Taking and Importing Marine Mammals: Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to U.S. Navy Operations of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active Sonar, 842-894 [2011-33600]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
842
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 218
[Docket No. 110808485–1534–01]
RIN 0648–BB14
Taking and Importing Marine
Mammals: Taking Marine Mammals
Incidental to U.S. Navy Operations of
Surveillance Towed Array Sensor
System Low Frequency Active Sonar
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,
by harassment, incidental to conducting
operations of Surveillance Towed Array
Sensor System (SURTASS) Low
Frequency Active (LFA) sonar in areas
of the world’s oceans (with the
exception of Arctic and Antarctic waters
and certain geographic restrictions),
from August 16, 2012, through August
15, 2017. Pursuant to the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS
is proposing regulations to govern that
take and requests information,
suggestions, and comments on these
proposed regulations.
DATES: Comments and information must
be received no later than February 6,
2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by 0648–BB14, 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 P. Michael Payne, Chief,
Permits, Conservation and Education
Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315
East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD
20910.
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.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
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. To help NMFS
process and review comments more
efficiently, please use only one method
to submit comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeannine Cody, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability
The public may obtain an electronic
copy of the Navy’s application by
writing to the address specified above
this section (see ADDRESSES),
telephoning the contact listed above this
section (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT), or by visiting the Internet at:
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental.htm#applications. The Navy
published a Federal Register Notice of
Availability of a Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement/
Supplemental Overseas Environmental
Impact Statement (DSEIS/SOEIS) for
employment of SURTASS LFA sonar on
August 19, 2011. The public may view
the document at: https://www.surtass-lfaeis.com. NMFS is participating in the
development of the Navy’s DSEIS/
SOEIS as a cooperating agency under
the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1972.
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972,
as amended (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
small numbers of marine mammals by
U.S. citizens who engage in a specified
activity (other than commercial fishing)
within a specified geographical region
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, a 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), and will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for
subsistence uses (where relevant). The
authorization must set forth the
permissible methods of taking, other
means of effecting the least practicable
adverse impact on the species or stock
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and its habitat, and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring
and reporting of such taking.
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)
amended the MMPA by removing the
‘‘small numbers’’ and ‘‘specified
geographical region’’ provisions and
amended the definition of ‘‘harassment’’
as it applies to a ‘‘military readiness
activity’’ (as defined in section 315(f) of
Public Law 107–314; 16 U.S.C. 703
note) to read as follows (Section 3(18)(B)
of the MMPA):
(i) Any act that injures or has the
significant potential to injure a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild
[Level A Harassment]; or
(ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely to
disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption of
natural behavior patterns, including, but not
limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing,
breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point
where such behavioral patterns are
abandoned or significantly altered [Level B
Harassment].
Summary of Request
On August 17, 2011, NMFS received
an application from the U.S. Navy
requesting authorization for the take of
individuals of 94 species of marine
mammals (70 cetaceans and 24
pinnipeds), by harassment, incidental to
upcoming routine training and testing of
the SURTASS LFA sonar system, as
well as the use of the system on a
maximum of four U.S. Naval ships
during military operations in certain
areas of the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian
Oceans and the Mediterranean Sea from
August 16, 2012 through August 15,
2017. These routine training and testing
and military operations are classified as
military readiness activities. The Navy
states, and NMFS concurs, that these
military readiness activities may
incidentally take marine mammals
present within the Navy’s operation
areas by exposing them to sound from
low-frequency active sonar sources. The
Navy requests authorization to take
individuals of 94 species of marine
mammals by Level A and Level B
Harassment, although as discussed later
in this document, Level A Harassment
will likely be avoided through the
implementation of the Navy’s proposed
mitigation measures.
This is NMFS’ third rule making for
SURTASS LFA sonar operations under
the MMPA. NMFS’ current five-year
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
regulations governing incidental takings
incidental to SURTASS LFA sonar
activities and the related Letters of
Authorizations (LOA) expire on August
15, 2012. NMFS published the first rule,
effective from August 2002 through
August 2007, on July 16, 2002 (67 FR
46712), and published the second rule
on August 21, 2007 (72 FR 46846). For
this proposed rule making, the Navy is
proposing to conduct the same types of
sonar activities as they have conducted
over the past nine years.
Description of the Specified Activities
Purpose and Background
The Navy’s mission is to maintain,
train, equip, and operate combat-ready
naval forces capable of accomplishing
American strategic objectives, deterring
maritime aggression, and maintaining
freedom of the seas. Section 5062 of
Title 10 of the United States Code
directs the Secretary of the Navy and
Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) to
ensure the readiness of the U.S. naval
forces.
The Secretary of the Navy and the
CNO have established that antisubmarine warfare (ASW) is a critical
part of the Navy’s mission that requires
access to both the open-ocean and
littoral environments and continual
training to prepare for all potential
threats. The Navy is challenged by the
increased difficulty in locating undersea
threats solely by using passive acoustic
technologies due to the advancement
and use of quieting technologies in
diesel-electric and nuclear submarines.
The range at which the Navy’s ASW
assets are able to identify submarine
threats is decreasing, and at the same
time, improvements in torpedo design
are extending the effective weapons
range of subsea threats to the U.S. naval
fleet.
To address these changing
requirements for ASW readiness, the
Navy developed SURTASS LFA sonar,
which provides the Navy with a reliable
and dependable system for long-range
detection of quieter, harder-to-find
submarines. Because low-frequency (LF)
sound travels in seawater for greater
distances than higher frequency sound,
the Navy states that the SURTASS LFA
sonar system would meet the need for
improved detection and tracking of
new-generation submarines at a longer
range and would maximize the
opportunity for U.S. armed forces to
safely react to, and defend against,
potential submarine threats while
remaining a safe distance beyond a
submarine’s effective weapons range.
Thus, the Navy believes that the active
acoustic component in the SURTASS
LFA sonar is an important augmentation
to its passive and tactical systems, as its
long-range detection capabilities can
effectively counter the threat to the U.S.
Navy and national security interests
posed by quiet, diesel submarines.
Specified Activities
As previously mentioned, the Navy
has requested MMPA authorization to
take marine mammals incidental to the
operation of up to four SURTASS LFA
sonar systems for routine training and
testing as well as for the use of the
system during military operations from
August 16, 2012 through August 15,
2017. The SURTASS LFA sonar system
is a long-range, LF sonar (between 100
and 500 Hertz (Hz)) that has both active
and passive components (see the
Description of SURTASS LFA Sonar
section later in this document). Use of
843
the LFA sonar system could occur in the
Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans, and
the Mediterranean Sea on a maximum of
four naval surveillance vessels: the
USNS ABLE, USNS EFFECTIVE, USNS
IMPECCABLE, and the USNS
VICTORIOUS. The Navy states that they
will not operate SURTASS LFA sonar in
Arctic and Antarctic waters. Further, the
Navy also proposes to operate
SURTASS LFA sonar such that the
sound field does not exceed 180
decibels (dB) within 22 kilometers (km)
(13.7 miles (mi); 12 nautical miles (nm)
of land; or in proposed offshore
biologically important areas (OBIA) for
marine mammals, identified later in this
document, in the Navy’s application,
and in the Navy’s 2011 DSEIS/SOEIS
(see Geographic Restrictions section
later in this document).
Because of uncertainties in the
world’s political climate, the Navy
cannot predict a detailed account of
future operating locations and
conditions. However, for analytical
purposes, the Navy has developed a
nominal annual deployment schedule
and operational concept based on
current LFA sonar operations since
January 2003 and projected naval fleet
requirements (See Table 1).
The Navy anticipates that a normal
SURTASS LFA sonar deployment
schedule for a single vessel would
involve approximately 294 days per
year at sea, which includes 240 days of
active sonar transmissions and 54 days
of transit. SURTASS LFA sonar would
operate day and night in a variety of
weather conditions. NMFS refers the
reader to Table 1 for additional details
on the nominal annual deployment
schedule for SURTASS LFA sonar
vessels.
TABLE 1—EXAMPLE ANNUAL DEPLOYMENT SCHEDULE FOR ONE SURVEILLANCE VESSEL USING SURTASS LFA SONAR
On mission
Days
Off mission
Days
Transit .......................................................................................
Active Operations:
432 transmission hours based on a 7.5% duty cycle .......
54
In-Port Upkeep .........................................................................
40
240
Regular Overhaul .....................................................................
31
Total Days on Mission ................................................
294
Total Days off Mission ......................................................
71
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Potential SURTASS LFA Sonar
Operational Areas
Figure 1 depicts the potential areas of
operation for SURTASS LFA sonar.
Based on the Navy’s current operational
requirements, potential operations for
SURTASS LFA sonar vessels from
August 2012 through August 2017
would most likely include areas located
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
in the Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic
Oceans and Mediterranean Sea.
The Navy will not operate SURTASS
LFA sonar in polar regions (i.e., Arctic
and Antarctic waters) of the world (see
shaded areas in Figure 1). The Arctic
Ocean, the Bering Sea (including Bristol
Bay and Norton Sound), portions of the
Norwegian, Greenland, and Barents Seas
north of 72° North (N) latitude, plus
Baffin Bay, Hudson Bay, and the Gulf of
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
St. Lawrence would be non-operational
areas for SURTASS LFA sonar. In the
Antarctic, the Navy will not conduct
SURTASS LFA operations in areas
south of 60° South (S) latitude. The
Navy has excluded polar waters from
operational planning because of the
inherent inclement weather conditions
and the navigational and operational
(equipment) danger that icebergs pose to
SURTASS LFA sonar vessels.
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
844
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
The Navy must anticipate, or predict,
where they have to operate in the next
five years or so for the MMPA
authorization. Naval forces are presently
operating in several areas strategic to
U.S national and international interests,
including areas in the Atlantic Ocean,
the Mediterranean Sea, the Indian
Ocean and Persian Gulf, and the Pacific
Rim. National Security needs may
dictate that many of these operational
areas will be close to ports and choke
points, such as entrances to straits,
channels, and canals. It is anticipated
that many future naval conflicts are
likely to occur within littoral or coastal
areas. However, it is infeasible for the
Navy to analyze all potential mission
areas for all species and stocks for all
seasons. Instead, the Navy projects
where it intends to test, train, and
operate for the next five-year
authorization period based on today’s
political climate and provides NMFS
with risk estimates for marine mammal
stocks in the proposed areas of
operation.
For this third rulemaking, the Navy
has modeled and analyzed 19
operational areas for SURTASS LFA
operations that would be relevant to
U.S. national security interests (see
Table 2). They include the following
modeled areas: East of Japan; north
Philippine Sea; west Philippine Sea;
offshore Guam; Sea of Japan; East China
Sea; the south China Sea; the northwest
Pacific Ocean; the Hawai’i Range
Complex; Offshore Southern California
in the Southern California (SOCAL)
Range Complex; the western Atlantic in
the Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar (AFAST)
Study Area/Jacksonville (JAX)
operational area (OPAREA); the eastern
North Atlantic (western approach); the
Mediterranean and Ligurian Seas; the
Arabian Sea; the Andaman Sea
(approaches to the Strait of Malacca);
the Panama Canal (western approach);
and the northeast Australian Coast.
TABLE 2—POTENTIAL SURTASS LFA SONAR OPERATING AREAS THAT THE NAVY MODELED FOR THE DSEIS/OEIS
(DON, 2011) AND THE MMPA LOA APPLICATION
38° N, 148° E
29° N, 136° E
West Philippine Sea .............................................
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
East of Japan .......................................................
North Philippine Sea ............................................
22° N, 124° E
Offshore Guam (Mariana Islands Range Complex, outside Mariana Trench).
Sea of Japan ........................................................
East China Sea ....................................................
South China Sea ..................................................
11° N, 145° E
39° N, 132° E
26° N, 125° E
21° N, 119° E
NW Pacific 25° to 40° N .......................................
NW Pacific 10° to 25° N .......................................
Hawai’i North (Hawai’i Range Complex) ..............
30° N, 165° E
15° N, 165° E
25° N, 158° W
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Location
(latitude/
longitude)
Modeled site
Hawaii South (Hawai’i Range Complex) .............
Offshore Southern California (Southern California (SOCAL) Range Complex).
Western Atlantic (off Florida) (Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar (AFAST) Study Area/Jacksonville.
Eastern North Atlantic (western approach) .........
Mediterranean Sea—Ligurian Sea ......................
Arabian Sea .........................................................
Andaman Sea (approaches to the Strait of Malacca).
Panama Canal (western approach) .....................
Northeast Australian Coast ..................................
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
19.5° N, 158.5° W.
32° N, 120° W.
30° N, 78° W.
56.5° N, 10° W.
43° N, 8° E.
20°N, 65°E.
7.5° N, 96° E.
5° N, 81° W.
23° S, 155° E.
EP06JA12.000</GPH>
Location
(latitude/
longitude)
Modeled site
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Acoustic stimuli (i.e., increased
underwater sound) generated during the
transmission of low-frequency acoustic
signals by the SURTASS LFA sonar
system has the potential to cause take of
marine mammals in the operational
areas. The operation of the SURTASS
LFA sonar system during at-sea
operations would result in the
generation of sound or pressure waves
in the water at or above levels that
NMFS has determined would result in
take. This is the principal means of
marine mammal taking associated with
these military readiness activities and
the Navy has requested an authorization
to take 94 species of marine mammals
by Level A and Level B harassment. At
no point are there expected to be more
than four systems in use, and thus this
proposed rule analyzes the impacts on
marine mammals due to the deployment
of up to four LFA sonar systems from
2012 through 2017.
In addition to the use of active
acoustic sources, the Navy’s activities
include the operation and movement of
vessels that are necessary to conduct the
routine training and testing as well as
the use of the system during military
operations. This document also analyzes
the effects of this part of the activities.
However, NMFS does not anticipate
take to result from collision with any of
the four SURTASS LFA vessels because
each vessel moves at a relatively slow
speed, for a relatively short period of
time. It is likely that any marine
mammal would be able to avoid the
surveillance vessels.
Description of SURTASS LFA Sonar
SONAR is an acronym for Sound
Navigation and Ranging, and its
definition includes any system
(biological or mechanical) that uses
underwater sound, or acoustics, for
detection, monitoring, and/or
communications. Active sonar is the
transmission of sound energy for the
purpose of sensing the environment by
interpreting features of received signals.
Active sonar detects objects by creating
a sound pulse or ping that is transmitted
through the water and reflects off the
target, returning in the form of an echo.
Passive sonar detects the transmission
of sound waves created by an object.
The SURTASS LFA sonar system is a
long-range, all-weather sonar system
that has both active and passive
components. LFA, the active system
component (which allows for the
detection of an object that is not
generating noise), is comprised of
source elements (called projectors)
suspended vertically on a cable beneath
the surveillance vessel. The projectors
produce an active sound pulse (i.e., a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
ping) by converting electrical energy to
mechanical energy by setting up
vibrations or pressure disturbances
within the water to produce a ping. The
Navy uses LFA as an augmentation to
SURTASS operations when passive
system performance is inadequate.
SURTASS, the passive part of the
system, uses hydrophones (i.e.,
underwater microphones) to detect
sound emitted or reflected from
submerged targets, such as submarines.
The SURTASS hydrophones are
mounted on a horizontal line array that
is towed behind the surveillance vessel.
The Navy then processes and evaluates
the returning signals or echoes, which
are usually below background or
ambient sound level, to identify and
classify potential underwater targets.
LFA Active Component
The active component of the
SURTASS LFA sonar system consists of
up to 18 projectors suspended beneath
the surveillance vessel in a vertical line
array. The expected water depth at the
center of the array is approximately 400
ft (121.9 m). The SURTASS LFA sonar
projectors transmit in the low-frequency
band (between 100 and 500 Hz) and the
Navy will not transmit the SURTASS
LFA sonar signal at a frequency greater
than 500 Hz. The source level of an
individual projector in the SURTASS
LFA sonar array is approximately 215
dB re: 1 mPa at 1 m or less. (Sound
pressure is the sound force per unit area
and is usually measured in micropascals
(mPa), where one Pascal (Pa) is the
pressure resulting from a force of one
newton exerted over an area of one
square meter. The commonly used
reference pressure level in underwater
acoustics is 1 mPa at 1 m, and the units
are decibels (dB) re: 1 mPa at 1 m).
Because of the physics involved in
acoustic beamforming (i.e., a method of
mapping noise sources by
differentiating sound levels based upon
the direction from which they originate)
and sound transmission loss processes,
the SURTASS LFA sonar array cannot
have a sound pressure level (SPL)
higher than the SPL of an individual
projector.
The SURTASS LFA sonar acoustic
transmission is an omnidirectional
beam (a full 360 degrees (°)) in the
horizontal plane. The LFA sonar system
also has a narrow vertical beam that the
vessel’s crew can steer above or below
the horizontal plane. The typical
SURTASS LFA sonar signal is not a
constant tone, but rather a transmission
of various signal types that vary in
frequency and duration (including
continuous wave (CW) and frequencymodulated (FM) signals). A complete
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
845
sequence of sound transmissions, also
referred to by the Navy as a ‘‘ping’’ or
a wavetrain, can last as short as six
seconds (sec) to as long as 100 sec with
an average length of 60 sec. Within each
ping, the duration of any continuous
frequency sound transmission is no
longer than 10 sec and the time between
pings is typically from six to 15 minutes
(min). Based on the Navy’s historical
operating parameters over the past nine
years, the average duty cycle (i.e., the
ratio of sound ‘‘on’’ time to total time)
for LFA sonar is normally 7.5 to 10
percent and the duty cycle is not
expected to exceed 20 percent.
Compact LFA Active Component
At present, the USNS IMPECCABLE is
the only naval vessel with an
operational LFA sonar system. To meet
future undersea warfare requirements in
littoral waters, the Navy has developed
a compact LFA (CLFA) sonar system
now deployed on its three smaller
surveillance vessels (i.e., the USNS
ABLE, EFFECTIVE, and VICTORIOUS).
In the application, the Navy indicates
that the operational characteristics of
the active component CLFA are
comparable to the existing LFA systems
and that the potential impacts from
CLFA will be similar to the effects from
the existing LFA sonar system. CLFA
consists of smaller projectors that weigh
142,000 lbs (64,410 kilograms (kg)),
which is 182,000 lbs (82,554 kg) less
that the mission weight of the LFA
projectors on the USNS IMPECCABLE.
The CLFA sonar system also consists of
up to 18 projectors suspended beneath
the surveillance vessel in a vertical line
array and the CLFA sonar projectors
transmit in the low-frequency band (also
between 100 and 500 Hz). Similar to the
active component of the LFA system,
the source level of an individual
projector in the CLFA sonar array is
approximately 215 dB re: 1 mPa or less.
For the analysis in this document,
NMFS will use the term LFA to refer to
both the LFA sonar system and/or the
CLFA sonar system, unless otherwise
specified.
SURTASS Passive Component
The passive component of the
SURTASS LFA system consists of a
SURTASS Twin-line (TL–29A)
horizontal line array mounted with
hydrophones. The Y-shaped array is
1,000 ft (305 m) in length and has an
operational depth of 500 to 1,500 ft
(152.4 to 457.2 m). The SURTASS LFA
sonar vessel typically maintains a speed
of at least 3.4 mph (5.6 km/hr; 3 knots
(kts)) to tow the array astern of the
vessel in the correct horizontal
configuration.
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
846
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
High-Frequency Active Sonar
Although technically not part of the
SURTASS LFA sonar system, the Navy
also proposes to use a high-frequency
sonar system, called the High Frequency
Marine Mammal Monitoring sonar (HF/
M3 sonar), developed by the Navy and
Scientific Solutions, Inc., to detect and
locate marine mammals within the
SURTASS LFA sonar operational areas.
This enhanced commercial fish-finding
sonar, mounted at the top of the
SURTASS LFA sonar vertical line array,
has a source level of 220 dB re: 1 mPa
at 1 m with a frequency range from 30
to 40 kilohertz (kHz). The duty cycle is
variable, but is normally below between
three to four percent and the maximum
pulse duration is 40 milliseconds. The
HF/M3 sonar has four transducers with
8° horizontal and 10° vertical
beamwidths, which sweep a full 360° in
the horizontal plane every 45 to 60 sec
with a maximum range of
approximately 1.2 mi (2 km).
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Vessel Specifications
The Navy proposes to deploy the
SURTASS LFA sonar system on a
maximum of four U.S. Naval ships: the
USNS ABLE (T–AGOS 20), the USNS
EFFECTIVE (T–AGOS 21), the USNS
IMPECCABLE (T–AGOS 23) and the
USNS VICTORIOUS (T–AGOS 19).
The USNS ABLE, EFFECTIVE, and
VICTORIOUS, are twin-hulled ocean
surveillance ships. Each vessel has a
length of 235 feet (ft) (71.6 meters (m));
a beam of 93.6 ft (28.5 m); a maximum
draft of 25 ft (7.6 m); and a full load
displacement of 3,396 tons (3,451 metric
tons). A twin-shaft diesel electric engine
provides 3,200 horsepower (hp), which
drives two propellers.
The USNS IMPECCABLE, also a twinhulled ocean surveillance ship, has a
length of 281.5 ft (85.8 m); a beam of
95.8 ft (29.2 m); a maximum draft of 26
ft (7.9 m); and a full load displacement
of 5,368 tons (5,454 metric tons). A
twin-shaft diesel electric engine
provides 5,000 hp, which drives two
propellers.
The operational speed of each vessel
during sonar operations will be
approximately 3.4 miles per hour (mph)
(5.6 km per hour (km/hr); 3 kts) and
each vessel’s cruising speed outside of
sonar operations would be
approximately 11.5 to 14.9 mph (18.5 to
24.1 km/hr; 10 to 13 kts). The expected
minimum water depth at which the
SURTASS LFA vessel would operate is
656.2 ft (200 m) and the vessel will
generally travel in straight lines or in
oval-shaped (i.e., racetrack) patterns
depending on the operational scenario.
Also, each SURTASS LFA sonar vessel
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
would operate independently of, or in
conjunction with, other naval air,
surface or submarine assets.
Each vessel also has an observation
area on the bridge from where lookouts
will monitor for marine mammals before
and during the proposed sonar
operations. When stationed on the
bridge of the USNS ABLE, EFFECTIVE,
or VICTORIOUS, the lookout’s eye level
will be approximately 32 ft (9.7 m)
above sea level providing an
unobstructed view around the entire
vessel. For the USNS IMPECCABLE, the
lookout’s eye level will be
approximately 45 ft (13.7 m) above sea
level.
Description of Real-Time SURTASS
LFA Sonar Sound Field Modeling
This section explains how the Navy
will determine the propagation of LFA
sonar signals in the ocean and the
distance from the SURTASS LFA sonar
source to the 180-dB re: 1 mPa at 1 m
isopleth (i.e., the basis for the proposed
LFA sonar mitigation zone for marine
mammals). NMFS provides this
description to aid the public’s
understanding of this action. However,
the actual physics governing the
propagation of SURTASS LFA sound
signals is extremely complex and
dependent on numerous in-situ
environmental factors.
Prior to commencing and during
SURTASS LFA transmissions, the sonar
operators on the vessel will measure
oceanic conditions (such as sea water
temperature, salinity, and depth) in the
proposed action area. This information
is required for the sonar technicians to
accurately determine the speed at which
sound travels and to determine the path
that the sound would take through the
water column at a particular location
(i.e., the speed of sound in seawater
varies directly with depth, temperature,
and salinity).
The sonar operators use the near-real
time environmental data and the Navy’s
underwater acoustic performance
prediction models (updated every 12
hours or more frequently when
meteorological or oceanographic
conditions change) to generate a plot of
sound speed versus depth, typically
referred to as a sound speed profile
(SSP). The SSP enables the technicians
to determine the sound field by
predicting the received levels of sound
at various distances from the SURTASS
LFA sonar source location. Modeling of
the sound field in near-real time
provides the information necessary to
modify SURTASS LFA operations,
including the delay or suspension of
LFA sonar transmissions for mitigation.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Subchapter 3.1.2 of the SURTASS
LFA Sonar 2011 DSEIS/SOEIS (DoN,
2011) discusses some of the
environmental factors affecting sound
propagation. Appendix B of the 2001
SURTASS LFA Sonar FOEIS/EIS (DoN,
2001) also provides an understanding
concerning the general conditions of
sound speed in the oceans. NMFS refers
the public to these documents at
https://www.surtass-lfa-eis.com for
additional information.
Comments and Responses
On August 30, 2011 NMFS published
a notice of receipt of an application for
an LOA in the Federal Register (76 FR
53884) and requested comments and
information from the interested public
for 30 days. During the 30-day comment
period, NMFS received two comments.
One commenter opposed the project on
the grounds that it would cause
mortality to marine mammals. NMFS
notes that the Navy has not requested
lethal take of marine mammals in its
application and, for the reasons
described in this document, NMFS does
not anticipate that any mortality will
occur as a result of the Navy’s activities.
Therefore, the proposed rule only
envisions the authorization of Level A
and Level B harassment of marine
mammals. The other comment, from an
environmental non-governmental
organization, expressed concerns about
the geographic mitigation proposed in
the Navy’s DSEIS/SOEIS, focusing
particularly on the process for
identifying proposed offshore
biologically important areas (OBIAs).
NMFS undertook a systematic and
scientifically supportable process for
identifying OBIAs for this proposed rule
making. This process is summarized in
the Mitigation section of this proposed
rule and detailed in the Navy’s DSEIS/
SOEIS.
The Marine Mammal Commission
(MMC) also submitted comments to the
Navy and NMFS. Generally, the MMC
agreed that NMFS should propose
regulations governing the take of marine
mammals incidental to operation of
SURTASS LFA sonar for a third fiveyear period. However, the MMC
recommended that the Navy amend its
application and related DSEIS/SOEIS to:
(1) clarify the Navy’s take request for
marine mammals by Level A
harassment; and (2) specify the numbers
of marine mammals that could be taken
by Level A and B harassment incidental
to operating SURTASS LFA sonar,
rather than providing only the
probabilities of such takes. With respect
to the first point, NMFS notes that the
Navy’s application specifically requests
authorization for Level A harassment of
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
marine mammals incidental to
SURTASS LFA sonar operations.
With respect to the MMC’s second
point, the percentages given in Tables 6
through 27 in the Navy’s application are
not probabilities, but rather indicate the
percent of the affected stock for a
specific marine mammal species. For
the Navy’s Level A and Level B
harassment take request, that percentage
is then multiplied by the number of
animals in the relevant species or stock
to arrive at an estimated number of
animals that may be harassed by
SURTASS LFA sonar operations. The
Navy’s approach to estimating Level A
harassment and Level B harassment
takes is consistent with the approach
used in previous rules for SURTASS
LFA sonar.
This proposed rule does not specify
the number of marine mammals that
may be taken in the proposed locations
because these are determined annually
through various inputs such as mission
location, mission duration, and season
of operation. As with the previous two
rulemakings, this proposed rule
analyzes a maximum of 12 percent takes
by Level B harassment per stock
annually that will be taken per stock
annually, regardless of the number of
LFA sonar vessels operating. The Navy
will use the 12 percent cap (i.e., the
maximum percentage of a stock that
could be taken annually, not the
probability of take) to guide its mission
planning and annual LOA applications.
For the annual applications for LOAs,
the Navy proposes to present both the
estimated percentage of stock
incidentally harassed as well as the
estimated number of animals that may
be potentially harassed by SURTASS
LFA sonar.
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of the Specified Activities
Ninety-four (94) marine mammal
species or populations/stocks have
confirmed or possible occurrence within
potential SURTASS LFA operational
areas in certain areas of the Pacific,
Atlantic, and Indian Oceans and the
Mediterranean Sea. Twelve species of
baleen whales (mysticetes), 58 species
of toothed whales, dolphins, or
porpoises (odontocetes), and 24 species
of seals or sea lions (pinnipeds) could
be affected by SURTASS LFA sonar
operations.
Fifteen of the 94 marine mammal
species are listed as endangered and
three of the 94 marine mammal species
are listed as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA;
16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Marine mammal
species under NMFS’ jurisdiction listed
as endangered include: the blue whale
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
(Balaenoptera musculus); fin whale
(Balaenoptera physalus); sei whale
(Balaenoptera borealis); humpback
whale (Megaptera novaeangliae);
bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus);
North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena
glacialis); North Pacific right whale
(Eubalaena japonica); southern right
whale (Eubalaena australis); gray whale
(Eschrichtius robustus); sperm whale
(Physeter macrocephalus); the Cook
Inlet stock of beluga whale
(Delphinapterus leucas); the Southern
Resident population of Killer whale
(Orca orcinus); the western distinct
population segment (DPS) of the Steller
sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus);
Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus
monachus); and Hawaiian monk seal
(Monachus schauinslandi). Marine
mammal species under NMFS’
jurisdiction listed as threatened include:
the eastern DPS of the Steller sea lion;
the Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus
townsendi) and the southern DPS of the
spotted seal (Phoca largha). The
aforementioned threatened and
endangered marine mammal species
also are depleted under the MMPA.
In addition, the Hawaiian insular DPS
of false killer whale (Pseudorca
crassidens) is a candidate for proposed
listing under the ESA. Also, three of the
94 species are considered depleted
under the MMPA. They are: the western
north Atlantic coastal stock of
bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus);
the northeastern offshore stock of the
pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella
attenuata); and the eastern stock of the
spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris).
Ringed seals (Phoca hispida), bearded
seals (Erignathus barbatus), Chinese
river dolphins (Lipotes vexillifer) and
vaquita (Phocoena sinus) do not have
stocks designated within potential
SURTASS LFA sonar operational areas
(see Potential SURTASS LFA
Operational Areas section). The ringed
seal is found in the Northern
Hemisphere with a circumpolar
distribution ranging from 35° N to the
North Pole. Bearded seals have a
circumpolar distribution south of 85° N
latitude, extending south into the
southern Bering Sea in the Pacific and
into Hudson Bay and southern Labrador
in the Atlantic. The distribution of the
Chinese river dolphin is limited to the
main channel of a river section between
the cities of Jingzhou and Jiangyin. The
vaquita’s distribution is restricted to the
upper portion of the northern Gulf of
California, mostly within the Colorado
River delta. Based on the rare
occurrence of these species in the
Navy’s designated operational areas
(i.e., outside of Arctic waters or outside
of the coastal standoff distance of 22 km
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
847
(13. mi; 11.8 nmi)), the Navy and NMFS
do not anticipate any take of ringed
seals, bearded seals, Chinese river
dolphins, and vaquita and therefore
these species are not addressed further
in this document.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) is responsible for managing
the following marine mammal species:
southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris), polar
bear (Ursus maritimus), walrus
(Odobenus rosmarus), west African
manatee (Trichechus senegalensis),
Amazonian manatee (Trichechus
inunguis), west Indian manatee
(Trichechus manatus), and dugong
(Dugong dugon). None of these species
occur in geographic areas that would
overlap with SURTASS LFA sonar
operational areas. Therefore, the Navy
has determined that routine training and
testing of SURTASS LFA sonar as well
as the use of the system during military
operations would have no effect on the
endangered or threatened species or the
critical habitat of the ESA-listed species
under the jurisdiction of the USFWS.
These species are not considered further
in this notice.
Tables 3 through 21 summarize the
abundance, status under the ESA, and
density estimates of the marine
mammals that have confirmed or
possible occurrence within 19
SURTASS LFA sonar operating areas in
the Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic Oceans
and Mediterranean Sea. The Navy states
that they selected these 19 areas based
on relevance to national security
interests for this application. Because it
is infeasible for the Navy to model
enough representative sites to cover all
potential SURTASS LFA sonar
operating areas, the Navy provided 19
sites, based on the current political
climate, as examples of potential
operating areas in their application.
Information on how the density and
stock/abundance estimates were derived
for the selected mission sites is in the
Navy’s application. These data are
derived from current, published source
documentation, and provide general
area information for each mission area
with species-specific information on the
animals that could occur in that area,
including estimates for their stock
abundance and density. The Navy
developed the majority of the
abundance and density estimates by
first using estimates from line-transect
surveys that occurred in or near each of
the 19 model sites (e.g., Barlow, 2006).
When density estimates were not
available from a survey in the operating
area, the Navy extrapolated density
estimates from a region with similar
oceanographic characteristics to that
operating area. For example, the eastern
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
848
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tropical Pacific has been extensively
surveyed and provides a comprehensive
understanding of marine mammals in
temperate oceanic waters (Ferguson and
Barlow, 2001, 2003). Further, the Navy
pooled density estimates for species of
the same genus if sufficient data are not
available to compute a density for
individual species or the species are
difficult to distinguish at sea.
TABLE 3—ABUNDANCE AND DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR THE MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES, SPECIES GROUPS, AND STOCKS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE EAST OF JAPAN OPERATIONAL AREA
Abundance 2
Density
(animals/
Km2) 3
ESA
Status 4
Species
Stock name 1
Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) ..............................................
Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) ..................................................
Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) ...................................................
Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera edeni) ................................................
Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) ......................................
North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica) ...............................
Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) .........................................
Pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps) Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia
sima).
Baird’s beaked whale (Berardius bairdii) .........................................
Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris) ....................................
Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale (Mesoplodon ginkgodens) ...............
Hubbs beaked whale (Mesoplodon carhubbsi) ................................
False killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) ......................................
Pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata) ............................................
Short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus) .................
Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus) ..................................................
Common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) ..............................................
Fraser’s dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei) ...........................................
Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) ..........................................
Pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata) .............................
Striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) ...........................................
Spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris) .............................................
Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens) .............
Rough-toothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis) ...................................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ‘‘O’’ Stock ..........................
WNP ...........................................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
9,250
9,250
8,600
20,501
25,049
922
102,112
350,553
0.0002
0.0002
0.0006
0.0006
0.0022
< 0.00001
0.0010
0.0031
EN
EN
EN
NL
NL
EN
EN
NL
WNP ...........................................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
WNP-Pelagic ..............................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
8,000
90,725
22,799
22,799
16,668
30,214
53,608
83,289
3,286,163
220,789
168,791
438,064
570,038
1,015,059
931,000
145,729
0.0029
0.0054
0.0005
0.0005
0.0036
0.0021
0.0128
0.0097
0.0761
0.0040
0.0171
0.0259
0.0111
0.0005
0.0082
0.0059
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
1 NP
= north Pacific; WNP = western north Pacific.
to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with abundance estimates presented in this table.
to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with density estimates presented in this table.
4 ESA Status: EN = Endangered; T = Threatened; NL = Not Listed.
2 Refer
3 Refer
TABLE 4—ABUNDANCE AND DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR THE MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES, SPECIES GROUPS, AND STOCKS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE NORTH PHILIPPINE SEA OPERATIONAL AREA
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Species
Stock name 1
Bryde’s whale ...................................................................................
Minke whale .....................................................................................
North Pacific right whale ..................................................................
Sperm whale ....................................................................................
Pygmy sperm and Dwarf sperm whale ............................................
Cuvier’s beaked whale .....................................................................
Blainville’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon densirostris) ......................
Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale .........................................................
Killer whale (Orca orcinus) ...............................................................
False killer whale ..............................................................................
Pygmy killer whale ...........................................................................
Melon-headed whale (Peponocephala electra) ...............................
Short-finned pilot whale ....................................................................
Risso’s dolphin .................................................................................
Common dolphin ..............................................................................
Fraser’s dolphin ................................................................................
Bottlenose dolphin ............................................................................
Pantropical spotted dolphin ..............................................................
Striped dolphin .................................................................................
Spinner dolphin ................................................................................
Pacific white-sided dolphin ...............................................................
Rough-toothed dolphin .....................................................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ‘‘O’’ Stock ..........................
