Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Surf Zone Testing/Training and Amphibious Vehicle Training and Weapons Testing, 76989-76997 [E6-21979]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 246 (Friday, December 22, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76989-76997]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-21979]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 092806A]


Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals 
Incidental to Surf Zone Testing/Training and Amphibious Vehicle 
Training and Weapons Testing

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection 
Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that an Incidental 
Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals, by harassment, 
incidental to conducting surf zone testing/training and amphibious 
vehicle training and weapons testing off the coast of Santa Rosa Island 
(SRI) has been issued to the U.S. Air Force Eglin Air Force Base (Eglin 
AFB) for a period of 1 year. NMFS may propose regulations at a later 
date that would govern these incidental takes under a Letter of 
Authorization (LOA) issued to Eglin for a period of up to 5 years after 
the 1-year IHA expires.

DATES: This authorization is effective from December 11, 2006 until 
December 10, 2007.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the application, IHA, the Santa Rosa Island 
Mission Utilization Plan Programmatic Environmental Assessment (SRI 
Mission PEA), and/or a list of references used in this document may be 
obtained by writing 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-
3225, or by telephoning one of the contacts listed here (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). The application and the SRI Mission PEA 
is also available at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental.htm.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon 
request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of marine mammals 
by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than 
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region 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.
    An 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, and if the permissible methods of 
taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and 
reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible 
impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as ``...an impact resulting from the 
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not 
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock

[[Page 76990]]

through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.''
    Subsection 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited 
process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an 
authorization to incidentally take marine mammals by harassment. With 
respect to ``military readiness activities,'' the MMPA defines 
``harassment'' as follows:
    (i) any act that injures or has the significant potential to 
injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A 
harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a 
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing 
disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not 
limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned 
or significantly altered [Level B harassment].

Summary of Request

    On November 21, 2005, Eglin AFB petitioned NMFS for an 
authorization under section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA for the taking, by 
harassment, of marine mammals incidental to programmatic mission 
activities on Eglin's SRI property, including the shoreline of the Gulf 
of Mexico (Gulf or GOM) to a depth of 30 feet (9.1 meters). The 
distance from the island shoreline that corresponds to this depth 
varies from approximately 0.5 mile (0.8 km) at the western side of the 
Air Force property to 1.5 miles (2.4 km) at the eastern side, extending 
out into the inner continental shelf.
    Activities conducted within the action area are addressed in the 
Estuarine and Riverine Areas Programmatic Environmental Assessment 
(U.S. Air Force, 2003a). The proposed action is for the 46th Test Wing 
Commander to establish a mission utilization plan for SRI based on 
historical and anticipated future use. Current and future operations 
are categorized as either testing or training and include: 1) Surf Zone 
Testing/Training; 2) Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) Training and 
Weapons Testing; 3) Amphibious Assaults; and 4) Special Operations 
Training.

Description of Activities

    The activities proposed by Eglin AFB include surf zone testing/
training and amphibious vehicle training and weapon testing. A detailed 
description of these activities was published in the Federal Register 
on June 22, 2006 (71 FR 35870). No change was made to these proposed 
activities.
    Surf zone testing/training activities and amphibious vehicle 
testing/training activities would be intermittent yet ongoing, and 
therefore Eglin AFB has also made a request for a take authorization 
under section 10(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA for a time period of five years. 
These activities would occur within the proposed action area, which 
includes the Gulf-side shoreline of SRI seaward to a depth of 30 feet 
(91 m). The distance from the shoreline that corresponds to this depth 
varies from approximately 0.5 mile (0.8 km) at the western side of the 
Air Force property to 1.5 miles (2.4 km) at the eastern side, extending 
into the inner continental shelf.
    Training involving live fire exercises would be carried out a 
maximum twice per year (one during daytime and/or one at night). These 
missions would involve special operations personnel, an LCAC, or an AAV 
on the north shore of the island or in Santa Rosa Sound firing at a 
target located on SRI. The target would be a hardended structure of 
steel or wood. The angle of firing would be toward the ground and 
ricocheting would be minimal due to the sandy substrate. The NSWCPC 
would use low-range, high-fragmentation munitions at the maneuver areas 
to allow for more realistic training scenarios. The NSWCPC would direct 
live fire toward the Gulf.

