Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the U.S. Air Force Conducting Maritime Weapon Systems Evaluation Program Operational Testing Within the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range, 72631-72653 [2014-28678]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 235 (Monday, December 8, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72631-72653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28678]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XD593


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the U.S. Air Force Conducting 
Maritime Weapon Systems Evaluation Program Operational Testing Within 
the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range

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

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request 
for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS received an application from the U.S. Department of the 
Air Force, Headquarters 96th Air Base Wing (Air Force), Eglin Air Force 
Base (Eglin AFB), requesting an Incidental Harassment Authorization 
(Authorization) to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to a 
Maritime Weapon Systems Evaluation Program (Maritime WSEP) within the 
Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range in the Gulf of Mexico.
    Eglin AFB's activities are military readiness activities per the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended by the National Defense 
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2004. Per the MMPA, NMFS 
requests comments on its proposal to issue an Authorization to Eglin 
AFB to take, by harassment, two species of marine mammals during the 
specified activity for a period of one year.

DATES: NMFS must receive comments and information no later than January 
7, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Address comments on the application to Jolie Harrison, 
Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, 
Silver Spring, MD 20910. The mailbox address for providing email 
comments is ITP.Cody@noaa.gov. Please include 0648-XD593 in the subject 
line. Comments sent via email to ITP.Cody@noaa.gov, including all 
attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. NMFS is not 
responsible for email comments sent to addresses other than the one 
provided here.
    Instructions: All submitted comments are a part of the public 
record and NMFS will post them to https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm without change. All Personal Identifying 
Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by 
the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential 
business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
    To obtain an electronic copy of the application, a list of the 
references used in this document, and Eglin AFB's Draft Environmental 
Assessment (DEA) titled, ``Maritime Weapons System Evaluation 
Program,'' visit the internet at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeannine Cody, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 
as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) directs the Secretary of 
Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, 
taking of small

[[Page 72632]]

numbers of marine mammals of a species or population stock, by U.S. 
citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial 
fishing) within a specified geographical region if, after NMFS provides 
a notice of a proposed authorization to the public for review and 
comment: (1) NMFS makes certain findings; and (2) the taking is limited 
to harassment.
    Through the authority delegated by the Secretary, NMFS shall grant 
an Authorization for the incidental taking of small numbers of marine 
mammals if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on 
the species or stock(s), and will not have an unmitigable adverse 
impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence 
uses (where relevant).
    The Authorization must also prescribe, where applicable, the 
permissible methods of taking by harassment pursuant to the activity; 
other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the 
species or stock and its habitat, and on the availability of such 
species or stock for taking for subsistence uses (where applicable); 
the measures that NMFS determines are necessary to ensure no 
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability for the species or stock 
for taking for subsistence purposes (where applicable); and 
requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of 
such taking. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 
as ``an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be 
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely 
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of 
recruitment or survival.''
    The National Defense Authorization Act of 2004 (NDAA; Public Law 
108-136) removed the ``small numbers'' and ``specified geographical 
region'' limitations indicated earlier and amended the definition of 
harassment as it applies to a ``military readiness activity'' to read 
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

    NMFS received an application on August 5, 2014, from Eglin AFB for 
the taking, by harassment, of marine mammals, incidental to Maritime 
WESP operational testing in the spring of 2015 within the Eglin Gulf 
Test and Training Range (EGTTR). Eglin AFB submitted a revised 
application to NMFS on October 20, 2014, which provided updated take 
estimates for marine mammals based on updated acoustic thresholds for 
acoustic sources. Eglin AFB submitted a second revised application to 
NMFS on December 1, 2014, which provided updated mitigation zones to 
ensure adequacy and completeness of their MMPA application. NMFS 
determined the application adequate and complete on December 2, 2014.
    Eglin AFB proposes to conduct Maritime WESP missions within the 
EGTTR airspace over the Gulf of Mexico, specifically within Warning 
Area 151 (W-151). The proposed testing activities would occur during 
the daytime over a three-week period between February and April, 2015. 
Eglin AFB proposes to use multiple types of live munitions (e.g., 
gunnery rounds, rockets, missiles, and bombs) against small boat 
targets in the EGTTR. These activities qualify as a military readiness 
activities under the MMPA and NDAA.
    The following specific aspect of the proposed activity has the 
potential to take marine mammals: increased underwater sound and 
pressure generated during the WSEP testing missions. Take, by Level B 
harassment of individuals of common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops 
truncatus) or Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis) could 
potentially result from the specified activity. Additionally, although 
NMFS does not expect it to occur, Eglin AFB has also requested 
authorization for Level A Harassment of up to 40 individuals of either 
common bottlenose dolphins or Atlantic spotted dolphins. Therefore, 
Eglin AFB has requested authorization to take individuals of two 
cetacean species by Level A and Level B harassment.
    Eglin AFB's Maritime WSEP operations may potentially impact marine 
mammals at or near the water surface. Marine mammals could potentially 
be harassed, injured, or killed by exploding and non-exploding 
projectiles, and falling debris. However, based on analyses provided in 
Eglin AFB's Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA); their Authorization 
application, including proposed mitigation and monitoring measures; 
and, for reasons discussed later in this document, NMFS does not 
anticipate that Eglin AFB's Maritime WSEP activities would result in 
any serious injury or mortality to marine mammals.

Description of the Specified Activity

Overview

    Eglin AFB proposes to conduct live ordnance testing and training in 
the Gulf of Mexico as part of the Maritime WSEP operational testing. 
The Maritime WSEP test objectives are to evaluate maritime deployment 
data, evaluate tactics, techniques and procedures, and to determine the 
impact of techniques and procedures on combat Air Force training. The 
need to conduct this type of testing has arisen in response to 
increasing threats at sea posed by operations conducted from small 
boats which can carry a variety of weapons; can form in large or small 
numbers; and may be difficult to locate, track, and engage in the 
marine environment. Because of limited Air Force aircraft and munitions 
testing on engaging and defeating small boat threats, the Air Force 
proposes to employ live munitions against boat targets in the EGTTR in 
order to continue development of techniques and procedures to train Air 
Force strike aircraft to counter small maneuvering surface vessels. 
Thus, the Department of Defense considers the Maritime WSEP activities 
as high priority for national security.
    The proposed Maritime WSEP missions are similar to Eglin AFB's 
Maritime Strike Operations where NMFS issued an Incidental Harassment 
Authorization to Eglin AFB related to training exercises around small 
boat threats (78 FR 52135, August 22, 2013).

Dates and Duration

    Eglin AFB proposes to schedule the Maritime WSEP missions over an 
approximate two- to three-week period that would begin February 6, 2015 
and end by March 31, 2015. The proposed missions would occur on 
weekdays, during daytime hours only, with one or two missions occurring 
per day. Some minor deviation from Eglin AFB's requested dates is 
possible and the proposed Authorization, if issued, would be effective 
from February 5, 2015 through March 30, 2015.

Specified Geographic Region

    The specific planned mission location is approximately 17 miles 
(mi) (27.3 kilometers [km]) offshore from Santa Rosa Island, Florida, 
in nearshore waters of the continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico. All 
activities would take place within the EGTTR, defined as the airspace 
over the Gulf of Mexico controlled by Eglin AFB, beginning at a point 
three nautical miles (nmi) (3.5 miles [mi]; 5.5 kilometers [km]) from 
shore. The EGTTR consists of

[[Page 72633]]

subdivided blocks including Warning Area 151 (W-151) where the proposed 
activities would occur, specifically in sub-area W-151A shown (Figure 
1).
    W-151: The inshore and offshore boundaries of W-151 are roughly 
parallel to the shoreline contour. The shoreward boundary is three nmi 
(3.5 mi; 5.5 km) from shore, while the seaward boundary extends 
approximately 85 to 100 nmi (97.8 mi; 157.4 km to 115 mi; 185.2 km) 
offshore, depending on the specific location. W-151 covers a surface 
area of approximately 10,247 square nmi [nmi\2\] (13,570 square mi 
[mi\2\]; 35,145 square km [km\2\]), and includes water depths ranging 
from about 20 to 700 meters (m) (65.6 to 2296.6 feet [ft]). This range 
of depth includes continental shelf and slope waters. Approximately 
half of W-151 lies over the shelf.
    W-151A: W-151A extends approximately 60 nmi (69.0 mi; 111.1 km) 
offshore and has a surface area of 2,565 nmi\2\ (3,396.8 mi\2\; 8,797 
km\2\). Water depths range from about 30 to 350 m (98.4 to 1148.2 ft) 
and include continental shelf and slope zones. However, most of W-151A 
occurs over the continental shelf, in water depths less than 250 m 
(820.2 ft). Maritime WSEP missions will occur in the shallower, 
northern inshore portion of the sub-area, in a water depth of about 35 
meters (114.8 ft).
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN08DE14.020

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

Detailed Description of Activities

    The Maritime WSEP operational testing missions, classified as 
military readiness activities, include the release of multiple types of 
inert and live munitions from fighter and bomber aircraft, unmanned 
aerial vehicles, and gunships against small, static, towed, and 
remotely-controlled boat targets. Munition types include bombs, 
missiles, rockets, and gunnery rounds (Table 1).

                                      Table 1--Live Munitions and Aircraft
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Munitions                            Aircraft (not associated with specific munitions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GBU-10 laser-guided Mk-84 bomb..............  F-16C fighter aircraft.
GBU-24 laser-guided Mk-84 bomb..............  F-16C+ fighter aircraft.
GBU-12 laser-guided Mk-82 bomb..............  F-15E fighter aircraft.
GBU-54 Laser Joint Direct Attack Munition     A-10 fighter aircraft.
 (LJDAM), laser-guided Mk-82 bomb.
CBU-105 (WCMD)..............................  B-1B bomber aircraft.
AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missile......  B-52H bomber aircraft.
GBU-38 Small Diameter Bomb II (Laser SDB)...  MQ-1/9 unmanned aerial vehicle.

[[Page 72634]]

 
AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-surface missile.....  AC-130 gunship.
AGM-175 Griffin air-to-surface missile......
2.75 Rockets................................
PGU-13/B high explosive incendiary 30 mm
 rounds.
7.62 mm/.50 Cal.............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: AGM = air-to-ground missile; CBU = Cluster Bomb Unit; GBU = Guided Bomb Unit; LJDAM = Laser Joint Direct
  Attack Munition; Laser SDB = Laser Small Diameter Bomb; mm = millimeters; PGU = Projectile Gun Unit; WCMD =
  wind corrected munition dispenser.

    The proposed activities involve detonations above the water, near 
the water surface, and under water within the EGTTR. However, because 
the tests will focus on weapon/target interaction, Eglin AFB will not 
specify a particular aircraft for a given test as long as it meets the 
delivery parameters.
    Eglin AFB would deploy the munitions against static, towed, and 
remotely-controlled boat targets within W-151A. Eglin AFB would operate 
the remote-controlled boats from an instrumentation barge (Gulf Range 
Armament Test Vessel; GRATV) anchored on site within the test area. The 
GRATV would provide a platform for cameras and weapons-tracking 
equipment and Eglin AFB would position the target boats approximately 
182.8 m (600 ft) from the GRATV, depending on the munition type.
    Table 2 provides the number, height, or depth of detonation, 
explosive material, and net explosive weight (NEW) in pounds (lbs) of 
each munition proposed for use during the Maritime WSEP activities.

                    Table 2--Maritime WSEP Munitions Proposed for use in the W-151A Test Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Net explosive
         Type of munition            Total # of       Detonation type       Warhead--explosive      weight per
                                   live munitions                                material            munition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GBU-10 or GBU-24.................               2  Surface.............  MK-84_Tritonal.........        945 lbs.
GBU-12 or GBU-54 (LJDAM).........               6  Surface.............  MK-82_Tritonal.........        192 lbs.
AGM-65 (Maverick)................               6  Surface.............  WDU-24/B penetrating            86 lbs.
                                                                          blast-fragmentation
                                                                          warhead.
CBU-105 (WCMD)...................               4  Airburst............  10 BLU-108 sub-                 83 lbs.
                                                                          munitions each
                                                                          containing 4
                                                                          projectiles parachute,
                                                                          rocket motor and
                                                                          altimeter.
GBU-38 (Laser Small Diameter                    4  Surface.............  AFX-757 (Insensitive            37 lbs.
 Bomb).                                                                   munition).
AGM-114 (Hellfire)...............              15  Subsurface (10 msec   High Explosive Anti-            20 lbs.
                                                    delay).               Tank (HEAT) tandem
                                                                          anti-armor metal
                                                                          augmented charge.
AGM-176 (Griffin)................              10  Surface.............  Blast fragmentation....         13 lbs.
2.75 Rockets.....................             100  Surface.............  Comp B-4 HEI...........   Up to 12 lbs.
PGU-12 HEI 30 mm.................           1,000  Surface.............  30 x 173 mm caliber            0.1 lbs.
                                                                          with aluminized RDX
                                                                          explosive. Designed
                                                                          for GAU-8/A Gun System.
7.62 mm/.50 cal..................           5,000  Surface.............  N/A....................            N/A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: AGL = above ground level; AGM = air-to-ground missile; CBU = Cluster Bomb Unit; GBU = Guided Bomb Unit;
  JDAM = Joint Direct Attack Munition; LJDAM = Laser Joint Direct Attack Munition; mm = millimeters; msec =
  millisecond; lbs = pounds; PGU = Projectile Gun Unit; HEI = high explosive incendiary.

    At least two ordnance delivery aircraft will participate in each 
live weapon release mission. Before delivering the ordnance, mission 
aircraft would make a dry run over the target area to ensure that it is 
clear of commercial and recreational boats. Jets will fly at a minimum 
speed of 300 knots indicated air speed (approximately 345 miles per 
hour, depending on atmospheric conditions) and at a minimum altitude of 
305 m (1,000 ft). Due to the limited flyover duration and potentially 
high speed and altitude, observation for marine species would probably 
be only marginally effective at best, and pilots would, therefore, not 
participate in species surveys. Eglin AFB's application and DEA, which 
is available upon request (see ADDRESSES), contain additional detailed 
information on the Maritime WSEP training operations.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity

    Table 3 provides the following: marine mammal species with possible 
or confirmed occurrence in the proposed activity area (Garrison et al., 
2008; Navy, 2007; Davis et al., 2000); information on those species' 
status under the MMPA and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and abundance and likelihood of occurrence within 
the proposed activity area.

