc.) may result in strandings,
potentially leading to mortality.
Although not all five of these physical
factors believed to have contributed to
the likelihood of beaked whale
strandings are present, in their
aggregate, in the GoA TMA, scientific
uncertainty exists regarding what other
factors, or combination of factors, may
contribute to beaked whale strandings.
Accordingly, to allow for scientific
uncertainty regarding contributing
causes of beaked whale strandings and
the exact behavioral or physiological
mechanisms that can lead to the
ultimate physical effects (stranding and/
or death), the Navy has requested
authorization for (and NMFS is
proposing authorizing) take, by injury or
mortality. Although NMFS proposes to
authorize take by injury or mortality of
up to 15 beaked whales over the course
of the 5-yr regulations, the Navy’s model
did not predict injurious takes of beaked
whales and neither NMFS, nor the Navy
anticipates that marine mammal
strandings or mortality will result from
the operation of MFAS during Navy
exercises within the GoA TMAA.
Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat
The Navy’s proposed training
exercises could potentially affect marine
mammal habitat through the
introduction of pressure, sound, and
expendable materials into the water
column, which in turn could impact
prey species of marine mammals, or
cause bottom disturbance or changes in
water quality. Each of these components
was considered in the GoA TMAA DEIS
and was determined by the Navy to
have no significant or long term effect
on marine mammal habitat. Based on
the information below and the
supporting information included in the
Navy’s DEIS, NMFS has preliminarily
determined that the GoA TMAA
training activities will not have
significant or long-term impacts on
marine mammal habitat. Unless the
sound source or explosive detonation is
stationary and/or continuous over a long
duration in one area, the effects of the
introduction of sound into the
environment are generally considered to
have a less severe impact on marine
mammal habitat than the physical
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
alteration of the habitat. Marine
mammals may be temporarily displaced
from areas where Navy training is
occurring, but the area will likely be
utilized again after the activities have
ceased. A summary of the conclusions
are included in subsequent sections.
Effects on Food Resources
Fish
The Navy’s DEIS includes a detailed
discussion of the effects of active sonar
on marine fish. In summary, studies
have indicated that acoustic
communication and orientation of fish
may be restricted by anthropogenic
sound in their environment. However,
the vast majority of fish species studied
to date are hearing generalists and
cannot hear sounds above 500 to 1,500
Hz (0.5 to 1.5 kHz), depending upon the
species. Therefore, these fish species are
not likely to be affected behaviorally
from higher frequency sounds such as
MFAS/HFAS. Moreover, even those
marine species that may hear above 1.5
kHz, such as a few sciaenids and the
clupeids (and relatives), have relatively
poor hearing above 1.5 kHz as compared
to their hearing sensitivity at lower
frequencies, so it is likely that the fish
will only actually hear the sounds if the
fish and source were fairly close to one
another. Finally, since the vast majority
of sounds that are of biological
relevance to fish are below 1 kHz (e.g.,
Zelick et al., 1999; Ladich and Popper,
2004), even if a fish detects a mid- or
high-frequency sound, these sounds will
not likely mask detection of lower
frequency biologically relevant sounds.
Thus, based on the available
information, a reasonable conclusion is
that there will be few, and more likely
no, impacts on the behavior of fish from
active sonar.
Though mortality has been shown to
occur in one species, a hearing
specialist, as a result of exposure to nonimpulsive sources, the available
evidence does not suggest that
exposures such as those anticipated
from MFAS/HFAS would result in
significant fish mortality on a
population level. The mortality that was
observed was considered insignificant
in light of natural daily mortality rates.
Experiments have shown that exposure
to loud sound can result in significant
threshold shifts in certain fish that are
classified as hearing specialists (but not
those classified as hearing generalists).
Threshold shifts are temporary, and
considering the best available data, no
data exist that demonstrate any longterm negative effects on marine fish
from underwater sound associated with
active sonar activities. Further, while
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
fish may respond behaviorally to midfrequency sources, this behavioral
modification is only expected to be brief
and not biologically significant.
There are currently no wellestablished thresholds for estimating
effects to fish from explosives other than
mortality models. Fish that are located
in the water column, in proximity to the
source of detonation could be injured,
killed, or disturbed by the impulsive
sound and possibly temporarily leave
the area. Continental Shelf Inc. (2004)
summarized a few studies conducted to
determine effects associated with
removal of offshore structures (e.g., oil
rigs) in the Gulf of Mexico. Their
findings revealed that at very close
range, underwater explosions are lethal
to most fish species regardless of size,
shape, or internal anatomy. For most
situations, cause of death in fishes has
been massive organ and tissue damage
and internal bleeding. At longer range,
species with gas-filled swimbladders
(e.g., snapper, cod, and striped bass) are
more susceptible than those without
swimbladders (e.g., flounders, eels).
Studies also suggest that larger fishes
are generally less susceptible to death or
injury than small fishes. Moreover,
elongated forms that are round in cross
section are less at risk than deep-bodied
forms; and orientation of fish relative to
the shock wave may affect the extent of
injury. Open water pelagic fish (e.g.,
mackerel) also seem to be less affected
than reef fishes. The results of most
studies are dependent upon specific
biological, environmental, explosive,
and data recording factors.
The huge variations in the fish
population, including numbers, species,
sizes, and orientation and range from
the detonation point, make it very
difficult to accurately predict mortalities
at any specific site of detonation. Most
fish species experience a large number
of natural mortalities, especially during
early life-stages, and any small level of
mortality caused by the GoA TMAA
training exercises involving explosives
will likely be insignificant to the
population as a whole.
Invertebrates
Very little is known about sound
detection and use of sound by
invertebrates (see Budelmann 1992a,
1992b; Popper et al., 2001 for reviews).
The limited data show that some crabs
are able to detect sound, and there has
been the suggestion that some other
groups of invertebrates are also able to
detect sounds. In addition, cephalopods
(octopus and squid) and decapods
(lobster, shrimp, and crab) are thought
to sense low-frequency sound
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(Budelmann, 1992b). Packard et al.
(1990) reported sensitivity to sound
vibrations between 1 and 100 Hz for
three species of cephalopods. McCauley
et al. (2000) found evidence that squid
exposed to seismic airguns show a
behavioral response including inking.
However, these were caged animals, and
it is not clear how unconfined animals
may have responded to the same signal
and at the same distances used. In
another study, Wilson et al. (2007)
played back echolocation clicks of killer
whales to two groups of squid (Loligo
pealeii) in a tank. The investigators
observed no apparent behavioral effects
or any acoustic debilitation from
playback of signals up to 199 to 226 dB
re 1 μPa. It should be noted, however,
that the lack of behavioral response by
the squid may have been because the
animals were in a tank rather than being
in the wild. In another report on squid,
Guerra et al. (2004) claimed that dead
giant squid turned up around the time
of seismic airgun operations off of
Spain. The authors suggested, based on
analysis of carcasses, that the damage to
the squid was unusual when compared
to other dead squid found at other
times. However, the report presents
conclusions based on a correlation to
the time of finding of the carcasses and
seismic testing, but the evidence in
support of an effect of airgun activity
was totally circumstantial. Moreover,
the data presented showing damage to
tissue is highly questionable since there
was no way to differentiate between
damage due to some external cause (e.g.,
the seismic airgun) and normal tissue
degradation that takes place after death,
or due to poor fixation and preparation
of tissue. To date, this work has not
been published in peer reviewed
literature, and detailed images of the
reportedly damaged tissue are also not
available.
In summary, baleen whales feed on
aggregations of zooplankton, krill, and
small schooling fish, while toothed
whales feed on epipelagic, mesopelagic,
and bathypelagic fish and squid. As
summarized above and in the GoA
TMAA DEIS in more detail, potential
impacts to marine mammal food
resources within the GoA TMAA are
negligible given both lack of hearing
sensitivity to mid-frequency sonar, the
very geographic and spatially limited
scope of most Navy at sea activities
including underwater detonations, and
the high biological productivity of these
resources. No short- or long-term effects
to marine mammal food resources from
Navy activities are anticipated within
the GoA TMAA.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
Military Expendable Material
Marine mammals are subject to
entanglement in expended materials,
particularly anything incorporating
loops or rings, hooks and lines, or sharp
objects. Most documented cases of
entanglements occur when whales
encounter the vertical lines of fixed
fishing gear. This section summarizes
the potential effects of expended
materials on marine mammals. Detailed
discussion of military expendable
material is contained within the GoA
TMAA DEIS.
The Navy endeavors to recover
expended training materials.
Notwithstanding, it is not possible to
recover all training materials, and some
may be encountered by marine
mammals in the waters of the GoA
TMAA. Debris related to military
activities that is not recovered generally
sinks; the amount that might remain on
or near the sea surface is low, and the
density of such expendable materials in
the GoA TMAA would be very low.
Types of training materials that might be
encountered include: Parachutes of
various types (e.g., those employed by
personnel or on targets, flares, or
sonobuoys); torpedo guidance wires,
torpedo ‘‘flex hoses;’’ cable assemblies
used to facilitate target recovery;
sonobuoys; and EMATTs.
Entanglement in military expendable
material was not cited as a source of
injury or mortality for any marine
mammals recorded in a large marine
mammal and sea turtle stranding
database for California waters, an area
with much higher density of marine
mammals and a much greater amount of
Navy training. Therefore, as discussed
in the GoA TMAA DEIS, expendable
material is highly unlikely to directly
affect marine mammal species or
potential habitat within the GoA TMAA.
NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation
is working with the Navy to better
identify the potential risks of expended
materials from the Navy activities as
they relate to Essential Fish Habitat.
These effects are indirectly related to
marine mammal habitat, but based on
the extent of the likely effects described
in the Navy’s DEIS, NMFS’ Office of
Protected Resources has preliminarily
determined that they will not result in
significant impacts to marine mammal
habitat. The EFH discussions between
Navy and NMFS’ Office of Habitat
Conservation will further inform the
marine mammal habitat analysis in the
final rule.
Water Quality
The GoA TMAA DEIS analyzed the
potential effects to water quality from
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64563
sonobuoy, Acoustic Device
Countermeasures (ADCs), and
Expendable Mobile Acoustic Training
Target (EMATT) batteries; explosive
packages associated with the explosive
source sonobuoy (AN/SSQ–110A), and
Otto Fuel (OF) II combustion
byproducts associated with torpedoes.
Expendable bathythermographs do not
have batteries and were not included in
the analysis. In addition, sonobuoys
were not analyzed since, once scuttled,
their electrodes are largely exhausted
during use and residual constituent
dissolution occurs more slowly than the
releases from activated seawater
batteries. As such, only the potential
effects of batteries and explosions on
marine water quality in and
surrounding the sonobuoy training area
were completed. The Navy determined
that there would be no significant effect
to water quality from seawater batteries,
lithium batteries, and thermal batteries
associated with scuttled sonobuoys.
ADCs and EMATTs use lithium sulfur
dioxide batteries. The constituents in
the battery react to form soluble
hydrogen gas and lithium dithionite.
The hydrogen gas eventually enters the
atmosphere and the lithium hydroxide
dissociates, forming lithium ions and
hydroxide ions. The hydroxide is
neutralized by the hydronium formed
from hydrolysis of the acidic sulfur
dioxide, ultimately forming water.
Sulfur dioxide, a gas that is highly
soluble in water, is the major reactive
component in the battery. The sulfur
ioxide ionizes in the water, forming
bisulfite (HSO3) that is easily oxidized
to sulfate in the slightly alkaline
environment of the ocean. Sulfur is
present as sulfate in large quantities
(i.e., 885 milligrams per liter (mg/L)) in
the ocean. Thus, it was determined that
there would be no significant effect to
water quality from lithium sulfur
batteries associated with scuttled ADCs
and EMATTs.
Only a very small percentage of the
available hydrogen fluoride explosive
product in the explosive source
sonobuoy (AN/SSQ–110A) is expected
to become solubilized prior to reaching
the surface and the rapid dilution would
occur upon mixing with the ambient
water. As such, it was determined that
there would be no significant effect to
water quality from the explosive
product associated with the explosive
source sonobuoy (AN/SSQ–110A).
OF II is combusted in the torpedo
engine and the combustion byproducts
are exhausted into the torpedo wake,
which is extremely turbulent and causes
rapid mixing and diffusion. Combustion
byproducts include carbon dioxide,
carbon monoxide, water, hydrogen gas,
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
64564
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
nitrogen gas, ammonia, hydrogen
cyanide, and nitrogen oxides. All of the
byproducts, with the exception of
hydrogen cyanide, are below the EPA
water quality criteria. Hydrogen cyanide
is highly soluble in seawater and dilutes
below the EPA criterion within 6.3 m
(20.7 ft) of the torpedo. Therefore, it was
determined there would be no
significant effect to water quality as a
result of OF II.
Analysis and Negligible Impact
Determination
Pursuant to NMFS’ regulations
implementing the MMPA, an applicant
is required to estimate the number of
animals that will be ‘‘taken’’ by the
specified activities (i.e., takes by
harassment only, or takes by
harassment, injury, and/or death). This
estimate informs the analysis that NMFS
must perform to determine whether the
activity will have a ‘‘negligible impact’’
on the affected species or stock. Level B
(behavioral) harassment occurs at the
level of the individual(s) and does not
assume any resulting population-level
consequences, though there are known
avenues through which behavioral
disturbance of individuals can result in
population-level effects (e.g., pinkfooted geese (Anser brachyrhynchus) in
undisturbed habitat gained body mass
and had about a 46-percent reproductive
success compared with geese in
disturbed habitat (being consistently
scared off the fields on which they were
foraging) which did not gain mass and
has a 17-percent reproductive success).
A negligible impact finding is based on
the lack of likely adverse effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival
(i.e., population-level effects). An
estimate of the number of Level B
harassment takes, alone, is not enough
information on which to base an impact
determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of
marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’
through behavioral harassment, NMFS
must consider other factors, such as the
likely nature of any responses (their
intensity, duration, etc.), the context of
any responses (critical reproductive
time or location, migration, etc.), as well
as the number and nature of estimated
Level A Harassment takes, the number
of estimated mortalities, and effects on
habitat. Generally speaking, and
especially with other factors being
equal, the Navy and NMFS anticipate
more severe effects from takes resulting
from exposure to higher received levels
(though this is in no way a strictly linear
relationship throughout species,
individuals, or circumstances) and less
severe effects from takes resulting from
exposure to lower received levels.
The Navy’s specified activities have
been described based on best estimates
of the number of MFAS/HFAS hours
that the Navy will conduct. The exact
number of hours (or torpedoes, or pings,
whatever unit the source is estimated
in) may vary from year to year, but will
not exceed the 5-year total indicated in
Table 8 (by multiplying the yearly
estimate by 5) by more than 10 percent.
NMFS estimates that a 10-percent
increase in active sonar hours
(torpedoes, pings, etc.) would result in
approximately a 10-percent increase in
the number of takes, and we have
considered this possibility and the effect
of the additional active sonar use in our
analysis.
Taking the above into account,
considering the sections discussed
below, and dependent upon the
implementation of the proposed
mitigation measures, NMFS has
preliminarily determined that Navy
training exercises utilizing MFAS/HFAS
and underwater detonations will have a
negligible impact on the marine
mammal species and stocks present in
the GoA TMAA.
Behavioral Harassment
As discussed in the Potential Effects
of Exposure of Marine Mammals to
MFAS/HFAS and illustrated in the
conceptual framework, marine
mammals can respond to MFAS/HFAS
in many different ways, a subset of
which qualifies as harassment (see
Behavioral Harassment Section). One
thing that the take estimates do not take
into account is the fact that most marine
mammals will likely avoid strong sound
sources to one extent or another.
Although an animal that avoids the
sound source will likely still be taken in
some instances (such as if the avoidance
results in a missed opportunity to feed,
interruption of reproductive behaviors,
etc.) in other cases avoidance may result
in fewer instances of take than were
estimated or in the takes resulting from
exposure to a lower received level than
was estimated, which could result in a
less severe response. For MFAS/HFAS,
the Navy provided information (Table 9)
estimating the percentage of the total
takes that will occur within the 10-dB
bins (without considering mitigation or
avoidance) that are within the received
levels considered in the risk continuum
and for TTS and PTS. This table applies
specifically to AN/SQS–53 hullmounted active sonar (the most
powerful source); with less powerful
sources, the percentages would increase
slightly in the lower received levels and
correspondingly decrease in the higher
received levels. As mentioned above, an
animal’s exposure to a higher received
level is more likely to result in a
behavioral response that is more likely
to adversely affect the health of the
animal.
TABLE 9—APPROXIMATE PERCENT OF ESTIMATED TAKES THAT OCCUR IN THE INDICATED 10-dB BINS FOR AN/SQS–53
(THE MOST POWERFUL SOURCE)
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Received level (SPL)
Distance at which levels occur in GOA TMAA
Below 138 dB ...............................................................................................
138 < Level < 144 dB ...................................................................................
144 < Level < 150 dB ...................................................................................
150 < Level < 156 dB ...................................................................................
156 < Level < 162 dB ...................................................................................
162 < Level < 168 dB ...................................................................................
168 < Level < 174 dB ...................................................................................
174 < Level < 180 dB ...................................................................................
180 < Level < 186 dB ...................................................................................
186 < Level < TTS .......................................................................................
TTS (195 SEL) .............................................................................................
42 km–105 km ..........................................................
28 km–42 km ............................................................
17 km–28 km ............................................................
9 km–17 km ..............................................................
5 km–9 km ................................................................
2.5 km–5 km .............................................................
1.2 km–2.5 km ..........................................................
0.5 km–1.2 km ..........................................................
335 m–0.5 km ..........................................................
178 m–335 m ...........................................................
10 m–178 m .............................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
Percent of
total
harassment
takes
estimated to
occur at
indicated level
∼0
<1
∼1
7
18
26
22
14
6
5
<1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
64565
TABLE 9—APPROXIMATE PERCENT OF ESTIMATED TAKES THAT OCCUR IN THE INDICATED 10-dB BINS FOR AN/SQS–53
(THE MOST POWERFUL SOURCE)—Continued
Received level (SPL)
Distance at which levels occur in GOA TMAA
PTS (215 SEL) .............................................................................................
10 m .........................................................................
Percent of
total
harassment
takes
estimated to
occur at
indicated level
< .01
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Note: For smaller sources, a higher % of the takes occur at lower levels, and a lower % at higher levels.
Because the Navy has only been
monitoring specifically to discern the
effects of MFAS/HFAS on marine
mammals since approximately 2006,
and because of the overall data gap
regarding the effects of MFAS/HFAS on
marine mammals, not a lot is known
regarding how marine mammals in the
GoA TMAA will respond to MFAS/
HFAS. The Navy has submitted reports
from more than 60 major exercises
conducted in the Southern California
Range Complex, the Hawaii Range
Complex, and off the Atlantic Coast,
that indicate no behavioral disturbance
was observed. One cannot conclude
from these results that marine mammals
were not harassed from MFAS/HFAS, as
a portion of animals within the area of
concern were not seen (especially those
more cryptic, deep-diving species, such
as beaked whales or Kogia spp.) and
some of the non-biologist watchstanders
might not be well-qualified to
characterize behaviors. However, one
can say that the animals that were
observed did not respond in any of the
obviously more severe ways, such as
panic, aggression, or anti-predator
response.
In addition to the monitoring that will
be required pursuant to these
regulations and any corresponding
LOAs, which is specifically designed to
help us better understand how marine
mammals respond to sound, the Navy
and NMFS have developed, funded, and
begun conducting a controlled exposure
experiment with beaked whales in the
Bahamas (results of first year discussed
in previous sections; preliminary 2008
results are also available). Separately,
the Navy and NMFS conducted an
opportunistic tagging experiment with
several species of marine mammals in
the area of the 2008 RIMPAC training
exercises in the Hawaii Range Complex
(HRC), for which the results are still
being analyzed.
Diel Cycle
As noted previously, many animals
perform vital functions, such as feeding,
resting, traveling, and socializing on a
diel cycle (24-hr cycle). Behavioral
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
reactions to noise exposure (when
taking place in a biologically important
context, such as disruption of critical
life functions, displacement, or
avoidance of important habitat) are
more likely to be significant if they last
more than one diel cycle or recur on
subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007).
Consequently, a behavioral response
lasting less than one day and not
recurring on subsequent days is not
considered severe unless it could
directly affect reproduction or survival
(Southall et al., 2007).
In the previous section, we discussed
the fact that potential behavioral
responses to MFAS/HFAS that fall into
the category of harassment could range
in severity. By definition, takes by
behavioral harassment involve the
disturbance of a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild by
causing disruption of natural behavioral
patterns (such as migration, surfacing,
nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering)
to a point where such behavioral
patterns are abandoned or significantly
altered. These reactions would,
however, be more of a concern if they
were expected to last over 24 hrs or be
repeated in subsequent days.
Additionally, vessels with hull-mounted
active sonar are typically moving at
speeds of 10–14 knots, which would
make it unlikely that the same animal
could remain in the immediate vicinity
of the ship for the entire duration of the
exercise. Animals are not expected to be
exposed to MFAS/HFAS at levels or for
a duration likely to result in a
significant response that would then last
for more than one day or on successive
days. With the exception of SINKEXs,
the planned explosive exercises are also
of a short duration (1–6 hrs). Although
explosive exercises may sometimes be
conducted in the same general areas
repeatedly, because of their short
duration and the fact that they are in the
open ocean and animals can easily
move away, it is similarly unlikely that
animals would be exposed for long,
continuous amounts of time. Although
SINKEXs may last for up to 48 hrs, only
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
two are planned annually, they are
stationary and conducted in deep, open
water (where fewer marine mammals
would typically be expected to be
randomly encountered), and they have a
rigorous monitoring and shutdown
protocol, all of which make it unlikely
that individuals would be exposed to
the exercise for extended periods or on
consecutive days.
TTS
NMFS and the Navy have estimated
that approximately 1,000 individual
marine mammals (totaled from all
affected species) may sustain some level
of TTS from MFAS/HFAS annually. As
mentioned previously, TTS can last
from a few minutes to days, be of
varying degree, and occur across various
frequency bandwidths, all of which
determine the severity of the impacts on
the affected individual, which can range
from minor to more severe. Table 9
indicates the estimated number of
animals that might sustain TTS from
exposure to MFAS/HFAS. The TTS
sustained by an animal is primarily
classified by three characteristics:
(1) Frequency—Available data (of
mid-frequency hearing specialists
exposed to mid- or high-frequency
sounds; Southall et al., 2007) suggest
that most TTS occurs in the frequency
range of the source up to one octave
higher than the source (with the
maximum TTS at 1⁄2 octave above). The
more MF powerful sources used (the
two hull-mounted MFAS sources and
the DICASS sonobuoys) have center
frequencies between 3.5 and 8 kHz and
the other unidentified MF sources are,
by definition, less than 10 kHz, which
suggests that TTS induced by any of
these MF sources would be in a
frequency band somewhere between
approximately 2 and 20 kHz. There are
fewer hours of HF source use and the
sounds would attenuate more quickly,
plus they have lower source levels, but
if an animal were to incur TTS from
these sources, it would cover a higher
frequency range (sources are between 20
and 100 kHz, which means that TTS
could range up to 200 kHz; however, HF
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64566
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
systems are typically used less
frequently and for shorter time periods
than surface ship and aircraft MF
systems, so TTS from these sources is
even less likely). TTS from explosives
would be broadband. Tables 5a and 5b
summarize the vocalization data
available for each species.