Comments and Responses

    A notice of receipt and request for 30-day public comment on the 
application and proposed authorization was published on June 22, 2006 
(71 FR 35870). During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received 
the following comments from the Humane Society of the United States 
(HSUS) and the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission).
    Comment 1: The HSUS stated that the bottlenose dolphin stocks in 
the area are likely declining as a result of recent die-offs and can 
ill afford additional impacts. The HSUS argues that the population 
estimates were outdated and the relatively high number of bottlenose 
dolphin deaths that have occurred since 1990 raises the concern that 
not only are some of the stocks ``stressed,'' but they may even be in 
decline. HSUS further suggested that dolphins near Santa Rosa were also 
affected in the 1999 mass stranding event near St. Joseph Bay. 
Therefore, HSUS argues that the estimated impacts of bottlenose 
dolphins cannot be assumed to apply merely to those animals sighted in 
the Santa Rosa area.
    Response: In NMFS' 2006 stock assessment report, NMFS stated that 
there is not sufficient data to determine population trends for all the 
Gulf of Mexico bay, sound and estuary bottlenose dolphin communities 
(Waring et al., 2006). NMFS acknowledges that the relatively high 
number of bottlenose dolphin deaths which occurred during the mortality 
events since 1990 and agrees that some of these stocks may be stressed. 
However, this is not relevant to the issuance of the IHA, since Eglin 
AFB's surf zone activities will take place a maximum of only once a 
year for surf zone testing/training mission and a maximum of a couple 
of times per year for live fire operations, with no serious injury or 
mortality expected. NMFS believes that Eglin's activities are unlikely 
to add to existing mortality levels. As a result, NMFS does not believe 
that authorizing the taking of bottlenose dolphins by Level B 
harassment will have more than a negligible impact on the affected 
dolphin stocks. Additionally, NMFS will require mitigation and 
monitoring measures to further reduce potential impacts to these marine 
mammal species and stocks. Although it is difficult to interpret these 
mass stranding events, bottlenose dolphins are known to become 
entangled in recreational and commercial fishing gear (Wells and Scott, 
1994; Wells et al., 1998; Gorzelany, 1998) and some are struck by 
recreational and commercial vessels (Wells and Scott, 1997). Waring et 
al. (2006) estimated that as many as 172 bottlenose dolphins could have 
been taken in the GOM menhaden fishery alone between 1992 and 1995.
    Comment 2: The HSUS is concerned that the density for bottlenose 
dolphins and spotted dolphins are based on outdated data. The HSUS 
believes that the population estimates for the various stocks of these 
species are substantially lower and the stocks thus more vulnerable to 
adverse impacts. The HSUS stated that it is reasonable to presume that 
there has been some redistribution of animals, which further 
complicates understanding of distribution and density and calls into 
question the density estimates used in this application to calculate 
risk.
    Response: The combined estimated abundance for the Atlantic spotted 
dolphin in the northern GOM, pooled from 1998 through 2001, for the 
outer continental shelf shipboard surveys was 30,772 (Fulling et al., 
2003). NMFS has relied upon the best scientific information available 
and does not believe these five-year old data are outdated.
    The population survey of the three GOM bay, sound, and estuarine 
bottlenose dolphin stocks were last conducted more than 8 years ago. 
While the data relied upon were developed in 1998, NMFS continuous to 
believe that

[[Page 76991]]

these data sets comprise the best available information. The abundance 
for the northern coastal, the Pensacola Bay/East Bay, and the 
Choctawhatchee Bay bottlenose dolphins stocks were estimated at 9,912, 
33, and 242 animals, respectively (Waring et al., 2006). NMFS 
scientists in the Southeast Region have confirmed that this is the best 
available information to date.
    Comment 3: The HSUS questions the methodology that used 30 percent 
of the time dolphin spent at the surface to calculate the density 
estimate. The HSUS stated that according to Dr. Randall Wells, a more 
appropriate estimate would be 5 percent of the time being spent at the 
surface. The HSUS also is concerned that since bottlenose dolphins 
rarely travel as singles, the impacts will likely be on groups of 
animals rather than on individuals.
    Response: NMFS agrees with HSUS' assessment that bottlenose 
dolphins may spend up to 95 percent of their time under the sea 
surface, though one study conducted on a single adult female bottlenose 
dolphin showed that this individual spent approximately 87.1  0.6 percent of its time submerged (Mate et al., 1995). However, 
the 30 percent dive profile used by Eglin AFB to calculate bottlenose 
dolphin density is to compensate for the presence of submerged and 
uncounted animals. As mentioned in the Federal Register notice (71 FR 
35870, June 22, 2006), the water clarity in the northeastern GOM is 
typically very high, and it is often possible to view the entire water 
column in the water depth that defines the action area (30 ft or 9.1 
m). Research on inshore bottlenose dolphin behavior off the western 
coast of Florida showed that dolphins were sighted 92 percent time in 
the water column in 4.5 m (14.8 ft) or less (Shane, 1990). Therefore, 
NMFS believes it is likely that all animals will be detected during the 
marine mammal monitoring, regardless whether the animals are at the 
surface or submerged.
    NMFS does not agree with HSUS' assessment that since dolphins 
rarely travel as singles, the impacts will likely be on groups of 
animals rather than on individuals. As noted in the Federal Register 
notice (71 FR 35870, June 22, 2006), since dolphins tend to stay in 
groups, it makes much easier to detect animals in the field as 
different individuals don't always surface at the same time. The 
mitigation measures require that no activities be carried out when an 
animal is detected within the safety zone. NMFS believes that no 
animals, either in groups or solitary, will likely to be impacted by 
more than Level B harassment. Because activities would be halted if 
there is a sighting of individual animals or a group.
    Comment 4: The HSUS is concerned that the estimation of the number 
of animals affected by blast trauma seems low, in regards to HSUS' 
density estimates for marine mammals and the likelihood of detecting 
animals that spend little time at the surface. The HSUS also questioned 
NMFS' determination that no animals will be injured or killed by 
detonation and live fire operations.
    Response: If the HSUS' statement in Comment 2 that the population 
estimates for the various stocks of these dolphin species are 
substantially lower is true, then the number of animals affected by 
blast trauma would be even lower than NMFS' assessment. As stated in 
the Federal Register notice (71 FR 35870, June 22, 2006), the estimated 
number of mammal takes is carefully calculated by applying marine 
mammal density to the zone of influence (ZOI) for each detonation type. 
Live-fire operations will use small caliber weapons between 5.56 mm and 
.50 caliber with low-range munitions, and will be conducted on SRI in 
an area of less than 1 km (0.62 mile) wide. Live-fire exercise involves 
firing at a hardened structure of steel or wood, and angle of firing 
would be toward the ground and ricocheting would be minimal due to 
sandy substrate on SRI. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that a 
dolphin would be hit by a stray projectile that misses the target and 
passes the firing range on SRI into the GOM. Species density is based 
on adjusted GulfCet II aerial survey data, which is the best available 
data to date.
    Comment 5: The HSUS noted that the calculation of noise impacts 
from the proposed activities is based on spherical propagation of sound 
in deep water. The HSUS thinks that shallow water reflection of 
pressure waves off the bottom can result in both pressure wave impacts 
and acoustic impacts well beyond a radius predicted by spherical 
spreading, as the HSUS cited NMFS' assessment on the onset of slight 
lung injury by precision strike weapons using Goertner model (70 FR 
48675).
    Response: One should not be confused by the difference between the 
overpressures and acoustics impacts upon marine mammals. The former is 
a wave of pressure in the water column caused by underwater explosions, 
and the latter is the noise generated by the explosions. Injury ranges 
determined by the Goertner (1982) model are most appropriate for use in 
regions close to the explosive charge, while the proposed surf zone 
detonation will ensure that no marine mammals as present in the area 
where Level A harassment could occur. It is correct that calculation 
based on spherical propagation of noise impacts does not precisely fit 
the proposed activity. It is also true that shallow-water mine-clearing 
systems are comprised of lines or multiple blocks of explosive and 
would typically produce non-spherical zones of influence, therefore, 
all NET explosive weights in the systems analyzed by Eglin AFB were 
totaled and a single point of detonation assumed for each system. This 
approach provides a simplified but conservative analysis. In addition, 
bottom absorption is likely to reduce much of the acoustic energy that 
is reflected back into water column.
    Comment 6: The HSUS is concerned that the noise effects from 
activities involving amphibious vehicles would not be negligible. The 
HSUS states that noise penetrates the surface of the water when the 
surface is disrupted by waves and chop. The HSUS is also concerned that 
dolphins will be able to hear the noise and be disturbed when they are 
at surface.
    Response: NMFS agrees that some noise from the landing craft could 
penetrate into the water column when the surface is disrupted by wind 
and wave, however, much of the acoustic energy will be reflected at the 
surface due to different acoustic impedance between air and water. In 
addition, there is no evidence that the maximum noise level (98 dBA) 
from the LCAC's engine in air will cause more than a momentary 
disturbance in dolphins. If the noise level is high enough to cause 
disturbances to marine mammals, it is most likely that marine mammals 
in the vicinity will move away from the noise source quickly.
    Comment 7: The HSUS argues that the ZOI for this type of activity 
would be far greater than 2 km (1.24 miles) and thus far more than 68 
dolphins without mitigation measures (71 FR 35870, June 22, 2006) would 
be harassed. The HSUS states that it is difficult to conceive only a 
few dozen dolphins would hear and be disturbed by the noise. The HSUS 
also states that it seems far more likely that every dolphin within a 
several-mile radius will hear the explosions, rumbles, and rockets and 
will at the least temporarily abandon their activities and move away 
from the noise.
    Response: The Federal Register notice (71 FR 35870, June 22, 2006) 
provided detailed description and analyses on the calculation of ZOI 
relative to different munitions and are not repeated here. The results 
of these analyses point out that the radii of safety zones and the 
estimated number of takes that could

