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, 17394-17407 [2015-07429]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17394
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Notices
must state why it desires the Secretary
to review those particular producers or
exporters. If the interested party intends
for the Secretary to review sales of
merchandise by an exporter (or a
producer if that producer also exports
merchandise from other suppliers)
which was produced in more than one
country of origin and each country of
origin is subject to a separate order, then
the interested party must state
specifically, on an order-by-order basis,
which exporter(s) the request is
intended to cover.
Note that, for any party the
Department was unable to locate in
prior segments, the Department will not
accept a request for an administrative
review of that party absent new
information as to the party’s location.
Moreover, if the interested party who
files a request for review is unable to
locate the producer or exporter for
which it requested the review, the
interested party must provide an
explanation of the attempts it made to
locate the producer or exporter at the
same time it files its request for review,
in order for the Secretary to determine
if the interested party’s attempts were
reasonable, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.303(f)(3)(ii).
As explained in Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003), and NonMarket Economy Antidumping
Proceedings: Assessment of
Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694
(October 24, 2011) the Department
clarified its practice with respect to the
collection of final antidumping duties
on imports of merchandise where
intermediate firms are involved. The
public should be aware of this
clarification in determining whether to
request an administrative review of
merchandise subject to antidumping
findings and orders.3
Further, as explained in Antidumping
Proceedings: Announcement of Change
in Department Practice for Respondent
Selection in Antidumping Duty
Proceedings and Conditional Review of
the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME
Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR
65963 (November 4, 2013), the
Department clarified its practice with
regard to the conditional review of the
non-market economy (NME) entity in
administrative reviews of antidumping
duty orders. The Department will no
longer consider the NME entity as an
exporter conditionally subject to
administrative reviews. Accordingly,
the NME entity will not be under review
3 See also the Enforcement and Compliance Web
site at https://trade.gov/enforcement/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:37 Mar 31, 2015
Jkt 235001
unless the Department specifically
receives a request for, or self-initiates, a
review of the NME entity.4 In
administrative reviews of antidumping
duty orders on merchandise from NME
countries where a review of the NME
entity has not been initiated, but where
an individual exporter for which a
review was initiated does not qualify for
a separate rate, the Department will
issue a final decision indicating that the
company in question is part of the NME
entity. However, in that situation,
because no review of the NME entity
was conducted, the NME entity’s entries
were not subject to the review and the
rate for the NME entity is not subject to
change as a result of that review
(although the rate for the individual
exporter may change as a function of the
finding that the exporter is part of the
NME entity).
Following initiation of an
antidumping administrative review
when there is no review requested of the
NME entity, the Department will
instruct CBP to liquidate entries for all
exporters not named in the initiation
notice, including those that were
suspended at the NME entity rate.
All requests must be filed
electronically in Enforcement and
Compliance’s Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (‘‘ACCESS’’)
on Enforcement and Compliance’s
ACCESS Web site at https://
access.trade.gov.5 Further, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(l)(i),
a copy of each request must be served
on the petitioner and each exporter or
producer specified in the request.
The Department will publish in the
Federal Register a notice of ‘‘Initiation
of Administrative Review of
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty
Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation’’ for requests received by
the last day of April 2015. If the
Department does not receive, by the last
day of April 2015, a request for review
of entries covered by an order, finding,
or suspended investigation listed in this
notice and for the period identified
above, the Department will instruct CBP
to assess antidumping or countervailing
duties on those entries at a rate equal to
the cash deposit of (or bond for)
estimated antidumping or
countervailing duties required on those
4 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), parties
should specify that they are requesting a review of
entries from exporters comprising the entity, and to
the extent possible, include the names of such
exporters in their request.
5 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures;
Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR
39263 (July 6, 2011).
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
entries at the time of entry, or
withdrawal from warehouse, for
consumption and to continue to collect
the cash deposit previously ordered.
For the first administrative review of
any order, there will be no assessment
of antidumping or countervailing duties
on entries of subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption during the relevant
provisional-measures ‘‘gap’’ period of
the order, if such a gap period is
applicable to the period of review.
This notice is not required by statute
but is published as a service to the
international trading community.
Dated: March 25, 2015.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2015–07496 Filed 3–31–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
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
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of incidental
harassment authorization.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Marine Mammal Protection Act
regulations, NMFS hereby gives notice
that NMFS has issued an Incidental
Harassment Authorization
(Authorization) to the U.S. Air Force,
Eglin Air Force Base (Eglin AFB), 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
from February 5 through April 1, 2015.
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.
DATES: Effective February 5, 2015,
through April 1, 2015.
ADDRESSES: An electronic copy of the
final Authorization, Eglin AFB’s
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM
01APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Notices
application and their final
Environmental Assessment (EA) titled,
‘‘Maritime Weapons System Evaluation
Program are available by writing to Jolie
Harrison, Chief, Permits and
Conservation Division, Office of
Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; by
telephoning the contacts listed here, or
by visiting the internet at: https://www.
nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/
military.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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
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); and requirements
pertaining to the monitoring and
reporting of such taking. NMFS has
defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR
216.103 as ‘‘an impact resulting from
the specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’
The National Defense Authorization
Act of 2004 (NDAA; Pub. L. 108–136)
removed the ‘‘small numbers’’ and
‘‘specified geographical region’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:33 Mar 31, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
explosive sources. Eglin AFB submitted
a second revised application to NMFS
on December 1, 2014, which provided
updated mitigation zones. NMFS
determined the application adequate
and complete on December 2, 2014 and
published a notice of proposed
Authorization on December 8, 2014 (79
FR 72631). The notice afforded the
public a 30-day comment period on the
proposed MMPA Authorization.
Eglin AFB proposes to conduct
Maritime WESP missions within the
EGTTR airspace over the Gulf of
Mexico, specifically within Warning
Area 151 (W–151), which is located
approximately 17 miles offshore from
Santa Rosa Island, specifically sub-area
W–151A. 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.
Eglin AFB’s Maritime WSEP
operations may potentially impact
marine mammals at or near the water
surface. Thus, the following specific
aspect of the proposed WSEP activities
have the potential to take marine
mammals: Increased underwater sound
and pressure generated during the
WSEP testing missions. Marine
mammals could potentially be harassed,
injured, or killed by exploding and non-
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17395
exploding projectiles, and falling debris.
However, based on analyses provided in
Eglin AFB’s final; Environmental
Assessment (EA); their Authorization
application, including proposed
mitigation and monitoring measures;
and for reasons discussed later in this
document, NMFS does not anticipate
that Eglin’s WSEP activities will result
in any serious injury or mortality to
marine mammals.
Eglin AFB has requested
authorization to take two cetacean
species by Level A and Level B
harassment. The requested species
include: Atlantic bottlenose dolphin
(Tursiops truncatus) and Atlantic
spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis).
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 April 1, 2015. The proposed
missions would occur on weekdays,
during daytime hours only, with one or
two missions occurring per day. Some
E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM
01APN1
17396
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Notices
minor deviation from Eglin AFB’s
requested dates is possible and the
Authorization, would be effective from
February 5, 2015 through April 1, 2015.
and remotely-controlled boat targets.
Munition types include bombs, missiles,
rockets, and gunnery rounds (Table 1).
TABLE 1—LIVE MUNITIONS AND
AIRCRAFT
Specified Activity Area
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
subdivided blocks including Warning
Area 151 (W–151) where the proposed
activities would occur, specifically in
sub-area W–151A.
NMFS provided detailed descriptions
of the activity area in a previous notice
for the proposed Authorization (79 FR
72631, December 8, 2014). The
information has not changed between
the proposed Authorization notice and
this final notice announcing the
issuance of the Authorization.