WNP ...........................................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
WNP-Pelagic ..............................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
Abundance 2
20,501
25,049
922
102,112
350,553
90,725
8,032
22,799
12,256
16,668
30,214
36,770
53,608
83,289
3,286,163
220,789
168,791
438,064
570,038
1,015,059
931,000
145,729
1 NP
Density
(animals/
Km2) 3
0.0006
0.0044
< 0.00001
0.0028
0.0031
0.0054
0.0005
0.0005
0.0004
0.0029
0.0021
0.0012
0.0153
0.0106
0.0562
0.0040
0.0146
0.0137
0.0329
0.0005
0.0119
0.0059
= north Pacific; WNP = western north Pacific.
to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with abundance estimates presented in this table.
3 Refer to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with density estimates presented in this table.
4 ESA Status: EN = Endangered; T = Threatened; NL = Not Listed.
2 Refer
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
ESA
Status 4
NL
NL
EN
EN
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
849
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5—ABUNDANCE AND DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR THE MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES, SPECIES GROUPS, AND STOCKS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE WEST PHILIPPINE SEA OPERATIONAL AREA
Species
Stock name 1
Fin whale ..........................................................................................
Bryde’s whale ...................................................................................
Minke whale .....................................................................................
Humpback whale ..............................................................................
Sperm whale ....................................................................................
Pygmy sperm and Dwarf sperm whale ............................................
Cuvier’s beaked whale .....................................................................
Blainville’s beaked whale .................................................................
Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale .........................................................
False killer whale ..............................................................................
Pygmy killer whale ...........................................................................
Melon-headed whale ........................................................................
Short-finned pilot whale ....................................................................
Risso’s dolphin .................................................................................
Common dolphin ..............................................................................
Fraser’s dolphin ................................................................................
Bottlenose dolphin ............................................................................
Pantropical spotted dolphin ..............................................................
Striped dolphin .................................................................................
Spinner dolphin ................................................................................
Pacific white-sided dolphin ...............................................................
Rough-toothed dolphin .....................................................................
NP ...............................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ‘‘O’’ Stock ..........................
WNP ...........................................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
WNP-Pelagic ..............................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
Abundance 2
9,250
20,501
25,049
1,107
102,112
350,553
90,725
8,032
22,799
16,668
30,214
36,770
53,608
83,289
3,286,163
220,789
168,791
438,064
570,038
1,015,059
931,000
145,729
Density
(animals/
Km2) 3
0.0002
0.0006
0.0033
0.0008
0.0010
0.0017
0.0003
0.0005
0.0005
0.0029
0.0021
0.0012
0.0076
0.0106
0.0562
0.0040
0.0146
0.0137
0.0164
0.0005
0.0245
0.0059
ESA
Status 4
EN
NL
NL
EN
EN
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
1 NP
= north Pacific; WNP = western north Pacific.
to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with abundance estimates presented in this table.
to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with density estimates presented in this table.
4 ESA Status: EN = Endangered; T = Threatened; NL = Not Listed.
2 Refer
3 Refer
TABLE 6—ABUNDANCE AND DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR THE MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES, SPECIES GROUPS, AND STOCKS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE OFFSHORE GUAM OPERATIONAL AREA
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Species
Stock name 1
Blue whale ........................................................................................
Fin whale ..........................................................................................
Sei whale ..........................................................................................
Bryde’s whale ...................................................................................
Minke whale .....................................................................................
Humpback whale ..............................................................................
Sperm whale ....................................................................................
Pygmy sperm and Dwarf sperm whale ............................................
Cuvier’s beaked whale .....................................................................
Blainville’s beaked whale .................................................................
Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale .........................................................
Longman’s beaked whale (Indopacetus pacificus) ..........................
Killer whale .......................................................................................
False killer whale ..............................................................................
Pygmy killer whale ...........................................................................
Melon-headed whale ........................................................................
Short-finned pilot whale ....................................................................
Risso’s dolphin .................................................................................
Common dolphin ..............................................................................
Fraser’s dolphin ................................................................................
Bottlenose dolphin ............................................................................
Pantropical spotted dolphin ..............................................................
Striped dolphin .................................................................................
Spinner dolphin ................................................................................
Rough-toothed dolphin .....................................................................
ENP ............................................
ENP ............................................
NP ...............................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ‘‘O’’ Stock ..........................
CNP ............................................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
CNP ............................................
CNP ............................................
WNP-Pelagic ..............................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
CNP ............................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
Abundance 2
2,842
9,250
8,600
20,501
25,049
10,103
102,112
350,553
90,725
8,032
22,799
1,007
349
16,668
30,214
36,770
53,608
83,289
3,286,163
10,226
168,791
438,064
570,038
1,015,059
145,729
1 CNP
Density
(animals/
Km2) 3
0.0001
0.0003
0.0003
0.0004
0.0003
0.0069
0.0012
0.0101
0.0062
0.0012
0.0005
0.0004
0.0001
0.0011
0.0001
0.0043
0.0016
0.0010
0.0021
0.0042
0.0002
0.0226
0.0062
0.0031
0.0003
= central north Pacific; ENP = eastern north Pacific; NP = north Pacific; WNP = western north Pacific.
to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with abundance estimates presented in this table.
to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with density estimates presented in this table.
4 ESA Status: EN = Endangered; T = Threatened; NL = Not Listed.
2 Refer
3 Refer
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
ESA
Status 4
EN
EN
EN
NL
NL
EN
EN
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
850
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 7—ABUNDANCE AND DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR THE MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES, SPECIES GROUPS, AND STOCKS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE SEA OF JAPAN OPERATIONAL AREA
Species
Stock name 1
Fin whale ..........................................................................................
Bryde’s whale ...................................................................................
Minke whale .....................................................................................
Minke whale .....................................................................................
North Pacific right whale ..................................................................
Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) .................................................
Sperm whale ....................................................................................
Stejneger’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon stejnegeri) ........................
Baird’s beaked whale .......................................................................
Cuvier’s beaked whale .....................................................................
Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale .........................................................
False killer whale ..............................................................................
Melon-headed whale ........................................................................
Short-finned pilot whale ....................................................................
Risso’s dolphin .................................................................................
Common dolphin ..............................................................................
Bottlenose dolphin ............................................................................
Pantropical spotted dolphin ..............................................................
Spinner dolphin ................................................................................
Pacific white-sided dolphin ...............................................................
Dall’s porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli) ................................................
NP ...............................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ‘‘O’’ Stock ..........................
WNP ‘‘J’’ Stock ...........................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
WNP ...........................................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
IA-Pelagic ...................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
IA ................................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
SOJ .............................................
1
2
3
4
5
Abundance 2
9,250
20,501
25,049
893
922
121
102,112
8,000
8,000
90,725
22,799
9,777
36,770
53,608
83,289
3,286,163
105,138
219,032
1,015,059
931,000
76,720
Density
(animals/
Km2 3
0.0009
0.0001
0.0004
0.0002
< 0.00001
< 0.00001
0.0008
0.0014
0.0003
0.0043
0.0005
0.0027
0.00001
0.0014
0.0073
0.0860
0.0009
0.0137
0.00001
0.0030
0.0520
ESA
Status4
EN
NL
NL
NL
EN
EN 5
EN
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
IA = Inshore Archipelago; NP = north Pacific; SOJ = Sea of Japan; WNP = western north Pacific.
Refer to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with abundance estimates presented in this table.
Refer to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with density estimates presented in this table.
ESA Status: EN = Endangered; T = Threatened; NL = Not Listed.
Only the western Pacific population of gray whale is endangered under the ESA.
TABLE 8—ABUNDANCE AND DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR THE MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES, SPECIES GROUPS, AND STOCKS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE EAST CHINA SEA OPERATIONAL AREA
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Species
Stock name 1
Fin whale ..........................................................................................
Bryde’s whale ...................................................................................
Minke whale .....................................................................................
Minke whale .....................................................................................
North Pacific right whale ..................................................................
Gray whale .......................................................................................
Sperm whale ....................................................................................
Pygmy sperm and Dwarf sperm whale ............................................
Cuvier’s beaked whale .....................................................................
Blainville’s beaked whale .................................................................
Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale .........................................................
False killer whale ..............................................................................
Pygmy killer whale ...........................................................................
Melon-headed whale ........................................................................
Short-finned pilot whale ....................................................................
Risso’s dolphin .................................................................................
Common dolphin ..............................................................................
Fraser’s dolphin ................................................................................
Bottlenose dolphin ............................................................................
Pantropical spotted dolphin ..............................................................
Striped dolphin .................................................................................
Spinner dolphin ................................................................................
Pacific white-sided dolphin ...............................................................
Rough-toothed dolphin .....................................................................
ECS ............................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ‘‘O’’ Stock ..........................
WNP ‘‘J’’ Stock ...........................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
IA-Pelagic ...................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
IA ................................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
Abundance 2
500
20,501
25,049
893
922
121
102,112
350,553
90,725
8,032
22,799
9,777
30,214
36,770
53,608
83,289
3,286,163
220,789
105,138
219,032
570,038
1,015,059
931,000
145,729
1 ECS
Density
(animals/
Km2) 3
0.0002
0.0006
0.0044
0.0018
< 0.00001
< 0.00001
0.0012
0.0031
0.0062
0.0012
0.0005
0.0011
0.0001
0.0043
0.0016
0.0106
0.0461
0.0040
0.0146
0.0137
0.0164
0.0031
0.0028
0.0059
= East China Sea; IA = Inshore Archipelago; NP = north Pacific; WNP = western north Pacific.
to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with abundance estimates presented in this table.
3 Refer to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with density estimates presented in this table.
4 ESA Status: EN = Endangered; T = Threatened; NL = Not Listed.
5 Only the western Pacific population of gray whale is endangered under the ESA.
2 Refer
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
ESA
Status 4
EN
NL
NL
NL
EN
EN 5
EN
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
851
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 9—ABUNDANCE AND DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR THE MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES, SPECIES GROUPS, AND STOCKS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOUTH CHINA SEA OPERATIONAL AREA
Species
Stock name 1
Fin whale ..........................................................................................
Bryde’s whale ...................................................................................
Minke whale .....................................................................................
North Pacific right whale ..................................................................
Gray whale .......................................................................................
Sperm whale ....................................................................................
Pygmy sperm and Dwarf sperm whale ............................................
Cuvier’s beaked whale .....................................................................
Blainville’s beaked whale .................................................................
Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale .........................................................
False killer whale ..............................................................................
Pygmy killer whale ...........................................................................
Melon-headed whale ........................................................................
Short-finned pilot whale ....................................................................
Risso’s dolphin .................................................................................
Common dolphin ..............................................................................
Fraser’s dolphin ................................................................................
Bottlenose dolphin ............................................................................
Pantropical spotted dolphin ..............................................................
Striped dolphin .................................................................................
Spinner dolphin ................................................................................
Rough-toothed dolphin .....................................................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ‘‘O’’ Stock ..........................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
IA-Pelagic ...................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
IA ................................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
Abundance 2
9,250
20,501
25,049
922
121
102,112
350,553
90,725
8,032
22,799
9,777
30,214
36,770
53,608
83,289
3,286,163
220,789
105,138
219,032
570,038
1,015,059
145,729
Density
(animals/
Km2) 3
0.0002
0.0006
0.0033
< 0.00001
< 0.0001
0.0012
0.0017
0.0003
0.0005
0.0005
0.0011
0.0001
0.0043
0.0016
0.0106
0.0461
0.0040
0.0146
0.0137
0.0164
0.3140
0.0040
ESA
Status 4
EN
NL
NL
EN
EN 5
EN
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
1 IA
= Inshore Archipelago; NP = north Pacific; WNP = western north Pacific.
to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with abundance estimates presented in this table.
3 Refer to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with density estimates presented in this table.
4 ESA Status: EN = Endangered; T = Threatened; NL = Not Listed.
5 Only the western Pacific population of gray whale is endangered under the ESA.
2 Refer
TABLE 10—ABUNDANCE AND DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR THE MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES, SPECIES GROUPS, AND STOCKS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE OPERATIONAL AREA OFFSHORE JAPAN (25° TO 40° N)
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Species
Stock name 1
Blue whale ........................................................................................
Fin whale ..........................................................................................
Sei whale ..........................................................................................
Bryde’s whale ...................................................................................
Minke whale .....................................................................................
Sperm whale ....................................................................................
Pygmy sperm and Dwarf sperm whale ............................................
Baird’s beaked whale .......................................................................
Cuvier’s beaked whale .....................................................................
Mesoplodon spp. ..............................................................................
False killer whale ..............................................................................
Pygmy killer whale ...........................................................................
Melon-headed whale ........................................................................
Short-finned pilot whale ....................................................................
Risso’s dolphin .................................................................................
Common dolphin ..............................................................................
Bottlenose dolphin ............................................................................
Pantropical spotted dolphin ..............................................................
Striped dolphin .................................................................................
Spinner dolphin ................................................................................
Pacific white-sided dolphin ...............................................................
Rough-toothed dolphin .....................................................................
Hawaiian monk seal .........................................................................
(Monachus schauinslandi) ................................................................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ‘‘O’’ Stock ..........................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
WNP ...........................................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
WNP-Pelagic ..............................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
Hawaii .........................................
Abundance 2
9,250
9,250
37,000
20,501
25,049
102,112
350,553
8,000
90,725
22,799
16,668
30,214
36,770
53,608
83,289
3,286,163
168,791
438,064
570,038
1,015,059
67,769
145,729
1,129
1 NP
Density
(animals/
Km2) 3
0.0003
0.0001
0.0003
0.0004
0.0003
0.0003
0.0049
0.0001
0.0017
0.0005
0.0036
0.0001
0.0012
0.0001
0.0010
0.0863
0.0005
0.0181
0.0500
0.00001
0.0048
0.0003
< 0.00001
= north Pacific; WNP = western north Pacific.
to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with abundance estimates presented in this table.
to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with density estimates presented in this table.
4 ESA Status: EN = Endangered; T = Threatened; NL = Not Listed.
2 Refer
3 Refer
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
ESA
Status 4
EN
EN
EN
NL
NL
EN
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
EN
852
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 11—ABUNDANCE AND DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR THE MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES, SPECIES GROUPS, AND STOCKS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE OPERATIONAL AREA OFFSHORE JAPAN (10° TO 25° N)
Species
Stock name 1
Bryde’s whale ...................................................................................
Sperm whale ....................................................................................
Pygmy sperm and Dwarf sperm whale ............................................
Cuvier’s beaked whale .....................................................................
False killer whale ..............................................................................
Melon-headed whale ........................................................................
Short-finned pilot whale ....................................................................
Risso’s dolphin .................................................................................
Common dolphin ..............................................................................
Bottlenose dolphin ............................................................................
Pantropical spotted dolphin ..............................................................
Striped dolphin .................................................................................
Spinner dolphin ................................................................................
Rough-toothed dolphin .....................................................................
WNP ...........................................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
NP ...............................................
WNP-Pelagic ..............................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
WNP ...........................................
Abundance 2
20,501
102,112
350,553
90,725
16,668
36,770
53,608
83,289
3,286,163
168,791
438,064
570,038
1,015,059
145,729
Density
(animals/
Km2) 3
0.0004
0.0004
0.0009
0.0017
0.0021
0.0012
0.0009
0.0026
0.0863
0.0007
0.0226
0.0110
0.0031
0.0003
ESA
Status 4
NL
EN
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
1 NP
= north Pacific; WNP = western north Pacific.
to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with abundance estimates presented in this table.
to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with density estimates presented in this table.
4 ESA Status: EN = Endangered; T = Threatened; NL = Not Listed.
2 Refer
3 Refer
TABLE 12—ABUNDANCE AND DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR THE MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES, SPECIES GROUPS, AND STOCKS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE NORTHERN HAWAII OPERATIONAL AREA
Species
Stock name 1
Blue whale ........................................................................................
Fin whale ..........................................................................................
Bryde’s whale ...................................................................................
Minke whale .....................................................................................
Humpback whale ..............................................................................
Sperm whale ....................................................................................
Pygmy sperm and Dwarf sperm whale ............................................
Cuvier’s beaked whale .....................................................................
Blainville’s beaked whale .................................................................
Longman’s beaked whale ................................................................
Killer whale .......................................................................................
False killer whale ..............................................................................
Pygmy killer whale ...........................................................................
Melon-headed whale ........................................................................
Short-finned pilot whale ....................................................................
Risso’s dolphin .................................................................................
Fraser’s dolphin ................................................................................
Bottlenose dolphin ............................................................................
Pantropical spotted dolphin ..............................................................
Striped dolphin .................................................................................
Spinner dolphin ................................................................................
Rough-toothed dolphin .....................................................................
Hawaiian monk seal .........................................................................
Abundance 2
WNP ...........................................
Hawaii .........................................
Hawaii .........................................
WNP ...........................................
Hawaii .........................................
CNP ............................................
Hawaii .........................................
Hawaii .........................................
Hawaii .........................................
Hawaii .........................................
Hawaii .........................................
Hawaii-Pelagic ............................
Hawaii .........................................
Hawaii .........................................
Hawaii .........................................
Hawaii .........................................
Hawaii .........................................
Hawaii .........................................
Hawaii .........................................
Hawaii .........................................
Hawaii .........................................
Hawaii .........................................
Hawaii .........................................
1,548
2,099
469
25,000
10,103
6,919
24,657
15,242
2,872
1,007
349
484
956
2,950
8,870
2,372
10,226
3,215
8,978
13,143
3,351
8,709
1,129
Density
(animals/
Km2) 3
0.0002
0.0007
0.0002
0.0002
< 0.0001
0.0028
0.0101
0.0062
0.0012
0.0004
0.0001
0.0002
0.0004
0.0012
0.0036
0.0010
0.0042
0.0013
0.0037
0.0054
0.0014
0.0036
< 0.0001
ESA
Status 4
EN
EN
NL
NL
EN
EN
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
EN
1 CNP
= central north Pacific; WNP = western north Pacific.
to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with abundance estimates presented in this table.
to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with density estimates presented in this table.
4 ESA Status: EN = Endangered; T = Threatened; NL = Not Listed.
2 Refer
3 Refer
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE 13—ABUNDANCE AND DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR THE MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES, SPECIES GROUPS, AND STOCKS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOUTHERN HAWAII OPERATIONAL AREA
Species
Stock name 1
Blue whale ........................................................................................
Fin whale ..........................................................................................
Bryde’s whale ...................................................................................
Minke whale .....................................................................................
Humpback whale ..............................................................................
Sperm whale ....................................................................................
Pygmy sperm and Dwarf sperm whale ............................................
WNP ...........................................
Hawaii .........................................
Hawaii .........................................
Hawaii .........................................
Hawaii .........................................
CNP ............................................
Hawaii .........................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
Abundance 2
1,548
2,099
469
25,000
10,103
6,919
24,657
06JAP2
Density
(animals/
Km2) 3
0.0002
0.0007
0.0002
0.0002
0.0008
0.0028
0.0101
ESA
Status 4
EN
EN
NL
NL
EN
EN
NL
853
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 13—ABUNDANCE AND DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR THE MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES, SPECIES GROUPS, AND STOCKS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOUTHERN HAWAII OPERATIONAL AREA—Continued
Species
Stock name 1
Cuvier’s beaked whale .....................................................................
Blainville’s beaked whale .................................................................
Longman’s beaked whale ................................................................
Killer whale .......................................................................................
False killer whale ..............................................................................
Pygmy killer whale ...........................................................................
Melon-headed whale ........................................................................
Short-finned pilot whale ....................................................................
Risso’s dolphin .................................................................................
Fraser’s dolphin ................................................................................
Bottlenose dolphin ............................................................................
Pantropical spotted dolphin ..............................................................
Striped dolphin .................................................................................
Spinner dolphin ................................................................................
Rough-toothed dolphin .....................................................................
Hawaiian monk seal .........................................................................
Abundance 2
Hawaii .........................................
Hawaii .........................................
Hawaii .........................................
Hawaii .........................................
Hawaii-Pelagic ............................
Hawaii .........................................
Hawaii .........................................
Hawaii .........................................
Hawaii .........................................
Hawaii .........................................
Hawaii .........................................
Hawaii .........................................
Hawaii .........................................
Hawaii .........................................
Hawaii .........................................
Hawaii .........................................
15,242
2,872
1,007
349
484
956
2,950
8,870
2,372
10,226
3,215
8,978
13,143
3,351
8,709
1,129
Density
(animals/
Km2) 3
0.0062
0.0012
0.0004
0.0001
0.0002
0.0004
0.0012
0.0036
0.0010
0.0042
0.0013
0.0037
0.0054
0.0014
0.0036
< 0.0001
ESA
Status 4
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
EN
1 CNP
= central north Pacific; WNP = western north Pacific.
to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with abundance estimates presented in this table.
3 Refer to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with density estimates presented in this table.
4 ESA Status: EN = Endangered; T = Threatened; NL = Not Listed.
2 Refer
TABLE 14—ABUNDANCE AND DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR THE MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES, SPECIES GROUPS, AND STOCKS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE OPERATIONAL AREA OFFSHORE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (SOCAL OPAREA)
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Species
Stock name 1
Blue whale ........................................................................................
Fin whale ..........................................................................................
Sei whale ..........................................................................................
Bryde’s whale ...................................................................................
Northern minke whale ......................................................................
Humpback whale ..............................................................................
Gray whale .......................................................................................
Sperm whale ....................................................................................
Pygmy sperm whale .........................................................................
Stejneger’s beaked whale ................................................................
Baird’s beaked whale .......................................................................
Cuvier’s beaked whale .....................................................................
Blainville’s beaked whale .................................................................
Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale .........................................................
Hubbs beaked whale ........................................................................
Longman’s beaked whale ................................................................
Perrin’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon perrini) ...................................
Pygmy beaked whale (Mesoplodon peruvianus) .............................
Killer whale (offshore) ......................................................................
Short-finned pilot whale ....................................................................
Risso’s dolphin .................................................................................
Long-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus capensis) ......................
Short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) ........................
Bottlenose dolphin (offshore) ...........................................................
Striped dolphin .................................................................................
Pacific white-sided dolphin ...............................................................
Northern right whale dolphin (Lissodelphis borealis) .......................
Dall’s porpoise ..................................................................................
Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi) ...............................
Northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) ............................................
California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) .....................................
California sea lion .............................................................................
Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) .............................................................
Northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris) ............................
Northern elephant seal .....................................................................
ENP ............................................
CA/OR/WA .................................
ENP ............................................
ENP ............................................
CA/OR/WA .................................
CA/OR/WA .................................
ENP ............................................
CA/OR/WA .................................
CA/OR/WA .................................
CA/OR/WA .................................
CA/OR/WA .................................
CA/OR/WA .................................
CA/OR/WA .................................
CA/OR/WA .................................
CA/OR/WA .................................
Hawaii .........................................
CA/OR/WA .................................
CA/OR/WA .................................
ENP ............................................
CA/OR/WA .................................
CA/OR/WA .................................
CA/OR/WA .................................
CA/OR/WA .................................
CA/OR/WA .................................
CA/OR/WA .................................
CA/OR/WA .................................
CA/OR/WA .................................
CA/OR/WA .................................
Mexico ........................................
SMI .............................................
California ....................................
California ....................................
California ....................................
CA-Breeding ...............................
CA-Breeding ...............................
Abundance 2
2,842
2,099
98
13,000
823
942
18,813
1,934
1,237
1,177
1,005
4,342
1,177
1,177
1,177
1,177
1,177
1,177
810
350
11,910
21,902
352,069
2,026
18,976
23,817
11,097
85,955
7,408
9,424
238,000
238,000
34,233
124,000
124,000
1 CA/OR/WA
Density
(animals/
Km2) 3
0.0014
0.0018
0.0001
0.00001
0.0007
0.0008
0.051
0.0017
0.0011
0.0010
0.0009
0.0038
0.0010
0.0010
0.0010
0.0010
0.0010
0.0010
0.0007
0.0003
0.0105
0.0192
0.3094
0.0018
0.0167
0.0209
0.0098
0.0753
0.007
0
0.54
0
0.0095
0.0045
0
= California, Oregon, and Washington; ENP = eastern north Pacific; SMI = San Miguel Island.
to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with abundance estimates presented in this table.
3 Refer to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with density estimates presented in this table.
4 ESA Status: EN = Endangered; T = Threatened; NL = Not Listed.
5 Only the western Pacific population of gray whale is endangered under the ESA.
2 Refer
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
ESA
Status 4
EN
EN
EN
NL
NL
EN
EN 5
EN
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
854
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 15—ABUNDANCE AND DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR THE MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES, SPECIES GROUPS, AND STOCKS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE NORTHWESTERN ATLANTIC OPERATIONAL AREA OFF FLORIDA (JAX OPAREA)
Stock name 1
Species
Humpback whale ..............................................................................
North Atlantic right whale (on shelf) .................................................
Sperm whale (on shelf) ....................................................................
Sperm whale (off shelf) ....................................................................
Pygmy sperm and Dwarf sperm whale ............................................
Beaked whales (on shelf) .................................................................
Beaked whales (off shelf) .................................................................
Cuvier’s beaked whale .....................................................................
Blainville’s beaked whale .................................................................
Gervais’ beaked whale (Mesoplodon europaeus) ...........................
Sowerby’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon bidens) ..............................
True’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon mirus) .......................................
Short-finned pilot whale (on shelf) ...................................................
Short-finned pilot whale (off shelf) ...................................................
Risso’s dolphin (on shelf) .................................................................
Risso’s dolphin (off shelf) .................................................................
Common dolphin ..............................................................................
Bottlenose dolphin (on shelf) ...........................................................
Bottlenose dolphin (off shelf) ...........................................................
Pantropical spotted dolphin ..............................................................
Striped dolphin .................................................................................
Atlantic spotted dolphin (on shelf) (Stenella frontalis) .....................
Atlantic spotted dolphin (off shelf) ....................................................
Clymene dolphin (Stenella clymene) ...............................................
Rough-toothed dolphin .....................................................................
WNA
WNA
WNA
WNA
WNA
WNA
WNA
WNA
WNA
WNA
WNA
WNA
WNA
WNA
WNA
WNA
WNA
WNA
WNA
WNA
WNA
WNA
WNA
WNA
WNA
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
Abundance 2
11,570
438
4,804
4,804
580
3,513
3,513
3,513
3,513
3,513
3,513
3,513
31,139
31,139
20,479
20,479
120,743
81,588
81,588
12,747
94,462
50,978
50,978
6,086
274
Density
(animals/
Km2) 3
0.0006
0.0012
0
0.0005
0.0010
0
0.0006
0.0006
0.0006
0.0006
0.0006
0.0006
0.00004
0.0271
0.0009
0.0181
0.00002
0.2132
0.1163
0.0223
0.00003
0.4435
0.0041
0.0106
0.0005
ESA
Status 4
EN
EN
EN
EN
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
1 WNA
= western north Atlantic.
to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with abundance estimates presented in this table.
3 Refer to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with density estimates presented in this table.
4 ESA Status: EN = Endangered; T = Threatened; NL = Not Listed.
2 Refer
TABLE 16—ABUNDANCE AND DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR THE MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES, SPECIES GROUPS, AND STOCKS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE OPERATIONAL AREA IN THE NORTHEASTERN ATLANTIC OFF THE UNITED KINGDOM.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Species
Stock name 1
Blue whale ........................................................................................
Fin whale ..........................................................................................
Sei whale ..........................................................................................
Northern minke whale ......................................................................
Humpback whale ..............................................................................
Sperm whale ....................................................................................
Pygmy sperm and Dwarf sperm whale ............................................
Cuvier’s beaked whale .....................................................................
Blainville’s beaked whale .................................................................
Sowerby’s beaked whale .................................................................
Northern bottlenose whale (Hyperodon ampullatus) .......................
Killer whale .......................................................................................
False killer whale ..............................................................................
Long-finned pilot whale (Globicephala melas) .................................
Risso’s dolphin .................................................................................
Common dolphin ..............................................................................
Bottlenose dolphin ............................................................................
Striped dolphin .................................................................................
Atlantic white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus) ....................
White-beaked dolphin (Lagenorhynchus albirostris) ........................
Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) ...........................................
Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) .............................................................
Gray seal (Halichoerus grypus) .......................................................
ENA ............................................
ENA ............................................
ENA ............................................
ENA ............................................
ENA ............................................
ENA ............................................
ENA ............................................
ENA ............................................
ENA ............................................
ENA ............................................
ENA ............................................
ENA ............................................
ENA ............................................
ENA ............................................
ENA ............................................
ENA ............................................
ENA ............................................
ENA ............................................
ENA ............................................
ENA ............................................
ENA ............................................
Ireland/Scotland ..........................
ENA ............................................
Abundance 2
100
10,369
14,152
107,205
4,695
6,375
580
3,513
3,513
3,513
5,827
6,618
484
778,000
20,479
273,150
81,588
94,462
11,760
11,760
341,366
23,500
113,300
1 ENA
Density
(animals/
Km2) 3
0.00001
0.0031
0.0113
0.0068
0.0019
0.0049
0.0001
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0003
0.0001
0.0001
0.0121
0.0063
0.238
0.0094
0.0765
0.0027
0.0027
0.2299
0.0230
0.027
= eastern north Atlantic.
to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with abundance estimates presented in this table.
to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with density estimates presented in this table.
4 ESA Status: EN = Endangered; T = Threatened; NL = Not Listed.
2 Refer
3 Refer
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
ESA
Status 4
EN
EN
EN
NL
EN
EN
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
855
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 17—ABUNDANCE AND DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR THE MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES, SPECIES GROUPS, AND STOCKS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE OPERATIONAL AREA IN THE WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN SEA AND THE LIGURIAN SEA
Species
Stock name 1
Fin whale ..........................................................................................
Sperm whale ....................................................................................
Cuvier’s beaked whale .....................................................................
Long-finned pilot whale ....................................................................
Risso’s dolphin .................................................................................
Common dolphin ..............................................................................
Bottlenose dolphin ............................................................................
Striped dolphin .................................................................................
MED ............................................
WMED ........................................
ENA ............................................
ENA ............................................
WMED ........................................
WMED ........................................
WMED ........................................
WMED ........................................
Abundance 2
3,583
6,375
3,513
778,000
5,320
19,428
23,304
117,880
Density
(Animals/
Km2) 3
0.004
0.0049
0.0013
0.0121
0.0075
0.0144
0.041
0.24
ESA
Status 4
EN
EN
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
1 ENA
= eastern north Atlantic; MED = Mediterranean; WMED = western Mediterranean.
to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with abundance estimates presented in this table.
3 Refer to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with density estimates presented in this table.
4 ESA Status: EN = Endangered; T = Threatened; NL = Not Listed.
2 Refer
TABLE 18—ABUNDANCE AND DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR THE MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES, SPECIES GROUPS, AND STOCKS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE OPERATIONAL AREA IN THE NORTHERN ARABIAN SEA
Species
Stock name 1
Bryde’s whale ...................................................................................
Humpback whale ..............................................................................
Sperm whale ....................................................................................
Dwarf sperm whale ..........................................................................
Cuvier’s beaked whale .....................................................................
Blainville’s beaked whale .................................................................
Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale .........................................................
Longman’s beaked whale ................................................................
False killer whale (pelagic) ...............................................................
Pygmy killer whale ...........................................................................
Melon-headed whale ........................................................................
Short-finned pilot whale ....................................................................
Risso’s dolphin .................................................................................
Common dolphin ..............................................................................
Bottlenose dolphin ............................................................................
Pantropical spotted dolphin ..............................................................
Striped dolphin .................................................................................
Spinner dolphin ................................................................................
Rough-toothed dolphin .....................................................................
IND .............................................
XAR ............................................
IND .............................................
IND .............................................
IND .............................................
IND .............................................
IND .............................................
IND .............................................
IND .............................................
IND .............................................
IND .............................................
IND .............................................
IND .............................................
IND .............................................
IND .............................................
IND .............................................
IND .............................................
IND .............................................
IND .............................................
Abundance 2
9,176
200
24,446
10,541
27,272
16,867
16,867
16,867
144,188
22,029
64,600
268,751
452,125
1,819,882
785,585
736,575
674,578
634,108
156,690
Density
(animals/
Km2) 3
0.0001
0.0004
0.0125
0.0145
0.0001
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0003
0.0026
0.0661
0.0034
0.0125
0.0265
0.0164
0.0127
0.0706
0.01
0.0081
ESA
Status 4
NL
EN
EN
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
1 IND
= Indian Ocean; XAR = Stock X Arabian Sea.
to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with abundance estimates presented in this table.
to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with density estimates presented in this table.
4 ESA Status: EN = Endangered; T = Threatened; NL = Not Listed.
2 Refer
3 Refer
TABLE 19—ABUNDANCE AND DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR THE MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES, SPECIES GROUPS, AND STOCKS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE OPERATIONAL AREA IN THE ANDAMAN SEA OFF MYANMAR
Stock name 1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Species
Bryde’s whale ...................................................................................
Sperm whale ....................................................................................
Dwarf sperm whale ..........................................................................
Cuvier’s beaked whale .....................................................................
Blainville’s beaked whale .................................................................
Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale .........................................................
Longman’s beaked whale ................................................................
Killer whale .......................................................................................
False killer whale (pelagic) ...............................................................
Pygmy killer whale ...........................................................................
Melon-headed whale ........................................................................
Short-finned pilot whale ....................................................................
Risso’s dolphin .................................................................................
Common dolphin ..............................................................................
Bottlenose dolphin ............................................................................
Pantropical spotted dolphin ..............................................................
Striped dolphin .................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
Fmt 4701
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
Abundance 2
9,176
24,446
10,541
27,272
16,867
16,867
16,867
12,593
144,188
22,029
64,600
268,751
452,125
1,819,882
785,585
736,575
674,578
06JAP2
Density
(animals/
Km2) 3
0.0001
0.0125
0.0145
0.0001
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0001
0.0003
0.0026
0.0661
0.0034
0.0125
0.0265
0.0164
0.0127
0.0706
ESA
Status 4
NL
EN
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
856
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 19—ABUNDANCE AND DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR THE MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES, SPECIES GROUPS, AND STOCKS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE OPERATIONAL AREA IN THE ANDAMAN SEA OFF MYANMAR—Continued
Species
Stock name 1
Spinner dolphin ................................................................................
Rough-toothed dolphin .....................................................................
IND .............................................
IND .............................................
Abundance 2
634,108
156,690
Density
(animals/
Km2) 3
0.01
0.0081
ESA
Status 4
NL
NL
1 IND = Indian Ocean.
2 Refer to Table 5 of the
Navy’s application for literature references associated with abundance estimates presented in this table.
to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with density estimates presented in this table.
Status: EN = Endangered; T = Threatened; NL = Not Listed.
3 Refer
4 ESA
TABLE 20—ABUNDANCE AND DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR THE MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES, SPECIES GROUPS, AND STOCKS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PANAMA CANAL OPERATIONAL AREA (WEST APPROACH)
Species
Stock name 1
Blue whale ........................................................................................
Bryde’s whale ...................................................................................
Humpback whale ..............................................................................
Sperm whale ....................................................................................
Dwarf sperm whale ..........................................................................
Cuvier’s beaked whale .....................................................................
Blainville’s beaked whale .................................................................
Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale .........................................................
Longman’s beaked whale ................................................................
Pygmy beaked whale (Mesoplodon peruvianus) .............................
Killer whale .......................................................................................
False killer whale (pelagic) ...............................................................
Pygmy killer whale ...........................................................................
Melon-headed whale ........................................................................
Short-finned pilot whale ....................................................................
Risso’s dolphin .................................................................................