[[Page 76992]]

occur are scientifically sound and are supported by the Committee of 
Scientific Advisors of the Commission. There is no evidence that the 
ZOI for this type of activity would be far greater than 2 km (1.24 
miles) and more than 68 dolphins without mitigation measures (71 FR 
35870, June 22, 2006) would be harassed. While it is possible that 
dolphins within a several-mile radius of the action area could detect 
explosions, these noises would be so low at these distances and would 
most likely be masked by the prevailing ambient noise from waves, surf, 
vessels, and bubbles. Therefore, NMFS believes it is highly unlikely 
that marine mammals outside the safety zone will abandon their 
activities and move away.
    Comment 8: The HSUS is concerned about the effectiveness of 
mitigation and monitoring measures that rely on clarity of water, the 
Beaufort sea state, and the visibility of bottlenose dolphins surface 
activity.
    Response: Clarity of water, Beaufort sea state under 3, and using 
trained marine mammal observers to monitor the action area prior to 
proposed activity are only three of the several requirements in the 
IHA. Other mitigation and monitoring measures that are required for the 
proposed activity, include: (1) limiting surf zone testing/training 
missions under daylight conditions; and (2) limiting surf zone testing 
between November 1 and March 1 to avoid takes of manatees and sea 
turtles. NMFS scientists believe that these mitigation and monitoring 
measures are effective for the proposed activity and would result in 
the least practicable adverse impact, and this determination is 
supported by the Committee of Scientific Advisors of the Commission.
    Comment 9: The HSUS stated that vessels on the water have a more 
limited field of view than helicopters. The HSUS questions the 
justification for use of one type of monitoring platform and not the 
other in various activities, and requests that Eglin AFB be required to 
use the most effective (as opposed to the most expedient) platform for 
detecting dolphins, manatees and turtles in the area for all 
activities.
    Response: The effectiveness of platforms used in detecting marine 
mammals depends on a number of conditions, such as the size of the 
monitored area and the height of the platform above the water. For 
monitoring activities during surf zone detonation, the area could reach 
a 2.3 km (1.4 mile) radius, therefore, a helicopter is believed to be 
more effective in monitoring this area. However, the live-fire 
operations are conducted in a much smaller area of the SRI beach, and 
monitoring would only focus on this limited zone. NMFS believes that 
small vessels can provide more effective monitoring of this area.
    Comment 10: The HSUS questions the speed of helicopters as it 
stated that ``the speed of the aircraft has a significant effect on the 
observer's ability to detect animals.'' The HSUS also stated that the 
expertise of personnel is crucial to the effectiveness of this 
mitigation measure.
    Response: Eglin AFB has not identified a need to specify a maximum 
or minimum speed at which survey helicopters may operate. All NMFS-
approved MMOs are qualified aerial surveyors and are familiar with area 
of operations as well as the protected species that occur in the 
region. MMOs are aware of the effect of helicopter speed on survey 
effectiveness and operate at speeds that maximize the likelihood of 
animal detection.
    Comment 11: The HSUS is concerned that mitigation will not be 
possible when live-fire exercises are conducted at night. The HSUS 
requests that mitigation be required during night-time exercise, and if 
not, night-time activity should not be permitted.
    Response: The proposed live fire exercise that might occur at night 
would be conducted on the firing range on SRI. Eglin's proposal was 
developed to take into account potential impacts to marine mammals. As 
part of this proposed action, Eglin will require the following measures 
that are designed to lessen impacts. These include: (1) firing at a 
hardened structure of steel or wood so the bullets do not penetrate the 
target and continue into the GOM; (2) firing at an angle toward the 
ground so ricocheting would be minimal due to sandy substrate on SRI; 
and (3) using small caliber weapons between 5.56 mm and .50 caliber 
with low-range munitions. In addition, there will be a maximum of 1 
live-fire night-time exercise per year. Therefore, it is extremely 
unlikely that a dolphin would be hit by a stray bullet.
    Comment 12: The HSUS noted that the permit application stated that 
the activity being conducted could require closure to vessels of some 
areas of the GOM to accommodate a 2.5 mile (4.0 km), 110-degree safety 
fan (71 FR 35870, June 22, 2006, page 35871). The HSUS also noted that 
the risk analysis presumed for dolphins stated the risk is largely in a 
range that does not exceed 1 km (0.62 mile) (71 FR 35870, June 22, 
2006, page 35874). The HSUS requests a greater degree of precaution for 
dolphins.
    Response: The 2.5-mile (4.0 km), 110-degree safety fan refers 
specifically to the cleared water surface area that is associated with 
SABRE system testing. This safety fan does not apply to other 
activities. SABRE system testing involves a rocket-propelled launch of 
a line of explosives into the air. If conducted at the eastern end of 
Eglin's SRI property, which is in close proximity to a large civilian 
population (both residents and tourists), human safety would be a 
concern. Therefore, a relatively large area of the water surface would 
be closed to non-military vessels during testing. Safety considerations 
in this case result from potential above-water impacts due to rocket 
motor, charge line, or shrapnel/debris strikes.
    Conversely, the potential risk to dolphins results from underwater 
impacts, primarily underwater noise produced by detonations. Table 1 of 
the Federal Register notice (71 FR 35870, June 22, 2006, page 35873) 
provides the range of various types of impacts due to underwater noise. 
These distances range from 42 m (138 ft) to 1.8 km (5906 ft), depending 
on the threshold evaluated and the net explosive weight used. Above-
water human safety zones and in-water noise impact zones are not 
directly comparable.
    Comment 13: The HSUS noted that post-activity monitoring was only 
specified for detonation activity, but not other activity. The HSUS is 
also concerned that a 15-minute helicopter post-activity monitoring is 
insufficient because any animal that is injured but does not 
immediately die and float to the surface will be undetected.
    Response: Post-activity monitoring measures are required for all 
activities under this IHA. Due to the small size of the impact area 
(maximum radius of 2.3 km, or 1.4 miles for surf zone detonation), NMFS 
believes that 15 minutes is sufficient to detect any marine mammals 
within the area immediately following each detonation. Post-activity 
for actions other than surf zone detonation will be conducted by boats. 
In addition, due to mitigation and monitoring required by the IHA, no 
marine mammals are expected to be killed or injured by the proposed 
activities on SRI.
    Comment 14: The HSUS questions the monitoring measure that includes 
coordination with marine mammal stranding networks because the 
stranding networks do not regularly survey the coastline for carcasses 
and, when discovered in the Florida Panhandle, they are often in a 
state of decomposition such that cause of death is not readily 
ascertained. The HSUS is also concerned that because this area