(2) Degree of the shift (i.e., how many
dB is the sensitivity of the hearing
reduced by)—Generally, both the degree
of TTS and the duration of TTS will be
greater if the marine mammal is exposed
to a higher level of energy (which would
occur when the peak dB level is higher
or the duration is longer). The threshold
for the onset of TTS (> 6 dB) is 195 dB
(SEL), which might be received at
distances of up to 459 ft (140 m) from
the most powerful MFAS source, the
AN/SQS–53 (the maximum ranges to
TTS from other sources would be less,
as modeled for the GoA TMAA). An
animal would have to approach closer
to the source or remain in the vicinity
of the sound source appreciably longer
to increase the received SEL, which
would be difficult considering the
watchstanders and the nominal speed of
an active sonar vessel (10–12 knots). In
the TTS studies, some using exposures
of almost an hour in duration or up to
217 SEL, most of the TTS induced was
15 dB or less, though Finneran et al.
(2007) induced 43 dB of TTS with a 64sec exposure to a 20 kHz source (MFAS
emits a 1-s ping 2 times/minute).
(3) Duration of TTS (recovery time)—
In the TTS laboratory studies, some
using exposures of almost an hour in
duration or up to 217 SEL, almost all
individuals recovered within 1 day (or
less, often in minutes), though in one
study (Finneran et al., 2007), recovery
took 4 days.
Based on the range of degree and
duration of TTS reportedly induced by
exposures to non-pulse sounds of
energy higher than that to which freeswimming marine mammals in the field
are likely to be exposed during MFAS/
HFAS training exercises in the GoA
TMAA, it is unlikely that marine
mammals would ever sustain a TTS
from MFAS that alters their sensitivity
by more than 20 dB for more than a few
days (and the majority would be far less
severe because of short duration of the
majority of the exercises and the speed
of a typical vessel), if that. Also, for the
same reasons discussed in the Diel
Cycle section, and because of the short
distance within which animals would
need to approach the sound source, it is
unlikely that animals would be exposed
to the levels necessary to induce TTS in
subsequent time periods such that their
recovery is impeded. Additionally,
though the frequency range of TTS that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
marine mammals might sustain would
overlap with some of the frequency
ranges of their vocalization types, the
frequency range of TTS from MFAS (the
source from which TTS would most
likely be sustained because the higher
source level and slower attenuation
make it more likely that an animal
would be exposed to a higher level)
would not usually span the entire
frequency range of one vocalization
type, much less span all types of
vocalizations (see Tables 5a and 5b). If
impaired, marine mammals would
typically be aware of their impairment
and implement behaviors to compensate
(see Communication Impairment
Section), though these compensations
may incur energetic costs.
Acoustic Masking or Communication
Impairment
Table 5a and Table 5b are also
informative regarding the nature of the
masking or communication impairment
that could potentially occur from MFAS
(again, center frequencies are 3.5 and
7.5 kHz for the two types of hullmounted active sonar). However,
masking only occurs during the time of
the signal (and potential secondary
arrivals of indirect rays), versus TTS,
which continues beyond the duration of
the signal. Standard MFAS pings last on
average one second and occur about
once every 24–30 seconds for hullmounted sources. For the sources for
which we know the pulse length, most
are significantly shorter than hullmounted active sonar, on the order of
several microseconds to tens of
microseconds. For hull-mounted active
sonar, though some of the vocalizations
that marine mammals make are less
than one second long, there is only a 1
in 24 chance that they would occur
exactly when the ping was received, and
when vocalizations are longer than one
second, only parts of them are masked.
Alternately, when the pulses are only
several microseconds long, the majority
of most animals’ vocalizations would
not be masked. Masking effects from
MFAS/HFAS are expected to be
minimal. If masking or communication
impairment were to occur briefly, it
would be in the frequency range of
MFAS, which overlaps with some
marine mammal vocalizations; however,
it would likely not mask the entirety of
any particular vocalization or
communication series because the
signal length, frequency, and duty cycle
of the MFAS/HFAS signal does not
perfectly mimic the characteristics of
any marine mammal’s vocalizations.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
PTS, Injury, or Mortality
The Navy’s model estimated that one
Dall’s porpoise would be exposed to
levels of MFAS/HFAS that would result
in PTS. This estimate does not take into
consideration either the mitigation
measures, the likely avoidance
behaviors of some of the animals
exposed, the distance from the sonar
dome of a surface vessel within which
an animal would have to be exposed to
incur PTS (10 m), or the nominal speed
of a surface vessel engaged in ASW
exercises. NMFS believes that many
marine mammals would deliberately
avoid exposing themselves to the
received levels of active sonar necessary
to induce injury by moving away from
or at least modifying their path to avoid
a close approach. Additionally, in the
unlikely event that an animal
approaches the sonar vessel at a close
distance, NMFS believes that the
mitigation measures (i.e., shutdown/
powerdown zones for MFAS/HFAS)
would typically ensure that animals
would be not be exposed to injurious
levels of sound. As discussed
previously, the Navy utilizes both aerial
(when available) and passive acoustic
monitoring (during all ASW exercises)
in addition to watchstanders on vessels
to detect marine mammals for
mitigation implementation and
indicated that they are capable of
effectively monitoring a 1000-m (1093yd) safety zone at night using night
vision goggles, infrared cameras, and
passive acoustic monitoring.
If a marine mammal is able to
approach a surface vessel within the
distance necessary to incur PTS, the
likely speed of the vessel (nominal 10–
12 knots) would make it very difficult
for the animal to remain in range long
enough to accumulate enough energy to
result in more than a mild case of PTS.
As mentioned previously and in relation
to TTS, the likely consequences to the
health of an individual that incurs PTS
can range from mild to more serious
dependent upon the degree of PTS and
the frequency band it is in, and many
animals are able to compensate for the
shift, although it may include energetic
costs. While the Navy’s modeling
predicts that one Dall’s porpoise will
incur PTS from exposure to MFAS/
HFAS, the Navy and NMFS believe it is
very unlikely to occur; therefore, the
Navy has not requested authorization to
take one by Level A Harasssment and
NMFS is not proposing to authorize take
of Dall’s porpoise by Level A
harassment.
As discussed previously, marine
mammals (especially beaked whales)
could potentially respond to MFAS at a
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
received level lower than the injury
threshold in a manner that indirectly
results in the animals stranding. The
exact mechanisms of this potential
response, behavioral or physiological,
are not known. When naval exercises
have been associated with strandings in
the past, it has typically been when
three or more vessels are operating
simultaneously, in the presence of a
strong surface duct, and in areas of
constricted channels, semi-enclosed
areas, and/or steep bathymetry. While
these features certainly do not define
the only factors that can contribute to a
stranding, and while they need not all
be present in their aggregate to increase
the likelihood of a stranding, it is worth
noting that they are not all present in
the GoA TMAA, which only has a
strong surface duct present during the
winter, and does not have bathymetry or
constricted channels of the type that
have been present in the sonarassociated strandings. Additionally,
based on the number of occurrences
where strandings have been definitively
associated with military active sonar
versus the number of hours of active
sonar training that have been
conducted, we suggest that the
probability is small that this will occur.
Lastly, an active sonar shutdown
protocol for strandings involving live
animals milling in the water minimizes
the chances that these types of events
turn into mortalities. Though NMFS
does not expect it to occur, because of
the uncertainty surrounding the
mechanisms that link exposure to
MFAS to stranding (especially in beaked
whales), NMFS proposes to authorize
the injury or mortality of up to 15
beaked whales over the course of the
5-yr regulations.
Species-Specific Analysis
In the discussions below, the
‘‘acoustic analysis’’ refers to the Navy’s
analysis, which includes the use of
several models and other applicable
calculations as described in the
Estimates of Potential Marine Mammal
Exposure section. The numbers
predicted by the ‘‘acoustic analysis’’ are
based on a uniform and stationary
distribution of marine mammals and do
not take into consideration the
implementation of mitigation measures
or potential avoidance behaviors of
marine mammals, and therefore, are
likely overestimates of potential
exposures to the indicated thresholds
(PTS, TTS, behavioral harassments).
Blue Whale (MMPA Depleted/ESAListed)
Acoustic analysis predicts that one
exposure of a blue whale to MFAS/
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
HFAS at levels likely to result in Level
B harassment will occur, and that one
exposure to explosives will occur. This
estimate represents the total number of
takes and not necessarily the number of
individuals taken, as a single individual
may be taken multiple times over the
course of a year. These Level B takes are
anticipated to be primarily in the form
of behavioral disturbance as described
in the Definition of Harassment: Level B
Harassment section; zero TTS takes are
estimated. It is unlikely that any blue
whales will incur TTS because of the
following: The distance within which
they would have to approach the MFAS
source (approximately 140 m for the
most powerful source for TTS); the fact
that many animals will likely avoid
active sonar sources to some degree; and
the likelihood that Navy monitors
would detect these animals prior to an
approach within this distance (given
their large size, average group size of
two or three, and pronounced vertical
blow) and implement active sonar
powerdown or shutdown. Of note, blue
whale vocalizations are in the 12 to 400
Hz range with dominant energy in the
12 to 25 Hz range, which suggests that
blue whale hearing may be more
sensitive in this frequency range. Thus,
frequencies in the MFAS range (1–10
kHz) are predicted to lie closer to the
periphery of their hearing, which
suggests that adverse impacts resulting
from exposure to MFAS may be fewer
than modeled.
Blue whales have been seen in the
GoA and the Eastern North Pacific
population is estimated at a minimum
of 1,368 whales. Like most baleen
whales, blue whales would most likely
feed in the north during summer
months (potentially the GoA) and head
southward in the cooler months.
Relative to the population size, this
activity is anticipated to result only in
a limited number of Level B harassment
takes. The GoA TMAA activities are not
expected to occur in an area/time of
specific importance for breeding,
calving, or other known critical
behaviors. The blue whales’ large size
and detectability makes it unlikely that
these animals would be exposed to the
higher levels of sound expected to result
in more severe effects. Consequently,
the activities are not expected to
adversely impact rates of recruitment or
survival of blue whales. Based on the
general information contained in the
Negligible Impact Analysis section and
this species-specific summary of the
effects of the takes, NMFS has
preliminarily determined that the
Navy’s specified activities will have a
negligible impact on this species.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64567
Fin Whale (MMPA Depleted/ESAListed)
Acoustic analysis predicts that 11,019
exposures of fin whales to MFAS/HFAS
at sound levels likely to result in Level
B harassment will occur, and that 18
exposures to explosives will occur. This
estimate represents the total number of
takes and not necessarily the number of
individuals taken, as a single individual
may be taken multiple times over the
course of a year. These Level B takes are
anticipated to be primarily in the form
of behavioral disturbance as described
in the Definition of Harassment: Level B
Harassment section, although 26 TTS
takes are also estimated. However, it is
unlikely that any fin whales will incur
TTS because of: The distance within
which they would have to approach the
MFAS source (approximately 140 m for
the most powerful source for TTS), the
fact that many animals will likely avoid
active sonar sources to some degree, and
the likelihood that Navy monitors
would detect these animals prior to an
approach within this distance (given
their large size, average group size (3),
and pronounced vertical blow) and
implement active sonar powerdown or
shutdown. Of note, fin whale
vocalizations are in the 15–750 Hz range
with the majority below 70 Hz, which
suggests that fin whale hearing may be
more sensitive in this frequency range.
Thus, frequencies in the MFAS range
(1–10 kHz) are predicted to lie closer to
the periphery of their hearing, which
suggests that adverse impacts resulting
from exposure to MFAS may be fewer
than modeled.
Although reliable estimates of current
abundance for the entire Northeast
Pacific fin whale stock are not currently
available, fin whales have been seen in
the GoA and the provisional estimate for
this stock is 3,368 whales for the
central-eastern Bering Sea and 683 for
the eastern Bering Sea. These estimates
are considered provisional because they
have not been corrected for animals
missed on the trackline, animals
submerged when the survey ship
passed, and responsive movements. For
purposes of acoustic impact modeling, a
density of 0.010 individuals per km2
was used based on 24 visual
observations of fin whale groups
totaling 64 individuals during a 10-day
period (Rone et al., 2009). Although
acoustic impact modeling predicted a
large number of takes relative to
population size, NMFS believes that this
is a conservative estimate due to the
high number of fin whales sighted
during the most recent survey in 2009.
In addition, the majority of fin whale
takes by Level B harassment would
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
64568
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
result in behavioral harassment (99.8
percent), which NMFS, for reasons
discussed in the Behavioral Harassment
section above, expects will have a
negligible impact on the species. For
instance, previous monitoring reports
submitted by the Navy from more than
60 major exercises have indicated no
observed behavioral disturbance
Although one cannot conclude from
these results that marine mammals were
not harassed and some of the nonbiologist watchstanders might not be
well qualified to characterize behavior,
one can say that the animals observed
did not respond in any of the obviously
more severe ways, such as panic,
aggression, or anti-predator response
that would be more likely to adversely
affect annual rates of recruitment or
survival. Additional reasons in support
of NMFS’ preliminary negligible impact
determination follow. In the North
Pacific, fin whales migrate seasonally
from high Arctic feeding areas in the
summer to low latitude breeding and
calving areas in the winter. The GoA
TMAA activities are not expected to
occur in an area/time of specific
importance for breeding, calving, or
other known critical behaviors. The fin
whales’ large size and detectability
makes it unlikely that these animals
would be exposed to the higher levels
of sound expected to result in more
severe effects. Consequently, the
activities are not expected to adversely
impact rates of recruitment or survival
of fin whales. Based on the general
information contained in the Negligible
Impact Analysis section and this
species-specific summary of the effects
of the takes, NMFS has preliminarily
determined that the Navy’s specified
activities will have a negligible impact
on this species.
Sei Whale (MMPA Depleted/ESAListed)
Acoustic analysis predicts that 4
exposures of sei whales to MFAS/HFAS
at sound levels likely to result in Level
B harassment will occur, and that 4
exposures to explosives will occur. This
estimate represents the total number of
takes and not necessarily the number of
individuals taken, as a single individual
may be taken multiple times over the
course of a year. These Level B takes are
anticipated to be primarily in the form
of behavioral disturbance as described
in the Definition of Harassment: Level B
Harassment section; no TTS takes are
estimated. It is unlikely that any sei
whales will incur TTS because of: The
distance within which they would have
to approach the MFAS source
(approximately 140 m for the most
powerful source for TTS), the fact that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
many animals will likely avoid active
sonar sources to some degree, and the
likelihood that Navy monitors would
detect these animals prior to an
approach within this distance (given
their large size, average group size
(three), and pronounced vertical blow)
and implement active sonar powerdown
or shutdown.
The most appropriate population
estimate for the sei whale is the one for
the North Pacific, which estimates 9,110
whales. Relative to the population size,
this activity is anticipated to result only
in a limited number of Level B
harassment takes. Sei whales are
generally thought to feed in the summer
in the north and spend winters in warm
temperate or sub-tropical areas. The
GoA TMAA activities are not expected
to occur in an area/time of specific
importance for breeding, calving, or
other known critical behaviors. The sei
whales’ large size and detectability
makes it unlikely that these animals
would be exposed to the higher levels
of sound expected to result in more
severe effects. Consequently, the
activities are not expected to adversely
impact rates of recruitment or survival
of sei whales. Based on the general
information contained in the Negligible
Impact Analysis section and this
species-specific summary of the effects
of the takes, NMFS has preliminarily
determined that the Navy’s specified
activities will have a negligible impact
on this species.
Humpback Whale (MMPA Depleted/
ESA-Listed)
Acoustic analysis predicts that 1,394
exposures of humpback whales to
MFAS/HFAS at sound levels likely to
result in Level B harassment will occur.
This estimate represents the total
number of takes and not necessarily the
number of individuals taken, as a single
individual may be taken multiple times
over the course of a year. These Level
B takes are anticipated to be primarily
in the form of behavioral disturbance as
described in the Definition of
Harassment: Level B Harassment
section, although six TTS takes are also
estimated. However, it is unlikely that
any humpback whales will incur TTS
because of the following: The distance
within which they would have to
approach the MFAS source
(approximately 459 ft (140 m) for the
most powerful source for TTS); the fact
that many animals will likely avoid
active sonar sources to some degree; and
the likelihood that Navy monitors
would detect these animals prior to an
approach within this distance (given
their large size and gregarious nature)
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and implement active sonar powerdown
or shutdown.
The acoustic analysis further predicts
that one humpback whale would be
exposed to levels of pressure and/or
energy from explosive detonations that
would result in Level B harassment.
NMFS believes that this is unlikely
because of: (1) The distance within
which they would have to approach the
explosive source; and (2) the likelihood
that Navy monitors would, before or
during exercise monitoring, detect these
large, gregarious animals prior to an
approach within this distance and
require a delay of the exercise.
The current estimate for the North
Pacific is 18,302 humpback whales
(Calambokidis et al., 2008). Relative to
the population size, this activity is
anticipated to result only in a limited
number of Level B harassment takes.
Humpback whales are generally thought
to feed in the summer in the north and
spend winters in warm temperate or
sub-tropical areas. The GoA TMAA
activities are not expected to occur in an
area/time of specific importance for
breeding, calving, or other known
critical behaviors. The humpback
whales’ large size and detectability
makes it unlikely that these animals
would be exposed to the higher levels
of sound expected to result in more
severe effects. Consequently, the
activities are not expected to adversely
impact rates of recruitment or survival
of humpback whales. Based on the
general information contained in the
Negligible Impact Analysis section and
this species-specific summary of the
effects of the takes, NMFS has
preliminarily determined that the
Navy’s specified activities will have a
negligible impact on this species.
North Pacific Right Whale (MMPA
Depleted/ESA-Listed)
Acoustic analysis predicts that one
exposure of a North Pacific right whale
to MFAS/HFAS at sound levels likely to
result in Level B harassment will occur,
and that one exposure to explosives will
occur. These Level B takes are
anticipated to be in the form of
behavioral disturbance as described in
the Definition of Harassment: Level B
Harassment section; no TTS takes are
estimated. It is unlikely that any North
Pacific right whales will incur TTS
because of: The distance within which
they would have to approach the MFAS
source (approximately 459 ft (140 m) for
the most powerful source for TTS), the
fact that many animals will likely avoid
active sonar sources to some degree, and
the likelihood that Navy monitors
would detect these animals prior to an
approach within this distance (given
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
their large size, callosities on the head,
and pronounced v-shaped blow) and
implement active sonar powerdown or
shutdown.
North Pacific right whales are found
in subpolar to temperate waters. There
are no reliable estimates of current
abundance or trends for right whales in
the North Pacific and the population
may only number in the low hundreds
(Angliss and Allen, 2008). The
population in the eastern North Pacific
is considered to be very small, perhaps
only in the tens of animals. Over the
past 40 years, most sightings in the
eastern North Pacific have been of single
animals; however, during the last few
years, small groups of right whales have
been reported (such as the group of 17
documented in the Bering Sea in 2004;
Angliss and Allen, 2008). There is
evidence that the GoA was historically
used as a feeding ground, and recent
surveys suggest that some individuals
continue to use the shelf east of Kodiak
Island as a feeding area, which has now
been designated under the ESA as
critical habitat (73 FR 19000, April 8,
2008). The North Pacific right whales’
large size and detectability makes it
unlikely that these animals would be
exposed to the higher levels of sound
expected to result in more severe effects.
Consequently, the activities are not
expected to adversely impact rates of
recruitment or survival of North Pacific
right whales. Based on the general
information contained in the Negligible
Impact Analysis section and this
species-specific summary of the effects
of the takes, NMFS has preliminarily
determined that the Navy’s specified
activities will have a negligible impact
on this species.
Minke Whale
Acoustic analysis predicts that 679
exposures of minke whales to MFAS/
HFAS at sound levels likely to result in
Level B harassment will occur, and that
two exposures to explosives will occur.
This estimate represents the total
number of takes and not necessarily the
number of individuals taken, as a single
individual may be taken multiple times
over the course of a year. These Level
B takes are anticipated to be primarily
in the form of behavioral disturbance as
described in the Definition of
Harassment: Level B Harassment
section, although two TTS takes are also
estimated. It is somewhat unlikely that
any minke whales will incur TTS
because of: The distance within which
they would have to approach the MFAS
source (approximately 459 ft (140 m) for
the most powerful source for TTS) and
the fact that many animals will likely
avoid active sonar sources to some
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
degree. However, minke whales are
relatively cryptic at surface, making
visual detection more difficult, although
they are often detected acoustically.
Minke whales are distributed in polar,
temperate, and tropical waters, but are
less common in the tropics than in
cooler waters. Within the Pacific EEZ,
NMFS recognizes three stocks of minke
whales: A California/Oregon/
Washington stock; an Alaskan stock;
and a Hawaiian stock. Currently, there
are no estimates of abundance for minke
whales in Alaskan waters (Angliss and
Allen, 2008). In general, sightings of
minke whales in the GoA are low.
Although large numbers of minke
whales were reported at Portlock Bank
(in the TMAA) and Albatross bank (west
of the TMAA) in May 1976 (Fiscus et
al., 1976), subsequent NMFS surveys
reported no minke whales in those
locations. During the April 2009 survey,
two encounters totaling three individual
minke whales occurred on the shelf and
only one of these encounters was within
the TMAA. The GoA TMAA activities
are not expected to occur in an area/
time of specific importance for breeding,
calving, or other known critical
behaviors. Consequently, the activities
are not expected to adversely impact
rates of recruitment or survival of minke
whales. Based on the general
information contained in the Negligible
Impact Analysis section and this
species-specific summary of the effects
of the takes, NMFS has preliminarily
determined that the Navy’s specified
activities will have a negligible impact
on this species.
Sperm Whale (MMPA Depleted/ESAListed)
Acoustic analysis predicts that 328
exposures of sperm whales to MFAS/
HFAS at sound levels likely to result in
Level B harassment will occur. This
estimate represents the total number of
takes and not necessarily the number of
individuals taken, as a single individual
may be taken multiple times over the
course of a year. These Level B takes are
anticipated to be primarily in the form
of behavioral disturbance as described
in the Definition of Harassment: Level B
Harassment section; one TTS take is
estimated and proposed for
authorization. However, it is unlikely
that any sperm whales will incur TTS
because of: The distance within which
they would have to approach the MFAS
source (approximately 459 ft (140 m) for
the most powerful source for TTS), the
fact that many animals will likely avoid
active sonar sources to some degree, and
the likelihood that Navy monitors
would detect these animals prior to an
approach within this distance (given
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64569
their large size, pronounced blow, and
mean group size of seven).
The acoustic analysis further predicts
that one sperm whale would be exposed
to levels of pressure and/or energy from
explosive detonations that would result
in Level B harassment. NMFS believes
that this is unlikely because of: The
distance within which they would have
to approach the explosive source; and
the likelihood that Navy monitors
would, before or during exercise
monitoring, detect these animals for the
reasons indicated above.