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,
Aircraft (not
associated with
specific munitions)
Munitions
GBU–10 laser-guided
Mk-84 bomb.
GBU–24 laser-guided
Mk-84 bomb.
GBU–12 laser-guided
Mk-82 bomb.
GBU–54 Laser Joint
Direct Attack Munition (LJDAM), laserguided Mk-82 bomb.
CBU–105 (WCMD) ....
AGM–65 Maverick airto-surface missile.
GBU–38 Small Diameter Bomb II
(Laser SDB).
AGM–114 Hellfire airto-surface missile.
AGM–175 Griffin airto-surface missile.
2.75 Rockets.
PGU–13/B high explosive incendiary 30
mm rounds.
7.62 mm/.50 Cal.
F–16C fighter aircraft.
F–16C+ fighter aircraft.
F–15E fighter aircraft.
A–10 fighter aircraft.
B–1B bomber aircraft.
B–52H bomber aircraft.
MQ–1/9 unmanned
aerial vehicle.
AC–130 gunship.
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.
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.
TABLE 2—MARITIME WSEP MUNITIONS PROPOSED FOR USE IN THE W–151A TEST AREA.
Total
number
of live
munitions
Type of munition
Warhead—explosive
material
MK–84—Tritonal .....................................................
MK–82—Tritonal .....................................................
WDU–24/B penetrating blast-fragmentation warhead.
10 BLU–108 sub-munitions each containing 4 projectiles parachute, rocket motor and altimeter.
AFX–757 (Insensitive munition) ..............................
High Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) tandem antiarmor metal augmented charge.
945 lbs.
192 lbs.
86 lbs.
Blast fragmentation .................................................
Comp B–4 HEI ........................................................
30 x 173 mm caliber with aluminized RDX explosive. Designed for GAU–8/A Gun System.
N/A ..........................................................................
13 lbs.
Up to 12 lbs.
0.1 lbs.
GBU–10 or GBU–24 .......................................
GBU–12 or GBU–54 (LJDAM) ........................
AGM–65 (Maverick) ........................................
2
6
6
Surface ........
Surface ........
Surface ........
CBU–105 (WCMD) .........................................
4
Airburst ........
GBU–38 (Laser Small Diameter Bomb) .........
AGM–114 (Hellfire) .........................................
4
15
AGM–176 (Griffin) ...........................................
2.75 Rockets ...................................................
PGU–12 HEI 30 mm .......................................
10
100
1,000
Surface ........
Subsurface
(10 msec
delay).
Surface ........
Surface ........
Surface ........
7.62 mm/.50 cal ..............................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Net explosive
weight per
munition
Detonation
type
5,000
Surface ........
83 lbs.
37 lbs.
20 lbs.
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.
To ensure safety, prior to conducting
WSEP activities, Eglin AFB would
conduct a pre-test target area clearance
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:37 Mar 31, 2015
Jkt 235001
procedure for people and protected
species. Eglin AFB would deploy
support vessels around a defined safety
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
zone to ensure that commercial and
recreational boats do not accidentally
enter the area. Before delivering the
E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM
01APN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Notices
ordnance, mission aircraft would make
a dry run over the target area to ensure
that it is clear of commercial and
recreational boats (at least two aircraft
would participate in each test). Due to
the limited duration of the flyover and
potentially high speed and altitude,
pilots will not be able to survey for
marine species. NMFS provided
detailed descriptions of the WSEP
training operations in the previous
notice for the proposed Authorization
(79 FR 72631, December 8, 2014). This
information has not changed between
the proposed Authorization notice and
this final notice announcing the
issuance of the Authorization.
Based on the results from an acoustic
impacts analysis for live ordnance
detonations, Eglin AFB would establish
a separate disturbance zone around the
target for the protection of marine
species. Eglin AFB will base the size of
the zone on the distance to which
energy- and pressure-related impacts
will extend for the various type of
ordnance listed in Table 2. Based on the
acoustic modeling result, the largest
possible distance from the target would
be approximately 5 km (3.1 miles) from
the target area, which corresponds to the
Level A harassment threshold range.
Support vessels would monitor for
marine mammals around the target area.
WSEP activities will not proceed until
Eglin AFB personnel determine that the
target area is clear of unauthorized
personnel and protected species.
In addition to vessel-based
monitoring, Eglin AFB will position
three video cameras on an
instrumentation barge anchored on-site.
The cameras, typically used for
situational awareness of the target area
and surrounding area, would contribute
to monitoring the test site for the
presence of marine species. A marine
species observer would be present in the
Eglin control tower, along with mission
personnel, to monitor the video feed
before and during test activities.
After each test, Eglin AFB would
inspect floating targets to identify and
render safe any unexploded ordnance
(UXO), including fuzes or intact
munitions. The Eglin AFB Explosive
Disposal Team will be on hand for each
test. If Eglin AFB personnel cannot
remove the UXO, personnel will
detonate the UXO in place, which could
result in the sinking of the target vessel.
Once Eglin AFB deems the area clear for
re-entry, test personnel will retrieve
target debris. Marine species observers
would survey the area for any evidence
of adverse impacts to protected species.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:37 Mar 31, 2015
Jkt 235001
Comments and Responses
A notice of receipt of Eglin AFB’s
application and NMFS’ proposal to
issue an Authorization to the USAF,
Eglin AFB, published in the Federal
Register on December 8, 2014 (79 FR
72631). During the 30-day public
comment period, NMFS received
comments from the Marine Mammal
Commission (Commission) only.
Following are the comments from the
Commission and NMFS’ responses.
Comment 1: The Commission notes
that the Air Force has applied for
MMPA authorizations to take marine
mammals on an activity-by-activity
basis (e.g., naval explosive ordnance
disposal school, precision strike
weapon, air-to-surface gunnery and
maritime strike operation) rather than a
programmatic basis. The Commission
believes that the agencies should
evaluate the impacts of all training and
testing activities under a single letter of
authorization application and National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
document rather than segmenting the
analyses based on specific types of
missions under various authorizations.
Response: Both Eglin AFB and NMFS
concur with the Commission’s
recommendation to streamline the
rulemaking process for future activities
conducted within the EGGTR.
Currently, Eglin AFB personnel are
planning to develop a Programmatic
Environmental Assessment as well as a
Request for a Letter of Authorization for
all testing and training activities that
will occur in the Eglin Gulf Test and
Training Range over the next five years.
These efforts would facilitate a more
comprehensive review of actions
occurring within the EGGTR that have
the potential to take marine mammals
incidental to military readiness
activities for future MMPA rulemaking
requests by Eglin AFB.
Comment 2: The Commission states
that Eglin AFB estimated the zones of
exposure (i.e., zones of influence (ZOI)
in two ways: (1) Calculating zones based
on a single detonation event of each
munition type within a three-week
period; and (2) calculating zones based
on a representative ordnance
expenditure scenario of the maximum
number of munitions that Eglin AFB
could expend within a single day. The
Commission further noted that the latter
method was an appropriate method for
determining distances to the sound
exposure level (SEL) thresholds which
are the zones of exposure for
implementing mitigation.
However, the Commission states that
Eglin AFB overestimated marine
mammal take because they based
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17397
estimates on the former method (i.e.,
calculating zones based on a single
detonation event of each munition type
within a three-week period) which
multiplied the number of animals
estimated to be taken by a single
detonation of each munition type by the
total number of munitions that would be
detonated, irrespective of when those
detonations would occur. The
Commission states that this method
does not consider the accumulation of
energy in a 24-hour period which would
more accurately correspond to zones of
exposure for the representative scenario
and serve as more a realistic estimate of
the numbers of animals that Eglin AFB
could potentially take during the WSEP
activities.