Common dolphin ..............................................................................
Fraser’s dolphin ................................................................................
Bottlenose dolphin ............................................................................
Pantropical spotted dolphin ..............................................................
Striped dolphin .................................................................................
Spinner dolphin ................................................................................
Rough-toothed dolphin .....................................................................
ENP ............................................
ETP .............................................
ENP ............................................
ETP .............................................
ETP .............................................
ETP .............................................
ETP .............................................
ETP .............................................
ETP .............................................
ETP .............................................
ETP .............................................
ETP .............................................
ETP .............................................
ETP .............................................
ETP .............................................
ETP .............................................
ETP .............................................
ETP .............................................
ETP .............................................
NEOP .........................................
ETP .............................................
Eastern .......................................
ETP .............................................
Abundance 2
2,842
13,000
1,391
22,700
11,200
20,000
25,300
25,300
25,300
25,300
8,500
39,800
38,900
45,400
160,200
110,457
3,127,203
289,300
335,834
640,000
964,362
450,000
107,633
Density
(animals/
Km2) 3
0.0001
0.0003
0.0004
0.0047
0.0145
0.0025
0.0013
0.0016
0.0003
0.0016
0.0002
0.0004
0.0014
0.0174
0.0058
0.0161
0.049
0.001
0.0157
0.0669
0.1199
0.007
0.0146
ESA
Status 4
EN
NL
EN
EN
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
1 ETP
= eastern tropical Pacific; NEOP = northeastern offshore Pacific.
to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with abundance estimates presented in this table.
3 Refer to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with density estimates presented in this table.
4 ESA Status: EN = Endangered; T = Threatened; NL = Not Listed.
2 Refer
TABLE 21—ABUNDANCE AND DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR THE MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES, SPECIES GROUPS, AND STOCKS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE OPERATIONAL AREA OFF THE NORTHEASTERN AUSTRALIAN COAST
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Species
Stock name 1
Blue whale ........................................................................................
Fin whale ..........................................................................................
Bryde’s whale ...................................................................................
Northern minke whale ......................................................................
Humpback whale ..............................................................................
Sperm whale ....................................................................................
Pygmy sperm and Dwarf sperm whale ............................................
Cuvier’s beaked whale .....................................................................
Blainville’s beaked whale .................................................................
Arnoux’s beaked whale (Berardius arnuxii) .....................................
Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale .........................................................
Longman’s beaked whale ................................................................
Southern bottlenose whale (Hyperodon planifrons) .........................
Killer whale .......................................................................................
False killer whale (pelagic) ...............................................................
Pygmy killer whale ...........................................................................
Melon-headed whale ........................................................................
Globicephala spp. .............................................................................
Risso’s dolphin .................................................................................
WSP ...........................................
WSP ...........................................
WSP ...........................................
WSP ...........................................
GVEA ..........................................
WSP ...........................................
WSP ...........................................
WSP ...........................................
WSP ...........................................
WSP ...........................................
WSP ...........................................
WSP ...........................................
WSP ...........................................
WSP ...........................................
WSP ...........................................
WSP ...........................................
WSP ...........................................
WSP ...........................................
WSP ...........................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
Abundance 2
9,250
9,250
22,000
25,000
3,500
102,112
350,553
90,725
8,032
22,799
22,799
22,799
22,799
12,256
16,668
30,214
36,770
53,608
83,289
06JAP2
Density
(animals/
Km2) 3
0.0002
0.0002
0.0006
0.0044
0.0143
0.0029
0.0031
0.0054
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0004
0.0029
0.0021
0.0012
0.0153
0.0106
ESA
Status 4
EN
EN
NL
EN
EN
EN
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
857
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 21—ABUNDANCE AND DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR THE MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES, SPECIES GROUPS, AND STOCKS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE OPERATIONAL AREA OFF THE NORTHEASTERN AUSTRALIAN COAST—Continued
Stock name 1
Species
Common dolphin ..............................................................................
Fraser’s dolphin ................................................................................
Bottlenose dolphin ............................................................................
Pantropical spotted dolphin ..............................................................
Striped dolphin .................................................................................
Spinner dolphin ................................................................................
Dusky dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obscurus) .....................................
Rough-toothed dolphin .....................................................................
1
2
3
4
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
3,286,163
220,789
168,791
438,064
570,038
1,015,059
12,626
145,729
Density
(animals/
Km2) 3
0.0562
0.004
0.0146
0.0137
0.0329
0.0005
0.0002
0.0059
ESA
Status 4
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
GVEA = group V east Australia; WSP = western south Pacific.
Refer to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with abundance estimates presented in this table.
Refer to Table 5 of the Navy’s application for literature references associated with density estimates presented in this table.
ESA Status: EN = Endangered; T = Threatened; NL = Not Listed.
The Navy provides detailed
descriptions of the distribution,
abundance, diving behavior, life history,
and hearing vocalization information for
each affected marine mammal species
with confirmed or possible occurrence
within SURTASS LFA sonar operational
areas in section 4 (pages 38–97) of the
application, which is available online at
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental.htm#applications).
Although not repeated in this
document, NMFS has reviewed these
data, determined them to be the best
available scientific information for the
purposes of the proposed rulemaking,
and considers this information part of
the administrative record for this action.
Additional information is available in
NMFS’ Marine Mammal Stock
Assessment Reports, which may be
viewed at https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
pr/sars/species.htm. Also, NMFS refers
the public to Table 5 (page 37) of the
Navy’s application for literature
references associated with abundance
and density estimates presented in these
tables.
Brief Background on Sound, Marine
Mammal Hearing, and Vocalization
Acoustic Source Specifications
Metrics Used in This Document
This section includes a brief
explanation of the sound measurements
frequently used in the discussions of
acoustic effects in this document. Sound
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
WSP
WSP
WSP
WSP
WSP
WSP
WSP
WSP
Abundance 2
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
pressure is the sound force per unit area
and is usually measured in micropascals
(mPa), where 1 Pascal (Pa) is the
pressure resulting from a force of one
newton exerted over an area of one
square meter. Sound pressure level
(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 mPa at 1 m, and the units
for SPLs are decibels (dB) re: 1 mPa at
1 m. SPL (in dB) = 20 log (pressure/
reference pressure). SPL is an
instantaneous measurement and can be
expressed as the peak, the peak-peak (pp), 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 unless
otherwise noted. SPL does not take the
duration of a sound into account.
SPL and the Single Ping Equivalent
(SPE)
To model potential impacts to marine
animals from exposure to SURTASS
LFA sonar sound, the Navy has
developed a methodology to estimate
the total exposure of modeled animals
exposed to multiple pings over an
extended period of time. The Navy’s
acoustic model analyzes the following
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
components: (1) The LFA sonar source
modeled as a point source, with an
effective source level (SL) in dB re: 1
mPa at 1 m (SPL); (2) a 60-sec duration
signal; and (3) a beam pattern that is
correct for the number and spacing of
the individual projectors (source
elements). This source model, when
combined with the three-dimensional
transmission loss (TL) field generated by
the Parabolic Equation (PE) acoustic
propagation model, defines the received
level (RL) (in SPL) sound field
surrounding the source for a 60-sec LFA
sonar signal. To estimate the total
exposure of animals exposed to multiple
pings, the Navy models the RLs for each
modeled location and any computersimulated marine mammals (also called
animats) within the location, records the
exposure history of each animat, and
generates a single ping equivalent (SPE)
value. Thus, the Navy can model the
SURTASS LFA sound field, providing a
four-dimensional (position and time)
representation of a sound pressure field
within the marine environment and
estimates of an animal’s exposure to
sound.
Figure 2 shows the Navy calculation
that converts SPL values to SPE values
in order to estimate impacts to marine
mammals from SURTASS LFA sonar
transmissions. For a more detailed
explanation of the SPE calculations,
NMFS refers the public to Appendix C
of the Navy’s 2011 DSEIS/SOEIS.
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Underwater Sound
An understanding of the basic
properties of underwater sound is
necessary to comprehend many of the
concepts and analyses presented in this
document.
Sound is a wave of pressure variations
propagating through a medium (for the
sonar considered in this proposed
rulemaking, the medium is seawater).
Pressure variations are created by
compressing and relaxing the medium.
Sound measurements can be expressed
in two forms: Intensity and pressure.
Acoustic intensity is the average rate of
energy transmitted through a unit area
in a specified direction and is expressed
in watts per square meter (W/m2).
Acoustic intensity is rarely measured
directly, it is derived from ratios of
pressures; the standard reference
pressure for underwater sound is 1 mPa
at 1 m (Richardson et al., 1995).
Acousticians have adopted a
logarithmic scale for sound intensities,
which is denoted in dB. The logarithmic
nature of the scale means that each 10
dB increase is a ten-fold increase in
power (e.g., 20 dB is a 100-fold increase,
30 dB is a 1,000-fold increase). Humans
perceive a 10-dB increase in noise as a
doubling of sound level, or a 10-dB
decrease in noise as a halving of sound
level. Sound pressure level or SPL
implies a decibel measure and a
reference pressure that is used as the
denominator of the ratio.
Sound frequency is measured in
cycles per second, referred to as Hertz
(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
five Hz to harbor porpoise clicks at
150,000 Hz (150 kilohertz (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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
narrowband, and sounds with a broad
range of frequencies are called
broadband. Explosives are an example
of a broadband sound source and
tactical sonars are an example of a
narrowband sound source.
Marine Mammal Hearing
Cetaceans have an auditory anatomy
that follows the basic mammalian
pattern, with some changes to adapt to
the demands of hearing in the sea. The
typical mammalian ear is divided into
an outer ear, middle ear, and inner ear.
The outer ear is separated from the
inner ear by a tympanic membrane, or
eardrum. In terrestrial mammals, the
outer ear, eardrum, and middle ear
transmit airborne sound to the inner ear,
where the sound waves are propagated
through the cochlear fluid. Since the
impedance of water (i.e., the product of
density and sound speed) 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).
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)
designated ‘‘functional hearing groups’’
for marine mammals and estimated the
lower and upper frequencies of
functional hearing (i.e., the frequencies
that the species can actually hear) of
these groups. The functional groups and
the associated frequencies are described
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
here (though 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 (LF) cetaceans (13
species of mysticetes): Southall et al.
(2007) estimates that functional hearing
occurs between approximately seven Hz
and 22 kHz;
• Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (32
species of dolphins, six species of larger
toothed whales, and 19 species of
beaked and bottlenose whales): Southall
et al. (2007) estimates that functional
hearing occurs between approximately
150 Hz and 160 kHz;
• High frequency (HF) cetaceans
(eight species of true porpoises, six
species of river dolphins, Kogia, the
franciscana, and four species of
cephalorhynchids): Southall et al.
(2007) estimates that functional hearing
occurs between approximately 200 Hz
and 180 kHz.
• Pinnipeds in Water: Southall et al.
(2007) estimates that functional hearing
occurs between approximately 75 Hz
and 75 kHz, with the greatest sensitivity
between approximately 700 Hz and 20
kHz.
Marine Mammal Functional Hearing
Groups and LFA Sonar
Baleen (mysticete) whales (members
of the LF functional hearing group) have
inner ears that appear to be specialized
for low-frequency hearing. Conversely,
most odontocetes (i.e., sperm whales,
dolphins and porpoises) have inner ears
that are specialized to hear mid and
high frequencies. Pinnipeds, which lack
the highly specialized active biosonar
systems of odontocetes, have inner ears
that are specialized to hear a broad
range of frequencies in water (Southall
et al., 2007). Based on an extensive suite
of reported laboratory measurements
(DoN, 2001, Ketten, 1997, Southall et
al., 2007), the LFA sound source is
below the range of best hearing
sensitivity for MF and HF odontocete
and pinnipeds in water hearing
specialists (Clark and Southall, 2009).
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
EP06JA12.001</GPH>
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
858
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Marine Mammal Vocalization
Marine mammal vocalizations often
extend both above (higher than 20 kHz)
and below (lower than 20 Hz) the range
of human hearing (National Research
Council, 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
various sound frequencies. Thus, the
ears of small toothed whales are
optimized for receiving high-frequency
sound, while baleen whale inner ears
are best suited for low frequencies,
including to infrasonic frequencies
(Ketten, 1992; 1997; 1998).
Baleen whale (i.e., mysticete)
vocalizations are composed primarily of
frequencies below one 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 longrange 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 low frequency 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 mPa at 1 m. Low-frequency
vocalizations made by baleen whales
and their corresponding auditory
anatomy suggest that they have good
low-frequency hearing (Ketten, 2000),
although specific data on sensitivity,
frequency or intensity discrimination, or
localization abilities are lacking. Marine
mammals, like all mammals, have
typical U-shaped audiograms that begin
with relatively low sensitivity (high
threshold) at some specified low
frequency with increased sensitivity
(low threshold) to a species-specific
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
optimum followed by a generally steep
rise at higher frequencies (high
threshold) (Fay, 1988).
Toothed whales (i.e., odontocetes)
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 frequencymodulated (FM) whistles ranging from 4
to 16 kHz (Wartzok and Ketten, 1999).
The general consensus is that the tonal
vocalizations (whistles) produced by
toothed whales play an important role
in maintaining contact between
dispersed individuals, while broadband
clicks are used during echolocation
(Wartzok and Ketten, 1999). Burst
pulses have also been strongly
implicated in communication, with
some scientists suggesting that they play
an important role in agonistic
encounters (McCowan and Reiss, 1995),
while others have proposed that they
represent ‘‘emotive’’ signals in a broader
sense, possibly representing graded
communication signals (Herzing, 1996).
Sperm whales, however, are known to
produce only clicks, which are used for
both communication and echolocation
(Whitehead, 2003). Most of the energy of
toothed whales social vocalizations is
concentrated near 10 kHz, with source
levels for whistles as high as 100–180
dB re 1 mPa at 1 m (Richardson et al.,
1995). No odontocete has been shown
audiometrically to have acute hearing
(less than 80 dB re 1 mPa at 1 m) below
500 Hz (DoN, 2001; Ketten, 1998).
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 mPa at 1 m or
greater (Mohl et al., 2000).
Brief Background on the Navy’s
Assessment of the Potential Impacts on
Marine Mammals
Acoustic Modeling Scenarios. The
Navy based their analysis of potential
impacts on marine mammals from
SURTASS LFA sonar on literature
review, the Navy’s Low Frequency
Sound Scientific Research Program (LFS
SRP), and a comprehensive program of
underwater acoustical modeling.
To assess the potential impacts on
marine mammals by the SURTASS LFA
sonar source operating at a given site,
the Navy must predict the sound field
that a given marine mammal species
could be exposed to over time. This is
a multi-part process involving: (1) The
ability to measure or estimate an
animal’s location in space and time; (2)
The ability to measure or estimate the
three-dimensional sound field at these
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
859
times and locations; (3) The integration
of these two data sets into the Acoustic
Integration Model (AIM) to estimate the
total acoustic exposure for each animal
in the modeled population; and (4)
Converting the resultant cumulative
exposures (within the post-AIM
analysis) for a modeled population into
an estimate of the risk of a significant
disturbance of a biologically important
behavior (i.e., a take estimate for Level
B harassment of marine mammals based
upon an estimated percentage of each
stock affected by SURTASS LFA sonar
operations) or an assessment of risk in
terms of injury of marine mammals (i.e.,
a take estimate for Level A harassment
of marine mammals based on a
cumulative exposure of greater than or
equal to 180-dB SPE). In the post-AIM
analysis, as mentioned in number (4),
the Navy developed a relationship for
converting the resultant cumulative
exposures for a modeled population into
an estimate of the risk to the entire
population of a significant disruption of
a biologically important behavior and of
injury. This process assessed risk in
relation to received level (RL) and
repeated exposure. The Navy’s risk
continuum is based on the assumption
that the threshold of risk is variable and
occurs over a range of conditions rather
than at a single threshold. Taken
together, the LFS SRP results, the
acoustic propagation modeling, and the
Navy’s risk assessment model provide
an estimate of takes of marine mammals.
The Navy modeled acoustic
propagation using its standard
acoustical performance prediction
transmission loss model-PE version 3.4.
The results of this model are the
primary input to the AIM, which the
Navy used to estimate marine mammal
sound exposures. AIM integrates
simulated movements (including dive
patterns) of marine mammals, a
schedule of SURTASS LFA sonar
transmissions, and the predicted sound
field for each transmission to estimate
acoustic exposure during a hypothetical
SURTASS LFA sonar operation.
Description of the PE and AIM models,
including AIM input parameters for
animal movement, diving behavior, and
marine mammal distribution,
abundance, and density, are described
in detail in the Navy’s application and
in the DSEIS/SOEIS (see Subchapter 4.4
and Appendix C) and are not discussed
further in this document.
For this application for rulemaking,
the Navy has used the same analytical
methodology utilized in the first and
second five-year rules and LOAs to
provide reasonable and realistic
estimates of the potential effects to
marine mammals specific to the
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
860
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
potential mission areas as presented in
the application. Although this proposed
rule uses the same analytical
methodology the Navy used for the
2002–2007 rule, the Navy continuously
updates the analysis with new marine
mammal biological data (behavior,
distribution, abundance and density)
whenever new information becomes
available.
The Navy initially developed 31
acoustic modeling scenarios for the
major ocean regions in the SURTASS
LFA sonar FOEIS/EIS (DoN, 2001); 11
acoustic modeling scenarios for the
2007 FSEIS and the 2007 rulemaking
and LOAs; and eight additional sites for
the 2011 DSEIS/SOEIS.
In the initial modeling effort for the
2001 FOEIS/EIS, the Navy selected
locations to represent the greatest
potential effects for each of the three
major ocean acoustic regimes where
SURTASS LFA sonar could potentially
be used. These acoustic regimes were:
(1) Deep-water convergence zone
propagation, (2) near surface duct
propagation, and (3) shallow water
bottom interaction propagation. The
Navy selected these sites to model the
greatest potential for effects from the use
of SURTASS LFA sonar incorporating
the following factors: (1) closest
plausible proximity to land (from a
SURTASS LFA sonar operations
standpoint), and/or OBIAs for marine
mammals most likely to be affected; (2)
acoustic propagation conditions that
allow minimum propagation loss, or
transmission loss (TL) (i.e., longest
acoustic transmission ranges); and (3)
time of year selected for maximum
animal abundance. These 31 sites
presented in the Navy’s 2001 FOEIS/EIS
represented the upper bound of impacts
(in terms of both possible acoustic
propagation conditions and marine
mammal population and density) that
could be expected from operation of the
SURTASS LFA sonar system.
In the 2007 FSEIS, the Navy provided
a risk assessment case study that
included nine additional sites based on
reasonable and realistic choices for
potential SURTASS LFA sonar testing,
training, and operations during the
proposed period of the rulemaking and
LOA application. Subsequent to the
publication of the 2007 FSEIS, the Navy
added two additional sites in the waters
north and south of the Hawaiian
Islands. The most recent risk assessment
analyses provided in the Navy’s
application and 2011 DSEIS/SOEIS
proves updated modeling for the 11
sites under the 2007 rulemaking and
eight additional sites using the most upto-date marine mammal abundance,
density, and behavioral information
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
available. These 19 operating sites are in
areas of potential strategic importance
and/or areas of possible naval fleet
exercises.
Overall, the Navy’s total effort for
underwater acoustic modeling includes
all 50 potential operational sites for
SURTASS LFA sonar. The analysis of
the 50 potential sites provides the
foundation for the analysis of potential
effects of SURTASS LFA sonar
operations on the overall marine
environment.
If the Navy conducts SURTASS LFA
sonar operations in an area that was not
acoustically modeled in the 2001
FOEIS/EIS (DoN, 2001), the 2007 FSEIS
(DoN, 2007) or the 2011 DSEIS/SOEIS
(DoN, 2011), the Navy states that the
potential effects would most likely be
less than those analyzed for the most
similar site in the analyses because the
modeled sites represent the upper
bound of effects. NMFS concurs with
this approach, as any site not modeled
in the Navy’s analyses should fall
within or under the modeled bounds of
impacts of possible acoustic propagation
conditions and marine mammal
densities. The assumptions of the 2001
FOEIS/EIS (DoN, 2001) and the 2007
FSEIS (DoN, 2007) are still valid and
there are no new data to contradict the
conclusions made in the Navy’s
documents.
Risk Analysis. To determine the
potential impacts that exposure to LF
sound from SURTASS LFA sonar
operations could have on marine
mammals, the Navy defined biological
risk standards with associated
measurement parameters. The Navy’s
measurement parameters for
determining exposure were RLs in dB,
the pulse repetition interval (time
between pings), and the number of
pings received. To address the potential
for accumulation of effects on marine
mammals over a seven to 20-day period
(i.e., the estimated maximum SURTASS
LFA sonar mission period, allowing for
varying RLs and a duty cycle of 20
percent or less), the Navy developed a
function that translates the modeled
history of repeated exposures (as
calculated in the AIM) into an
equivalent RL for a single exposure with
a comparable risk (as previously
discussed in the SPL and the Single
Ping Equivalent (SPE) section). Based
upon the best available information,
NMFS believes that the Navy’s
assumptions are still valid and there are
no new data to contradict the
conclusions made by the Navy’s risk
analysis. NMFS refers the reader to
Section 6.4.3 of the Navy’s application
and Appendix C of the 2011 DSEIS/
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
SOEIS for more detailed information on
the Navy’s risk assessment approach.
Potential Effects of the Specified
Activity on Marine Mammals
The Navy has requested authorization
for the incidental take of marine
mammals that may result from
upcoming training, testing, and military
operations using SURTASS LFA sonar
on a maximum of four U.S. Naval ships
in certain areas of the Pacific, Atlantic,
and Indian Oceans and the
Mediterranean Sea. In addition to the
use of LFA and HF/M3 sonar, the Navy
has analyzed the potential impact of
ship strike to marine mammals from
SURTASS LFA sonar operations, and, in
consultation with NMFS as a
cooperating agency for the SURTASS
LFA sonar 2011 DSEIS/SOEIS, has
determined that take of marine
mammals incidental to this nonacoustic component of the Navy’s
operations is unlikely and, therefore,
has not requested authorization for take
of marine mammals that might occur
incidental to vessel ship strike. In this
document, NMFS analyzes the potential
effects on marine mammals from
exposure to LFA and HF/M3 sonar, but
also includes some additional analysis
of the potential impacts from vessel
operations.
For the purpose of MMPA
authorizations, NMFS’ effects
assessments serve four primary
purposes: (1) Identification of the
permissible methods of taking, meaning:
The nature of the take (e.g., resulting
from anthropogenic noise versus from
ship strike, etc.); the regulatory level of
take (i.e., mortality versus Level A or
Level B harassment) and the estimated
amount of take; (2) Informing the
prescription of means of effecting the
least practicable adverse impact on such
species or stock and its habitat (i.e.,
mitigation); (3) Supporting 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) Determining whether the
specified activity will have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for
subsistence uses.
NMFS’ analysis of potential impacts
from SURTASS LFA operations
including lethal responses, physical
trauma, sensory impairment (permanent
and temporary threshold shifts and
acoustic masking), physiological
responses (particularly stress
responses), and behavioral disturbance
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
is outlined below this section. NMFS
will focus qualitatively on the different
ways that SURTASS LFA sonar
operations may affect marine mammals
(some of which may not classify as
take). Then, in the Estimated Take of
Marine Mammals Section, NMFS will
relate the potential effects to marine
mammals from SURTASS LFA sonar
operations to the MMPA definitions of
take, including Level A and Level B
Harassment, and attempt to quantify
those effects.
The potential effects to marine
mammals described in the following
sections do not take into consideration
the proposed monitoring and mitigation
measures described later in this
document (see the Proposed Mitigation
section which, as noted, are designed to
effect the least practicable adverse
impact on affected marine mammals
species and stocks.
Potential Effects of Exposure to
SURTASS LFA Sonar Operations
Based on the literature, the potential
effects of sound from the proposed
activities associated with SURTASS
LFA sonar might include one or more of
the following: Behavioral changes,
masking, non-auditory injury, and
noise-induced loss of hearing sensitivity
(more commonly called ‘‘threshold
shift’’). Separately, an animal’s
behavioral reaction to an acoustic
exposure might lead to physiological
effects that might ultimately lead to
injury or death. NMFS discusses this
potential effect later in the Stranding
section.
The effects of underwater noise on
marine mammals are highly variable,
and one can categorize the effects as
follows (Richardson et al., 1995;
Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al.,
2007):
(1) The noise may be too weak to be
heard at the location of the animal (i.e.,
lower than the prevailing ambient noise
level, the hearing threshold of the
animal at relevant frequencies, or both);
(2) The noise may be audible but not
strong enough to elicit any overt
behavioral response;
(3) The noise may elicit behavioral
reactions of variable conspicuousness
and variable relevance to the well-being
of the animal; these can range from
temporary alert responses to active
avoidance reactions such as vacating an
area at least until the noise event ceases
but potentially for longer periods of
time;
(4) Upon repeated exposure, a marine
mammal may exhibit diminishing
responsiveness (habituation), or
disturbance effects may persist; the
latter is most likely with sounds that are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
highly variable in characteristics,
infrequent, and unpredictable in
occurrence, and associated with
situations that the animal perceives as a
threat;
(5) Any anthropogenic (human-made)
noise that is strong enough to be heard
has the potential to reduce (mask) the
ability of a marine mammal to hear
natural sounds at similar frequencies,
including calls from conspecifics (i.e.,
an organism of the same species), and
underwater environmental sounds such
as surf noise;
(6) If mammals remain in an area
because it is important for feeding,
breeding, or some other biologically
important purpose even though there is
a chronic exposure to noise, it is
possible that there could be noiseinduced physiological stress; this might
in turn have negative effects on the
well-being or reproduction of the
animals involved; and
(7) Very strong sounds have the
potential to cause temporary or
permanent reduction in hearing
sensitivity, also known as threshold
shift. In terrestrial mammals and
presumably marine mammals, received
sound levels must far exceed the
animal’s hearing threshold for there to
be any temporary threshold shift (TTS)
in its hearing ability. For transient
sounds, the sound level necessary to
cause TTS is inversely related to the
duration of the sound. Received sound
levels must be even higher for there to
be risk of permanent hearing
impairment. In addition, intense
acoustic or explosive events (not
relevant for this proposed activity) may
cause trauma to tissues associated with
organs vital for hearing, sound
production, respiration and other
functions. This trauma may include
minor to severe hemorrhage.
Direct Physiological Effects
Threshold Shift (Noise-Induced Loss of
Hearing)
When animals exhibit reduced
hearing sensitivity within their auditory
range (i.e., sounds must be louder for an
animal to detect them) following
exposure to a sufficiently intense sound
or a less intense sound for a sufficient
duration, it is referred to as a noiseinduced threshold shift (TS). An animal
can experience a temporary threshold
shift (TTS) and/or permanent threshold
shift (PTS). TTS can last from minutes
or hours to days (i.e., there is recovery
back to baseline/pre-exposure levels),
can occur within a specific frequency
range (i.e., an animal might only have a
temporary loss of hearing sensitivity
within a limited frequency band of its
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
861
auditory range), and can be of varying
amounts (for example, an animal’s
hearing sensitivity might be reduced by
only six dB or reduced by 30 dB). PTS
is permanent (i.e., there is incomplete
recovery back to baseline/pre-exposure
levels), but also can occur in a specific
frequency range and amount as
mentioned above for TTS.
The following physiological
mechanisms are thought to play a role
in inducing auditory TSs: Effects to
sensory hair cells in the inner ear that
reduce their sensitivity, modification of
the chemical environment within the
sensory cells, residual muscular activity
in the middle ear (at least in terrestrial
mammals), displacement of certain
inner ear membranes, increased blood
flow, and post-stimulatory reduction in
both efferent and sensory neural output
(Southall et al., 2007). As amplitude and
duration of sound exposure increase, so,
generally, does the amount of TS, along
with the recovery time. Human nonimpulsive noise exposure guidelines are
based on the assumption that exposures
of equal energy (the same Sound
Exposure Level (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). 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.
Three studies, two by Mooney et al.
(2009a, 2009b) on a single bottlenose
dolphin either exposed to playbacks of
Navy MF active sonar 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 sound pressure
level (SPL)) with longer duration were
found to induce TTS onset at lower
levels than those of louder (higher SPL)
and shorter duration. For intermittent
sounds, less TS will occur than from a
continuous exposure with the same
energy (some recovery can occur
between intermittent exposures) (Kryter
et al., 1966; Ward, 1997; Mooney et al.
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
862
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
2009a, 2009b; Finneran et al. 2010). For
example, one short but loud (higher
SPL) sound exposure may induce the
same impairment as one longer but
softer (lower SPL) 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 or
repeated 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;
Lonsbury-Martin et al. 1987) (although
in the case of SURTASS LFA, animals
are not expected to be exposed to levels
high enough or durations long enough
to result in PTS).
PTS is considered auditory injury
(Southall et al., 2007). Irreparable
damage to the inner or outer cochlear
hair cells may cause PTS; however,
other mechanisms are also involved,
such as exceeding the elastic limits of
certain tissues and membranes in the
middle and inner ears and resultant
changes in the chemical composition of
the inner ear fluids (Southall et al.,
2007). Although the published body of
scientific literature contains numerous
theoretical studies and discussion
papers on hearing impairments that can
occur with exposure to a loud sound,
only a few studies provide empirical
information on the levels at which
noise-induced loss in hearing sensitivity
occurs in nonhuman animals. For
cetaceans, published data on the onset
of TTS are limited to the captive
bottlenose dolphin, beluga, harbor
porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise
(Finneran et al., 2000, 2002b, 2005a,
2007, 2010a, 2010b; Schlundt et al.,
2000; Nachtigall et al., 2003, 2004;
Mooney et al., 2009a, 2009b; Lucke et
al., 2009; Finneran and Schlundt, 2010;
Popov et al., 2011). For pinnipeds in
water, data are limited to Kastak et al.’s
(1999, 2005) measurement of TTS in one
captive harbor seal, one captive
elephant seal, and one captive
California sea lion (Finneran et al., 2003
tried to induce TTS in two California
sea lions but could not).
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,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
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 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 potentially more significant
than simple existence of a TTS.
Also, depending on the degree and
frequency range, the effects of PTS on
an animal could range in severity,
although it is considered generally more
serious than TTS because it is a
permanent condition. Of note, reduced
hearing sensitivity as a simple function
of 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
SURTASS LFA sonar can cause PTS in
any marine mammals; instead the
possibility of PTS has been inferred
from studies of TTS on captive marine
mammals (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, 2009). If rectified diffusion
were possible in marine mammals
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 the SURTASS LFA sonar 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 gassupersaturated 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
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 (rectified
diffusion and decompression sickness)
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 exposure
levels and tissue saturation levels that
are highly improbable to occur in diving
marine mammals. To date, energy levels
predicted to cause in vivo bubble
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
formations 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 MF/HF
active sonar exposures.
In 2009, Hooker et al. (2009) tested
two mathematical models to predict
blood and tissue tension N2 (PN2) using
field data from three beaked whale
species: Northern bottlenose whales,
Cuvier’s beaked whales, and Blainville’s
beaked whales. The researchers aimed
to determine if physiology (body mass,
diving lung volume, and dive response)
or dive behavior (dive depth and
duration, changes in ascent rate, and
diel behavior) would lead to differences
in PN2 levels and thereby decompression
sickness risk between species.
In their study, they compared results
for previously published time depth
recorder data (Hooker and Baird, 1999;
Baird et al., 2006, 2008) from Cuvier’s
beaked whale, Blainville’s beaked
whale, and northern bottlenose whale.
They reported that diving lung volume
and extent of the dive response had a
large effect on end-dive PN2. Also,
results showed that dive profiles had a
larger influence on end-dive PN2 than
body mass differences between species.
Despite diel changes (i.e., variation that
occurs regularly every day or most days)
in dive behavior, PN2 levels showed no
consistent trend. Model output
suggested that all three species live with
tissue PN2 levels that would cause a
significant proportion of decompression
sickness cases in terrestrial mammals.
The authors concluded that the dive
behavior of Cuvier’s beaked whale was
different from both Blainville’s beaked
whale, and northern bottlenose whale,
and resulted in higher predicted tissue
and blood N2 levels (Hooker et al.,
2009) and suggested that the prevalence
of Cuvier’s beaked whales stranding
after naval sonar exercises could be
explained by either a higher abundance
of this species in the affected areas or by
possible species differences in behavior
and/or physiology related to MF active
sonar (Hooker et al., 2009).
The hypotheses for gas bubble
formation related to beaked whale
strandings is that beaked whales
potentially have strong avoidance
responses to MF active sonars because
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
they sound similar to their main
predator, the killer whale (Cox et al.,
2006; Southall et al., 2007; Zimmer and
Tyack, 2007; Baird et al.,2008; Hooker et
al., 2009). Because SURTASS LFA sonar
transmissions are lower in frequency
(less than 500 Hz) and dissimilar in
characteristics from those of marine
mammal predators, or MF active sonars
the SURTASS LFA sonar transmissions
are not expected to cause gas bubble
formation or beaked whale strandings.
Further investigation is needed to
further assess the potential validity of
these hypotheses.
Acoustic Masking
Marine mammals use acoustic signals
for a variety of purposes, which differ
among species, but include
communication between individuals,
navigation, foraging, reproduction, and
learning about their environment (Erbe
and Farmer, 2000; Tyack, 2000).
Masking, or auditory interference,
generally occurs when sounds in the
environment are louder than, and of a
similar frequency 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).
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
863
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
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. Holt et al. (2009)
measured killer whale call source levels
and background noise levels in the one
to 40 kHz band and reported that the
whales increased their call source levels
by one dB SPL for every one dB SPL
increase in background noise level.
Similarly, another study on St.
Lawrence River belugas reported a
similar rate of increase in vocalization
activity in response to passing vessels
(Scheifele et al., 2005).
Parks et al. (2007) provided evidence
of behavioral changes in the acoustic
behaviors of the endangered North
Atlantic right whale, and the South
Atlantic right whale, and suggested that
these were correlated to increased
underwater noise levels. The study
indicated that right whales might shift
the frequency band of their calls to
compensate for increased in-band
background noise. The significance of
their result is the indication of potential
species-wide behavioral change in
response to gradual, chronic increases
in underwater ambient noise. Di Iorio
and Clark (2010) showed that blue
whale calling rates vary in association
with seismic sparker survey activity,
with whales calling more on days with
survey than on days without surveys.
They suggested that the whales called
more during seismic survey periods as
a way to compensate for the elevated
noise conditions.
As mentioned previously, the
functional hearing ranges of mysticetes
overlap with the frequencies of the
SURTASS LFA sonar sources used in
the Navy’s training and testing, as well
as during military operations. The closer
the characteristics of the masking signal
to the signal of interest, the more likely
masking is to occur. The masking effects
of the SURTASS LFA sonar signal are
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
864
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
expected to be limited for a number of
reasons. First, the frequency range
(bandwidth) of the system is limited to
approximately 30 Hz, and the
instantaneous bandwidth at any given
time of the signal is small, on the order
of 10 Hz. Second, the average duty cycle
is always less than 20 percent and,
based on past LFA sonar operational
parameters (2003 to 2012), is nominally
7.5 to 10 percent. Third, given the
average maximum pulse length (60 sec),
and the fact that the signals vary and do
not remain at a single frequency for
more than 10 sec, SURTASS LFA sonar
is not likely to cause significant
masking. The Navy provided an analysis
of marine mammal hearing and masking
in Subchapter 4.6.1.2 of the 2007 FSEIS
and 4.2.5 in the 2011 DSEIS/SOEIS. In
other words, the LFA sonar
transmissions are coherent, narrow
bandwidth signals of six to 100 sec in
length followed by a quiet period of six
to 15 minutes. Therefore, the effect of
masking will be limited because animals
that use this frequency range typically
use broader bandwidth signals. As a
result, the chances of an LFA sonar
sound actually overlapping whale calls
at levels that would interfere with their
detection and recognition would be
extremely low.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
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,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
temporal structure and temporal
delivery.
