Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Surf Zone Testing/Training and Amphibious Vehicle Training and Weapons Testing, 16646-16651 [E8-6441]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
16646
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 61 / Friday, March 28, 2008 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XE32
Taking and Importing Marine
Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals
Incidental to Surf Zone Testing/
Training and Amphibious Vehicle
Training and Weapons Testing
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental
harassment authorization and receipt of
application for five-year regulations;
request for comments and information.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On November 29, 2005,
NMFS received a request from Eglin Air
Force Base (Eglin AFB), for
authorization to harass marine
mammals, incidental to conducting surf
zone testing/training and amphibious
vehicle training and weapons testing off
the coast of Santa Rosa Island (SRI).
Following notice and comment, NMFS
issued an incidental harassment
authorization (IHA) to Eglin AFB for a
period of one year from December 11,
2006, to December 10, 2007, with
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements. On October 16, 2007,
NMFS received a request from Eglin
AFB to renew the IHA for a period of
one year. Pursuant to the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS
is requesting comments on its proposal
to issue an authorization to Eglin AFB
to incidentally take, by harassment, two
species of cetaceans for a period of 1
year. NMFS is also requesting
comments, information, and suggestions
concerning Eglin AFB’s application and
the structure and content of future
regulations.
Comments and information must
be postmarked no later than April 28,
2008.
DATES:
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
20910–3226. The mailbox address for
providing email comments on this
action is PR1.0648–XE32@noaa.gov.
Comments sent via email, including all
attachments, must not exceed a 10–
megabyte file size. A copy of the
application and a list of references used
in this document may be obtained by
writing to this address, by telephoning
the contact listed here (see FOR
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:57 Mar 27, 2008
Jkt 214001
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT)
and is also available at: https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental.htm. A copy of the Santa
Rosa Island Mission Utilization Plan
Programmatic Environmental
Assessment (SRI Mission PEA) (U.S. Air
Force, 2005) and a 2007 supplemental
environmental assessment (SEA) are
available by writing to the Department
of the Air Force, AAC/EMSN, Natural
Resources Branch, 501 DeLeon St., Suite
101, Eglin AFB, FL 32542–5133.
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
certain 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 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].
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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), which is also
known as the surf zone. 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 in this 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. A detailed
description of the proposed activities is
provided in the June 22, 2006, Federal
Register notice of proposed IHA (71 FR
35870). There is no change of activities
for the proposed renewal of the IHA,
therefore, please refer to that Federal
Register notice for detailed information
of the activities.
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 Florida
manatees can be found in the Florida
Manatee Recovery Plan (US Fish and
Wildlife Service, 2001).
Atlantic bottlenose dolphins are
distributed throughout the continental
shelf, coastal, and bay-sound waters of
the northern GOM and along the U.S.
mid-Atlantic coast. The identification of
a biologically-meaningful ‘‘stock’’ of
bottlenose dolphins in the GOM is
complicated by the high degree of
behavioral variability exhibited by this
species (Wells, 2003). Currently,
bottlenose dolphins in the U.S. GOM are
managed as 38 different stocks: one
northern GOM oceanic stock, one
E:\FR\FM\28MRN1.SGM
28MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 61 / Friday, March 28, 2008 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
northern GOM continental shelf stock,
three northern GOM costal stocks
(western, northern, and eastern Gulf),
and 33 bay, sound, and estuarine stocks
(Waring et al., 2007). The identification
of these stocks is based on descriptions
of relatively discrete dolphin
communities in these waters. A
community includes resident dolphins
that regularly share large portions of
their ranges, exhibit similar distinct
genetic profiles, and interact with each
other to a much greater extent than with
dolphins in adjacent waters. Bottlenose
dolphin communities do not constitute
closed demographic populations, as
individuals from adjacent communities
are known to interbreed. Nevertheless,
the geographic nature of these areas and
long-term stability of residency patterns
suggest that many of these communities
exist as functioning units of their
ecosystems.