[[Page 72635]]



        Table 3--Marine Mammals Most Likely To Be Harassed Incidental to Eglin AFB's Activities in W-151A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Regulatory status       Estimated           Relative
             Species                  Stock name              1 2              abundance       occurrence in W-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------151-------
Common bottlenose dolphin.......  Choctawatchee Bay.  MMPA_S, ESA_NL....  232...............  Uncommon
                                                                          CV = 0.06 \3\.....
                                  Pensacola/East Bay  MMPA_S, ESA_NL....  33................  Uncommon
                                                                          CV = 0.88 \4\.....
                                  St. Andrew Bay....  MMPA_S, ESA_NL....  124, CV = 0.18 \4\  Uncommon
                                  Gulf of Mexico      MMPA_S, ESA_NL....  2,473, CV = 0.25    Common
                                   Northern Coastal.                       \5\.
                                  Northern Gulf of    MMPA_NC, ESA_NL...  17,777, CV = 0.32   Uncommon
                                   Mexico                                  \6\.
                                   Continental Shelf.
                                  Northern Gulf of    MMPA_NC, ESA_NL...  5,806, CV = 0.39    Uncommon
                                   Mexico Oceanic.                         \7\.
Atlantic spotted dolphin........  Northern Gulf of    MMPA_NC, ESA_NL...  37,611,\8\ CV =     Common
                                   Mexico.                                 0.28.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ MMPA: D = Depleted, S = Strategic, NC = Not Classified.
\2\ ESA: EN = Endangered, T = Threatened, DL = Delisted, NL = Not listed.
\3\ Conn et al. 201; 2012 NMFS Stock Assessment Report (Waring et al., 2013)
\4\ Blaylock and Hoggard, 1994; 2012 NMFS Stock Assessment Report (Waring et al., 2013)
\5\ 2007 Aerial surveys reported in the 2013 NMFS Stock Assessment Report (Waring et al., 2014)
\6\ 2000-2001 Aerial surveys reported in the 2013 NMFS Stock Assessment Report (Waring et al., 2014)
\7\ 2009 Line transect surveys reported in the 2013 NMFS Stock Assessment Report (Waring et al., 2014)
\8\ 2000-2001 Aerial surveys reported in the 2013 NMFS Stock Assessment Report (Waring et al., 2014)

    An additional 19 cetacean species have confirmed occurrence within 
the northeastern Gulf of Mexico, mainly occurring at or beyond the 
shelf break (i.e., water depth of approximately 200 m (656.2 ft)) 
located beyond the W-151A test area. NMFS and Eglin AFB consider the 19 
species to be rare or extralimital in the W-151A test location area. 
These species are the Bryde's whale (Balaenoptera edeni), sperm whale 
(Physeter macrocephalus), dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima), pygmy sperm 
whale (K. breviceps), pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella atenuarta), 
Blainville's beaked whale (Mesoplodon densirostris), Cuvier's beaked 
whale (Ziphius cavirostris), Gervais' beaked whale (M. europaeus), 
Clymene dolphin (S. clymene), spinner dolphin (S. longirostris), 
striped dolphin (S. coeruleoalba), killer whale (Orcinus orca), false 
killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens), pygmy killer whale (Feresa 
attenuata), Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus), Fraser's dolphin 
(Lagenodelphis hosei), melon-headed whale (Peponocephala electra), 
rough-toothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis), and short-finned pilot whale 
(Globicephala macrorhynchus).
    Of these species, only the sperm whale is listed as endangered 
under the ESA and as depleted throughout its range under the MMPA. 
Sperm whale occurrence within W-151A is unlikely because almost all 
reported sightings have occurred in water depths greater than 200 m m 
(656.2 ft).
    Because these species are unlikely to occur within the W-151A area, 
Eglin AFB has not requested and NMFS has not proposed the issuance of 
take authorizations for them. Thus, NMFS does not consider these 
species further in this notice.
    NMFS has reviewed Eglin AFB's detailed species descriptions, 
including life history information, distribution, regional 
distribution, diving behavior, and acoustics and hearing, for accuracy 
and completeness. NMFS refers the reader to Sections 3 and 4 of the 
Authorization application and to Chapter 3 in Eglin AFB's DEA rather 
than reprinting the information here.

Other Marine Mammals in the Proposed Action Area

    The endangered West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) rarely 
occurs in the area (USAF, 2014). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has 
jurisdiction over the manatee; therefore, NMFS would not include a 
proposed authorization to harass manatees and does not discuss this 
species further in this notice.

Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals

    This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that the 
types of stressors associated with the specified activity (e.g., 
ordnance detonation and vessel movement) could impact marine mammals 
(via observations or scientific studies). This discussion may also 
include reactions that NMFS considers to rise to the level of a take 
and those that NMFS does not consider to rise to the level of a take 
(for example, with acoustics, we may include a discussion of studies 
that showed animals not reacting at all to sound or exhibiting barely 
measurable avoidance).
    NMFS will provide an overview of potential effects of Eglin AFB's 
activities in this section and describe the effects of similar 
activities that have occurred in the past. This section does not 
consider the specific manner in which Eglin AFB would carry out the 
proposed activity, what mitigation measures they would implement, and 
how either of those would shape the anticipated impacts from this 
specific activity. The ``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' 
section later in this document will include a quantitative analysis of 
the number of individuals that NMFS expects Eglin AFB to take during 
this activity. The ``Negligible Impact Analysis'' section will include 
the analysis of how this specific activity would impact marine mammals. 
NMFS will consider the content of the following sections: (1) Estimated 
Take by Incidental Harassment; (2) Proposed Mitigation; and (3) 
Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat, to draw conclusions 
regarding the likely impacts of this activity on the reproductive 
success or survivorship of individuals--and from that consideration--
the likely impacts of this activity on the affected marine mammal 
populations or stocks.
    The Maritime WSEP training exercises proposed for taking of marine 
mammals under an Authorization have the potential to take marine 
mammals by exposing them to impulsive noise and pressure waves 
generated by live ordnance detonation at or near the surface of the 
water. Exposure to energy or pressure resulting from these detonations 
could result in non-lethal injury (Level A harassment) and disturbance 
(Level B harassment). In addition, NMFS also considered the potential 
for harassment from vessel operations. NMFS outlines the analysis of 
potential impacts from these factors, including consideration of Eglin 
AFB's

[[Page 72636]]

analysis in its MMPA application for an authorization, in the following 
sections. The potential effects of impulsive sound sources (underwater 
detonations) from the proposed training activities may include one or 
more of the following: tolerance, masking, disturbance, hearing 
threshold shift, stress response, and lethal responses.

Brief Background on Sound

    An understanding of the basic properties of underwater sound is 
necessary to comprehend many of the concepts and analyses presented in 
this document. NMFS presents a summary in this section.
    Sound is a wave of pressure variations propagating through a medium 
(e.g., water). Pressure variations occur by compressing and relaxing 
the medium. Sound measurements exist in two forms: Intensity and 
pressure. Acoustic intensity is the average rate of energy transmitted 
through a unit area in a specified direction (expressed in watts per 
square meter (W/m\2\)). Acoustic intensity is rarely measured directly, 
but rather from ratios of pressures; the standard reference pressure 
for underwater sound is 1 microPascal ([micro]Pa); for airborne sound, 
the standard reference pressure is 20 [micro]Pa (Richardson et al., 
1995).
    Acousticians have adopted a logarithmic scale for sound 
intensities, denoted in decibels (dB). Decibel measurements represent 
the ratio between a measured pressure value and a reference pressure 
value (in this case 1 [micro]Pa or, for airborne sound, 20 [micro]Pa). 
The logarithmic nature of the scale means that each 10-dB increase is a 
ten-fold increase in acoustic power (and a 20-dB increase is then a 
100-fold increase in power; and a 30-dB increase is a 1,000-fold 
increase in power). A ten-fold increase in acoustic power does not mean 
that the listener perceives sound as being ten times louder, however. 
Humans perceive a 10-dB increase in sound level as a doubling of 
loudness, and a 10-dB decrease in sound level as a halving of loudness. 
The term ``sound pressure level'' implies a decibel measure and a 
reference pressure that is the denominator of the ratio. Throughout 
this document, NMFS uses 1 microPascal (denoted re: 1[micro]Pa) as a 
standard reference pressure unless noted otherwise.
    It is important to note that decibel values underwater and decibel 
values in air are not the same (different reference pressures and 
densities/sound speeds between media) and one should not directly 
compare the two mediums. Because of the different densities of air and 
water and the different decibel standards (i.e., reference pressures) 
in air and water, a sound with the same level in air and in water would 
be approximately 62 dB lower in air. Thus, a sound that measures 160 dB 
(re: 1 [micro]Pa) underwater would have the same approximate effective 
level as a sound that is 98 dB (re: 20 [micro]Pa) in air.
    Sound frequency is measured in cycles per second, or Hertz 
(abbreviated Hz), and is analogous to musical pitch; high-pitched 
sounds contain high frequencies and low-pitched sounds contain low 
frequencies. Natural sounds in the ocean span a huge range of 
frequencies: from earthquake noise at 5 Hz to harbor porpoise clicks at 
150,000 Hz (150 kHz). These sounds are so low or so high in pitch that 
humans cannot even hear them; acousticians call these infrasonic 
(typically below 20 Hz) and ultrasonic (typically above 20,000 Hz) 
sounds, respectively. A single sound may consist of many different 
frequencies together. Acousticians characterize sounds made up of only 
a small range of frequencies as ``narrowband'' and sounds with a broad 
range of frequencies as ``broadband''; explosives are an example of a 
broadband sound source.

Acoustic Impacts

    The effects of noise on marine mammals are highly variable. 
Categorization of these effects includes the following (based on 
Richardson et al., 1995):
     The sound may be too weak to be heard at the location of 
the animal (i.e., lower than the prevailing ambient noise level, the 
hearing threshold of the animal at relevant frequencies, or both);
     The sound may be audible but not strong enough to elicit 
any overt behavioral response;
     The sound may elicit reactions of variable conspicuousness 
and variable relevance to the well-being of the marine mammal; these 
can range from temporary alert responses to active avoidance reactions, 
such as stampedes into the sea from terrestrial haul-out sites;
     Upon repeated exposure, a marine mammal may exhibit 
diminishing responsiveness (habituation), or disturbance effects may 
persist; the latter is most likely with sounds that are highly variable 
in characteristics, infrequent and unpredictable in occurrence (as are 
vehicle launches), and associated with situations that a marine mammal 
perceives as a threat;
     Any anthropogenic sound that is strong enough to be heard 
has the potential to reduce (mask) the ability of a marine mammal to 
hear natural sounds at similar frequencies, including calls from 
conspecifics, and underwater environmental sounds such as surf noise;
     If marine mammals remain in an area because it is 
important for feeding, breeding, or some other biologically important 
purpose even though there is chronic exposure to noise, it is possible 
that there could be sound-induced physiological stress; this might in 
turn have negative effects on the well-being or reproduction of the 
animals involved; and
     Very strong sounds have the potential to cause temporary 
or permanent reduction in hearing sensitivity. In terrestrial mammals, 
and presumably marine mammals, received sound levels must far exceed 
the animal's hearing threshold for there to be any temporary threshold 
shift (TTS) in its hearing ability. For transient sounds, there is an 
inverse relation to the sound level necessary to cause TTS compared to 
the duration of the sound. Received sound levels must be even higher 
for there to be risk of permanent hearing impairment (PTS). In 
addition, intense acoustic or explosive events may cause trauma to 
tissues associated with organs vital for hearing, sound production, 
respiration, and other functions. This trauma may include minor to 
severe hemorrhage.
    When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the 
marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds 
of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Current 
data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing 
capabilities (Richardson et al., 1995; Southall et al., 1997; Wartzok 
and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008).
    Southall et al. (2007) designated ``functional hearing groups'' for 
marine mammals based on available behavioral data; audiograms derived 
from auditory evoked potentials; anatomical modeling; and other data. 
Southall et al. (2007) also estimated the lower and upper frequencies 
of functional hearing for each group. However, animals are less 
sensitive to sounds at the outer edges of their functional hearing 
range and are more sensitive to a range of frequencies within the 
middle of their functional hearing range.
    The functional groups and the associated frequencies are:
     Low frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes): 
Functional hearing estimates occur between approximately 7 Hz and 30 
kilohertz (kHz) (extended from 22 kHz based on data indicating that 
some mysticetes can hear above 22 kHz; Au et al., 2006;

[[Page 72637]]

Lucifredi and Stein, 2007; Ketten and Mountain, 2009; Tubelli et al., 
2012);
     Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, six 
species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and 
bottlenose whales): Functional hearing estimates occur between 
approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
     High-frequency cetaceans (eight species of true porpoises, 
six species of river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana, and four species 
of cephalorhynchids): functional hearing estimates occur between 
approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz; and
     Pinnipeds in water: Phocid (true seals) functional hearing 
estimates occur between approximately 75 Hz and 100 kHz (Hemila et al., 
2006; Mulsow et al., 2011; Reichmuth et al., 2013) and otariid (seals 
and sea lions) functional hearing estimates occur between approximately 
100 Hz to 40 kHz.
    As mentioned previously in this document, two marine mammal species 
(of the odontocete group) are likely to occur in the proposed action 
area. NMFS considers a species' functional hearing group when analyzing 
the effects of exposure to sound on marine mammals.

Vocalization and Hearing

    Bottlenose dolphins can typically hear within a broad frequency 
range of 0.04 to 160 kHz (Au, 1993; Turl, 1993). Electrophysiological 
experiments suggest that the bottlenose dolphin brain has a dual 
analysis system: one specialized for ultrasonic clicks and another for 
lower-frequency sounds, such as whistles (Ridgway, 2000). Scientists 
have reported a range of highest sensitivity between 25 and 70 kHz, 
with peaks in sensitivity at 25 and 50 kHz (Nachtigall et al., 2000). 
Research on the same individuals indicates that auditory thresholds 
obtained by electrophysiological methods correlate well with those 
obtained in behavior studies, except at lower (10 kHz) and higher (80 
and 100 kHz) frequencies (Finneran and Houser, 2006).
    Sounds emitted by bottlenose dolphins fall into two broad 
categories: pulsed sounds (including clicks and burst-pulses) and 
narrow-band continuous sounds (whistles), which usually are frequency 
modulated. Clicks have a dominant frequency range of 110 to 130 kHz and 
a source level of 218 to 228 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa (peak-to-peak) (Au, 1993) 
and 3.4 to 14.5 kHz at 125 to 173 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (peak-to-peak) 
(Ketten, 1998). Whistles are primarily associated with communication 
and can serve to identify specific individuals (i.e., signature 
whistles) (Caldwell and Caldwell, 1965; Janik et al., 2006). Cook et 
al. (2004) classified up to 52 percent of whistles produced by 
bottlenose dolphin groups with mother-calf pairs as signature whistles. 
Sound production is also influenced by group type (single or multiple 
individuals), habitat, and behavior (Nowacek, 2005). Bray calls (low-
frequency vocalizations; majority of energy below 4 kHz), for example, 
are used when capturing fish, specifically sea trout (Salmo trutta) and 
Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), in some regions (i.e., Moray Firth, 
Scotland) (Janik, 2000). Additionally, whistle production has been 
observed to increase while feeding (Acevedo-Guti[eacute]rrez and 
Stienessen, 2004; Cook et al., 2004).
    Researchers have recorded a variety of sounds including whistles, 
echolocation clicks, squawks, barks, growls, and chirps for the 
Atlantic spotted dolphin. Whistles have dominant frequencies below 20 
kHz (range: 7.1 to 14.5 kHz) but multiple harmonics extend above 100 
kHz, while burst pulses consist of frequencies above 20 kHz (dominant 
frequency of approximately 40 kHz) (Lammers et al., 2003). Other 
sounds, such as squawks, barks, growls, and chirps, typically range in 
frequency from 0.1 to 8 kHz (Thomson and Richardson, 1995). Recorded 
echolocation clicks had two dominant frequency ranges at 40 to 50 kHz 
and 110 to 130 kHz, depending on source level (i.e., lower source 
levels typically correspond to lower frequencies and higher frequencies 
to higher source levels (Au and Herzing, 2003). Echolocation click 
source levels as high as 210 dB re 1 [mu]Pa-m peak-to-peak have been 
recorded (Au and Herzing, 2003). Spotted dolphins in the Bahamas were 
frequently recorded during agonistic/aggressive interactions with 
bottlenose dolphins (and their own species) to produce squawks (0.2 to 
12 kHz broad band burst pulses; males and females), screams (5.8 to 9.4 
kHz whistles; males only), barks (0.2 to 20 kHz burst pulses; males 
only), and synchronized squawks (0.1-15 kHz burst pulses; males only in 
a coordinated group) (Herzing, 1996). The hearing ability for the 
Atlantic spotted dolphin is unknown. However, odontocetes are generally 
adapted to hear high-frequencies (Ketten, 1997).