Many animals will combine several of
these strategies to compensate for high
levels of background noise.
Anthropogenic sounds which reduce
the signal-to-noise ratio of animal
vocalizations, increase the masked
auditory thresholds of animals listening
for such vocalizations, or reduce the
active space of an animal’s vocalizations
impair communications 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
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
or may not have significant long-term
effect on an animal’s welfare.
An animal’s third line of defense to
stressors involves its neuroendocrine or
sympathetic nervous systems; the
system that has received the most study
has been the 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 involve 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
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
fairly well through controlled
experiments; because this physiology
exists in every vertebrate that has been
studied, it is not surprising that stress
responses and their costs have been
documented in both laboratory and freeliving animals (for examples see,
Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998;
Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et al.,
2004; Lankford et al., 2005; Reneerkens
et al., 2002; Thompson and Hamer,
2000).
There is limited information on the
physiological responses of marine
mammals to anthropogenic sound
exposure, as most observations have
been limited to short-term behavioral
responses, which included cessation of
feeding, resting, or social interactions.
Despite the dearth of information on
stress responses for marine mammals
exposed to anthropogenic sounds,
studies of other marine animals and
terrestrial animals 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 low-frequency 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 noise-induced
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
Therefore, we assume that acoustic
exposures sufficient to trigger onset PTS
or TTS would be accompanied by
physiological stress responses because
terrestrial animals exhibit those
responses under similar conditions
(NRC, 2003). More importantly, marine
mammals might experience stress
responses at received levels lower than
those necessary to trigger onset TTS.
Based on empirical studies of the time
required to recover from stress
responses (Moberg, 2000), NMFS also
assumes that stress responses could
persist beyond the time interval
required for animals to recover from
TTS and might result in pathological
and pre-pathological states that would
be as significant as behavioral responses
to TTS.
Behavioral Disturbance
Behavioral responses to sound are
highly variable and context-specific.
Many different variables can influence
an animal’s perception of and response
to (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
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
865
modifications; cessation of feeding;
cessation of social interaction; alteration
of movement or diving behavior;
avoidance; habitat abandonment
(temporary or permanent); and, in
severe cases, panic, flight, stampede, or
stranding, potentially resulting in death
(Southall et al., 2007). A review of
marine mammal responses to
anthropogenic sound was first
conducted by Richardson (1995). A
more recent review (Nowacek et al.,
2007) addresses studies conducted since
1995 and focuses on observations where
the received sound level of the exposed
marine mammal(s) was known or could
be estimated. The following subsections
provide examples of behavioral
responses that provide an idea of the
variability in behavioral responses that
would be expected given the different
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
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
866
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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
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 sonar demonstrated no responses
or change in foraging behavior that
could be attributed to the low-frequency
sounds (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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
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
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 (i.e.,
the measurement of energy flow through
an animal, from what goes into an
animal as food (prey) to how the animal
converts that energy for growth,
reproduction, maintenance, and
metabolism) and force them to make
trade-offs like delaying their migration
south, delaying reproduction, reducing
growth, or migrating with reduced
energy reserves.
Social Relationships. Social
interactions between mammals can be
affected by noise via the disruption of
communication signals or by the
displacement of individuals. 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.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
For example, in the presence of lowfrequency active sonar, humpback
whales have been observed to increase
the length of their ‘‘songs’’ (Miller et al.,
2000; Fristrup et al., 2003), possibly due
to the overlap in frequencies between
the whale song and the low-frequency
active sonar. A similar compensatory
effect for the presence of low-frequency
vessel noise has been suggested for right
whales; right whales have been
observed to shift the frequency content
of their calls upward while reducing the
rate of calling in areas of increased
anthropogenic noise (Parks et al., 2007).
Killer whales off the northwestern coast
of the United States have been observed
to increase the duration of primary calls
once a threshold in observing vessel
density (e.g., whale watching) was
reached, which has been suggested as a
response to increased masking noise
produced by the vessels (Foote et al.,
2004). In contrast, both sperm and pilot
whales potentially ceased sound
production during the Heard Island
feasibility test (Bowles et al., 1994),
although it cannot be absolutely
determined whether the inability to
acoustically detect the animals was due
to the cessation of sound production or
the displacement of animals from the
area.
Avoidance. Avoidance is the
displacement of an individual from an
area as a result of the presence of a
sound. Richardson et al. (1995) noted
that avoidance reactions are the most
obvious manifestations of disturbance in
marine mammals. 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
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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).
In 1998, the Navy conducted a Low
Frequency Sonar Scientific Research
Program (LFS SRP) to investigate
avoidance behavior of gray whales to
low frequency sound signals. The
objective was to determine whether
whales respond more strongly to
received levels (RL), sound gradient, or
distance from the source, and to
compare whale avoidance responses to
an LF source in the center of the
migration corridor versus in the offshore
portion of the migration corridor. A
single source was used to broadcast LFA
sonar sounds up to 200 dB. The Navy
reported that the whales showed some
avoidance responses when the source
was moored one mile (1.8 km) offshore,
in the migration path, but returned to
their migration path when they were a
few kilometers from the source. When
the source was moored two miles (3.7
km) offshore, responses were much less,
even when the source level was
increased to 200 dB re: 1 mPa, to achieve
the same RL for most whales in the
middle of the migration corridor. Also,
the researchers noted that the offshore
whales did not seem to avoid the louder
offshore source.
Also during the LFS SRP, researchers
sighted numerous odontocete and
pinniped species in the vicinity of the
sound exposure tests with LFA sonar.
The MF and HF hearing specialists
present in the study area showed no
immediately obvious responses or
changes in sighting rates as a function
of source conditions. Consequently, the
researchers concluded that none of
these species had any obvious
behavioral reaction to LFA signals at
received levels similar to those that
produced only minor but short-term
behavioral responses in the baleen
whales (i.e., LF hearing specialists)
(Clark and Southall, 2009). Thus, for
odontocetes, the chances of injury and/
or significant behavioral responses to
SURTASS LFA sonar would be low
given the MF/HF specialists’ observed
lack of response to LFA sounds during
the LFS SRP and due to the MF/HF
frequencies to which these animals are
adapted to hear (Clark and Southall,
2009).
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,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
and a control (blank) tape while
monitoring the behavior, movement,
and underwater vocalizations. The two
types of sonar signals differed in their
effects on the humpback whales, but
both resulted in avoidance behavior.
The whales responded to the pulse by
increasing their distance from the sound
source and responded to the frequency
sweep by increasing their swimming
speeds and track linearity. In the
Caribbean, sperm whales avoided
exposure to mid-frequency submarine
sonar pulses, in the range of 1000 Hz to
10,000 Hz (IWC 2005).
Kvadsheim et al., (2007) conducted a
controlled exposure experiment in
which killer whales fitted with D-tags
were exposed to mid-frequency active
sonar (Source A: A 1.0 s upsweep 209
dB @ 1–2 kHz every 10 sec for 10
minutes; Source B: With a 1.0 s
upsweep 197 dB @ 6–7 kHz every 10 sec
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
(where killer whales cooperatively herd
fish schools into a tight ball towards the
surface and feed on the fish which have
been stunned by tailslaps and
subsurface feeding (Simila, 1997) 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 (BRS) on
deep diving odontocetes conducted by
NMFS and other scientists showed one
beaked whale (Mesoplodon densirostris)
responding to an MF active sonar
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
867
After a few more minutes of the
playback, when the received level
reached a maximum of 140–150 dB, the
whale ascended on the slow side of
normal ascent rates with a longer than
normal ascent, at which point the
exposure was terminated. The BRS–07
cruise report notes that the results are
from a single experiment and that a
greater sample size is needed before
robust and definitive conclusions can be
drawn (NMFS, 2008a).
In the 2008 BRS study, researchers
identified an emerging pattern of
responses of deep-diving beaked whales
to MF active sonar playbacks. For
example, Blainville’s beaked whales—a
resident species within the Tongue of
the Ocean, Bahamas study area—appear
to be sensitive to noise at levels well
below expected TTS (approximately 160
dB re: 1mPa at 1 m). 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 MF active
sonar, 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 the frequency range of
the MF active sonar transmission. The
response to such stimuli appears to
involve the beaked whale increasing the
distance between it and the sound
source (NMFS, 2008b).
In the 2010 BRS study, researchers
again used controlled exposure
experiments (CEE) to carefully measure
behavioral responses of individual
animals to sound exposures of MF
active sonar and pseudo-random noise.
For each sound type, some exposures
were conducted when animals were in
a surface feeding (approximately 164 ft
(50 m) or less) and/or socializing
behavioral state and others while
animals were in a deep feeding (greater
than 164 ft (50 m)) and/or traveling
mode. The researchers conducted the
largest number of CEEs on blue whales
(n=19) and of these, 11 CEEs involved
exposure to the MF active sonar sound
type.
For the majority of CEE transmissions
of either sound type, they noted few
obvious behavioral responses detected
either by the visual observers or on
initial inspection of the tag data. The
researchers observed that throughout
the CEE transmissions, up to the highest
received sound level (absolute RMS
value approximately 160 dB re: 1mPa
with signal-to-noise ratio values over 60
dB), two blue whales continued surface
feeding behavior and remained at a
range of around 3,820 ft (1,000 m) from
the sound source (Southall et al., 2011).
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
868
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
In contrast, another blue whale (later in
the day and greater than 11.5 mi (18.5
km; 10 nmi) from the first CEE location)
exposed to the same stimulus (MFA)
while engaged in a deep feeding/travel
state exhibited a different response. In
that case, the blue whale responded
almost immediately following the start
of sound transmissions when received
sounds were just above ambient
background levels (Southall et al.,
2011). However, the authors note that
this kind of temporary avoidance
behavior was not evident in any of the
nine CEEs involving blue whales
engaged in surface feeding or social
behaviors, but was observed in three of
the ten CEEs for blue whales in deep
feeding/travel behavioral modes (one
involving MFA sonar; two involving
pseudo-random noise) (Southall et al.,
2011). The results of this study further
illustrate the importance of behavioral
context in understanding and predicting
behavioral responses.
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 MF active
sonar 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). In addition to the limited data on
flight response for marine mammals,
there are examples for terrestrial
species. For instance, 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 were
closer to the ground (Steidl and
Anthony, 1996).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
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
(avoidance, interruptions in
vocalizations, etc.) were generally
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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,
there is cause for concern 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) reviewed the available literature
on marine mammal hearing and
physiological and behavioral responses
to human-made sound with the goal of
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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 no quantitative criteria
were recommended for behavioral
responses. 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.
LFA sonar is considered a non-pulse
sound. Southall et al. (2007)
summarizes the studies associated with
low-frequency, mid-frequency, and
high-frequency 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
following paragraphs).
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, 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 mPa at 1 m range
and an increasing likelihood of
avoidance and other behavioral effects
in the 120 to 160 dB re: 1 mPa at 1 m
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 a received
level. Also, few of the laboratory or field
datasets had common conditions,
behavioral contexts, or sound sources,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
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
including: Pingers, drilling playbacks,
ship and ice-breaking noise, vessel
noise, Acoustic Harassment Devices
(AHDs), Acoustic Deterrent Devices
(ADDs), MF active sonar, 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
re: 1 mPa at 1 m, while in other cases
these responses were not seen in the 120
to 150 dB re: 1 mPa at 1 m 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
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 (approximately 90–120 dB re: 1
mPa at 1 m), at least for initial exposures.
All recorded exposures above 140 dB re:
1 mPa at 1 m 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 are 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
including: AHDs, ATOC, various nonpulse sounds used in underwater data
communication, underwater drilling,
and construction noise. Few studies
exist with enough information to
include them in the analysis. The
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
869
limited data suggest that exposure to
non-pulse sounds between 90 and 140
dB re: 1 mPa at 1 m 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, Southall et al. (2007)
developed a behavioral response
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 is 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 greater than the
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 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 22, NMFS has 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.
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
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).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
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
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, respectively, declined
significantly. These results are similar to
those reported by Scheidat et al. (2004)
for the humpback whales they observed
off the coast of Ecuador.
Constantine and Brunton (2001)
reported that bottlenose dolphins in the
Bay of Islands, New Zealand only
engaged in resting behavior five percent
of the time when vessels were within
300 m compared with 83 percent of the
time when vessels were not present.
Miksis-Olds (2006) and Miksis-Olds et
al. (2005) reported that Florida
manatees in Sarasota Bay, Florida,
reduced the amount of time they spent
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
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
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
EP06JA12.002</GPH>
870
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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 as 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. An example of this concept
with terrestrial species involved bighorn
sheep and Dall’s sheep, which
dedicated more time to being vigilant,
and less time resting or foraging, when
aircraft made direct approaches over
them (Frid, 2001; Stockwell et al.,
1991).
Several authors have established that
long-term and intense disturbance
stimuli can cause population declines
by reducing the 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 other
non-marine mammal species; for
example, 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 low-elevation 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).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
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, reducing the time they
might spend foraging and resting (which
increases an animal’s activity rate and
energy demand). An example of this
concept with terrestrial species
involved, a study of grizzly bears (Ursus
horribilis) which reported that bears
disturbed by hikers reduced their energy
intake by an average of 12 kilocalories/
min (50.2 × 103 kiloJoules/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
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 under the MMPA 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,
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
871
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).
Strandings Associated With Active
Sonar
Several sources have published lists
of mass stranding events of cetaceans in
an attempt to identify relationships
between those stranding events and
military active sonar (Hildebrand, 2004;
IWC, 2005; Taylor et al., 2004). For
example, based on a review of stranding
records between 1960 and 1995, the
International Whaling Commission
(2005) identified ten mass stranding
events and concluded that, out of eight
stranding events reported from the mid1980s to the summer of 2003, seven had
been coincident with the use of MF
active sonar and most involved beaked
whales.
Over the past 12 years, there have
been five stranding events coincident
with military MF active sonar use in
which exposure to sonar is believed by
NMFS and the Navy to have been a
contributing factor to strandings: Greece
(1996); the Bahamas (2000); Madeira
(2000); Canary Islands (2002); and Spain
(2006). NMFS refers the reader to Cox et
al. (2006) for a summary of common
features shared by the strandings events
in Greece (1996), Bahamas (2000),
Madeira (2000), and Canary Islands
(2002); and Fernandez et al., (2005) for
an additional summary of the Canary
Islands 2002 stranding event.
Additionally, in 2004, during the Rim of
the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercises, between
150 and 200 usually pelagic melonheaded whales occupied the shallow
waters of the Hanalei Bay, Kaua’i,
Hawaii for over 28 hours. NMFS
determined that the mid-frequency
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
872
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
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 MF active sonar
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.
Potential for Stranding From LFA Sonar
There is no empirical evidence of
strandings of marine mammals
associated with the employment of
SURTASS LFA sonar since its use began
in the early 2000s. Moreover, the system
acoustic characteristics differ between
LF and MF sonars: LFA sonars use
frequencies generally below 1,000 Hz,
with relatively long signals (pulses) on
the order of 60 sec; while MF sonars use
frequencies greater than 1,000 Hz, with
relatively short signals on the order of
1 sec.
As discussed previously, Cox et al.
(2006) provided a summary of common
features shared by the strandings events
in Greece (1996), Bahamas (2000), and
Canary Islands (2002). These included
deep water close to land (such as
offshore canyons), presence of an
acoustic waveguide (surface duct
conditions), and periodic sequences of
transient pulses (i.e., rapid onset and
decay times) generated at depths less
than 32.8 ft (10 m) by sound sources
moving at speeds of 2.6 m/s (5.1 knots)
or more during sonar operations
(D’Spain et al., 2006). These features do
not relate to LFA sonar operations. First,
the SURTASS LFA sonar vessel operates
with a horizontal line array of 4,921ft
(1,500 m) length at depths below 492 ft
(150 m) and a vertical line array (LFA
sonar source) at depths greater than 328
ft (100 m). Second, the Navy will not
operate SURTASS LFA sonar within 22
km (13. mi; 11.8 nm) of any coastline.
For these reasons, SURTASS LFA sonar
cannot be operated in deep water that is
close to land. Also, the LFA sonar signal
is transmitted at depths well below 32.8
ft (10 m). While there was an LF
component in the Greek stranding in
1996, only MF components were
present in the strandings in the
Bahamas in 2000, Madeira 2000, and
Canaries in 2002. The International
Council for the Exploration of the Sea
(ICES) in its ‘‘Report of the Ad-Hoc
Group on the Impacts of Sonar on
Cetaceans and Fish’’ raised the same
issues as Cox et al., (2006) stating that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
the consistent association of MF sonar
in the Bahamas, Madeira, and Canary
Islands strandings suggest that it was
the MF component, not the LF
component, in the NATO sonar that
triggered the Greek stranding of 1996
(ICES, 2005). The ICES (2005) report
concluded that no strandings, injury, or
major behavioral change have been
associated with the exclusive use of LF
sonar.
Concurrent Use of LF and MF Active
Sonar
The environmental impacts of the
SURTASS LFA sonar system, including
the potential for synergistic and
cumulative effects with MF active sonar
operation, has been addressed in detail
in the Navy’s application and the
SURTASS LFA sonar 2011 DSEIS/
SOEIS. NMFS will not consider the
authorization of take of marine
mammals incidental to the operation of
MF active sonar in this document
because NMFS has already separately
authorized the incidental take
associated with these activities. NMFS
has considered more specifically the
manner in which LFA sonar and MFAS
may interact in a multi-strike group
exercise with respect to the potential to
impact marine mammals in a manner
not previously considered.
Tactical and technical considerations
dictate that the LFA sonar ship would
typically be tens of miles from the MF
active sonar ship when using active
sonar. It is unlikely, but remotely
possible, that both LF and MF active
sonar would be active at exactly the
same time during a major exercise.
Based on the differing operating
characteristics of each sonar (pulse
length, duty cycle, etc.), the percentage
of overlap during concurrent MF and LF
active sonar operations is approximately
0.017 percent. In the unlikely event that
both systems were transmitting
simultaneously, the likelihood of more
than a relatively small number of
individual marine mammals being
physically present at a time, location,
and depth to be able to receive both LF
and MF active sonar signals at levels of
concern at the same time is even smaller
as the sound from both signals would
have attenuated when they reached the
marine mammal in question, so even a
simultaneous exposure would not be at
the full signal of either system.
Additionally, only a few species have
maximum sensitivity to both the low
and middle frequencies.
Potential Effects of Vessel Movement
and Collisions
Vessel movement in the vicinity of
marine mammals has the potential to
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
result in either a behavioral response or
a direct physical interaction. Both
scenarios are discussed below.
Behavioral Responses to 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.’’
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Behavioral responses to stimuli are
complex and influenced to varying
degrees by a number of factors, such as
species, behavioral contexts,
geographical regions, source
characteristics (moving or stationary,
speed, direction, etc.), prior experience
of the animal and physical status of the
animal. For example, studies have
shown that beluga whales’ reactions
varied when exposed to vessel noise
and traffic. In some cases, naive beluga
whales exhibited rapid swimming from
ice-breaking vessels up to 80 km (49.7
mi) 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
changed from frequent positive interest
(e.g., approaching vessels) to generally
uninterested reactions; fin whales
changed from mostly negative (e.g.,
avoidance) to uninterested reactions;
right whales apparently continued the
same variety of responses (negative,
uninterested, and positive responses)
with little change; and humpbacks
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 positive reactions to familiar
vessels, and they also occasionally
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
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
14.9 mph (24.1 km/hr; 13 kts).
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
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
873
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 kts.
The majority (79 percent) of these
strikes occurred at speeds of 13 kts or
greater. The average speed that resulted
in serious injury or death was 18.6 kts.
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
kts, and exceeded 90 percent at 17 kts.
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.
The Navy’s proposed operation of up
to four SURTASS LFA sonar vessels
world-wide is relatively small in scale
compared to the number of commercial
ships transiting at higher speeds in the
same areas on an annual basis. The
probability of vessel and marine
mammal interactions occurring during
SURTASS LFA operations is unlikely
due to the surveillance vessel’s slow
operational speed, which is typically 3.4
mph (5.6 km/hr; 3 kts). Outside of
operations, each vessel’s cruising speed
would be approximately 11.5 to 14.9
mph (18.5 to 24.1 km/hr; 10 to 13 kts)
which is generally below the speed at
which studies have noted reported
increases of marine mammal injury or
death (Laist et al., 2001). Second, the
Navy would restrict the operation of
SURTASS LFA vessels at a distance of
1 km (0.62 mi; 0.54 nmi) seaward of the
outer perimeter of any OBIA designated
for marine mammals during a specified
period, further minimizing the potential
for marine mammal interactions. Also,
the Navy would not operate SURTASS
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
874
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
LFA vessels a distance of 22 km (13. mi;
11.8 nmi) or less of any coastline,
including islands, thus operating in
offshore coastal areas with lower
densities of marine mammals would
minimize adverse impacts.
As a final point, the SURTASS LFA
surveillance vessels have a number of
other advantages for avoiding ship
strikes as compared to most commercial
merchant vessels, including the
following: The T–AGOS ships have
their bridges positioned forward of the
centerline, offering good visibility ahead
of the bow and good visibility aft to
visually monitor for marine mammal
presence; lookouts posted during
operations scan the ocean for marine
mammals and must report visual alerts
of marine mammal presence to the Deck
Officer; Navy lookouts receive extensive
training that covers the fundamentals of
visual observing for marine mammals
and information about marine mammals
and their identification at sea; and
SURTASS LFA vessels travel at 3–4 kts
(approximately 3.4 mph; 5.6 km/hr)
with deployed arrays. For a thorough
discussion of mitigation measures,
please see the Mitigation section later in
this document.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal
Habitat
The Navy’s proposed routine testing
and training, as well as military
operations using SURTASS LFA sonar,
could potentially affect marine mammal
habitat through the introduction of
pressure and sound into the water
column, which in turn could impact
prey species of marine mammals.
Based on the following information
and the supporting information
included in the Navy’s application, the
2001 FOEIS/EIS, the 2007 FSEIS, and
the 2011 DSEIS/SOEIS, NMFS has
preliminarily determined that
SURTASS LFA sonar operations will
not have significant or long-term
impacts on marine mammal habitat.
Unless the sound source is stationary
and/or continuous over a long duration
in one area, the effects of the
introduction of sound into the
environment are generally considered to
have a less severe impact on marine
mammal habitat than the physical
alteration of the habitat. Marine
mammals may be temporarily displaced
from areas where SURTASS LFA
operations are occurring, but the area
will likely be utilized again after the
activities have ceased. A summary of
the conclusions are included in
subsequent sections.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
Compliance With Maritime Law
Use of SURTASS LFA sonar entails
the periodic deployment of acoustic
transducers and receivers into the water
column from ocean-going ships. The
Navy deploys SURTASS LFA sonar
from ocean surveillance ships that are
U.S. Coast Guard-certified for operations
and operate in accordance with all
applicable federal, international, and
U.S. Navy rules and regulations related
to environmental compliance, especially
for discharge of potentially hazardous
materials. SURTASS LFA sonar ships
comply with all requirements of the
Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA; 33
U.S.C. section 1251 et seq.) and Act to
Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS; 33
U.S.C. subsections 1905–1915).
SURTASS LFA vessel movements are
not unusual or extraordinary and are
part of routine operations of seagoing
vessels. Therefore, no discharges of
pollutants regulated under the APPS or
CWA will result from the operation of
the sonar systems nor will any
unregulated environmental impacts
from the operation of the SURTASS
LFA sonar vessels occur.
Geographic Restrictions
The Navy has proposed that the
sound field does not exceed 180 dB re:
1 mPa at 1 m (i.e., a mitigation zone)
within 22 km (13. mi; 11.8 nmi) of any
coastline, including islands, or within
proposed OBIAs during biologically
important seasons, during the conduct
of SURTASS LFA operations.
Critical Habitat
Of the designated critical habitat for
marine mammals, four areas are at a
distance sufficient from shore to
potentially be affected by SURTASS
LFA sonar. They are the critical habitat
for the north Atlantic right whale
(NARW), north Pacific right whale
(NPRW), Hawaiian monk seal, and
Steller sea lion. The Navy proposes that
the sound field would not exceed 180
dB re: 1 mPa at 1 m in the areas
designated as critical habitat for the
north Atlantic right whale, north Pacific
right whale, and the Hawaiian monk
seal.
For NARW critical habitat, the Navy
has proposed an OBIA that encompasses
the critical habitats of the North Atlantic
right whale in Georges Bank (OBIA #1);
Roseway Basin right whale
Conservation Area (OBIA #2); in
portions of the Gulf of Maine including
Stellwagen Bank National Marine
Sanctuary, that are located outside of 22
km (13. mi; 11.8 nmi) (OBIA #3); and
the southeastern U.S. Right whale
Seasonal critical habitat (OBIA #4). In
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2008, NMFS designated two areas of
critical habitat for the NPRW, one in the
Bering Sea where the Navy proposes to
not conduct SURTASS LFA sonar
operations. For the other designated
area for critical habitat in the Gulf of
Alaska, the Navy has proposed an OBIA
(#5) that bounds the designated critical
habitat for the species.
Much of the proposed critical habitat
for Hawaiian monk seals is within 22
km (13. mi; 11.8 nmi) of any shoreline
and there is no proposed OBIA that
encompasses the entirety of Hawaiian
monk seal critical habitat. However, the
Navy has proposed an OBIA (#16) that
encompasses the Penguin Bank portion
of the Hawaiian Islands Humpback
Whale National Marine Sanctuary.
There is no proposed OBIA that
encompasses designated critical habitat
for Steller sea lions. Much of the critical
habitat for the Steller sea lion is located
in the Bering Sea, where SURTASS LFA
sonar will not operate. Although it is
possible that the sonar will be operated
in the western Gulf of Alaska where the
eastern critical habitat for the Steller sea
lion is located and some of that habitat
lies outside of 22 km (13. mi; 11.8 nmi)
from shore, the water depth in which
the habitat is found is sufficiently
shallow that it is unlikely that the Navy
would operate sonar in the vicinity of
that critical habitat.
Both the Navy and NMFS will consult
with NMFS on effects on critical habitat
pursuant to section 7 of the ESA.
Marine Protected Areas (MPA)
Within the National System of MPAs,
seven formally recognized areas are in
potential SURTASS LFA sonar
operating areas because a portion of the
area or its seaward boundary is located
beyond 22 km (13. mi; 11.8 nmi) from
the coastline. These MPAs are:
Stellwagen Bank National Marine
Sanctuary (NMS); Olympic Coast NMS;
Gulf of the Farallones NMS; Monterey
Bay NMS; Cordell Bank NMS; Hawaiian
Islands Humpback Whale NMS; and
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National
Monument. The Navy has proposed not
to operate SURTASS LFA sonar in
specified areas of National Marine
Sanctuaries during biologically
important seasons (see OBIA section
discussed later in this document).
The proposed SURTASS LFA
operations are not anticipated to have
any permanent impact on habitats used
by the marine mammals in the proposed
operational areas, including the food
sources they use (i.e., fish and
invertebrates). Additionally, no physical
damage to any habitat is anticipated as
a result of conducting the proposed
SURTASS LFA operations. While it is
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
anticipated that the specified activity
may result in marine mammals avoiding
certain areas due to temporary
ensonification, this impact to habitat is
temporary and reversible and was
considered in further detail earlier in
this document, as behavioral
modification. The main impact
associated with the proposed activity
will be temporarily elevated noise levels
and the associated direct effects on
marine mammals, previously discussed
in this notice.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Anticipated Impacts on Fish
The Navy’s DSEIS/SOEIS includes a
detailed discussion of the effects of
active sonar on marine fish and several
studies on the effects of both Navy sonar
and seismic airguns that are relevant to
potential effects of SURTASS LFA sonar
on osteichthyes (bony fish). In the most
pertinent of these, the Navy funded
independent scientists to analyze the
effects of SURTASS LFA sonar on fish
(Popper et al., 2005a, 2007; Halvorsen et
al., 2006) and on the effects of
SURTASS LFA sonar on fish physiology
(Kane et al., 2010).
Several studies on the effects of
SURTASS LFA sonar sounds on three
species of fish (rainbow trout, channel
catfish, and hybrid sunfish) examined
long-term effects on sensory hair cells of
the ear. In all species, even up to 96
hours post-exposure, there were no
indications of damage to sensory cells
(Popper et al., 2005a, 2007; Halvorsen et
al., 2006). Recent results from direct
pathological studies of the effects of
LFA sounds on fish (Kane et al., 2010)
provide evidence that SURTASS LFA
sonar sounds at relatively high received
levels (up to 193 dB re: 1 mPa at 1 m)
have no pathological effects or short- or
long-term effects to ear tissue on the
species of fish that have been studied.
Anticipated Impacts on Invertebrates
Among invertebrates, only
cephalopods (octopus and squid) and
decapods (lobsters, shrimps, and crabs)
are known to sense LF sound (Packard
et al., 1990; Budelmann and
Williamson, 1994; Lovell et al., 2005;
Mooney et al., 2010). Popper and Schilt
(2008) stated that, like fish, some
invertebrate species produce sound,
possibly using it for communications,
territorial behavior, predator deterrence,
and mating. Well known sound
producers include the lobster (Panulirus
spp.) (Latha et al., 2005), and the
snapping shrimp (Alpheus
heterochaelis) (Herberholtz and
Schmitz, 2001).
Andre et al. (2011) exposed four
cephalopod species (Loligo vulgaris,
Sepia officinalis, Octopus vulgaris, and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
875
Ilex coindetii) to two hours of
continuous sound from 50 to 400 Hz at
157 ± 5 dB re: 1 mPa. They reported
lesions to the sensory hair cells of the
statocysts of the exposed animals that
increased in severity with time,
suggesting that cephalopods are
particularly sensitive to low-frequency
sound. However, the Navy notes in the
DSEIS/SOEIS (Chapter 3–6) that the
authors failed to elaborate that there
were no anthropogenic sources to which
animals might be exposed with
characteristics similar to those used in
their study. The time sequence of
exposure from low-frequency sources in
the open ocean would be about once
every 10 to 15 min for SURTASS LFA.
Therefore, the study’s sound exposures
were longer in duration and higher in
energy than any exposure a marine
mammal would likely ever receive and
acoustically very different than a free
field sound to which animals would be
exposed in the real world. Given the
lack of data on hearing thresholds of
cephalopods, SURTASS LFA sonar
operations could only have a lasting
impact on these animals if they are
within a few tens of meters from the
source. In conclusion, NMFS does not
expect any short- or long-term effects to
marine mammal food resources from
SURTASS LFA sonar activities.
impact on the effectiveness of the
‘‘military readiness activity.’’
To reduce the potential for impacts
from acoustic stimuli associated with
the Navy’s SURTASS LFA sonar
activities, the Navy has proposed to
implement the following mitigation
measures for marine mammals:
(1) LFA sonar mitigation zone—LF
sources transmissions are suspended if
the Navy detects marine mammals
within the mitigation zones by any of
the following detection methods:
(a) Visual monitoring;
(b) Passive acoustic monitoring;
(c) Active acoustic monitoring;
(2) Geographic restrictions in the
following areas:
(a) Offshore Biologically Important
Areas (OBIAs);
(b) Coastal Standoff Zone.
Additionally, as with the previous
rulemaking, NMFS proposes to include
additional operational restrictions for
SURTASS LFA sonar operations:
(1) Additional 1-km buffer around the
LFA sonar mitigation zone; and
(2) Additional 1-km buffer around an
OBIA perimeter.
Both the Navy’s proposed mitigation
and NMFS’ additional proposed
mitigation are discussed below this
section.
Proposed 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 section 101(a)(5)(A) of the
MMPA 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
SURTASS LFA sonar application are
considered military readiness activities.
NMFS reviewed the proposed
SURTASS LFA sonar activities and the
proposed mitigation measures as
described in the Navy’s 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
The Navy has proposed in its
application to establish a 180-dB (RL)
isopleth LFA sonar mitigation zone
around the surveillance vessel. If a
marine mammal approaches or enters
the LFA sonar mitigation zone, the Navy
would implement a suspension of
SURTASS LFA sonar transmissions.
Prior to commencing and during
SURTASS LFA transmissions, the Navy
will determine the propagation of LFA
sonar signals in the ocean and the
distance from the SURTASS LFA sonar
source to the 180-dB isopleth (See
Description of Real-Time SURTASS
LFA Sonar Sound Field Modeling
section). The 180-dB isopleth will
define the LFA sonar mitigation zone for
marine mammals around the
surveillance vessel.
The Navy modeling of the sound field
in near-real time conditions provides
the information necessary to modify
SURTASS LFA operations, including
the delay or suspension of LFA
transmissions. Acoustic model updates
are nominally made every 12 hr, or
more frequently when meteorological or
oceanographic conditions change. If the
sound field criteria were exceeded, the
sonar operator would notify the Officer
in Charge (OIC), who would order the
delay or suspension of transmissions. If
it were predicted that the SPLs would
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
LFA Sonar Mitigation Zone
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
876
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
exceed the criteria within the next 12 hr
period, the OIC would also be notified
in order to take the necessary action to
ensure that the sound field criteria
would not be exceeded.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
NMFS’ Additional 1-km Buffer Zone
Around the LFA Sonar Mitigation Zone
As an added measure, NMFS again
proposes to require a ‘‘buffer zone’’ that
extends an additional 1 km (0.62 mi;
0.54 nm) beyond the 180-dB isopleth
LFA sonar mitigation zone. This buffer
coincides with the full detection range
of the HF/M3 active sonar for mitigation
monitoring (approximately 2 to 2.5 km;
1.2 to 1.5 mi; 1.1 to 1.3 nmi). Thus, the
180-dB isopleth for the LFA sonar
mitigation zone, plus NMFS’ 1-km (0.54
nm) buffer zone would comprise the
entire mitigation zone for SURTASS
LFA sonar operations, wherein
suspension of transmissions would
occur if a marine mammal approaches
or enters either zone. The Navy notes in
its application that this additional
mitigation is practicable and it would
adhere to this additional measure if
required in the proposed rule.
In addition to establishing a 180-dB
(RL) isopleth LFA sonar mitigation zone
around the surveillance vessel the Navy
has also proposed to establish a
mitigation zone for human divers at 145
dB re: 1 mPa at 1 m around all known
human commercial and recreational
diving sites. Although this geographic
restriction is intended to protect human
divers, it will also reduce the LF sound
levels received by marine mammals
located in the vicinity of known dive
sites.
Visual Mitigation Monitoring
The use of shipboard lookouts is a
critical component of all Navy
mitigation measures. Navy shipboard
lookouts are highly qualified and
experienced observers of the marine
environment. Their duties require that
they report all objects sighted in the
water to the Deck Officer (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.
Visual monitoring consists of daytime
observations by lookouts (personnel
trained in detecting and identifying
marine mammals) for marine mammals
from the vessel. The objective of these
observations is to maintain a bearing of
marine mammals observed and to
ensure that none approach the source
close enough to enter the LFA
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
mitigation zone or the 1-km buffer zone
proposed by NMFS (see Additional
Mitigation Measure Proposed by NMFS
section).
Daylight is defined as 30 min before
sunrise until 30 min after sunset. Visual
monitoring would begin 30 min before
sunrise or 30 min before the Navy
deploys the SURTASS LFA sonar array.