[[Page 76993]]

has recently been subject to mortality events, carcasses seen along 
beaches may not necessarily be linked to the Naval activity unless 
pointed necropsies are done. The HSUS states that this is something 
that will not be possible for most carcasses, therefore, even if the 
cause of death is related to Naval activities, it may remain 
undetected.
    Response: The Eglin AFB is required to monitor the target area 
prior to, during, and immediately after the proposed activity, and is 
required to contact the marine mammal stranding networks for any 
beached animals within the Eglin AFB property. The concern regarding 
the recent dolphin mortality events and whether the death of dolphins 
results from Naval activities is not relevant to the issuance of this 
IHA. As stated previously and concurred by the scientists of the 
Commission, the proposed activities are expected to result in no more 
than the incidental taking by Level B harassment of marine mammals.
    Comment 15: The HSUS argues that the Federal Register notice (71 FR 
35870, June 22, 2006) does not appear to be in compliance with NEPA 
requirements. The HSUS stated that NMFS must study, develop, and 
describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action, and 
discuss alternatives it has considered. The HSUS is concerned that 
under the proposed scheme, stakeholders and the public were not 
provided an opportunity to comment on a NMFS ``NEPA document'' that 
might be prepared after the close of this comment period and associated 
with issuance of an IHA.
    Response: NMFS does not agree with HSUS's comment. As described in 
the Federal Register notice (71 FR 35870, June 22, 2006), the USAF 
prepared the SRI Mission PEA. The SRI Mission PEA was available for 
public review during the 30-day comment period and is available upon 
written request to NMFS Office of Protected Resources (OPR), or by 
downloading from OPR's website at https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
pdfs/permits/sri_iha_ea.pdf. NMFS staff reviewed Eglin's PEA and 
determined that it meets the standards under the NMFS regulations and 
NOAA's Administrator Order 216-6 for the issuance of this IHA. NMFS 
believes this is consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality's 
regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the NEPA. 
NMFS has issued a Finding of No Significant Impact statement.
    Comment 16: The Commission requests that NMFS assess the likelihood 
of detecting marine mammals at or below the water surface within zones 
of potential impacts, particularly when operations are conducted at 
night.
    Response: As described in the Federal Register notice (71 FR 35870, 
June 22, 2006), marine mammal detection within zones of potential 
impacts will be conducted prior to planned mission activities. After 
reviewing the Eglin AFB's marine mammal monitoring protocols, NMFS 
determined that monitoring measures developed by Eglin AFB are highly 
effective in detecting marine mammals at or below the water surface 
within zones of potential impacts during daylight hours. However, since 
no mitigation measures for marine mammals would be feasible for night-
time missions, night-time operations will not be monitored, as they are 
only associated with live-fire exercises conducted on designated on-
shore firing ranges on SRI.
    Comment 17: The Commission requests that operations be suspended 
immediately if a dead or seriously injured marine mammal is found in 
the vicinity of the operations and the death or injury could have 
occurred incidental to the proposed activities.
    Response: NMFS agrees, and the IHA will specify that operations be 
suspended immediately if a dead or seriously injured marine mammal is 
found in the vicinity of the operations potentially linked to Eglin's 
activity.
    Comment 18: The Commission requests that NMFS revises its 
interpretation of temporary threshold shift (TTS) to indicate that it 
has the potential to injure marine mammals (and in the case of military 
readiness activities has a significant potential to injure marine 
mammals) and therefore constitutes Level A harassment due to the 
foreseeable secondary effects of temporary hearing loss.
    Response: NMFS stated in a previous Federal Register notice (68 FR 
64595, November 14, 2003) that the reclassification of TTS from Level B 
to Level A harassment requires support and scientific documentation, 
and not be based on speculation that TTS might result in increased 
predation, for example. In addition, it is irrelevant for this IHA, 
because sound levels will not be high since mitigation and monitoring 
requirements under the IHA is expected to prevent TTS. Also, while 
there has been discussion among scientists regarding whether a 
permanent shift in hearing threshold (PTS) can occur with repeated 
exposures of TTS, at least one study showed that long-term (4 - 7 
years) noise exposure on three experimental pinniped species had caused 
no change on their underwater hearing thresholds at frequencies of 0.2 
- 6.4 kHz (Southall et al., 2005).
    Comment 19: The Commission requests that NMFS advise the Air Force, 
if it has not already done so, of the need to consult with the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to confirm that manatees are not likely 
to occur in or near the vicinity of the test site at the time the tests 
are scheduled to be conducted.
    Response: Eglin AFB has consulted with the FWS on the proposed 
mission activities in accordance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA, 
16 USC 1531 et seq.). The FWS issued a Biological Opinion on December 
1, 2005, and concluded that the proposed action is not likely to 
adversely affect West Indian manatees based on Eglin's commitment to 
incorporate measures to avoid and minimize impacts to the species.