Effects of Impulsive Sources

    Marine mammals respond to various types of anthropogenic sounds 
introduced in the ocean environment. Responses are highly variable and 
depend on a suite of internal and external factors which in turn 
results in varying degrees of significance (NRC, 2003; Southall et al., 
2007). Internal factors include: (1) Individual hearing sensitivity, 
activity pattern, and motivational and behavioral state (e.g., feeding, 
traveling) at the time it receives the stimulus; (2) past exposure of 
the animal to the noise, which may lead to habituation or 
sensitization; (3) individual noise tolerance; and (4) demographic 
factors such as age, sex, and presence of dependent offspring. External 
factors include: (1) Non-acoustic characteristics of the sound source 
(e.g., if it is moving or stationary); (2) environmental variables 
(e.g., substrate) which influence sound transmission; and (3) habitat 
characteristics and location (e.g., open ocean vs. confined area).
    Underwater explosive detonations send a shock wave and sound energy 
through the water and can release gaseous by-products, create an 
oscillating bubble, or cause a plume of water to shoot up from the 
water surface. The shock wave and accompanying noise are of most 
concern to marine animals. Depending on the intensity of the shock wave 
and size, location, and depth of the animal, an animal can be injured, 
killed, suffer non-lethal physical effects, experience hearing related 
effects with or without behavioral responses, or exhibit temporary 
behavioral responses or tolerance from hearing the blast sound. 
Generally, exposures to higher levels of impulse and pressure levels 
would result in greater impacts to an individual animal.

Tolerance

    Numerous studies have shown that underwater sounds are often 
readily detectable by marine mammals in the water at distances of many 
kilometers. However, other studies have shown that marine mammals at 
distances more than a few kilometers away often show no apparent 
response to activities of various types (Miller et al., 2005). This is 
often true even in cases when the sounds must be readily audible to the 
animals based on measured received levels and the hearing sensitivity 
of that mammal group. Although various baleen whales, toothed whales, 
and (less frequently) pinnipeds have been shown to react behaviorally 
to underwater sound from sources such as airgun pulses or vessels under 
some conditions, at other times, mammals of all three types have shown 
no overt reactions (e.g., Malme et al., 1986; Richardson et al., 1995; 
Madsen and Mohl, 2000; Croll et al., 2001; Jacobs and Terhune, 2002; 
Madsen et al., 2002; Miller et al., 2005).

[[Page 72638]]

Masking

    Marine mammals use acoustic signals for a variety of purposes, 
which differ among species, but include communication between 
individuals, navigation, foraging, reproduction, and learning about 
their environment (Erbe and Farmer 2000, Tyack 2000). Masking, or 
auditory interference, generally occurs when sounds in the environment 
are louder than and of a similar frequency to, auditory signals an 
animal is trying to receive. Masking is a phenomenon that affects 
animals that are trying to receive acoustic information about their 
environment, including sounds from other members of their species, 
predators, prey, and sounds that allow them to orient in their 
environment. Masking these acoustic signals can disturb the behavior of 
individual animals, groups of animals, or entire populations.
    The extent of the masking interference depends on the spectral, 
temporal, and spatial relationships between the signals an animal is 
trying to receive and the masking noise, in addition to other factors. 
In humans, significant masking of tonal signals occurs as a result of 
exposure to noise in a narrow band of similar frequencies. As the sound 
level increases, though, the detection of frequencies above those of 
the masking stimulus decreases also. NMFS expects this principle to 
apply to marine mammals because of common biomechanical cochlear 
properties across taxa.
    Richardson et al. (1995) argued that the maximum radius of 
influence of an industrial noise (including broadband low frequency 
sound transmission) on a marine mammal is the distance from the source 
to the point at which the animal can barely hear the noise. This range 
applies to either the hearing sensitivity of the animal or the 
background noise level present. Industrial masking is most likely to 
affect some species' ability to detect communication calls and natural 
sounds (i.e., surf noise, prey noise, etc.; Richardson et al., 1995).
    The echolocation calls of toothed whales are subject to masking by 
high frequency sound. Human data indicate low-frequency sound can mask 
high-frequency sounds (i.e., upward masking). Studies on captive 
odontocetes by Au et al. (1974, 1985, and 1993) indicate that some 
species may use various processes to reduce masking effects (e.g., 
adjustments in echolocation call intensity or frequency as a function 
of background noise conditions). There is also evidence that the 
directional hearing abilities of odontocetes are useful in reducing 
masking at the high-frequencies these cetaceans use to echolocate, but 
not at the low-to-moderate frequencies they use to communicate 
(Zaitseva et al., 1980). A study by Nachtigall and Supin (2008) showed 
that false killer whales adjust their hearing to compensate for ambient 
sounds and the intensity of returning echolocation signals.
    Holt et al. (2009) measured killer whale call source levels and 
background noise levels in the one to 40 kHz band and reported that the 
whales increased their call source levels by one dB SPL for every one 
dB SPL increase in background noise level. Similarly, another study on 
St. Lawrence River belugas (Delphinapterus leucas) reported a similar 
rate of increase in vocalization activity in response to passing 
vessels (Scheifele et al., 2005).
    Although masking is a phenomenon which may occur naturally, the 
introduction of loud anthropogenic sounds into the marine environment 
at frequencies important to marine mammals increases the severity and 
frequency of occurrence of masking. For example, baleen whales exposed 
to continuous low-frequency sound from an industrial source, would be 
present within a reduced acoustic area around where it could hear the 
calls of another whale. The components of background noise that are 
similar in frequency to the signal in question primarily determine the 
degree of masking of that signal. In general, there is little data 
about the degree to which marine mammals rely upon detection of sounds 
from conspecifics, predators, prey, or other natural sources. In the 
absence of specific information about the importance of detecting these 
natural sounds, it is not possible to predict the impact of masking on 
marine mammals (Richardson et al., 1995). In general, masking effects 
are expected to be less severe when sounds are transient than when they 
are continuous.
    While it may occur temporarily, NMFS does not expect auditory 
masking to result in detrimental impacts to an individual's or 
population's survival, fitness, or reproductive success. Dolphin 
movement is not restricted within the W-151 test area, allowing for 
movement out of the area to avoid masking impacts. Also, masking is 
typically of greater concern for those marine mammals that utilize low 
frequency communications, such as baleen whales and, as such, is not 
likely to occur for marine mammals in the W-151 test area.

Disturbance

    Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-
specific. Many different variables can influence an animal's perception 
of and response to (in both nature and magnitude) an acoustic event. An 
animal's prior experience with a sound or sound source affects whether 
it is less likely (habituation) or more likely (sensitization) to 
respond to certain sounds in the future (animals can also be innately 
pre-disposed to respond to certain sounds in certain ways) (Southall et 
al., 2007). Related to the sound itself, the perceived nearness of the 
sound, bearing of the sound (approaching versus retreating), similarity 
of the sound to biologically relevant sounds in the animal's 
environment (i.e., calls of predators, prey, or conspecifics), and 
familiarity of the sound may affect the way an animal responds to the 
sound (Southall et al., 2007). Individuals (of different age, gender, 
reproductive status, etc.) among most populations will have variable 
hearing capabilities, and differing behavioral sensitivities to sounds 
that will be affected by prior conditioning, experience, and current 
activities of those individuals. Often, specific acoustic features of 
the sound and contextual variables (i.e., proximity, duration, or 
recurrence of the sound or the current behavior that the marine mammal 
is engaged in or its prior experience), as well as entirely separate 
factors such as the physical presence of a nearby vessel, may be more 
relevant to the animal's response than the received level alone.
    Because the few available studies show wide variation in response 
to underwater sound, it is difficult to quantify exactly how sound from 
the Maritime WSEP operational testing would affect marine mammals. 
Exposure of marine mammals to sound sources can result in, but is not 
limited to, no response or any of the following observable responses: 
Increased alertness; orientation or attraction to a sound source; vocal 
modifications; cessation of feeding; cessation of social interaction; 
alteration of movement or diving behavior; avoidance; habitat 
abandonment (temporary or permanent); and, in severe cases, panic, 
flight, stampede, or stranding, potentially resulting in death 
(Southall et al., 2007). Richardson first conducted a review of marine 
mammal responses to anthropogenic sound in 1995. A more recent review 
(Nowacek et al., 2007) addresses studies conducted since 1995 and 
focuses on observations where researchers knew or could estimate the 
received sound level of the exposed marine mammal(s).
    The following sub-sections provide examples of behavioral responses 
that

[[Page 72639]]

provide an idea of the variability in behavioral responses expected 
given the differential sensitivities of marine mammal species to sound 
and the wide range of potential acoustic sources to which a marine 
mammal may be exposed. Estimates of the types of behavioral responses 
that could occur for a given sound exposure should be determined from 
the literature that is available for each species or extrapolated from 
closely related species when no information exists.
    Flight Response: A flight response is a dramatic change in normal 
movement to a directed and rapid movement away from the perceived 
location of a sound source. Relatively little information on flight 
responses of marine mammals to anthropogenic signals exist, although 
observations of flight responses to the presence of predators have 
occurred (Connor and Heithaus, 1996).
    Response to Predators: Evidence suggests that at least some marine 
mammals have the ability to acoustically identify potential predators. 
For example, certain groups of killer whales, but not others, 
frequently target harbor seals residing in the coastal waters off 
British Columbia. The seals discriminate between the calls of 
threatening and non-threatening killer whales (Deecke et al., 2002), a 
capability that should increase survivorship while reducing the energy 
required for attending to and responding to all killer whale calls. The 
occurrence of masking or hearing impairment may prevent marine mammals 
from responding to the acoustic cues produced by their predators. 
Whether or not this is a possibility depends on the duration of the 
masking/hearing impairment and the likelihood of encountering a 
predator during the time that the sound impedes predator cues. Predator 
evasion is typically of greater concern for coastal marine mammals. 
Because of the low likelihood of bottlenose dolphin predators, such as 
killer whales, occurring within the W-151 test area, NMFS does not 
consider predator evasion likely to occur.
    Diving: Changes in dive behavior can vary widely. They may consist 
of increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as 
changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive. Variations in 
dive behavior may reflect interruptions in biologically significant 
activities (e.g., foraging) or they may be of little biological 
significance. Variations in dive behavior may also expose an animal to 
potentially harmful conditions (e.g., increasing the chance of ship-
strike) or may serve as an avoidance response that enhances 
survivorship. The impact of a variation in diving resulting from an 
acoustic exposure depends on what the animal is doing at the time of 
the exposure and the type and magnitude of the response.
    Nowacek et al. (2004) reported disruptions of dive behaviors in 
foraging North Atlantic right whales when exposed to an alerting 
stimulus, an action, they noted, that could lead to an increased 
likelihood of ship strike. However, the whales did not respond to 
playbacks of either right whale social sounds or vessel noise, 
highlighting the importance of the sound characteristics in producing a 
behavioral reaction. Conversely, studies have observed Indo-Pacific 
humpback dolphins (Sousa chinensis) to dive for longer periods of time 
in areas where vessels were present and/or approaching (Ng and Leung, 
2003). In both of these studies, one cannot decouple the influence of 
the sound exposure from the physical presence of a surface vessel, thus 
complicating interpretations of the relative contribution of each 
stimulus to the response. Indeed, the presence of surface vessels, 
their approach and speed of approach, seemed to be significant factors 
in the response of the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Ng and Leung, 
2003). Researchers did not find that the low frequency signals of the 
Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC) sound source affected dive 
times of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Hawaiian waters 
(Frankel and Clark, 2000) or overtly affected elephant seal (Mirounga 
angustirostris) dives (Costa et al., 2003). They did, however, produce 
subtle effects that varied in direction and degree among the individual 
seals, illustrating the equivocal nature of behavioral effects and 
consequent difficulty in defining and predicting them.
    Foraging: Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to 
correlate with anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred 
by observed displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of 
secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes 
in dive behavior. Noise from seismic surveys was not found to impact 
the feeding behavior in western grey whales off the coast of Russia 
(Yazvenko et al., 2007) and sperm whales engaged in foraging dives did 
not abandon dives when exposed to distant signatures of seismic airguns 
(Madsen et al., 2006). Balaenopterid whales exposed to moderate low-
frequency signals similar to the ATOC sound source demonstrated no 
variation in foraging activity (Croll et al., 2001), whereas five out 
of six North Atlantic right whales exposed to an acoustic alarm 
interrupted their foraging dives (Nowacek et al., 2004). Although the 
received sound pressure level at the animals was similar in the latter 
two studies, the frequency, duration, and temporal pattern of signal 
presentation were different. These factors, as well as differences in 
species sensitivity, are likely contributing factors to the 
differential response. A determination of whether foraging disruptions 
incur fitness consequences would require information on or estimates of 
the energetic requirements of the individuals and the relationship 
between prey availability, foraging effort, and success, and the life 
history stage of the animal.
    Breathing: Variations in respiration occur naturally with different 
behaviors, and variations in respiration rate as a function of acoustic 
exposure could co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a 
flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates 
in and of themselves may be representative of annoyance or an acute 
stress response. Mean exhalation rates of gray whales at rest and while 
diving were found to be unaffected by seismic surveys conducted 
adjacent to the whale feeding grounds (Gailey et al., 2007). Studies 
with captive harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) showed increased 
respiration rates upon introduction of acoustic alarms (Kastelein et 
al., 2001; Kastelein et al., 2006) and emissions for underwater data 
transmission (Kastelein et al., 2005). However, exposure of the same 
acoustic alarm to a striped dolphin under the same conditions did not 
elicit a response (Kastelein et al., 2006), again highlighting the 
importance in understanding species differences in the tolerance of 
underwater noise when determining the potential for impacts resulting 
from anthropogenic sound exposure.
    Social Relationships: Sound can affect social interactions between 
mammals via the disruption of communication signals or by the 
displacement of individuals. Disruption of social relationships 
therefore depends on the disruption of other behaviors (e.g., caused 
avoidance, masking, etc.) and this notice's discussion does not provide 
a specific overview. However, one should consider social disruptions in 
the context of the relationships that are affected. Long-term 
disruptions of mother/calf pairs or mating displays have the potential 
to affect the growth and survival or reproductive effort/success of 
individuals, respectively.
    Vocalizations (also see Masking Section): Vocal changes in response 
to anthropogenic noise can occur across