Response: With respect to the first
point, Eglin AFB developed an example
test day scenario (assumed to be worst
case) to calculate impact ranges for all
energy metrics in response to the
Commission and NMFS’ concerns. This
is the basis for the mitigation
monitoring plan which NMFS presented
in Table 7 of the notice for the proposed
Authorization (79 FR 72631, December
8, 2014). Based on the ranges presented
in Table 7 and factoring in 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 premission surveys but prior to detonation
would not reach the smaller slight lung
injury or mortality zones.
With respect to the second point,
Eglin AFB’s modeling approach for take
estimates treated each munition
detonation as a separate event impacting
a new set of animals which results in a
worst case scenario of potential take and
is a precautionary overestimate of
potential harassment. Briefly, Eglin
AFB’s model treats each ordnance
detonation as a single event and sums
the estimated potential impacts from
each detonation event to provide a total
estimate of take for the entire WSEP
testing activities event conducted over a
period of 3 weeks. This approach
assumes for a continuous population
refresh of animals (i.e., a new
population of animals is impacted) and
sums all exposures for each species for
all munitions expended during the
three-week period. NMFS and Eglin
E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM
01APN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17398
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Notices
AFB acknowledge that this approach
contributes to the overestimation of take
estimates. This approach has multiple
conservative assumptions built into the
calculations that contribute the
overestimation of take estimates. One
assumption included a continuous
population refresh approach that treated
each munition detonation as a separate
event impacting a new set of animals. In
actuality, multiple detonations will
occur in each mission day, and while
Eglin AFB plans to release certain
munitions on specific days, past
experience has shown that Eglin AFB
may not be able to execute the missions
according to a set plan. Eglin AFB
requires flexibility to make last minute
changes to the schedule in order to
complete all test requirements in the
allotted 3-week timeframe. That may
include Eglin AFB releasing additional
munitions on one day to make up for
days when they could not release
planned munitions.
Comment 3: In estimating take, the
Commission commented Eglin AFB’s
model approach was an additive process
for estimating each zone of exposure,
and thus the associated takes.
Effectively, The Commission states that
Eglin AFB overestimated the number of
take but is unsure to what degree.
Further, the Commission recommends
that Eglin AFB and NMFS should treat
fractions of estimated take
appropriately, that is generally, round
down if less than 0.50 and round up if
greater than or equal to 0.50 before
summing the estimates for each species.
Response: The Commission is correct
in its understanding of how Eglin AFB
estimated take based on an additive
process. Briefly, Eglin AFB estimated
the associated takes by adding the zones
of exposure together which leads to a
double counting of take. For example,
potential take associated with the Level
B harassment (behavior) includes
estimates for takes by mortality, Level A
harassment, and Level B harassment
(TTS). The potential take for Level B
harassment (TTS) includes takes for
Level A harassment and mortality and
the potential take for Level A
harassment (PTS) includes take for
Level A harassment (slight lung injury
and GI tract injury) and mortality.
NMFS agrees with the Commission’s
recommendations and has recalculated
the takes by eliminating the double
counting of the estimated take for each
species and appropriately rounding take
estimates before summing the total take.
Table 8 in this notice provides the
revised number of marine mammals, by
species, that Eglin AFB could
potentially take incidental to the
conduct of Maritime WSEP operations.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:37 Mar 31, 2015
Jkt 235001
The re-calculation results in zero take
by mortality, zero take by slight lung
injury, and zero take by gastrointestinal
tract injury. Compared to the take levels
that NMFS previously proposed (79 FR
72631, December 8, 2014), the reestimation has reduced take estimates
for Level A harassment (PTS) by
approximately five percent to a total of
38 marine mammals; reduced the take
estimates for Level B harassment (TTS)
by approximately eight percent to a total
of 445 marine mammals; and reduced
take estimates for Level B harassment
(behavioral) by approximately 51
percent to a total of 497 marine
mammals. Based on the remodeling of
the number of marine mammals
potentially affected by maritime strike
missions, NMFS would authorize take
for Level A and Level B harassment
presented in Table 8 of this notice.
Comment 4: The Commission states
that Eglin AFB proposes to use live-feed
video cameras to supplement its
effectiveness in detecting marine
mammals when implementing
mitigation measures. However, the
Commission is not convinced that those
measures are sufficient to effectively
monitor for marine mammals entering
the training areas during the 30 minute
timeframe prior to detonation. In
addition, the Commission states that it
does not believe that Eglin AFB cannot
deem the Level A harassment zone clear
of marine mammals when using only
three video cameras for monitoring.
Thus, the Commission recommends that
NMFS require Eglin AFB to supplement
its mitigation measures with passive
acoustic monitoring and determine the
effectiveness of its suite of mitigation
measures for activities at Eglin prior to
incorporating presumed mitigation
effectiveness into its take estimation
analyses or negligible impact
determinations.
Response: NMFS has worked closely
with Eglin AFB over the past several
Authorization cycles to develop proper
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements designed to minimize and
detect impacts from the specified
activities and ensure that NMFS can
make the findings necessary for
issuance of an Authorization.
Monitoring also includes vessel-based
observers for marine species up to 30
minutes prior to deploying live
munitions in the area. Eglin AFB has
submitted annual reports to NMFS
every year that describes all activities
that occur in the EGTTR. In addition,
Eglin AFB submitted annual reports to
NMFS at the conclusion of the Maritime
Strike Operations testing activities
conducted in 2013 and 2014. These
missions are similar in nature to the
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
proposed maritime WSEP operations
and the Eglin AFB provided information
on sighting information and results from
post-mission survey observations. Based
on those results, NMFS determined that
the mitigation measures ensured the
least practicable adverse impact to
marine mammals. There were no
observations of injured marine
mammals and no reports of marine
mammal mortality during the Maritime
Strike Operation activities. The
measures proposed for Maritime WSEP
are similar, except they will include
larger survey areas based on updated
acoustic analysis and previous
discussions with the Commission and
NMFS.
Eglin AFB will continue to research
the feasibility of supplementing existing
monitoring efforts with passive acoustic
monitoring devices for future missions.
Eglin AFB would be willing to discuss
alternatives with the Commission and
NMFS during the development of the
upcoming environmental planning
efforts discussed earlier in Comment 1.
Comment 5: The MMC expressed
their belief that all permanent hearing
loss should be considered a serious
injury and recommends that NMFS
propose to issue regulations under
section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and a
letter of authorization, rather than an
incidental harassment authorization, for
any proposed activities expected to
cause a permanent threshold shift (PTS).
Response: NMFS considers PTS to fall
under the injury category (Level A
Harassment). However, an animal
would need to stay very close to the
sound source for an extended amount of
time to incur a serious degree of PTS,
which could increase the probability of
mortality. In this case, it would be
highly unlikely for this scenario to
unfold given the nature of any
anticipated acoustic exposures that
could potentially result from a mobile
marine mammal that NMFS generally
expects to exhibit avoidance behavior to
loud sounds within the EGTTR.
NMFS based PTS thresholds on the
onset of PTS, meaning an exposure that
causes a 40 dB threshold shift (Ward et
al., 1958, 1959; Ward, 1960; Kryter et
al., 1996; Miller, 1974; Ahroon et al.,
1996; Henderson et al., 2008). An
animal would exceed the PTS threshold
by either being exposed to the sound at
a lower level for a long amount of time
(not likely with explosives) or receive a
shorter exposure at a much higher level
(meaning being closer to the source) in
order to incur a significantly more
serious degree of PTS, beyond onset,
would require exposures of even longer
durations or higher levels. Taking into
consideration marine mammals would
E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM
01APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Notices
likely avoid an area with high levels of
training activities; the intermittent and
short duration of the proposed activity
(4 hours per day within the span of
three weeks); combined with the density
of marine mammals, it is unlikely that
a marine mammal would randomly
enter the area where more severe
impacts would be a risk. Additionally,
some degree of presbycusis (i.e., agerelated high-frequency hearing loss) is
fairly common in the wild especially
with older animals (i.e., animals are
adapted to continue to perform normal
life functions with some level of PTS).