Description of Marine Mammals Affected by the Activity

    Marine mammal species potentially occurring within the proposed 
action area include the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops 
truncatus), the Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis), and the 
Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris). General information 
on these species and stocks are provided in the June 22, 2006, Federal 
Register (71 FR 35870). Therefore, it is not repeated here. More 
detailed information on Florida manatee can be found in the Florida 
Manatee Recovery Plan (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001). More 
detailed information on the Atlantic bottlenose and spotted dolphins 
can be found in the NMFS Stock Assessment Reports at: https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm.

Potential Impacts to Marine Mammals

    Marine mammals may be impacted by underwater noise and direct 
physical impacts (DPI). Noise is produced by underwater detonations in 
the surf zone and by the operation of amphibious vehicles. DPI could 
result from collisions with amphibious vehicles and from ordnance live 
fire. However, with implementation of the mitigation measures discussed 
throughout this document, impacts to marine mammals are anticipated to 
be no more than negligible.
    Explosive criteria and thresholds for assessing impacts of 
explosions on marine mammals were discussed by NMFS in detail in its 
issuance of an IHA for Eglin's Precision Strike Weapon testing activity 
(70 FR 48675, August 19, 2005) and are not repeated here. Please

[[Page 76994]]

refer to that document for this background information.

Estimation of Take and Impact

Surf Zone Detonation

    Surf zone detonation noise impacts are considered within two 
categories: overpressure and acoustics. Underwater explosive 
detonations produce a wave of pressure in the water column. This 
pressure wave potentially has lethal and injurious impacts, depending 
on the proximity to the source detonation. Humans and animals receive 
the acoustic signature of noise as sound. Beyond the physical impacts, 
acoustics may cause annoyance and behavior modifications (Goertner, 
1982).
    Impacts to marine mammals from underwater detonations were 
discussed by NMFS in detail in its notice of receipt of application for 
an IHA for Eglin's Air-to-Surface Gunnery mission in the Gulf (71 FR 
3474, January 23, 2006) and is not repeated here. Please refer to that 
document for this background information.
    A maximum of one surf zone testing/training mission would be 
completed per year. The impact areas of the proposed action are derived 
from mathematical calculations and models that predict the distances to 
which threshold noise levels would travel. The equations for the models 
consider the amount of net explosive, the properties of detonations 
under water, and environmental factors such as depth of the explosion, 
overall water depth, water temperature, and bottom type.
    The end result of the analysis is an area known as the Zone of 
Influence (ZOI). A ZOI is based on an outward radial distance from the 
point of detonation, extending to the limit of a particular threshold 
level in a 360-degree area. Thus, there are separate ZOIs for 
mortality, injury (hearing-related injury and slight, non-fatal lung 
injury), and harassment (temporary threshold shift, or TTS, and sub-
TTS). Given the radius, and assuming noise spreads outward in a 
spherical manner, the entire area ensonified (i.e., exposed to the 
specific noise level being analyzed) is estimated.
    The radius of each threshold is shown for each shallow water surf 
zone mine clearing system in Table 1. The radius is assumed to extend 
from the point of detonation in all directions, allowing calculation of 
the affected area.
    The number of takes is calculated by applying marine mammal density 
to the ZOI (area) for each detonation type. Species density for most 
cetaceans is based on adjusted GulfCet II aerial survey data, which is 
shown in Table 2. GulfCet II data were conservatively adjusted upward 
to approximately two standard deviations to obtain 99 percent 
confidence, and a submergence correction factor was applied to account 
for the presence of submerged, uncounted animals. However, the actual 
number of marine mammal takes would be even smaller, since up to half 
of the ZOI would be over land and very shallow surf, which is not 
considered marine mammal habitat.