[[Page 72640]]

the repertoire of sound production modes used by marine mammals, such 
as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and singing. 
Changes may result in response to a need to compete with an increase in 
background noise or may reflect an increased vigilance or startle 
response. For example, in the presence of low-frequency active sonar, 
humpback whales have been observed to increase the length of their 
''songs'' (Miller et al., 2000; Fristrup et al., 2003), possibly due to 
the overlap in frequencies between the whale song and the low-frequency 
active sonar. Some have suggested a similar compensatory effect for the 
presence of low frequency vessel noise for right whales; as researchers 
have observed right whales shift the frequency content of their calls 
upward while reducing the rate of calling in areas of increased 
anthropogenic noise (Parks et al., 2007). Killer whales off the 
northwestern coast of the United States have been observed to increase 
the duration of primary calls once a threshold in observing vessel 
density (e.g., whale watching) was reached, which has been suggested as 
a response to increased masking noise produced by the vessels (Foote et 
al., 2004). In contrast, both sperm and pilot whales potentially ceased 
sound production during the Heard Island feasibility test (Bowles et 
al., 1994), although it cannot be absolutely determined whether the 
inability to acoustically detect the animals was due to the cessation 
of sound production or the displacement of animals from the area.
    Avoidance: Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an 
area as a result of the presence of a sound. Richardson et al., (1995) 
noted that avoidance reactions are the most obvious manifestations of 
disturbance in marine mammals. It is qualitatively different from the 
flight response, but also differs in the magnitude of the response 
(i.e., directed movement, rate of travel, etc.). Often, avoidance is 
temporary and animals return to the area once the noise has ceased. 
Longer term displacement is possible, however, which can lead to 
changes in abundance or distribution patterns of the species in the 
affected region if they do not become acclimated to the presence of the 
sound (Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder et al., 2006; Teilmann et al., 
2006). Studies have observed acute avoidance responses in captive 
porpoises and pinnipeds exposed to a number of different sound sources 
(Kastelein et al., 2001; Finneran et al., 2003; Kastelein et al., 
2006a, b). Short term avoidance of seismic surveys, low frequency 
emissions, and acoustic deterrents has also been noted in wild 
populations of odontocetes (Bowles et al., 1994; Goold, 1996; 1998; 
Stone et al., 2000; Morton and Symonds, 2002) and to some extent in 
mysticetes (Gailey et al., 2007), while longer term or repetitive/
chronic displacement for some dolphin groups and for manatees has been 
suggested to be due to the presence of chronic vessel noise (Haviland-
Howell et al., 2007; Miksis-Olds et al., 2007).
    Haviland-Howell et al. (2007) compared sighting rates of bottlenose 
dolphins within the Wilmington, North Carolina stretch of the Atlantic 
Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) on weekends, when recreational vessel 
traffic was high, to weekdays, when vessel traffic was relatively 
minimal. The authors found that dolphins were less often sighted in the 
ICW during times of increased boat traffic (i.e., on weekends) and 
theorized that because vessel noise falls within the frequencies of 
dolphin communication whistles and primary energy of most fish 
vocalizations, the continuous vessel traffic along that stretch of the 
ICW could result in social and foraging impacts. However, the extent to 
which these impacts affect individual health and population structure 
is unknown.
    Orientation: A shift in an animal's resting state or an attentional 
change via an orienting response represent behaviors that would be 
considered mild disruptions if it occurred alone. As previously 
mentioned, the responses may co-occur with other behaviors; for 
instance, an animal may initially orient toward a sound source, and 
then move away from it. Thus, one should consider any orienting 
response in context of other reactions that may occur.
    Vessel and Aircraft Presence: The marine mammals most vulnerable to 
vessel strikes are slow-moving and/or spend extended periods of time at 
the surface in order to restore oxygen levels within their tissues 
after deep dives (e.g., North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena 
glacialis), fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus), and sperm whales). 
Smaller marine mammals such as common bottlenose and Atlantic spotted 
dolphins are agile and move more quickly through the water, making them 
less susceptible to ship strikes. NMFS and Eglin AFB are not aware of 
any vessel strikes of common bottlenose and Atlantic spotted dolphins 
within in W-151 during training operations and both parties do not 
anticipate that Eglin AFB vessels engaged in the specified activity 
would strike any marine mammals.
    Dolphins within the Gulf of Mexico are continually exposed to 
recreational, commercial, and military vessels. Behaviorally, marine 
mammals may or may not respond to the operation of vessels and 
associated noise. Responses to vessels vary widely among marine mammals 
in general, but also among different species of small cetaceans. 
Responses may include attraction to the vessel (Richardson et al., 
1995); altering travel patterns to avoid vessels (Constantine, 2001; 
Nowacek et al., 2001; Lusseau, 2003, 2006); relocating to other areas 
(Allen and Read, 2000); cessation of feeding, resting, and social 
interaction (Baker et al., 1983; Bauer and Herman, 1986; Hall, 1982; 
Krieger and Wing, 1984; Lusseau, 2003; Constantine et al., 2004); 
abandoning feeding, resting, and nursing areas (Jurasz and Jurasz 1979; 
Dean et al., 1985; Glockner-Ferrari and Ferrari, 1985, 1990; Lusseau, 
2005; Norris et al., 1985; Salden, 1988; Forest, 2001; Morton and 
Symonds, 2002; Courbis, 2004; Bejder, 2006); stress (Romano et al., 
2004); and changes in acoustic behavior (Van Parijs and Corkeron, 
2001). However, in some studies marine mammals display no reaction to 
vessels (Watkins, 1986; Nowacek et al., 2003) and many odontocetes show 
considerable tolerance to vessel traffic (Richardson et al., 1995). 
Dolphins may actually reduce the energetic cost of traveling by riding 
the bow or stern waves of vessels (Williams et al., 1992; Richardson et 
al., 1995).
    Aircraft produce noise at frequencies that are well within the 
frequency range of cetacean hearing and also produce visual signals 
such as the aircraft itself and its shadow (Richardson et al., 1995, 
Richardson and Wursig, 1997). A major difference between aircraft noise 
and noise caused by other anthropogenic sources is that the sound is 
generated in the air, transmitted through the water surface and then 
propagates underwater to the receiver, diminishing the received levels 
significantly below what is heard above the water's surface. Sound 
transmission from air to water is greatest in a sound cone 26 degrees 
directly under the aircraft.
    There are fewer reports of reactions of odontocetes to aircraft 
than those of pinnipeds. Responses to aircraft include diving, slapping 
the water with pectoral fins or tail fluke, or swimming away from the 
track of the aircraft (Richardson et al., 1995). The nature and degree 
of the response, or the lack thereof, are dependent upon the nature of 
the flight (e.g., type of aircraft, altitude, straight vs. circular 
flight pattern). Wursig et al. (1998) assessed the responses of 
cetaceans to aerial surveys in the north central and western Gulf of 
Mexico using a DeHavilland

[[Page 72641]]

Twin Otter fixed-wing airplane. The plane flew at an altitude of 229 m 
(751.3 ft) at 204 km/hr (126.7 mph) and maintained a minimum of 305 m 
(1,000 ft) straight line distance from the cetaceans. Water depth was 
100 to 1,000 m (328 to 3,281 ft). Bottlenose dolphins most commonly 
responded by diving (48 percent), while 14 percent responded by moving 
away. Other species (e.g., beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) and sperm 
whales) show considerable variation in reactions to aircraft but diving 
or swimming away from the aircraft are the most common reactions to low 
flights (less than 500 m; 1,640 ft).

Stress Response

    An acoustic source is considered a potential stressor if, by its 
action on the animal, via auditory or non-auditory means, it may 
produce a stress response in the animal. Here, the stress response will 
refer to an increase in energetic expenditure that results from 
exposure to the stressor and which is predominantly characterized by 
either the stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system (SNS) or the 
hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis (Reeder and Kramer, 2005). 
The SNS response to a stressor is immediate and acute and occurs by the 
release of the catecholamine neurohormones norepinephrine and 
epinephrine (i.e., adrenaline). These hormones produce elevations in 
the heart and respiration rate, increase awareness, and increase the 
availability of glucose and lipids for energy. The HPA response results 
in increases in the secretion of the glucocorticoid steroid hormones, 
predominantly cortisol in mammals. The presence and magnitude of a 
stress response in an animal depends on a number of factors. These 
include the animal's life history stage (e.g., neonate, juvenile, 
adult), the environmental conditions, reproductive or developmental 
state, and experience with the stressor. Not only will these factors be 
subject to individual variation, but they will also vary within an 
individual over time. The stress response may or may not result in a 
behavioral change, depending on the characteristics of the exposed 
animal. However, provided that a stress response occurs, NMFS assumes 
that some contribution is made to the animal's allostatic load. One can 
assume that any immediate effect of exposure that produces an injury 
also produce a stress response and contribute to the allostatic load. 
Allostasis is the ability of an animal to maintain stability through 
change by adjusting its physiology in response to both predictable and 
unpredictable events (McEwen and Wingfield, 2003). If the animal does 
not perceive the sound, the acoustic source would not produce tissue 
effects and does not produce a stress response by any other means. 
Thus, NMFS assumes that the exposure does not contribute to the 
allostatic load.

Physiology-Hearing Threshold Shift

    In mammals, high-intensity sound may rupture the eardrum, damage 
the small bones in the middle ear, or over stimulate the 
electromechanical hair cells that convert the fluid motions caused by 
sound into neural impulses sent to the brain. Lower level exposures may 
cause a loss of hearing sensitivity, termed a threshold shift (TS) 
(Miller, 1974). Incidence of TS may be either permanent, referred to as 
permanent threshold shift (PTS), or temporary, referred to as temporary 
threshold shift (TTS). The amplitude, duration, frequency, and temporal 
pattern, and energy distribution of sound exposure all affect the 
amount of associated TS and the frequency range in which it occurs. As 
amplitude and duration of sound exposure increase, generally, so does 
the amount of TS and recovery time. Human non-impulsive noise exposure 
guidelines are based on exposures of equal energy (the same SEL) 
producing equal amounts of hearing impairment regardless of how the 
sound energy distributes over time (NIOSH, 1998). Until recently, 
previous marine mammal TTS studies have also generally supported this 
equal energy relationship (Southall et al., 2007). Three newer studies, 
two by Mooney et al. (2009a, 2009b) on a single bottlenose dolphin 
either exposed to playbacks of Navy mid-frequency active sonar or 
octave-band noise (4-8 kHz) and one by Kastak et al. (2007) on a single 
California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) exposed to airborne 
octave-band noise (centered at 2.5 kHz), concluded that for all noise 
exposure situations the equal energy relationship may not be the best 
indicator to predict TTS onset levels. Generally, with sound exposures 
of equal energy, those that were quieter (lower SPL) with longer 
duration induced TTS onset more than louder (higher SPL) and shorter 
durations (more similar to noise from the Marine Corps' exercises at 
BT-9 and BT-11). For intermittent sounds, less threshold shift would 
occur than from a continuous exposure with the same energy (some 
recovery will occur between exposures) (Kryter et al., 1966; Ward, 
1997). Additionally, although TTS is temporary; very prolonged exposure 
to sound strong enough to elicit TTS, or shorter-term exposure to sound 
levels well above the TTS threshold, can cause PTS, at least in 
terrestrial mammals (Kryter, 1985). However, these studies highlight 
the inherent complexity of predicting TTS onset in marine mammals, as 
well as the importance of considering exposure duration when assessing 
potential impacts.
    PTS consists of non-recoverable physical damage to the sound 
receptors in the ear, which can include total or partial deafness, or 
an impaired ability to hear sounds in specific frequency ranges; NMFS 
considers PTS as Level A harassment. TTS is recoverable, resulting from 
temporary, non-injurious impacts to hearing-related tissues. NMFS 
considers TTS as Level B harassment.

Permanent Threshold Shift

    Auditory trauma represents direct mechanical injury to hearing 
related structures, including tympanic membrane rupture, 
disarticulation of the middle ear ossicles, and trauma to the inner ear 
structures such as the organ of Corti and the associated hair cells. 
Auditory trauma is irreversible and considered to be an injury that 
could result in PTS. PTS results from exposure to intense sounds that 
cause a permanent loss of inner or outer cochlear hair cells or exceed 
the elastic limits of certain tissues and membranes in the middle and 
inner ears and result in changes in the chemical composition of the 
inner ear fluids. In some cases, there can be total or partial deafness 
across all frequencies, whereas in other cases, the animal has an 
impaired ability to hear sounds in specific frequency ranges.
    There is no empirical data for onset of PTS in any marine mammal 
for ethical reasons. Therefore, research must extrapolate PTS-onset 
based on hearing loss growth rates (i.e., rate of how quickly threshold 
shifts grow in relation to increases in decibel level; expressed in dB 
of TTS/dB of noise) from limited marine mammal TTS studies and more 
numerous terrestrial mammal TTS/PTS experiments. Typically, the 
magnitude of a threshold shift increases with increasing duration or 
level of exposure, until it becomes asymptotic (growth rate begins to 
level or the upper limit of TTS; Mills et al., 1979; Clark et al., 
1987; Laroche et al., 1989; Yost, 2007). One presumes that PTS is 
likely if reduction to the hearing threshold occurs by greater than or 
equal to 40 dB (i.e., 40 dB of TTS).

Temporary Threshold Shift

    TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during

[[Page 72642]]

exposure to a loud sound (Kryter, 1985). Southall et al. (2007) 
indicate that although PTS is a tissue injury, TTS is not because the 
reduced hearing sensitivity following exposure to intense sound results 
primarily from fatigue, not loss, of cochlear hair cells and supporting 
structures and is reversible. Accordingly, NMFS classifies TTS as Level 
B Harassment, not Level A Harassment (injury); however, NMFS does not 
consider the onset of TTS to be the lowest level at which Level B 
Harassment may occur (see Behavior section).
    Southall et al. (2007) considers a 6 dB TTS (i.e., baseline hearing 
thresholds are elevated by 6 dB) sufficient to be recognized as an 
unequivocal deviation and thus a sufficient definition of TTS onset. 
Researchers testing hearing in marine mammals have experimentally 
induced TTS in bottlenose dolphins. For example, Finneran et al. (2002) 
exposed a trained captive bottlenose dolphin to a seismic watergun 
simulator with a single acoustic pulse. No TTS was observed in the 
dolphin at the highest exposure condition (peak: 207 kiloPascals (kPa; 
30 pressure per square inch (psi)); peak-to-peak: 228 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa; 
SEL: 188 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa\2\-s). Schludt et al. (2000) demonstrated 
temporary shifts in masked hearing thresholds in five bottlenose 
dolphins occurring generally between 192 and 201 dB rms (192 and 201 dB 
SEL) after exposure to intense, non-pulse, 1-second tones at 3 kHz, 10 
kHz, and 20 kHz. TTS onset occurred at mean sound exposure level of 195 
dB rms (195 dB SEL). At 0.4 kHz, no subjects exhibited threshold shifts 
after SPL exposures of 193 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa (192 dB re: 1 microPa\2\-s). 
In the same study, at 75 kHz, one dolphin exhibited a TTS after 
exposure at 182 dB SPL re: 1 [mu]Pa but not at higher exposure levels. 
Another dolphin experienced no threshold shift after exposure to 
maximum SPL levels of 193 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa at the same frequency.
    Preliminary research indicates that TTS and recovery after noise 
exposure are frequency dependent and that an inverse relationship 
exists between exposure time and sound pressure level associated with 
exposure (Mooney et al., 2005; Mooney, 2006). For example, Nachtigall 
et al. (2003) measured TTS in a bottlenose dolphin and found an average 
11-dB shift following a 30-minute net exposure to the octave-band noise 
(OBN) at a 7.5 kHz center frequency (maximum SPL of 179 dB re: 1 
[mu]Pa; SEL: 212-214 dB re:1 [mu]Pa\2\-s). No TTS was observed after 
exposure to the same duration and frequency noise with maximum SPLs of 
165 and 171 dB re:1 [mu]Pa. After 50 minutes of exposure to the same 
7.5 kHz frequency OBN, Natchigall et al. (2004) measured a 4 -8 dB 
shift (max SPL: 160 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa; SEL: 193-195 dB re:1 [mu]Pa\2\-s). 
Finneran et al. (2005) concluded that a sound exposure level of 195 dB 
re 1 [mu]Pa2-s is a reasonable threshold for the onset of TTS in 
bottlenose dolphins exposed to mid-frequency tones.