NMFS is unaware of data suggesting
whether, or at what a reduction in
hearing ability might potentially lead to
direct or indirect mortality.
NMFS has recalculated the takes
proposed in the notice for the proposed
Authorization (79 FR 72631, December
8, 2014) and the results of the
recalculation show zero takes for
mortality, zero takes by slight lung
injury, and zero takes by gastrointestinal
tract injury. Further, the re-estimation
has reduced the number of take by Level
A harassment (from PTS) and by Level
B harassment (TTS and behavioral).
Based on this re-estimation, NMFS does
not believe that serious injury will
result from this activity and that
therefore it is not necessary to issue
17399
regulations through section 101(a)(5)(A),
rather, an Incidental Harassment
Authorization may be issued.
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.
TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMALS MOST LIKELY TO BE HARASSED INCIDENTAL TO EGLIN AFB’S ACTIVITIES IN W–151A
Species
Stock name
Regulatory status 1 2
Estimated
abundance
Common bottlenose dolphin ............
Choctawatchee Bay .........................
MMPA—S ........................................
ESA—NL ..........................................
MMPA—S ........................................
ESA—NL ..........................................
MMPA—S ........................................
ESA—NL ..........................................
MMPA—S ........................................
ESA—NL ..........................................
MMPA—NC .....................................
ESA—NL ..........................................
MMPA—NC .....................................
ESA—NL ..........................................
MMPA—NC .....................................
ESA—NL ..........................................
232 ..............
CV = 0.06 3
33 ................
CV = 0.88 4
124 ..............
CV = 0.18 4
2,473 ...........
CV = 0.25 5
17,777 .........
CV = 0.32 6
5,806 ...........
CV = 0.39 7
37,611 8 .......
CV = 0.28 ....
Pensacola/East Bay .........................
St. Andrew Bay ................................
Gulf of Mexico Northern Coastal .....
Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental
Shelf.
Northern Gulf of Mexico Oceanic ....
Atlantic spotted dolphin ...................
Northern Gulf of Mexico ..................
Relative
occurrence in
W–151
Uncommon
Uncommon
Uncommon
Common
Uncommon
Uncommon
Common
1 MMPA:
D = Depleted, S = Strategic, NC = Not Classified.
EN = Endangered, T = Threatened, DL = Delisted, NL = Not listed.
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)
2 ESA:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3 Conn
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:37 Mar 31, 2015
Jkt 235001
crassidens), pygmy killer whale (Feresa
attenuata), Risso’s dolphin (Grampus
griseus), Fraser’s dolphin
(Lagenodelphis hosei), melon-headed
whale (Peponocephala electra), roughtoothed 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 (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.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 EA 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 an authorization to
harass manatees and does not discuss
this species further in this notice.
E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM
01APN1
17400
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Notices
Potential Effects of the Specified
Activity on Marine Mammals
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
This section of the notice for the
proposed Authorization (79 FR 72631,
December 8, 2014) included a summary
and discussion of the ways that the
types of stressors associated with the
specified activity (e.g., ordnance
detonation and vessel movement) have
been observed to impact marine
mammals. 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 incidentally take during their
activities. The ‘‘Negligible Impact
Analysis’’ section will include the
analysis of how this specific activity
will impact marine mammals and will
consider the content of this section, the
‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental
Harassment’’ section, the ‘‘Mitigation’’
section, and the ‘‘Anticipated Effects on
Marine Mammal Habitat’’ section to
draw conclusions regarding the likely
impacts of this activity on the
reproductive success or survivorship of
individuals and from that on the
affected marine mammal populations or
stocks.
In summary, 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
Level A harassment (PTS) and by Level
B harassment (TTS and behavioral). In
addition, NMFS also considered the
potential for harassment from vessel
operations.
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 mortality. NMFS
provided detailed information on these
potential effects in the notice for the
proposed Authorization (79 FR 72631,
December 8, 2014). The information
presented in that notice has not
changed.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:37 Mar 31, 2015
Jkt 235001
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 EA. Eglin AFB analyzed the potential
effects of each in their EA and
determined them to be insignificant.
NMFS provided a summary of the
analyses in the notice for the proposed
Authorization (79 FR 72631, December
8, 2014). The information presented in
that notice has not changed.
Mitigation
In order to issue an incidental take
authorization under section 101(a)(5)(D)
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 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 Eglin AFB’s application
for more detailed information on the
mitigation measures which include the
following:
Vessel-Based Monitoring: Eglin AFB
would station a large number of range
clearing boats (approximately 20 to 25)
around the test site to prevent nonparticipating 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
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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, gastrointestinal tract,
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
from the periphery.
Video Monitoring: In addition to
vessel-based monitoring, three highdefinition video cameras would be
positioned on the GRATV anchored onsite, 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.
E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM
01APN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Notices
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).
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 earlier in this
section, 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.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:37 Mar 31, 2015
Jkt 235001
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 nonparticipating 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
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17401
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 premission 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
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
E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM
01APN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17402
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Notices
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
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:37 Mar 31, 2015
Jkt 235001
impact of effectiveness of the military
readiness activity.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
5. An increase in our understanding
of the effectiveness of certain mitigation
and monitoring measures.
The Authorization will require the
following measures in the Maritime
WSEP Authorization. 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
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
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 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
E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM
01APN1
17403
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Notices
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].
At NMFS’ recommendation, Eglin
AFB 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%20
Technical%20Documents/Criteria_and_
Thresholds_for_US_Navy_Acoustic_
and_Explosive_Effects_Analysis-Apr_
2012.pdf.
Table 4 in this document outlines the
revised acoustic thresholds used by
NMFS for this Authorization when
addressing noise impacts from
explosives.
TABLE 4—IMPULSIVE SOUND EXPLOSIVE THRESHOLDS USED BY EGLIN AFB IN ITS CURRENT ACOUSTICS IMPACTS
MODELING
Behavior
Slight injury
Group
Mortality
Behavioral
Mid-frequency Cetaceans .......
TTS
PTS
Gastro-intestinal tract
Lung
167 dB SEL
172 dB SEL
or 23 psi
187 dB SEL
or 45.86
psi
104 psi ........
39.1 M1⁄3
(1+[DRm/
10.081])1⁄2
Pa-sec.
Where: M =
mass of the
animals in
kg.
DRm = depth of
the receiver
(animal) 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 5
provides the estimated maximum range
or radius, from the detonation point to
the various thresholds described in
Table 4. Eglin AFB uses the range
information shown in Table 5 (Table 6.3
in Eglin’s application) to calculate the
91.4 M1⁄3 (1+DRm/10.081])1⁄2
Pa-sec
Where: M = mass of the animals in kg
DRm = depth of the receiver
(animal) in meters
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 5—DISTANCES (M) TO HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS FROM EGLIN AFB’S EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE
Mortality
Munition
NEW
(lbs)
Total
number
Detonation
scenario
Modified
Goertner
model 1
Level A harassment
Slight
lung
injury
TTS
GI
track
injury
Modified
Goertner
model 2
Level B Harassment
Behavioral
PTS
237 dB
SPL
187 dB
SEL
230 dB
peak
SPL
172 dB
SEL
224 dB
Peak
SPL
167 dB
SEL
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Bottlenose Dolphin
GBU–10 ..............................
or GBU–24
GBU–12 ..............................
or GBU–54
AGM–65 (Maverick) ...........