Within the proposed action area, at
least three Atlantic bottlenose dolphin
stocks are expected to occur: the
northern GOM northern coastal, the
Pensacola Bay/East Bay stock, and the
Choctawhatchee Bay stock (Waring et
al., 2007). The best population size
estimates available for these stocks are
more than 13 years old; therefore, the
current population size for each stock is
considered unknown (Wade and
Angliss, 1997). These data are
insufficient to determine population
trends for all of the GOM bay, sound
and estuary bottlenose dolphin
communities. The relatively high
number of bottlenose dolphin deaths
that occurred during mortality events
(mostly from stranding) since 1990
raises a concern that some of the stocks
are stressed. Human-caused mortality
and serious injury for each of these
stocks is not known, but considering the
evidence from stranding data, the total
human-caused mortality and serious
injury exceeds 10 percent of the total
known potential biological removal
(PBR) or pervious PBR, and, therefore, it
is probably not insignificant. For these
reasons, each of these stocks is listed as
a strategic stock under the MMPA.
The Atlantic spotted dolphin is
endemic to the Atlantic Ocean in
temperate to tropical waters (Perrin et
al., 1994). In the GOM, this species
occurs primarily from continental shelf
waters 10 – 200 m (32.8 – 656.2 ft) deep
to slope waters <500 m (1,640 ft) deep
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:57 Mar 27, 2008
Jkt 214001
(Fulling et al., 2003). Atlantic spotted
dolphins were seen in all seasons
during GulfCet aerial surveys of the
northern GOM from 1992 to 1998
(Hansen et al., 1996; Mullin and
Hoggard, 2003). It has been suggested
that this species may move inshore
seasonally during spring, but data
supporting this hypothesis are limited
(Fritts et al., 1983). The best available
abundance estimate for the northern
GOM stock of the Atlantic spotted
dolphin is 30,947 (NMFS, 2005).
More detailed information on Atlantic
bottlenose and spotted dolphins can be
found in the NMFS Stock Assessment
Reports at: https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/
nefsc/publications/tm/tm201/
tm201.pdf.
Potential Impacts to Marine Mammals
Potential impacts to marine mammals
may occur due to 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 actions proposed later in this
document, the potential for impacts to
marine mammals are anticipated to be
de minimus (U.S. Air Force, 2005).
Explosive criteria and thresholds for
assessing impacts of explosions on
marine mammals are summarized here
in Table 1 and were discussed in detail
in NMFS’s notice of issuance of an IHA
for Eglin’s Precision Strike Weapon
testing activity (70 FR 48675, August 19,
2005). Please refer to that document for
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).
The impacts on marine mammals
from underwater detonations were
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
16647
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 (hearingrelated 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 estimated 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
calculation is an overestimate, since up
to half of the ZOI would be over land
and very shallow surf, which is not
considered marine mammal habitat.
E:\FR\FM\28MRN1.SGM
28MRN1
16648
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 61 / Friday, March 28, 2008 / Notices
TABLE 1. ZONES OF IMPACT FOR UNDERWATER EXPLOSIVE FROM FOUR MINE CLEARING SYSTEMS (ACOUSTIC UNITS ARE
RE 1 MICROPA2)
ZOI Radius (m)
Criteria
Threshold
SABRE 232 lb
NEW
MK–5 MCS
1,750 lb NEW
DET 130 lb
MK–82 ARRAY
1,372 lb
Level B Behavior
176 dB 1/3 Octave SEL*
1,440
2,299
1,252
2,207
Level B TTS Dual Criterion
182 dB 1/3 Octave SEL
961
1,658
796
1,544
Level A PTS
205 dB SEL
200
478
155
436
Level B Dual Criteria
23 psi
857
1,788
761
1,557
Level A Injury
13 psi-msec
60
100
58
86
Mortality
30.5 psi-msec
45
68
42
60
*SEL
- Sound energy level
Table 2. Cetacean Densities for Gulf of Mexico Shelf Region
Individuals/km2
Dive profile - % at surface
Adjusted density (Individuals/
km2)*
Bottlenose dolphin
0.148
30
0.810
Atlantic spotted dolphin
0.089
30
0.677
Bottlenose or Atlantic dolphin
0.007
30
0.053
Total
0.244
Species
*
1.54
Adjusted for undetected submerged animals to approximately two standard deviations.
Table 3 lists the noise-related dolphin
take estimates resulting from surf zone
detonations that are the subject of this
proposed IHA. The take numbers
represent the combined total of Atlantic
bottlenose and Atlantic spotted
dolphins, and do not consider any
mitigation measures. The use of
combined Atlantic bottlenose and
Atlantic spotted dolphin numbers is
because of the difficulty in distinguish
them from each other in the field.