Sperm whales occur throughout all
ocean basins from equatorial to polar
waters. Sperm whales are found
throughout the North Pacific, and are
broadly distributed from tropical and
temperate waters to the Bering Sea as far
north as Cape Navarin. Currently,
estimates of sperm whale abundance in
the North Pacific are not available. For
the North Pacific, sperm whales have
been divided into three separate stocks
based on where they are found, which
have been designated as (1) Alaska
(North Pacific stock), (2) California/
Oregon/Washington, and (3) Hawaii
(Angliss and Allen, 2008). The
estimated population for the North
Pacific stock is 102,112 (CV = 0.15)
(Angliss and Allen, 2008). In the GoA,
sperm whales primarily occur seaward
of the 1,640 ft (500 m) isobath (DoN,
2006). A survey in the Shelikof Strait
(north of Kodiak), Cook Inlet, Prince
William Sound and between Kodiak and
Montique Island from June 26 to July 15,
2003 detected six sperm whales along
the shelf break, with an average group
size of 1.2 (Waite 2003). The April 2009
survey in the TMAA recorded sperm
whales acoustically in both the inshore
and offshore strata, but no sperm whales
were detected visually (Rone et al.,
2009). The sperm whales’ large size and
detectability makes it unlikely that these
animals would be exposed to the higher
levels of sound expected to result in
more severe effects. Consequently, the
activities are not expected to adversely
impact rates of recruitment or survival
of sperm whales. Based on the general
information contained in the Negligible
Impact Analysis section and this
species-specific summary of the effects
of the takes, NMFS has preliminarily
determined that the Navy’s specified
activities will have a negligible impact
on this species.
Gray Whale
Acoustic analysis predicts that 385
exposures of gray whales to MFAS/
HFAS at sound levels likely to result in
Level B harassment will occur. This
estimate represents the total number of
takes and not necessarily the number of
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64570
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
individuals taken, as a single individual
may be taken multiple times over the
course of a year. These Level B takes are
anticipated to be primarily in the form
of behavioral disturbance as described
in the Definition of Harassment: Level B
Harassment section; one TTS take is
estimated. NMFS believes that it is
unlikely that a gray whale will incur
TTS because of the distance within
which they would have to approach the
MFAS source (approximately 459 ft (140
m) for the most powerful source for
TTS) and the fact that many animals
will likely avoid active sonar sources to
some degree. The gray whales’ size and
detectability makes it unlikely that these
animals would be exposed to the higher
levels of sound expected to result in
more severe effects. Consequently, the
activities are not expected to adversely
impact rates of recruitment or survival
of gray whales.
The acoustic analysis further predicts
that three gray whales would be
exposed to levels of pressure and/or
energy from explosive detonations that
would result in Level B harassment.
These Level B takes are anticipated to be
primarily in the form of behavioral
disturbance as described in the
Definition of Harassment: Level B
Harassment section.
Gray whales occur only in the North
Pacific. The Eastern North Pacific (ENP)
population is found from the upper Gulf
of California, south to the tip of Baja
California, and up the Pacific coast of
North America to the Chukchi and
Beaufort seas. This stock is known to
summer in the shallow waters of the
northern Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea, and
western Beaufort Sea, but some
individuals spend the summer feeding
along the Pacific coast from
southeastern Alaska to central
California. The minimum population
estimates for the ENP stock of gray
whales using the mean of the 2000/01
and 2001/02 abundance estimates is
17,752 and the best estimate of 18,813
whales (CV = 0.07; Angliss and Allen,
2008). The April 2009 survey
encountered one group of two gray
whales within the western edge of the
TMAA and two groups well outside the
TMAA, nearshore at Kodiak Island
(Rone et al., 2009). The GoA TMAA
activities are not expected to occur in an
area/time of specific importance for
breeding, calving, or other known
critical behaviors. Consequently, the
activities are not expected to adversely
impact rates of recruitment or survival
of gray whales. Based on the general
information contained in the Negligible
Impact Analysis section and this
species-specific summary of the effects
of the takes, NMFS has preliminarily
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
determined that the Navy’s specified
activities will have a negligible impact
on this species.
Beaked Whales
Acoustic analysis predicts that 486
Baird’s beaked whales, 2,308 Cuvier’s
beaked whales, and 2,308 Stejneger’s
beaked whales will be exposed to
MFAS/HFAS at sound levels likely to
result in Level B harassment. This
estimate represents the total number of
takes and not necessarily the number of
individuals taken, as a single individual
may be taken multiple times over the
course of a year. These Level B takes are
anticipated to be primarily in the form
of behavioral disturbance as described
in the Definition of Harassment: Level B
Harassment section; one, six, and six
(respectively, by species) TTS takes are
estimated. NMFS believes that it is
unlikely that this number of beaked
whales will incur TTS because of the
distance within which they would have
to approach the MFAS source
(approximately 459 ft (140 m) for the
most powerful source for TTS) and the
fact that many animals will likely avoid
active sonar sources to some degree.
However, the likelihood that Navy
monitors would detect most of these
animals at the surface prior to an
approach within this distance is low
because of their deep-diving behavior
and cryptic profile. As mentioned above
and indicated in Table 5a and Table 5b,
some beaked whale vocalizations might
overlap with the MFAS/HFAS TTS
frequency range (2 to 20 kHz), which
could potentially temporarily decrease
an animal’s sensitivity to the calls of
conspecifics or returning echolocation
signals. However, as noted previously,
NMFS does not anticipate TTS of a long
duration or severe degree to occur as a
result of exposure to MFAS/HFAS.
The acoustic analysis further predicts
that one Cuvier’s beaked whale and one
Stejneger’s beaked whale would be
exposed to levels of pressure and/or
energy from explosive detonations that
would result in Level B harassment by
TTS, and one Baird’s beaked whale,
three Cuvier’s beaked whales, and four
Stejneger’s beaked whales could be
exposed to levels associated with
behavioral disturbance. It is important
to note that, due to the lack of available
density information for Stejneger’s
beaked whale, the density and results
from modeling of Cuvier’s beaked
whales were used as a surrogate.
Baird’s beaked whales appear to occur
mainly in cold deep water (3,300 ft
(1,000 m) or greater) over the
continental slope, oceanic seamounts,
and in areas with submarine
escarpments. They may also
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
occasionally occur near shore along
narrow continental shelves. The range
for the Alaska stock of Baird’s beaked
whale extends from Cape Navarin (63
°N lat.) and the central Sea of Okhotsk
(57 °N lat.) to St. Matthew Island, the
Pribilof Islands in the Bering Sea, and
the northern GoA (Angliss and Allen,
2008; DoN, 2006). Waite (2003) reported
a group of four Baird’s beaked whales at
the shelf break to the east of the TMAA.
There were no beaked whales detected
acoustically or visually (although two
groups of unidentified small whale were
sighted) during the 2009 survey of the
TMAA (Rone et al., 2009).
Cuvier’s beaked whales are
considered to be the most widely
distributed of the beaked whales. They
occur in all three major oceans and most
seas. In the North Pacific, they range
north to the northern GoA, the Aleutian
Islands, and the Commander Islands
and as far south as Hawaii. In general,
Cuvier’s beaked whales are sighted in
waters with a bottom depth greater than
656 ft (200 m) and are frequently
recorded in areas with depths of 3,281
ft (1,000 m) or deeper. Occurrence has
been linked to physical features such as
the continental slope, canyons,
escarpments, and oceanic islands
(Angliss and Outlaw, 2005). Waite
(2003) reported one sighting of a group
of four Cuvier’s beaked whales at the
shelf break within the TMAA. Other
reports of Cuvier’s beaked whales in the
GoA were in very deep water. Rice and
Wolman (1982) observed a group of six
Cuvier’s beaked whales in about 14,715
ft (5,400 m) of water southeast of Kodiak
Island. Surveys in the Aleutian Islands
observed a group of six Cuvier’s beaked
whales in waters with a bottom depth of
13,123 to 16,404 ft (4,000 to 5,000 m)
(Forney and Brown, 1996).
Stejneger’s beaked whales (also called
Bering Sea beaked whales) are found
only in the North Pacific and appear to
prefer cold-temperate and subpolar
waters. The Alaska stock is recognized
as separate from the population off
California (Angliss and Outlaw, 2007).
Off Alaska, this species has been
observed in waters ranging from a
bottom depth ranging from 2,395 to
5,118 ft (730 to 1,560 m) on the steep
slope of the continental shelf as it drops
off into the Aleutian Basin (which
exceeds 11,482 ft (3,500 m) in bottom
depth) (DoN, 2006). Although the April
2009 survey in the TMAA detected no
beaked whales, surveys in the central
Aleutian Islands sighted groups of three
to 15 Stejneger’s beaked whales (Rice,
1986).
No abundance estimates are available
for any of these three species of beaked
whale. There is only a limited amount
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
of information pertaining to the life
history of beaked whales. Scientists
have gathered some information from
stranded animals, but little is known
about how these animals express their
life histories in the wild. Moreover,
most sightings of beaked whales are
brief because these whales are often
difficult to approach and they actively
avoid aircraft and vessels (e.g., Wursig
et al., 1998). For the Stejneger’s beaked
whale, for example, there is no available
information on reproduction and
breeding. As discussed above,
correlations have been made between
bathymetric features and beaked whale
sightings, which may indicate a habitat
preference. The GoA TMAA activities
are not expected to occur in an area/
time of specific importance for
reproduction, feeding, or other known
critical behaviors. Consequently, the
activities are not expected to adversely
impact rates of recruitment or survival
of beaked whales. Based on the general
information contained in the Negligible
Impact Analysis section and this
species-specific summary of the effects
of the takes, NMFS has preliminarily
determined that the Navy’s specified
activities will have a negligible impact
on this species.
Killer Whale (AT1 Transient Stock
MMPA Depleted)
Acoustic analysis predicts that 10,643
killer whales will be exposed to MFAS/
HFAS at sound levels likely to result in
Level B harassment. This estimate
represents the total number of takes and
not necessarily the number of
individuals taken, as a single individual
may be taken multiple times over the
course of a year. These Level B takes are
anticipated to be primarily in the form
of behavioral disturbance as described
in the Definition of Harassment: Level B
Harassment section; 41 TTS takes are
estimated. NMFS, for reasons discussed
in the Behavioral Harassment section
above, expects that these takes will have
a negligible impact on the species. For
instance, previous monitoring reports
submitted by the Navy from more than
60 major exercises have indicated no
observed behavioral disturbance.
Although one cannot conclude from
these results that marine mammals were
not harassed and some of the nonbiologist watchstanders might not be
well qualified to characterize behavior,
one can say that the animals observed
did not respond in any of the obviously
more severe ways, such as panic,
aggression, or anti-predator response
that would be more likely to adversely
affect annual rates of recruitment or
survival. With respect to the TTS takes,
it is unlikely that many individuals of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
these species will incur TTS because of:
The distance within which they would
have to approach the MFAS source
(approximately 459 ft (140 m) for the
most powerful source for TTS), the fact
that many animals will likely avoid
active sonar sources to some degree, and
the likelihood that Navy monitors
would detect these animals prior to an
approach within this distance (given
their gregarious nature and large group
size) and implement active sonar
powerdown or shutdown. As mentioned
above and indicated in Table 5a and
Table 5b, vocalizations of these species
might overlap with the MFAS/HFAS
TTS frequency range (2 to 20 kHz),
which could potentially temporarily
decrease an animal’s sensitivity to the
calls of conspecifics or returning
echolocation signals. However, as noted
previously, NMFS does not anticipate
TTS of a long duration or severe degree
to occur as a result of exposure to
MFAS/HFAS.
The acoustic analysis further predicts
that two killer whales would be exposed
to levels of pressure and/or energy from
explosive detonations that would result
in Level B harassment by TTS, and four
could be exposed to levels associated
with behavioral disturbance. NMFS
believes that this is unlikely because of:
(1) The distance within which they
would have to approach the explosive
source; and, (2) the likelihood that Navy
monitors would, during pre- or during
exercises monitoring, detect these largegrouped gregarious animals prior to an
approach within this distance and
require a delay of the exercise.
Killer whales have the most
ubiquitous distribution of any marine
mammal species, observed in virtually
every marine habitat from the tropics to
the poles and from shallow, inshore
water (and even rivers) to deep, oceanic
regions. In the eastern north Pacific,
including Alaskan waters, killer whales
are found in protected inshore waters,
as well as offshore waters (DoN, 2006).
Killer whales are segregated socially,
genetically, and ecologically into three
distinct eco-type groups: Residents,
transients, and offshore animals; all
three eco-types are represented in the
GoA. The ENP Alaskan Resident stock
ranges from southeastern Alaska to the
Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea. The
ENP Northern Resident stock occurs
from British Columbia through part of
southeastern Alaska. There are about
656 and 216 photo-identified
individuals in the ENP Alaska Resident
and ENP Northern Resident stocks,
respectively (Angliss and Allen, 2008).
The minimum population estimate for
the GoA, Aleutian Islands, and Bering
Sea Transient stock is 314 individuals
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64571
based on photo-identification work.
There is a minimum population
estimate of 320 individuals in the West
Coast Transient stock, which includes
about 225 in Washington State and
British Columbia, and southeastern
Alaska, and 105 off California. The
population estimate for the ENP stock of
Transient whales is 346. The minimum
population estimate for the AT1
Transient stock is seven individuals
based on photographs from recent years
(Angliss and Allen, 2008).
The minimum population estimate for
the ENP Offshore stock of killer whales
is 1,214 individuals (Carretta et al.,
2007). The total number of known
offshore killer whales is 211
individuals, but the amount of time this
transboundary stock spends in U.S.
waters is unknown (Carretta et al.,
2006).
The GoA TMAA activities are not
expected to occur in an area/time of
specific importance for reproduction,
feeding, or other known critical
behaviors. Consequently, the activities
are not expected to adversely impact
rates of recruitment or survival of these
three eco-types of killer whales. Based
on the general information contained in
the Negligible Impact Analysis section
and this species-specific summary of the
effects of the takes, NMFS has
preliminarily determined that the
Navy’s specified activities will have a
negligible impact on this species.
Pacific White-Sided Dolphins
Acoustic analysis predicts that 16,973
Pacific white-sided dolphins will be
exposed to MFAS/HFAS at sound levels
likely to result in Level B harassment.
These estimates represent the total
number of takes and not necessarily the
number of individuals taken, as a single
individual may be taken multiple times
over the course of a year. These Level
B takes are anticipated to be primarily
in the form of behavioral disturbance as
described in the Definition of
Harassment: Level B Harassment
section; 61 TTS takes are estimated.
However, it is unlikely that many
individuals of these species will incur
TTS because of: The distance within
which they would have to approach the
MFAS source (approximately 459 ft (140
m) for the most powerful source for
TTS), the fact that many animals will
likely avoid active sonar sources to
some degree, and the likelihood that
Navy monitors would detect these
animals prior to an approach within this
distance (given their gregarious nature
and large group size) and implement
active sonar powerdown or shutdown.
However, the Navy’s proposed
mitigation has a provision that allows
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64572
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the Navy to continue operation of MFAS
if the animals are clearly bow-riding
even after the Navy has initially
maneuvered to try and avoid closing
with the animals. Since these animals
sometimes bow-ride they could
potentially be exposed to levels
associated with TTS as they approach or
depart from bow-riding. As mentioned
above and indicated in Table 5a and
Table 5b, vocalizations of these species
might overlap with the MFAS/HFAS
TTS frequency range (2 to 20 kHz),
which could potentially temporarily
decrease an animal’s sensitivity to the
calls of conspecifics or returning
echolocation signals. However, as noted
previously, NMFS does not anticipate
TTS of a long duration or severe degree
to occur as a result of exposure to
MFAS/HFAS.
The acoustic analysis further predicts
that six Pacific white-sided dolphins
would be exposed to levels of pressure
and/or energy from explosive
detonations that would result in Level B
harassment by TTS, and 12 could be
exposed to levels associated with
behavioral disturbance. NMFS believes
that this is unlikely because of: The
distance within which they would have
to approach the explosive source; and
the likelihood that Navy monitors
would, before or during exercise
monitoring, detect these large-grouped
gregarious animals prior to an approach
within this distance and require a delay
of the exercise.
Pacific white-sided dolphins occur
across the central north Pacific waters to
latitudes as low as (or lower than) 38 °N
and northward to the Bering Sea and
coastal areas of southern Alaska. In the
eastern north Pacific, the species occurs
from the southern Gulf of California,
north to the GoA, west to Amchitka in
the Aleutian Islands, and is rarely
encountered in the southern Bering Sea.
Pacific white-sided dolphins occur
regularly year-round throughout the
GoA. They are widely distributed along
the shelf break, continental slope, and
in offshore waters. In Alaska, peak
abundance is between July and August,
when Pacific white-sided dolphins tend
to congregate near the Fairweather
Grounds in the southeastern GoA and
Portlock Bank in the northeast part of
the TMAA (Angliss and Allen, 2008;
DoN, 2006). The minimum population
estimate for the North Pacific stock is
26,880 (CV = 0.90) individuals (Angliss
and Allen, 2008).
The GoA TMAA activities are not
expected to occur in an area/time of
specific importance for reproduction,
feeding, or other known critical
behaviors. Consequently, the activities
are not expected to adversely impact
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
rates of recruitment or survival of
Pacific white-sided dolphins. Based on
the general information contained in the
Negligible Impact Analysis section and
this species-specific summary of the
effects of the takes, NMFS has
preliminarily determined that the
Navy’s specified activities will have a
negligible impact on this species.
Porpoises
The acoustic analysis predicts that the
following numbers of Level B behavioral
harassments of the associated species
will occur: 206,374 Dall’s porpoises and
5,440 harbor porpoises. This estimate
represents the total number of exposures
and not necessarily the number of
individuals exposed, as a single
individual may be exposed multiple
times over the course of a year.
Although a portion (768 Dall’s
porpoises) of the modeled Level B
Harassment takes for these species is
predicted to be in the form of TTS from
MFAS, NMFS believes it is unlikely that
all of the individuals estimated will
incur TTS because of the distance
within which they would have to
approach the active sonar source
(approximately 459 ft (140 m) for the
most powerful source), the fact that
many animals will likely avoid active
sonar sources to some degree, and the
likelihood that Navy monitors would
detect these animals prior to an
approach within this distance and
implement active sonar powerdown or
shutdown. Navy lookouts will likely
detect a group of dolphins given their
relatively short dives, gregarious
behavior, and large average group size.
However, the Navy’s proposed
mitigation has a provision that allows
the Navy to continue operation of MFAS
if the animals are clearly bow-riding
even after the Navy has initially
maneuvered to try and avoid closing
with the animals. Since these animals
sometimes bow-ride they could
potentially be exposed to levels
associated with TTS as they approach or
depart from bow-riding. As mentioned
above and indicated in Table 5a and
Table 5b, some porpoise vocalizations
might overlap with the MFAS/HFAS
TTS frequency range (2 to 20 kHz),
which could potentially temporarily
decrease an animal’s sensitivity to the
calls of conspecifics or returning
echolocation signals. However, as noted
previously, NMFS does not anticipate
TTS of a long duration or severe degree
to occur as a result of exposure to
MFAS/HFAS.
Acoustic analysis also predicted that
37 Dall’s porpoises would be exposed to
sound or pressure from explosives at
levels expected to result in TTS. For the
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
same reasons noted above, NMFS
anticipates that the Navy watchstanders
would likely detect these species and
implement the mitigation to avoid
exposure. However, the range to TTS for
a few of the larger explosives is larger
than the associated exclusion zones for
BOMBEX, MISSILEX, or SINKEX (see
Table 3), and therefore NMFS
anticipates that TTS might not be
entirely avoided during those exercises.
Acoustic analysis also predicted that
three Dall’s porpoises might be exposed
to sound or pressure from sonar (one)
and explosive detonations (two) that
would result in PTS or injury. In
addition, the analysis predicted that one
Dall’s porpoise mortality may occur as
a result of exposure to pressure/energy
levels from explosive detonations. For
the same reasons listed above (group
size, dive and social behavior), NMFS
anticipates that the Navy watchstanders
would detect these species and
implement the mitigation measures to
avoid exposure. In the case of all
explosive exercises, the exclusion zones
are 2–12 times larger than the estimated
distance at which an animal would be
exposed to injurious sounds or pressure
waves.
No areas of specific importance for
reproduction or feeding for porpoises
have been identified in the GoA TMAA.
Table 4 shows the estimated abundance
of the affected porpoise stocks.
Based on the general information
contained in the Negligible Impact
Analysis section and this stock-specific
summary of the effects of the takes,
NMFS has preliminarily determined
that the Navy’s specified activities will
have a negligible impact on these
species.
Steller Sea Lion (MMPA Depleted/ESAListed)
The risk function and Navy postmodeling analysis estimates that 11,106
Steller sea lions would be exposed to
non-TTS (behavioral) Level B
harassment, two Steller sea lions would
be exposed to TTS Level B harassment
and no Steller sea lions would be
exposed to Level A harassment (11,105
from sonar and three from at-sea
explosions). These estimates represent
the total number of takes and not
necessarily the number of individuals
taken, as a single individual may be
taken multiple times over the course of
the year. The short duration and
intermittent transmission of the sonar
signals, combined with relatively rapid
vessel speed, reduces the likelihood that
exposure to sonar sound would cause a
behavioral response that may affect vital
functions, TTS, or PTS. The set-up
procedures and checks required for
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
safety of event participants make it
unlikely that Steller sea lions would
remain in an area undetected before
explosive detonation occurred.
The minimum abundance estimate for
the western U.S. stock of Steller sea
lions is 38,988 individuals and for the
Eastern stock is 45,095 to 55,832
(Angliss and Allen, 2008). Given the
wide dispersal of individuals, both the
western and eastern U.S. stocks may
occur in the GoA (DoN, 2006; Angliss
and Outlaw, 2007; NMFS, 2008), with
about 70 percent of the population
living in Alaskan waters. Relative to the
population size, the Navy’s activities are
anticipated to result only in a limited
number of Level B harassment takes. For
the GoA, foraging habitat is primarily
shallow, nearshore, and continental
shelf waters 4.3 to 13 nm (8 to 24 km)
offshore with a secondary occurrence
inshore of the 3,289 ft (1,000 m)
isobaths, and a rare occurrence seaward
of the 3,280 ft (1,000 m) isobaths. Steller
sea lions have been sighted foraging in
the middle of the GoA (DoN, 2006). The
April 2009 survey in the TMAA
encountered two groups of Steller sea
lions (Rone et al., 2009). No aquatic
foraging critical habitat exists within the
TMAA. Steller sea lions form large
rookeries during late spring and most
births occur from mid-May through
mid-July outside the boundaries of the
TMAA. There are no known areas used
by Steller sea lions for reproduction or
calving within the TMAA. Based on the
general information contained in the
Negligible Impact Analysis section and
this species-specific summary of the
effects of the takes, NMFS has
preliminarily determined that the
Navy’s specified activities will have a
negligible impact on this species.
California Sea Lion
There are not sufficient numbers of
California sea lions present in the
TMAA to allow for acoustic impact
modeling. Even if an accurate
abundance or density could be derived
for these species, being so few in
number in the TMAA, accepted
modeling methodology would predict
zero exposures. Therefore, for each
proposed 21-day exercise period, the
number of behavioral harassments will
be based on an assumption of having
exposed the average group size to one
instance of behavioral harassment to
account for all acoustic sources for
purposes of this analysis in the TMAA.