GBU–39 ..............................
(LSDB)
AGM–114 (Hellfire) ............
945
2
Surface ........
199
350
340
965
698
1,582
1,280
2,549
192
6
Surface ........
111
233
198
726
409
2,027
752
2,023
86
37
6
4
Surface ........
Surface ........
82
59
177
128
150
112
610
479
312
234
1,414
1,212
575
433
1,874
1,543
20
15
110
229
95
378
193
2,070
354
3,096
AGM–175 (Griffin) ..............
2.75 Rockets ......................
PGU–13 ..............................
HEI 30 mm
13
12
0.1
10
100
1,000
(10 ft ............
depth)
Surface ........
Surface ........
Surface ........
38
36
0
83
81
7
79
77
16
307
281
24
165
161
33
1,020
1,010
247
305
296
60
1,343
1,339
492
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:37 Mar 31, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM
01APN1
17404
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Notices
TABLE 5—DISTANCES (M) TO HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS FROM EGLIN AFB’S EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE—Continued
Mortality
Munition
NEW
(lbs)
Total
number
Detonation
scenario
Modified
Goertner
model 1
Level A harassment
Slight
lung
injury
TTS
GI
track
injury
Modified
Goertner
model 2
237 dB
SPL
Level B Harassment
Behavioral
PTS
187 dB
SEL
230 dB
peak
SPL
172 dB
SEL
224 dB
Peak
SPL
167 dB
SEL
Atlantic Spotted Dolphin and Unidentified Dolphin 1
GBU–10 ..............................
or GBU–24
GBU–12 ..............................
or GBU–54
AGM–65 .............................
(Maverick)
GBU–39 ..............................
(LSDB)
AGM–114 ...........................
(Hellfire)
AGM–175 ...........................
(Griffin)
2.75 Rockets ......................
PGU–13 ..............................
HEI 30 mm
945
2
Surface ........
237
400
340
965
698
1,582
1,280
2,549
192
6
Surface ........
138
274
198
726
409
2,027
752
2,023
86
6
Surface ........
101
216
150
610
312
1,414
575
1,874
37
4
Surface ........
73
158
112
479
234
1,212
433
1,543
20
15
135
277
95
378
193
2,070
354
3,096
13
10
(10 ft ............
depth)
Surface ........
47
104
79
307
165
1,020
305
1,343
12
0.1
100
1,000
Surface ........
Surface ........
45
0
100
9
77
16
281
24
161
33
1,010
247
296
60
1,339
492
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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 and
Monitoring Zones
The ranges presented in Table 5
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:37 Mar 31, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 6 displays these ranges
which form the basis of the mitigation
monitoring thresholds.
E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM
01APN1
17405
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Notices
TABLE 6—DISTANCES (M) TO HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS FOR AN EXAMPLE MISSION DAY
Level A
harassment
NEW
(lbs)
Munition
GBU–10 or GBU–24 ......................................................
GBU–12 or GBU–54 ......................................................
AGM–65 (Maverick) .......................................................
GBU–39 (LSDB) .............................................................
AGM–114 (Hellfire) .........................................................
AGM–175 (Griffin) ..........................................................
2.75 Rockets ..................................................................
PGU–13 HEI 30 mm ......................................................
Total #
per day
945
192
86
37
20
13
12
0.1
Detonation
scenario
1
1
1
1
3
2
12
125
Level B harassment
TTS
PTS 187 dB
SEL
Surface ........
Surface.
Surface.
Surface.
(10 ft depth).
Surface.
Surface.
Surface.
5,120
Behavioral
172 dB
SEL
67 dB
SEL
12,384
15,960
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 6 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 premission surveys but prior to detonation
would not reach the smaller slight lung
injury or mortality zones (presented in
Table 5). 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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Density Estimation
Density estimates for bottlenose
dolphin and spotted dolphin were
derived from two sources (Table 7).
NMFS provided detailed information on
Eglin AFB’s derivation of density
estimates for the bottlenose and Atlantic
spotted dolphins in the notice for the
proposed Authorization (79 FR 72631,
December 8, 2014). The information
presented in that notice has not changed
and NMFS refers the reader to Section
3 of Eglin AFB’s application for detailed
information on all equations used to
calculate densities presented in Table 7.
TABLE 7—MARINE MAMMAL DENSITY
ESTIMATES WITHIN EGLIN AFB’S
EGTTR
Density
(animals/
km 2)
Species
Bottlenose dolphin 1 ..................
Atlantic spotted dolphin 2 ..........
Unidentified bottlenose dolphin/
Atlantic spotted dolphin 2 ......
1.194
0.265
0.009
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).
Take Estimation
NMFS recalculated the takes
proposed in previous notice for the
proposed Authorization (79 FR 72631,
December 8, 2014) by eliminating the
double counting of the estimated take
for each species and appropriately
rounding take estimates before summing
the total take.
Table 8 indicates the modeled
potential for lethality, injury, and non-
injurious harassment (including
behavioral harassment) to marine
mammals in the absence of mitigation
measures. Table 8 includes the revised
number of marine mammals, by species,
that Eglin AFB could potentially take
incidental to the conduct of Maritime
WSEP operations. The re-calculation
results in zero take by mortality, zero
take by slight lung injury, and zero take
by gastrointestinal tract injury.
Compared to the take levels that NMFS
previously proposed (79 FR 72631,
December 8, 2014), the re-estimation has
reduced take estimates for Level A
harassment (PTS) by approximately five
percent to a total of 38 marine
mammals; reduced the take estimates
for Level B harassment (TTS) by
approximately eight percent to a total of
445 marine mammals; and reduced take
estimates for Level B harassment
(behavioral) by approximately 51
percent to a total of 497 marine
mammals. Based on the remodeling of
the number of marine mammals
potentially affected by maritime strike
missions, NMFS would authorize take
for Level A and Level B harassment
presented in Table 8 of this notice.
Eglin AFB and NMFS estimate that
approximately 38 marine mammals
could be exposed to injurious Level A
harassment noise levels (187 dB SEL)
and approximately 942 animals could
be exposed to Level B harassment (TTS
and behavioral) noise levels.
TABLE 8—RE-MODELED NUMBER OF MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY MARITIME WSEP OPERATIONS. AUTHORIZED TAKES FOR LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ARE THE SAME AS THOSE MODELED. NMFS WOULD NOT
AUTHORIZE TAKES FOR MORTALITY OR SERIOUS INJURY.
Species
Bottlenose dolphin ...........................................................................................................
Atlantic spotted dolphin ...................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:37 Mar 31, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Level A
harassment
(PTS only)
Mortality
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Level B
harassment
(TTS)
Level B
harassment
(behavioral)
33
5
373
68
423
69
0
0
E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM
01APN1
17406
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Notices
TABLE 8—RE-MODELED NUMBER OF MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY MARITIME WSEP OPERATIONS. AUTHORIZED TAKES FOR LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ARE THE SAME AS THOSE MODELED. NMFS WOULD NOT
AUTHORIZE TAKES FOR MORTALITY OR SERIOUS INJURY.—Continued
Species
Level A
harassment
(PTS only)
Mortality
Level B
harassment
(TTS)
Level B
harassment
(behavioral)
0
0
4
5
Total ..........................................................................................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Unidentified bottlenose dolphin/Atlantic spotted dolphin .................................................
0
38
445
497
Based on the mortality exposure
estimates calculated by the acoustic
model, zero marine mammals are
expected to be affected by pressure
levels associated with mortality or
serious injury. Zero marine mammals
are expected to be exposed to pressure
levels associated with slight lung injury
or gastrointestinal tract injury.