Implementation of mitigation measures
discussed below would significantly
decrease the number of takes.
Discussion of the amount of take
reduction is provided below.
TABLE 3. TAKE ESTIMATES FROM NOISE IMPACTS TO DOLPHINS (ACOUSTIC UNITS ARE RE 1 MICROPA2)
Criteria
Threshold
SABRE
MK–5 MCS
DET
MK–82 Array
Total Takes*
Sub-TTS
176 dB 1/3 Octave SEL
10
26
8
24
68
Level B Harassment TTS
(dual criterion)
182 dB 1/3 Octave SEL
5
13
3
12
33
Level B TTS (dual criterion)
23 psi
4
15
3
12
34
Level A PTS
205 dB Total SEL
0
1
0
1
2
Level A Non-lethal Injury
13 psi-msec
0
0
0
0
0
Mortality
30.5 psi-msec
0
0
0
0
0
*Estimated
exposure with no mitigation measures in place
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:57 Mar 27, 2008
Jkt 214001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
E:\FR\FM\28MRN1.SGM
28MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 61 / Friday, March 28, 2008 / Notices
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,
Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAVs)
move very slowly and could be easily
avoided. The potential for amphibious
craft colliding with marine mammals
and causing injury or death is therefore
considered remote.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
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).
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 (using
Table 2 density estimates). Finally, the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:57 Mar 27, 2008
Jkt 214001
mitigation measures discussed below
would further reduce the likelihood of
direct impacts to marine mammals due
to live fire operations.
Given the infrequency of the surf zone
detonation (maximum of once per year)
and the amphibious vehicle and weapon
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.
Proposed Mitigation
Eglin AFB would employ a number of
mitigation measures in an effort to
substantially decrease the number of
animals 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 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 action 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 sea state of number three
or less. Prior to the mission, a trained
observer 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
behavioral 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. Surf zone testing
would be conducted between 1
November and 1 March whenever
possible.
Navy personnel would only conduct
live fire testing with sea surface
conditions of sea state 3 or less on the
Beaufort scale, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
16649
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 missions, however, given the
remoteness of impact, the potential that
a marine mammal is injured or killed is
unlikely.
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, who will
review the range conditions and
recommend a Go/No-Go decision to the
Officer in Tactical Command, who
makes the final Go/No-Go decision.
Specific stepwise mitigation
procedures for SRI surf zone missions
are outlined below. All ZOIs (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, etc.) and (2) verify
that the ZOI is free of visually detectable
marine mammals and other living
marine resources. 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
E:\FR\FM\28MRN1.SGM
28MRN1
16650
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 61 / Friday, March 28, 2008 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
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. 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 request 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 on its own.
In the event of a postponement, premission 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 premission 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:57 Mar 27, 2008
Jkt 214001
information about marine mammal and
sea turtle standings.
In addition, NMFS proposes to
require Eglin to monitor the target area
for impacts to marine mammals and to
report on its activities. NMFS’
Biological Opinion on this action has
recommended certain monitoring
measures to protect marine life. NMFS
proposes to require the same
requirements under the IHA:
(1) Eglin will develop and implement
a marine species observer-training
program in coordination with NMFS.
This program will primarily provide
expertise to Eglin’s testing and training
community in the identification of
marine mammals and other 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 would track its 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 (SERO) and
the Headquarters Office of Protected
Resources by January 31 of each year.
(4) If a dead or injuried marine
mammal is observed before or after
testing, a report must be made to the
NMFS by the following business day.
(5) Any unauthorized takes of marine
mammals (i.e., injury or mortality) must
be immediately reported to the NMFS
representative and to the respective
stranding network representative.
ESA
On March 18, 2005, the U.S. Air Force
(USAF), Eglin AFB, requested 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 that are the subject of this
proposed IHA. On October 12, 2005,
NMFS issued a Biological Opinion,
concluding that the surf zone and
amphibious vehicle and weapon testing/
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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. Eglin
AFB also consulted with the FWS 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 ESAlisted 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 under the Council on
Environmental Quality’s regulations and
NOAA Administrative Order 216–6 for
implementing the procedural provisions
of the NEPA (40 CFR sec. 1508.3).