It is assumed, given that California sea
lions are very rare in the GoA, that they
would only be encountered individually
(i.e., average group size of one) even if
a prey species was running. In order to
account for rare animals, the Navy
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
requests authorization to take two
California sea lions by non-TTS Level B
harassment. No TTS Level B harassment
or Level A harassment is anticipated.
The abundance estimate for the U.S.
stock of California sea lions is 238,000
individuals (Carretta et al., 2007b). This
number is from counts during the 2001
breeding season of animals that were
ashore at the four major rookeries in
Southern California and at haulout sites
north to the Oregon/California border.
The few California sea lions recorded in
Alaska are usually observed at Steller
sea lion rookeries and haulout sites with
most sightings recorded between March
and May, although they may be found
in the GoA throughout the year
(Maniscalco et al., 2004; DoN, 2006).
During August and September, after the
mating season, adult male California sea
lions migrate to feeding areas as far
north as the GoA (Lowry et al., 1991).
They remain there until spring (MarchMay), when they migrate southward to
the breeding colonies. The GoA is
outside of the known breeding range for
California sea lions. There are no known
areas used by California sea lions for
reproduction or calving in the TMAA.
Based on the general information
contained in the Negligible Impact
Analysis section and this speciesspecific summary of the effects of the
takes, NMFS has preliminarily
determined that the Navy’s specified
activities will have a negligible impact
on this species.
Harbor Seal
The Navy’s acoustic analysis
estimates that one harbor seal would be
exposed to MFAS/HFAS at sound levels
likely to result in Level B harassment.
This Level B take is anticipated to be in
the form of behavioral disturbance as
described in the Definition of
Harassment: Level B Harassment
section; no TTS takes are estimated.
The acoustic analysis further predicts
that one harbor seal would be exposed
to levels of pressure and/or energy from
explosive detonations that would result
in Level B harassment. This Level B take
is also anticipated to be in the form of
behavioral disturbance and no TTS
takes are estimated from exposure to
levels of pressure and/or energy from
explosive detonations.
The population estimate for the Gulf
of Alaska stock of harbor seals is 45,975
(CV = 0.04) (Angliss and Allen, 2008).
The harbor seal is one of the most
widespread of the pinniped species
distributed from the eastern Baltic Sea,
west across the Atlantic and Pacific
Oceans to southern Japan, along the
coast and offshore islands of the GoA
(DoN, 2006). With few exceptions,
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64573
harbor seals in the GoA are located in
shallow nearshore areas and not at sea
in the TMAA. Harbor seals, therefore,
should be very rare in the small section
of the TMAA nearest Kenai Peninsula,
Montague Island, and Middleton Island.
During the April 2009 survey, no harbor
seals were encountered within the
TMAA (Rone et al., 2009). There are
harbor seal haulouts along the shoreline
of southeast Alaska, the south side of
the Alaska Peninsula, the Aleutian
Islands, and Middleton and Montague
Islands (Hoover, 1988; Lowrey et al.,
2001; Boveng et al., 2003). However,
there are no known preferred habitat
areas used by harbor seals within the
TMAA. Based on the general
information contained in the Negligible
Impact Analysis section and this
species-specific summary of the effects
of the takes, NMFS has preliminarily
determined that the Navy’s specified
activities will have a negligible impact
on this species.
Northern Elephant Seal
The Navy’s acoustic analysis
estimates that 2,064 northern elephant
seals would be exposed to MFAS/HFAS
at sound levels likely to result in Level
B harassment. This estimate represents
the total number of takes and not
necessarily the number of individuals
taken, as a single individual may be
taken multiple times over the course of
the year. These Level B takes are
anticipated to be in the form of
behavioral disturbance as described in
the Definition of Harassment: Level B
Harassment section, and no TTS takes
are estimated from exposure to MFAS/
HFAS.
The acoustic analysis further predicts
that one northern elephant seal would
be exposed to levels of pressure and/or
energy from explosive detonations that
would result in Level B harassment by
TTS, and four could be exposed to
levels associated with behavioral
disturbance. NMFS believes it unlikely
that a northern elephant seal will incur
TTS because of: The distance within
which they would have to approach to
explosive source; and the likelihood
that Navy monitors would, during preexercise monitoring or while an exercise
is taking place, detect these pinnipeds
(because of the relatively short duration
of their dives and their tendency to rest
near the surface) prior to an approach
within this distance and implement the
appropriate mitigation measures.
The population estimate for the
California Breeding stock of northern
elephant seals is 124,000 (Carretta et al.,
2007). Northern elephant seals are
endemic to the North Pacific Ocean,
occurring almost exclusively in the
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
64574
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
eastern and central North Pacific.
Individuals from the California breeding
stock do occur regularly in the GoA
year-round (Calkins, 1986). Typically,
only sub-adult and adult male elephant
seals forage in the GoA with a peak
abundance in the spring and fall (Le
Boeuf et al., 2000). There are no known
areas used by northern elephant seals
for reproduction or calving in the
TMAA. Based on the general
information contained in the Negligible
Impact Analysis section and this
species-specific summary of the effects
of the takes, NMFS has preliminarily
determined that the Navy’s specified
activities will have a negligible impact
on this species.
Northern Fur Seal (Eastern Pacific Stock
MMPA Depleted)
The Navy’s acoustic analysis
estimates that 154,160 northern fur seals
would be exposed to MFAS/HFAS at
sound levels likely to result in Level B
harassment. This estimate represents the
total number of takes and not
necessarily the number of individuals
taken, as a single individual may be
taken multiple times over the course of
the year. These Level B takes are
anticipated to be primarily in the form
of behavioral disturbance as described
in the Definition of Harassment: Level B
Harassment section, although 16 TTS
takes are estimated from exposure to
MFAS/HFAS. NMFS believes it unlikely
that a northern fur seals, for which the
TTS threshold is 206 dB SEL, will incur
TTS because of the distance within
which they would have to approach the
MFAS source (approximately 121 ft (37
m) for the most powerful source), the
fact that many animals will likely avoid
active sonar sources to some degree, and
the likelihood that Navy monitors
would detect these pinnipeds (because
of the relatively short duration of their
dives and their tendency to rest near the
surface) prior to an approach within this
distance and implement active sonar
powerdown or shutdown. In addition,
some northern fur seal vocalizations
might overlap with the MFAS/HFAS
TTS frequency range (2 to 20 kHz),
which could potentially temporarily
decrease an animal’s sensitivity to the
calls of conspecifics or returning
echolocation signals. However, as noted
previously, NMFS does not anticipate
TTS of a long duration or severe degree
to occur as a result of exposure to
MFAS/HFAS.
The acoustic analysis further predicts
that 16 northern fur seals would be
exposed to levels of pressure and/or
energy from explosive detonations that
would result in Level B harassment by
TTS, 26 could be exposed to levels
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
associated with behavioral disturbance,
and one Level A harassment may occur.
NMFS believes it unlikely that a
northern fur seal will be subject to Level
A harassment or incur TTS because of:
The distance within which they would
have to approach to explosive source;
and the likelihood that Navy monitors
would, during pre-exercise monitoring
or while an exercise is taking place,
detect these pinnipeds (because of the
relatively short duration of their dives
and their tendency to rest near the
surface) prior to an approach within this
distance and implement the appropriate
mitigation measures.
The population estimate for the
Eastern Pacific stock of northern fur
seals is 665,550 (Angliss and Allen,
2008). Northern fur seals are a highly
oceanic species spending all but 35 to
45 days per year at sea. They are usually
sighted 70 to 130 km from land along
the continental shelf and slope,
seamounts, submarine canyons, and sea
valleys, where there are upwellings of
nutrient-rich water. The Eastern Pacific
stock spends May through November
inwaters and breeding colonies north of
the GoA. In late November, females and
young begin to arrive in offshore waters
off California while adult males migrate
only as far south as the GoA (Kajimura,
1984). Peak abundance in the TMAA
should occur between March and June
during the annual migration north to the
Pribilof Islands breeding grounds
(Fiscus et al., 1976; Consiglieri et al.,
1982). However, some northern fur
seals, particularly juvenile males and
nonpregnant females, remain in the GoA
throughout the summer and have been
documented in the nearshore waters of
Southeastern Alaska, Prince William
Sound, Portlock Bank, and the middle
of the GoA (Calkins, 1986; Fiscus et al.,
1976). Tagging data presented by Ream
et al. (2005) indicate that the main
foraging areas and the main migration
route through the GoA are located far to
the west of the TMAA. There are no
known rookeries or haulout sites areas
used by northern fur seals for
reproduction or pupping in the vicinity
of the TMAA. Based on the general
information contained in the Negligible
Impact Analysis section and this
species-specific summary of the effects
of the takes, NMFS has preliminarily
determined that the Navy’s specified
activities will have a negligible impact
on this species.
Preliminary Determination
Negligible Impact
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and their habitat and dependent upon
the implementation of the mitigation
and monitoring measures, NMFS
preliminarily finds that the total taking
from Navy training exercises utilizing
MFAS/HFAS and underwater
explosives in the GoA TMAA will have
a negligible impact on the affected
species or stocks. NMFS has proposed
regulations for these exercises that
prescribe the means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impact on marine
mammals and their habitat and set forth
requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of that taking.
Subsistence Harvest of Marine
Mammals
NMFS has preliminarily determined
that the issuance of 5-year regulations
and subsequent LOAs for Navy training
exercises in the GoA TMAA would not
have an unmitigable adverse impact on
the availability of the affected species or
stocks for subsistence use. The tribes
nearest the GoA TMAA include the
Alutiiq, Eyak, and Tlingit groups;
however, these tribes do not use the
TMAA for subsistence. In March 2008,
letter were sent to 12 tribes, including
those listed above, by the Navy’s
Alaskan Command and Elemendorf Air
Force Base requesting government-togovernment consultation pursuant to
Executive Order 13175. All 12 tribes
indicated that they have no concerns
over the proposed action as described in
the GoA TMAA DEIS. The Navy will
continue to keep the tribes informed of
the timeframes of future joint training
exercises.
As noted above, NMFS will consider
all comments, suggestions and/or
concerns submitted by the public during
the proposed rulemaking comment
period to help inform our final decision,
particularly with respect to our
negligible impact determination and the
proposed mitigation and monitoring
measures.
ESA
There are eight marine mammal
species under NMFS jurisdiction that
are listed as endangered or threatened
under the ESA with confirmed or
possible occurrence in the TMAA: Cook
Inlet beluga whale, North Pacific right
whale, humpback whale, sei whale, fin
whale, blue whale, sperm whale, and
Steller sea lion. Typically, the Cook
Inlet beluga whale does not leave Cook
Inlet, which is approximately 70 nm
(129.6 km) from the nearest edge of the
TMAA. Based on this information, Cook
Inlet beluga whales are considered
extralimital to the TMAA and will not
be considered further for analysis under
the MMPA and the Navy has concluded
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
requirements imposed by these
regulations, will be applicable only to
the Navy. NMFS does not expect the
issuance of these regulations or the
associated LOAs to result in any
impacts to small entities pursuant to the
RFA. Because this action, if adopted,
would directly affect the Navy and not
a small entity, NMFS concludes the
action would not result in a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
NEPA
NMFS has participated as a
cooperating agency on the Navy’s Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
for the GoA TMAA, which was
published on December 11, 2009. The
Navy’s DEIS is posted on NMFS’ Web
site: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
permits/incidental.htm#applications.
NMFS intends to adopt the Navy’s Final
EIS (FEIS), if adequate and appropriate.
Currently, we believe that the adoption
of the Navy’s FEIS will allow NMFS to
meet its responsibilities under NEPA for
the issuance of regulations and an LOA
for GoA TMAA. If the Navy’s FEIS is
deemed inadequate, NMFS would
supplement the existing analysis to
ensure that we comply with NEPA prior
to the issuance of the final rule or LOA.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
that the proposed action will have no
effect on Cook Inlet beluga whales. If
NMFS concurs with this determination,
for the remaining seven species, the
Navy will consult with NMFS pursuant
to section 7 of the ESA, and NMFS will
also consult internally on the issuance
of LOAs under section 101(a)(5)(A) of
the MMPA for GoA TMAA activities.
Consultation will be concluded prior to
a determination on the issuance of the
final rule and an LOA.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 218
Classification
This action does not contain any
collection of information requirements
for purposes of the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
The Office of Management and Budget
has determined that this proposed rule
is not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA), the Chief Counsel for
Regulation of the Department of
Commerce has certified to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration that this
proposed rule, if adopted, would not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
The RFA requires Federal agencies to
prepare an analysis of a rule’s impact on
small entities whenever the agency is
required to publish a notice of proposed
rulemaking. However, a Federal agency
may certify, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605
(b), that the action will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The Navy is the sole entity that will be
affected by this rulemaking, not a small
governmental jurisdiction, small
organization, or small business, as
defined by the RFA. Any requirements
imposed by a Letter of Authorization
issued pursuant to these regulations,
and any monitoring or reporting
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
Exports, Fish, Imports, Incidental
take, Indians, Labeling, Marine
mammals, Navy, Penalties, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Seafood, Sonar, Transportation.
Dated: October 1, 2010.
Eric C. Schwaab,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
For reasons set forth in the preamble,
50 CFR part 218 is proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 218—REGULATIONS
GOVERNING THE TAKING AND
IMPORTING OF MARINE MAMMALS
1. The authority citation for part 218
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
2. Subpart M is added to part 218 to
read as follows:
Subpart M—Taking and Importing Marine
Mammals; U.S. Navy’s Gulf of Alaska
Temporary Maritime Activities Area (GoA
TMAA)
Sec.
218.120 Specified activity and geographical
area.
218.121 [Reserved]
218.122 Permissible methods of taking.
218.123 Prohibitions.
218.124 Mitigation.
218.125 Requirements for monitoring and
reporting.
218.126 Applications for Letters of
Authorization.
218.127 Letters of Authorization.
218.128 Renewal of Letters of Authorization
and adaptive management.
218.129 Modifications to Letters of
Authorization.
Subpart M—Taking and Importing
Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy’s Gulf of
Alaska Temporary Maritime Activities
Area (GoA TMAA)
§ 218.120 Specified activity and
geographical area.
(a) Regulations in this subpart apply
only to the U.S. Navy for the taking of
marine mammals that occurs in the area
outlined in paragraph (b) of this section
and that occur incidental to the
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64575
activities described in paragraph (c) of
this section.
(b) The taking of marine mammals by
the Navy may be authorized in a Letter
of Authorization (LOA) only if it occurs
within the Gulf of Alaska Temporary
Maritime Activities Area (GoA TMAA)
(as depicted in Figure 1–1 in the Navy’s
application for GoA TMAA), which is
bounded by a hexagon with the
following six corners: 57°30′ N. lat.,
141°30′ W. long.; 59°36′ N. lat., 148°10′
W. long.; 58°57′ N. lat., 150°04′ W. long.;
58°20′ N. lat., 151°00′ W. long.; 57°16′
N. lat., 151°00′ W. long.; and 55°30′ N.
lat, 142°00′ W. long.
(c) The taking of marine mammals by
the Navy may be authorized in an LOA
only if it occurs incidental to the
following activities within the
designated amounts of use:
(1) The use of the following midfrequency active sonar (MFAS) sources,
high-frequency active sonar (HFAS)
sources for U.S. Navy anti-submarine
warfare (ASW), in the amounts and in
the locations indicated below (± 10
percent):
(i) AN/SQS–53 (hull-mounted active
sonar)—up to 2,890 hours over the
course of 5 years (an average of 578
hours per year);
(ii) AN/SQS–56 (hull-mounted active
sonar)—up to 260 hours over the course
of 5 years (an average of 52 hours per
year);
(iii) AN/SSQ–62 (Directional
Command Activated Sonobuoy System
(DICASS) sonobuoys)—up to 1,330
sonobuoys over the course of 5 years (an
average of 266 sonobuoys per year);
(iv) AN/AQS–22 (helicopter dipping
sonar)—up to 960 ‘‘dips’’ over the course
of 5 years (an average of 192 ‘‘dips’’ per
year);
(v) AN/BQQ–10 (submarine hullmounted sonar)—up to 240 hours over
the course of 5 years (an average of 48
hours per year);
(vi) MK–48 (torpedo)—up to 10
torpedoes over the course of 5 years (a
maximum of 2 torpedoes per year);
(vii) AN/SSQ–110A (IEER)—up to 400
buoys deployed over the course of 5
years (an average of 80 per year
maximum combined use of AN/SSQ–
110A or AN/SSQ–125);
(viii) AN/SSQ–125 (MAC)—up to 400
buoys deployed over the course of 5
years (an average of 80 per year
maximum combined use of AN/SSQ–
110A or AN/SSQ–125);
(ix) Range Pingers—up to 400 hours
over the course of 5 years (an average of
80 hours per year);
(x) SUS MK–84—up to 120 devices
over the course of 5 years (an average of
24 per year); and
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
64576
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(xi) PUTR Transponder—up to 400
hours over the course of 5 years (an
average of 80 hours per year).
(2) The detonation of the underwater
explosives indicated in paragraph
(c)(2)(i) of this section conducted as part
of the training events indicated in
paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section:
(i) Underwater Explosives (Net
Explosive Weight (NEW)):
(A) 5″ Naval Gunfire (9.5 lbs NEW);
(B) 76 mm rounds (1.6 lbs NEW);
(C) Maverick (78.5 lbs NEW);
(D) MK–82 (238 lbs NEW);
(E) MK–83 (238 lbs NEW);
(F) MK–83 (574 lbs NEW);
(G) MK–84 (945 lbs NEW);
(H) MK–48 (851 lbs NEW);
(I) AN/SSQ–110A (IEER explosive
sonobuoy—5 lbs NEW);
(ii) Training Events:
(A) Gunnery Exercises (S–S
GUNEX)—up to 60 exercises over the
course of 5 years (an average of 12 per
year);
(B) Bombing Exercises (BOMBEX)—
up to 180 exercises over the course of
5 years (an average of 36 per year);
(C) Sinking Exercises (SINKEX)—up
to 10 exercises over the course of 5 years
(a maximum of 2 per year);
(D) Extended Echo Ranging and
Improved Extended Echo Ranging (EER/
IEER) Systems—up to 400 deployments
over the course of 5 years (an average of
80 per year);
(E) Missile exercises (A–S
MISSILEX)—up to 20 exercises over the
course of 5 years (an average of 4 per
year).
(d) The taking of marine mammals
may also be authorized in an LOA for
the activities and sources listed in
§ 218.120(c) should the amounts (i.e.,
hours, dips, number of exercises) vary
from those estimated in § 218.120(c),
provided that the variation does not
result in exceeding the amount of take
indicated in § 218.122.
[Reserved]
§ 218.122
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
§ 218.121
Permissible methods of taking.
(a) Under Letters of Authorization
issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 and
218.127 of this chapter, the Holder of
the Letter of Authorization (hereinafter
‘‘Navy’’) may incidentally, but not
intentionally, take marine mammals
within the area described in
§ 218.120(b), provided the activity is in
compliance with all terms, conditions,
and requirements of these regulations
and the appropriate Letter of
Authorization.
(b) The activities identified in
§ 218.120(c) must be conducted in a
manner that minimizes, to the greatest
extent practicable, any adverse impacts
on marine mammals and their habitat.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
(c) The incidental take of marine
mammals under the activities identified
in § 218.120(c) is limited to the species
listed below in paragraphs (c)(4), (5),
and (6) of this section by the indicated
method of take and the indicated
number of times (estimated based on the
authorized amounts of sound source
operation), but with the following
allowances for annual variation in
activities:
(1) In any given year, annual take, by
harassment, of any species of marine
mammal may not exceed the amount
identified in paragraphs (c)(4) and (5) of
this section, for that species by more
than 25 percent (a post-calculation/
estimation of which must be provided
in the annual LOA application);
(2) In any given year, annual take by
harassment of all marine mammal
species combined may not exceed the
estimated total of all species combined,
indicated in paragraphs (c)(4) and (5) of
this section, by more than 10 percent;
and
(3) Over the course of the effective
period of this subpart, total take, by
harassment, of any species may not
exceed the 5-year amounts indicated in
paragraphs (c)(4) and (5) of this section
by more than 10 percent. A running
calculation/estimation of takes of each
species over the course of the years
covered by the rule must be maintained.
(4) Level B Harassment:
(i) Mysticetes:
(A) Humpback whale (Megaptera
novaeangliae)—6,975 (an average of
1,395 annually);
(B) Fin whale (Balaenoptera
physalus)—55,185 (an average of 11,037
annually);
(C) Blue whale (Balaenoptera
musculus)—10 (an average of 2
annually);
(D) Sei whale (Balaenoptera
borealis)—40 (an average of 8 annually);
(E) Minke whale (Balaenoptera
acutorostrata)—3,405 (an average of 681
annually);
(F) Gray whale (Eschrichtius
robustus)—1,940 (an average of 388
annually); and
(G) North Pacific right whale
(Eubalaena japonica)—10 (an average of
2 annually).
(ii) Odontocetes:
(A) Sperm whales (Physeter
macrocephalus)—1,645 (an average of
329 annually);
(B) Killer whale (Orcinus orca)—
53,245 (an average of 10,649 annually);
(C) Harbor porpoise (Phocoena
phocoena)—27,200 (an average of 5,440
annually);
(D) Baird’s beaked whales (Berardius
bairdii)—2,435 (an average of 487
annually);
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(E) Cuvier’s beaked whales (Ziphius
cavirostris)—11,560 (an average of 2,312
annually);
(F) Stejneger’s beaked whales
(Mesoplodon stejnegeri)—11,565 (an
average of 2,313 annually);
(G) Pacific white-sided dolphin
(Lagenorhynchus obliquidens)—84,955
(an average of 16,991 annually); and
(H) Dall’s porpoise (Phocoenoides
dalli)—1,031,870 (an average of 206,374
annually).
(iii) Pinnipeds:
(A) Steller sea lion (Eumetopias
jubatus)—55,540 (an average of 11,108
annually)
(B) California sea lion (Zalophus
californianus)—10 (an average of 2
annually);
(C) Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina
richardsi)—10 (an average of 2
annually);
(D) Northern elephant seal (Mirounga
angustirostris)—10,345 (an average of
2,069 annually); and
(E) Northern fur seal (Callorhinus
ursinus)—771,010 (an average of
154,202 annually).
(5) Level A Harassment and/or
mortality of no more than 15 beaked
whales (total), of any of the species
listed in § 218.122(c)(1)(ii)(D) through
(F) over the course of the 5-year
regulations.
§ 218.123
Prohibitions.
No person in connection with the
activities described in § 218.120 may:
(a) Take any marine mammal not
specified in § 218.122(c);
(b) Take any marine mammal
specified in § 218.122(c) other than by
incidental take as specified in
§§ 218.122(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3);
(c) Take a marine mammal specified
in § 218.122(c) if such taking results in
more than a negligible impact on the
species or stocks of such marine
mammal; or
(d) Violate, or fail to comply with, the
terms, conditions, and requirements of
these regulations or a Letter of
Authorization issued under §§ 216.106
and 218.127 of this chapter.
§ 218.124
Mitigation.