NMFS generally considers PTS to fall
under the injury category (Level A
Harassment). An animal would need to
stay very close to the sound source for
an extended amount of time to incur a
serious degree of PTS, which could
increase the probability of mortality. In
this case, it would be highly unlikely for
this scenario to unfold given the nature
of any anticipated acoustic exposures
that could potentially result from a
mobile marine mammal that NMFS
generally expects to exhibit avoidance
behavior to loud sounds within the
EGTTR.
NMFS has relied on the best available
scientific information to support the
issuance of Eglin AFB’s authorization.
In the case of authorizing Level A
harassment, NMFS has estimated that
no more than 33 bottlenose dolphins
and 5 Atlantic spotted dolphins could,
although unlikely, experience minor
permanent threshold shifts of hearing
sensitivity (PTS). The available data and
analyses, as described more fully in
notice for the proposed Authorization
(79 FR 72631, December 8, 2014)
include extrapolation results of many
studies on marine mammal noiseinduced temporary threshold shifts of
hearing sensitivities. An extensive
review of TTS studies and experiments
prompted NMFS to conclude that
possibility of minor PTS in the form of
slight upward shift of hearing threshold
at certain frequency bands by a few
individuals of marine mammals is
extremely low, but not unlikely.
Negligible Impact Analysis and
Determination
As explained previously, the term
‘‘negligible impact’’ is defined as ‘‘an
impact resulting from the specified
activity that cannot be reasonably
expected to, and is not reasonably likely
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:37 Mar 31, 2015
Jkt 235001
to, adversely affect the species or stock
through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival’’ (50 CFR
216.103). The lack of likely 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, or other nonauditory injury, serious injury, or death.
The takes from Level B harassment
will be due to potential behavioral
disturbance and TTS. The takes from
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Level A harassment will be due to
potential PTS. Activities would only
occur over a timeframe of two to three
weeks in beginning in February, 2015,
with one, four-hour mission occurring
each 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.
Noise-induced threshold shifts (TS,
which includes PTS) are defined as
increases in the threshold of audibility
(i.e., the sound has to be louder to be
detected) of the ear at a certain
frequency or range of frequencies (ANSI
1995; Yost 2000). Several important
factors relate to the magnitude of TS,
such as level, duration, spectral content
(frequency range), and temporal pattern
(continuous, intermittent) of exposure
(Yost 2000; Henderson et al. 2008). TS
occurs in terms of frequency range
(hertz [Hz] or kHz), hearing threshold
level (dB), or both frequency and
hearing threshold level (CDC 2004).
In addition, there are different degrees
of PTS: Ranging from slight/mild to
moderate and from severe to profound
(Clark 1981). Profound PTS or the
complete loss of the ability to hear in
one or both ears is commonly referred
to as deafness (CDC 2004; WHO 2006).
High-frequency PTS, presumably as a
normal process of aging that occurs in
humans and other terrestrial mammals,
has also been demonstrated in captive
cetaceans (Ridgway and Carder 1997;
Yuen et al. 2005; Finneran et al. 2005a;
Houser and Finneran 2006; Finneran et
al. 2007a; Schlundt et al. 2011) and in
stranded individuals (Mann et al. 2010).
In terms of what is analyzed for the
potential PTS (Level A harassment) in
marine mammals as a result of Eglin
AFB’s Maritime WSEP operations, if it
occurs, NMFS has determined that the
levels would be slight/mild because
research shows that most cetaceans
show relatively high levels of
avoidance. Further, it is uncommon to
sight marine mammals within the target
area, especially for prolonged durations.
E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM
01APN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Notices
Results from monitoring programs
associated other Eglin AFB activities
have shown the absence of marine
mammals within the EGTTR during
maritime operations. Avoidance varies
among individuals and depends on their
activities or reasons for being in the area
While animals may be impacted in
the immediate vicinity of the activity,
because of the short duration of the
actual individual explosions themselves
(versus continual sound source
operation) combined with the short
duration of the Maritime WSEP
operations, NMFS has 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 (PTS only, not slight lung injury or
gastrointestinal tract injury) 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 (i.e., four
hours a day) and site-specific nature of
the activity, and the severity of effect
would not be detrimental to rates of
recruitment and survival.
Moreover, the mitigation and
monitoring measures required by the
Authorization (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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:37 Mar 31, 2015
Jkt 235001
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 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 determined that this Authorization
would have no effect on ESA-listed
marine mammal species. Therefore,
NMFS has determined that a section 7
consultation under the ESA is not
required.
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
Eglin AFB provided NMFS with an
Environmental Assessment titled,
Maritime Weapon Systems Evaluation
Program (WSEP) Operational Testing In
The Eglin Gulf Testing And Training
Range (EGTTR), Florida. The EA
analyzes the direct, indirect, and
cumulative environmental impacts of
the specified activities on marine
mammals. NMFS, after review and
evaluation of the Eglin AFB EA for
consistency with the regulations
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17407
published by the Council of
Environmental Quality (CEQ) and
NOAA Administrative Order 216–6,
Environmental Review Procedures for
Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act, adopted the
EA. After considering the EA, the
information in the IHA application, and
the Federal Register notice, as well as
public comments, NMFS has
determined that the issuance of an
Authorization is not likely to result in
significant impacts on the human
environment and has prepared a
Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI). An Environmental Impact
Statement is not required and will not
be prepared for the action.
Authorization
NMFS has issued an Incidental
Harassment Authorization to Eglin AFB
for conducting Maritime WSEP
operations in the EGGTR, provided the
previously mentioned mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements
are incorporated.
Dated: March 23, 2015.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–07429 Filed 3–31–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Sanctuary System Business Advisory
Council: Public Meeting
Office of National Marine
Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean
Service (NOS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Department of Commerce (DOC).
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given of a
meeting of the Sanctuary System
Business Advisory Council (Council).
The meeting is open to the public, and
participants may provide comments at
the appropriate time during the meeting.
DATES: The meeting will be held
Wednesday, April 22, 2015, from 10:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Thursday, April
23, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
EDT. An opportunity for public
comment will be provided on April 23,
2015 at 11:30 a.m. EDT. These times and
the agenda topics described below are
subject to change.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in
the Hubbard Hall Board Room of the
National Geographic Society, 1146 16th
Street NW., Washington, DC 20036.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM
01APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 62 (Wednesday, April 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17394-17407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07429]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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; issuance of incidental harassment authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act
regulations, NMFS hereby gives notice that NMFS has issued an
Incidental Harassment Authorization (Authorization) to the U.S. Air
Force, Eglin Air Force Base (Eglin AFB), 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 from February 5 through April 1, 2015. 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.
DATES: Effective February 5, 2015, through April 1, 2015.
ADDRESSES: An electronic copy of the final Authorization, Eglin AFB's
[[Page 17395]]
application and their final Environmental Assessment (EA) titled,
``Maritime Weapons System Evaluation Program are available by writing
to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of
Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; by telephoning the contacts listed
here, or by visiting 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 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);
and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such
taking. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as
``an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.''
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2004 (NDAA; Pub. L. 108-
136) 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
explosive sources. Eglin AFB submitted a second revised application to
NMFS on December 1, 2014, which provided updated mitigation zones. NMFS
determined the application adequate and complete on December 2, 2014
and published a notice of proposed Authorization on December 8, 2014
(79 FR 72631). The notice afforded the public a 30-day comment period
on the proposed MMPA Authorization.
Eglin AFB proposes to conduct Maritime WESP missions within the
EGTTR airspace over the Gulf of Mexico, specifically within Warning
Area 151 (W-151), which is located approximately 17 miles offshore from
Santa Rosa Island, specifically sub-area W-151A. 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.