NMFS adopted the PEA but
supplemented the PEA with its own
cumulative impacts analysis to better
ascertain the cumulative effects of past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable
activities conducted within and around
Santa Rosa Island, and issued a finding
of no significant impact on December
14, 2006. On May 9, 2007, Eglin AFB
submitted additional information to
ensure the most recent analysis of
military activities was available for
consideration in re-assessing the
cumulative impacts associated with the
proposed issuance of this IHA. NMFS is
reviewing this additional information
on cumulative environmental impacts to
determine whether a supplemental
analysis specific to cumulative impacts
is warranted, and, if so, would either
adopt the AF information as a
supplement to the (2005 EA and 2007
SEA?) or will prepare its own
supplemental EA to update the
cumulative impacts analysis before
making a determination on the issuance
of an IHA and rulemaking. A copy of
Eglin’s PEA and related information for
this activity are available upon written
request (see ADDRESSES).
Preliminary Conclusions
NMFS has preliminarily 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 injury of marine mammals
and, would result in, at worst, a
E:\FR\FM\28MRN1.SGM
28MRN1
16651
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 61 / Friday, March 28, 2008 / Notices
temporary modification in behavior by
marine mammals. While behavioral
modifications may be made by these
species as a result of these surf zone
detonation and amphibious vehicle
training activities, any behavioral
change is expected to have a negligible
impact on the affected species. Also,
given the infrequency of these 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 longterm 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 and monitoring measures
proposed in this document.
Proposed Authorization
NMFS proposes to issue an IHA 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 incorporated.
Information Solicited
NMFS requests interested persons to
submit comments and information
concerning this proposed IHA and
Eglin’s application for incidental take
regulations (see ADDRESSES). NMFS
requests interested persons to submit
comments, information, and suggestions
concerning both the request and the
structure and content of future
regulations to allow this taking. NMFS
will consider this information in
developing proposed regulations to
govern the taking.
Dated: March 21, 2008.
Helen Golde,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E8–6441 Filed 3–27–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
costs and burden; it includes the actual
data collection instruments [if any].
COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS
Notice of Meeting
Comments must be submitted on
or before April 28, 2008.
DATES:
The next meeting of the U.S.
Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled
for 17 April 2008, at 10 a.m. in the
Commission’s offices at the National
Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary
Square, 401 F Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20001–2728. Items of discussion
may include buildings, parks and
memorials.
Draft agendas and additional
information regarding the Commission
are available on our Web site: https://
www.cfa.gov. Inquiries regarding the
agenda and requests to submit written
or oral statements should be addressed
to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S.
Commission of Fine Arts, at the above
address, or call 202–504–2200.
Individuals requiring sign language
interpretation for the hearing impaired
should contact the Secretary at least 10
days before the meeting date.
Dated in Washington, DC, March 21, 2008.
Thomas Luebke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8–6231 Filed 3–27–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6330–01–M
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING
COMMISSION
Agency Information Collection
Activities Under OMB Review
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), this notice announces that
the Information Collection Request (ICR)
abstracted below has been forwarded to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and comment. The
ICR describes the nature of the
information collection and its expected
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR A COPY
CONTACT: Gary Martinaitis, Division of
Market Oversight, Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, 1155 21st Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20581, (202) 418–
5209; Fax: (202) 418–5527; e-mail:
gmartinaitis @cftc.gov and refer to OMB
Control No. 3038–0013.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Exemptions from Speculative
Limits (OMB Control No. 3038–0013).
This is a request for extension of a
currently approved information
collection.
Abstract: Commission regulations
1.47, 1.48, and 150.3(b) require limited
information from traders whose
commodity futures and options
positions exceed federal speculative
position limits. The regulations are
designed to assist in the monitoring of
compliance with speculative position
limits adopted by the Commission.
These regulations are promulgated
pursuant to the Commission’s
rulemaking authority contained in
sections 4a(a), 4i, and 8a(5) of the
Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C.
6a(1), 6i, and 12a(5).
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for the referenced CFTC
regulations were published on
December 30, 1981. See 46 FR 63035
(Dec. 30, 1981). The Federal Register
notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on this collection
of information was published on
January 22, 2008 (73 FR 3705).
Burden statement: The Commission
estimates the burden of this collection
of information as follows:
ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN
Estimated
number of
respondents
Regulations (17 CFR)
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Rule 1.47 and 1.48 ..............................................................
Part 150 ...............................................................................