   Table 1. Zones of Impact for Underwater Explosive from Four Mine Clearing Systems (Acoustic units are re 1
                                                   microPa\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              ZOI Radius (m)
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
            Threshold                     Criteria         SABRE  232     MK-5 MCS                   MK-82 ARRAY
                                                             lb NEW     1,750 lb NEW   DET  130 lb    1,372 lb
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
176 dB \1/3\ Octave SEL\*\         Level B Behavior       1,440         2,299         1,252         2,207
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
182 dB \1/3\ Octave SEL            Level B TTS Dual       961           1,658         796           1,544
                                    Criterion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
205 dB SEL                         Level A PTS            200           478           155           436
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23 psi                             Level B Dual Criteria  857           1,788         761           1,557
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 psi-msec                        Level A Injury         60            100           58            86
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30.5 psi-msec                      Mortality              45            68            42            60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\SEL - Sound energy level


       Table 2. Cetacean Densities for Gulf of Mexico Shelf Region
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Adjusted density
      Species       Individuals/km\2\  Dive profile -    (Individuals/
                                         % at surface       km\2\)*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottlenose dolphin  0.148              30              0.810
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic spotted    0.089              30              0.677
 dolphin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottlenose or       0.007              30              0.053
 Atlantic spotted
 dolphin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total               0.244              ..............  1.54
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\Adjusted for undetected submerged animals to approximately two
  standard deviations.


[[Page 76995]]


      Table 3. Preferred Alternative Take Estimates from Noise Impacts to Dolphins (Acoustic units are re 1
                                                   microPa\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    MK-5             MK-82      Total
            Threshold                   Criteria          SABRE      MCS     DET     Array     Takes\*\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
176 dB \1/3\                      Sub-TTS               10         26      8       24        68
Octave SEL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
182 dB \1/3\                      Level B Harassment    5          13      3       12        33
Octave SEL                         TTS (dual
                                   criterion)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23 psi                            Level B TTS (dual     4          15      3       12        34
                                   criterion)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
205 dB                            Level A PTS           0          1       0       1         2
Total SEL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 psi-msec                       Level A Non-lethal    0          0       0       0         0
                                   Injury
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30.5 psi-msec                     Mortality             0          0       0       0         0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\Estimated exposure with no mitigation measures in place.

    Table 3 lists the noise-related dolphin take estimates resulting 
from surf zone detonations associated with the Perferred Alternative of 
the PEA. The take numbers represent the combined total of Atlantic 
bottlenose and Atlantic spotted dolphins, and do not consider any 
mitigation measures. Implementation of mitigation measures discussed 
below could significantly decrease the number of takes. Discussion of 
the amount of take reduction is provided below.

Noise from LCAC

    Noise resulting from LCAC operations was considered under a transit 
mode of operation. The LCAC uses rotary air screw technology to power 
the craft over the water, therefore, noise from the engine is not 
emitted directly into the water. The Navy's acoustic in-water noise 
characterization studies show the noise emitted from the LCAC into the 
water is very similar to that of the MH-53 helicopter operating at low 
altitudes. Based on the Air Force's Excess Sound Attenuation Model for 
the LCAC's engines under ground runup condition, the data estimate that 
the maximum noise level (98 dBA) is at a point 45 degrees from the bow 
of the craft at a distance of 61 m (200 ft) in air. Maximum noise 
levels fall below 90 dBA at a point less than 122 meters (400 ft) from 
the craft in air (U.S. Air Force, 1999).
    Due to the large difference of acoustic impedance between air and 
water, much of the acoustic energy would be reflected at the surface. 
Therefore, the effects of noise from LCAC to marine mammals would be 
negligible.

Collision with Vessels

    During the time that amphibious vehicles are operating in (or, in 
the case of LCACs, just above) the water, encounters with marine 
mammals are possible. A slight possibility exists that such encounters 
could result in a vessel physically striking an animal. However, this 
scenario is considered very unlikely. Dolphins are extremely mobile and 
have keen hearing and would likely leave the vicinity of any vehicle 
traffic. The largest vehicles that would be moving are LCACs, and their 
beam measurement can be used for conservative impact analyses. The 
operation which potentially uses the largest number of LCACs is 
Amphibious Ready Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit (ARG/MEU) training. 
Based on analysis in the ARG/MEU Readiness Training Environmental 
Assessment (U.S. Air Force, 2003b), LCAC activities (over 10 days) 
could potentially impact 22.25 square miles of the total water surface 
area. The estimated number of bottlenose dolphins in this area is 6.9, 
with an approximately equal number of Atlantic spotted dolphins. These 
species would easily avoid collision because the LCACs produce noise 
that would be detected some distance away, and therefore would be 
avoided as any other boat in the Gulf. In addition, AAVs move very 
slowly and would be easily avoided. The potential for amphibious craft 
colliding with marine mammals and causing injury or death is therefore 
considered remote.

Live Fire Operations

    Live-fire operations with munitions directed towards the Gulf have 
the potential to impact marine mammals (primarily bottlenose and 
Atlantic spotted dolphins). Cetacean abundance estimates for the study 
area are derived from GulfCet II aerial surveys in the eastern Gulf 
waters (Davis et al., 2000). To provide a more conservative impact 
analysis, density estimates have been adjusted to account for submerged 
individuals. The percent of time that an animal is submerged versus at 
the surface was obtained from Moore and Clarke (1998), and used to 
determine an adjusted density for each species. The result shows an 
estimated animal density of 1.54 animals/km\2\ (Table 2).
    A maximum of two live-fire operations would be conducted in a year, 
and are associated with expanded Special Operations training on SRI. 
Small caliber weapons between 5.56 mm and .50 caliber with low-range 
munitions would be allowed only within designated live-fire areas. The 
average range of the munitions is approximately 1 km (0.54 nm). If a 
given live-fire area was 1 km (0.54 nm) wide, then approximately 1.5 
dolphins could be vulnerable to a munitions strike. However, even the 
largest live-fire area on SRI is considerably less than 1 km (0.54 nm) 
wide. If live fire is conservatively estimated to originate from a 
section of beach 0.2 km (0.11 nm) wide, only 0.3 dolphins would be 
within the area of potential DPI. Moreover, the mitigation measures 
discussed below would further reduce the likelihood of direct impacts 
to marine mammals due to live-fire operations.
    Therefore, given the infrequency of the surf-zone detonation 
(maximum of once per year), amphibious vehicle testing, and live-fire 
weapons testing (maximum of twice per year), NMFS believes there is no 
potential for long-term displacement or behavioral impacts of marine 
mammals within the proposed action area.