(a) When conducting training and
utilizing the sound sources or
explosives identified in § 218.120(c), the
mitigation measures contained in a
Letter of Authorization issued under
§§ 216.106 and 218.127 of this chapter
must be implemented. These mitigation
measures include, but are not limited to:
(1) Personnel Training:
(i) All commanding officers (COs),
executive officers (XOs), lookouts,
Officers of the Deck (OODs), junior
OODs (JOODs), maritime patrol aircraft
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
aircrews, and Anti-submarine Warfare
(ASW) helicopter crews shall complete
the NMFS-approved Marine Species
Awareness Training (MSAT) by viewing
the U.S. Navy MSAT digital versatile
disk (DVD). All bridge lookouts shall
complete both parts one and two of the
MSAT; part two is optional for other
personnel.
(ii) Navy lookouts shall undertake
extensive training in order to qualify as
a watchstander in accordance with the
Lookout Training Handbook (Naval
Education and Training Command
[NAVEDTRA] 12968–D).
(iii) Lookout training shall include onthe-job instruction under the
supervision of a qualified, experienced
lookout. Following successful
completion of this supervised training
period, lookouts shall complete the
Personal Qualification Standard
Program, certifying that they have
demonstrated the necessary skills (such
as detection and reporting of partially
submerged objects). Personnel being
trained as lookouts can be counted
among required lookouts as long as
supervisors monitor their progress and
performance.
(iv) Lookouts shall be trained in the
most effective means to ensure quick
and effective communication within the
command structure in order to facilitate
implementation of protective measures
if marine species are spotted.
(v) All lookouts onboard platforms
involved in ASW training events shall
review the NMFS-approved Marine
Species Awareness Training material
prior to use of mid-frequency active
sonar.
(vi) All COs, XOs, and officers
standing watch on the bridge shall have
reviewed the Marine Species Awareness
Training material prior to a training
event employing the use of MFAS/
HFAS.
(2) General Operating Procedures (for
all training types):
(i) Prior to major exercises, a Letter of
Instruction, Mitigation Measures
Message or Environmental Annex to the
Operational Order shall be issued to
further disseminate the personnel
training requirement and general marine
species protective measures.
(ii) COs shall make use of marine
species detection cues and information
to limit interaction with marine
mammals to the maximum extent
possible consistent with safety of the
ship.
(iii) While underway, surface vessels
shall have at least two lookouts with
binoculars; surfaced submarines shall
have at least one lookout with
binoculars. Lookouts already posted for
safety of navigation and man-overboard
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
precautions may be used to fill this
requirement. As part of their regular
duties, lookouts shall watch for and
report to the OOD the presence of
marine mammals.
(iv) On surface vessels equipped with
a multi-function active sensor, pedestal
mounted ‘‘Big Eye’’ (20×110) binoculars
shall be properly installed and in good
working order to assist in the detection
of marine mammals in the vicinity of
the vessel.
(v) Personnel on lookout shall employ
visual search procedures employing a
scanning methodology in accordance
with the Lookout Training Handbook
(NAVEDTRA 12968–D).
(vi) After sunset and prior to sunrise,
lookouts shall employ Night Lookouts
Techniques in accordance with the
Lookout Training Handbook
(NAVEDTRA 12968–D).
(vii) While in transit, naval vessels
shall be alert at all times, use extreme
caution, and proceed at a ‘‘safe speed’’,
which means the speed at which the CO
can maintain crew safety and
effectiveness of current operational
directives, so that the vessel can take
action to avoid a collision with any
marine mammal.
(viii) When marine mammals have
been sighted in the area, Navy vessels
shall increase vigilance and take all
reasonable actions to avoid collisions
and close interaction of naval assets and
marine mammals. Such action may
include changing speed and/or direction
and are dictated by environmental and
other conditions (e.g., safety, weather).
(ix) Navy aircraft participating in
exercises at-sea shall conduct and
maintain surveillance for marine
mammals as long as it does not violate
safety constraints or interfere with the
accomplishment of primary operational
duties.
(x) All marine mammal detections
shall be immediately reported to
assigned Aircraft Control Unit for
further dissemination to ships in the
vicinity of the marine species as
appropriate when it is reasonable to
conclude that the course of the ship will
likely result in a closing of the distance
to the detected marine mammal.
(xi) Naval vessels shall maneuver to
keep at least 1,500 ft (500 yd or 457 m)
away from any observed whale in the
vessel’s path and avoid approaching
whales head-on. These requirements do
not apply if a vessel’s safety is
threatened, such as when change of
course will create an imminent and
serious threat to a person, vessel, or
aircraft, and to the extent vessels are
restricted in their ability to maneuver.
Restricted maneuverability includes, but
is not limited to, situations when
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64577
vessels are engaged in dredging,
submerged activities, launching and
recovering aircraft or landing craft,
minesweeping activities, replenishment
while underway and towing activities
that severely restrict a vessel’s ability to
deviate course. Vessels shall take
reasonable steps to alert other vessels in
the vicinity of the whale. Given rapid
swimming speeds and maneuverability
of many dolphin species, naval vessels
would maintain normal course and
speed on sighting dolphins unless some
condition indicated a need for the vessel
to maneuver.
(3) Operating Procedures (for Antisubmarine Warfare (ASW) Operations):
(i) On the bridge of surface ships,
there shall always be at least three
people on watch whose duties include
observing the water surface around the
vessel.
(ii) All surface ships participating in
ASW training events shall have, in
addition to the three personnel on
watch noted in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this
section, at least two additional
personnel on watch as lookouts at all
times during the exercise.
(iii) Personnel on lookout and officers
on watch on the bridge shall have at
least one set of binoculars available for
each person to aid in the detection of
marine mammals.
(iv) Personnel on lookout shall be
responsible for reporting all objects or
anomalies sighted in the water
(regardless of the distance from the
vessel) to the Officer of the Deck, since
any object or disturbance (e.g., trash,
periscope, surface disturbance,
discoloration) in the water may be
indicative of a threat to the vessel and
its crew or indicative of a marine
mammal that may need to be avoided.
(v) All personnel engaged in passive
acoustic sonar operation (including
aircraft, surface ships, or submarines)
shall monitor for marine mammal
vocalizations and report the detection of
any marine mammal to the appropriate
watch station for dissemination and
appropriate action.
(vi) During mid-frequency active
sonar operations, personnel shall utilize
all available sensor and optical systems
(such as night vision goggles) to aid in
the detection of marine mammals.
(vii) Aircraft with deployed
sonobuoys shall use only the passive
capability of sonobuoys when marine
mammals are detected within 200 yd
(183 m) of the sonobuoy.
(viii) Helicopters shall observe/survey
the vicinity of an ASW exercise for 10
minutes before the first deployment of
active (dipping) sonar in the water.
(ix) Helicopters shall not dip their
sonar within 200 yd (183 m) of a marine
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64578
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
mammal and shall cease pinging if a
marine mammal closes within 200 yd
(183 m) after pinging has begun.
(x) Safety Zones—When marine
mammals are detected by any means
(aircraft, shipboard lookout, or
acoustically) within 1,000 yd (914 m) of
the sonar dome (the bow), the ship or
submarine shall limit active
transmission levels to at least 6 decibels
(dB) below normal operating levels for
that source (i.e., limit to at most 229 dB
for AN/SQS–53 and 219 for AN/SQS–
56, etc.).
(A) Ships and submarines shall
continue to limit maximum
transmission levels by this 6–dB factor
until the animal has been seen to leave
the 1,000-yd (914 m) exclusion zone,
has not been detected for 30 minutes, or
the vessel has transited more than 2,000
yds (1,829 m) beyond the location of the
last detection.
(B) Should a marine mammal be
detected within 500 yd (457 m) of the
sonar dome, active sonar transmissions
shall be limited to at least 10 dB below
the equipment’s normal operating level
(i.e., limit to at most 225 dB for AN/
SQS–53 and 215 for AN/SQS–56, etc.).
Ships and submarines shall continue to
limit maximum ping levels by this 10–
dB factor until the animal has been seen
to leave the 500-yd (457 m) safety zone
(at which point the 6–dB powerdown
applies until the animal leaves the
1,000-yd (914 m) safety zone), has not
been detected for 30 minutes, or the
vessel has transited more than 2,000 yd
(1,829 m) beyond the location of the last
detection.
(C) Should the marine mammal be
detected within 200 yd (183 m) of the
sonar dome, active sonar transmissions
shall cease. Sonar shall not resume until
the animal has been seen to leave the
200-yd (183 m) safety zone (at which
point the 10–dB or 6–dB powerdowns
apply until the animal leaves the 500yd (457 m) or 1,000-yd (914 m) safety
zone, respectively), has not been
detected for 30 minutes, or the vessel
has transited more than 2,000 yd (1,829
m) beyond the location of the last
detection.
(D) Special conditions applicable for
dolphins and porpoises only: If, after
conducting an initial maneuver to avoid
close quarters with dolphins or
porpoises, the OOD concludes that
dolphins or porpoises are deliberately
closing to ride the vessel’s bow wave, no
further mitigation actions are necessary
while the dolphins or porpoises
continue to exhibit bow wave riding
behavior.
(xi) Prior to start up or restart of active
sonar, operators shall check that the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
Safety Zone radius around the sound
source is clear of marine mammals.
(xii) Active sonar levels (generally)—
Navy shall operate active sonar at the
lowest practicable level, not to exceed
235 dB, except as required to meet
tactical training objectives.
(xiii) Submarine sonar operators shall
review detection indicators of closeaboard marine mammals prior to the
commencement of ASW training events
involving MFAS.
(xiv) If the need for power-down
should arise (as detailed in
§ 218.114(a)(3)(x)) when the Navy is
operating a hull-mounted or submounted source above 235 db
(infrequent), the Navy shall follow the
requirements as though they were
operating at 235 dB—the normal
operating level (i.e., the first powerdown will be to 229 dB, regardless of at
what level above 235 dB active sonar
was being operated).
(4) Sinking Exercise:
(i) All weapons firing shall be
conducted during the period 1 hour
after official sunrise to 30 minutes
before official sunset.
(ii) An exclusion zone with a radius
of 1.0 nm (1.9 km) shall be established
around each target. An additional buffer
of 0.5 nm (0.9 km) will be added to
account for errors, target drift, and
animal movements. Additionally, a
safety zone, which will extend beyond
the buffer zone by an additional 0.5 nm
(0.9 km), shall be surveyed. Together,
the zones extend out 2 nm (3.7 km) from
the target.
(iii) A series of surveillance overflights shall be conducted within the
exclusion and the safety zones, prior to
and during the exercise, when feasible.
Survey protocol shall be as follows:
(A) Overflights within the exclusion
zone shall be conducted in a manner
that optimizes the surface area of the
water observed. This may be
accomplished through the use of the
Navy’s Search and Rescue Tactical Aid,
which provides the best search altitude,
ground speed, and track spacing for the
discovery of small, possibly dark objects
in the water based on the environmental
conditions of the day. These
environmental conditions include the
angle of sun inclination, amount of
daylight, cloud cover, visibility, and sea
state.
(B) All visual surveillance activities
shall be conducted by Navy personnel
trained in visual surveillance. At least
one member of the mitigation team shall
have completed the Navy’s marine
mammal training program for lookouts.
(C) In addition to the overflights, the
exclusion zone shall be monitored by
passive acoustic means, when assets are
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
available. This passive acoustic
monitoring shall be maintained
throughout the exercise. Additionally,
passive sonar onboard submarines may
be utilized to detect any vocalizing
marine mammals in the area. The OCE
shall be informed of any aural detection
of marine mammals and shall include
this information in the determination of
when it is safe to commence the
exercise.
(D) On each day of the exercise, aerial
surveillance of the exclusion and safety
zones shall commence 2 hours prior to
the first firing.
(E) The results of all visual, aerial,
and acoustic searches shall be reported
immediately to the OCE. No weapons
launches or firing may commence until
the OCE declares the safety and
exclusion zones free of marine
mammals.
(F) If a marine mammal is observed
within the exclusion zone, firing shall
be delayed until the animal is re-sighted
outside the exclusion zone, or 30
minutes have elapsed. After 30 minutes,
if the animal has not been re-sighted it
can be assumed to have left the
exclusion zone. The OCE shall
determine if the marine mammal is in
danger of being adversely affected by
commencement of the exercise.
(G) During breaks in the exercise of 30
minutes or more, the exclusion zone
shall again be surveyed for any marine
mammal. If marine mammals are
sighted within the exclusion zone or
buffer zone, the OCE shall be notified,
and the procedure described above shall
be followed.
(H) Upon sinking of the vessel, a final
surveillance of the exclusion zone shall
be monitored for 2 hours, or until
sunset, to verify that no marine
mammals were harmed.
(iv) Aerial surveillance shall be
conducted using helicopters or other
aircraft based on necessity and
availability. The Navy has several types
of aircraft capable of performing this
task; however, not all types are available
for every exercise. For each exercise, the
available asset best suited for
identifying objects on and near the
surface of the ocean shall be used. These
aircraft shall be capable of flying at the
slow safe speeds necessary to enable
viewing of marine vertebrates with
unobstructed, or minimally obstructed,
downward and outward visibility. The
exclusion and safety zone surveys may
be cancelled in the event that a
mechanical problem, emergency search
and rescue, or other similar and
unexpected event preempts the use of
one of the aircraft onsite for the
exercise.
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(v) Every attempt shall be made to
conduct the exercise in sea states that
are ideal for marine mammal sighting,
Beaufort Sea State 3 or less. In the event
of a 4 or above, survey efforts shall be
increased within the zones. This shall
be accomplished through the use of an
additional aircraft, if available, and
conducting tight search patterns.
(vi) The exercise shall not be
conducted unless the exclusion zone
and the buffer zone can be adequately
monitored visually. Should low cloud
cover or surface visibility prevent
adequate visual monitoring as described
previously, the exercise shall be delayed
until conditions improved, and all of
the above monitoring criteria can be
met.
(vii) In the event that any marine
mammals are observed to be harmed in
the area, a detailed description of the
animal shall be taken, the location
noted, and if possible, photos taken of
the marine mammal. This information
shall be provided to NMFS via the
Navy’s regional environmental
coordinator for purposes of
identification (see the draft Stranding
Plan for detail).
(viii) An after action report detailing
the exercise’s time line, the time the
surveys commenced and terminated,
amount, and types of all ordnance
expended, and the results of survey
efforts for each event shall be submitted
to NMFS.
(5) Surface-to-Surface Gunnery (up to
5-inch Explosive Rounds):
(i) For exercises using targets towed
by a vessel, target-towing vessels shall
maintain a trained lookout for marine
mammals when feasible. If a marine
mammal is sighted in the vicinity, the
tow vessel shall immediately notify the
firing vessel, which shall suspend the
exercise until the area is clear.
(ii) A 600-yd (585 m) radius buffer
zone shall be established around the
intended target.
(iii) From the intended firing position,
trained lookouts shall survey the buffer
zone for marine mammals prior to
commencement and during the exercise
as long as practicable. Due to the
distance between the firing position and
the buffer zone, lookouts are only
expected to visually detect breaching
whales, whale blows, and large pods of
dolphins and porpoises.
(iv) The exercise shall be conducted
only when the buffer zone is visible and
marine mammals are not detected
within it.
(6) Surface-to-Surface Gunnery (nonexplosive rounds):
(i) A 200-yd (183 m) radius buffer
zone shall be established around the
intended target.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
(ii) From the intended firing position,
trained lookouts shall survey the buffer
zone for marine mammals prior to
commencement and during the exercise
as long as practicable.
(iii) If available, target towing vessels
shall maintain a lookout (unmanned
towing vessels will not have a lookout
available). If a marine mammal is
sighted in the vicinity of the exercise,
the tow vessel shall immediately notify
the firing vessel in order to secure
gunnery firing until the area is clear.
(iv) The exercise shall be conducted
only when the buffer zone is visible and
marine mammals are not detected
within the target area and the buffer
zone.
(7) Surface-to-Air Gunnery (Explosive
and Non-explosive Rounds):
(i) Vessels shall orient the geometry of
gunnery exercises in order to prevent
debris from falling in the area of sighted
marine mammals.
(ii) Vessels shall expedite the attempt
to recover any parachute deploying
aerial targets to reduce the potential for
entanglement of marine mammals.
(iii) Target towing aircraft shall
maintain a lookout if feasible. If a
marine mammal is sighted in the
vicinity of the exercise, the tow aircraft
shall immediately notify the firing
vessel in order to secure gunnery firing
until the area is clear.
(8) Air-to-Surface Gunnery (Explosive
and Non-explosive Rounds):
(i) A 200-yd (183 m) radius buffer
zone shall be established around the
intended target.
(ii) If surface vessels are involved,
lookout(s) shall visually survey the
buffer zone for marine mammals to and
during the exercise.
(iii) Aerial surveillance of the buffer
zone for marine mammals shall be
conducted prior to commencement of
the exercise. Aerial surveillance altitude
of 500 ft to 1,500 ft (152–456 m) is
optimum. Aircraft crew/pilot shall
maintain visual watch during exercises.
Release of ordnance through cloud
cover is prohibited; aircraft must be able
to actually see ordnance impact areas.
(iv) The exercise shall be conducted
only if marine mammals are not visible
within the buffer zone.
(9) Small Arms Training (Grenades,
Explosive and Non-explosive Rounds)—
Lookouts shall visually survey for
marine mammals. Weapons shall not be
fired in the direction of known or
observed marine mammals.
(10) Air-to-Surface At-sea Bombing
Exercises (explosive bombs and
rockets):
(i) If surface vessels are involved,
trained lookouts shall survey for marine
mammals. Ordnance shall not be
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64579
targeted to impact within 1,000 yd (914
m) of known or observed marine
mammals.
(ii) A 1,000-yd (914 m) radius buffer
zone shall be established around the
intended target.
(iii) Aircraft shall visually survey the
target and buffer zone for marine
mammals prior to and during the
exercise. The survey of the impact area
shall be made by flying at 1,500 ft (457
m) or lower, if safe to do so, and at the
slowest safe speed. When safety or other
considerations require the release of
weapons without the releasing pilot
having visual sight of the target area, a
second aircraft, the ‘‘wingman,’’ shall
clear the target area and perform the
clearance and observation functions
required before the dropping plane may
release its weapons. Both planes shall
have direct communication to assure
immediate notification to the dropping
plane that the target area may have been
fouled by encroaching animals or
people. The clearing aircraft shall assure
it has visual site of the target area at a
maximum height of 1,500 ft (457 m).
The clearing plane shall remain within
visual sight of the target until required
to clear the area for safety reasons.
Survey aircraft shall employ most
effective search tactics and capabilities.
(iv) The exercise shall be conducted
only if marine mammals are not visible
within the buffer zone.
(11) Air-to-Surface At-Sea Bombing
Exercises (Non-explosive Bombs and
Rockets):
(i) If surface vessels are involved,
trained lookouts shall survey for marine
mammals. Ordnance shall not be
targeted to impact within 1,000 yd (914
m) of known or observed marine
mammals.
(ii) A 1,000-yd (914 m) radius buffer
zone shall be established around the
intended target.
(iii) Aircraft shall visually survey the
target and buffer zone for marine
mammals prior to and during the
exercise. The survey of the impact area
shall be made by flying at 1,500 ft (457
m) or lower, if safe to do so, and at the
slowest safe speed. When safety or other
considerations require the release of
weapons without the releasing pilot
having visual sight of the target area, a
second aircraft, the ‘‘wingman,’’ shall
clear the target area and perform the
clearance and observation functions
required before the dropping plane may
release its weapons. Both planes must
have direct communication to assure
immediate notification to the dropping
plane that the target area may have been
fouled by encroaching animals or
people. The clearing aircraft shall assure
it has visual site of the target area at a
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64580
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
maximum height of 1,500 ft (457 m).
The clearing plane shall remain within
visual sight of the target until required
to clear the area for safety reasons.
Survey aircraft shall employ most
effective search tactics and capabilities.
(iv) The exercise shall be conducted
only if marine mammals and are not
visible within the buffer zone.
(12) Air-to-Surface Missile Exercises
(explosive and non-explosive):
(i) Aircraft shall visually survey the
target area for marine mammals. Visual
inspection of the target area shall be
made by flying at 1,500 ft (457 m) or
lower, if safe to do so, and at the slowest
safe speed. Firing or range clearance
aircraft must be able to actually see
ordnance impact areas.
(ii) Explosive ordnance shall not be
targeted to impact within 1,800 yd (1646
m) of sighted marine mammals.
(13) Aircraft Training Activities
Involving Non-Explosive Devices: Nonexplosive devices such as some
sonobuoys and inert bombs involve
aerial drops of devices that have the
potential to hit marine mammals if they
are in the immediate vicinity of a
floating target. The exclusion zone (200
yd), therefore, shall be clear of marine
mammals and around the target
location.
(14) Extended Echo Ranging/
Improved Extended Echo Ranging (EER/
IEER):
(i) Crews shall conduct visual
reconnaissance of the drop area prior to
laying their intended sonobuoy pattern.
This search shall be conducted at an
altitude below 500 yd (457 m) at a slow
speed, if operationally feasible and
weather conditions permit. In dual
aircraft operations, crews are allowed to
conduct coordinated area clearances.
(ii) Crews shall conduct a minimum
of 30 minutes of visual and aural
monitoring of the search area prior to
commanding the first post detonation.
This 30-minute observation period may
include pattern deployment time.
(iii) For any part of the briefed pattern
where a post (source/receiver sonobuoy
pair) shall be deployed within 1,000 yd
(914 m) of observed marine mammal
activity, the Navy shall deploy the
receiver ONLY and monitor while
conducting a visual search. When
marine mammals are no longer detected
within 1,000 yd (914 m) of the intended
post position, the Navy shall co-locate
the explosive source sonobuoy (AN/
SSQ–110A) (source) with the receiver.
(iv) When operationally feasible, Navy
crews shall conduct continuous visual
and aural monitoring of marine mammal
activity. This is to include monitoring of
own-aircraft sensors from first sensor
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
placement to checking off station and
out of RF range of these sensors.
(v) Aural Detection—If the presence of
marine mammals is detected aurally,
then that shall cue the Navy aircrew to
increase the diligence of their visual
surveillance. Subsequently, if no marine
mammals are visually detected, then the
crew may continue multi-static active
search.
(vi) Visual Detection—If marine
mammals are visually detected within
1,000 yd (914 m) of the explosive source
sonobuoy (AN/SSQ–110A) intended for
use, then that payload shall not be
detonated. Aircrews may utilize this
post once the marine mammals have not
been re-sighted for 30 minutes, or are
observed to have moved outside the
1,000-yd (914 m) safety buffer. Aircrews
may shift their multi-static active search
to another post, where marine mammals
are outside the 1,000-yd (914 m) safety
buffer.
(vii) Aircrews shall make every
attempt to manually detonate the
unexploded charges at each post in the
pattern prior to departing the operations
area by using the ‘‘Payload 1 Release’’
command followed by the ‘‘Payload 2
Release’’ command. Aircrews shall
refrain from using the ‘‘Scuttle’’
command when two payloads remain at
a given post. Aircrews shall ensure that
a 1,000-yd (914 m) safety buffer,
visually clear of marine mammals, is
maintained around each post as is done
during active search operations.