Lookouts will continue to monitor the
area until 30 min after sunset or until
recovery of the SURTASS LFA sonar
array.
The lookouts would maintain a
topside watch and marine mammal
observation log during operations that
employ SURTASS LFA sonar in the
active mode. These trained monitoring
personnel maintain a topside watch and
scan the water’s surface around the
vessel systematically with standard
binoculars (7x) and with the naked eye.
If the lookout sights a possible marine
mammal, the lookout will use big-eye
binoculars (25x) to confirm the sighting
and potentially identify the marine
mammal species. Lookouts will enter
numbers and identification of marine
mammals sighted, as well as any
unusual behavior, into the log. A
designated ship’s officer will monitor
the conduct of the visual watches and
periodically review the log entries.
If a lookout observes a marine
mammal outside of the LFA mitigation
or buffer zone, the lookout will notify
the OIC. The OIC shall then notify the
HF/M3 sonar operator to determine the
range and projected track of the marine
mammal. If the HF/M3 sonar operator or
the lookout determines that the marine
mammal will pass within the LFA
mitigation or buffer zones, the OIC shall
order the delay or suspension of
SURTASS LFA sonar transmissions
when the animal enters the LFA
mitigation or buffer zone to prevent
Level A harassment. The lookout will
enter his/her observations into the log.
This would include tabular information
that includes: Date/time; vessel name;
LOA area; marine mammals affected
(number and type); assessment basis
(observed injury, behavioral response,
or model calculation); LFA mitigation or
buffer zone radius; bearing from vessel;
whether operations were delayed,
suspended or terminated; and a
narrative.
If a lookout observes a marine
mammal anywhere within the LFA
mitigation or 1-km buffer zone (as
proposed by NMFS), the lookout shall
notify the OIC who will promptly order
the immediate delay or suspension of
SURTASS LFA sonar transmissions.
The lookout will enter his/her
observations into the log.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Marine mammal biologists, who are
qualified in conducting at-sea marine
mammal visual monitoring from surface
vessels, shall train and qualify
designated ship personnel to conduct atsea visual monitoring. The Navy will
hire one or more marine mammal
biologists qualified in conducting at-sea
marine mammal visual monitoring from
surface vessels to train and qualify
designated ship personnel to conduct atsea visual monitoring.
Passive Acoustic Mitigation Monitoring
For the second of the three-part
mitigation monitoring measures, the
Navy proposes to conduct passive
acoustic monitoring using the SURTASS
towed horizontal line array to listen for
vocalizing marine mammals as an
indicator of their presence. This system
serves to augment the visual and active
sonar detection systems. If a passive
acoustic technician detects a vocalizing
marine mammal that may be potentially
affected by SURTASS LFA sonar prior
to or during transmissions, the
technician will notify the OIC who will
immediately alert the HF/M3 active
sonar operators and the lookouts. The
OIC will order the delay or suspension
of SURTASS LFA sonar transmissions
when the animal enters the LFA
mitigation or buffer zone as detected by
either the HF/M3 sonar operator or the
lookouts. The passive acoustic
technician will record all contacts of
marine mammals into the log.
Active Acoustic Mitigation Monitoring
HF active acoustic monitoring uses
the HF/M3 sonar to detect, locate, and
track marine mammals that could pass
close enough to the SURTASS LFA
sonar array to enter the LFA sonar
mitigation or buffer zones. HF/M3
acoustic monitoring begins 30 min
before the first SURTASS LFA sonar
transmission of a given mission is
scheduled to commence and continues
until the Navy terminates the
transmissions.
If the HF/M3 sonar operator detects a
marine mammal contact outside the
LFA sonar mitigation zone or buffer
zones, the HF/M3 sonar operator shall
determine the range and projected track
of the marine mammal. If the operator
determines that the marine mammal
will pass within the LFA sonar
mitigation or buffer zones, he/she shall
notify the OIC. The OIC then
immediately orders the delay or
suspension of transmissions when the
animal is predicted to enter the LFA
sonar mitigation or buffer zones.
If the HF/M3 sonar operator detects a
marine mammal within the LFA
mitigation or buffer zones, he/she shall
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
notify the OIC who will immediately
order the delay or suspension of
transmissions. The HF/M3 sonar
operator will record all contacts of
marine mammals into the log.
Prior to full-power operations of the
HF/M3 active sonar, the Navy will ramp
up the HF/M3 sonar power level over a
period of 5 min from the source level of
180 dB re 1 mPa at 1 m in 10-dB
increments until the system attains full
power (if required) to ensure that there
are no inadvertent exposures of marine
mammals to received levels greater than
180 dB re 1 mPa from the HF/M3 sonar.
The Navy will not increase the HF/M3
sonar source level if any of the three
monitoring programs detect a marine
mammal during ramp-up. Ramp-up may
continue once marine mammals are no
longer detected by any of the three
monitoring programs.
Prior to any SURTASS LFA sonar
calibrations or testing that are not part
of regular SURTASS LFA sonar
transmissions, the Navy will ramp up
the HF/M3 sonar power level over a
period of 5 min from the source level of
180 dB re 1 mPa at 1 m in 10-dB
increments until the system attains full
power. The Navy will not increase the
HF/M3 source level if any of the three
monitoring programs detect a marine
mammal during ramp-up. Ramp-up may
continue once marine mammals are no
longer detected by any of the three
monitoring programs.
In situations where the HF/M3 sonar
system has been powered down for
more than 2 min, the Navy will ramp up
the HF/M3 sonar power level over a
period of 5 min from the source level of
180 dB re 1 mPa at 1 m in 10-dB
increments until the system attains full
power.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Past Mitigation Monitoring Under the
Previous Rules
For the first four LOA periods under
the 2007 rule, the Navy has reported a
total of eight visual sightings, four
passive acoustic detections, and 29 HF/
M3 active sonar detections (DoN, 2008;
2009a; 2010; 2011) leading to mitigation
protocols of suspensions/delays of
transmissions in a total of 70 missions.
During the 2002–2007 rule period, the
Navy reported a total of four visual
sightings, no passive acoustic
detections, and 101 active HF/M3 active
sonar detections leading to mitigation
protocols of suspensions/delays of
transmissions (DoN, 2007a; 2007b) in a
total of 58 missions. However, these
data sets involving marine species are
too small to support any meaningful
analyses, such as determining if there
are any differences in detection during
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
the time when LFA sonar is active
versus when it is inactive.
Geographic Restrictions
As noted above, the Navy has
proposed two types of geographic
restrictions for SURTASS LFA
operations in the LOA application: (1)
establishing OBIAs for marine mammal
protection and restricting SURTASS
LFA sonar operations within these
designated areas such that the
SURTASS LFA sonar-generated sound
field will not exceed 180 dB re: 1 mPa
(RL); and (2) restricting SURTASS LFA
sonar operations within 22 km (13. mi;
11.8 nmi) of any coastline, including
islands.
Offshore Biologically Important Areas
As with the previous SURTASS LFA
sonar rulemakings, the Navy’s
application again proposed establishing
offshore biologically important areas
OBIAs for marine mammal protection.
In preparation for this rule making,
NMFS developed a more systematic
process for selecting, assessing, and
designating OBIAs for SURTASS LFA
sonar.
First, NMFS developed screening
criteria to help initially select potential
areas and then determine an area’s
eligibility for consideration as an OBIA
nominee. These OBIA screening criteria
included:
(1) Areas with:
(a) High densities of marine
mammals; or
(b) Known/defined breeding/calving
grounds, foraging grounds, migration
routes; or
(c) Small, distinct populations of
marine mammals with limited
distributions; and
(2) Areas that are outside of the
coastal standoff distance and within
potential operational areas for
SURTASS LFA (i.e., greater than 22 km
(13.6 mi; 12 nmi) from any shoreline
and not in polar regions).
NMFS used the screening criteria to
review 403 existing and potential
marine protected areas based on the
World Database on Protected Areas
(WDPA) (IUCN and UNEP, 2009), Holt
(2005), and prior SURTASS LFA sonar
OBIAs to produce a preliminary list of
27 OBIA nominees.
NMFS next convened an expert
review panel of biologists
knowledgeable about potentially
affected marine mammal biologically
important areas. This panel consisted of
subject matter experts (SME), each with
expertise in geographic regions
including the Atlantic Ocean, Pacific
Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Indian
Ocean/Southeast Asia, and East Africa.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
877
The SMEs provided their individual
analyses of NMFS’ preliminary
candidates as potential marine mammal
OBIAs in waters where the Navy
potentially could use the SURTASS
LFA sonar systems and provided
additional recommendations for other
OBIAs. This resulted in a total number
of 73 potential OBIAs. These areas were
further screened for sufficient scientific
support, resulting in 45 potential
OBIAs.
Although not part of its initial
screening criteria, consideration of
marine mammal hearing frequency
sensitivity led NMFS to screen out areas
that qualified solely on the basis of their
importance for mid- or high-frequency
hearing specialists. The LFA sound
source is well below the range of best
hearing sensitivity for most MF and HF
odontocete hearing specialists. This
means, for example, for harbor
porpoises, that a sound with a frequency
less than 1 kHz needs to be significantly
louder (more than 40 dB louder) than a
sound in their area of best sensitivity
(around 100 kHz) in order for them to
hear it. Additionally, during the 1997 to
1998 SURTASS LFA Sonar Low
Frequency Sound Scientific Research
Program (LFS SRP), numerous
odontocete and pinniped species (i.e.,
MF and HF hearing specialists) were
sighted in the vicinity of the sound
exposure tests and showed no
immediately obvious responses or
changes in sighting rates as a function
of source conditions, which likely
produced received levels similar to
those that produced minor short-term
behavioral responses in the baleen
whales (i.e., LF hearing specialists).
NMFS believes that MF and HF
odontocete hearing specialists have
such reduced sensitivity to the LFA
source that limiting ensonification in
OBIAs for those animals would not
afford protection beyond that which is
already incurred by implementing a
shutdown when any marine mammal
enters the LFA mitigation and buffer
zones. Consideration of this additional
information resulted in a list of 22 final
OBIA nominees for the Navy’s
consideration.
The 22 areas are: (1) Georges Bank,
year round; (2) Roseway Basin Right
Whale Conservation Area, June through
December; (3) the Great South Channel,
U.S. Gulf of Maine, and Stellwagen
Bank NMS, January 1 to November 14;
(4) the Southeastern U.S. Right Whale
Seasonal Habitat, November 15 to
January 15; (5) the North Pacific Right
Whale Critical Habitat, March through
August; (6) Silver Bank and Navidad
Bank, December through April; (7) the
coastal waters of Gabon, Congo and
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
878
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Equatorial Guinea, June through
October; (8) the Patagonian Shelf Break,
year round; (9) Southern Right Whale
Seasonal Habitat, May through
December; (10) the central California
National Marine Sanctuaries, June
through November; (11) the Antarctic
Convergence Zone, October through
March; (12) Piltun and Chayvo offshore
feeding grounds in the Sea of Okhotsk,
June through November; (13) the coastal
waters off Madagascar, July through
September for humpback whale
breeding and November through
December for migrating blue whales;
(14) Madagascar Plateau, Madagascar
Ridge, and Walters Shoal, November
through December; (15) the LigurianCorsican-Provencal Basin and Western
Pelagos Sanctuary in the Mediterranean
Sea, July to August; (16) Hawaiian
Islands Humpback Whale NMS and
Penguin Bank, November through April;
(17) the Costa Rica Dome, year round;
(18) the Great Barrier Reef Between 16°
S and 21° S, May through September;
(19) the Bonney Upwelling on the west
coast of Australia, December through
May; (20) the Northern Bay of Bengal
and Head of Swatch-of-No-Ground, year
round; (21) the Olympic Coast NMS
(within 23 nmi (26.5 m; 42.6 km) of the
coast from 47°07′ N to 48°30′ N
latitude), December, January, March,
and May and the Prairie, Barkley
Canyon, and Nitnat Canyon, June
through September; and (22) an area
within the Southern California Bight,
June through November for blue whales,
December through May for gray whales,
year-round for all other species.
The Navy agreed that these areas met
NMFS’ criteria and based on its
practicability assessment pursuant to
the MMPA, the Navy proposed 21 of the
22 sites in its application. An area
within the Southern California Bight,
specifically an area including Tanner
and Cortes Banks (see section 4.5.2.3 for
boundary information) from June
through November, met the criteria as a
concentrated area for blue whales based
on predictive modeling (Barlow et al.,
2009) or as a foraging area based on a
2000–2004 study of blue whale calls
(Oleson, Calambokidis, Barlow, &
Hildebrand, 2007). However, the Navy
concluded that the underlying data
cover a short time period and the
dynamic nature of blue whale
distribution and the variability of prey
abundance make it difficult to assign
any permanence to this area as one of
blue whale concentration. The Navy
determined that avoiding this area was
operationally impracticable as much of
the OBIA is within the existing
Southern California (SOCAL) Range
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
Complex which plays a vital part in
ensuring military readiness. The
training that occurs in the SOCAL Range
Complex includes antisubmarine
warfare (ASW) training and the SOCAL
Range Complex provides the uneven,
mountainous underwater topography
that is essential to such training,
because it is similar to the kind of
underwater topography that submarines
use to hide or mask their presence.
NMFS preliminarily concurs with the
Navy’s practicability assessment.
Based on the Navy’s practicability
evaluation, NMFS proposes to designate
these 21 sites as OBIAs for LFA sonar.
NMFS refers the readers to Table 2 in
the Navy’s application and Chapter 4
and Appendix D–8 of the Navy’s 2011
DSEIS/SOEIS for more detailed
information on the specific justification
for each OBIA, the locations, and
geographic boundaries of the proposed
OBIAS.
NMFS’ Additional 1-km Buffer Zone
Around an OBIA Perimeter
NMFS also proposes an OBIA
‘‘buffer’’ requirement for the Navy that
would restrict the operation of
SURTASS LFA sonar so that the
SURTASS LFA sonar sound field does
not exceed 180 dB re: 1 mPa at a distance
of 1 km (0.62 mi; 0.54 nmi) seaward of
the outer perimeter of any OBIA
designated for marine mammals during
the specified period. The Navy notes in
its application that this additional
mitigation is practicable and it would
adhere to this additional measure if
required in the proposed rule.
OBIAs are mitigation measures for
SURTASS LFA sonar and are based on
the system’s unique operating and
physical characteristics and should not
be assumed to be appropriate for other
activities.
Coastal Standoff Zone
The Navy has proposed to restrict
SURTASS LFA sonar operations within
22 km (13. mi; 11.8 nmi) of any
coastline, including islands such that
the SURTASS LFA sonar-generated
sound field will not exceed 180 dB re:
1 mPa (RL) at that distance.
Operational Exception
It may be necessary for SURTASS
LFA transmissions to be at or above 180
dB re 1 mPa (rms) within the boundaries
of the designated SURTASS LFA sonar
OBIAs, including operating within an
OBIA, when: (1) Operationally
necessary to continue tracking an
existing underwater contact; or (2)
operationally necessary to detect a new
underwater contact within the OBIA.
This exception will not apply to routine
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
training and testing with the SURTASS
LFA sonar systems.
Mitigation Conclusions
NMFS has carefully evaluated the
Navy’s proposed mitigation measures
and considered a broad range of other
measures in the context of ensuring that
NMFS prescribes the means of effecting
the least practicable adverse impact on
the affected marine mammal species
and stocks and their habitat. Our
evaluation of potential measures
included consideration of the following
factors in relation to one another:
• The manner in which, and the
degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure is
expected to minimize adverse impacts
to marine mammals;
• The proven or likely efficacy of the
specific measure to minimize adverse
impacts as planned; 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 proposed beyond those
that the applicant proposed. 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 LFA sonar or other activities expected
to result in the take of marine mammals
(this goal may contribute to goal 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
LFA sonar or other activities expected to
result in the take of marine mammals
(this goal may contribute to goal 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 LFA
sonar or other activities expected to
result in the take of marine mammals
(this goal may contribute to goal a,
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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 (i.e., shutdown in the LFA
mitigation and buffer zones).
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
together with the additional mitigation
measures proposed by NMFS provide
the 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. NMFS
provides further details in the following
section.
NMFS believes that the shutdown in
the LFA sonar mitigation and buffer
zones, visual monitoring, passive
acoustic monitoring, active acoustic
monitoring using HF/M3 sonar with
ramp-up procedures, and geographic
restriction measures proposed will
enable the Navy to: (1) Avoid Level A
harassment of marine mammals; (2)
Minimize the numbers of marine
mammals exposed to SURTASS LFA
sonar sound associated with TTS; and
(3) Minimize the numbers taken
specifically during times of important
behaviors, such as feeding, migrating,
calving, or breeding.
TTS: The LFA sonar signal is not
expected to cause TTS at received levels
below 180 dB re: 1 mPa. In other words,
the received level of the LFA sonar
signal at approximately 1 km (0.62 mi;
0.54 nmi) from the vessel is 180 dB re:
1 mPa. Implementing an additional 1-km
buffer zone increases the shutdown
zone to approximately 2 km (1.2 mi; 1.1
nmi) around the LFA sonar array and
vessel will ensure that no marine
mammals are exposed to an SPL greater
than about 174 dB re: 1 mPa.
The best information available
indicates that effects from SPLs less
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
than 180 dB re: 1 mPa will be limited to
short-term, Level B behavioral
Harassment affecting less than an
average of 12 percent of the stocks
present in an operational area annually
for most affected species.
PTS/Injury: In the case of SURTASS
LFA sonar operations, NMFS does not
expect marine mammals to be exposed
to received sound levels that are high
enough or long enough in duration to
result in PTS. The Navy’s standard
protective measures indicate that they
would ensure delay or suspension of
SURTASS LFA sonar transmissions if
any of the three monitoring programs
detect a marine mammal entering the
LFA mitigation and/or buffer zones i.e.,
within approximately two km (1.2 mi;
1.1 nmi) of the vessel. The proposed
mitigation monitoring measures would
allow the Navy to avoid exposing
marine mammals to received levels of
SURTASS LFA sonar or HF/M3 sonar
sound that could result in injury (Level
A harassment).
Southall et al. (2007) proposed injury
criteria for individual marine mammals
exposed to non-pulsed sound types,
which included discrete acoustic
exposures from SURTASS LFA sonar.
The proposed injury criteria for
cetaceans are sound pressure levels
(SPL) of 230 dB re: 1 mPa and sound
exposure levels (SEL) of 215 dB re: 1
mPa2-sec. Taking into account an 18-dB
adjustment for the longer LFA signal in
SEL units, the proposed injury criteria
for cetaceans exposed to SURTASS LFA
sonar signals would result in an SEL of
197 dB re: 1 mPa2-sec (i.e., 215 ¥ 18 =
197) (which converts to an SPL of
approximately 182 dB re: 1 mPa). The
Navy’s criterion for estimating injury
marine mammals is an SPL of 180 dB re:
1 mPa is lower than the injury criteria
proposed by Southall et al. (2007).
Thus, the probability of SURTASS LFA
sonar transmissions (with mitigation)
causing PTS in marine mammals is
considered unlikely.
The SPLs capable of potentially
causing injury to an animal are well
within approximately 1 km (0.62 mi;
0.54 nm) of the ship. Implementing a
shutdown zone of approximately 2 km
(1.2 mi; 1.1 nmi) around the LFA sonar
array and vessel will ensure that no
marine mammals are exposed to an SPL
greater than about 174 dB re: 1 mPa. This
is significantly lower than the 180-dB
re: 1 mPa used for other acoustic projects
for protecting marine mammals from
injury.
Serious injury is unlikely to occur
unless a marine mammal is well within
the 180-dB re: 1 mPa LFA sonar
mitigation zone and close to the source.
The closer a mammal is to the vessel,
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
879
the more likely the Navy personnel will
detect it by the three-part monitoring
program leading to the immediate
suspension of SURTASS LFA sonar
operations.
The Navy has operated SURTASS
LFA sonar under NMFS regulations for
the last nine years without any reports
of injury or death. The evidence to date,
including recent scientific reports and
annual monitoring reports, and nineyear’s worth of conducting SURTASS
LFA operations further supports the
conclusion that the potential for serious
injury to occur is minimal.
Proposed Research
The Navy sponsors significant
research and monitoring projects for
marine living resources to study the
potential effects of its activities on
marine mammals. These funding levels
have increased in recent years to $31
million in FY 2009 and $32 million in
FY 2010 for marine mammal research
and monitoring activities at universities,
research institutions, federal
laboratories, and private companies.
Navy-funded research has produced
many peer-reviewed articles in
professional journals. This ongoing
marine mammal research relates to
hearing and hearing sensitivity, auditory
effects, dive and behavioral response
models, noise impacts, beaked whale
global distribution, modeling of beaked
whale hearing and response, tagging of
free-ranging marine animals at-sea, and
radar-based detection of marine
mammals from ships. The Navy
sponsors 70 percent of all U.S. research
on the effects of human-generated
underwater sound on marine mammals
and 50 percent of such research
conducted worldwide. These research
projects may not be specifically related
to SURTASS LFA sonar operations;
however, they are crucial to the overall
knowledge base on marine mammals
and the potential effects from
underwater anthropogenic noise. The
Navy also sponsors research to
determine marine mammal abundances
and densities for all Navy ranges and
other operational areas. The Navy notes
that research and evaluation is being
carried out on various monitoring and
mitigation methods, including passive
acoustic monitoring and the results from
this research could be applicable to
SURTASS LFA sonar passive acoustic
monitoring. The Navy has also
sponsored several workshops to
evaluate the current state of knowledge
and potential for future acoustic
monitoring of marine mammals. The
workshops bring together underwater
acoustic subject matter experts and
marine biologists from the Navy and
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
880
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
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 Navy instrumented ranges.
Proposed 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, 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 LFA
sonar 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 LFA sonar (at
specific received levels 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.
(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 mitigation zone (thus allowing for
more effective implementation of the
mitigation) and in general to better
achieve the above goals.
Marine Mammal Monitoring (M3)
Program
The Marine Mammal Monitoring (M3)
Program uses the Navy’s permanent
seafloor sensor arrays in areas of the
Atlantic Ocean to passively monitor the
movements of some large cetaceans,
including their migration and feeding
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
patterns, by tracking them through their
vocalizations. Analysts can not only
count numbers of whales, but in some
cases also note the interaction and
influence of underwater noise sources
on the animals. Some whales are vocal
enough to allow long-term tracking; e.g.,
in 2010 a blue whale was tracked for 67
days. Recently, upgraded acoustic signal
processing systems have allowed for
detection of sperm whale clicks—
longest holding to date of one sperm
whale is 12 hrs, which included 14
dives. As previously noted these data
are not real time and thus cannot be
relied upon for mitigation purposes. At
present, most of the data resulting from
the M3 Program are classified. The Navy
will continue to assess the data
collected by its undersea arrays and
work toward making some portion of
that data, after appropriate security
reviews, available to scientists with
appropriate clearances. Any portions of
the analyses conducted by these
scientists based on these data that are
determined to be unclassified after
appropriate security reviews will be
made publically available.
Passive Acoustic Monitoring With Fleet
Exercises
For fleet exercises that SURTASS LFA
sonar is involved in, the Navy is
exploring the feasibility of coordinating
with other fleet assets and/or range
monitoring programs to include the use
of SURTASS towed horizontal line
arrays to augment the collection of
marine mammal vocalizations before,
during, and after designated exercises.
The goal would be to determine the
extent, if any, of changes in marine
mammal vocalizations that could have
been caused by SURTASS LFA sonar
operations during the exercise. This
applies directly to increased knowledge
of marine mammal species. If the
collection of such calibrated and
validated data can occur, this could be
useful information in NMFS’
environmental compliance processes for
underwater LF sonar systems.
This effort would require detailed preplanning and a comprehensive data
collection and analysis plan, which will
necessarily be subject to the fleet
operations plan for the exercise itself.
Other factors that would need to be
addressed include the following:
Scheduling of assets; budgetary
constraints; potential for qualified,
professional marine mammal biologists
to ride the SURTASS LFA sonar vessel
during the data collection efforts;
security measures; de-conflicting any
potential behavioral responses of marine
mammals in the fleet exercise area from
other underwater sound sources (e.g.,
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
MF active sonars) with potential
behavioral responses from SURTASS
LFA sonar transmissions; and
accounting for other variables that may
cause a change in marine mammals’
vocalization output. This would be a
task for a scientific team made up of
marine biologists, LFA operators, and
meteorological/oceanographic experts.
Ambient Noise Data Monitoring
Several efforts (federal and academic)
are underway to develop a
comprehensive ocean noise budget (i.e.,
an accounting of the relative
contributions of various underwater
sources to the ocean noise field) for the
world’s oceans that include both
anthropogenic and natural sources of
noise. Ocean noise distributions and
noise budgets are used in marine
mammal masking studies, habitat
characterization, and marine animal
impact analyses.
The Navy will collect ambient noise
data when the SURTASS passive towed
horizontal line array is deployed. The
Navy is exploring the feasibility of
declassifying and archiving the ambient
noise data for incorporation into
appropriate ocean noise budget efforts.
Thus, the SURTASS LFA sonar vessels
could serve as ad hoc ships of
opportunity for monitoring data that
could provide validation of marine
mammal-relevant global ocean noise
budgets by supplying up-to-date
measurements of the underwater noise
field in data-poor and/or littoral areas
not previously surveyed.
Past Monitoring
The Navy’s Low Frequency Sound
Scientific Research Program (LFS SRP)
in 1997 to 1998 provided insights to
baleen whale responses to LFA sonar
signals. The Navy designed the threeyear study to assess the potential
impacts of SURTASS LFA sonar on the
behavior of low-frequency hearing
specialists specifically addressing three
important behavioral contexts for baleen
whales: Feeding, migration, and
breeding. The results of the LFS SRP
confirmed that some portion of the total
number of whales exposed to LFA sonar
responded behaviorally by changing
their vocal activity, moving away from
the source vessel, or both; but the
responses were short-lived (Clark et al.,
2001) (see Potential Effects of
Behavioral Disturbance).
Adaptive Management
Our understanding of the potential
effects of SURTASS LFA sonar on
marine mammals is continually
evolving. Reflecting this, the Navy
proposes to include an adaptive
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
management component within the
framework of the scientific
underpinning of its 2011 SEIS/OEIS that
supports its application. This allows the
Navy, in concert with NMFS, to
consider, on a case-by-case basis, new/
revised peer-reviewed and published
scientific data and information from
qualified and recognized sources within
academia, industry, and government/
non-government organizations to
determine (with input regarding
practicability) whether SURTASS LFA
sonar mitigation, monitoring, or
reporting measures should be modified
(including additions or deletions); if
new scientific data indicate that such
modifications would be appropriate. It
also allows for updates to marine
mammal stock estimates to be included
in annual LOA applications, which, in
turn, provides for the use of the best
available scientific data for predictive
models, including AIM.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Proposed 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. There are several
different reporting requirements in these
proposed regulations:
General Notification of Injured or Dead
Marine Mammals
The Navy will systematically observe
SURTASS LFA sonar operations for
injured or disabled marine mammals. In
addition, the Navy will monitor the
principal marine mammal stranding
networks and other media to correlate
analysis of any whale strandings that
could potentially be associated with
SURTASS LFA sonar operations.
Navy personnel will ensure that
NMFS is notified immediately 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
SURTASS LFA operations. The Navy
will provide NMFS with species or
description of the animal(s), the
condition of the animal(s) (including
carcass condition if the animal is dead),
location, time of first discovery,
observed behaviors (if alive), and photo
or video (if available).
In the event that an injured, stranded,
or dead marine mammal is found by the
Navy that is not in the vicinity of, or
found during or shortly after SURTASS
LFA sonar operations, the Navy will
report the same information as listed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
above as soon as operationally feasible
and clearance procedures allow.
General Notification of a Ship Strike
Because SURTASS LFA vessels move
slowly, it is not likely these vessels
would strike a marine mammal. In the
event of a ship strike by the SURTASS
LFA 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.
Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) Program
Reports
During routine operations of
SURTASS LFA sonar, the Navy will
collect and record technical and
environmental data, which are part of
the Navy’s LTM Program. These would
include data from visual and acoustic
monitoring, ocean environmental
measurements, and technical
operational inputs.
Quarterly Mitigation Monitoring Report
On a quarterly basis, the Navy would
provide NMFS with classified and
unclassified reports that include all
active-mode missions completed 30
days or more prior to the date of the
deadline for the report. Specifically,
these reports will include dates/times of
exercises, location of vessel, mission
operational area, location of the
mitigation zone in relation to the LFA
sonar array, marine mammal
observations, and records of any delays
or suspensions of operations. Marine
mammal observations would include
animal type and/or species, number of
animals sighted by species, date and
time of observations, type of detection
(visual, passive acoustic, HF/M3 sonar),
the animal’s bearing and range from
vessel, behavior, and remarks/narrative
(as necessary). The report would
include the Navy’s analysis of whether
any Level A and/or Level B taking
occurred within the SURTASS LFA
sonar mitigation zone and, if so,
estimates of the percentage of marine
mammal stocks affected (both for the
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
881
quarter and cumulatively (to date) for
the year covered by the LOA) by
SURTASS LFA sonar operations. This
analysis would include estimates for
both within and outside the LFA sonar
mitigation zone, using predictive
modeling based on operating locations,
dates/times of operations, system
characteristics, oceanographic
environmental conditions, and animal
demographics. In the event that no
SURTASS LFA missions are completed
during a quarter, the Navy will provide
NMFS with a report of negative activity.
Annual Report
The annual report, which is due no
later than 45 days after the expiration
date of the LOAs, would provide NMFS
with an unclassified summary of the
year’s quarterly reports and will include
the Navy’s analysis of whether any
Level A and/or Level B taking occurred
within the SURTASS LFA sonar
mitigation zones and, if so, estimates of
the percentage of marine mammal
stocks affected by SURTASS LFA sonar
operations. This analysis would include
estimates for both within and outside
the LFA sonar mitigation zones, using
predictive modeling based on operating
locations, dates/times of operations,
system characteristics, oceanographic
environmental conditions, and animal
demographics.
The annual report would also include:
(1) Analysis of the effectiveness of the
mitigation measures with
recommendations for improvements
where applicable; (2) assessment of any
long-term effects from SURTASS LFA
sonar operations; and (3) any
discernible or estimated cumulative
impacts from SURTASS LFA sonar
operations.
Comprehensive Report
NMFS proposes to require the Navy to
provide NMFS and the public with a
final comprehensive report analyzing
the impacts of SURTASS LFA sonar on
marine mammal species and stocks.
This report, which is due at least 240
days prior to expiration of these
regulations, would include an in-depth
analysis of all monitoring and Navyfunded research pertinent to SURTASS
LFA sonar operations conducted during
the 5-year period of these regulations, a
scientific assessment of cumulative
impacts on marine mammal stocks, and
an analysis on the advancement of
alternative (passive) technologies as a
replacement for LFA sonar. This report
would be a key document for NMFS’
review and assessment of impacts for
any future rulemaking.
The Navy shall respond to NMFS
comments and requests for additional
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
882
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
information or clarification on quarterly,
annual or comprehensive report. 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 within the three-month time
period. NMFS will post the annual and
comprehensive reports on the Internet
at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
permits/incidental.htm#applications.
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
As mentioned previously, one of the
main purposes of NMFS’ effects
assessments is to identify the
permissible methods of taking, meaning:
the nature of the take (e.g., resulting
from anthropogenic noise vs. from ship
strike, etc.); the regulatory level of take
(i.e., mortality vs. Level A or Level B
harassment) and the amount of take.
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
SURTASS LFA sonar operations. This
section will relate the potential effects
to marine mammals from SURTASS
LFA sonar operations 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 has proposed.
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, and other pertinent 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
mammals, although they cannot be
quantified.
Definition of Harassment
As mentioned previously, with
respect to military readiness activities,
section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA defines
‘‘harassment’’ as: (i) Any act that injures
or has the significant potential to injure
a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild [Level A Harassment];
or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely
to disturb a marine mammal or marine
mammal stock in the wild by causing
disruption of natural behavioral
patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering, to a point where
such behavioral patterns are abandoned
or significantly altered [Level B
Harassment].
Level B Harassment
Of the potential effects that were
described in the 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 SURTASS
LFA sonar or HF/M3 sonar (or another
stressor), is considered Level B
Harassment. Louder sounds (when other
factors are not considered) are generally
expected to elicit a stronger response
than softer sounds. Some of the lower
level physiological stress responses
discussed in the previous sections will
also likely co-occur with the predicted
harassments, although these responses
are more difficult to detect and fewer
data exist relating these responses to
specific received levels of sound. When
Level B Harassment is predicted based
on estimated behavioral responses,
those takes may have a stress-related
physiological component as well.
In the effects section above, we
described the Southall et al. (2007)
severity scaling system and listed some
examples of the three broad categories
of behaviors 0–3: (Minor and/or brief
behaviors); 4–6: (Behaviors with higher
potential to affect foraging,
reproduction, or survival); 7–9:
(Behaviors considered likely to affect
the aforementioned vital rates).
Generally speaking, MMPA Level B
Harassment, as defined in this
document, would include the behaviors
described in the 7–9 category and a
subset, dependent on context and other
considerations, of the behaviors
described in the 4–6 category.
Behavioral harassment typically would
not include behaviors ranked 0–3.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
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
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
fatigue, not loss, of cochlear hair cells
and supporting structures and is
reversible. Accordingly, NMFS classifies
TTS (when resulting from exposure to
either SURTASS LFA sonar or HF/M3
sonar) as Level B Harassment, not Level
A Harassment (injury).
Level A Harassment
Of the potential effects that were
described in the previous sections, the
following are the types of effects that
fall into the Level A Harassment
category:
PTS—PTS (resulting from either
exposure to SURTASS LFA sonar or HF/
M3 sonar) is irreversible and considered
an injury. PTS results from exposure to
intense sounds that cause a permanent
loss of inner or outer cochlear hair cells
or exceed the elastic limits of certain
tissues and membranes in the middle
and inner ears and result in changes in
the chemical composition of the inner
ear fluids. Although PTS is considered
an injury, the effects of PTS on the
fitness of an individual can vary based
on the degree of TTS and its frequency
band.
Tissue Damage due to Acoustically
Mediated Bubble Growth—A few
theories suggest ways in which gas
bubbles become enlarged through
exposure to intense sounds (SURTASS
LFA sonar or HF/M3 sonar) 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 SURTASS LFA sonar) 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 highlevel 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 SURTASS LFA
sonar or HF/M3 sonar by altering their
dive patterns in a manner (unusually
rapid ascent, unusually long series of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
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
this phenomenon, it would be
considered an injury or, potentially,
mortality.
Estimates of Potential Marine Mammal
Exposure
Estimating the take that will result
from the proposed activities begins with
the CNO and fleet commands proposing
mission areas to operate SURTASS LFA
sonar. The Navy analyzes the mission
areas based on current scientific data to
determine the potential sensitivity of
marine mammals to SURTASS LFA
sonar signals and risks to their stocks.
If marine mammal densities prove to be
high and/or sensitive animal activities
are expected, the Navy changes/refines
the mission areas to areas with lower
numbers of marine mammals, or lower
levels of biologically-sensitive marine
mammal activities. Subsequently the
process is re-initiated for the modified
mission area. Next, the Navy performs
standard acoustic modeling and risk
analyses, taking into account spatial,
temporal, and/or operational
restrictions. Then, the Navy applies
standard mitigation measures to the
analysis to calculate risk estimates for
marine mammal stocks in the proposed
mission area. Based on these estimates,
the Navy decides if the proposed
mission area meets the conditions of the
MMPA regulations and LOAs, as issued,
on marine mammal/animal impacts
from SURTASS LFA sonar. If not, the
proposed mission area is changed or
refined, and the process is re-initiated.