There are no capital costs or operating
and maintenance costs associated with
this collection.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:57 Mar 27, 2008
Jkt 214001
Reports annually by each
respondent
7
2
2
1
Send comments regarding the burden
estimated or any other aspect of the
information collection, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Total annual
responses
14
2
Estimated
number of
hours per
response
Annual burden
3
3
42
6
the addresses listed below. Please refer
to OMB Control No. 3038–0013 in any
correspondence.
E:\FR\FM\28MRN1.SGM
28MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 61 (Friday, March 28, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16646-16651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-6441]
[[Page 16646]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XE32
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; proposed incidental harassment authorization and
receipt of application for five-year regulations; request for comments
and information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On November 29, 2005, NMFS received a request from Eglin Air
Force Base (Eglin AFB), for authorization to harass marine mammals,
incidental to conducting surf zone testing/training and amphibious
vehicle training and weapons testing off the coast of Santa Rosa Island
(SRI). Following notice and comment, NMFS issued an incidental
harassment authorization (IHA) to Eglin AFB for a period of one year
from December 11, 2006, to December 10, 2007, with mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements. On October 16, 2007, NMFS
received a request from Eglin AFB to renew the IHA for a period of one
year. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is
requesting comments on its proposal to issue an authorization to Eglin
AFB to incidentally take, by harassment, two species of cetaceans for a
period of 1 year. NMFS is also requesting comments, information, and
suggestions concerning Eglin AFB's application and the structure and
content of future regulations.
DATES: Comments and information must be postmarked no later than April
28, 2008.
ADDRESSES: 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 20910-3226. The mailbox address for providing email
comments on this action is PR1.0648-XE32@noaa.gov. Comments sent via
email, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10-megabyte file
size. A copy of the application and a list of references used in this
document may be obtained by writing to this address, by telephoning the
contact listed here (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) and is also
available at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. A
copy of the Santa Rosa Island Mission Utilization Plan Programmatic
Environmental Assessment (SRI Mission PEA) (U.S. Air Force, 2005) and a
2007 supplemental environmental assessment (SEA) are available by
writing to the Department of the Air Force, AAC/EMSN, Natural Resources
Branch, 501 DeLeon St., Suite 101, Eglin AFB, FL 32542-5133.
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 certain 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 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), which is
also known as the surf zone. 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 in this 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. A
detailed description of the proposed activities is provided in the June
22, 2006, Federal Register notice of proposed IHA (71 FR 35870). There
is no change of activities for the proposed renewal of the IHA,
therefore, please refer to that Federal Register notice for detailed
information of the activities.
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 Florida manatees can be found in the Florida Manatee Recovery Plan
(US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001).
Atlantic bottlenose dolphins are distributed throughout the
continental shelf, coastal, and bay-sound waters of the northern GOM
and along the U.S. mid-Atlantic coast. The identification of a
biologically-meaningful ``stock'' of bottlenose dolphins in the GOM is
complicated by the high degree of behavioral variability exhibited by
this species (Wells, 2003). Currently, bottlenose dolphins in the U.S.
GOM are managed as 38 different stocks: one northern GOM oceanic stock,
one
[[Page 16647]]
northern GOM continental shelf stock, three northern GOM costal stocks
(western, northern, and eastern Gulf), and 33 bay, sound, and estuarine
stocks (Waring et al., 2007). The identification of these stocks is
based on descriptions of relatively discrete dolphin communities in
these waters. A community includes resident dolphins that regularly
share large portions of their ranges, exhibit similar distinct genetic
profiles, and interact with each other to a much greater extent than
with dolphins in adjacent waters. Bottlenose dolphin communities do not
constitute closed demographic populations, as individuals from adjacent
communities are known to interbreed. Nevertheless, the geographic
nature of these areas and long-term stability of residency patterns
suggest that many of these communities exist as functioning units of
their ecosystems.
Within the proposed action area, at least three Atlantic bottlenose
dolphin stocks are expected to occur: the northern GOM northern
coastal, the Pensacola Bay/East Bay stock, and the Choctawhatchee Bay
stock (Waring et al., 2007). The best population size estimates
available for these stocks are more than 13 years old; therefore, the
current population size for each stock is considered unknown (Wade and
Angliss, 1997). These data are insufficient to determine population
trends for all of the GOM bay, sound and estuary bottlenose dolphin
communities. The relatively high number of bottlenose dolphin deaths
that occurred during mortality events (mostly from stranding) since
1990 raises a concern that some of the stocks are stressed. Human-
caused mortality and serious injury for each of these stocks is not
known, but considering the evidence from stranding data, the total
human-caused mortality and serious injury exceeds 10 percent of the
total known potential biological removal (PBR) or pervious PBR, and,
therefore, it is probably not insignificant. For these reasons, each of
these stocks is listed as a strategic stock under the MMPA.