Mitigation

    Eglin AFB would employ a number of mitigation measures in order to

[[Page 76996]]

substantially decrease the number of marine mammals potentially 
affected. Visual monitoring of the operational area can be a very 
effective means of detecting the presence of marine mammals. This is 
particularly true of the two species most likely to be present 
(bottlenose and Atlantic spotted dolphins) due to their tendency to 
occur in groups, their relatively short dive time, and their relatively 
high level of surface activity. In addition, the water clarity in the 
northeastern GOM is typically very high. It is often possible to view 
the entire water column in the water depth that defines the study area 
(30 feet or 9.1 m).
    For the surf zone testing/training, missions would only be 
conducted under daylight conditions of suitable visibility and Beaufort 
sea state three or less. Prior to the mission, a trained MMO aboard a 
helicopter would survey (visually monitor) the test area, which is a 
very effective method for detecting sea turtles and cetaceans. In 
addition, shipboard personnel would provide supplemental observations 
when available. The size of the area to be surveyed would depend on the 
specific test system, but it would correspond to the ZOI for Level B 
behavior harassment (176 dB \1/3\ octave SEL) listed in Table 1. The 
survey would be conducted approximately 250 feet (76 m) above the sea 
surface to allow observers to scan a large distance. If a marine mammal 
is sighted within the ZOI, the mission would be suspended until the 
animal is clear of this area. In addition, to reduce the potential 
impacts to sea turtles and manatees, surf zone testing would be 
conducted between 1 November and 1 March whenever possible.
    Navy personnel (NSWCPC) would only conduct live-fire testing with 
Beaufort sea surface conditions of 3 or less, which is when there is 
about 33 - 50 percent of surface whitecaps with 0.6 - 0.9 m (2 - 3 ft) 
waves. During daytime missions, small boats would be used to survey for 
marine mammals in the proposed action area before and after the 
operations. If a marine mammal is sighted within the target or closely 
adjacent areas, the mission would be suspended until the area is clear. 
No mitigation for marine mammals would be feasible for nighttime 
mission, however, given the remoteness of impact, however, the 
potential that a marine mammal is injured or killed is unlikely and 
will not be authorized.

Monitoring and Reporting

    The Eglin AFB will train personnel to conduct aerial surveys for 
protected species. The aerial survey/monitoring team would consist of 
an observer and a pilot familiar with flying transect patterns. A 
helicopter provides a preferable viewing platform for detection of 
protected marine species. The aerial observer must be experienced in 
marine mammal surveying and be familiar with species that may occur in 
the area. The observer would be responsible for relaying the location 
(latitude and longitude), the species if known, and the number of 
animals sighted. The aerial team would also identify large schools of 
fish, jellyfish aggregations, and any large accumulation of Sargassum 
that could potentially drift into the ZOI. Standard line-transect 
aerial surveying methods would be used. Observed marine mammals and sea 
turtles would be identified to species or the lowest possible taxonomic 
level possible.
    The aerial and (potential) shipboard monitoring teams would have 
proper lines of communication to avoid communication deficiencies. 
Observers would have direct communication via radio with the Lead 
Scientist. The Lead Scientist reviews the range conditions and 
recommends a Go/No-Go decision to the Officer in Tactical Command, who 
makes the final Go/No-Go decision.
    Stepwise mitigation procedures for SRI surf zone missions are 
outlined below. All zones (mortality, injury, TTS) would be monitored.

Pre-mission Monitoring:

    The purposes of pre-mission monitoring are to (1) evaluate the test 
site for environmental suitability of the mission (e.g., relatively low 
numbers of marine mammals and turtles, few or no patches of Sargassum, 
etc.) and (2) verify that the ZOI is free of visually detectable marine 
mammals, sea turtles, large schools of fish, large flocks of birds, 
large Sargassum mats, and large concentrations of jellyfish (the latter 
two are possible indicators of turtle presence). On the morning of the 
test, the lead scientist would confirm that the test site can support 
the mission and that the weather is adequate to support observations.
    (1) One Hour Prior to Mission
    Approximately one hour prior to the mission, or at daybreak, the 
appropriate vessel(s) would be on-site near the location of the 
earliest planned mission point. Personnel onboard the vessel would 
assess the suitability of the test site, based on visual observation of 
marine mammals and sea turtles. This information would be relayed to 
the Lead Scientist.
    (2) Fifteen Minutes Prior to Mission
    Aerial monitoring would commence at the test site 15 minutes prior 
to the start of the mission. The entire ZOI would be surveyed by flying 
transects through the area. Shipboard personnel would also monitor the 
area as available. All marine mammal sightings would be reported to the 
Lead Scientist, who would enter all pertinent data into a sighting 
database.
    (3) Go/No-Go Decision Process
    The Lead Scientist would record sightings and bearing for all 
protected species detected. This would depict animal sightings relative 
to the mission area. The Lead Scientist would have the authority to 
declare the range fouled and recommend a hold until monitoring 
indicates that the ZOI is and will remain clear of detectable animals.
    The mission would be postponed if any marine mammal or sea turtle 
is visually detected within the ZOI for Level B behavioral harassment. 
The delay would continue until the marine mammal or sea turtle is 
confirmed to be outside the ZOI for Level B behavioral harassment.
    In the event of a postponement, pre-mission monitoring would 
continue as long as weather and daylight hours allow. Aerial monitoring 
is limited by fuel and the on-station time of the monitoring aircraft.