Eglin AFB's Maritime WSEP operations may potentially impact marine
mammals at or near the water surface. Thus, the following specific
aspect of the proposed WSEP activities have the potential to take
marine mammals: Increased underwater sound and pressure generated
during the WSEP testing missions. 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 final; Environmental Assessment (EA); their Authorization
application, including proposed mitigation and monitoring measures; and
for reasons discussed later in this document, NMFS does not anticipate
that Eglin's WSEP activities will result in any serious injury or
mortality to marine mammals.
Eglin AFB has requested authorization to take two cetacean species
by Level A and Level B harassment. The requested species include:
Atlantic bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and Atlantic spotted
dolphin (Stenella frontalis).
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 April 1, 2015. The proposed missions would occur on
weekdays, during daytime hours only, with one or two missions occurring
per day. Some
[[Page 17396]]
minor deviation from Eglin AFB's requested dates is possible and the
Authorization, would be effective from February 5, 2015 through April
1, 2015.
Specified Activity Area
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 subdivided blocks including Warning Area
151 (W-151) where the proposed activities would occur, specifically in
sub-area W-151A.
NMFS provided detailed descriptions of the activity area in a
previous notice for the proposed Authorization (79 FR 72631, December
8, 2014). The information has not changed between the proposed
Authorization notice and this final notice announcing the issuance of
the Authorization.
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft (not associated
Munitions 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.
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
number of Warhead--explosive Net explosive
Type of munition live Detonation type material weight per munition
munitions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
To ensure safety, prior to conducting WSEP activities, Eglin AFB
would conduct a pre-test target area clearance procedure for people and
protected species. Eglin AFB would deploy support vessels around a
defined safety zone to ensure that commercial and recreational boats do
not accidentally enter the area. Before delivering the
[[Page 17397]]
ordnance, mission aircraft would make a dry run over the target area to
ensure that it is clear of commercial and recreational boats (at least
two aircraft would participate in each test). Due to the limited
duration of the flyover and potentially high speed and altitude, pilots
will not be able to survey for marine species. NMFS provided detailed
descriptions of the WSEP training operations in the previous notice for
the proposed Authorization (79 FR 72631, December 8, 2014). This
information has not changed between the proposed Authorization notice
and this final notice announcing the issuance of the Authorization.
Based on the results from an acoustic impacts analysis for live
ordnance detonations, Eglin AFB would establish a separate disturbance
zone around the target for the protection of marine species. Eglin AFB
will base the size of the zone on the distance to which energy- and
pressure-related impacts will extend for the various type of ordnance
listed in Table 2. Based on the acoustic modeling result, the largest
possible distance from the target would be approximately 5 km (3.1
miles) from the target area, which corresponds to the Level A
harassment threshold range. Support vessels would monitor for marine
mammals around the target area. WSEP activities will not proceed until
Eglin AFB personnel determine that the target area is clear of
unauthorized personnel and protected species.
In addition to vessel-based monitoring, Eglin AFB will position
three video cameras on an instrumentation barge anchored on-site. The
cameras, typically used for situational awareness of the target area
and surrounding area, would contribute to monitoring the test site for
the presence of marine species. A marine species observer would be
present in the Eglin control tower, along with mission personnel, to
monitor the video feed before and during test activities.
After each test, Eglin AFB would inspect floating targets to
identify and render safe any unexploded ordnance (UXO), including fuzes
or intact munitions. The Eglin AFB Explosive Disposal Team will be on
hand for each test. If Eglin AFB personnel cannot remove the UXO,
personnel will detonate the UXO in place, which could result in the
sinking of the target vessel. Once Eglin AFB deems the area clear for
re-entry, test personnel will retrieve target debris. Marine species
observers would survey the area for any evidence of adverse impacts to
protected species.
Comments and Responses
A notice of receipt of Eglin AFB's application and NMFS' proposal
to issue an Authorization to the USAF, Eglin AFB, published in the
Federal Register on December 8, 2014 (79 FR 72631). During the 30-day
public comment period, NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal
Commission (Commission) only. Following are the comments from the
Commission and NMFS' responses.
Comment 1: The Commission notes that the Air Force has applied for
MMPA authorizations to take marine mammals on an activity-by-activity
basis (e.g., naval explosive ordnance disposal school, precision strike
weapon, air-to-surface gunnery and maritime strike operation) rather
than a programmatic basis. The Commission believes that the agencies
should evaluate the impacts of all training and testing activities
under a single letter of authorization application and National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document rather than segmenting the
analyses based on specific types of missions under various
authorizations.
Response: Both Eglin AFB and NMFS concur with the Commission's
recommendation to streamline the rulemaking process for future
activities conducted within the EGGTR. Currently, Eglin AFB personnel
are planning to develop a Programmatic Environmental Assessment as well
as a Request for a Letter of Authorization for all testing and training
activities that will occur in the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range
over the next five years. These efforts would facilitate a more
comprehensive review of actions occurring within the EGGTR that have
the potential to take marine mammals incidental to military readiness
activities for future MMPA rulemaking requests by Eglin AFB.
Comment 2: The Commission states that Eglin AFB estimated the zones
of exposure (i.e., zones of influence (ZOI) in two ways: (1)
Calculating zones based on a single detonation event of each munition
type within a three-week period; and (2) calculating zones based on a
representative ordnance expenditure scenario of the maximum number of
munitions that Eglin AFB could expend within a single day. The
Commission further noted that the latter method was an appropriate
method for determining distances to the sound exposure level (SEL)
thresholds which are the zones of exposure for implementing mitigation.
However, the Commission states that Eglin AFB overestimated marine
mammal take because they based estimates on the former method (i.e.,
calculating zones based on a single detonation event of each munition
type within a three-week period) which multiplied the number of animals
estimated to be taken by a single detonation of each munition type by
the total number of munitions that would be detonated, irrespective of
when those detonations would occur. The Commission states that this
method does not consider the accumulation of energy in a 24-hour period
which would more accurately correspond to zones of exposure for the
representative scenario and serve as more a realistic estimate of the
numbers of animals that Eglin AFB could potentially take during the
WSEP activities.
Response: With respect to the first point, Eglin AFB developed an
example test day scenario (assumed to be worst case) to calculate
impact ranges for all energy metrics in response to the Commission and
NMFS' concerns. This is the basis for the mitigation monitoring plan
which NMFS presented in Table 7 of the notice for the proposed
Authorization (79 FR 72631, December 8, 2014). Based on the ranges
presented in Table 7 and factoring in 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.
With respect to the second point, Eglin AFB's modeling approach for
take estimates treated each munition detonation as a separate event
impacting a new set of animals which results in a worst case scenario
of potential take and is a precautionary overestimate of potential
harassment. Briefly, Eglin AFB's model treats each ordnance detonation
as a single event and sums the estimated potential impacts from each
detonation event to provide a total estimate of take for the entire
WSEP testing activities event conducted over a period of 3 weeks. This
approach assumes for a continuous population refresh of animals (i.e.,
a new population of animals is impacted) and sums all exposures for
each species for all munitions expended during the three-week period.
NMFS and Eglin
[[Page 17398]]
AFB acknowledge that this approach contributes to the overestimation of
take estimates. This approach has multiple conservative assumptions
built into the calculations that contribute the overestimation of take
estimates. One assumption included a continuous population refresh
approach that treated each munition detonation as a separate event
impacting a new set of animals. In actuality, multiple detonations will
occur in each mission day, and while Eglin AFB plans to release certain
munitions on specific days, past experience has shown that Eglin AFB
may not be able to execute the missions according to a set plan. Eglin
AFB requires flexibility to make last minute changes to the schedule in
order to complete all test requirements in the allotted 3-week
timeframe. That may include Eglin AFB releasing additional munitions on
one day to make up for days when they could not release planned
munitions.