The Atlantic spotted dolphin is endemic to the Atlantic Ocean in
temperate to tropical waters (Perrin et al., 1994). In the GOM, this
species occurs primarily from continental shelf waters 10 - 200 m (32.8
- 656.2 ft) deep to slope waters <500 m (1,640 ft) deep (Fulling et
al., 2003). Atlantic spotted dolphins were seen in all seasons during
GulfCet aerial surveys of the northern GOM from 1992 to 1998 (Hansen et
al., 1996; Mullin and Hoggard, 2003). It has been suggested that this
species may move inshore seasonally during spring, but data supporting
this hypothesis are limited (Fritts et al., 1983). The best available
abundance estimate for the northern GOM stock of the Atlantic spotted
dolphin is 30,947 (NMFS, 2005).
More detailed information on Atlantic bottlenose and spotted
dolphins can be found in the NMFS Stock Assessment Reports at: https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/tm/tm201/tm201.pdf.
Potential Impacts to Marine Mammals
Potential impacts to marine mammals may occur due to 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 actions proposed later in this document, the potential
for impacts to marine mammals are anticipated to be de minimus (U.S.
Air Force, 2005).
Explosive criteria and thresholds for assessing impacts of
explosions on marine mammals are summarized here in Table 1 and were
discussed in detail in NMFS's notice of issuance of an IHA for Eglin's
Precision Strike Weapon testing activity (70 FR 48675, August 19,
2005). Please refer to that document for 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).
The impacts on 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 estimated 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
calculation is an overestimate, since up to half of the ZOI would be
over land and very shallow surf, which is not considered marine mammal
habitat.
[[Page 16648]]
Table 1. Zones of Impact for Underwater Explosive from Four Mine Clearing Systems (Acoustic units are re 1
microPa\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ZOI Radius (m)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Criteria Threshold SABRE 232 lb MK-5 MCS MK-82 ARRAY
NEW 1,750 lb NEW DET 130 lb 1,372 lb
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B Behavior 176 dB 1/3 Octave 1,440 2,299 1,252 2,207
SEL\*\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B TTS Dual Criterion 182 dB 1/3 Octave 961 1,658 796 1,544
SEL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A PTS 205 dB SEL 200 478 155 436
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B Dual Criteria 23 psi 857 1,788 761 1,557
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Injury 13 psi-msec 60 100 58 86
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mortality 30.5 psi-msec 45 68 42 60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\SEL - Sound energy level
Table 2. Cetacean Densities for Gulf of Mexico Shelf Region
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted
Individuals/ Dive profile - density
Species km\2\ % at surface (Individuals/
km\2\)*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottlenose dolphin 0.148 30 0.810
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic spotted dolphin 0.089 30 0.677
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottlenose or Atlantic 0.007 30 0.053
dolphin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 0.244 ............. 1.54
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Adjusted for undetected submerged animals to approximately two
standard deviations.
Table 3 lists the noise-related dolphin take estimates resulting
from surf zone detonations that are the subject of this proposed IHA.
The take numbers represent the combined total of Atlantic bottlenose
and Atlantic spotted dolphins, and do not consider any mitigation
measures. The use of combined Atlantic bottlenose and Atlantic spotted
dolphin numbers is because of the difficulty in distinguish them from
each other in the field. Implementation of mitigation measures
discussed below would significantly decrease the number of takes.
Discussion of the amount of take reduction is provided below.
Table 3. Take Estimates from Noise Impacts to Dolphins (Acoustic units are re 1 microPa\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Criteria Threshold SABRE MK-5 MCS DET MK-82 Array Takes*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-TTS 176 dB 1/3 Octave 10 26 8 24 68
SEL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B Harassment TTS (dual 182 dB 1/3 Octave 5 13 3 12 33
criterion) SEL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B TTS (dual criterion) 23 psi 4 15 3 12 34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A PTS 205 dB Total SEL 0 1 0 1 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Non-lethal Injury 13 psi-msec 0 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mortality 30.5 psi-msec 0 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\Estimated exposure with no mitigation measures in place
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.