Post-mission monitoring:

    Post-mission monitoring is designed to determine the effectiveness 
of pre-mission mitigation by reporting any sightings of dead or injured 
marine mammals or sea turtles. Post-detonation monitoring would 
commence immediately following each detonation and continue for 15 
minutes. The helicopter would resume transects in the area of the 
detonation, concentrating on the area down current of the test site.
    The monitoring team would attempt to document any marine mammals or 
turtles that were found dead or injured after the detonation, and, if 
practicable, recover and examine any dead animals. The species, number, 
location, and behavior of any animals observed by the observation teams 
would be documented and reported to the Lead Scientist.
    Post-mission monitoring activities would also include coordination 
with marine animal stranding networks. The NMFS maintains stranding 
networks along coasts to collect and circulate information about marine 
mammal and sea turtle standings.
    In addition, NMFS will require Eglin to monitor the target area for 
impacts to marine mammals and to report its activities on an annual 
basis. Accordingly, NMFS' Biological Opinion on this action has 
recommended certain monitoring measures to protect marine life. NMFS 
will require the same

[[Page 76997]]

requirements under an IHA in order to conclude that this activity will 
result in no more than a negligible impacts on species and stocks of 
marine mammals:
    (1) Eglin is working with NMFS to develop and implement a marine 
species observer-training program. This program will provide expertise 
to Eglin's testing and training community in the identification of 
protected marine species during surface and aerial mission activities 
in the GOM. Additionally, personnel involved in the surf zone and 
amphibious vehicle and weapon testing/training would participate in the 
proposed species observation training. Observers would receive training 
in protected species survey and identification techniques through a 
NMFS-approved training program.
    (2) Eglin will track their use of the surf zone and amphibious 
vehicle and weapon testing/training for test firing missions and 
protected resources (marine mammal/sea turtle) observations, through 
the use of an observer training sheet.
    (3) A summary annual report of marine mammal/sea turtle 
observations and surf zone and amphibious vehicle and weapon testing/
training activities would be submitted to the NMFS Southeast Regional 
Office and the Office of Protected Resources within 90 days of the 
expiration of this IHA.
    (4) If any marine mammal or sea turtle is observed or detected to 
be deceased prior to testing, or injured or killed during live fire, a 
report must be made to the NMFS by the following business day.
    (5) Any unauthorized takes of marine mammals (i.e., serious injury 
or mortality) must be reported immediately to the NMFS representative 
and to the respective stranding network representative.

ESA

    On March 18, 2005, NMFS Southeast Regional Office received a letter 
from the U.S. Air Force (USAF), Eglin AFB, requesting initiation of 
formal consultation on all potential environmental impacts to ESA-
listed species from all Eglin AFB mission activities on SRI and within 
the surf zone near SRI. These missions include the surf zone detonation 
and amphibious vehicle and weapon testing/training. On October 12, 
2005, NMFS issued a Biological Opinion, concluding that the surf zone 
and amphibious vehicle and weapon testing/training are unlikely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of species listed under the ESA that 
are within the jurisdiction of NMFS or destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat. In addition, on March 18, 2005, Eglin AFB provided 
the FWS with a request for formal section 7 consultation for the SRI 
programmatic program regarding ESA-listed species and critical habitat 
under FWS jurisdiction. On December 1, 2005, FWS issued a Biological 
Opinion and concluded that the proposed mission activities are not 
likely to adversely affect these ESA-listed species based on Eglin's 
commitment to incorporate measures to avoid and minimize impacts to 
these species.

NEPA

    In March, 2005, the USAF prepared the Santa Rosa Island Mission 
Utilization Plan Programmatic Environmental Assessment (SRI Mission 
PEA). NMFS reviewed this PEA and determined that it satisfies, in large 
part, the standards for an adequate statement under the NMFS 
regulations and is consistent with the Council on Environmental 
Quality's regulations and NOAA's Administrators Order 216-6 for 
implementing the procedural provisions of the NEPA (40 CFR 1508.3). 
NMFS supplemented the PEA with our own cumulative impacts analysis to 
better ascertain the cumulative effects of past, present, and 
reasonably foreseeable activities conducted within and around Santa 
Rosa Island. Therefore, NMFS decided to adopt this PEA with the 
supplemental cumulative impacts analysis for the issuance of the IHA 
and has issued a Finding of No Significant Impact statement.

Determinations

    NMFS has determined that the surf zone and amphibious vehicle and 
weapon testing/training that are proposed by Eglin AFB off the coast of 
SRI, is unlikely to result in the mortality or serious injury of marine 
mammals (see Tables 2 and 3) and, would result in, at worst, a 
temporary modification in behavior by marine mammals. While behavioral 
modifications may be made by these species as a result of the surf zone 
detonation and amphibious vehicle training activities, any behavioral 
change is expected to have a negligible impact on the affected species 
or stocks. Also, given the infrequency of the testing/training missions 
(maximum of once per year for surf zone detonation and maximum of twice 
per year for amphibious assault training involving live fire), there is 
no potential for long-term displacement or long-lasting behavioral 
impacts of marine mammals within the proposed action area. In addition, 
the potential for temporary hearing impairment is very low and would be 
mitigated to the lowest level practicable through the incorporation of 
the mitigation measures mentioned in this document. There is no 
subsistence use of these marine mammal species in the action area.

Authorization

    NMFS has issued an IHA, pursuant to MMPA section 101(a)(5)(D), to 
Eglin AFB for conducting surf zone and amphibious vehicle and weapon 
testing/training off the coast of SRI in the northern GOM provided the 
previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements 
are implemented.

    Dated: December 18, 2006.
Donna Wieting
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E6-21979 Filed 12-21-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S