Lethal Responses

    Elgin AFB proposes to use several types of explosive sources during 
its training exercises. The underwater explosions from these weapons 
would send a shock wave and blast noise through the water, release 
gaseous by-products, create an oscillating bubble, and cause a plume of 
water to shoot up from the water surface. The shock wave and blast 
noise are of most concern to marine animals. In general, potential 
impacts from explosive detonations can range from brief effects (such 
as short term behavioral disturbance), tactile perception, physical 
discomfort, slight injury of the internal organs and the auditory 
system, to death of the animal (Yelverton et al., 1973; O'Keeffe and 
Young, 1984; DoN, 2001).
    The effects of an underwater explosion on a marine mammal depend on 
many factors, including the size, type, and depth of both the animal 
and the explosive charge; the depth of the water column; and the 
standoff distance between the charge and the animal, as well as the 
sound propagation properties of the environment. Physical damage of 
tissues resulting from a shock wave (from an explosive detonation) 
constitutes an injury. Blast effects are greatest at the gas-liquid 
interface (Landsberg, 2000) and gas containing organs, particularly the 
lungs and gastrointestinal tract, are especially susceptible to damage 
(Goertner, 1982; Hill 1978; Yelverton et al., 1973). Nasal sacs, 
larynx, pharynx, trachea, and lungs may be damaged by compression/
expansion caused by the oscillations of the blast gas bubble 
(Reidenberg and Laitman, 2003). Severe damage (from the shock wave) to 
the ears can include tympanic membrane rupture, fracture of the 
ossicles, damage to the cochlea, hemorrhage, and cerebrospinal fluid 
leakage into the middle ear.
    Non-lethal injury includes slight injury to internal organs and the 
auditory system; however, delayed lethality can be a result of 
individual or cumulative sublethal injuries (DoN, 2001). Immediate 
lethal injury would be a result of massive combined trauma to internal 
organs as a direct result of proximity to the point of detonation (DoN, 
2001). Exposure to distance explosions could result only in behavioral 
changes. Researchers have measured masked underwater hearing thresholds 
in two bottlenose dolphins and one beluga whale before and after 
exposure to impulsive underwater sounds with waveforms resembling 
distant signatures of underwater explosions (Finneran et al., 2000). 
The authors found no temporary shifts in masked-hearing thresholds, 
defined as a 6-dB or larger increase in threshold over pre-exposure 
levels, had been observed at the highest impulse level generated (500 
kg at 1.7 km, peak pressure 70 kPa); however, disruptions of the 
animals' trained behaviors began to occur at exposures corresponding to 
5 kg at 9.3 km and 5 kg at 1.5 km for the dolphins and 500 kg at 1.9 km 
for the beluga whale.

Anticipated Effects on Habitat

    Detonations of live ordnance would result in temporary changes to 
the water environment. Munitions could hit the targets and not explode 
in the water. However, because the targets are located over the water, 
in water explosions could occur. An underwater explosion from these 
weapons could send a shock wave and blast noise through the water, 
release gaseous by-products, create an oscillating bubble, and cause a 
plume of water to shoot up from the water surface. However, these 
effects would be temporary and not expected to last more than a few 
seconds.
    Similarly, Eglin AFB does not expect any long-term impacts with 
regard to hazardous constituents to occur. Eglin AFB considered the 
introduction of fuel, debris, ordnance, and chemical materials into the 
water column within its DEA. The potential effects of each were 
analyzed in the Draft Environmental Assessment and determined to be 
insignificant. The analyses are summarized in the following paragraphs 
(for a complete discussion of potential effects, please refer to 
section 3.3 in the DEA).
    Metals typically used to construct bombs, missiles, and gunnery 
rounds include copper, aluminum, steel, and lead, among others. 
Aluminum is also present in some explosive materials. These materials 
would settle to the seafloor after munitions detonate. Metal ions would 
slowly leach into the substrate and the water column, causing elevated 
concentrations in a small area around the munitions fragments. Some of 
the metals, such as aluminum, occur naturally in the ocean at varying 
concentrations and would not necessarily impact the substrate or water 
column. Other metals, such as lead, could cause toxicity in microbial 
communities in the substrate. However,

[[Page 72643]]

such effects would be localized to a very small distance around 
munitions fragments and would not significantly affect the overall 
habitat quality of sediments in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. In 
addition, metal fragments would corrode, degrade, and become encrusted 
over time.
    Chemical materials include explosive byproducts and also fuel, oil, 
and other fluids associated with remotely controlled target boats. 
Explosive byproducts would be introduced into the water column through 
detonation of live munitions. Explosive materials would include 2,4,6-
trinitrotoluene (TNT) and RDX, among others. Various byproducts are 
produced during and immediately after detonation of TNT and RDX. During 
the very brief time that a detonation is in progress, intermediate 
products may include carbon ions, nitrogen ions, oxygen ions, water, 
hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen gas, nitrous oxide, cyanic 
acid, and carbon dioxide (Becker, 1995). However, reactions quickly 
occur between the intermediates, and the final products consist mainly 
of water, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen gas, although 
small amounts of other compounds are typically produced as well.
    Chemicals introduced into the water column would be quickly 
dispersed by waves, currents, and tidal action, and eventually become 
uniformly distributed. A portion of the carbon compounds such as carbon 
monoxide and carbon dioxide would likely become integrated into the 
carbonate system (alkalinity and pH buffering capacity of seawater). 
Some of the nitrogen and carbon compounds, including petroleum 
products, would be metabolized or assimilated by phytoplankton and 
bacteria. Most of the gas products that do not react with the water or 
become assimilated by organisms would be released into the atmosphere. 
Due to dilution, mixing, and transformation, none of these chemicals 
are expected to have significant impacts on the marine environment.
    Explosive material that is not consumed in a detonation could sink 
to the substrate and bind to sediments. However, the quantity of such 
materials is expected to be inconsequential. Research has shown that if 
munitions function properly, nearly full combustion of the explosive 
materials will occur, and only extremely small amounts of raw material 
will remain. In addition, any remaining materials would be naturally 
degraded. TNT decomposes when exposed to sunlight (ultraviolet 
radiation), and is also degraded by microbial activity (Becker, 1995). 
Several types of microorganisms have been shown to metabolize TNT. 
Similarly, RDX decomposes by hydrolysis, ultraviolet radiation 
exposure, and biodegradation.
    While NMFS anticipates that the specified activity may result in 
marine mammals avoiding certain areas due to temporary ensonification, 
this impact to habitat and prey resources would be temporary and 
reversible. The main impact associated with the proposed activity would 
be temporarily elevated noise levels and the associated direct effects 
on marine mammals, previously discussed in this notice. Marine mammals 
are anticipated to temporarily vacate the area of live fire events. 
However, these events usually do not last more than 90 to 120 minutes 
at a time, and animals are anticipated to return to the activity area 
during periods of non-activity. Thus, based on the preceding 
discussion, NMFS does not anticipate that the proposed activity would 
have any habitat-related effects that could cause significant or long-
term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.

Proposed Mitigation

    In order to issue an incidental take authorization under section 
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods 
of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the 
least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its 
habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and 
areas of similar significance, and the availability of such species or 
stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant).
    The NDAA of 2004 amended the MMPA as it relates to military-
readiness activities and the incidental take authorization process such 
that ``least practicable adverse impact'' shall include consideration 
of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the 
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
    NMFS and Eglin AFB have worked to identify potential practicable 
and effective mitigation measures, which include a careful balancing of 
the likely benefit of any particular measure to the marine mammals with 
the likely effect of that measure on personnel safety, practicality of 
implementation, and impact on the ``military-readiness activity.'' NMFS 
refers the reader to Section 11 of their application for more detailed 
information on the proposed mitigation measures which include the 
following:

Visual Mitigation

    Eglin AFB would require visual monitoring during Maritime WSEP 
missions from surface vessels and three high-definition video cameras. 
If the high-definition video cameras are not operational for any 
reason, Eglin AFB will not conduct Maritime WSEP missions.
    In addition to the two types of visual monitoring discussed later, 
Eglin AFB personnel are present within the mission area (on boats and 
the GRATV) on each day of testing well in advance of weapon deployment, 
typically near sunrise. They will perform a variety of tasks including 
target preparation, equipment checks, etc., and will opportunistically 
observe for marine mammals and indicators as feasible throughout test 
preparation. However, such observations are considered incidental and 
would only occur as time and schedule permits. Any sightings would be 
relayed to the Lead Biologist, as described in the following mitigation 
sections.
    Vessel-Based Monitoring: Eglin AFB would station a large number of 
range clearing boats (approximately 20 to 25) around the test site to 
prevent non-participating vessels from entering the human safety zone. 
Based on the composite footprint, range clearing boats will be located 
approximately 15.28 km (9.5 mi) from the detonation point (see Figure 
11-1 in Eglin AFB's application). However, the actual distance will 
vary based on the size of the munition being deployed.
    Trained marine species observers would be aboard five of these 
boats and will conduct protected species surveys before and after each 
test. The protected species survey vessels will be dedicated solely to 
observing for marine species during the pre-mission surveys while the 
remaining safety boats clear the area of non-authorized vessels. The 
protected species survey vessels will begin surveying the area at 
sunrise. The area to be surveyed will encompass the largest applicable 
zone of influence (ZOI), which is the Level A harassment range. Animals 
that may enter the area after the pre-mission surveys have been 
completed and prior to detonation would not reach the predicted smaller 
slight lung injury and/or mortality zones.
    Because of human safety issues, observers will be required to leave 
the test area at least 30 minutes in advance of live weapon deployment 
and move to a position on the safety zone periphery, approximately 9.5 
miles from the detonation point. Observers will continue to scan for 
marine mammals

[[Page 72644]]

from the periphery, but effectiveness will be limited as the boat will 
remain at a designated station.
    Video Monitoring: In addition to vessel-based monitoring, three 
high-definition video cameras would be positioned on the GRATV anchored 
on-site, as described earlier, to allow for real-time monitoring for 
the duration of the mission. The camera configuration and actual number 
of cameras used would depend on specific mission requirements. In 
addition to monitoring the area for mission objective issues, the 
camera(s) would also monitor for the presence of protected species. A 
trained marine species observer from Eglin Natural Resources would be 
located in Eglin AFB's Central Control Facility, along with mission 
personnel, to view the video feed before and during test activities. 
The distance to which objects can be detected at the water surface by 
use of the cameras is considered generally comparable to that of the 
human eye.
    The GRATV will be located about 183 m (600 ft) from the target. The 
larger mortality threshold ranges correspond to the modified Goertner 
model adjusted for the weight of an Atlantic spotted dolphin calf, and 
extend from 0 to 237 m (0 to 778 ft) from the target, depending on the 
ordnance, and the Level A ranges for both common bottlenose and 
Atlantic spotted dolphins extend from 7 to 965 m (23 to 3,166 ft) from 
the target, depending on the ordnance and harassment criterion. Given 
these distances, observers could reasonably be expected to view a 
substantial portion of the mortality zone in front of the camera, 
although a small portion would be behind or to the side of the camera 
view. Some portion of the Level A harassment zone could also be viewed, 
although it would be less than that of the mortality zone (a large 
percentage would be behind or to the side of the camera view).

Pre-Mission Monitoring

    The purposes of pre-mission monitoring are to: (1) Evaluate the 
mission site for environmental suitability, and 2) verify that the ZOI 
is free of visually detectable marine mammals, as well as potential 
indicators of these species. On the morning of the mission, the Test 
Director and Safety Officer will confirm that there are no issues that 
would preclude mission execution and that weather is adequate to 
support mitigation measures.
    Sunrise or Two Hours Prior to Mission: Eglin AFB range clearing 
vessels and protected species survey vessels will be on site at least 
two hours prior to the mission. The Lead Biologist on board one survey 
vessel will assess the overall suitability of the mission site based on 
environmental conditions (sea state) and presence/absence of marine 
mammal indicators. This information will be communicated to Tower 
Control and relayed to the Safety Officer in Central Control Facility.
    One and One-Half Hours Prior to Mission: Vessel-based surveys will 
begin approximately one and one-half hours prior to live weapon 
deployment. Surface vessel observers will survey the ZOI and relay all 
marine species and indicator sightings, including the time of sighting, 
GPS location, and direction of travel, if known, to the Lead Biologist. 
The Lead Biologist will document all sighting information on report 
forms to be submitted to Eglin Natural Resources after each mission. 
Surveys would continue for approximately one hour. During this time, 
Eglin AFB personnel in the mission area will also observe for marine 
species as feasible. If marine mammals or indicators are observed 
within the ZOI, the range will be declared ``fouled,'' a term that 
signifies to mission personnel that conditions are such that a live 
ordnance drop cannot occur (e.g., protected species or civilian vessels 
are in the mission area). If no marine mammals or indicators are 
observed, Eglin AFB would declare the range clear of protected species.
    One-Half Hour Prior to Mission: At approximately 30 minutes to one 
hour prior to live weapon deployment, marine species observers will be 
instructed to leave the mission site and remain outside the safety 
zone, which on average will be 9.5 miles from the detonation point. The 
actual size is determined by weapon NEW and method of delivery. The 
survey team will continue to monitor for protected species while 
leaving the area. As the survey vessels leave the area, marine species 
monitoring of the immediate target areas will continue at CCF through 
the live video feed received from the high definition cameras on the 
GRATV. Once the survey vessels have arrived at the perimeter of the 
safety zone (approximately 30 minutes after being instructed to leave, 
depending on actual travel time) the range will be declared ``green'' 
and mission will be allowed to proceed, assuming all non-participating 
vessels have left the safety zone as well.
    Execution of Mission: Immediately prior to live weapon drop, the 
Test Director and Safety Officer will communicate to confirm the 
results of marine mammal surveys and the appropriateness of proceeding 
with the mission. The Safety Officer will have final authority to 
proceed with, postpone, or cancel the mission. The mission would be 
postponed if:
     Any of the high-definition video cameras are not 
operational for any reason.
     Any marine mammal is visually detected within the ZOI. 
Postponement would continue until the animal(s) that caused the 
postponement is: (1) Confirmed to be outside of the ZOI on a heading 
away from the targets; or (2) not seen again for 30 minutes and 
presumed to be outside the ZOI due to the animal swimming out of the 
range.
     Large schools of fish or large flocks of birds feeding at 
the surface are observed within the ZOI. Postponement would continue 
until these potential indicators are confirmed to be outside the ZOI.
     Any technical or mechanical issues related to the aircraft 
or target boats.
     Non-participating vessels enter the human safety zone 
prior to weapon release.
    In the event of a postponement, protected species monitoring would 
continue from the Central Control Facility through the live video feed.