(viii) Aircrews shall only leave posts
with unexploded charges in the event of
a sonobuoy malfunction, an aircraft
system malfunction, or when an aircraft
must immediately depart the area due to
issues such as fuel constraints,
inclement weather, and in-flight
emergencies. In these cases, the
sonobuoy shall self-scuttle using the
secondary or tertiary method.
(ix) The Navy shall ensure all
payloads are accounted for. Explosive
source sonobuoys (AN/SSQ–110A) that
cannot be scuttled shall be reported as
unexploded ordnance via voice
communications while airborne, then
upon landing via naval message.
(x) Marine mammal monitoring shall
continue until out of own-aircraft sensor
range.
(15) The Navy shall abide by the letter
of the ‘‘Stranding Response Plan for
Major Navy Training Exercises in the
GoA TMAA’’ (available at: https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental.htm), which is incorporated
herein by reference, to include the
following measures:
(i) Shutdown Procedures—When an
Uncommon Stranding Event (USE—
defined in § 216.271) occurs during a
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Major Training Exercise (MTE) (as
defined in the Stranding Plan, meaning
including Multi-strike group exercises,
Joint Expeditionary exercises, and
Marine Air Ground Task Force exercises
in the GoA TMAA), the Navy shall
implement the procedures described
below.
(A) The Navy shall implement a
Shutdown (as defined in the Stranding
Response Plan for GoA TMAA) when
advised by a NMFS Office of Protected
Resources Headquarters Senior Official
designated in the GoA TMAA Stranding
Communication Protocol that a USE (as
defined in the Stranding Response Plan
for the GoA TMAA) involving live
animals has been identified and that at
least one live animal is located in the
water. NMFS and Navy shall
communicate, as needed, regarding the
identification of the USE and the
potential need to implement shutdown
procedures.
(B) Any shutdown in a given area
shall remain in effect in that area until
NMFS advises the Navy that the
subject(s) of the USE at that area die or
are euthanized, or that all live animals
involved in the USE at that area have
left the area (either of their own volition
or herded).
(C) If the Navy finds an injured or
dead marine mammal floating at sea
during an MTE, the Navy shall notify
NMFS immediately or as soon as
operational security considerations
allow. The Navy shall provide NMFS
with the species or description of the
animal(s), the condition of the animal(s)
including carcass condition if the
animal(s) is/are dead), location, time of
first discovery, observed behavior(s) (if
alive), and photo or video of the
animal(s) (if available). Based on the
information provided, NMFS shall
determine if, and advise the Navy
whether a modified shutdown is
appropriate on a case-by-case basis.
(D) In the event, following a USE,
that: qualified individuals are
attempting to herd animals back out to
the open ocean and animals are not
willing to leave, or animals are seen
repeatedly heading for the open ocean
but turning back to shore, NMFS and
the Navy shall coordinate (including an
investigation of other potential
anthropogenic stressors in the area) to
determine if the proximity of MFAS/
HFAS activities or explosive
detonations, though farther than 14 nm
from the distressed animal(s), is likely
decreasing the likelihood that the
animals return to the open water. If so,
NMFS and the Navy shall further
coordinate to determine what measures
are necessary to further minimize that
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
likelihood and implement those
measures as appropriate.
(ii) Within 72 hrs of NMFS notifying
the Navy of the presence of a USE, the
Navy shall provide available
information to NMFS (per the GoA
TMAA Communication Protocol)
regarding the location, number and
types of acoustic/explosive sources,
direction and speed of units using
MFAS/HFAS, and marine mammal
sightings information associated with
training activities occurring within 80
nm (148 km) and 72 hrs prior to the USE
event. Information not initially available
regarding the 80 nm (148 km) and 72 hrs
prior to the event shall be provided as
soon as it becomes available. The Navy
shall provide NMFS investigative teams
with additional relevant unclassified
information as requested, if available.
(iii) Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA)—The Navy and NMFS shall
develop a MOA, or other mechanism,
that will establish a framework whereby
the Navy can (and provide the Navy
examples of how they can best) assist
NMFS with stranding investigations in
certain circumstances.
(b) [Reserved]
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
§ 218.125 Requirements for monitoring
and reporting.
(a) General Notification of Injured or
Dead Marine Mammals—Navy
personnel shall ensure that NMFS is
notified immediately ((see
Communication Plan) or as soon as
clearance procedures allow) if an
injured, stranded, or dead marine
mammal is found during or shortly
after, and in the vicinity of, any Navy
training exercise utilizing MFAS, HFAS,
or underwater explosive detonations.
The Navy shall provide NMFS with the
species or description of the animal(s),
the condition of the animal(s) (including
carcass condition if the animal is dead),
location, time of first discovery,
observed behavior(s) (if alive), and
photo or video of the animal(s) (if
available). In the event that an injured,
stranded, or dead marine mammal is
found by the Navy that is not in the
vicinity of, or during or shortly after,
MFAS, HFAS, or underwater explosive
detonations, the Navy shall report the
same information as listed above as
soon as operationally feasible and
clearance procedures allow.
(b) General Notification of Ship
Strike—In the event of a ship strike by
any Navy vessel, at any time or place,
the Navy shall do the following:
(1) Immediately report to NMFS the
species identification (if known),
location (lat/long) of the animal (or the
strike if the animal has disappeared),
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
and whether the animal is alive or dead,
or whether its status is unknown.
(2) Report to NMFS as soon as
operationally feasible the size and
length of animal, an estimate of the
injury status (e.g., dead, injured but
alive, injured and moving, unknown,
etc.), vessel class/type and operational
status.
(3) Report to NMFS the vessel length,
speed, and heading as soon as feasible.
(4) Provide NMFS a photo or video of
the animal(s), if equipment is available.
(c) The Navy must conduct all
monitoring and/or research required
under the Letter of Authorization
including abiding by the GoA TMAA
Monitoring Plan. (https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental.htm#applications)
(d) Report on Monitoring required in
paragraph (c) of this section—The Navy
shall submit a report annually on
December 15 describing the
implementation and results (through
October of the same year) of the
monitoring required in paragraph (c) of
this section. The Navy shall standardize
data collection methods across ranges to
allow for comparison in different
geographic locations.
(e) Sonar Exercise Notification—The
Navy shall submit to the NMFS Office
of Protected Resources (specific contact
information to be provided in LOA)
either an electronic (preferably) or
verbal report within 15 calendar days
after the completion of any MTER
indicating:
(1) Location of the exercise;
(2) Beginning and end dates of the
exercise; and
(3) Type of exercise.
(f) Annual GoA TMAA Report—The
Navy shall submit an Annual Exercise
GoA TMAA Report on December 15 of
every year (covering data gathered
through October). This report shall
contain the subsections and information
indicated below.
(1) MFAS/HFAS Training Exercises—
This section shall contain the following
information for the following
Coordinated and Strike Group Exercises:
Joint Multi-strike Group Exercises; Joint
Expeditionary Exercises; and Marine Air
Ground Task Force GoA TMAA:
(i) Exercise Information (for each
exercise):
(A) Exercise designator;
(B) Date that exercise began and
ended;
(C) Location;
(D) Number and types of active
sources used in the exercise;
(E) Number and types of passive
acoustic sources used in exercise;
(F) Number and types of vessels,
aircraft, etc., participating in exercise;
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64581
(G) Total hours of observation by
watchstanders;
(H) Total hours of all active sonar
source operation;
(I) Total hours of each active sonar
source (along with explanation of how
hours are calculated for sources
typically quantified in alternate way
(buoys, torpedoes, etc.)); and
(J) Wave height (high, low, and
average during exercise).
(ii) Individual marine mammal
sighting info (for each sighting in each
exercise):
(A) Location of sighting;
(B) Species (if not possible—
indication of whale/dolphin/pinniped);
(C) Number of individuals;
(D) Calves observed (y/n);
(E) Initial Detection Sensor;
(F) Indication of specific type of
platform observation made from
(including, for example, what type of
surface vessel; i.e., FFG, DDG, or CG);
(G) Length of time observers
maintained visual contact with marine
mammal(s);
(H) Wave height (ft);
(I) Visibility;
(J) Sonar source in use (y/n);
(K) Indication of whether animal is
<200 yd, 200–500 yd, 500–1,000 yd,
1,000–2,000 yd, or >2,000 yd from sonar
source in (x) above;
(L) Mitigation Implementation—
Whether operation of sonar sensor was
delayed, or sonar was powered or shut
down, and how long the delay was;
(M) If source in use (x) is hullmounted, true bearing of animal from
ship, true direction of ship’s travel, and
estimation of animal’s motion relative to
ship (opening, closing, parallel); and
(N) Observed behavior—
Watchstanders shall report, in plain
language and without trying to
categorize in any way, the observed
behavior of the animals (such as animal
closing to bow ride, paralleling course/
speed, floating on surface and not
swimming, etc.).
(iii) An evaluation (based on data
gathered during all of the exercises) of
the effectiveness of mitigation measures
designed to avoid exposing marine
mammals to MFAS. This evaluation
shall identify the specific observations
that support any conclusions the Navy
reaches about the effectiveness of the
mitigation.
(2) ASW Summary—This section
shall include the following information
as summarized from non-major training
exercises (unit-level exercises, such as
TRACKEXs):
(i) Total Hours—Total annual hours of
each type of sonar source (along with
explanation of how hours are calculated
for sources typically quantified in
alternate way (buoys, torpedoes, etc.)).
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
64582
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(ii) Cumulative Impacts—To the
extent practicable, the Navy, in
coordination with NMFS, shall develop
and implement a method of annually
reporting other training (i.e., Unit Level
Training (ULT)) utilizing hull-mounted
sonar. The report shall present an
annual (and seasonal, where
practicable) depiction of non-major
training exercises geographically across
the GoA TMAA. The Navy shall include
(in the GoA TMAA annual report) a
brief annual progress update on the
status of the development of an effective
and unclassified method to report this
information until an agreed-upon (with
NMFS) method has been developed and
implemented.
(3) Sinking Exercises (SINKEXs)—
This section shall include the following
information for each SINKEX completed
that year:
(i) Exercise info:
(A) Location;
(B) Date and time exercise began and
ended;
(C) Total hours of observation by
watchstanders before, during, and after
exercise;
(D) Total number and types of rounds
expended/explosives detonated;
(E) Number and types of passive
acoustic sources used in exercise;
(F) Total hours of passive acoustic
search time;
(G) Number and types of vessels,
aircraft, etc., participating in exercise;
(H) Wave height in feet (high, low,
and average during exercise); and
(I) Narrative description of sensors
and platforms utilized for marine
mammal detection and timeline
illustrating how marine mammal
detection was conducted.
(ii) Individual marine mammal
observation during SINKEX (by Navy
lookouts) information:
(A) Location of sighting;
(B) Species (if not possible—
indication of whale/dolphin/pinniped);
(C) Number of individuals;
(D) Calves observed (y/n);
(E) Initial detection sensor;
(F) Length of time observers
maintained visual contact with marine
mammal;
(G) Wave height (ft);
(H) Visibility;
(I) Whether sighting was before,
during, or after detonations/exercise,
and how many minutes before or after;
(J) Distance of marine mammal from
actual detonations (or target spot if not
yet detonated)—use four categories to
define distance:
(1) The modeled injury threshold
radius for the largest explosive used in
that exercise type in that OPAREA (762
m for SINKEX in the GoA TMAA);
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
(2) The required exclusion zone (1 nm
for SINKEX in the GoA TMAA);
(3) The required observation distance
(if different than the exclusion zone (2
nm for SINKEX in the GoA TMAA); and
(4) Greater than the required observed
distance. For example, in this case, the
observer shall indicate if <762 m, from
762 m–1 nm, from 1 nm–2 nm, and >
2 nm.
(K) Observed behavior—
Watchstanders shall report, in plain
language and without trying to
categorize in any way, the observed
behavior of the animals (such as animal
closing to bow ride, paralleling course/
speed, floating on surface and not
swimming etc.), including speed and
direction.
(L) Resulting mitigation
implementation—Indicate whether
explosive detonations were delayed,
ceased, modified, or not modified due to
marine mammal presence and for how
long.
(M) If observation occurs while
explosives are detonating in the water,
indicate munitions type in use at time
of marine mammal detection.
(4) Improved Extended Echo-Ranging
System (IEER) Summary:
(i) Total number of IEER events
conducted in the GoA TMAA;
(ii) Total expended/detonated rounds
(buoys); and
(iii) Total number of self-scuttled
IEER rounds.
(5) Explosives Summary—The Navy is
in the process of improving the methods
used to track explosive use to provide
increased granularity. To the extent
practicable, the Navy shall provide the
information described below for all of
their explosive exercises. Until the Navy
is able to report in full the information
below, they shall provide an annual
update on the Navy’s explosive tracking
methods, including improvements from
the previous year.
(i) Total annual number of each type
of explosive exercise (of those identified
as part of the ‘‘specified activity’’ in this
final rule) conducted in the GoA TMAA;
and
(ii) Total annual expended/detonated
rounds (missiles, bombs, etc.) for each
explosive type.
(g) GoA TMAA 5-Yr Comprehensive
Report—The Navy shall submit to
NMFS a draft report that analyzes and
summarizes all of the multi-year marine
mammal information gathered during
ASW and explosive exercises for which
annual reports are required (Annual
GoA TMAA Exercise Reports and GoA
TMAA Monitoring Plan Reports). This
report shall be submitted at the end of
the fourth year of the rule (December
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2014), covering activities that have
occurred through October 2014.
(h) Comprehensive National ASW
Report—By June, 2014, the Navy shall
submit a draft National Report that
analyzes, compares, and summarizes the
active sonar data gathered (through
January 1, 2014) from the watchstanders
and pursuant to the implementation of
the Monitoring Plans for the Northwest
Training Range Complex, the Southern
California Range Complex, the Atlantic
Fleet Active Sonar Training, the Hawaii
Range Complex, the Mariana Islands
Range Complex, and the Gulf of Alaska.
(i) The Navy shall comply with the
2009 Integrated Comprehensive
Monitoring Program (ICMP) Plan and
continue to improve the program in
consultation with NMFS. Changes and
improvements to the program made
during 2010 (as prescribed in the 2009
ICMP and deemed appropriate by the
Navy and NMFS) will be described in
an updated 2010 ICMP and submitted to
NMFS by October 31, 2010, for review.
An updated 2010 ICMP will be finalized
by December 31, 2010.
§ 218.126 Applications for Letters of
Authorization.
To incidentally take marine mammals
pursuant to these regulations, the U.S.
Citizen (as defined by § 216.103 of this
chapter) conducting the activity
identified in § 218.120(c) (i.e., the Navy)
must apply for and obtain either an
initial Letter of Authorization in
accordance with § 218.127 or a renewal
under § 218.128.
§ 218.127
Letters of Authorization.
(a) A Letter of Authorization, unless
suspended or revoked, will be valid for
a period of time not to exceed the period
of validity of this subpart, but must be
renewed annually or biennially subject
to renewal conditions in § 218.128.
(b) Each Letter of Authorization shall
set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental
taking;
(2) Means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impact on the
species, its habitat, and on the
availability of the species for
subsistence uses (i.e., mitigation); and
(3) Requirements for mitigation,
monitoring and reporting.
(c) Issuance and renewal of the Letter
of Authorization shall be based on a
determination that the total number of
marine mammals taken by the activity
as a whole will have no more than a
negligible impact on the affected species
or stock of marine mammal(s).
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules
§ 218.128 Renewal of Letters of
Authorization and adaptive management.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
(a) A Letter of Authorization issued
under § 216.106 and § 218.127 of this
chapter or the activity identified in
§ 218.120(c) shall be renewed annually
or biennially upon:
(1) Notification to NMFS that the
activity described in the application
submitted under § 218.126 shall be
undertaken and that there will not be a
substantial modification to the
described work, mitigation or
monitoring undertaken during the
upcoming 12–24 months;
(2) Receipt of the monitoring reports
and notifications within the indicated
timeframes required under § 218.125(b
through j); and
(3) A determination by NMFS that the
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
measures required under § 218.124 and
the Letter of Authorization issued under
§§ 216.126 and 218.127 of this chapter
were undertaken and will be undertaken
during the upcoming period of validity
of a renewed Letter of Authorization.
(b) If a request for a renewal of a
Letter of Authorization issued under
§§ 216.126 and 216.128 indicates that a
substantial modification, as determined
by NMFS, to the described work,
mitigation or monitoring undertaken
during the upcoming season will occur,
NMFS will provide the public a period
of 30 days for review and comment on
the request. Review and comment on
renewals of Letters of Authorization are
restricted to:
(1) New cited information and data
indicating that the determinations made
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:25 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
in this document are in need of
reconsideration, and
(2) Proposed changes to the mitigation
and monitoring requirements contained
in these regulations or in the current
Letter of Authorization.
(c) A notice of issuance or denial of
a renewal of a Letter of Authorization
will be published in the Federal
Register.
(d) Adaptive Management—NMFS
may modify or augment the existing
mitigation or monitoring measures (after
consulting with the Navy regarding the
practicability of the modifications) if
doing so creates a reasonable likelihood
of more effectively accomplishing the
goals of mitigation and monitoring set
forth in the preamble of these
regulations. Below are some of the
possible sources of new data that could
contribute to the decision to modify the
mitigation or monitoring measures:
(1) Results from the Navy’s
monitoring from the previous year
(either from the GoA TMAA or other
locations).
(2) Findings of the Monitoring
Workshop that the Navy will convene in
2011.
(3) Compiled results of Navy-funded
research and development (R&D) studies
(presented pursuant to the Integrated
Comprehensive Monitoring Plan).
(4) Results from specific stranding
investigations (either from the GoA
TMAA or other locations, and involving
coincident MFAS/HFAS or explosives
training or not involving coincident
use).
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
64583
(5) Results from the Long Term
Prospective Study described in the
preamble to these regulations.
(6) Results from general marine
mammal and sound research (funded by
the Navy (described below) or
otherwise).
§ 218.129 Modifications to Letters of
Authorization.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(b) of this section, no substantive
modification (including withdrawal or
suspension) to the Letter of
Authorization by NMFS, issued
pursuant to §§ 216.126 and 218.127 of
this chapter and subject to the
provisions of this subpart, shall be made
until after notification and an
opportunity for public comment has
been provided. For purposes of this
paragraph, a renewal of a Letter of
Authorization under § 218.128, without
modification (except for the period of
validity), is not considered a substantive
modification.
(b) If the Assistant Administrator
determines that an emergency exists
that poses a significant risk to the wellbeing of the species or stocks of marine
mammals specified in § 218.120(b), a
Letter of Authorization issued pursuant
to §§ 216.126 and 218.127 of this
chapter may be substantively modified
without prior notification and an
opportunity for public comment.
Notification will be published in the
Federal Register within 30 days
subsequent to the action.
[FR Doc. 2010–25230 Filed 10–18–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM
19OCP3
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 19, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64508-64583]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25230]
[[Page 64507]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 218
Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Military Training Activities
Conducted Within the Gulf of Alaska (GoA) Temporary Maritime Activities
Area (TMAA); Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 64508]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 218
[Docket No. 100817363-0365-02]
RIN 0648-BA14
Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Military Training Activities
Conducted Within the Gulf of Alaska (GoA) Temporary Maritime Activities
Area (TMAA)
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for
authorization to take marine mammals incidental to training activities
conducted in the Gulf of Alaska (GoA) Temporary Maritime Activities
Area (TMAA) for the period December 2010 through December 2015.
Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS proposes
regulations to govern that take and requests information, suggestions,
and comments on these proposed regulations. Specifically, we encourage
the public to recommend effective, regionally specific methods for
augmenting existing marine mammal density, distribution, and abundance
information in the GoA TMAA and to prioritize the specific density and
distribution data needs in the area (species, time of year, etc.). This
information will ensure the design of the most effective Monitoring
Plan with the resources available.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than November
18, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by 0648-BA14, by any one
of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal 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: Jolie Harrison, Brian D. Hopper, or
Michelle Magliocca, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 713-
2289.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability
A copy of the Navy's application, as well as the draft Monitoring
Plan and the draft Stranding Response Plan for GoA TMAA, may be
obtained by writing to the address specified above (See ADDRESSES),
telephoning the contact listed above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT), or visiting the internet at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications. The Navy's Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) for GoA TMAA was published on December 11, 2009
and may be viewed at https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications. NMFS participates in the development of
the Navy's EIS as a cooperating agency under NEPA.
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
direct the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon request,
the incidental, but not intentional taking of marine mammals by U.S.
citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial
fishing) during periods of not more than five consecutive years each if
certain findings are made and regulations are issued or, if the taking
is limited to harassment, notice of a proposed authorization is
provided to the public for review.
Authorization shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will
have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or
stock(s) for subsistence uses, and if the permissible methods of taking
and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting
of such taking are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in
50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that
cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to,
adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates
of recruitment or survival.
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2004 (NDAA) (Pub. L. 108-
136) modified the MMPA by removing the ``small numbers'' and
``specified geographical region'' limitations and amended the
definition of ``harassment'' as it applies to a ``military readiness
activity'' to read as follows (Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA): any act
that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal
or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A Harassment]; or any act
that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are
abandoned or significantly altered [Level B Harassment].
Summary of Request
In March 2009, NMFS received an application from the Navy
requesting authorization to take individuals of 20 species of marine
mammals (15 cetaceans and 5 pinnipeds) incidental to upcoming training
activities to be conducted from December 2010 through December 2015 in
the GoA TMAA, which is a 42,146 square nautical mile (nm \2\) (145,482
km \2\) polygon roughly the shape of a 300 nm (555.6 km) by 150 nm
(277.8 km) rectangle oriented northwest to southeast in the long
direction. NMFS subsequently requested additional information, which
was provided in November 2009 in the form of a revised application.
These training activities are classified as military readiness
activities under the provisions of the NDAA of 2004. These military
readiness activities may incidentally take marine mammals within the
TMAA by exposing them to sound from mid-frequency or high-frequency
active sonar (MFAS/HFAS) or underwater detonations. The Navy requests
authorization to take individuals of 20 species of cetaceans and
pinnipeds by Level B Harassment. Further, although it does not
anticipate that it will occur, the Navy requests authorization to take,
by injury or mortality, up to 15 individual beaked whales (of any of
the following species: Baird's beaked whale, Cuvier's beaked whale,
Stejneger's beaked whale) over the course of the 5-year regulations.
[[Page 64509]]
Description of Specified Activities
Purpose and Background
The Navy's mission is to maintain, train, and equip combat-ready
naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression, and
maintaining freedom of the seas. Section 5062 of Title 10 of the United
States Code directs the Chief of Naval Operations to train all military
forces for combat. The Chief of Naval Operations meets that direction,
in part, by conducting at-sea training exercises and ensuring naval
forces have access to ranges, operating areas (OPAREAs) and airspace
where they can develop and maintain skills for wartime missions and
conduct research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E) of naval
systems.