If the mission area risk estimates are
below the required restrictions, then the
Navy has identified and selected the
potential mission area with minimal
marine mammal/animal activity
consistent with its operational readiness
requirements and restrictions placed on
LFA operations by NMFS in the
regulatory and consultation processes.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
883
This sensitivity/risk assessment
approach allows the Navy to determine
where and when SURTASS LFA sonar
can operate and meet the MMPA
condition for the least practicable
adverse impacts on marine mammals.
As described earlier (see Brief
Background on the Navy’s Assessment
of the Potential Impacts on Marine
Mammals), the Navy assesses the
potential impacts on marine mammals
predicting the sound field that a given
marine mammal species could be
exposed to over time in a potential
operating area. This is a multi-part
process involving: (1) The ability to
measure or estimate an animal’s
location in space and time; (2) the
ability to measure or estimate the threedimensional sound field at these times
and locations; (3) the integration of
these two data sets into the AIM to
estimate the total acoustic exposure for
each animal in the modeled population;
(4) the conversion of the resultant
cumulative exposures for a modeled
population into an estimate of the risk
from a significant disturbance of a
biologically important behavior; and (5)
the use of a risk continuum to convert
these estimates of behavioral risk into
an assessment of risk in terms of the
level of potential biological removal.
The Navy uses the LFA sonar
mitigation zone to calculate estimates
for Level A harassment (injury). The
area between the LFA sonar mitigation
zone and the 1-km (0.62 mi; 0.54 nmi)
buffer zone (estimated to extend to
about the 174-dB isopleth) is an area
where marine mammals could
experience Level B harassment. The
Navy uses this area to calculate
estimates for Level B harassment using
a risk continuum from the 120 to 179dB isopleth for marine mammals. Based
on the Navy’s AIM modeling results, the
primary effects would be the potential
for Level B Harassment. In addition,
while possible, Level A harassment, if it
occurs at all, is expected to be so
minimal as to have no effect on rates of
reproduction or survival of affected
marine mammal species. More
information regarding the risk
assessment methodology, the models
used, the assumptions used in the
models, and the process of estimating
take is available in section 6.4 of the
Navy’s application and section 4.4 of
the Navy’s 2007 Final SEIS and section
4.4 of the Navy’s DSEIS/SOEIS.
Because it is infeasible to model
enough representative sites to cover all
potential LFA operating areas, the
Navy’s application presents 19 modeled
sites as examples to provide estimates of
potential operating areas based on the
current political climate. The Navy
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
884
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
analyzed these 19 operating sites using
the most up-to-date marine mammal
abundance, density, and behavioral
information available. These sites they
represent, based on today’s political
climate, areas where SURTASS LFA
sonar could potentially test, train, or
operate. Tables 9 through 27 provide the
Navy’s estimates of the number of
marine mammals potentially affected for
SURTASS LFA sonar operations and are
based on reasonable and realistic
estimates of the potential effects to
marine mammal stocks specific to the
potential mission areas. These data are
examples of areas where the Navy could
request LOAs under the 5-year rule
because they are in areas of potential
strategic importance and/or areas of
possible naval fleet exercises. As stated
previously, this proposed rule does not
specify the number of marine mammals
that may be taken in the proposed
locations because these are determined
annually through various inputs such as
mission location, mission duration, and
season of operation. For the annual
application for an LOA, the Navy
proposes to present both the estimated
percentage of stock incidentally
harassed as well as the estimated
number of animals that may be
potentially harassed by SURTASS LFA
sonar.
With the implementation of the threepart monitoring programs (visual,
passive acoustic, and HF/M3
monitoring), NMFS and the Navy do not
expect that marine mammals would be
injured by SURTASS LFA sonar because
a marine mammal should be detected
and active transmissions suspended or
delayed. As mentioned previously, the
Navy determines Level A harassments
based on actual observations and/or
detections within the LFA sonar
mitigation zone. The probability of
detection of a marine mammal by the
HF/M3 system within the LFA sonar
mitigation zone approaches 100 percent
based on multiple pings (see the 2001
FOEIS/EIS, Subchapters 2.3.2.2 and
4.2.7.1 for the HF/M3 sonar testing
results). In the Navy’s application, the
Navy’s acoustic analyses predict that
less than 0.0001 percent of the
endangered north Pacific right whale
stock and 0.00 percent of the stocks of
all other marine mammal species may
be exposed to levels of sound likely to
result in Level A harassment (i.e.,
exposures at 180 dB re: 1 mPa or greater).
Quantitatively, the Navy’s request
translates into take estimates of zero
animals for any species including the
endangered north Pacific right whale.
However, because the probability of
detection by the HF/M3 system within
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
the LFA sonar mitigation zone is not
100 percent, NMFS will include a small
number of Level A harassment takes for
marine mammals over the course of the
five-year regulations based on
qualitative analyses.
Reviewing the Navy’s historical data
on visual alerts that have triggered a
suspension of SURTASS LFA sonar
transmission outside of the LFA sonar
mitigation zone, the data indicate that
the largest grouping of mysticetes that
has triggered a shutdown outside of the
LFA sonar mitigation zone and within
the buffer zone is three. Similarly, the
largest number of odontocetes that has
triggered a shutdown is two. Thus,
NMFS analyzes the take of no more than
six mysticetes (total), across all species
requested in the Navy’s application by
Level A harassment; no more than 25
odontocetes (across all species) by Level
A harassment; and no more than 25
pinnipeds (across all species) by Level
A harassment over the course of the 5year regulations. These are the only
quantitative adjustments that NMFS has
made to the requested takes from the
Navy’s modeled exposure results.
Again, NMFS notes that over the course
of the previous two rulemakings, there
have been no reported incidents of
Level A harassment of any marine
mammal. As with the 2002 and 2007
Rules, the Navy will limit operation of
LFA sonar to ensure no marine mammal
stock will be subject to more that 12
percent of takes by Level B harassment
annually, over the course of the fiveyear regulations. This annual per-stock
cap applies regardless of the number of
LFA vessels operating. The Navy will
use the 12 percent cap to guide its
mission planning and annual LOA
applications.
Analysis and Negligible Impact
Preliminary Determination
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.’’ In making a
negligible impact determination, NMFS
considers:
(1) The number of anticipated
mortalities;
(2) The number and nature of
anticipated injuries;
(3) The number, nature, and intensity,
and duration of Level B harassment; and
(4) The context in which the takes
occur.
As mentioned previously, NMFS
estimates that 94 species of marine
mammals could be potentially affected
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
by Level A or Level B harassment over
the course of the five-year period.
For reasons stated previously in this
document, no mortalities are anticipated
to occur as a result of the Navy’s
proposed SURTASS LFA operations,
and none are proposed to be authorized
by NMFS.
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 and the type of
taking (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 (see Potential Effects of
Behavioral Disturbance).
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. As mentioned
previously, 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 has described its specified
activities based on best estimates of the
number of hours that the Navy will
conduct SURTASS LFA operations. The
exact number of transmission hours may
vary from year to year, but will not
exceed the annual total indicated in
Table 1.
Taking the above into account,
considering the sections discussed
further, and dependent upon the
implementation of the proposed
mitigation measures, NMFS has
preliminarily determined that Navy
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
training, testing, and military operations
utilizing SURTASS LFA sonar will have
a negligible impact on the marine
mammal species and stocks present in
operational areas in certain areas of the
Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans and
the Mediterranean Sea.
Behavioral Harassment
As discussed in the Potential Effects
of Exposure to SURTASS LFA Sonar
Operations, marine mammals may
respond to SURTASS LFA sonar
operations 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 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 SURTASS LFA sonar operations,
the Navy provided information (Tables
24–42 of the Navy’s application)
estimating numbers of total takes that
could occur within the proposed
operational areas. For reasons stated
previously in this document, the
specified activities associated with the
proposed SURTASS LFA operations
will most likely fall within the realm of
short-term, Level B behavioral
harassment. NMFS bases this
assessment on a number of factors:
(1) Geographic Restrictions—With the
implementation of geographic
restrictions on SURTASS LFA sonar
operations, NMFS and the Navy have
minimized the likelihood of disruption
of marine mammal behavior patterns,
such as migration, calving, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering. Because the
coastal standoff and proposed OBIAs
restrict the use of SURTASS LFA sonar
in known areas of feeding, calving, and
breeding for marine mammals, NMFS
does not expect nor does it anticipate
that SURTASS LFA sonar operations
likely will have adverse effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival
(i.e., population-level effects).
Also, the Navy’s proposal to not
conduct SURTASS LFA sonar
operations within 22 km (13. mi; 11.8
nmi) of any coastline, including islands,
to ensure that the sound field does not
exceed 180 dB (i.e., LFA mitigation and
buffer zones) offers protection to areas
with higher densities of marine
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
mammals. Because the Navy will
operate for the most part in waters that
are not areas known for high
concentrations of marine mammals, few,
if any, marine mammals would be
within the SURTASS LFA mitigation
and buffer zones.
(2) Low Frequency Sonar Scientific
Research Program (LFS SRP)—Based on
the past nine years of SURTASS LFA
sonar operations and the LFS SRP,
NMFS does not expect nor does it
anticipate that SURTASS LFA sonar
operations will have likely adverse
effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival (i.e., population-level effects).
The Navy designed the three-year study
to assess the potential impacts of
SURTASS LFA sonar on the behavior of
low-frequency hearing specialists, those
species believed to be at (potentially)
greatest risk. This field research
addressed three important behavioral
contexts for baleen whales: (1) Blue and
fin whales feeding in the southern
California Bight, (2) gray whales
migrating past the central California
coast, and (3) humpback whales
breeding off Hawaii. Taken together, the
results from the three phases of the LFS
SRP do not support the hypothesis that
most baleen whales exposed to RLs near
140 dB re: 1 mPa would exhibit
disturbance behavior and avoid the area.
These experiments, which exposed
baleen whales to received levels ranging
from 120 to about 155 dB re: 1 mPa,
detected only minor, short-term
behavioral responses. However, shortterm behavioral responses do not
necessarily constitute significant
changes in biologically important
behaviors.
(3) Efficacy of the Navy’s Three-Part
Mitigation Monitoring Program—From
2003 to 2010, the Navy reported a total
of 12 visual sightings, four passive
acoustic detections, and 130 HF/M3
active sonar detections of marine
mammals, all leading to suspension/
delays of transmissions in accordance
with mitigation protocols. Because the
HF/M3 active sonar is able to monitor
large and medium marine mammals out
to an effective range of 2 to 2.5 km (1.2
to 1.5 mi; 1.1 to 1.3 nmi) from the
vessel, it is unlikely that the SURTASS
LFA operations would expose marine
mammals to an SPL greater than about
174 dB re: 1 mPa at 1 m. The area
between the 180-dB LFA sonar
mitigation zone and the 1-km (0.62 mi;
0.54 nm) buffer zone proposed by NMFS
(estimated to extend to about the 174-dB
isopleth from the vessel) is an area
where marine mammals would
experience Level B Harassment if
exposed to LFA sonar transmissions, in
accordance with the Navy’s risk analysis
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
885
and acoustic modeling (2001 FOEIS/EIS,
Subchapter 4.2.3). Past results of the
HF/M3 sonar system tests provide
confirmation that the system has a
demonstrated probability of single-ping
detection of 95 percent or greater for
single marine mammals, 10 m (32.8 ft)
in length or larger, and a probability
approaching 100 percent for multiple
pings for any sized marine mammal.
Further, implementing a shutdown zone
of approximately 2 km (1.2 mi; 1.1 nmi)
around the vessel will ensure that no
marine mammals are exposed to an SPL
greater than about 174 dB re: 1 mPa at
1 m.
TTS
Schlundt et al. (2000) documented
TTS in trained bottlenose dolphins and
belugas after exposure to intense 1second signal duration tones at 400 Hz,
and 3, 10, 20, and 75 Hz. NMFS notes
the LF-band tones at 400 Hz at which
the researchers were unable to induce
TTS in any animal at levels up to 193
dB re: 1 mPa at 1 m which was the
maximum level achievable with the
equipment used in the experiment. The
researchers implied that the TTS
threshold for a 100-second signal would
be approximately 184 dB (Table 1–4,
2001 FOEIS/EIS).
When SURTASS LFA sonar transmits,
there is a boundary that encloses a
volume of water where received levels
equal or exceed 180 dB (the 180-dB
isopleth LFA sonar mitigation zone) and
a volume of water outside this boundary
where received levels are below 180 dB
(the 1 km buffer encircling the 180-dB
LFA sonar mitigation zone. The level of
risk for TTS for marine mammals
depends on their location in relation to
SURTASS LFA sonar. Because the onset
of PTS for marine mammals may be 15–
20 dB above TTS levels, one can assume
that a marine mammal would have to be
within the 1 km buffer around the 180dB LFA sonar mitigation zone (i.e.,
modeled SPLs of 120–180 dB re: 1 mPa
at 1 m) to induce TTS. However, the
Navy’s standard protective measures
indicate that they would ensure delay or
suspension of SURTASS LFA sonar
transmissions if any of the three
monitoring programs detect a marine
mammal within 2 km (1.2 mi; 1.1 nmi)
of the vessel. Thus, the proposed
mitigation measures would allow the
Navy to reduce the number of marine
mammals exposed to received levels of
SURTASS LFA sonar or HF/M3 sonar
sound that could result in TTS. For
transient sounds, the sound level
necessary to cause TTS is inversely
related to the duration of the sound.
Again, in the case of SURTASS LFA,
animals are not expected to be exposed
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
886
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
to levels high enough or durations long
enough to result in TTS. In order to
receive more than one ‘‘ping’’ during a
normal vessel leg, an animal would
need to match the ship in speed and
course direction between pings. Because
of the relatively short duty cycle, the
water depth of the convergence zone ray
path, the movement of marine mammals
in relationship to the SURTASS LFA
sonar ship, and the effectiveness of the
three-part mitigation program, few
marine mammals are likely to be
affected by TTS (see Direct
Physiological Effects—Threshold Shift
(Noise-Induced Loss of Hearing).
PTS
In NMFS’ 2002 and 2007 rules, NMFS
and the Navy based their estimate of
take by injury or the significant
potential for such take (Level A
harassment) on the criterion of 180 dB.
NMFS continues to believe this is a
scientifically supportable and
conservative value for preventing
auditory injury or the significant
potential for such injury (Level A
harassment), as it represents a value less
than where the potential onset of a
minor TTS in hearing might occur based
on Schlundt et al.’s (2000) research (see
the Navy’s 2007 Final Comprehensive
Report Tables 5 through 8).
The Navy’s standard protective
measures indicate that they would
ensure delay or suspension of SURTASS
LFA sonar transmissions if any of the
three monitoring programs detect a
marine mammal either entering the LFA
sonar mitigation zone or buffer zones;
(within approximately two km (1.2 mi;
1.1 nmi)) of the LFA transmit array or
vessel. The proposed mitigation
measures would allow the Navy to
avoid exposing marine mammals to
received levels of SURTASS LFA sonar
or HF/M3 sonar sound that would result
in injury (Level A harassment). The
sound pressure level (SPL) that is
capable of potentially causing injury to
an animal is within approximately 1 km
(0.62 mi; 0.54 nm) of the ship.
Implementing a shutdown zone of
approximately 2 km (1.2 mi; 1.1 nmi)
around the LFA sonar array and vessel
will ensure that no marine mammals are
exposed to an SPL greater than about
174 dB re: 1 mPa (RL). This is
significantly lower than the 180-dB re:
1 mPa (RL) used for other acoustic
projects for protecting marine mammals
from injury. Serious injury is unlikely to
occur unless a marine mammal is well
within the 180-dB LFA sonar mitigation
zone and close to the source. The closer
the mammal is to the vessel, the more
likely it will be detected by the tripartite
monitoring program leading to the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
immediate suspension of SURTASS
LFA sonar transmissions.
With three levels of mitigation
monitoring for detecting marine
mammals, NMFS believes it is unlikely
that any marine mammal would be
exposed to received levels of 180 dB re:
1 mPa before being detected and the
SURTASS LFA sonar shut down.
However, because the probability is not
zero, the Navy has requested Level A
harassment takes incidental to
SURTASS LFA sonar operations.
Mortality
There is no empirical evidence of
strandings of marine mammals
associated with the employment of
SURTASS LFA sonar. Moreover, the
system acoustic characteristics differ
between LF and MF sonars associated
with strandings: LFA sonars use
frequencies generally below 1,000 Hz,
with relatively long signals (pulses) on
the order of 60 sec; while MF sonars use
frequencies greater than 1,000 Hz, with
relatively short signals on the order of
1 sec. NMFS has provided a summary
of common features shared by the
strandings events in Greece (1996),
Bahamas (2000), Madeira (2000), Canary
Islands (2002), Hanalei Bay (2004), and
Spain (2006) earlier in this document.
These included operation of MF sonar,
deep water close to land (such as
offshore canyons), presence of an
acoustic waveguide (surface duct
conditions), and periodic sequences of
transient pulses (i.e., rapid onset and
decay times) generated at depths less
than 32.8 ft (10 m) by sound sources
moving at speeds of 2.6 m/s (5.1 knots)
or more during sonar operations
(D’Spain et al., 2006). None of these
features relate to SURTASS LFA sonar
operations.
In summary (from the discussion
above this section), NMFS has made a
preliminary finding that the total taking
from SURTASS LFA activities will have
a negligible impact on the affected
species or stocks based on following: (1)
The historical effectiveness of the
Navy’s three-part monitoring program in
detecting marine mammals and
triggering shutdowns, which make it
unlikely that an animal will be exposed
to sound levels above 180 dB (i.e., levels
potentially associated with injury); (2)
Geographic restrictions such as OBIAs
and the coastal standoff zone; (3) The
requirement that the SURTASS LFA
sonar sound field not exceed 180 dB
within 22 km of any shoreline,
including islands, or at a distance of one
km from the perimeter of an OBIA; (4)
The fact that LF signals attenuate greatly
in the near-surface zone, where many of
the marine mammals congregate for
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
biologically-important behaviors; (5)
The small number of SURTASS LFA
sonar systems that would be operating
world-wide; (6) The relatively low duty
cycle, short mission periods and
offshore nature of the SURTASS LFA
sonar; (7) The fact that marine mammals
in unspecified migration corridors and
open ocean concentrations would be
adequately protected by the three-part
monitoring and mitigation protocols;
and (8) Previous Endangered Species
Act consultation findings that that
operation of the SURTASS LFA sonar is
not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered or
threatened species under the
jurisdiction of NMFS or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. Impacts to marine
mammals are anticipated to be in the
form of Level B behavioral harassment,
due to the brief duration and sporadic
nature of the SURTASS LFA sonar
operations. Certain species may have a
behavioral reaction (e.g., increased
swim speed, avoidance of the area, etc.)
to the sound emitted during the
proposed activities. In conclusion,
while marine mammals will potentially
be affected by the SURTASS LFA sonar
sounds, NMFS has preliminarily
determined that these impacts will be
short-term and are not reasonably likely
to adversely affect the species or stock
through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.
Subsistence Harvest of Marine
Mammals
Although the Navy will not operate
SURTASS LFA sonar in the vast
majority of Arctic waters, the Navy may
potentially operate LFA sonar in the
Gulf of Alaska, where subsistence uses
of marine mammals occur. Subsistence
uses of marine mammals in the Gulf of
Alaska include the harvest of harbor
seals and Steller sea lions along coastal
and inshore, including bay, areas of the
gulf. As many as six Alaskan Native
groups subsistence hunt harbor seals in
the Gulf of Alaska, although the
Dena’ina only occasionally hunt harbor
seals, and four Native groups hunt
Steller sea lions, with the Southeastern
Alaska Native groups only occasionally
harvesting Stellers (Wolfe et al., 2009).
Subsistence products that are derived
from harbor seals and Steller sea lions
by these Alaskan Native groups include
oil, meat, and skins. Subsistence
hunting of harbor seals and Steller sea
lions is a specialized activity among
Alaska Native groups, with only 30
percent and 3 percent of the surveyed
native households hunting harbor seals
and Steller sea lions, respectively
(Wolfe et al., 2009).
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Should the Navy operate SURTASS
LFA sonar in the Gulf of Alaska, sonar
operation would adhere to the
shutdown in the mitigation and buffer
zones, we well as established
geographic restrictions, which include
the coastal standoff range (which
dictates that the sound field produced
by the sonar must be below 180 dB re:
1 mPa at 1 m within 22 km (13. mi; 11.8
nmi) of any coastline) and exclusion
from OBIAs.
Although there are peaks in harvest
activity for both species, both harbor
seals and Steller sea lions are harvested
year-round in the coastal waters of the
gulf. While it is impossible to predict
the future timing of the possible
employment of SURTASS LFA sonar in
the Gulf of Alaska, regardless of the time
of year the sonar may be employed in
the Gulf of Alaska, there should be no
overlap in time or space with
subsistence hunts due to the geographic
restrictions on the sonar use (i.e., coastal
standoff range and OBIA restrictions).
These restrictions will prevent the Navy
from generating a sound field that
reaches the shallow coastal and inshore
areas of the Gulf of Alaska where
harvest of the two pinniped species
occurs. The possible employment of
SURTASS LFA sonar in the Gulf of
Alaska will not cause abandonment of
any harvest/hunting locations, will not
displace any subsistence users, nor
place physical barriers between marine
mammals and the hunters. No
mortalities of marine mammals have
been associated with the employment of
SURTASS LFA sonar and the Navy
undertakes a suite of mitigation
measures whenever SURTASS LFA
sonar is actively transmitting. Therefore,
NMFS has preliminarily determined
that the possible future employment of
SURTASS LFA sonar will not lead to
unmitigable adverse impacts on the
availability of marine mammal species
or stocks for subsistence uses in the Gulf
of Alaska.
In August 2011, the Navy sent a letter
to the Native Affairs and Natural
Resources Advisor, Alaska Command at
Elmendorf Air Force base requesting
that they provide copies of the
SURTASS LFA Sonar DSEIS/SOEIS
(DoN, 2011) to pertinent native groups
that participate in subsistence hunting
in the Gulf of Alaska. To date, the Navy
has not received any requests from
Alaskan tribes for government-togovernment consultation pursuant to
Executive Order 13175. The Navy will
continue to keep the Alaskan tribes
informed of the timeframes of any future
SURTASS LFA sonar exercises planned
for the area.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
Endangered Species Act
There are 15 marine mammal species
under NMFS’ jurisdiction that are listed
as endangered or threatened under the
ESA with confirmed or possible
occurrence in potential operational
areas for SURTASS LFA: the blue, fin,
sei humpback, bowhead, North Atlantic
right, North Pacific right, southern right,
gray, and sperm whales, as well as the
western and eastern distinct population
segments (DPS) of the Steller sea lion,
Mediterranean monk seal, Hawaiian
monk seal, the eastern DPS of the Steller
sea lion; the Guadalupe fur seal and the
southern DPS of the spotted seal.
On October 4, 1999, the Navy
submitted a Biological Assessment to
NMFS to initiate consultation under
section 7 of the ESA for its SURTASS
LFA sonar activities. NMFS concluded
consultation with the Navy on this
action on May 30, 2002. The conclusion
of that consultation was that operation
of the SURTASS LFA sonar system for
testing, training and military operations
and the issuance by NMFS of incidental
take authorizations for this activity are
not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered or
threatened species under the
jurisdiction of NMFS. The Navy and
NMFS conducted additional
consultations prior to issuance of the
annual LOAs.
On June 9, 2006, the Navy submitted
a Biological Assessment to NMFS to
initiate consultation under section 7 of
the ESA for the 2007–2012 SURTASS
LFA sonar activities and NMFS’
authorization for incidental take under
the MMPA. NMFS concluded
consultation with the Navy on this
action on August 17, 2007. The
conclusion of that consultation was that
operation of the SURTASS LFA sonar
system for testing, training and military
operations and the issuance by NMFS of
MMPA incidental take authorizations
for this activity are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
any endangered or threatened species
under the jurisdiction of NMFS or result
in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. As with
the first rule, the Navy and NMFS
conducted additional consultations
prior to issuance of the annual LOAs.
The Navy will consult with NMFS
pursuant to section 7 of the ESA, and
NMFS will also consult internally on
the issuance of regulations and LOAs
under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA
for SURTASS LFA sonar activities.
NMFS will conclude consultation with
itself and the Navy prior to making a
determination on the issuance of the
final rule and LOAs.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
887
The USFWS is responsible for
regulating the take of the several marine
mammal species including the southern
sea otter, polar bear, walrus, West
African manatee, Amazonian manatee,
West Indian manatee, and dugong. None
of these species occur in geographic
areas that overlap with SURTASS LFA
sonar operations. Therefore, the Navy
has determined that SURTASS LFA
sonar training, testing, and military
operations will have no effect on the
endangered or threatened species or
their critical habitat of the ESA-listed
species under the jurisdiction of the
USFWS. Thus, no consultation with the
USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of the
ESA will occur.
National Environmental Policy Act
NMFS has participated as a
cooperating agency on the Navy’s Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement/Supplemental Overseas
Environmental Impact Statement
(DSEIS/SOEIS) for employment of
SURTASS LFA sonar, published on
August 19, 2011. The Navy’s DSEIS is
posted on the Navy’s Web site at
https://www.surtass-lfa-eis.com. NMFS
intends to adopt the Navy’s Final SEIS/
SOEIS, if adequate and appropriate. If
the Navy’s Final SEIS/SOEIS 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.
Classification
This action does not contain any
collection of information requirements
for purposes of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
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
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
888
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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
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.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 218
Exports, Fish, Imports, Indians,
Labeling, Marine mammals, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Seafood, Transportation.
Dated: December 22, 2011.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For reasons set forth in the preamble,
50 CFR part 218 is proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 218—REGULATIONS
GOVERNING THE TAKING AND
IMPORTING OF MARINE MAMMALS
1. The authority citation for part 218
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
Subparts T Through W [Added and
Reserved]
2. Subparts T through W are added to
part 218 and reserved.
3. Subpart X is added to part 218 to
read as follows:
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Subpart X—Taking and Importing of Marine
Mammals; Navy Operations of Surveillance
Towed Array Sensor System Low
Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA) Sonar
Sec.
218.230 Specified activity.
218.231 Effective dates. [Reserved]
218.232 Permissible methods of taking.
218.233 Prohibitions.
218.234 Mitigation.
218.235 Requirements for monitoring.
218.236 Requirements for reporting.
218.237 Applications for Letters of
Authorization.
218.238 Letters of Authorization.
218.239 Renewal of Letters of
Authorization.
218.240 Modifications to Letters of
Authorization.
218.241 Adaptive Management.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
Subpart X—Taking and Importing of
Marine Mammals; Navy Operations of
Surveillance Towed Array Sensor
System Low Frequency Active
(SURTASS LFA) Sonar
§ 218.230
Specified activity.
Regulations in this subpart apply only
to the incidental taking of those marine
mammal species specified in paragraph
(b) of this section by the U.S. Navy,
Department of Defense, while engaged
in the operation of no more than four
SURTASS LFA sonar systems
conducting active sonar operations in
areas specified in paragraph (a) of this
section. The authorized activities, as
specified in a Letter of Authorization
issued under §§ 216.106 and 218.238 of
this chapter, include the transmission of
low frequency sounds from the
SURTASS LFA sonar system and the
transmission of high frequency sounds
from the mitigation sonar described in
§ 218.234 during routine training and
testing as well as during military
operations.
(a) The incidental take, by Level A
and Level B harassment, of marine
mammals from the activity identified in
this section may be authorized in
certain areas of the Pacific, Atlantic, and
Indian Oceans and the Mediterranean
Sea, as specified in a Letter of
Authorization.
(b) The incidental take, by Level A
and Level B harassment, of marine
mammals from the activity identified in
this section is limited to the following
species and species groups:
(1) Mysticetes—blue whale
(Balaenoptera musculus), bowhead
whale (Balaena mysticetus), Bryde’s
whale (Balaenoptera edeni), fin whale
(Balaenoptera physalus), gray whale
(Eschrichtius robustus), humpback
whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), minke
whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata),
North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena
glacialis), North Pacific right whale
(Eubalena japonica), pygmy right whale
(Capera marginata), sei whale
(Balaenoptera borealis), southern right
whale (Eubalaena australis),
(2) Odontocetes—Andrew’s beaked
whale (Mesoplodon bowdoini),
Arnoux’s beaked whale (Berardius
arnuxii), Atlantic spotted dolphin
(Stenella frontalis), Atlantic white-sided
dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus),
Baird’s beaked whale (Berardius
bairdii), Beluga whale (Dephinapterus
leucas), Blainville’s beaked whale
(Mesoplodon densirostris), Chilean
dolphin (Cephalorhynchus eutropia),
Clymene dolphin (Stenella clymene),
Commerson’s dolphin
(Cephalorhynchus commersonii),
common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
truncatus), Cuvier’s beaked whale
(Ziphius cavirostris), Dall’s porpoise
(Phocoenoides dalli), Dusky dolphin
(Lagenorhynchus obscurus), dwarf
sperm and pygmy sperm whales (Kogia
simus and K. breviceps), false killer
whale (Pseudorca crassidens), Fraser’s
dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei), Gervais’
beaked whale (Mesoplodon europaeus),
ginkgo-toothed beaked whale
(Mesoplodon ginkgodens), Gray’s
beaked whale (Mesoplodon grayi),
Heaviside’s dolphin (Cephalorhynchus
heavisidii), Hector’s beaked whale
(Mesoplodon hectori), Hector’s dolphin
(Cephalorhynchus hectori), Hourglass
dolphin (Lagenorhynchus cruciger),
Hubbs’ beaked whale (Mesoplodon
carhubbsi), harbor porpoise (Phocoena
phocoena), killer whale (Orca orcinus),
long-beaked common dolphin
(Delphinus capensis), long-finned pilot
whale (Globicephala melas), Longman’s
beaked whale (Indopacetus pacificus),
melon-headed whale (Peponocephala
electra), northern bottlenose whale
(Hyperodon ampullatus), northern right
whale dolphin (Lissodelphis borealis),
Pacific white-sided dolphin
(Lagenorhynchus obliquidens),
pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella
attenuata), Peale’s dolphin
(Lagenorhynchus australis), Perrin’s
beaked whale (Mesoplodon perrini),
pygmy beaked whale (Mesoplodon
peruvianus), pygmy killer whale (Feresa
attenuata), Risso’s dolphin (Grampus
griseus), rough-toothed dolphin (Steno
bredanensis), Shepherd’s beaked whale
(Tasmacetus sheperdii), short-beaked
common dolphin (Delphinus delphis),
short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala
macrorhynchus), southern bottlenose
whale (Hyperodon planifrons), southern
right whale dolphin (Lissodelphis
peronii), Sowerby’s beaked whale
(Mesoplodon bidens), spade-toothed
beaked whale (Mesoplodon traversii),
spectacled porpoise (Phocoena
dioptrica), sperm whale (Physeter
macrocephalus), spinner dolphin
(Stenella longirostris), Stejneger’s
beaked whale (Mesoplodon stejnegeri),
strap-toothed beaked whale
(Mesoplodon layardii), striped dolphin
(Stenella coeruleoalba), True’s beaked
whale (Mesoplodon mirus), whitebeaked dolphin (Lagenorhynchus
albirostris),
(3) Pinnipeds—Australian sea lion
(Neophoca cinerea), California sea lion
(Zalophus californianus), Galapagos fur
seal (Arctocephalus galapagoensis),
Galapagos sea lion (Zalophus
wollebaeki), gray seal (Halichoerus
grypus), Guadalupe fur seal
(Arctocephalus townsendi), harbor seal
(Phoca vitulina), harp seal (Pagophilus
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
groenlandicus), Hawaiian monk seal
(Monachus schauinslandi), hooded seal
(Cystophora cristata), Juan Fernadez fur
seal (Arctocephalus philippi),
Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus
monachus), New Zealand fur seal
(Arctocephalus forsteri), New Zealand
fur seal (Phocarctos hookeri), northern
elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris),
northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus),
ribbon seal (Phoca fasciata), South
African and Australian fur seals
(Arctocephalus pusillus), South
American fur seal (Arctocephalus
australis), South American sea lion
(Otaria flavescens), southern elephant
seal (Mirounga leonina), spotted seal
(Phoca largha), Steller sea lion
(Eumetopias jubatus), subantarctic fur
seal (Arctocephalus tropicalis).
Effective dates. [Reserved]
§ 218.232
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 218.231
Permissible methods of taking.
(a) Under Letters of Authorization
issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 and
218.238 of this chapter, the Holder of
the Letter of Authorization may
incidentally, but not intentionally, take
marine mammals by Level A and Level
B harassment within the areas described
in § 218.230(a), provided that the
activity is in compliance with all terms,
conditions, and requirements of this
subpart and the appropriate Letter of
Authorization.
(b) The Holder of the Letter of
Authorization must conduct the
activities identified in § 218.230 in a
manner that minimizes, to the greatest
extent practicable, any adverse impacts
on marine mammals and their habitat.
(c) The incidental take of marine
mammals under the activities identified
in § 218.230 is limited to the species
listed in § 218.230(b) by the method of
take indicated in paragraphs (c)(2),
(c)(3), (c)(4), and (c)(5) of this section.
(1) The Navy must maintain a running
calculation/estimation of takes of each
species over the effective period of this
subpart.
(2) Level B Harassment will not
exceed 12 percent of any marine
mammal stock listed in § 218.230(b)(1)
through (3) annually over the course of
the five-year regulations. This annual
per-stock cap of 12 percent applies
regardless of the number of LFA vessels
operating.
(3) Level A harassment of no more
than six mysticetes (total), of any of the
species listed in § 218.230(b)(1) over the
course of the five-year regulations.
(4) Level A harassment of no more
than 25 odontocetes (total), of any of the
species listed in § 218.230(b)(2) over the
course of the five-year regulations.
(5) Level A harassment of no more
than 25 pinnipeds (total), of any of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
species listed in § 218.230(b)(3) over the
course of the five-year regulations.
§ 218.233
Prohibitions.
No person in connection with the
activities described in § 218.230 may:
(a) Take any marine mammal not
specified in § 218.230(b);
(b) Take any marine mammal
specified in § 218.230 other than by
incidental take as specified in
§ 218.232(c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), and (c)(5);
(c) Take any marine mammal
specified in § 218.230 if NMFS makes a
determination that 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, any
of the terms, conditions, or
requirements of this subpart or a Letter
of Authorization issued under § 216.106
and 218.238 of this chapter.
§ 218.234
Mitigation.
The Navy must conduct the activity
identified in § 218.230 in a manner that
minimizes, to the greatest extent
practicable, adverse impacts on marine
mammals and their habitats. When
conducting operations identified in
§ 218.230, the mitigation measures
described in this section and in any
Letter of Authorization issued under
§ 216.106 and § 218.238 of this chapter
must be implemented.
(a) Personnel Training—Lookouts: (1)
The Navy shall train the lookouts in the
most effective means to ensure quick
and effective communication within the
command structure in order to facilitate
implementation of protective measures
if they spot marine mammals.
(2) The Navy will hire one or more
marine mammal biologist qualified in
conducting at-sea marine mammal
visual monitoring from surface vessels
to train and qualify designated ship
personnel to conduct at-sea visual
monitoring.
(b) General Operating Procedures:
(1) Prior to SURTASS LFA sonar
operations, the Navy will promulgate
executive guidance for the
administration, execution, and
compliance with the environmental
regulations under this subpart and
Letters of Authorization.