Post-Mission Monitoring

    Post-mission monitoring is designed to determine the effectiveness 
of pre-mission mitigation by reporting sightings of any dead or injured 
marine mammals. Post-detonation monitoring surveys will commence once 
the mission has ended or, if required, as soon as personnel declare the 
mission area safe. Vessels will move into the survey area from outside 
the safety zone and monitor for at least 30 minutes, concentrating on 
the area down-current of the test site. This area is easily 
identifiable because of the floating debris in the water from impacted 
targets. Up to 10 Eglin AFB support vessels will be cleaning debris and 
collecting damaged targets from this area thus spending many hours in 
the area once the mission is completed. All vessels will be instructed 
to report any dead or injured marine mammals to the Lead Biologist. The 
protected species survey vessels will document any marine mammals that 
were killed or injured as a result of the mission and, if practicable, 
recover and examine any dead animals. The species, number, location, 
and behavior of any animals observed will be documented and reported to 
Eglin Natural Resources.

Mission Delays Due to Weather

    Eglin AFB would delay or reschedule Maritime WSEP missions if the 
Beaufort sea state is greater than number 4 at the

[[Page 72645]]

time of the test. The Lead Biologist aboard one of the survey vessels 
will make the final determination of whether conditions are conducive 
for sighting protected species or not.
    NMFS has carefully evaluated Eglin AFB's proposed mitigation 
measures in the context of ensuring that we prescribe the means of 
effecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal 
species and stocks and their habitat. NMFS' evaluation of potential 
measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to 
one another:
     The manner in which, and the degree to which, the 
successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize 
adverse impacts to marine mammals;
     The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to 
minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
     The practicability of the measure for applicant 
implementation.
    Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to 
accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on 
current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of 
the general goals listed here:
    1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals 
wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
    2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or 
number at biologically important time or location) exposed to training 
exercises that we expect to result in the take of marine mammals (this 
goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
    3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at 
biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed 
to training exercises that we expect to result in the take of marine 
mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing 
harassment takes only).
    4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number 
or number at biologically important time or location) to training 
exercises that we expect to result in the take of marine mammals (this 
goal may contribute to a, above, or to reducing the severity of 
harassment takes only).
    5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal 
habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that 
block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, 
permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance 
of habitat during a biologically important time.
    6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation--an increase in 
the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more 
effective implementation of the mitigation.
    Based on the evaluation of Eglin AFB's proposed measures, as well 
as other measures considered, NMFS has preliminarily determined that 
the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the 
least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their 
habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and 
areas of similar significance while also considering personnel safety, 
practicality of implementation, and the impact of effectiveness of the 
military readiness activity.
    The public comment period will afford the public an opportunity to 
submit recommendations, views, and/or concerns regarding this action 
and the proposed mitigation measures. While NMFS has preliminarily 
determined that the proposed mitigation measures presented in this 
document will effect the least practicable adverse impact on the 
affected species or stocks and their habitat, NMFS will consider all 
public comments to help inform our final decision. Consequently, the 
proposed mitigation measures may be refined, modified, removed, or 
added to prior to the issuance of the final rule based on public 
comments received and, where appropriate, further analysis of any 
additional mitigation measures.

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an Authorization for an activity, section 
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that we must set forth ``requirements 
pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.'' The MMPA 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that 
requests for an authorization must include the suggested means of 
accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result 
in increased knowledge of the species and our expectations of the level 
of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals present in the 
action area.
    Monitoring measures prescribed by us should accomplish one or more 
of the following general goals:
    1. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, both 
within the mitigation zone (thus allowing for more effective 
implementation of the mitigation) and during other times and locations, 
in order to generate more data to contribute to the analyses mentioned 
later;
    2. An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals 
would be affected by seismic airguns and other active acoustic sources 
and the likelihood of associating those exposures with specific adverse 
effects, such as behavioral harassment, temporary or permanent 
threshold shift;
    3. An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond 
to stimuli that we expect to result in take and how those anticipated 
adverse effects on individuals (in different ways and to varying 
degrees) may impact the population, species, or stock (specifically 
through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival) through any 
of the following methods:
    a. Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli compared to 
observations in the absence of stimuli (i.e., we need to be able to 
accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other 
pertinent information);
    b. Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli compared 
to observations in the absence of stimuli (i.e., we need to be able to 
accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other 
pertinent information);
    c. Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or areas with 
concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli;
    4. An increased knowledge of the affected species; and
    5. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain 
mitigation and monitoring measures.
    NMFS proposes to include the following measures in the Maritime 
WSEP Authorization (if issued). They are:
    (1) Eglin will track their use of the EGTTR for test firing 
missions and protected species observations, through the use of mission 
reporting forms.
    (2) A summary annual report of marine mammal observations and 
Maritime WSEP activities will be submitted to the NMFS Southeast 
Regional Office (SERO) and the Office of Protected Resources either at 
the time of a request for renewal of an Authorization or 90 days after 
expiration of the current Authorization if a new Authorization is not 
requested. This annual report must include the following information: 
(i) Date and time of each Maritime WSEP exercise; (ii) a complete 
description of the pre-exercise and post-exercise activities related to 
mitigating and monitoring the effects of Maritime WSEP exercises on 
marine mammal populations; and (iii) results of the Maritime WSEP 
exercise monitoring, including numbers by

[[Page 72646]]

species/stock of any marine mammals noted injured or killed as a result 
of the missions and number of marine mammals (by species if possible) 
that may have been harassed due to presence within the activity zone.
    (3) If any dead or injured marine mammals are observed or detected 
prior to testing, or injured or killed during live fire, a report must 
be made to NMFS by the following business day.
    (4) Any unauthorized takes of marine mammals (i.e., injury or 
mortality) must be immediately reported to NMFS and to the respective 
stranding network representative.

Estimated Numbers of Marine Mammals Taken by Harassment, Injury, and 
Mortality

    NMFS' analysis identified the physiological responses, and 
behavioral responses that could potentially result from exposure to 
underwater explosive detonations. In this section, we will relate the 
potential effects to marine mammals from underwater detonation of 
explosives to the MMPA regulatory definitions of Level A and Level B 
harassment. This section will also quantify the effects that might 
occur from the proposed military readiness activities in W-151.

Definition of Harassment

    The NDAA removed the ``small numbers'' and ``specified geographic 
region'' limitations indicated earlier in this document and amended the 
definition of harassment as it applies to a ``military readiness 
activity'' to read 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].

Level B Harassment

    Of the potential effects described earlier in this document, the 
following are the types of effects that fall into the Level B 
harassment category:
    Behavioral Harassment--Behavioral disturbance that rises to the 
level described in the above definition, when resulting from exposures 
to non-impulsive or impulsive sound, is Level B harassment. Some of the 
lower level physiological stress responses discussed earlier would also 
likely co-occur with the predicted harassments, although these 
responses are more difficult to detect and fewer data exist relating 
these responses to specific received levels of sound. When predicting 
Level B harassment based on estimated behavioral responses, those takes 
may have a stress-related physiological component.
    Acoustic Masking and Communication Impairment--NMFS considers 
acoustic masking to be Level B harassment, as it can disrupt natural 
behavioral patterns by interrupting or limiting the marine mammal's 
receipt or transmittal of important information or environmental cues.
    Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)--As discussed previously, TTS can 
affect how an animal behaves in response to the environment, including 
conspecifics, predators, and prey. NMFS classifies TTS (when resulting 
from exposure to explosives and other impulsive sources) as Level B 
harassment, not Level A harassment (injury).

Level A Harassment

    Of the potential effects that were described earlier, the following 
are the types of effects that fall into the Level A Harassment 
category:
    Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)--PTS (resulting either from 
exposure to explosive detonations) is irreversible and NMFS considers 
this to be an injury.
    Physical Disruption of Tissues Resulting from Explosive Shock 
Wave-- NMFS classifies physical damage of tissues resulting from a 
shock wave (from an explosive detonation) as an injury.

Impulsive Sound Explosive Thresholds

    For the purposes of this proposed regulation, NMFS has identified 
two levels of take for Eglin AFB's training exercises: Level B 
harassment and Level A harassment. NMFS presents the acoustic 
thresholds for impulse sounds in this section.
    In the absence of mitigation, it is likely that the activities 
could kill or injure marine mammals as a result of an explosive 
detonation, due to the response of air cavities in the body (e.g., 
lungs and intestines). These effects are likely to be most severe in 
near surface waters where the reflected shock wave creates a region of 
negative pressure called cavitation. Extensive lung hemorrhage is 
debilitating and potentially fatal. Suffocation caused by lung 
hemorrhage is likely to be the major cause of marine mammal death from 
underwater shock waves. The estimated range for the onset of extensive 
lung hemorrhage to marine mammals varies depending upon the animal's 
weight, with the smallest mammals having the greatest potential hazard 
range.
    Table 4 summarizes the marine mammal impulsive sound explosive 
thresholds used for Eglin AFB's acoustic impact modeling for marine 
mammal take in its application. Several standard acoustic metrics 
(Urick, 1983) describe the thresholds for predicting potential physical 
impacts from underwater pressure waves. They are:
     Total energy flux density or Sound Exposure Level (SEL). 
For plane waves (as assumed here), SEL is the time integral of the 
instantaneous intensity, where the instantaneous intensity is defined 
as the squared acoustic pressure divided by the characteristic 
impedance of sea water. Thus, SEL is the instantaneous pressure 
amplitude squared, summed over the duration of the signal. Standard 
units are dB referenced to 1 re: [mu]Pa\2\-s.
     \1/3\-octave SEL. This is the SEL in a \1/3\-octave 
frequency band. A \1/3\-octave band has upper and lower frequency 
limits with a ratio of 21:3, creating bandwidth limits of about 23 
percent of center frequency.
     Positive impulse. This is the time integral of the initial 
positive pressure pulse of an explosion or explosive-like wave form. 
Standard units are Pa-s or psi-ms.
     Peak pressure. This is the maximum positive amplitude of a 
pressure wave, dependent on charge mass and range. Standard units are 
psi, [mu]Pa, or Bar.

 Table 4--Impulsive Sound Explosive Thresholds Used by the Marine Corps
               in its Previous Acoustics Impacts Modeling
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Criterion             Criterion definition       Threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mortality.....................  Onset of severe lung    31 psi-msec
                                 injury (mass of         (positive
                                 dolphin calf: 12.2      impulse).
                                 kg) (1% probability
                                 of mortality).

[[Page 72647]]

 
Level A harassment (injury)...  50% animals would       205 dB re 1
                                 experience ear drum     [micro]Pa\2\-s
                                 rupture 30% animals     EFD (full
                                 exposed sustain         spectrum
                                 permanent threshold     energy).
                                 shift.
Level A harassment (injury)...  Onset of slight lung    13 psi-msec
                                 injury (mass of         (positive
                                 dolphin calf: 12.2      impulse).
                                 kg).
Level B harassment............  TTS and associated      23 psi peak
                                 behavioral disruption.  pressure.
Level B harassment............  TTS and associated      182 dB re: 1
                                 behavioral disruption   [micro]Pa\2\-s
                                 (dual criteria).        EFD,* \1/3\
                                                         octave band.
Level B harassment............  Sub-TTS behavioral      177 dB re: 1
                                 disruption (for         [micro]Pa\2\-s
                                 multiple/sequential     EFD,* \1/3\
                                 detonations only).      octave band.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: In greatest \1/3\-octave band above 10 Hz or 100 Hz.

    NMFS previously developed the explosive thresholds for assessing 
impacts of explosions on marine mammals shown in Table 4 for the shock 
trials of the USS Seawolf and USS Winston S. Churchill. However, at 
NMFS' recommendation, Eglin AFB has updated the thresholds used for 
onset of temporary threshold shift (TTS; Level B Harassment) and onset 
of permanent threshold shift (PTS; Level A Harassment) to be consistent 
with the thresholds outlined in the Navy's report titled, ``Criteria 
and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis 
Technical Report,'' which the Navy coordinated with NMFS. NMFS believes 
that the thresholds outlined in the Navy's report represent the best 
available science. The report is available on the internet at: https://aftteis.com/Portals/4/aftteis/Supporting%20Technical%20Documents/Criteria_and_Thresholds_for_US_Navy_Acoustic_and_Explosive_Effects_Analysis-Apr_2012.pdf.
    Table 5 in this document outlines the revised acoustic thresholds 
used by NMFS for this proposed Authorization when addressing noise 
impacts from explosives.

                        Table 5--Impulsive Sound Explosive Thresholds Used by Eglin AFB in its Current Acoustics Impacts Modeling
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Behavior                                        Slight injury
                                 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Group                                                                            Gastro-intestinal                           Mortality
                                      Behavioral              TTS                 PTS                tract               Lung
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-frequency Cetaceans.........  167 dB SEL........  172 dB SEL or 23    187 dB SEL or       104 psi...........  39.1 M1/3 (1 +      91.4 M1/3 (1 + DRm/
                                                       psi.                45.86 psi.                              [DRm/10.081])1/2    10.081])1/2 Pa-
                                                                                                                   Pa-sec Where: M =   sec Where: M =
                                                                                                                   mass of the         mass of the
                                                                                                                   animals in kg DRm   animals in kg DRm
                                                                                                                   = depth of the      = depth of the
                                                                                                                   receiver (animal)   receiver (animal)
                                                                                                                   in meters.          in meters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Eglin AFB conservatively modeled that all explosives would detonate 
at a 1.2 m (3.9 ft) water depth despite the training goal of hitting 
the target, resulting in an above water or on land explosion. For 
sources detonated at shallow depths, it is frequently the case that the 
explosion may breech the surface with some of the acoustic energy 
escaping the water column. Table 6 provides the estimated maximum range 
or radius, from the detonation point to the various thresholds 
described in Table 5. Eglin AFB uses the range information shown in 
Table 6 (Table 6.3 in Eglin's application) to calculate the total area 
of the ZOI and combine the calculated ZOIs with density estimates 
(adjusted for depth distribution) and the number of live munitions to 
provide an estimate of the number of marine mammals potentially exposed 
to the various impact thresholds.