The specified training activities addressed in this proposed rule
are a subset of the Proposed Action described in the GoA TMAA DEIS,
which would support and maintain Department of Defense training and
assessments of current capabilities. Training does not include combat
operations, operations in direct support of combat, or other activities
conducted primarily for purposes other than training. The Department of
Defense proposes to implement actions within the GoA TMAA to:
Increase the number of training activities from current
levels (up to 14 days) as necessary to support Fleet exercise
requirements (that could last up to 21 days between April and October);
Conduct training in the Primary Mission Areas (PMARs)
including Anti-Air Warfare (AAW), Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW), Anit-
Submarine Warfare (ASW), Naval Special Warfare (NSW), Strike Warfare
(STW), and Electronic Combat (EC). Conduct of training may include that
necessary for newer systems, instrumentation, and platforms, including
the EA-18G Growler aircraft, Guided Missile Submarines (SSGN), P-8
Poseidon Multimission Maritime Aircraft (MMA), Guided Missile Destroyer
(DDG) 1000 (Zumwalt Class) destroyer, and several types of Unmanned
Aerial Systems (UASs);
Accommodate training enhancement instrumentation, to
include the use of a Portable Undersea Tracking Range (PUTR);
Conduct an additional Carrier Strike Group (CSG) exercise
during the months of April through October, which could also last up to
21 days (first CSG exercise being part of the baseline No Action
Alternative); and
Conduct a Sinking Exercise (SINKEX) during each summertime
exercise (maximum of two) in the TMAA.
The proposed action would result in the following increases (above
those conducted in previous years, i.e., the No Action Alternative in
the Navy's DEIS) in activities associated with the annual take of
marine mammals:
Helicopter Anti-submarine Warfare (ASW) tracking exercise
(TRACKEX) (includes use of MFAS and HFAS dipping sonar and sonobuoys)
Surface ASW TRACKEX (includes use of hull-mounted MFAS)
Submarine ASW (includes use of hull-mounted MFAS and HFAS)
Fixed-wing Marine Patrol Aircraft (MPA) ASW TRACKEX
(includes use of sonobuoys)
Extended Echo Ranging ASW (includes explosive sonobuoys)
Bombing Exercises (BOMBEX)
Sinking Exercises (SINKEX)
Gunnery Exercises (GUNEX)
Overview of the GoA TMAA
Since the 1990s, the Navy has participated in a major joint
training exercise that involves the Departments of the Navy, Army, Air
Force, and Coast Guard participants reporting to a unified or joint
commander who coordinates the activities planned to demonstrate and
evaluate the ability of the services to engage in a conflict and carry
out plans in response to a threat to national security. Previous
exercises in the TMAA have occurred in the summer (April-October)
timeframe due to the extreme cold weather and sea state conditions in
the TMAA during the winter months. The areas making up the Alaska
Training Areas (ATAs) (see figure 1-1 in the Navy's application)
consist of 3 components: (1) TMAA; (2) U.S. Air Force over-land Special
Use Airspace (SUA) and air routes over the GoA and State of Alaska; and
(3) U.S. Army training lands.
Within the northeastern GoA, the TMAA is comprised of the 42,146
square nautical miles (nm\2\) (145,482 square kilometer (km\2\) of
surface and subsurface area and 88,731 nm\2\ (305,267 km\2\)) of
special use airspace (SUA) (not including the portion of Warning Area
612 [W-612] that falls outside of the TMAA). The TMAA is roughly
rectangular and oriented from northwest to southeast, approximately 300
nautical miles (nm) (556 kilometer (km)) long by 150 nm (278 km) wide,
situated south of Prince William Sound and east of Kodiak Island. With
the exception of Cape Cleare on Montague Island located over 12 nm (22
km) from the northern point of the TMAA, the nearest shoreline (Kenai
Peninsula) is located approximately 24 nm (44 km) north of the TMAA's
northern boundary. The approximate middle of the TMAA is located 140 nm
(259 km) offshore.
The abyssal plain in the GoA gradually shoals from a 16,400 feet
(ft) (5,000 meter (m)) depth in the southwestern GoA to less than 9,843
ft (3,000 m) in the northeastern expanses of the Gulf. Maximal depths
exceed 22,965 ft (7,000 m) near the central Aleutian Trench along the
continental slope south of the Aleutian Islands. Numerous seamounts,
remnants of submarine volcanoes, are scattered across the central
basin. Several of the seamounts rise to within a few hundred meters of
the sea surface.
Ocean circulation in the GoA is defined by the cyclonic motion of
the Pacific subpolar gyre (also referred to as the Alaska Gyre), which
is composed of the North Pacific Current, the Alaska Current, and the
Alaskan Stream. Circulation patterns along the shelf divide the region
into the inner shelf (or Alaska Coastal Current domain), the mid-shelf,
and the outer shelf including the shelf break (DoN, 2006). The center
of the gyre is located at approximately 52 to 53 [deg]N and 145 to 155
[deg]W. Nearshore flow is dominated by the Alaskan Coastal Current and
is less organized than the flow found along the shelf break and slope.
The northwestern GoA also includes several prominent geological
features that influence the regional oceanography. For example, Kayak
Island extends 50 km across the continental shelf to the east of the
Copper River. This island can deflect shelf waters farther offshore
delivering high concentrations of suspended sediment to the outer shelf
(DoN, 2006).
During winter months, intense circulation over the GoA produces
easterly coastal winds and downwelling, both of which result in a well-
mixed water column. During the summer, stratification develops due to
decreased winds, increased freshwater discharge, and increased solar
radiation. Under summer and fall conditions, the shelf waters are
stratified with the upper water column temperatures at their maximum
and salinities at their minimum. On longer time scales, there is
evidence of interannual variation in the circulation patterns within
the GoA. These variations result from the climatic variability of the
El Ni[ntilde]o Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Pacific Decadal
Oscillation (PDO) (DoN, 2006).
Generally, two surface temperature regimes characterize the
northern expanses of the GoA throughout the year. Relatively warm
surface water occurs over the continental shelf, while colder water is
found farther offshore
[[Page 64510]]
beyond the shelf break. Thermal stratification remains weak until late
May or June, then strong stratification persists through the summer
months. As winds intensify in the fall, stratification dissipates, due
to stronger vertical mixing and increased downwelling, surface waters
sink along the coast, and the thermocline deepens throughout the
region. Along the continental shelf and within the coastal fjords,
waters are often highly stratified by both salinity and temperature; an
intense thermocline occurs at approximately 82 ft (25 m). Farther
offshore in the Alaskan Stream, maximal stratification occurs between
depths of 328 ft to 984 ft (100 to 300 m) and is associated primarily
with a permanent halocline in the GoA (DoN, 2006).
Specified Activities
As mentioned above, the Navy has requested MMPA authorization to
take marine mammals incidental to training in the GoA TMAA that would
result in the generation of sound or pressure waves in the water at or
above levels that NMFS has determined will likely result in take (see
Acoustic Take Criteria Section), either through the use of MFAS/HFAS or
the detonation of explosives in the water. These activities are
discussed in the subsections below. In addition to use of active sonar
sources and explosives, these activities include the operation and
movement of vessels that are necessary to conduct the training, and the
effects of this part of the activities are also analyzed in this
document.
The Navy's application also briefly summarizes Air Combat Maneuvers
(ACM), Visit Board Search and Seizure/Vessels of Interest (VBSS/VOI),
Maritime Interdiction (MI), Chaff Exercises, Sea Surface Control (SSC),
and Naval Special Warfare Insertion/Extraction exercises; however,
these activities are primarily air or land based and do not utilize
sound sources or explosives in the water. No take of marine mammals is
anticipated to result from these activities and, therefore, they are
not discussed further.
Activities Utilizing Active Sonar Sources
For the GoA TMAA, the training activities that utilize active
tactical sonar sources fall primarily into the category of Anti-
submarine Warfare (ASW). This section includes a description of ASW,
the active acoustic devices used in ASW exercises, and the exercise
types in which these acoustic sources are used.
ASW Training and Active Sonar
ASW training involves helicopter and sea control aircraft, ships,
and submarines, operating alone or in combination, to locate, track,
and neutralize submarines. Various types of active and passive sonar
are used by the Navy to determine water depth, locate mines, and
identify, track, and target submarines. Passive sonar ``listens'' for
sound waves by using underwater microphones, called hydrophones, which
receive, amplify, and process underwater sounds. No sound is introduced
into the water when using passive sonar. Passive sonar can indicate the
presence, character, and movement of submarines. However, passive sonar
only provides information about the bearing (direction) to a sound-
emitting source; it does not provide an accurate range (distance) to
the source. Also, passive sonar relies on the underwater target itself
to provide sufficient sound to be detected by hydrophones. Active sonar
is needed to locate objects that emit little or no noise (such as mines
or diesel-electric submarines operating in electric mode) and to
establish both bearing and range to the detected contact.
Active sonar transmits pulses of sound that travel through the
water, reflect off objects, and return to a receiver. By knowing the
speed of sound in water and the time taken for the sound wave to travel
to the object and back, active sonar systems can quickly calculate
direction and distance from the sonar platform to the underwater
object. There are three frequency range classifications for active
sonar: Low-frequency (LF), mid-frequency (MF), and high-frequency (HF).
MFAS, as defined in the Navy's GoA TMAA LOA application, operates
between 1 and 10 kHz, with detection ranges up to 10 nm (19 km).
Because of this detection ranging capability, MFAS is the Navy's
primary tool for conducting ASW. Many ASW experiments and exercises
have demonstrated that the improved capability (of MFAS over other
sources) for mid-range detection of adversary submarines before they
are able to conduct an attack is essential to U.S. ship survivability.
Today, ASW is the Navy's number one war-fighting priority. Navies
across the world utilize modern, quiet, diesel-electric submarines that
pose the primary threat to the U.S. Navy's ability to perform a number
of critical missions. Extensive ASW training is necessary for sailors
on ships and in strike groups to gain proficiency using MFAS. Moreover,
if a strike group does not demonstrate MFAS proficiency, it cannot be
certified as combat ready.
HFAS, as defined in the Navy's GoA TMAA LOA application, operates
at frequencies greater than 10 kilohertz (kHz). At higher acoustic
frequencies, sound rapidly dissipates in the ocean environment,
resulting in short detection ranges, typically less than five nm (9
km). High-frequency sonar is used primarily for determining water
depth, hunting mines, and guiding torpedoes, which are all short range
applications. Training exercises in the GoA TMAA will include the use
of HFAS.
Low-frequency sources operate below 1 kHz. Sonar in this frequency
range is designed to detect extremely quiet diesel-electric submarines
at ranges far beyond the capabilities of MFA sonars. Currently, there
are only two ships in use by the Navy equipped with low-frequency
sonar; both are ocean surveillance vessels operated by Military Sealift
Command. While Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System (SURTASS) low-
frequency active sonar was analyzed in a separate EIS/OEIS, use of low-
frequency active sonar is not part of the planned training activities
considered for the GoA TMAA.
Acoustic Sources Used for ASW Exercises in the GoA TMAA
Modern sonar technology has developed a multitude of sonar sensor
and processing systems. In concept, the simplest active sonars emit
omni-directional pulses (``pings'') and time the arrival of the
reflected echoes from the target object to determine range. More
sophisticated active sonars emit an omni-directional ping and then
rapidly scan a steered receiving beam to provide directional, as well
as range, information. More advanced active sonars transmit multiple
preformed beams, listening to echoes from several directions
simultaneously and providing efficient detection of both direction and
range. The types of active sonar and other sound sources employed
during training exercises in the GoA TMAA are identified in Table 1.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 64511]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19OC10.005
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
ASW sonar systems are deployed from certain classes of surface
ships, submarines, helicopters, and fixed-wing maritime patrol aircraft
(MPA).
[[Page 64512]]
Maritime patrol aircraft is a category of fixed-wing aircraft that
includes the current P-3C Orion, and the future P-8 Poseidon
multimission maritime aircraft. The surface ships used are typically
equipped with hull-mounted sonars (passive and active) for the
detection of submarines. During an exercise, fixed-wing MPA may be used
to deploy both active and passive sonobuoys to assist in locating and
tracking submarines or ASW targets. Helicopters may also be used during
an exercise to deploy both active and passive sonobuoys to assist in
locating and tracking submarines or ASW targets, and to deploy dipping
sonar. Submarines are equipped with both passive and active sonar
sensors that may be used to locate and prosecute other submarines and/
or surface ships during the exercise. The platforms and systems used in
ASW exercises are identified below.
Surface Ship Sonar--A variety of surface ships participate in
training events, including the Fast Frigate (FFG), the Guided Missile
Destroyer (DDG), and the Guided Missile Cruiser (CG). These three
classes of ships are equipped with active as well as passive tactical
sonar for mine avoidance and submarine detection and tracking. DDG and
CG class ships are equipped with the AN/SQS-53 sonar system (the most
powerful system), with a nominal source level of 235 decibels (dB) re 1
[mu]Pa @ 1 m. The FFG class ship uses the SQS-56 sonar system, with 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 because actual ping durations will be
less than 1 second. The AN/SQS-53 hull-mounted sonar transmits at a
center frequency of 3.5 kHz. The SQS-56 transmits at a center frequency
of 7.5 kHz. Details concerning the tactical use of specific frequencies
and the repetition rate for the sonar pings are classified but were
modeled based on the required tactical training setting.
Submarine Sonars--Submarines use sonar (e.g., AN/BQQ-10) to detect
and target enemy submarines and surface ships. Because submarine active
sonar use is very rare and in those rare instances, very brief, it is
extremely unlikely that use of active sonar by submarines would have
any measurable effect on marine mammals. In addition, submarines use
high-frequency sonar (AN/BQS-15 or BQQ-24) for navigation safety, mine
avoidance, and a fathometer that is not unlike a standard fathometer in
source level or output. There is, at present, no mine training range in
the GoA TMAA. Therefore, given their limited use and rapid attenuation
as high frequency sources, the AN/BQS-15 and BQQ-24 are not expected to
result in the take of marine mammals.
Aircraft Sonar Systems--Aircraft sonar systems that would operate
in the GoA TMAA include sonobuoys from fixed and rotary-wing aircraft
and dipping sonar from helicopters. Sonobuoys may be deployed by
maritime patrol aircraft or helicopters; dipping sonars are used by
carrier-based helicopters. A sonobuoy is an expendable device used by
aircraft for the detection of underwater acoustic energy and for
conducting vertical water column temperature measurements. Most
sonobuoys are passive, but some can also generate active acoustic
signals. Dipping sonar is an active or passive sonar device lowered by
cable from helicopters to detect or maintain contact with underwater
targets. During ASW training, these systems' active modes are only used
briefly for localization of contacts and are not used in primary search
capacity. Helicopters and MPA (P-3 or P-8 in approximately 2013) may
deploy sonobuoys in the GoA TMAA during ASW training exercises.
Extended Echo Ranging/Improved Extended Echo Ranging (EER/IEER)
Systems--EER/IEER are airborne ASW systems used to conduct ``large
area'' searches for submarines. These systems are made up of airborne
avionics ASW acoustic processing and sonobuoy types that are deployed
in pairs. The EER/IEER system's active sonobuoy has two components: An
AN/SSQ-110A Sonobuoy, which generates an explosive sound impulse; and a
passive receiver sonobuoy (SSQ-77), which ``listens'' for the return
echo that has been bounced off the surface of a submarine. These
sonobuoys are designed to provide underwater acoustic data necessary
for naval aircrews to quickly and accurately detect submerged
submarines. The sonobuoy pairs are dropped from a maritime patrol
aircraft into the ocean in a predetermined pattern with a few buoys
covering a very large area. The AN/SSQ-110A Sonobuoy Series is an
expendable and commandable sonobuoy. In other words, the equipment is
not retrieved after deployment and, once deployed, it can be remotely
controlled. For example, upon command from the aircraft, the explosive
charge would detonate, creating the sound impulse. Within the sonobuoy
pattern, only one detonation is commanded at a time. Sixteen to twenty
SSQ-110A source sonobuoys may be used in a typical exercise. Both
charges of each sonobuoy would be detonated independently during the
course of the training. The first detonation would be for tactical
reasons--to locate the submarine; and the second occurs when the
sonobuoy is commanded to scuttle at the conclusion of the exercise. The
AN/SSQ-110A is listed in Table 1 because it functions like a sonar
ping; however, the source creates an explosive detonation and its
effects are considered in the underwater explosive section.
Multistatic Active Coherent (MAC) system-Formerly referred to as
the Advanced Extended Echo Ranging (AEER) system, the proposed SSQ-125
MAC sonobuoy system is operationally similar to the existing EER/IEER
system. The MAC system will use the same Air Deployed Active Receiver
(ADAR) sonobuoy (SSQ-101A) as the acoustic receiver and will be used
for a large area ASW search capability in both shallow and deep water.
However, instead of using an explosive AN/SSQ-110A as an impulsive
source for the active acoustic wave, the MAC system will use a battery
powered (electronic) source for the AN/SSQ 125 sonobuoy. The output and
operational parameters for the AN/SSQ-125 sonobuoy (source levels,
frequency, wave forms, etc.) are classified. However, this sonobuoy is
intended to replace the EER/IEER's use of explosives and is scheduled
to enter the fleet in 2011. For purposes of analysis, replacement of
the EER/IEER system by the MAC system will be assumed to occur at 25
percent per year as follows: 2011--25 percent replacement; 2012--50
percent replacement; 2013--75 percent replacement; 2014--100 percent
replacement with no further use of the EER/IEER system beginning in
2015 and beyond.
Torpedoes--Torpedoes are the primary ASW weapon used by surface
ships, aircraft, and submarines. The guidance systems of these weapons
can be autonomous or electronically controlled from the launching
platform through an attached wire. The autonomous guidance systems are
acoustically based. They operate either passively, exploiting the
emitted sound energy by the target, or actively, ensonifying the target
and using the received echoes for guidance. With the exception of
SINKEX, torpedoes will not be used in the GoA TMAA during the proposed
training activities.
Portable Undersea Tracking Range (PUTR)--The PUTR is a self-
contained, portable, undersea tracking capability that employs modern
technologies to support coordinated undersea warfare training in
numerous locations. The system tracks submarines, surface ships,
[[Page 64513]]
weapons, targets, and unmanned undersea vehicles and then distributes
the data to a data processing and display system, either aboard ship or
at a shore site. The PUTR may be deployed to support ASW or other
training in the GoA TMAA. The PUTR would temporarily place hydrophones
on the seafloor in areas 25-100 nm\2\ (46.3-185.2 km\2\) or smaller and
provide high-fidelity feedback and scoring of crew performance during
ASW training activities. No on-shore construction would take place.
Seven electronics packages, each approximately 3 ft (0.9 m) long by 2
ft (0.6 m) in diameter, would be temporarily installed on the seafloor
by a range boat. The anchors used to keep the electronics packages on
the seafloor consist of either concrete or sand bags, each of which are
approximately 1.5 ft-by-1.5 ft (0.45 m-by-0.45 m) and 300 pounds (136
kilograms). PUTR equipment can be recovered for maintenance or when
training is completed. Two separate sound sources are associated with
the operation of the PUTR:
Range tracking pingers--Range tracking pingers would be used on
ships, submarines, and ASW targets when training is conducted on the
PUTR. A typical MK 84 range tracking pinger generates a 12.93 kHz sine
wave in pulses with a maximum duty cycle of 30 milliseconds and has a
design power of 194 dB re 1 micro-Pascal at 1 meter. Ping rate is
selectable and typically one pulse every two seconds. Under the
proposed action, up to four range pingers would operate simultaneously
for 4 hours each of the 20 PUTR operating days per year. Total time
operated would be 80 hours annually.
Transponders--Each transponder package consists of a hydrophone
that receives pinger signals, and a transducer that sends an acoustic
``uplink'' of locating data to the range boat. The uplink signal is
transmitted at 8.8 kHz, 17 kHz, or 40 kHz, at a source level of 190 dB
at 40 kHz, and 186 dB at 8.8 kHz. The uplink frequency is selectable
and typically uses the 40 kHz signal, however the lower frequency may
be used when PUTR is deployed in deep waters where conditions may not
permit the 40 kHz signal to establish and maintain the uplink. The PUTR
system also incorporates an emergency underwater voice capability that
transmits at 8-11 kHz and a source level of 190 dB. Under the proposed
action, the uplink transmitters would operate 20 days per year, for 4
hours each day of use. Total time operated would be 80 hours annually.
Training Targets--ASW training targets are used to simulate
opposition submarines. They are equipped with one or a combination of
the following devices: (1) Acoustic projectors emanating sounds to
simulate submarine acoustic signatures; (2) echo repeaters to simulate
the characteristics of the echo of a particular sonar signal reflected
from a specific type of submarine; and (3) magnetic sources to trigger
magnetic detectors. Two ASW training target types may be used in the
TMAA: The MK-30, which is recovered after each use and the MK-39
Expendable Mobile ASW Training Target (EMATT), which is not recovered.
Under the proposed action, approximately 12 EMATTs may be expended
annually during training in the TMAA. A small percentage of these
EMATTS may be replaced by the more costly yet recoverable MK-30.
As described above, ASW training exercises are the primary type of
exercises that utilize MFAS and HFAS sources in the GoA TMAA. Unit
level tracking and torpedo ASW exercises may occur over the course of
several days during the proposed training period in the GoA TMAA. Under
the Navy's preferred alternative, in a single year the GoA TMAA may
have two exercises lasting up to 21 days, both of which may involve one
ASW unit (aircraft, ship, or submarine) versus one target (usually a
MK-39 EMATT or live submarine). ASW exercise descriptions are included
below and summarized (along with the exercises utilizing explosives) in
Table 2.
ASW Tracking Exercise (TRACKEX)--Generally, TRACKEXs train
aircraft, ship, and submarine crews in tactics, techniques, and
procedures for search, detection, localization, and tracking of
submarines with the goal of determining a firing solution that could be
used to launch a torpedo and destroy the submarine. Use of torpedoes is
not a proposed activity in the TMAA, with the exception of SINKEX. ASW
Tracking Exercises occur during both day and night. A typical unit-
level exercise involves one (1) ASW unit (aircraft, ship, or submarine)
versus one (1) target--either a MK-39 (EMATT), or a live submarine. The
target may be non-evading while operating on a specified track or fully
evasive. Participating units use active and passive sensors, including
hull-mounted sonar, towed arrays, dipping sonar, variable-depth sonar,
and sonobuoys for tracking.
ASW training activities will take place during the summer months,
in the form of one or two major exercises or focused activity periods.
These exercises or activity periods would each last up to 21 days and
consist of multiple component training activities. Unlike Navy Training
activities in other areas, the GOA TMAA is not a Range Complex and as
such, there are no other or ongoing small scale Navy Training
activities conducted outside these activity periods. Descriptions of
each ASW tracking exercise type are provided below.
Helicopter ASW TRACKEX
A helicopter ASW TRACKEX typically involves one or two MH-60R
helicopters using both passive and active sonar for tracking submarine
targets. For passive tracking, the MH-60R may deploy patterns of
passive sonobuoys to receive underwater acoustic signals, providing the
helicopter crew with locating information on the target. Active
sonobuoys may also be used. An active sonobuoy, as in any active sonar
system, emits an acoustic pulse that travels through the water,
returning echoes if any objects, such as a submarine, are within the
range of acoustic detection. For active sonar tracking, the MH-60R crew
will rely primarily on its AQS-22 Dipping Sonar. The sonar is lowered
into the ocean while the helicopter hovers within 50 ft (15m) of the
surface. Similar to the active sonobuoy, the dipping sonar emits
acoustic energy and receives any returning echoes, indicating the
presence of an underwater object. Use of dipping sonar has the
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock resulting
in MMPA Level B harassment as defined for military readiness
activities.