(2) The Holder of a Letter of
Authorization will not transmit the
SURTASS LFA sonar signal at a
frequency greater than 500 Hz.
(c) LFA Mitigation Zone and 1-km
Buffer Zone: (1) Prior to commencing
and during SURTASS LFA sonar
transmissions, the Holder of a Letter of
Authorization will determine the
propagation of LFA sonar signals in the
ocean and the distance from the
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
889
SURTASS LFA sonar source to the 180decibel (dB) re: 1 mPa isopleth.
(2) The Holder of a Letter of
Authorization will establish an 180-dB
LFA mitigation zone around the
surveillance vessel that is equal in size
to the 180-dB re: 1 mPa isopleth (i.e., the
area subjected to sound pressure levels
of 180 dB or greater) as well as a onekilometer (1-km) buffer zone around the
LFA mitigation zone. If a marine
mammal is detected, through
monitoring required under § 218.235,
within or about to enter the LFA
mitigation zone plus the 1-km buffer
zone, the Holder of the Authorization
will immediately delay or suspend
SURTASS LFA sonar transmissions.
(d) Resumption of SURTASS LFA
sonar transmissions: (1) The Holder of
a Letter of Authorization will not
resume SURTASS LFA sonar
transmissions earlier than 15 minutes
after:
(i) All marine mammals have left the
area of the LFA mitigation and buffer
zones; and
(ii) There is no further detection of
any marine mammal within the LFA
mitigation and buffer zones as
determined by the visual, passive, and
high frequency monitoring described in
§ 218.235.
(2) [Reserved].
(e) Ramp-up procedures for the highfrequency marine mammal monitoring
(HF/M3) sonar required under
§ 218.235: (1) The Holder of a Letter of
Authorization will ramp up the HF/M3
sonar power level beginning at a
maximum source sound pressure level
of 180 dB: re 1 mPa at 1 meter in 10-dB
increments to operating levels over a
period of no less than five minutes:
(i) At least 30 minutes prior to any
SURTASS LFA sonar transmissions;
(ii) Prior to any SURTASS LFA sonar
calibrations or testing that are not part
of regular SURTASS LFA sonar
transmissions described in § 218.230;
and
(iii) Anytime after the HF/M3 source
has been powered down for more than
two minutes.
(2) The Holder of a Letter of
Authorization will not increase the HF/
M3 sound pressure level once a marine
mammal is detected; ramp-up may
resume once marine mammals are no
longer detected.
(f) Geographic Restrictions on the
SURTASS LFA Sonar Sound Field:
(1) The Holder of a Letter of
Authorization will not operate the
SURTASS LFA sonar such that:
(i) The SURTASS LFA sonar sound
field exceeds 180 dB re: 1 mPa (rms) at
a distance less than 12 nautical miles
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
890
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(nmi) (22 kilometers (km)) from any
coastline, including offshore islands;
(ii) The SURTASS LFA sonar sound
field exceeds 180 dB re: 1 mPa (rms) at
a distance less than 1 km (0.5 nm)
seaward of the outer perimeter of any
offshore biologically important area
designated in § 218.234(f)(1)(iii) during
the period specified.
Name of area
Location of area
Georges Bank ....................................................
40°00′ N, 72°30′ W ..........................................
39°37′ N, 72°09′ W.
39°54′ N, 71°43′ W.
40°02′ N, 71°20′ W.
40°08′ N, 71°01′ W.
40°04′ N, 70°44′ W.
40°00′ N, 69°24′ W.
40°16′ N, 68°27′ W.
40°34′ N, 67°13′ W.
41°00′ N, 66°24′ W.
41°52′ N, 65°47′ W.
42°20′ N, 66°06′ W.
42°18′ N, 67°23′ W.
43°05′ N, 65°40′ ...............................................
43°05′ N, 65°03′ W.
42°45′ N, 65°40′ W.
42°45′ N, 65°03′ W.
41°00.000′ N, 69°05.000′ W ............................
42°09.000′ N, 67°08.400′ W.
42°53.436′ N, 67°43.873′ W.
44°12.541′ N, 67°16.847′ W.
44°14.911′ N, 67°08.936′ W.
44°21.538′ N, 67°03.663′ W.
44°26.736′ N, 67°09.596′ W.
44°16.805′ N, 67°27.394′ W.
44°11.118′ N, 67°56.398′ W.
43°59.240′ N, 68°08.263′ W.
43°36.800′ N, 68°46.496′ W.
43°33.925′ N, 69°19.455′ W.
43°32.008′ N, 69°44.504′ W.
43°21.922′ N, 70°06.257′ W.
43°04.084′ N, 70°21.418′ W.
42°51.982′ N, 70°31.965′ W.
42°45.187′ N, 70°23.396′ W.
42°39.068′ N, 70°30.188′ W.
42°32.892′ N, 70°35.873′ W.
42°07.748′ N, 70°28.257′ W.
42°05.592′ N, 70°02.136′ W.
42°03.664′ N, 69°44.000′ W.
41°40.000′ N, 69°45.000′ W.
Critical Habitat Boundaries are coastal waters
between 31°15′ N and 30°15′ N from the
coast out 15 nautical miles (nmi); and the
coastal waters between 30°15′ N and
28°00′ N from the coast out 5 nmi. (50 CFR
§ 226.13(c)).
OBIA Boundaries are coastal waters between
31°15′ N and 30°15′ N from 12 to 15 nmi.
57°03′ N, 153°00′ W ........................................
57°18′ N, 151°30′ W
57°00′ N, 151°30′ W.
56°45′ N, 153°00′ W.
(50 CFR § 226.215).
Silver Bank .......................................................
20°38.899 N, 69°23.640′ W
20°55.706′ N, 69°57.984′ W.
20°25.221′ N, 70°00.387′ W
20°12.833′ N, 69°40.604′ W.
20°13.918′ N, 69°31.518′ W.
20°28.680′ N, 69°31.900′ W.
Navidad Bank: ..................................................
20°15.596′ N, 68°47.967′ W
20°11.971′ N, 68°54.810′ W.
19°52.514′ N, 69°00.443′ W.
19°54.957′ N, 68°51.430′ W.
19°51.513′ N, 68°41.399′ W.
Roseway Basin Right Whale Conservation Area
Great South Channel, U.S. Gulf of Maine, and
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary
(NMS).
Southeastern U.S. Right Whale Seasonal Habitat.
North Pacific Right Whale Critical Habitat .........
Silver Bank and Navidad Bank ..........................
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(iii) Offshore Biologically Important
Areas (OBIAs) for marine mammals
(with specified periods) for SURTASS
LFA sonar operations include the
following:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Months of importance
Year-round.
June through December, annually.
January 1 to November 14, annually.
November 15 to January 15, annually.
March through August, annually.
December through April, annually.
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Name of area
Location of area
Coastal waters of Gabon, Congo and Equatorial Guinea.
An exclusion zone following the 500-m
isobath extending from 3°31.055′ N,
9°12.226′ E in the north offshore of Malabo
southward to 8°57.470′ S, 12°55.873′ E offshore of Luanda.
Between 200- and 2000-m isobaths and the
following latitudes: 35°00′ S, 39°00′ S,
40°40′ S, 42°30′ S, 46°00′ S, 48°50′ S.
Coastal waters between 42°00′ S and 43°00′
S from 12 to 15 nmi including the enclosed
bays of Golfo Nuevo, Golfo San Jose and
San Matias. Golfos San Jose and San
Nuevo are within 22 km (12 nmi) coastal
exclusion zone.
Single stratum boundary created from the
Cordell Bank (15 CFR 922.10), Gulf of the
Farallones (15 CFR 922.80), and Monterey
Bay (15 CFR 922.30) NMS legal boundaries. Monterey Bay NMS includes the Davidson Seamount Management Zone.
30° E to 80° E, 45° S ......................................
80° E to 150° E, 55° S.
150° E to 50° W, 60° S.
50° W to 30° E, 50° S.
54°09.436′ N, 143°47.408′ W ..........................
54°09.436′ N, 143°17.354′ W.
54°01.161′ N, 143°17.354′ W.
53°53.580′ N, 143°13.398′ W.
53°26.963′ N, 143°28.230′ W.
53°07.013′ N, 143°35.481′ W.
52°48.705′ N, 143°38.447′ W.
52°32.077′ N, 143°37.788′ W.
52°21.605′ N, 143°34.163′ W.
52°09.470′ N, 143°26.582′ W.
51°57.686′ N, 143°30.208′ W.
51°36.033′ N, 143°42.794′ W.
51°08.082′ N, 143°51.301′ W.
51°08.082′ N, 144°16.742′ W.
51°24.514′ N, 144°11.139′ W.
51°48.116′ N, 144°10.809′ W.
52°03.194′ N, 144°20.363′ W.
52°23.235′ N, 144°10.150′ W.
52°28.674′ N, 144°12.787′ W.
52°42.523′ N, 144°10.150′ W.
53°12.972′ N, 143°55.648′ W.
53°18.505′ N, 143°56.637′ W.
53°23.041′ N, 143°53.011′ W.
53°28.250′ N, 143°53.341′ W.
53°44.039′ N, 143°49.056′ W.
53°53.207′ N, 143°50.045′ W.
53°59.819′ N, 143°48.067′ W.
16°03′55.04″ S, 50°27′12.59″ E ......................
16°12′23.03″ S, 51°03′37.38″ E.
24°30′45.06″ S, 48°26′00.94″ E.
24°15′28.07″ S, 47°46′51.16″ E.
22°18′00.74″ S, 48°14′13.52″ E.
20°52′24.12″ S, 48°43′13.49″ E.
19°22′33.24″ S, 49°15′45.47″ E.
18°29′46.08″ S, 49°37′32.25″ E.
17°38′27.89″ S, 49°44′27.17″ E.
17°24′39.12″ S, 49°39′17.03″ E.
17°19′35.34″ S, 49°54′23.82″ E.
16°45′41.71″ S, 50°15′56.35″ E.
25°55′20.00″ S, 44°05′15.45″ E ......................
25°46′31.36″ S, 47°22′35.90″ E.
27°02′37.71″ S, 48°03′31.08″ E.
35°13′51.37″ S, 46°26′19.98″ E.
35°14′28.59″ S, 42°35′49.20″ E.
31°36′57.96″ S, 42°37′49.35″ E.
27°41′11.21″ S, 44°30′11.01″ E.
42°50.271′ N, 06°31.883′ E .............................
42°55.603′ N, 06°43.418′ E.
43°04.374′ N, 06°52.165′ E.
43°12.600′ N, 07°10.440′ E.
Patagonian Shelf Break .....................................
Southern Right Whale Seasonal Habitat ...........
Central California National Marine Sanctuaries
Antarctic Convergence Zone ..............................
Piltun and Chayvo offshore feeding grounds in
the Sea of Okhotsk.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Coastal waters off Madagascar ..........................
Madagascar Plateau, Madagascar Ridge, and
Walters Shoal.
Ligurian-Corsican-Provencal Basin and Western
Pelagos Sanctuary in the Mediterranean Sea.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
891
Months of importance
June through October.
Year-round.
May through December, annually.
June through November, annually.
October through March, annually.
June through November, annually.
July through September, annually for humpback whale breeding and November
through December, annually for migrating
blue whales.
November through December, annually.
July to August, annually.
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
892
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Name of area
Location of area
Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale NMS and
Penguin Bank.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Costa Rica Dome ...............................................
Great Barrier Reef Between 16° S and 21° S ...
Bonney Upwelling on the west coast of Australia.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
Months of importance
43°21.720′ N, 07°19.380′ E.
43°30.600′ N, 07°32.220′ E.
43°33.900′ N, 07°49.920′ E.
43°36.420′ N, 08°05.580′ E.
43°42.600′ N, 08°22.140′ E.
43°50.880′ N, 08°34.500′ E.
43°58.560′ N, 08°47.700′ E.
43°59.040′ N, 08°56.040′ E.
43°57.047′ N, 09°03.540′ E.
43°52.260′ N, 09°08.520′ E.
43°47.580′ N, 09°13.500′ E.
43°36.060′ N, 09°16.620′ E.
43°28.440′ N, 09°05.820′ E.
43°21.360′ N, 09°02.100′ E.
43°16.020′ N, 08°57.240′ E.
43°04.440′ N, 08°47.580′ E.
42°54.900′ N, 08°35.400′ E.
42°45.900′ N, 08°27.540′ E.
42°36.060′ N, 08°22.020′ E.
42°22.620′ N, 08°15.849′ E.
42°07.202′ N, 08°17.174′ E.
41°52.800′ N, 08°15.720′ E.
41°39.780′ N, 08°05.280′ E.
41°28.200′ N, 08°51.600′ E.
42°57.060′ N, 06°19.860′ E.
21°10′02.179″ N, 157°30′58.217″ W ...............
21°09′46.815″ N, 157°30′22.367″ W.
21°06′39.882″ N, 157°31′00.778″ W.
21°02′51.976″ N, 157°30′30.049″ W.
20°59′52.725″ N, 157°29′28.591″ W.
20°58′05.174″ N, 157°27′35.919″ W.
20°55′49.456″ N, 157°30′58.217″ W.
20°50′44.729″ N, 157°42′42.418″ W.
20°51′02.654″ N, 157°44′45.333″ W.
20°53′56.784″ N, 157°46′04.716″ W.
20°56′32.988″ N, 157°45′33.987″ W.
21°01′27.472″ N, 157°43′10.586″ W.
21°05′20.499″ N, 157°39′27.802″ W.
21°10′02.179″ N, 157°30′58.217″ W.
Centered at 9° N and 88° W ...........................
16°01.829′ S, 145°38.783′ E ...........................
15°52.215′ S, 146°20.936′ E.
17°28.354′ S, 146°59.392′ E.
20°16.228′ S, 151°39.674′ E.
20°58.381′ S, 150°30.897′ E.
20°17.007′ S, 149°38.247′ E.
20°10.941′ S, 149°18.247′ E.
20°02.403′ S, 149°12.623′ E.
19°53.287′ S, 149°03.986′ E.
19°49.866′ S, 148°52.135′ E.
19°53.287′ S, 148°44.302′ E.
19°47.965′ S, 148°36.870′ E.
19°47.205′ S, 148°26.024′ E.
19°19.978′ S, 147°39.626′ E.
19°14.065′ S, 147°37.014′ E.
19°08.913′ S, 147°31.993′ E.
19°05.667′ S, 147°24.160′ E.
19°07.576′ S, 147°18.134′ E.
18°51.718′ S, 146°51.219′ E.
18°44.258′ S, 146°54.031′ E.
18°37.175′ S, 146°51.420′ E.
18°31.620′ S, 146°43.385′ E.
18°27.595′ S, 146°40.573′ E.
17°36.676′ S, 146°20.488′ E.
17°20.484′ S, 146°16.671′ E.
17°07.745′ S, 146°13.056′ E.
16°49.769′ S, 146°11.047′ E.
16°41.835′ S, 146°03.817′ E.
16°39.706′ S, 145°54.979′ E.
37°12′20.036″ S, 139°31′17.703″ E ................
37°37′33.815″ S, 139°42′42.508″ E.
38°10′36.144″ S, 140°22′57.345″ E.
38°44′50.558″ S, 141°33′50.342″ E.
39°07′04.125″ S, 141°11′00.733″ E.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
November through April, annually.
Year-round.
May through September, annually.
December through May, annually.
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Name of area
Location of area
Northern Bay of Bengal and Head of Swatchof-No-Ground.
Olympic Coast NMS and Prairie, Barkley Canyon, and Nitnat Canyon.
(2) [Reserved]
(g) Operational Exception for the
SURTASS LFA Sonar Sound Field
(1) During military operations
SURTASS LFA sonar transmissions may
exceed 180 dB re: 1 mPa (rms) within the
boundaries of a SURTASS LFA sonar
OBIA when: (1) Operationally necessary
to continue tracking an existing
underwater contact; or (2) operationally
necessary to detect a new underwater
contact within the OBIA. This exception
does not apply to routine training and
testing with the SURTASS LFA sonar
systems.
(2) [Reserved]
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 218.235
Requirements for monitoring.
(a) In order to mitigate the taking of
marine mammals by SURTASS LFA
sonar to the greatest extent practicable,
the Holder of a Letter of Authorization
issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 and
218.238 of this chapter must:
(1) Conduct visual monitoring from
the ship’s bridge during all daylight
hours (30 minutes before sunrise until
30 minutes after sunset). During
operations that employ SURTASS LFA
sonar in the active mode, the SURTASS
vessels shall have lookouts to maintain
a topside watch with standard
binoculars (7x) and with the naked eye.
(2) Use low frequency passive
SURTASS sonar to listen for vocalizing
marine mammals; and
(3) Use the HF/M3 sonar to locate and
track marine mammals in relation to the
SURTASS LFA sonar vessel and the
sound field produced by the SURTASS
LFA sonar source array.
(b) Monitoring under paragraph (a) of
this section must:
(1) Commence at least 30 minutes
before the first SURTASS LFA sonar
transmission;
(2) Continue between transmission
pings; and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
Months of importance
37°28′33.179″ S, 139°10′52.263″ E.
20°59.735′ N, 89°07.675′ E .............................
20°55.494′ N, 89°09.484′ E.
20°52.883′ N, 89°12.704′ E.
20°55.275′ N, 89°18.133′ E.
21°04.558′ N, 89°25.294′ E.
21°12.655′ N, 89°25.354′ E.
21°13.279′ N, 89°16.833′ E.
21°06.347′ N, 89°15.011′ E.
Boundaries within 23 nmi (26.5 m; 42.6 km)
of the coast from 47°07′ N to 48°30′ N latitude.
48°30′01.995″ N, 125°58′38.786″ W ...............
48°16′55.605″ N, 125°38′52.052″ W.
48°23′07.353″ N, 125°17′10.935″ W.
48°12′38.241″ N, 125°16′42.339″ W.
47°58′20.361″ N, 125°31′14.517″ W.
47°58′20.361″ N, 126°06′16.322″ W.
48°09′46.665″ N, 126°25′48.758″ W.
(3) Continue either for at least 15
minutes after completion of the
SURTASS LFA sonar transmission
exercise, or, if marine mammals are
exhibiting unusual changes in
behavioral patterns, for a period of time
until behavior patterns return to normal
or conditions prevent continued
observations.
(c) Holders of Letters of Authorization
for activities described in § 218.230 are
required to cooperate with the National
Marine Fisheries Service and any other
federal agency for monitoring the
impacts of the activity on marine
mammals.
(d) Holders of Letters of Authorization
must designate qualified on-site
individuals to conduct the mitigation,
monitoring and reporting activities
specified in the Letter of Authorization.
(e) Holders of Letters of Authorization
must conduct all monitoring required
under the Letter of Authorization.
§ 218.236
Requirements for reporting.
(a) The Holder of the Letter of
Authorization must submit classified
and unclassified quarterly mission
reports to the Director, Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, no later
than 30 days after the end of each
quarter beginning on the date of
effectiveness of a Letter of Authorization
or as specified in the appropriate Letter
of Authorization. Each quarterly
mission report will include all activemode missions completed during that
quarter. At a minimum, each classified
mission report must contain the
following information:
(1) Dates, times, and location of each
vessel during each mission;
(2) Information on sonar
transmissions during each mission;
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
893
Year-round.
Olympic NMS: December, January, March,
and May.
Prairie, Barkley Canyon, and Nitnat Canyon:
June through September.
(3) Results of the marine mammal
monitoring program specified in the
Letter of Authorization; and
(4) Estimates of the percentages of
marine mammal species and stocks
affected (both for the quarter and
cumulatively for the year) covered by
the Letter of Authorization.
(b) The Holder of a Letter of
Authorization must submit an
unclassified annual report to the
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, no later than 45 days after the
expiration of a Letter of Authorization.
The reports must contain all the
information required by the Letter of
Authorization.
(c) A final comprehensive report must
be submitted to the Director, Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS at least 240
days prior to expiration of this subpart.
In addition to containing all the
information required by any final year
Letter of Authorization, this report must
contain an unclassified analysis of new
passive sonar technologies and an
assessment of whether such a system is
feasible as an alternative to SURTASS
LFA sonar.
(d) The Navy will continue to assess
the data collected by its undersea arrays
and work toward making some portion
of that data, after appropriate security
reviews, available to scientists with
appropriate clearances. Any portions of
the analyses conducted by these
scientists based on these data that are
determined to be unclassified after
appropriate security reviews will be
made publically available.
§ 218.237 Applications for Letters of
Authorization.
(a) To incidentally take marine
mammals pursuant to this subpart, the
U.S. Navy authority conducting the
activity identified in § 218.230 must
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
894
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
apply for and obtain a Letter of
Authorization in accordance with
§ 216.106 of this chapter.
(b) The application for a Letter of
Authorization must be submitted to the
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, at least 60 days before the date
that either the vessel is scheduled to
begin conducting SURTASS LFA sonar
operations or the previous Letter of
Authorization is scheduled to expire.
(c) All applications for a Letter of
Authorization must include the
following information:
(1) The date(s), duration, and the
area(s) where the vessel’s activity will
occur;
(2) The species and/or stock(s) of
marine mammals likely to be found
within each area;
(3) The type of incidental taking
authorization requested (i.e., take by
Level A and/or Level B harassment);
(4) The estimated percentage of
marine mammal species/stocks
potentially affected in each area for the
period of effectiveness of the Letter of
Authorization; and
(5) The means of accomplishing the
necessary monitoring and reporting that
will result in increased knowledge of
the species and the level of taking or
impacts on marine mammal
populations.
(d) The National Marine Fisheries
Service will review an application for a
Letter of Authorization in accordance
with § 216.104(b) of this chapter and, if
adequate and complete, issue a Letter of
Authorization.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 218.238
Letters of Authorization.
(a) A Letter of Authorization, unless
suspended or revoked, will be valid for
a period of time not to exceed one year,
but may be renewed annually subject to
renewal conditions in § 218.239.
(b) Each Letter of Authorization will
set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental
taking;
(2) Authorized geographic areas for
incidental takings;
(3) Means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impact on the
species of marine mammals authorized
for taking, their habitat, and the
availability of the species for
subsistence uses; and
(4) Requirements for monitoring and
reporting incidental takes.
(c) Issuance of a Letter of
Authorization will be based on a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Jan 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
determination that the level of taking
will be consistent with the findings
made for the total taking allowable
under this subpart.
(d) Notice of issuance or denial of an
application for a Letter of Authorization
will be published in the Federal
Register within 30 days of a
determination.
§ 218.239 Renewal of Letters of
Authorization.
(a) A Letter of Authorization issued
for the activity identified in § 218.230
may be renewed upon:
(1) Notification to NMFS that the
activity described in the application
submitted under § 218.237 will be
undertaken and that there will not be a
substantial modification to the
described activity, mitigation or
monitoring undertaken during the
upcoming season;
(2) Notification to NMFS of the
information identified in § 218.237(c);
(3) Timely receipt of the monitoring
reports required under § 218.236, which
have been reviewed by NMFS and
determined to be acceptable;
(4) A determination by NMFS that the
mitigation, monitoring and reporting
measures required under §§ 218.234,
218.235, and 218.236 and the previous
Letter of Authorization were undertaken
and will be undertaken during the
upcoming period of validity of a
renewed Letter of Authorization; and
(5) A determination by NMFS that the
level of taking will be consistent with
the findings made for the total taking
allowable under this subpart.
(b) If a request for a renewal of a
Letter of Authorization indicates that a
substantial modification to the
described work, mitigation, or
monitoring will occur, or if NMFS
proposes a substantial modification to
the Letter of Authorization, NMFS will
provide a period of 30 days for public
review and comment on the proposed
modification. Amending the areas for
upcoming SURTASS LFA sonar
operations is not considered a
substantial modification to the 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 within 30 days of a
determination.
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
§ 218.240 Modifications to Letters of
Authorization.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(b) of this section, no substantial
modification (including withdrawal or
suspension) to a Letter of Authorization
subject to the provisions of this subpart
shall be made by NMFS until after
notification and an opportunity for
public comment has been provided. For
purposes of this paragraph, a renewal of
a Letter of Authorization, without
modification, except for the period of
validity and a listing of planned
operating areas, or for moving the
authorized SURTASS LFA sonar system
from one ship to another, is not
considered a substantial modification.
(b) If NMFS determines that an
emergency exists that poses a significant
risk to the well-being of the species or
stocks of marine mammals specified in
§ 218.230(b)(1), (2), or (3), NMFS may
modify a Letter of Authorization
without prior notice and opportunity for
public comment. Notification will be
published in the Federal Register
within 30 days of the action.
§ 218.241
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
this subpart. NMFS will provide a
period of 30 days for public review and
comment if such modifications are
substantial. Below are some of the
possible sources of new data that could
contribute to the decision to modify the
mitigation or monitoring measures:
(a) Results from the Navy’s
monitoring from the previous year’s
operation of SURTASS LFA sonar.
(b) Compiled results of Navy-funded
research and development studies.
(c) Results from specific stranding
investigations.
(d) Results from general marine
mammal and sound research funded by
the Navy or other sponsors.
(e) Any information that reveals
marine mammals may have been taken
in a manner, extent or number not
anticipated by this subpart or
subsequent Letters of Authorization.
[FR Doc. 2011–33600 Filed 1–5–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\06JAP2.SGM
06JAP2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 4 (Friday, January 6, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 842-894]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33600]
[[Page 841]]
Vol. 77
Friday,
No. 4
January 6, 2012
Part II
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 218
Taking and Importing Marine Mammals: Taking Marine Mammals Incidental
to U.S. Navy Operations of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low
Frequency Active Sonar; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 842]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 218
[Docket No. 110808485-1534-01]
RIN 0648-BB14
Taking and Importing Marine Mammals: Taking Marine Mammals
Incidental to U.S. Navy Operations of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor
System Low Frequency Active Sonar
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, by harassment, incidental to
conducting operations of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System
(SURTASS) Low Frequency Active (LFA) sonar in areas of the world's
oceans (with the exception of Arctic and Antarctic waters and certain
geographic restrictions), from August 16, 2012, through August 15,
2017. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is
proposing regulations to govern that take and requests information,
suggestions, and comments on these proposed regulations.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than February
6, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by 0648-BB14, 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 P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits,
Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver
Spring, MD 20910.
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. To help NMFS process and review comments
more efficiently, please use only one method to submit comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeannine Cody, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability
The public may obtain an electronic copy of the Navy's application
by writing to the address specified above this section (see ADDRESSES),
telephoning the contact listed above this section (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT), or by visiting the Internet at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications. The Navy
published a Federal Register Notice of Availability of a Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Supplemental Overseas
Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS/SOEIS) for employment of SURTASS
LFA sonar on August 19, 2011. The public may view the document at:
https://www.surtass-lfa-eis.com. NMFS is participating in the
development of the Navy's DSEIS/SOEIS as a cooperating agency under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1972.
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act
of 1972, as amended (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 small numbers of marine
mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region 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, a 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), and will not have
an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or
stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant). The authorization must
set forth the permissible methods of taking, other means of effecting
the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its
habitat, and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and
reporting of such taking.
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) amended the MMPA by removing the ``small numbers'' and ``specified
geographical region'' provisions and amended the definition of
``harassment'' as it applies to a ``military readiness activity'' (as
defined in section 315(f) of Public Law 107-314; 16 U.S.C. 703 note) to
read as follows (Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA):
(i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to
injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A
Harassment]; or
(ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of
natural behavior patterns, including, but not limited to, migration,
surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point
where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly
altered [Level B Harassment].
Summary of Request
On August 17, 2011, NMFS received an application from the U.S. Navy
requesting authorization for the take of individuals of 94 species of
marine mammals (70 cetaceans and 24 pinnipeds), by harassment,
incidental to upcoming routine training and testing of the SURTASS LFA
sonar system, as well as the use of the system on a maximum of four
U.S. Naval ships during military operations in certain areas of the
Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans and the Mediterranean Sea from
August 16, 2012 through August 15, 2017. These routine training and
testing and military operations are classified as military readiness
activities. The Navy states, and NMFS concurs, that these military
readiness activities may incidentally take marine mammals present
within the Navy's operation areas by exposing them to sound from low-
frequency active sonar sources. The Navy requests authorization to take
individuals of 94 species of marine mammals by Level A and Level B
Harassment, although as discussed later in this document, Level A
Harassment will likely be avoided through the implementation of the
Navy's proposed mitigation measures.
This is NMFS' third rule making for SURTASS LFA sonar operations
under the MMPA. NMFS' current five-year
[[Page 843]]
regulations governing incidental takings incidental to SURTASS LFA
sonar activities and the related Letters of Authorizations (LOA) expire
on August 15, 2012. NMFS published the first rule, effective from
August 2002 through August 2007, on July 16, 2002 (67 FR 46712), and
published the second rule on August 21, 2007 (72 FR 46846). For this
proposed rule making, the Navy is proposing to conduct the same types
of sonar activities as they have conducted over the past nine years.
Description of the Specified Activities
Purpose and Background
The Navy's mission is to maintain, train, equip, and operate
combat-ready naval forces capable of accomplishing American strategic
objectives, deterring maritime aggression, and maintaining freedom of
the seas. Section 5062 of Title 10 of the United States Code directs
the Secretary of the Navy and Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) to ensure
the readiness of the U.S. naval forces.
The Secretary of the Navy and the CNO have established that anti-
submarine warfare (ASW) is a critical part of the Navy's mission that
requires access to both the open-ocean and littoral environments and
continual training to prepare for all potential threats. The Navy is
challenged by the increased difficulty in locating undersea threats
solely by using passive acoustic technologies due to the advancement
and use of quieting technologies in diesel-electric and nuclear
submarines. The range at which the Navy's ASW assets are able to
identify submarine threats is decreasing, and at the same time,
improvements in torpedo design are extending the effective weapons
range of subsea threats to the U.S. naval fleet.
To address these changing requirements for ASW readiness, the Navy
developed SURTASS LFA sonar, which provides the Navy with a reliable
and dependable system for long-range detection of quieter, harder-to-
find submarines. Because low-frequency (LF) sound travels in seawater
for greater distances than higher frequency sound, the Navy states that
the SURTASS LFA sonar system would meet the need for improved detection
and tracking of new-generation submarines at a longer range and would
maximize the opportunity for U.S. armed forces to safely react to, and
defend against, potential submarine threats while remaining a safe
distance beyond a submarine's effective weapons range. Thus, the Navy
believes that the active acoustic component in the SURTASS LFA sonar is
an important augmentation to its passive and tactical systems, as its
long-range detection capabilities can effectively counter the threat to
the U.S. Navy and national security interests posed by quiet, diesel
submarines.
Specified Activities
As previously mentioned, the Navy has requested MMPA authorization
to take marine mammals incidental to the operation of up to four
SURTASS LFA sonar systems for routine training and testing as well as
for the use of the system during military operations from August 16,
2012 through August 15, 2017. The SURTASS LFA sonar system is a long-
range, LF sonar (between 100 and 500 Hertz (Hz)) that has both active
and passive components (see the Description of SURTASS LFA Sonar
section later in this document). Use of the LFA sonar system could
occur in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans, and the Mediterranean
Sea on a maximum of four naval surveillance vessels: the USNS ABLE,
USNS EFFECTIVE, USNS IMPECCABLE, and the USNS VICTORIOUS. The Navy
states that they will not operate SURTASS LFA sonar in Arctic and
Antarctic waters. Further, the Navy also proposes to operate SURTASS
LFA sonar such that the sound field does not exceed 180 decibels (dB)
within 22 kilometers (km) (13.7 miles (mi); 12 nautical miles (nm) of
land; or in proposed offshore biologically important areas (OBIA) for
marine mammals, identified later in this document, in the Navy's
application, and in the Navy's 2011 DSEIS/SOEIS (see Geographic
Restrictions section later in this document).
Because of uncertainties in the world's political climate, the Navy
cannot predict a detailed account of future operating locations and
conditions. However, for analytical purposes, the Navy has developed a
nominal annual deployment schedule and operational concept based on
current LFA sonar operations since January 2003 and projected naval
fleet requirements (See Table 1).
The Navy anticipates that a normal SURTASS LFA sonar deployment
schedule for a single vessel would involve approximately 294 days per
year at sea, which includes 240 days of active sonar transmissions and
54 days of transit. SURTASS LFA sonar would operate day and night in a
variety of weather conditions. NMFS refers the reader to Table 1 for
additional details on the nominal annual deployment schedule for
SURTASS LFA sonar vessels.
Table 1--Example Annual Deployment Schedule for One Surveillance Vessel
Using SURTASS LFA Sonar
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On mission Days Off mission Days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transit.......................... 54 In-Port Upkeep..... 40
Active Operations:
432 transmission hours based 240 Regular Overhaul... 31
on a 7.5% duty cycle.
--------- --------
Total Days on Mission.... 294 Total Days off 71
Mission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential SURTASS LFA Sonar Operational Areas
Figure 1 depicts the potential areas of operation for SURTASS LFA
sonar. Based on the Navy's current operational requirements, potential
operations for SURTASS LFA sonar vessels from August 2012 through
August 2017 would most likely include areas located in the Pacific,
Indian, and Atlantic Oceans and Mediterranean Sea.
The Navy will not operate SURTASS LFA sonar in polar regions (i.e.,
Arctic and Antarctic waters) of the world (see shaded areas in Figure
1). The Arctic Ocean, the Bering Sea (including Bristol Bay and Norton
Sound), portions of the Norwegian, Greenland, and Barents Seas north of
72[deg] North (N) latitude, plus Baffin Bay, Hudson Bay, and the Gulf
of St. Lawrence would be non-operational areas for SURTASS LFA sonar.
In the Antarctic, the Navy will not conduct SURTASS LFA operations in
areas south of 60[deg] South (S) latitude. The Navy has excluded polar
waters from operational planning because of the inherent inclement
weather conditions and the navigational and operational (equipment)
danger that icebergs pose to SURTASS LFA sonar vessels.
[[Page 844]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA12.000
The Navy must anticipate, or predict, where they have to operate in
the next five years or so for the MMPA authorization. Naval forces are
presently operating in several areas strategic to U.S national and
international interests, including areas in the Atlantic Ocean, the
Mediterranean Sea, the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf, and the Pacific
Rim. National Security needs may dictate that many of these operational
areas will be close to ports and choke points, such as entrances to
straits, channels, and canals. It is anticipated that many future naval
conflicts are likely to occur within littoral or coastal areas.
However, it is infeasible for the Navy to analyze all potential mission
areas for all species and stocks for all seasons. Instead, the Navy
projects where it intends to test, train, and operate for the next
five-year authorization period based on today's political climate and
provides NMFS with risk estimates for marine mammal stocks in the
proposed areas of operation.
For this third rulemaking, the Navy has modeled and analyzed 19
operational areas for SURTASS LFA operations that would be relevant to
U.S. national security interests (see Table 2). They include the
following modeled areas: East of Japan; north Philippine Sea; west
Philippine Sea; offshore Guam; Sea of Japan; East China Sea; the south
China Sea; the northwest Pacific Ocean; the Hawai'i Range Complex;
Offshore Southern California in the Southern California (SOCAL) Range
Complex; the western Atlantic in the Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar
(AFAST) Study Area/Jacksonville (JAX) operational area (OPAREA); the
eastern North Atlantic (western approach); the Mediterranean and
Ligurian Seas; the Arabian Sea; the Andaman Sea (approaches to the
Strait of Malacca); the Panama Canal (western approach); and the
northeast Australian Coast.