                                                       Table 6--Distances (m) to Harassment Thresholds From Eglin AFB's Explosive Ordnance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         Mortality              Level A harassment                     Level B harassment
                                                                                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                      Slight    GI track           PTS                   TTS          Behavioral
                                                                                                                       lung      injury  -------------------------------------------------------
                    Munition                        NEW      Total           Detonation scenario          Modified    injury  -----------
                                                   (lbs)    number                                        Goertner -----------
                                                                                                          model 1    Modified    237 dB     187 dB     230 dB     172 dB     224 dB   167 dB SEL
                                                                                                                     Goertner     SPL        SEL      peak SPL     SEL      peak SPL
                                                                                                                     model 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Bottlenose Dolphin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GBU-10 or GBU-24...............................       945         2  Surface...........................        199        350        340        965        698      1,582      1,280       2,549
GBU-12 or GBU-54...............................       192         6  Surface...........................        111        233        198        726        409      2,027        752       2,023
AGM-65 (Maverick)..............................        86         6  Surface...........................         82        177        150        610        312      1,414        575       1,874
GBU-39 (LSDB)..................................        37         4  Surface...........................         59        128        112        479        234      1,212        433       1,543
AGM-114 (Hellfire).............................        20        15  (10 ft depth).....................        110        229         95        378        193      2,070        354       3,096
AGM-175 (Griffin)..............................        13        10  Surface...........................         38         83         79        307        165      1,020        305       1,343
2.75 Rockets...................................        12       100  Surface...........................         36         81         77        281        161      1,010        296       1,339
PGU-13 HEI 30 mm...............................       0.1     1,000  Surface...........................          0          7         16         24         33        247         60         492
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 72648]]

 
                                                                      Atlantic Spotted Dolphin and Unidentified Dolphin \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GBU-10 or GBU-24...............................       945         2  Surface...........................        237        400        340        965        698      1,582      1,280       2,549
GBU-12 or GBU-54...............................       192         6  Surface...........................        138        274        198        726        409      2,027        752       2,023
AGM-65 (Maverick)..............................        86         6  Surface...........................        101        216        150        610        312      1,414        575       1,874
GBU-39 (LSDB)..................................        37         4  Surface...........................         73        158        112        479        234      1,212        433       1,543
AGM-114 (Hellfire).............................        20        15  (10 ft depth).....................        135        277         95        378        193      2,070        354       3,096
AGM-175 (Griffin)..............................        13        10  Surface...........................         47        104         79        307        165      1,020        305       1,343
2.75 Rockets...................................        12       100  Surface...........................         45        100         77        281        161      1,010        296       1,339
PGU-13 HEI 30 mm...............................       0.1     1,000  Surface...........................          0          9         16         24         33        247         60         492
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGM = air-to-ground missile; cal = caliber; CBU = Cluster Bomb Unit; ft = feet; GBU = Guided Bomb Unit; HEI = high explosive incendiary; lbs = pounds; mm = millimeters; N/A = not applicable;
  NEW = net explosive weight; PGU = Projectile Gun Unit; SDB = small diameter bomb; PTS = permanent threshold shift; TTS = temporary threshold shift; WCMD = wind corrected munition dispenser
\1\ Unidentified dolphin can be either bottlenose or Atlantic spotted dolphin. Eglin AFB based the mortality and slight lung injury criteria on the mass of a newborn Atlantic spotted dolphin.

Determination of the Mitigation Monitoring Zones

    The ranges that are presented in Table 6 represent a radius of 
impact for a given threshold from a single detonation of each munition/
detonation scenario. They do not consider accumulated energies from 
multiple detonation occurring within the same 24-hour time period. For 
calculating take estimates, the single detonation approach is more 
conservative because it multiplies the exposures from a single 
detonation by the number of munitions and assumes a fresh population of 
marine mammals is being impacted each time. Eglin AFB used this 
approach because of the uncertainty surrounding which munitions they 
would release on a given day. Multiple variables, such as weather, 
aircraft mechanical issues, munition malfunctions, and target 
availability may prevent planned munitions releases. By treating each 
detonation as a separate event and summing those impacts accordingly, 
Eglin AFB would have maximum operational flexibility to conduct the 
missions without limitations on either the total number of munitions 
allowed to be dropped in a day, or on the specific combinations of 
munitions that could be released.
    While this methodology overestimates the overall potential takes 
presented in the next section, the ranges do not accurately represent 
the actual area acoustically impacted for a given threshold from 
multiple detonations in a given mission day. The total acoustic impact 
area for two identical bombs detonating within a given timeframe is 
less than twice the impact area of a single bomb's detonation. This has 
to do with the accumulated energy from multiple detonations occurring 
sequentially. When one weapon is detonated, a certain level of 
transmission loss is required to be calculated to achieve each 
threshold level which can then be equated to a range. By releasing a 
second munition in the same event (same place and close in time), even 
though the total energy is increased, the incremental impact area from 
the second detonation is slightly less than that of the first; however 
the impact range for the two munitions is larger than the impact range 
for one. Since each additional detonation adds energy to the sound 
exposure level (SEL) metric, all the energy from all munitions released 
in a day is accumulated. By factoring in the transmission loss of the 
first detonation added with the incremental increases from the second, 
third, fourth, etc., the range of the cumulative energy that is below 
each threshold level can be determined. Unlike the energy component, 
peak pressure is not an additive factor, therefore Eglin AFB did not 
consider thresholds expressed as either acoustic impulse or peak SPL 
metrics (i.e., mortality, slight lung injury, gastrointestinal tract 
injury) in their calculations.
    Eglin AFB has created a sample day reflecting the maximum number of 
munitions that could be released and resulting in the greatest impact 
in a single mission day. However, this scenario is only a 
representation and may not accurately reflect how Eglin AFB may conduct 
actual operations. However, NMFS and Eglin AFB are considering this 
conservative assumption to calculate the impact range for mitigation 
monitoring measures. Thus, Eglin AFB has modeled, combined, and 
compared the sum of all energies from these detonations against 
thresholds with energy metric criteria to generate the accumulated 
energy ranges for this scenario. Table 7 displays these ranges which 
form the basis of the mitigation monitoring thresholds.

                   Table 7--Distances (m) to Harassment Thresholds for an Example Mission Day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Level A       Level B harassment
                                               Total                        harassment -------------------------
           Munition             NEW (lbs)    number per     Detonation    -------------     TTS       Behavioral
                                                day          scenario       PTS 187 dB -------------------------
                                                                               SEL       172 dB SEL   167 dB SEL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GBU-10 or GBU-24.............          945            1  Surface.........        5,120       12,384       15,960
GBU-12 or GBU-54.............          192            1  Surface.........
AGM-65 (Maverick)............           86            1  Surface.........

[[Page 72649]]

 
GBU-39 (LSDB)................           37            1  Surface.........
AGM-114 (Hellfire)...........           20            3  (10 ft depth)...
AGM-175 (Griffin)............           13            2  Surface.........
2.75 Rockets.................           12           12  Surface.........
PGU-13 HEI 30 mm.............          0.1          125  Surface.........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGM = air-to-ground missile; cal = caliber; CBU = Cluster Bomb Unit; ft = feet; GBU = Guided Bomb Unit; HEI =
  high explosive incendiary; lbs = pounds; mm = millimeters; N/A = not applicable; NEW = net explosive weight;
  PGU = Projectile Gun Unit; SDB = small diameter bomb; PTS = permanent threshold shift; TTS = temporary
  threshold shift; WCMD = wind corrected munition dispenser.

    Based on the ranges presented in Table 7 and factoring operational 
limitations associated with survey-based vessel support for the 
missions, Eglin AFB estimates that during pre-mission surveys, the 
proposed monitoring area would be approximately 5 km (3.1 miles) from 
the target area, which corresponds to the Level A harassment threshold 
range. Eglin AFB proposes to survey the same-sized area for each 
mission day, regardless of the planned munition expenditures. By 
clearing the Level A harassment threshold range of protected species, 
animals that may enter the area after the completed pre-mission surveys 
but prior to detonation would not reach the smaller slight lung injury 
or mortality zones (presented in Table 6). Because of human safety 
issues, Eglin AFB would require observers to leave the test area at 
least 30 minutes in advance of live weapon deployment and move to a 
position on the safety zone periphery, approximately 9.5 miles (15 km) 
from the detonation point. Observers would continue to scan for marine 
mammals from the periphery, but effectiveness would be limited as the 
boat would remain at a designated station.

Density Estimation

    Density estimates for bottlenose dolphin and spotted dolphin were 
derived from two sources (Table 8). Bottlenose dolphin density 
estimates were derived from a habitat modeling project conducted for 
portions of the EGTTR, including the Maritime WSEP project area 
(Garrison, 2008). NMFS developed habitat models using recent aerial 
survey line transect data collected during winter and summer. The 
surveys covered nearshore and continental shelf waters (to a maximum 
depth of 200 m), with the majority of effort concentrated in waters 
from the shoreline to 20 m depth. Marine species encounter rates during 
the surveys were corrected for sighting probability and the probability 
that animals were available on the surface to be seen. In combination 
with remotely sensed environmental data/habitat parameters (water 
depth, sea surface temperature (SST) and chlorophyll), these data were 
used to develop habitat models for cetaceans within the continental 
shelf and coastal waters of the eastern Gulf of Mexico. The technical 
approach, described as Generalized Regression and Spatial Prediction, 
spatially projects the species-habitat relationship based on 
distribution of environmental factors, resulting in predicted densities 
for un-sampled locations and times. The spatial density model can 
therefore be used to predict density in unobserved areas and at 
different times of year based upon the monthly composite SST and 
chlorophyll datasets derived from satellite data. Similarly, the 
spatial density model can be used to predict relative density for any 
sub-region within the surveyed area.
    Garrison (2008) produced bottlenose dolphin density estimates at 
various spatial scales within the EGTTR. At the largest scale, density 
data were aggregated into four principal strata categories: North-
Inshore, North-Offshore, South-Inshore, and South-Offshore. Densities 
for these strata were provided in the published survey report. 
Unpublished densities were also provided for smaller blocks (sub-areas) 
corresponding to airspace units and a number of these sub-areas were 
combined to form larger zones. Densities in these smaller areas were 
provided to Eglin AFB in Excel(copyright) spreadsheets by 
the report author.
    For both large areas and sub-areas, regions occurring entirely 
within waters deeper than 200 meters were excluded from predictions, 
and those straddling the 200 meter isobath were clipped to remove deep 
water areas. In addition, because of limited survey effort, density 
estimates beyond 150 meters water depth are considered invalid. The 
environmental conditions encountered during the survey periods 
(February and July/August) do not necessarily reflect the range of 
conditions potentially encountered throughout the year. In particular, 
the transition seasons of spring (April-May) and fall (October-
November) have a very different range of water temperatures. 
Accordingly, for predictions outside of the survey period or spatial 
range, it is necessary to evaluate the statistical variance in 
predicted values when attempting to apply the model. The coefficient of 
variation (CV) of the predicted quantity is used to measure the 
validity of model predictions. According to Garrison (2008), the best 
predictions have CV values of approximately 0.2. When CVs approach 0.7, 
and particularly when they exceed 1.0, the resulting model predictions 
are extremely uncertain and are considered invalid.
    Based upon the preceding discussion, the bottlenose dolphin density 
estimate used in this document is the median density corresponding to 
sub-area 137 (see Figure 3-1 in Eglin AFB's IHA application). The 
planned Maritime WSEP test location lies within this sub-area. Within 
this block, Garrison (2008) provided densities based upon one year 
(2007) and five-year monthly averages for SST and chlorophyll. The 5-
year average is considered preferable. Only densities with a CV rounded 
to 0.7 or lower (i.e., 0.64 and below) were considered. The CV for June 
in this particular block is 0.62.
    Atlantic spotted dolphin density was derived from Fulling et al. 
(2003), which describes the results of mammal surveys conducted in 
association with fall ichthyoplankton surveys from 1998 to 2001. The 
surveys were conducted by NMFS personnel from the U.S.-Mexico border to 
southern Florida, in water depths of 20 to 200 meters. Using the 
software program DISTANCE(copyright), density estimates were 
generated for East and West regions, with Mobile Bay as the

[[Page 72650]]

dividing point. The East region is used in this document. Densities 
were provided for Atlantic spotted dolphins and unidentified T. 
truncatus/S. frontalis (among other species). The unidentified T. 
truncatus/S. frontalis category is treated as a separate species group 
with a unique density. Density estimates from Fulling et al. (2003) 
were not adjusted for sighting probability (perception bias) or surface 
availability (availability bias) [g(0) = 1] in the original survey 
report, likely resulting in underestimation of true density. Perception 
bias refers to the failure of observers to detect animals, although 
they are present in the survey area and available to be seen. 
Availability bias refers to animals that are in the survey area, but 
are not able to be seen because they are submerged when observers are 
present. Perception bias and availability bias result in the 
underestimation of abundance and density numbers (negative bias).
    Fulling et al. (2003) did not collect data to correct density for 
perception and availability bias. However, in order to address this 
negative bias, Eglin AFB has adjusted density estimates based on 
information provided in available literature. There are no published 
g(0) correction factors for Atlantic spotted dolphins. However, Barlow 
(2006) estimated g(0) for numerous marine mammal species near the 
Hawaiian Islands, including offshore pantropical spotted dolphins 
(Stenella attenuata). Separate estimates for this species were provided 
for group sizes of 1 to 20 animals [g(0) = 0.76], and greater than 20 
animals [g(0) = 1.00]. Although Fulling et al. (2003) sighted some 
spotted dolphin groups of more than 20 individuals, the 0.76 value is 
used as a more conservative approach.
    NMFS refers the reader to Section 3 of Eglin AFB's application for 
detailed information on additional equations used to calculate 
densities (i.e., Barlow, 2006) for Atlantic spotted dolphins. Using the 
same method, Eglin AFB estimated the adjusted density for the 
unidentified T. truncatus/S. frontalis species group at 0.009 animals/
km\2\. There are no variances attached to either of these recalculated 
density values, so overall confidence in these values is unknown.

    Table 8--Marine Mammal Density Estimates Within Eglin AFB's EGTTR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Density (animals/
                       Species                               km\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottlenose dolphin \1\...............................              1.194
Atlantic spotted dolphin \2\.........................              0.265
Unidentified bottlenose dolphin/Atlantic spotted                   0.009
 dolphin \2\.........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: Garrison, 2008; adjusted for observer and availability bias
  by the author.
\2\ Source: Fulling et al., 2003; adjusted for negative bias based on
  information provided by Barlow (2003; 2006).

    Table 9 indicates the modeled potential for lethality, injury, and 
non-injurious harassment (including behavioral harassment) to marine 
mammals in the absence of mitigation measures. The numbers represent 
total impacts for all detonations combined. Mortality was calculated as 
approximately one-half an animal for bottlenose dolphins and about 0.1 
animals for spotted dolphins. It is expected that, with implementation 
of the management practices described below, potential impacts would be 
mitigated to the point that there would be no mortality takes. Based on 
the low mortality exposure estimates calculated by the acoustic model 
combined with the implementation of mitigation measures, zero marine 
mammals are expected to be affected by pressure levels associated with 
mortality. Therefore, Eglin AFB has requested an Incidental Harassment 
Authorization, as opposed to regulations and a Letter of Authorization 
under section 101(a)(5)(A).
    Table 9 provides Eglin AFB's annual number of marine mammals, by 
species, potentially taken by Level A harassment and Level B 
harassment, by Maritime WSEP operations. NMFS notes that Eglin AFB 
derived these estimates without consideration of the effectiveness of 
their proposed mitigation measures. As indicated in Table 9, Eglin AFB 
and NMFS estimate that approximately 40 marine mammals could 
potentially be exposed to injurious Level A harassment noise levels 
(187 dB SEL).

 Table 9--Modeled Number of Marine Mammals Potentially Affected by Maritime Strike Missions. Proposed Authorized
Takes for Level A and Level B Harassment Are the Same as Those Modeled. NMFS Does Not Propose To Authorize Takes
                                                  for Mortality
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Level B
                  Species                    Mortality        Level A            Level B           harassment
                                                             harassment      harassment (TTS)     (behavioral)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottlenose dolphin........................         0.47              33.10             405.32             862.53
Atlantic spotted dolphin..................         0.11               6.58              74.15             146.41
Unidentified bottlenose dolphin/Atlantic           0.00               0.22               2.52               4.97
 spotted dolphin..........................
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................         0.58              39.90             481.99           1,013.91
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Approximately 481.99 marine mammals would be exposed annually to 
non-injurious Level B behavioral harassment. TTS results from fatigue 
or damage to hair cells or supporting structures and may cause 
disruption in the processing of acoustic cues; however, hearing 
sensitivity is recovered within a relatively short time. Based on Eglin 
AFB and NMFS' estimates, up to 1,014 marine mammals may experience a 
behavioral response to these exercises associated with the 167 dB re: 1 
[micro]Pa\2\-s threshold. NMFS has preliminarily determined that this 
number will be significantly lower due to the expected effectiveness of 
the mitigation measures proposed for inclusion in the Authorization (if 
issued).

