MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION - Annual Report for 1998 



that they appeared to be biologically insignificant, and 

 that the study results, combined with available infor- 

 mation on the distributions and critical habitats of 

 marine mammals in potential operating areas, should 

 enable the Navy to develop an operational strategy 

 that poses minimal risks to marine mammals. By 

 letter of 8 October 1998 the Commission commended 

 the Navy for these and other efforts to ensure that 

 Navy activities do not adversely affect marine mam- 

 mals or their habitats. 



Shock Testing the SEA WOLF Submarine 



The National Defense Authorization Act requires 

 that new designs for the hulls and other critical 

 components of Navy ships and submarines undergo 

 shock tests before service in the fleet. The purpose of 

 the tests is to evaluate the reliability of strucUiral and 

 electronic systems vital to the performance of the 

 vessel and crew under combat conditions. To approx- 

 imate combat conditions, shock tests are conducted by 

 exploding charges of up to 10,000 pounds near vessel 

 prototypes and evaluating the effects of explosions on 

 the hull and other critical vessel components. 



In June 1996 the Navy issued for public review 

 and comment a draft environmental impact statement 

 for shock testing the SEA WOLF submarine. At the 

 same time, the Navy submitted a request to the 

 National Marine Fisheries Service for authorization, 

 pursuant to section 101 (a)(5)(A) of the Marine 

 Mammal Protection Act, to take small numbers of 

 marine mammals incidental to the required tests, 

 which were planned to be carried out in 1997. The 

 Marine Mammal Commission, in consultation with its 

 Committee of Scientific Advisors, reviewed these two 

 documents and commented to the Navy and the 

 National Marine Fisheries Service on 12 August and 

 16 September 1996, respectively. 



The Navy was unable to carry out the required 

 tests in 1997 and on 11 March 1997 petitioned the 

 Service for an extension of the requested small-take 

 authorization through 1999. Subsequently, the Navy 

 advised the Service that the shock tests would be 

 delayed until the year 2000 or beyond. 



The Navy forwarded its final environmental impact 

 statement for shock testing the SEAWOLF submarine 



to the Commission and others for comment on 5 June 

 1998. The National Marine Fisheries Service pub- 

 lished in the Federal Register on 1 December 1998 its 

 final rule regarding the incidental harassment authori- 

 zation requested by the Navy. Both the environmental 

 impact statement and the incidental harassment autho- 

 rization addressed the previously noted comments 

 provided by the Commission. 



Acoustic Deterrence of Harmful 

 Marine Mammal-Fishery Interactions 



Many species of marine mammals interact with 

 commercial fisheries and aquaculture operations in 

 ways that kill and injure marine mammals and cause 

 the loss of fish and damage to fishing gear and 

 aquaculture facilities. Because many marine mammals 

 use sound to communicate, navigate, and capture 

 prey, both the fishing industry and the scientific 

 community have experimented with a variety of sound 

 reflectors and sound generators to try to prevent or 

 reduce interactions. 



As described in previous Commission reports, the 

 National Marine Fisheries Service provided funds to 

 the Commission in October 1995 for a workshop to 

 identify critical uncertainties concerning the effective- 

 ness and possible environmental impacts of acoustic 

 devices used to prevent or reduce interactions. The 

 workshop was held in Seattle, Washington, on 20-22 

 March 1996. The workshop report (see Reeves et al. 

 1996, Appendix C) was provided to the National 

 Marine Fisheries Service on 11 October 1996. 



The workshop report noted that attaching small, 

 low-intensity sound generators (pingers) to sink 

 gillnets may substantially reduce the number of harbor 

 porpoises caught incidentally in gillnets in the north- 

 eastern United States and elsewhere. It concluded 

 that, although it is uncertain as to why pingers appar- 

 ently prevent the bycatch of harbor porpoises in at 

 least some circumstances, it would be appropriate to 

 proceed with full-scale integration of pingers into the 

 management regime for the New England sink gillnet 

 fishery and to experimentally assess the potential 

 effectiveness of pingers in other gillnet fisheries, 

 provided the regimes include (1) observer programs 

 adequate to verify that marine mammal bycatch does 



168 