Table 2--Potential SURTASS LFA Sonar Operating Areas That the Navy Modeled for the DSEIS/OEIS (DoN, 2011) and
the MMPA LOA Application
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location (latitude/ Location (latitude/
Modeled site longitude) Modeled site longitude)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
East of Japan................... 38[deg] N, 148[deg] E Hawaii South 19.5[deg] N, 158.5[deg] W.
(Hawai'i Range
Complex).
North Philippine Sea............ 29[deg] N, 136[deg] E Offshore Southern 32[deg] N, 120[deg] W.
California
(Southern
California (SOCAL)
Range Complex).
West Philippine Sea............. 22[deg] N, 124[deg] E Western Atlantic 30[deg] N, 78[deg] W.
(off Florida)
(Atlantic Fleet
Active Sonar
(AFAST) Study Area/
Jacksonville.
Offshore Guam (Mariana Islands 11[deg] N, 145[deg] E Eastern North 56.5[deg] N, 10[deg] W.
Range Complex, outside Mariana Atlantic (western
Trench). approach).
Sea of Japan.................... 39[deg] N, 132[deg] E Mediterranean Sea-- 43[deg] N, 8[deg] E.
Ligurian Sea.
East China Sea.................. 26[deg] N, 125[deg] E Arabian Sea........ 20[deg]N, 65[deg]E.
South China Sea................. 21[deg] N, 119[deg] E Andaman Sea 7.5[deg] N, 96[deg] E.
(approaches to the
Strait of Malacca).
NW Pacific 25[deg] to 40[deg] N. 30[deg] N, 165[deg] E Panama Canal 5[deg] N, 81[deg] W.
(western approach).
NW Pacific 10[deg] to 25[deg] N. 15[deg] N, 165[deg] E Northeast 23[deg] S, 155[deg] E.
Australian Coast.
Hawai'i North (Hawai'i Range 25[deg] N, 158[deg] W ...........................
Complex).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 845]]
Acoustic stimuli (i.e., increased underwater sound) generated
during the transmission of low-frequency acoustic signals by the
SURTASS LFA sonar system has the potential to cause take of marine
mammals in the operational areas. The operation of the SURTASS LFA
sonar system during at-sea operations would result in the generation of
sound or pressure waves in the water at or above levels that NMFS has
determined would result in take. This is the principal means of marine
mammal taking associated with these military readiness activities and
the Navy has requested an authorization to take 94 species of marine
mammals by Level A and Level B harassment. At no point are there
expected to be more than four systems in use, and thus this proposed
rule analyzes the impacts on marine mammals due to the deployment of up
to four LFA sonar systems from 2012 through 2017.
In addition to the use of active acoustic sources, the Navy's
activities include the operation and movement of vessels that are
necessary to conduct the routine training and testing as well as the
use of the system during military operations. This document also
analyzes the effects of this part of the activities. However, NMFS does
not anticipate take to result from collision with any of the four
SURTASS LFA vessels because each vessel moves at a relatively slow
speed, for a relatively short period of time. It is likely that any
marine mammal would be able to avoid the surveillance vessels.
Description of SURTASS LFA Sonar
SONAR is an acronym for Sound Navigation and Ranging, and its
definition includes any system (biological or mechanical) that uses
underwater sound, or acoustics, for detection, monitoring, and/or
communications. Active sonar is the transmission of sound energy for
the purpose of sensing the environment by interpreting features of
received signals. Active sonar detects objects by creating a sound
pulse or ping that is transmitted through the water and reflects off
the target, returning in the form of an echo. Passive sonar detects the
transmission of sound waves created by an object.
The SURTASS LFA sonar system is a long-range, all-weather sonar
system that has both active and passive components. LFA, the active
system component (which allows for the detection of an object that is
not generating noise), is comprised of source elements (called
projectors) suspended vertically on a cable beneath the surveillance
vessel. The projectors produce an active sound pulse (i.e., a ping) by
converting electrical energy to mechanical energy by setting up
vibrations or pressure disturbances within the water to produce a ping.
The Navy uses LFA as an augmentation to SURTASS operations when passive
system performance is inadequate. SURTASS, the passive part of the
system, uses hydrophones (i.e., underwater microphones) to detect sound
emitted or reflected from submerged targets, such as submarines. The
SURTASS hydrophones are mounted on a horizontal line array that is
towed behind the surveillance vessel. The Navy then processes and
evaluates the returning signals or echoes, which are usually below
background or ambient sound level, to identify and classify potential
underwater targets.
LFA Active Component
The active component of the SURTASS LFA sonar system consists of up
to 18 projectors suspended beneath the surveillance vessel in a
vertical line array. The expected water depth at the center of the
array is approximately 400 ft (121.9 m). The SURTASS LFA sonar
projectors transmit in the low-frequency band (between 100 and 500 Hz)
and the Navy will not transmit the SURTASS LFA sonar signal at a
frequency greater than 500 Hz. The source level of an individual
projector in the SURTASS LFA sonar array is approximately 215 dB re: 1
[micro]Pa at 1 m or less. (Sound pressure is the sound force per unit
area and is usually measured in micropascals ([mu]Pa), where one Pascal
(Pa) is the pressure resulting from a force of one newton exerted over
an area of one square meter. The commonly used reference pressure level
in underwater acoustics is 1 [mu]Pa at 1 m, and the units are decibels
(dB) re: 1 [mu]Pa at 1 m). Because of the physics involved in acoustic
beamforming (i.e., a method of mapping noise sources by differentiating
sound levels based upon the direction from which they originate) and
sound transmission loss processes, the SURTASS LFA sonar array cannot
have a sound pressure level (SPL) higher than the SPL of an individual
projector.
The SURTASS LFA sonar acoustic transmission is an omnidirectional
beam (a full 360 degrees ([deg])) in the horizontal plane. The LFA
sonar system also has a narrow vertical beam that the vessel's crew can
steer above or below the horizontal plane. The typical SURTASS LFA
sonar signal is not a constant tone, but rather a transmission of
various signal types that vary in frequency and duration (including
continuous wave (CW) and frequency-modulated (FM) signals). A complete
sequence of sound transmissions, also referred to by the Navy as a
``ping'' or a wavetrain, can last as short as six seconds (sec) to as
long as 100 sec with an average length of 60 sec. Within each ping, the
duration of any continuous frequency sound transmission is no longer
than 10 sec and the time between pings is typically from six to 15
minutes (min). Based on the Navy's historical operating parameters over
the past nine years, the average duty cycle (i.e., the ratio of sound
``on'' time to total time) for LFA sonar is normally 7.5 to 10 percent
and the duty cycle is not expected to exceed 20 percent.
Compact LFA Active Component
At present, the USNS IMPECCABLE is the only naval vessel with an
operational LFA sonar system. To meet future undersea warfare
requirements in littoral waters, the Navy has developed a compact LFA
(CLFA) sonar system now deployed on its three smaller surveillance
vessels (i.e., the USNS ABLE, EFFECTIVE, and VICTORIOUS). In the
application, the Navy indicates that the operational characteristics of
the active component CLFA are comparable to the existing LFA systems
and that the potential impacts from CLFA will be similar to the effects
from the existing LFA sonar system. CLFA consists of smaller projectors
that weigh 142,000 lbs (64,410 kilograms (kg)), which is 182,000 lbs
(82,554 kg) less that the mission weight of the LFA projectors on the
USNS IMPECCABLE. The CLFA sonar system also consists of up to 18
projectors suspended beneath the surveillance vessel in a vertical line
array and the CLFA sonar projectors transmit in the low-frequency band
(also between 100 and 500 Hz). Similar to the active component of the
LFA system, the source level of an individual projector in the CLFA
sonar array is approximately 215 dB re: 1 [micro]Pa or less.
For the analysis in this document, NMFS will use the term LFA to
refer to both the LFA sonar system and/or the CLFA sonar system, unless
otherwise specified.
SURTASS Passive Component
The passive component of the SURTASS LFA system consists of a
SURTASS Twin-line (TL-29A) horizontal line array mounted with
hydrophones. The Y-shaped array is 1,000 ft (305 m) in length and has
an operational depth of 500 to 1,500 ft (152.4 to 457.2 m). The SURTASS
LFA sonar vessel typically maintains a speed of at least 3.4 mph (5.6
km/hr; 3 knots (kts)) to tow the array astern of the vessel in the
correct horizontal configuration.
[[Page 846]]
High-Frequency Active Sonar
Although technically not part of the SURTASS LFA sonar system, the
Navy also proposes to use a high-frequency sonar system, called the
High Frequency Marine Mammal Monitoring sonar (HF/M3 sonar), developed
by the Navy and Scientific Solutions, Inc., to detect and locate marine
mammals within the SURTASS LFA sonar operational areas. This enhanced
commercial fish-finding sonar, mounted at the top of the SURTASS LFA
sonar vertical line array, has a source level of 220 dB re: 1 [micro]Pa
at 1 m with a frequency range from 30 to 40 kilohertz (kHz). The duty
cycle is variable, but is normally below between three to four percent
and the maximum pulse duration is 40 milliseconds. The HF/M3 sonar has
four transducers with 8[deg] horizontal and 10[deg] vertical
beamwidths, which sweep a full 360[deg] in the horizontal plane every
45 to 60 sec with a maximum range of approximately 1.2 mi (2 km).
Vessel Specifications
The Navy proposes to deploy the SURTASS LFA sonar system on a
maximum of four U.S. Naval ships: the USNS ABLE (T-AGOS 20), the USNS
EFFECTIVE (T-AGOS 21), the USNS IMPECCABLE (T-AGOS 23) and the USNS
VICTORIOUS (T-AGOS 19).
The USNS ABLE, EFFECTIVE, and VICTORIOUS, are twin-hulled ocean
surveillance ships. Each vessel has a length of 235 feet (ft) (71.6
meters (m)); a beam of 93.6 ft (28.5 m); a maximum draft of 25 ft (7.6
m); and a full load displacement of 3,396 tons (3,451 metric tons). A
twin-shaft diesel electric engine provides 3,200 horsepower (hp), which
drives two propellers.
The USNS IMPECCABLE, also a twin-hulled ocean surveillance ship,
has a length of 281.5 ft (85.8 m); a beam of 95.8 ft (29.2 m); a
maximum draft of 26 ft (7.9 m); and a full load displacement of 5,368
tons (5,454 metric tons). A twin-shaft diesel electric engine provides
5,000 hp, which drives two propellers.
The operational speed of each vessel during sonar operations will
be approximately 3.4 miles per hour (mph) (5.6 km per hour (km/hr); 3
kts) and each vessel's cruising speed outside of sonar operations would
be approximately 11.5 to 14.9 mph (18.5 to 24.1 km/hr; 10 to 13 kts).
The expected minimum water depth at which the SURTASS LFA vessel would
operate is 656.2 ft (200 m) and the vessel will generally travel in
straight lines or in oval-shaped (i.e., racetrack) patterns depending
on the operational scenario. Also, each SURTASS LFA sonar vessel would
operate independently of, or in conjunction with, other naval air,
surface or submarine assets.
Each vessel also has an observation area on the bridge from where
lookouts will monitor for marine mammals before and during the proposed
sonar operations. When stationed on the bridge of the USNS ABLE,
EFFECTIVE, or VICTORIOUS, the lookout's eye level will be approximately
32 ft (9.7 m) above sea level providing an unobstructed view around the
entire vessel. For the USNS IMPECCABLE, the lookout's eye level will be
approximately 45 ft (13.7 m) above sea level.
Description of Real-Time SURTASS LFA Sonar Sound Field Modeling
This section explains how the Navy will determine the propagation
of LFA sonar signals in the ocean and the distance from the SURTASS LFA
sonar source to the 180-dB re: 1 [micro]Pa at 1 m isopleth (i.e., the
basis for the proposed LFA sonar mitigation zone for marine mammals).
NMFS provides this description to aid the public's understanding of
this action. However, the actual physics governing the propagation of
SURTASS LFA sound signals is extremely complex and dependent on
numerous in-situ environmental factors.
Prior to commencing and during SURTASS LFA transmissions, the sonar
operators on the vessel will measure oceanic conditions (such as sea
water temperature, salinity, and depth) in the proposed action area.
This information is required for the sonar technicians to accurately
determine the speed at which sound travels and to determine the path
that the sound would take through the water column at a particular
location (i.e., the speed of sound in seawater varies directly with
depth, temperature, and salinity).
The sonar operators use the near-real time environmental data and
the Navy's underwater acoustic performance prediction models (updated
every 12 hours or more frequently when meteorological or oceanographic
conditions change) to generate a plot of sound speed versus depth,
typically referred to as a sound speed profile (SSP). The SSP enables
the technicians to determine the sound field by predicting the received
levels of sound at various distances from the SURTASS LFA sonar source
location. Modeling of the sound field in near-real time provides the
information necessary to modify SURTASS LFA operations, including the
delay or suspension of LFA sonar transmissions for mitigation.
Subchapter 3.1.2 of the SURTASS LFA Sonar 2011 DSEIS/SOEIS (DoN,
2011) discusses some of the environmental factors affecting sound
propagation. Appendix B of the 2001 SURTASS LFA Sonar FOEIS/EIS (DoN,
2001) also provides an understanding concerning the general conditions
of sound speed in the oceans. NMFS refers the public to these documents
at https://www.surtass-lfa-eis.com for additional information.
Comments and Responses
On August 30, 2011 NMFS published a notice of receipt of an
application for an LOA in the Federal Register (76 FR 53884) and
requested comments and information from the interested public for 30
days. During the 30-day comment period, NMFS received two comments. One
commenter opposed the project on the grounds that it would cause
mortality to marine mammals. NMFS notes that the Navy has not requested
lethal take of marine mammals in its application and, for the reasons
described in this document, NMFS does not anticipate that any mortality
will occur as a result of the Navy's activities. Therefore, the
proposed rule only envisions the authorization of Level A and Level B
harassment of marine mammals. The other comment, from an environmental
non-governmental organization, expressed concerns about the geographic
mitigation proposed in the Navy's DSEIS/SOEIS, focusing particularly on
the process for identifying proposed offshore biologically important
areas (OBIAs). NMFS undertook a systematic and scientifically
supportable process for identifying OBIAs for this proposed rule
making. This process is summarized in the Mitigation section of this
proposed rule and detailed in the Navy's DSEIS/SOEIS.
The Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) also submitted comments to the
Navy and NMFS. Generally, the MMC agreed that NMFS should propose
regulations governing the take of marine mammals incidental to
operation of SURTASS LFA sonar for a third five-year period. However,
the MMC recommended that the Navy amend its application and related
DSEIS/SOEIS to: (1) clarify the Navy's take request for marine mammals
by Level A harassment; and (2) specify the numbers of marine mammals
that could be taken by Level A and B harassment incidental to operating
SURTASS LFA sonar, rather than providing only the probabilities of such
takes. With respect to the first point, NMFS notes that the Navy's
application specifically requests authorization for Level A harassment
of
[[Page 847]]
marine mammals incidental to SURTASS LFA sonar operations.
With respect to the MMC's second point, the percentages given in
Tables 6 through 27 in the Navy's application are not probabilities,
but rather indicate the percent of the affected stock for a specific
marine mammal species. For the Navy's Level A and Level B harassment
take request, that percentage is then multiplied by the number of
animals in the relevant species or stock to arrive at an estimated
number of animals that may be harassed by SURTASS LFA sonar operations.
The Navy's approach to estimating Level A harassment and Level B
harassment takes is consistent with the approach used in previous rules
for SURTASS LFA sonar.
This proposed rule does not specify the number of marine mammals
that may be taken in the proposed locations because these are
determined annually through various inputs such as mission location,
mission duration, and season of operation. As with the previous two
rulemakings, this proposed rule analyzes a maximum of 12 percent takes
by Level B harassment per stock annually that will be taken per stock
annually, regardless of the number of LFA sonar vessels operating. The
Navy will use the 12 percent cap (i.e., the maximum percentage of a
stock that could be taken annually, not the probability of take) to
guide its mission planning and annual LOA applications. For the annual
applications for LOAs, the Navy proposes to present both the estimated
percentage of stock incidentally harassed as well as the estimated
number of animals that may be potentially harassed by SURTASS LFA
sonar.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activities
Ninety-four (94) marine mammal species or populations/stocks have
confirmed or possible occurrence within potential SURTASS LFA
operational areas in certain areas of the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian
Oceans and the Mediterranean Sea. Twelve species of baleen whales
(mysticetes), 58 species of toothed whales, dolphins, or porpoises
(odontocetes), and 24 species of seals or sea lions (pinnipeds) could
be affected by SURTASS LFA sonar operations.
Fifteen of the 94 marine mammal species are listed as endangered
and three of the 94 marine mammal species are listed as threatened
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Marine mammal species under NMFS' jurisdiction listed as endangered
include: the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus); fin whale
(Balaenoptera physalus); sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis); humpback
whale (Megaptera novaeangliae); bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus);
North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis); North Pacific right
whale (Eubalaena japonica); southern right whale (Eubalaena australis);
gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus); sperm whale (Physeter
macrocephalus); the Cook Inlet stock of beluga whale (Delphinapterus
leucas); the Southern Resident population of Killer whale (Orca
orcinus); the western distinct population segment (DPS) of the Steller
sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus); Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus
monachus); and Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi). Marine
mammal species under NMFS' jurisdiction listed as threatened include:
the eastern DPS of the Steller sea lion; the Guadalupe fur seal
(Arctocephalus townsendi) and the southern DPS of the spotted seal
(Phoca largha). The aforementioned threatened and endangered marine
mammal species also are depleted under the MMPA.
In addition, the Hawaiian insular DPS of false killer whale
(Pseudorca crassidens) is a candidate for proposed listing under the
ESA. Also, three of the 94 species are considered depleted under the
MMPA. They are: the western north Atlantic coastal stock of bottlenose
dolphin (Tursiops truncatus); the northeastern offshore stock of the
pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata); and the eastern stock
of the spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris).
Ringed seals (Phoca hispida), bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus),
Chinese river dolphins (Lipotes vexillifer) and vaquita (Phocoena
sinus) do not have stocks designated within potential SURTASS LFA sonar
operational areas (see Potential SURTASS LFA Operational Areas
section). The ringed seal is found in the Northern Hemisphere with a
circumpolar distribution ranging from 35[deg] N to the North Pole.
Bearded seals have a circumpolar distribution south of 85[deg] N
latitude, extending south into the southern Bering Sea in the Pacific
and into Hudson Bay and southern Labrador in the Atlantic. The
distribution of the Chinese river dolphin is limited to the main
channel of a river section between the cities of Jingzhou and Jiangyin.
The vaquita's distribution is restricted to the upper portion of the
northern Gulf of California, mostly within the Colorado River delta.
Based on the rare occurrence of these species in the Navy's designated
operational areas (i.e., outside of Arctic waters or outside of the
coastal standoff distance of 22 km (13. mi; 11.8 nmi)), the Navy and
NMFS do not anticipate any take of ringed seals, bearded seals, Chinese
river dolphins, and vaquita and therefore these species are not
addressed further in this document.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for
managing the following marine mammal species: southern sea otter
(Enhydra lutris), polar bear (Ursus maritimus), walrus (Odobenus
rosmarus), west African manatee (Trichechus senegalensis), Amazonian
manatee (Trichechus inunguis), west Indian manatee (Trichechus
manatus), and dugong (Dugong dugon). None of these species occur in
geographic areas that would overlap with SURTASS LFA sonar operational
areas. Therefore, the Navy has determined that routine training and
testing of SURTASS LFA sonar as well as the use of the system during
military operations would have no effect on the endangered or
threatened species or the critical habitat of the ESA-listed species
under the jurisdiction of the USFWS. These species are not considered
further in this notice.
Tables 3 through 21 summarize the abundance, status under the ESA,
and density estimates of the marine mammals that have confirmed or
possible occurrence within 19 SURTASS LFA sonar operating areas in the
Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic Oceans and Mediterranean Sea. The Navy
states that they selected these 19 areas based on relevance to national
security interests for this application. Because it is infeasible for
the Navy to model enough representative sites to cover all potential
SURTASS LFA sonar operating areas, the Navy provided 19 sites, based on
the current political climate, as examples of potential operating areas
in their application.
Information on how the density and stock/abundance estimates were
derived for the selected mission sites is in the Navy's application.
These data are derived from current, published source documentation,
and provide general area information for each mission area with
species-specific information on the animals that could occur in that
area, including estimates for their stock abundance and density. The
Navy developed the majority of the abundance and density estimates by
first using estimates from line-transect surveys that occurred in or
near each of the 19 model sites (e.g., Barlow, 2006). When density
estimates were not available from a survey in the operating area, the
Navy extrapolated density estimates from a region with similar
oceanographic characteristics to that operating area. For example, the
eastern
[[Page 848]]
tropical Pacific has been extensively surveyed and provides a
comprehensive understanding of marine mammals in temperate oceanic
waters (Ferguson and Barlow, 2001, 2003). Further, the Navy pooled
density estimates for species of the same genus if sufficient data are
not available to compute a density for individual species or the
species are difficult to distinguish at sea.
Table 3--Abundance and Density Estimates for the Marine Mammal Species, Species Groups, and Stocks Associated
With the East of Japan Operational Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density
Species Stock name \1\ Abundance \2\ (animals/ ESA Status \4\
Km\2\) \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus)... NP...................... 9,250 0.0002 EN
Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus).... NP...................... 9,250 0.0002 EN
Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis).... NP...................... 8,600 0.0006 EN
Bryde's whale (Balaenoptera edeni)... WNP..................... 20,501 0.0006 NL
Minke whale (Balaenoptera WNP ``O'' Stock......... 25,049 0.0022 NL
acutorostrata).
North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena WNP..................... 922 < 0.00001 EN
japonica).
Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus). NP...................... 102,112 0.0010 EN
Pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps) NP...................... 350,553 0.0031 NL
Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima).
Baird's beaked whale (Berardius WNP..................... 8,000 0.0029 NL
bairdii).
Cuvier's beaked whale (Ziphius NP...................... 90,725 0.0054 NL
cavirostris).
Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale NP...................... 22,799 0.0005 NL
(Mesoplodon ginkgodens).
Hubbs beaked whale (Mesoplodon NP...................... 22,799 0.0005 NL
carhubbsi).
False killer whale (Pseudorca WNP-Pelagic............. 16,668 0.0036 NL
crassidens).
Pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata) WNP..................... 30,214 0.0021 NL
Short-finned pilot whale WNP..................... 53,608 0.0128 NL
(Globicephala macrorhynchus).
Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus).... WNP..................... 83,289 0.0097 NL
Common dolphin (Delphinus delphis)... WNP..................... 3,286,163 0.0761 NL
Fraser's dolphin (Lagenodelphis WNP..................... 220,789 0.0040 NL
hosei).
Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops WNP..................... 168,791 0.0171 NL
truncatus).
Pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella WNP..................... 438,064 0.0259 NL
attenuata).
Striped dolphin (Stenella WNP..................... 570,038 0.0111 NL
coeruleoalba).
Spinner dolphin (Stenella WNP..................... 1,015,059 0.0005 NL
longirostris).
Pacific white-sided dolphin WNP..................... 931,000 0.0082 NL
(Lagenorhynchus obliquidens).
Rough-toothed dolphin (Steno WNP..................... 145,729 0.0059 NL
bredanensis).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NP = north Pacific; WNP = western north Pacific.
\2\ Refer to Table 5 of the Navy's application for literature references associated with abundance estimates
presented in this table.
\3\ Refer to Table 5 of the Navy's application for literature references associated with density estimates
presented in this table.
\4\ ESA Status: EN = Endangered; T = Threatened; NL = Not Listed.
Table 4--Abundance and Density Estimates for the Marine Mammal Species, Species Groups, and Stocks Associated
With the North Philippine Sea Operational Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density
Species Stock name \1\ Abundance \2\ (animals/ ESA Status \4\
Km\2\) \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryde's whale........................ WNP..................... 20,501 0.0006 NL
Minke whale.......................... WNP ``O'' Stock......... 25,049 0.0044 NL
North Pacific right whale............ WNP..................... 922 < 0.00001 EN
Sperm whale.......................... NP...................... 102,112 0.0028 EN
Pygmy sperm and Dwarf sperm whale.... NP...................... 350,553 0.0031 NL
Cuvier's beaked whale................ NP...................... 90,725 0.0054 NL
Blainville's beaked whale (Mesoplodon NP...................... 8,032 0.0005 NL
densirostris).
Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale.......... NP...................... 22,799 0.0005 NL
Killer whale (Orca orcinus).......... NP...................... 12,256 0.0004 NL
False killer whale................... WNP-Pelagic............. 16,668 0.0029 NL
Pygmy killer whale................... WNP..................... 30,214 0.0021 NL
Melon-headed whale (Peponocephala WNP..................... 36,770 0.0012 NL
electra).
Short-finned pilot whale............. WNP..................... 53,608 0.0153 NL
Risso's dolphin...................... WNP..................... 83,289 0.0106 NL
Common dolphin....................... WNP..................... 3,286,163 0.0562 NL
Fraser's dolphin..................... WNP..................... 220,789 0.0040 NL
Bottlenose dolphin................... WNP..................... 168,791 0.0146 NL
Pantropical spotted dolphin.......... WNP..................... 438,064 0.0137 NL
Striped dolphin...................... WNP..................... 570,038 0.0329 NL
Spinner dolphin...................... WNP..................... 1,015,059 0.0005 NL
Pacific white-sided dolphin.......... WNP..................... 931,000 0.0119 NL
Rough-toothed dolphin................ WNP..................... 145,729 0.0059 NL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NP = north Pacific; WNP = western north Pacific.
\2\ Refer to Table 5 of the Navy's application for literature references associated with abundance estimates
presented in this table.
\3\ Refer to Table 5 of the Navy's application for literature references associated with density estimates
presented in this table.
\4\ ESA Status: EN = Endangered; T = Threatened; NL = Not Listed.
[[Page 849]]
Table 5--Abundance and Density Estimates for the Marine Mammal Species, Species Groups, and Stocks Associated
With the West Philippine Sea Operational Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density
Species Stock name \1\ Abundance \2\ (animals/ ESA Status \4\
Km\2\) \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fin whale............................ NP...................... 9,250 0.0002 EN
Bryde's whale........................ WNP..................... 20,501 0.0006 NL
Minke whale.......................... WNP ``O'' Stock......... 25,049 0.0033 NL
Humpback whale....................... WNP..................... 1,107 0.0008 EN
Sperm whale.......................... NP...................... 102,112 0.0010 EN
Pygmy sperm and Dwarf sperm whale.... NP...................... 350,553 0.0017 NL
Cuvier's beaked whale................ NP...................... 90,725 0.0003 NL
Blainville's beaked whale............ NP...................... 8,032 0.0005 NL
Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale.......... NP...................... 22,799 0.0005 NL
False killer whale................... WNP-Pelagic............. 16,668 0.0029 NL
Pygmy killer whale................... WNP..................... 30,214 0.0021 NL
Melon-headed whale................... WNP..................... 36,770 0.0012 NL
Short-finned pilot whale............. WNP..................... 53,608 0.0076 NL
Risso's dolphin...................... WNP..................... 83,289 0.0106 NL
Common dolphin....................... WNP..................... 3,286,163 0.0562 NL
Fraser's dolphin..................... WNP..................... 220,789 0.0040 NL
Bottlenose dolphin................... WNP..................... 168,791 0.0146 NL
Pantropical spotted dolphin.......... WNP..................... 438,064 0.0137 NL
Striped dolphin...................... WNP..................... 570,038 0.0164 NL
Spinner dolphin...................... WNP..................... 1,015,059 0.0005 NL
Pacific white-sided dolphin.......... WNP..................... 931,000 0.0245 NL
Rough-toothed dolphin................ WNP..................... 145,729 0.0059 NL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NP = north Pacific; WNP = western north Pacific.
\2\ Refer to Table 5 of the Navy's application for literature references associated with abundance estimates
presented in this table.
\3\ Refer to Table 5 of the Navy's application for literature references associated with density estimates
presented in this table.
\4\ ESA Status: EN = Endangered; T = Threatened; NL = Not Listed.
Table 6--Abundance and Density Estimates for the Marine Mammal Species, Species Groups, and Stocks Associated
With the Offshore Guam Operational Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density
Species Stock name \1\ Abundance \2\ (animals/ ESA Status \4\
Km\2\) \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue whale........................... ENP..................... 2,842 0.0001 EN
Fin whale............................ ENP..................... 9,250 0.0003 EN
Sei whale............................ NP...................... 8,600 0.0003 EN
Bryde's whale........................ WNP..................... 20,501 0.0004 NL
Minke whale.......................... WNP ``O'' Stock......... 25,049 0.0003 NL
Humpback whale....................... CNP..................... 10,103 0.0069 EN
Sperm whale.......................... NP...................... 102,112 0.0012 EN
Pygmy sperm and Dwarf sperm whale.... NP...................... 350,553 0.0101 NL
Cuvier's beaked whale................ NP...................... 90,725 0.0062 NL
Blainville's beaked whale............ NP...................... 8,032 0.0012 NL
Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale.......... NP...................... 22,799 0.0005 NL
Longman's beaked whale (Indopacetus CNP..................... 1,007 0.0004 NL
pacificus).
Killer whale......................... CNP..................... 349 0.0001 NL
False killer whale................... WNP-Pelagic............. 16,668 0.0011 NL
Pygmy killer whale................... WNP..................... 30,214 0.0001 NL
Melon-headed whale................... WNP..................... 36,770 0.0043 NL
Short-finned pilot whale............. WNP..................... 53,608 0.0016 NL
Risso's dolphin...................... WNP..................... 83,289 0.0010 NL
Common dolphin....................... WNP..................... 3,286,163 0.0021 NL
Fraser's dolphin..................... CNP..................... 10,226 0.0042 NL
Bottlenose dolphin................... WNP..................... 168,791 0.0002 NL
Pantropical spotted dolphin.......... WNP..................... 438,064 0.0226 NL
Striped dolphin...................... WNP..................... 570,038 0.0062 NL
Spinner dolphin...................... WNP..................... 1,015,059 0.0031 NL
Rough-toothed dolphin................ WNP..................... 145,729 0.0003 NL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CNP = central north Pacific; ENP = eastern north Pacific; NP = north Pacific; WNP = western north Pacific.
\2\ Refer to Table 5 of the Navy's application for literature references associated with abundance estimates
presented in this table.
\3\ Refer to Table 5 of the Navy's application for literature references associated with density estimates
presented in this table.
\4\ ESA Status: EN = Endangered; T = Threatened; NL = Not Listed.
[[Page 850]]
Table 7--Abundance and Density Estimates for the Marine Mammal Species, Species Groups, and Stocks Associated
With the Sea of Japan Operational Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density
Species Stock name \1\ Abundance \2\ (animals/ ESA Status\4\
Km\2\ \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fin whale............................ NP...................... 9,250 0.0009 EN
Bryde's whale........................ WNP..................... 20,501 0.0001 NL
Minke whale.......................... WNP ``O'' Stock......... 25,049 0.0004 NL
Minke whale.......................... WNP ``J'' Stock......... 893 0.0002 NL
North Pacific right whale............ WNP..................... 922 < 0.00001 EN
Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus)... WNP..................... 121 < 0.00001 EN \5\
Sperm whale.......................... NP...................... 102,112 0.0008 EN
Stejneger's beaked whale (Mesoplodon NP...................... 8,000 0.0014 NL
stejnegeri).
Baird's beaked whale................. WNP..................... 8,000 0.0003 NL
Cuvier's beaked whale................ NP...................... 90,725 0.0043 NL
Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale.......... NP...................... 22,799 0.0005 NL
False killer whale................... IA-Pelagic.............. 9,777 0.0027 NL
Melon-headed whale................... WNP..................... 36,770 0.00001 NL
Short-finned pilot whale............. WNP..................... 53,608 0.0014 NL
Risso's dolphin...................... WNP..................... 83,289 0.0073 NL
Common dolphin....................... WNP..................... 3,286,163 0.0860 NL
Bottlenose dolphin................... IA...................... 105,138 0.0009 NL
Pantropical spotted dolphin.......... WNP..................... 219,032 0.0137 NL
Spinner dolphin...................... WNP..................... 1,015,059 0.00001 NL
Pacific white-sided dolphin.......... WNP..................... 931,000 0.0030 NL
Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli). SOJ..................... 76,720 0.0520 NL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ IA = Inshore Archipelago; NP = north Pacific; SOJ = Sea of Japan; WNP = western north Pacific.
\2\ Refer to Table 5 of the Navy's application for literature references associated with abundance estimates
presented in this table.
\3\ Refer to Table 5 of the Navy's application for literature references associated with density estimates
presented in this table.
\4\ ESA Status: EN = Endangered; T = Threatened; NL = Not Listed.
\5\ Only the western Pacific population of gray whale is endangered under the ESA.
Table 8--Abundance and Density Estimates for the Marine Mammal Species, Species Groups, and Stocks Associated
With the East China Sea Operational Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density
Species Stock name \1\ Abundance \2\ (animals/ ESA Status \4\
Km\2\) \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fin whale............................ ECS..................... 500 0.0002 EN
Bryde's whale........................ WNP..................... 20,501 0.0006 NL
Minke whale.......................... WNP ``O'' Stock......... 25,049 0.0044 NL
Minke whale.......................... WNP ``J'' Stock......... 893 0.0018 NL
North Pacific right whale............ WNP..................... 922 < 0.00001 EN
Gray whale........................... WNP..................... 121 < 0.00001 EN \5\
Sperm whale.......................... NP...................... 102,112 0.0012 EN
Pygmy sperm and Dwarf sperm whale.... NP...................... 350,553 0.0031 NL
Cuvier's beaked whale................ NP...................... 90,725 0.0062 NL
Blainville's beaked whale............ NP...................... 8,032 0.0012 NL
Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale.......... NP...................... 22,799 0.0005 NL
False killer whale................... IA-Pelagic.............. 9,777 0.0011 NL
Pygmy killer whale................... WNP..................... 30,214 0.0001 NL
Melon-headed whale................... WNP..................... 36,770 0.0043 NL
Short-finned pilot whale............. WNP..................... 53,608 0.0016 NL
Risso's dolphin...................... WNP..................... 83,289 0.0106 NL
Common dolphin....................... WNP..................... 3,286,163 0.0461 NL
Fraser's dolphin..................... WNP..................... 220,789 0.0040 NL
Bottlenose dolphin................... IA...................... 105,138 0.0146 NL
Pantropical spotted dolphin.......... WNP..................... 219,032 0.0137 NL
Striped dolphin...................... WNP..................... 570,038 0.0164 NL
Spinner dolphin...................... WNP..................... 1,015,059 0.0031 NL
Pacific white-sided dolphin.......... WNP..................... 931,000 0.0028 NL
Rough-toothed dolphin................ WNP..................... 145,729 0.0059 NL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ECS = East China Sea; IA = Inshore Archipelago; NP = north Pacific; WNP = western north Pacific.
\2\ Refer to Table 5 of the Navy's application for literature references associated with abundance estimates
presented in this table.
\3\ Refer to Table 5 of the Navy's application for literature references associated with density estimates
presented in this table.
\4\ ESA Status: EN = Endangered; T = Threatened; NL = Not Listed.
\5\ Only the western Pacific population of gray whale is endangered under the ESA.
[[Page 851]]
Table 9--Abundance and Density Estimates for the Marine Mammal Species, Species Groups, and Stocks Associated
With the South China Sea Operational Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density
Species Stock name \1\ Abundance \2\ (animals/ ESA Status \4\
Km\2\) \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fin whale............................ WNP..................... 9,250 0.0002 EN
Bryde's whale........................ WNP..................... 20,501 0.0006 NL
Minke whale.......................... WNP ``