Negligible Impact Analysis and Preliminary Determinations

    As explained previously, we have defined the term ``negligible 
impact'' to mean ``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'' (50 CFR 216.103). The lack of likely

[[Page 72651]]

adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., 
population level effects) forms the basis of a negligible impact 
finding. Thus, an estimate of the number of Level B harassment takes, 
alone, is not enough information on which to base an impact 
determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of 
marine mammals that might be ``taken'' through behavioral harassment, 
NMFS must consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any 
responses (their intensity, duration, etc.), the context of any 
responses (critical reproductive time or location, migration, etc.), as 
well as the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, 
and the number of estimated mortalities, effects on habitat, and the 
status of the species.
    In making a negligible impact determination, we consider:
     The number of anticipated injuries, serious injuries, or 
mortalities;
     The number, nature, and intensity, and duration of Level B 
harassment; and
     The context in which the takes occur (e.g., impacts to 
areas of significance, impacts to local populations, and cumulative 
impacts when taking into account successive/contemporaneous actions 
when added to baseline data);
     The status of stock or species of marine mammals (i.e., 
depleted, not depleted, decreasing, increasing, stable, impact relative 
to the size of the population);
     Impacts on habitat affecting rates of recruitment/
survival; and
     The effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures to 
reduce the number or severity of incidental take.
    For reasons stated previously in this document and based on the 
following factors, Eglin AFB's specified activities are not likely to 
cause long-term behavioral disturbance, permanent threshold shift, or 
other non-auditory injury, serious injury, or death.
    The takes from Level B harassment will be due to potential 
behavioral disturbance and TTS. The takes from Level A harassment will 
be due to potential tympanic-membrane (TM) rupture. Activities would 
only occur over a timeframe of two to three weeks in beginning in 
February, 2015, with one or two missions occurring per day. It is 
possible that some individuals may be taken more than once if those 
individuals are located in the exercise area on two different days when 
exercises are occurring. However, multiple exposures are not 
anticipated to have effects beyond Level A and Level B harassment.
    While animals may be impacted in the immediate vicinity of the 
activity, because of the small ZOIs (compared to the vast size of the 
Gulf of Mexico ecosystem where these species live) and the short 
duration of the Maritime WSEP operations, NMFS has preliminarily 
determined that there will not be a substantial impact on marine 
mammals or on the normal functioning of the nearshore or offshore Gulf 
of Mexico ecosystems. The proposed activity is not expected to impact 
rates of recruitment or survival of marine mammals since neither 
mortality (which would remove individuals from the population) nor 
serious injury are anticipated to occur. In addition, the proposed 
activity would not occur in areas (and/or times) of significance for 
the marine mammal populations potentially affected by the exercises 
(e.g., feeding or resting areas, reproductive areas), and the 
activities would only occur in a small part of their overall range, so 
the impact of any potential temporary displacement would be negligible 
and animals would be expected to return to the area after the 
cessations of activities. Although the proposed activity could result 
in Level A (TM rupture) and Level B (behavioral disturbance and TTS) 
harassment of marine mammals, the level of harassment is not 
anticipated to impact rates of recruitment or survival of marine 
mammals because the number of exposed animals is expected to be low due 
to the short term and site specific nature of the activity, and the 
type of effect would not be detrimental to rates of recruitment and 
survival.
    Additionally, the mitigation and monitoring measures proposed to be 
implemented (described earlier in this document) are expected to 
further minimize the potential for harassment. The protected species 
surveys would require Eglin AFB to search the area for marine mammals, 
and if any are found in the live fire area, then the exercise would be 
suspended until the animal(s) has left the area or relocated. Moreover, 
marine species observers located in the Eglin control tower would 
monitor the high-definition video feed from cameras located on the 
instrument barge anchored on-site for the presence of protected 
species. Furthermore, Maritime WSEP missions would be delayed or 
rescheduled if the sea state is greater than a 4 on the Beaufort Scale 
at the time of the test. In addition, Maritime WSEP missions would 
occur no earlier than two hours after sunrise and no later than two 
hours prior to sunset to ensure adequate daylight for pre- and post-
mission monitoring.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring 
measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that Eglin AFB's Maritime WSEP 
operations will result in the incidental take of marine mammals, by 
Level A and Level B harassment only, and that the taking from the 
Maritime WSEP exercises will have a negligible impact on the affected 
species or stocks.

Impact on Availability of Affected Species or Stock for Taking for 
Subsistence Uses

    There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated 
by this action. Therefore, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the 
total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an 
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or 
stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    Eglin AFB initiated consultation with the Southeast Region, NMFS, 
under section 7 of the ESA regarding the effects of this action on ESA-
listed species and critical habitat under the jurisdiction of NMFS. The 
consultation will be completed and a biological opinion issued prior to 
any final determinations on the Authorization. Due to the location of 
the activity, no ESA-listed marine mammal species are likely to be 
affected; therefore, NMFS has preliminarily determined that this 
proposed Authorization would have no effect on ESA-listed species. 
However, prior to the agency's decision on the issuance or denial of 
this Authorization, NMFS will make a final determination on whether 
additional consultation is necessary.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    Eglin AFB released a Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) on the 
Maritime WSEP Operations. NMFS has made this EA available on its Web 
site (See ADDRESSES). Eglin AFB will issue a Final EA and a Finding of 
No Significant Impact (FONSI) on the Maritime WSEP activities prior to 
NMFS' final determination on the Authorization.
    In accordance with NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 (Environmental 
Review Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy 
Act, May 20, 1999), NMFS will review the information contained in Eglin 
AFB's EA and determine whether the EA accurately and completely 
describes the preferred action alternative, a

[[Page 72652]]

reasonable range of alternatives, and the potential impacts on marine 
mammals, endangered species, and other marine life that could be 
impacted by the preferred and non-preferred alternatives. Based on this 
review and analysis, NMFS may adopt Eglin AFB's DEA under 40 CFR 
1506.3, and issue its own FONSI statement on issuance of an annual 
authorization under section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA.

Proposed Authorization

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, we propose to 
issue an Authorization to Eglin AFB for conducting Maritime WSEP 
activities, for a period of one year from the date of issuance, 
provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 
requirements are incorporated. The proposed Authorization language is 
provided in the next section. The wording contained in this section is 
proposed for inclusion in the Authorization (if issued).
    1. This Authorization is valid for a period of one year from the 
date of issuance.
    2. This Authorization is valid only for activities associated with 
the Maritme WSEP operations utilizing munitions identified in the 
Attachment.
    3. The incidental taking, by Level A and Level B harassment, is 
limited to: Atlantic bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus); and 
Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis) as specified in the 
following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Level B
                        Species                               Level A            Level B           harassment
                                                             harassment     harassment  (TTS)     (behavioral)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottlenose dolphin.....................................                 33                405                863
Atlantic spotted dolphin...............................                  7                 74                146
Unidentified bottlenose dolphin/Atlantic spotted                         1                  3                  5
 dolphin...............................................
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................................                 41                482              1,014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The taking by serious injury or death of these species, the taking 
of these species in violation of the conditions of this Incidental 
Harassment Authorization, or the taking by harassment, serious injury 
or death of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may 
result in the modification, suspension or revocation of this 
Authorization.
4. Mitigation
    When conducting this activity, the following mitigation measures 
must be undertaken:
     If daytime weather and/or sea conditions preclude adequate 
monitoring for detecting marine mammals and other marine life, maritime 
strike operations must be delayed until adequate sea conditions exist 
for monitoring to be undertaken. Daytime maritime strike exercises will 
be conducted only when sea surface conditions do not exceed Beaufort 
sea state 4 (i.e., wind speed 13-18 mph (11-16 knots); wave height 1 m 
(3.3 ft)), the visibility is 5.6 km (3 nm) or greater, and the ceiling 
is 305 m (1,000 ft) or greater.
     On the morning of the maritime strike mission, the test 
director and safety officer will confirm that there are no issues that 
would preclude mission execution and that the weather is adequate to 
support monitoring and mitigation measures.

Two Hours Prior to Mission

     Mission-related surface vessels will be stationed on site.
     Vessel-based observers on board at least one vessel will 
assess the overall suitability of the test site based on environmental 
conditions (e.g., sea state) and presence/absence of marine mammal or 
marine mammal indicators (e.g., large schools of fish, jellyfish, 
Sargassum rafts, and large flocks of birds feeding at the surface). 
Observers will relay this information to the safety officer.

One and One-Half Hours Prior to Mission

     Vessel-based surveys and video camera surveillance will 
commence. Vessel-based observers will survey the applicable Zone of 
Impact (ZOI) and relay all marine mammal and indicator sightings, 
including the time of sighting and direction of travel (if known) to 
the safety officer. Surveys will continue for approximately one hour.
     If marine mammals or marine mammal indicators are observed 
within the applicable ZOI, the test range will be declared ``fouled,'' 
which will signify to mission personnel that conditions are such that a 
live ordnance drop cannot occur.
     If no marine mammals or marine mammal indicators are 
observed, the range will be declared ``green,'' which will signify to 
mission personnel that conditions are such that a live ordnance drop 
may occur.

One-Half Hour Prior to Mission

     Approximately 30 minutes prior to live weapon deployment, 
vessel-based observers will be instructed to leave the test site and 
remain outside the safety zone, which will be 9.5 miles from the 
detonation point (actual size will be determined by weapon net 
explosive weight (NEW) and method of delivery) during the conduct of 
the mission.
     Monitoring for marine mammals will continue from the 
periphery of the safety zone while the mission is in progress. Other 
safety boat crews will be instructed to observe for marine mammals 
during this time.
     After survey vessels have left the test site, marine 
species monitoring will continue for the Eglin control tower through 
the video feed received from the high definition cameras on the 
instrument barge.

Execution of Mission

     Immediately prior to live weapons drop, the test director 
and safety officer will communicate to confirm the results of the 
marine mammal survey and the appropriateness of proceeding with the 
mission. The safety officer will have final authority to proceed with, 
postpone, move, or cancel the mission.
     The mission will be postponed or moved if: Any marine 
mammal is visually detected within the applicable ZOI. Postponement 
will continue until the animal(s) that caused the postponement is 
confirmed to be outside of the applicable ZOI due to swimming out of 
the range; or large schools of fish, jellyfish, Sargassum rafts, or 
large flocks of birds feeding at the surface are observed within the 
applicable ZOI. Postponement will continue until these potential 
indicators are confirmed to be outside the applicable ZOI.
     In the event of a postponement, pre-mission monitoring 
will continue as long as weather and daylight hours allow.

[[Page 72653]]

Post Mission

     Post-mission surveys will commence as soon as Explosive 
Ordnance Disposal (EOD) personnel declare the test area safe. These 
surveys will be conducted by the same vessel-based observers that 
conducted the pre-mission surveys.
     Survey vessels will move into the applicable ZOI from 
outside the safety zone and monitor for at least 30 minutes, 
concentrating on the area down-current of the test site. Any marine 
mammals killed or injured as a result of the test will be documented 
and immediately reported to the NMFS Southeast Region Marine Mammal 
Stranding Network at 877-433-8299 (Blair.Mase@noaa.gov and 
Erin.Fougeres@noaa.gov) and the Florida Marine Mammal Stranding Hotline 
at 888-404-3922. The species, number, location, and behavior of any 
animals observed will be documented and reported.
     If post-mission surveys determine that an injury or lethal 
take of a marine mammal has occurred, the next maritime strike mission 
will be suspended until the test procedure and the monitoring methods 
have been reviewed with NMFS and appropriate changes made.
5. Monitoring
    The holder of this Authorization is required to cooperate with the 
National Marine Fisheries Service and any other Federal, state or local 
agency monitoring the impacts of the activity on marine mammals.
    The holder of this Authorization will track their use of the EGTTR 
for the Maritime WSEP missions and marine mammal observations, through 
the use of mission reporting forms.
    Maritime strike missions will coordinate with other activities 
conducted in the EGTTR (e.g., Precision Strike Weapon and Air-to-
Surface Gunnery missions) to provide supplemental post-mission 
observations of marine mammals in the operations area of the exercise.
    Any dead or injured marine mammals observed or detected prior to 
testing or injured or killed during live drops, must be immediately 
reported to the NMFS Southeast Region Marine Mammal Stranding Network 
at 877-433-8299 (Blair.Mase@noaa.gov and Erin.Fougeres@noaa.gov) and 
the Florida Marine Mammal Stranding Hotline at 888-404-3922.
    Any unauthorized impacts on marine mammals must be immediately 
reported to Dr. Roy E. Crabtree, the National Marine Fisheries 
Service's Southeast Regional Administrator, at 727-842-5312 or 
Roy.Crabtree@noaa.gov, and Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and 
Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources at 301-427-8401 or 
Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov.
    The monitoring team will document any marine mammals that were 
killed or injured as a result of the test and, if practicable, 
coordinate with the local stranding network and NMFS to assist with 
recovery and examination of any dead animals, as needed.
    Activities related to the monitoring described in this 
Authorization, including the retention of marine mammals, do not 
require a separate scientific research permit issued under section 104 
of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
6. Reporting
    A draft report of marine mammal observations and Maritime WSEP 
mission activities must be submitted to the National Marine Fisheries 
Service's Southeast Regional Office, Protected Resources Division, 263 
13th Ave. South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701 and NMFS's Office of 
Protected Resources, 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 
This draft report must include the following information:
     Date and time of each maritime strike mission;
     A complete description of the pre-exercise and post-
exercise activities related to mitigating and monitoring the effects of 
maritime strike missions on marine mammal populations;
     Results of the monitoring program, including numbers by 
species/stock of any marine mammals noted injured or killed as a result 
of the maritime strike mission and number of marine mammals (by species 
if possible) that may have been harassed due to presence within the 
applicable ZOI; and
     A detailed assessment of the effectiveness of sensor based 
monitoring in detecting marine mammals in the area of Maritime WSEP 
operations.
    The draft report will be subject to review and comment by the 
National Marine Fisheries Service. Any recommendations made by the 
National Marine Fisheries Service must be addressed in the final report 
prior to acceptance by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The draft 
report will be considered the final report for this activity under this 
Authorization if the National Marine Fisheries Service has not provided 
comments and recommendations within 90 days of receipt of the draft 
report.
7. Additional Conditions
     The maritime strike mission monitoring team will 
participate in the marine mammal species observation training. 
Designated crew members will be selected to receive training as 
protected species observers. Observers will receive training in 
protected species survey and identification techniques through a 
National Marine Fisheries Service-approved training program.
     The holder of this Authorization must inform the Director, 
Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, (301-
427-8400) or designee (301-427-8401) prior to the initiation of any 
changes to the monitoring plan for a specified mission activity.
     A copy of this Authorization must be in the possession of 
the safety officer on duty each day that maritime strike missions are 
conducted.
     Failure to abide by the Terms and Conditions contained in 
this Incidental Harassment Authorization may result in a modification, 
suspension or revocation of the Authorization.

Request for Public Comments

    We request comment on our analysis, the draft authorization, and 
any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed Authorization. Please 
include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations 
to help inform our final decision on Eglin AFB's request for an MMPA 
authorization.

    Dated: December 3, 2014.
Perry F. Gayaldo,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-28678 Filed 12-3-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P