[[Page 16649]]
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, Amphibious Assault
Vehicles (AAVs) move very slowly and could 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).
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 (using Table 2 density estimates).
Finally, the mitigation measures discussed below would further reduce
the likelihood of direct impacts to marine mammals due to live fire
operations.
Given the infrequency of the surf zone detonation (maximum of once
per year) and the amphibious vehicle and weapon 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.
Proposed Mitigation
Eglin AFB would employ a number of mitigation measures in an effort
to substantially decrease the number of animals 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 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 action 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 sea
state of number three or less. Prior to the mission, a trained observer
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 behavioral 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. Surf zone testing would be
conducted between 1 November and 1 March whenever possible.
Navy personnel would only conduct live fire testing with sea
surface conditions of sea state 3 or less on the Beaufort scale, 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 missions, however, given the remoteness of impact, the
potential that a marine mammal is injured or killed is unlikely.
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, who will review the range conditions and recommend a Go/No-
Go decision to the Officer in Tactical Command, who makes the final Go/
No-Go decision.
Specific stepwise mitigation procedures for SRI surf zone missions
are outlined below. All ZOIs (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, etc.) and (2) verify that the ZOI is free of
visually detectable marine mammals and other living marine resources.
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
[[Page 16650]]
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. 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 request 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 on
its own.
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 proposes to require Eglin to monitor the target
area for impacts to marine mammals and to report on its activities.
NMFS' Biological Opinion on this action has recommended certain
monitoring measures to protect marine life. NMFS proposes to require
the same requirements under the IHA:
(1) Eglin will develop and implement a marine species observer-
training program in coordination with NMFS. This program will primarily
provide expertise to Eglin's testing and training community in the
identification of marine mammals and other 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 would track its 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 (SERO) and the Headquarters Office of Protected Resources by
January 31 of each year.
(4) If a dead or injuried marine mammal is observed before or after
testing, a report must be made to the NMFS by the following business
day.
(5) Any unauthorized takes of marine mammals (i.e., injury or
mortality) must be immediately reported to the NMFS representative and
to the respective stranding network representative.
ESA
On March 18, 2005, the U.S. Air Force (USAF), Eglin AFB, requested
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 that
are the subject of this proposed IHA. 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.
Eglin AFB also consulted with the FWS 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 under the Council on Environmental Quality's
regulations and NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 for implementing the
procedural provisions of the NEPA (40 CFR sec. 1508.3). NMFS adopted
the PEA but supplemented the PEA with its own cumulative impacts
analysis to better ascertain the cumulative effects of past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable activities conducted within and around Santa
Rosa Island, and issued a finding of no significant impact on December
14, 2006. On May 9, 2007, Eglin AFB submitted additional information to
ensure the most recent analysis of military activities was available
for consideration in re-assessing the cumulative impacts associated
with the proposed issuance of this IHA. NMFS is reviewing this
additional information on cumulative environmental impacts to determine
whether a supplemental analysis specific to cumulative impacts is
warranted, and, if so, would either adopt the AF information as a
supplement to the (2005 EA and 2007 SEA?) or will prepare its own
supplemental EA to update the cumulative impacts analysis before making
a determination on the issuance of an IHA and rulemaking. A copy of
Eglin's PEA and related information for this activity are available
upon written request (see ADDRESSES).
Preliminary Conclusions
NMFS has preliminarily 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 injury of
marine mammals and, would result in, at worst, a
[[Page 16651]]
temporary modification in behavior by marine mammals. While behavioral
modifications may be made by these species as a result of these surf
zone detonation and amphibious vehicle training activities, any
behavioral change is expected to have a negligible impact on the
affected species. Also, given the infrequency of these 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 and monitoring measures proposed in
this document.
Proposed Authorization
NMFS proposes to issue an IHA 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 incorporated.
Information Solicited
NMFS requests interested persons to submit comments and information
concerning this proposed IHA and Eglin's application for incidental
take regulations (see ADDRESSES). NMFS requests interested persons to
submit comments, information, and suggestions concerning both the
request and the structure and content of future regulations to allow
this taking. NMFS will consider this information in developing proposed
regulations to govern the taking.
Dated: March 21, 2008.
Helen Golde,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E8-6441 Filed 3-27-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