The target for this exercise is either an EMATT or live submarine
which may be either nonevading and assigned to a specified track or
fully evasive depending on the state of training of the helicopter
crew. A Helicopter TRACKEX usually takes 2 to 4 hours. No torpedoes are
fired during this exercise. A total of 192 AQS-22 ``dips'' annually
were analyzed for potential acoustic impacts under the proposed
training activities.
MPA 1 ASW TRACKEX
During these exercises, a typical scenario involves a single MPA
dropping sonobuoys, from an altitude below 3,000 ft (914 m), into
specific patterns designed for both the anticipated threat submarine
and the specific water conditions. These patterns vary in size and
coverage area based on anticipated threat and water
[[Page 64514]]
conditions. Typically, passive sonobuoys will be used first, so the
threat submarine is not alerted. Active sonobuoys will be used as
required either to locate extremely quiet submarines or to further
localize and track submarines previously detected by passive buoys. Use
of sonobuoys has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine
mammal stock resulting in MMPA Level B harassment as defined for
military readiness activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ MPA currently refers to the P-3C Orion aircraft. The P-8
Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft is scheduled to replace the P-3C as
the Navy's MPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MPA will typically operate below 3,000 ft (914 m) to drop
sonobuoys, will sometimes be as low as 400 ft (122 m), then may climb
to several thousand feet after the buoy pattern is deployed. The higher
altitude allows monitoring of the buoys over a much larger search
pattern area. The target for this exercise is either an EMATT or live
submarine, which may be either non-evading and assigned to a specified
track or fully evasive depending on the state of training of the MPA.
An MPA TRACKEX usually takes 2 to 4 hours. The annual use of a total of
266 DICASS sonobuoys was analyzed for potential acoustic impacts under
the proposed training activities.
EER/IEER ASW Training Exercises
This is an at-sea flying exercise designed to train MPA crews in
the deployment and use of the EER/IEER sonobuoy systems. This system
uses the SSQ-110A as the signal source and the SSQ-77 as the receiver
buoy. This activity differs from the MPA ASW TRACKEX in that the SSQ-
110A sonobuoy uses two explosive charges per buoy for the acoustic
source. Other active sonobuoys use an electrically generated ``ping.''
Use of explosive sonobuoys has the potential to disturb a marine mammal
or marine mammal stock resulting in MMPA Level B harassment as defined
for military readiness activities.
A typical EER/IEER exercise lasts approximately 6 hours. The
aircrew will first deploy 16 to 20 SSQ-110A sonobuoys and 16 to 20
passive sonobuoys in 1 hour. For the next 5 hours, the sonobuoy charges
will be detonated, while the EER/IEER system analyzes the returns for
evidence of a submarine. This exercise may or may not include a
practice target. For potential acoustic impacts, the annual deployments
of 40 SSQ-110 (two explosions per buoy) sonobuoys were analyzed under
the proposed training activities.
In the future, the SSQ-125 MAC sonobuoy will be deployed in the GoA
TMAA as a replacement for the SSQ-110 in EER/IEER exercises.
ASW TRACKEX (Surface Ship)
Surface ships operating in the GoA TMAA would use hull-mounted
active sonar to conduct ASW Tracking exercises. Typically, this
exercise would involve the coordinated use of other ASW assets, to
include MPA, helicopters, and other ships. A total of 578 hours of SQS-
53 and 52 hours of SQS-56 sonar annually were analyzed for potential
acoustic impacts under the proposed training activities. Acoustic
cumulative and synergistic effects are incorporated into the modeling
as detailed in Appendix B of the Navy's LOA application (see
Supplementary Information section for information on obtaining copies
of supporting documents). Use of active sonar by surface ships for ASW
has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock
resulting in MMPA Level B harassment as defined for military readiness
activities.
ASW or Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW) (Submarine)
During these exercises, submarines use passive sonar sensors to
search, detect, classify, localize, and track the threat submarine with
the goal of developing a firing solution that could be used to launch a
torpedo and destroy the threat submarine. However, no torpedoes are
fired during this exercise. Submarines also use their high-frequency
sonar for object avoidance and navigation safety. Sonar use by
submarines has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine
mammal stock resulting in MMPA Level B harassment as defined for
military readiness activities.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 64515]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19OC10.006
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
[[Page 64516]]
Activities Utilizing Underwater Detonations
Underwater detonation activities can occur at various depths. They
may include activities with detonations at or just below the surface
(such as SINKEX or gunnery exercises (GUNEX)). When the weapons hit the
target, there is no explosion in the water, and so a ``hit'' is not
modeled (i.e., the energy (either acoustic or pressure) from the hit is
not expected to reach levels that would result in take of marine
mammals). When a live weapon misses, it is modeled to explode below the
water surface at 1 ft (5-inch naval gunfire, 76-mm rounds), 2 meters
(Maverick, Harpoon, MK-82, MK-83, MK-84), or 50 ft (MK-48 torpedo) as
shown in Appendix A of the Navy's application (the depth is chosen to
represent the worst case of the possible scenarios as related to
potential marine mammals impacts). Exercises may utilize either live or
inert ordnance of the types listed in Table 2. Additionally, successful
hit rates are known to the Navy and are utilized in the effects
modeling. Training events that involve explosives and underwater
detonations are described below and summarized in Table 3.
Table 3--Sources of At-Sea Explosives Used in GoA TMAA for Which Take of Marine Mammals Is Anticipated
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-TTS TTS Injury Mortality
Net ------------------------------------------------------------- Exclusion
Ordnance/explosive explosive 50% TM Onset massive zone Used
weight (in 177dB 182 SEL/23psi rupture, 205db lung injury or (m)
lbs.) or 23 psi-ms 31 psi-ms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5'' Naval gunfire................................................ 9.54 413 227/269 43 23 549
76 mm Rounds..................................................... 1.6 168 95/150 19 13 549
MK-82............................................................ 238 2720 1584/809 302 153 914
MK-83............................................................ 574 4056 2374/1102 468 195 914
MK-84............................................................ 945 5196 3050/1327 611 226 914
SSQ-110 IEER..................................................... 5 NA 325/271 155 76 914
MK-48............................................................ 851 NA 2588/1198 762 442 1852
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table Also Indicates Range to Indicated Threshold and Size of Navy Exclusion Zone Used in Mitigation. Units Are Meters.
Sinking Exercise (SINKEX)--In a SINKEX, a specially prepared,
deactivated vessel is deliberately sunk using multiple weapons systems.
The exercise provides training to ship and aircraft crews in delivering
both live and inert ordnance on a real target. These target vessels are
empty, cleaned, and environmentally-remediated ship hulks. A SINKEX
target is towed to sea and set adrift at the SINKEX location. The
duration of a SINKEX is unpredictable since it ends when the target
sinks, sometimes immediately after the first weapon impact and
sometimes only after multiple impacts by a variety of weapons.
Typically, the exercise lasts for 4 to 8 hours over 1 to 2 days. The
Navy proposes to conduct one SINKEX during each summertime exercise in
the GoA TMAA (maximum of two). Potential harassment would be from
underwater detonation. SINKEX events have been conducted in the Pacific
at Navy training range complexes off Southern California, the Pacific
Northwest, Hawaii, and the Mariana Islands, in compliance with 40 CFR
229.2.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grants the Navy a general
permit through the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act to
transport vessels ``for the purpose of sinking such vessels in ocean
waters * * *'' (40 CFR 229.2). Subparagraph (a)(3) of this regulation
states ``All such vessel sinkings shall be conducted in water at least
1,000 fathoms (6,000 feet) deep and at least 50 nautical miles from
land.''
SINKEX events typically include at least one surface combatant
(frigate, destroyer, or cruiser); one submarine; and numerous fixed-
wing and rotary-wing aircraft. One surface ship will serve as a
surveillance platform to ensure the hulk does not pose a hazard to
navigation prior to and during the SINKEX. The weapons actually
expended during a SINKEX can vary greatly. Table 1-7 in the Navy's
application indicates the typical ordnance that may be used in a
SINKEX, which may include missiles, bombs, 5'' gunfire, and a single
MK-48 torpedo. This table reflects the planning for weapons, which may
be expended during one SINKEX in the GoA TMAA. This level of ordnance
is expected for each of the two possible SINKEX events in the GoA TMAA.
With the exception of the single torpedo, which is designed to explode
below the target hulk in the water column, the weapons deployed during
a SINKEX are intended to strike the target hulk, and thus not explode
within the water column.
Surface-to-Surface Gunnery Exercise (S-S GUNEX)--These exercises
train surface ship crews in high-speed surface engagement procedures
against mobile (towed or self-propelled) seaborne targets. Both live
and inert training rounds are used against the targets. The training
consists of the pre-attack phase, including locating, identifying, and
tracking the threat vessel, and the attack phase in which the missile
is launched and flies to the target. In a live-fire event, aircraft
conduct a surveillance flight to ensure that the range is clear of
nonparticipating ships. These activities may occur within the GoA TMAA
and have the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock resulting in MMPA Level B harassment as defined for military
readiness activities.
For S-S GUNEX from a Navy ship, gun crews engage surface targets at
sea with their main battery 5-inch and 76mm guns as well as smaller
surface targets with 25mm, 0.50-caliber (cal), or 7.62mm machine guns,
with the goal of disabling or destroying the threat target. For a
surface-to-surface GUNEX from a Navy small boat, the weapon used is
typically a 0.50 cal, 7.62-mm, or 40-mm machine gun.
The number of rounds fired depends on the weapon used for S-S
GUNEX. For 0.50-cal, 7.62-mm, or 40-mm ordnance, the number of rounds
is approximately 200, 800, and 10 rounds, respectively. For the ship
main battery guns, the gun crews typically fire approximately 60 rounds
of 5-inch or 76-mm ordnance during one exercise. These activities may
occur within the GoA TMAA.
Air-to-Surface Gunnery Exercise (A-S GUNEX)--Strike fighter
aircraft and helicopter crews, including embarked
[[Page 64517]]
Naval Special Warfare (NSW) personnel use guns to attack surface
maritime targets, day or night, with the goal of destroying or
disabling enemy ships, boats, or floating or near-surface mines. These
training activities have the potential to disturb a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock resulting in MMPA Level B harassment as defined for
military readiness activities.
For fixed-wing A-S GUNEX, a flight of two F/A-18 aircraft will
begin a descent to the target from an altitude of about 3,000 ft (914
m) while still several miles away. Within a distance of 4,000 ft (1,219
m) from the target, each aircraft will fire a burst of about 30 rounds
before reaching an altitude of 1,000 ft (305 m), then break off and
reposition for another strafing run until each aircraft expends its
exercise ordnance allowance of about 250 rounds from its 20mm cannon.
For rotary-wing A-S GUNEX, a single helicopter will carry several
air crewmen needing gunnery training and fly at an altitude between 50
and 100 ft (15 to 30 m) in a 300-ft (91-m) racetrack pattern around an
at-sea target. Each gunner will expend about 200 rounds of 0.50 cal and
800 rounds of 7.62-mm ordnance in each exercise. The target is normally
a noninstrumented floating object such as an expendable smoke float,
steel drum, or cardboard box, but may be a remote-controlled speed boat
or jet ski type target. The exercise lasts about 1 hour and occurs
within the GoA TMAA.
Air-to-Surface Missile Exercise (A-S MISSILEX)--An air-to-surface
MISSILEX involves fixed-winged aircraft and helicopter crews launching
missiles at surface maritime targets, day and night, with the goal of
training to destroy or disable enemy ships or boats. These activities
may occur within the TMAA; however, all missile launches would be
simulated; therefore, MISSILEX activities are not likely to disturb a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock resulting in MMPA Level B
harassment as defined for military readiness activities.
For helicopter A-S MISSILEX, one or two MH-60R/S helicopters
approach and acquire an at-sea surface target, which is then designated
with a laser to guide an AGM-114 Hellfire missile to the target. The
laser designator may be onboard the helicopter firing the hellfire,
another helicopter, or another source. The helicopter simulates
launching a missile from an altitude of about 300 ft (91 m) against a
specially prepared target with an expendable target area on a
nonexpendable platform. The platform fitted with the expendable target
could be a stationary barge, a remote-controlled speed boat, or a jet
ski towing a trimaran whose infrared signature has been augmented with
a heat source (charcoal or propane) to better represent a typical
threat vessel. All missile firings would be simulated.
For an air-to-surface MISSILEX fired from fixed-wing aircraft, the
simulated missile used is typically an AGM-84 Standoff Land Attack
Missile-Expanded Response (SLAM-ER), an AGM-84 Harpoon, or an AGM-65
Maverick. A flight of one or two aircraft approach an at-sea surface
target from an altitude between 40,000 ft (12,192 m) and 25,000 ft
(7,620 m) for SLAM-ER or Harpoon, and between 25,000 ft (7,620 m) and
5,000 ft (1,524 m) for Maverick, complete the internal targeting
process, and simulate launching the weapon at the target from beyond
150 nm (278 km) for SLAM-ER and from beyond 12 nm (22 km) for Maverick.
The majority of unit level exercises involve the use of captive carry
(inert, no release) training missiles; the aircraft perform all
detection, tracking, and targeting requirements without actually
releasing a missile. These activities may occur within the GoA TMAA and
all missile launches would be simulated.
Air-to-Surface Bombing Exercise (BOMBEX)--During an air-to-surface
BOMBEX, maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) or F/A-18 deliver free-fall
bombs against surface maritime targets, with the goal of destroying or
disabling enemy ships or boats.
A flight of one or two aircraft will approach the target from an
altitude of 15,000 ft (4,570 m) to less than 3,000 ft (914 m) while
adhering to designated ingress and egress routes. Typical bomb release
altitude is below 3,000 ft (914 m) and within a range of 1,000 yards
(yd) (914 m) for unguided munitions, and above 15,000 ft (4,572 m) and
in excess of 10 nm (18 km) for precision-guided munitions. Exercises at
night will normally be done with captive carry (no drop) weapons
because of safety considerations. Laser designators from aircraft
releasing ordnance or a support aircraft are used to illuminate
certified targets for use with lasers when using laser guided weapons.
Bombs used could include BDU-45 (inert) or MK-82/83/84 (live and
inert). These activities may occur within the GoA TMAA and have the
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock resulting
in MMPA Level B harassment as defined for military readiness
activities. In the near future, the Navy will be transitioning all
carrier based MK-80 series bombs to BLU 110, 111, and 117 live and
inert bombs. The difference is that the BLU-series bombs contain
insensitive (less likely to accidently explode) high explosives, which
make them safer for carrier-based operations. All other attributes
would remain the same.
EER-IEER AN/SSQ-110A--The Extended Echo Ranging and Improved
Extended Echo Ranging (EER/IEER) systems are airborne ASW systems used
in conducting ``large area'' searches for submarines. These systems are
made up of airborne avionics ASW acoustic processing and sonobuoy types
that are deployed in pairs. The IEER system's active sonobuoy has two
components: An AN/SSQ-110A Sonobuoy, which generates a sound similar to
a ``sonar ping'' using a small explosive; and a passive AN/SSQ-77
Sonobuoy, which ``listens'' for the return echo of the ``sonar ping''
that has been bounced off the surface of a submarine. These sonobuoys
are designed to provide underwater acoustic data necessary for naval
aircrews to quickly and accurately detect submerged submarines. The
sonobuoy pairs are dropped from a fixed-wing aircraft into the ocean in
a predetermined pattern with a few buoys covering a very large area.
The AN/SSQ-110A Sonobuoy Series is an expendable and commandable
sonobuoy. Upon command from the aircraft, the bottom payload is
released to sink to a designated operating depth. A second command is
required from the aircraft to cause the second payload to release and
detonate the explosive to generate a ``ping.'' There is only one
detonation in the pattern of buoys at a time. Potential harassment
would be from underwater detonations.
The MAC system (described in the sonar source section) will
eventually replace the EER/IEER system and was analyzed for this
proposed rule.
Vessel Movement
Many of the proposed activities within the GoA TMAA involve
maneuvers by various types of surface ships, boats, and submarines
(collectively referred to as vessels). According to the Navy's
application, up to seven Navy vessels (six surface ships and one
submarine) may be operating within the GoA TMAA. In addition, the
Navy's DEIS stated that under the preferred alternative (Alternative 2)
19 contracted support vessels may also be operating within the GoA
TMAA. Within the maximum two summer exercises, the length of the
exercise, the number of vessels, and the allotted at-sea time within
the GoA TMAA during an exercise will be variable between years. These
variations cannot be predicted given unknowns including the
availability of participants for the
[[Page 64518]]
annual exercise(s), which is a direct result of factors such as Navy
responses to real-world events (e.g., tactical deployments, disaster
relief, humanitarian assistance, etc.), planned and unplanned
deployments, vessel availability due to funding and maintenance cycles,
and logistic concerns with conducting an exercise in the GoA.
Vessel movements have the potential to affect marine mammals by
directly striking or disturbing individual animals. The probability of
vessel and marine mammal interactions occurring in the GoA TMAA is
dependent on several factors including numbers, types, and speeds of
vessels; the regularity, duration, and spatial extent of activities;
the presence/absence and density of marine mammals; and protective
measures implemented by the Navy. During training activities, speeds
vary and depend on the specific training activity. In general, Navy
vessels move in a coordinated manner, but can be separated by many
miles in distance. These activities are widely dispersed throughout the
GoA TMAA, which is a vast area encompassing 42,146 nm\2\ (145,458
km\2\). Consequently, the density of Navy vessels within the GoA TMAA
at any given time is extremely low.
Additional information on the Navy's proposed activities may be
found in the LOA Application and the Navy's GoA TMAA DEIS.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activities
Twenty-six marine mammal species or populations/stocks have
confirmed or possible occurrence within or adjacent to the GoA,
including seven species of baleen whales (mysticetes), 13 species of
toothed whales (odontocetes), five species of seals (pinnipeds), and
the sea otter (mustelid). Nine of these species are ESA-listed and
considered depleted under the MMPA: Blue whale, fin whale, humpback
whale, sei whale, sperm whale, North Pacific right whale, Cook Inlet
beluga whale, Steller sea lion, and sea otter. Table 4 summarizes their
abundance, Endangered Species Act (ESA) status, occurrence, density,
and likely occurrence in the TMAA during the April to October
timeframe. The sea otter is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and will not be addressed further here.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 64519]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19OC10.007
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Species Not Considered Further
Cook Inlet Beluga Whale--The likelihood of a Cook Inlet beluga
whale (Delphinapterus leucas) occurring in the TMAA is extremely low.
Only 28 sightings of beluga whales in the GoA have been reported from
1936 to 2000 (Laidre et al., 2000). The nearest beluga whales to the
TMAA are in Cook Inlet with a 2008 abundance estimate of 375 whales in
the Cook Inlet stock (NMFS 2008). In October 2008, the Cook Inlet
beluga whale distinct population segment was listed as endangered under
the ESA (73 FR 62919, October 22, 2008). Prior to listing, the
population had been designated as depleted under the MMPA (NMFS, 2008).
Cook Inlet is approximately 70 nm (129.6 km) from the nearest edge of
the TMAA and the Cook Inlet beluga whales do not leave the waters of
Cook Inlet (NMFS, 2007, 2008). Based on this information, it is highly
unlikely for a Cook Inlet beluga whale to be present in the action
area. Consequently, this distinct population segment will not be
considered in the remainder of this analysis.
False Killer Whale--The likelihood of a false killer whale
(Pseudorca crassidens) being present in the TMAA is extremely low.
False killer whales are found in tropical and temperate waters,
generally between 50[deg] S and 50[deg] N latitude (Baird et al., 1989;
Odell and McClune, 1999). The southernmost point boundary of the TMAA
is well north of 55[deg] N latitude. There have been records of false
killer whale sightings as far north as the Aleutian Islands and Prince
William Sound in the past (Leatherwood et al., 1988). In addition, a
false killer whale was sighted in May 2003 near Juneau, but this was
considered to be far north of its normal range (DoN, 2006). There are
no abundance estimates available for this
[[Page 64520]]
species in the NMFS stock assessment report for this area of the
Pacific. In summary, false killer whales are considered extralimital to
the TMAA and will not be considered further in this analysis.
Northern Right Whale Dolphin--The likelihood of a northern right
whale dolphin (Lissodelphis borealis) occurring in the TMAA is
extremely low. This species occurs in North Pacific oceanic waters and
along the outer continental shelf and slope in cool temperate waters
colder than 20[deg] C. This species is distributed approximately from
30[deg] N to 55[deg] N and 145[deg] W to 118[deg] E (both south and
east of the TMAA). There are two records of northern right whale
dolphins in the GoA (one just south of Kodiak Island), but these are
considered extremely rare (DoN, 2006). There are no abundance estimates
for this species in the NMFS stock assessment report for this area of
the Pacific. Given the extremely low likelihood of this species
occurrence in the action area, the northern right whale dolphin will
not be considered further in this analysis.
Risso's Dolphin--The likelihood of Risso's dolphin (Grampus
griseus) occurring in the action area is extremely low. The Risso's
dolphin is distributed worldwide in tropical to warm-temperate waters,
roughly between 60[deg] N and 60[deg] S, where surface water
temperature is usually greater than 10[deg] C (Kruse et al., 1999). The
average sea surface temperature for the GoA is reported to be
approximately 9.6[deg] C and has undergone a warming trend since 1957
(Aquarone and Adams, 2008). The average summer temperature within the
upper 328 ft (100 m) of the TMAA is approximately 11[deg] C based on
data as presented in the modeling analysis undertaken by the Navy. In
the eastern Pacific, Risso's dolphins range from the GoA to Chile
(Leatherwood et al., 1980; Reimchen, 1980; Braham, 1983; Olavarria et
al., 2001). Water temperature appears to be a factor that affects the
distribution of Risso's dolphins in the Pacific (Leatherwood et al.,
1980; Kruse et al., 1999). Risso's dolphins are expected to be
extralimital in the TMAA. They prefer tropical to warm temperate waters
and have seldom been sighted in the cold waters of the GoA. Records of
Risso's dolphins near the TMAA include sightings near Chirikof Island
(southwest of Kodiak Island) and offshore in the GoA, just south of the
TMAA boundary (Consiglieri et al., 1980; Braham, 1983). Given the
extremely low likelihood of this species occurrence in the action area,
the Risso's dolphin will not be considered further in this analysis.
Short-Finned Pilot Whale--Short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala
macrohynchus) are not expected to occur in the GoA TMAA. This species
is found in tropical to warm temperate seas, generally in deep offshore
areas, and they do not usually range north of 50[deg] N (DoN, 2006).
There are two records of this species in Alaskan waters. In 1937, a
short-finned pilot whale was taken near Katanak on the Alaska Peninsula
and a group of five short-finned pilot whales were sighted just
southeast of Kodiak Island in May 1977 (DoN, 2006). There are no
abundance estimates available for this species in the NMFS stock
assessment report for this area of the Pacific. Given the extremely low
likelihood of this species' occurrence in the action area, the short-
finned pilot whale will not be considered further in this analysis.
The Navy has compiled information on the abundance, behavior,
status and distribution, and vocalizations of marine mammal species in
the GoA TMAA waters from the Navy Marine Resource Assessment and has
supplemented this information with additional citations derived from
new survey efforts and scientific publications. NMFS has designated
stocks of marine mammals in the waters surroundin