Comment 3: In estimating take, the Commission commented Eglin AFB's
model approach was an additive process for estimating each zone of
exposure, and thus the associated takes. Effectively, The Commission
states that Eglin AFB overestimated the number of take but is unsure to
what degree. Further, the Commission recommends that Eglin AFB and NMFS
should treat fractions of estimated take appropriately, that is
generally, round down if less than 0.50 and round up if greater than or
equal to 0.50 before summing the estimates for each species.
Response: The Commission is correct in its understanding of how
Eglin AFB estimated take based on an additive process. Briefly, Eglin
AFB estimated the associated takes by adding the zones of exposure
together which leads to a double counting of take. For example,
potential take associated with the Level B harassment (behavior)
includes estimates for takes by mortality, Level A harassment, and
Level B harassment (TTS). The potential take for Level B harassment
(TTS) includes takes for Level A harassment and mortality and the
potential take for Level A harassment (PTS) includes take for Level A
harassment (slight lung injury and GI tract injury) and mortality.
NMFS agrees with the Commission's recommendations and has
recalculated the takes by eliminating the double counting of the
estimated take for each species and appropriately rounding take
estimates before summing the total take. Table 8 in this notice
provides the revised number of marine mammals, by species, that Eglin
AFB could potentially take incidental to the conduct of Maritime WSEP
operations. The re-calculation results in zero take by mortality, zero
take by slight lung injury, and zero take by gastrointestinal tract
injury. Compared to the take levels that NMFS previously proposed (79
FR 72631, December 8, 2014), the re-estimation has reduced take
estimates for Level A harassment (PTS) by approximately five percent to
a total of 38 marine mammals; reduced the take estimates for Level B
harassment (TTS) by approximately eight percent to a total of 445
marine mammals; and reduced take estimates for Level B harassment
(behavioral) by approximately 51 percent to a total of 497 marine
mammals. Based on the remodeling of the number of marine mammals
potentially affected by maritime strike missions, NMFS would authorize
take for Level A and Level B harassment presented in Table 8 of this
notice.
Comment 4: The Commission states that Eglin AFB proposes to use
live-feed video cameras to supplement its effectiveness in detecting
marine mammals when implementing mitigation measures. However, the
Commission is not convinced that those measures are sufficient to
effectively monitor for marine mammals entering the training areas
during the 30 minute timeframe prior to detonation. In addition, the
Commission states that it does not believe that Eglin AFB cannot deem
the Level A harassment zone clear of marine mammals when using only
three video cameras for monitoring. Thus, the Commission recommends
that NMFS require Eglin AFB to supplement its mitigation measures with
passive acoustic monitoring and determine the effectiveness of its
suite of mitigation measures for activities at Eglin prior to
incorporating presumed mitigation effectiveness into its take
estimation analyses or negligible impact determinations.
Response: NMFS has worked closely with Eglin AFB over the past
several Authorization cycles to develop proper mitigation, monitoring,
and reporting requirements designed to minimize and detect impacts from
the specified activities and ensure that NMFS can make the findings
necessary for issuance of an Authorization.
Monitoring also includes vessel-based observers for marine species
up to 30 minutes prior to deploying live munitions in the area. Eglin
AFB has submitted annual reports to NMFS every year that describes all
activities that occur in the EGTTR. In addition, Eglin AFB submitted
annual reports to NMFS at the conclusion of the Maritime Strike
Operations testing activities conducted in 2013 and 2014. These
missions are similar in nature to the proposed maritime WSEP operations
and the Eglin AFB provided information on sighting information and
results from post-mission survey observations. Based on those results,
NMFS determined that the mitigation measures ensured the least
practicable adverse impact to marine mammals. There were no
observations of injured marine mammals and no reports of marine mammal
mortality during the Maritime Strike Operation activities. The measures
proposed for Maritime WSEP are similar, except they will include larger
survey areas based on updated acoustic analysis and previous
discussions with the Commission and NMFS.
Eglin AFB will continue to research the feasibility of
supplementing existing monitoring efforts with passive acoustic
monitoring devices for future missions. Eglin AFB would be willing to
discuss alternatives with the Commission and NMFS during the
development of the upcoming environmental planning efforts discussed
earlier in Comment 1.
Comment 5: The MMC expressed their belief that all permanent
hearing loss should be considered a serious injury and recommends that
NMFS propose to issue regulations under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the
MMPA and a letter of authorization, rather than an incidental
harassment authorization, for any proposed activities expected to cause
a permanent threshold shift (PTS).
Response: NMFS considers PTS to fall under the injury category
(Level A Harassment). However, an animal would need to stay very close
to the sound source for an extended amount of time to incur a serious
degree of PTS, which could increase the probability of mortality. In
this case, it would be highly unlikely for this scenario to unfold
given the nature of any anticipated acoustic exposures that could
potentially result from a mobile marine mammal that NMFS generally
expects to exhibit avoidance behavior to loud sounds within the EGTTR.
NMFS based PTS thresholds on the onset of PTS, meaning an exposure
that causes a 40 dB threshold shift (Ward et al., 1958, 1959; Ward,
1960; Kryter et al., 1996; Miller, 1974; Ahroon et al., 1996; Henderson
et al., 2008). An animal would exceed the PTS threshold by either being
exposed to the sound at a lower level for a long amount of time (not
likely with explosives) or receive a shorter exposure at a much higher
level (meaning being closer to the source) in order to incur a
significantly more serious degree of PTS, beyond onset, would require
exposures of even longer durations or higher levels. Taking into
consideration marine mammals would
[[Page 17399]]
likely avoid an area with high levels of training activities; the
intermittent and short duration of the proposed activity (4 hours per
day within the span of three weeks); combined with the density of
marine mammals, it is unlikely that a marine mammal would randomly
enter the area where more severe impacts would be a risk. Additionally,
some degree of presbycusis (i.e., age-related high-frequency hearing
loss) is fairly common in the wild especially with older animals (i.e.,
animals are adapted to continue to perform normal life functions with
some level of PTS). NMFS is unaware of data suggesting whether, or at
what a reduction in hearing ability might potentially lead to direct or
indirect mortality.
NMFS has recalculated the takes proposed in the notice for the
proposed Authorization (79 FR 72631, December 8, 2014) and the results
of the recalculation show zero takes for mortality, zero takes by
slight lung injury, and zero takes by gastrointestinal tract injury.
Further, the re-estimation has reduced the number of take by Level A
harassment (from PTS) and by Level B harassment (TTS and behavioral).
Based on this re-estimation, NMFS does not believe that serious injury
will result from this activity and that therefore it is not necessary
to issue regulations through section 101(a)(5)(A), rather, an
Incidental Harassment Authorization may be issued.
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.
Table 3--Marine Mammals Most Likely To Be Harassed Incidental to Eglin AFB's Activities in W-151A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory status Relative
Species Stock name \1\ \2\ Estimated abundance occurrence in W-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------151-------
Common bottlenose dolphin...... Choctawatchee Bay. MMPA--S........... 232................ Uncommon
ESA--NL........... CV = 0.06 \3\......
Pensacola/East Bay MMPA--S........... 33................. Uncommon
ESA--NL........... CV = 0.88 \4\......
St. Andrew Bay.... MMPA--S........... 124................ Uncommon
ESA--NL........... CV = 0.18 \4\......
Gulf of Mexico MMPA--S........... 2,473.............. Common
Northern Coastal. ESA--NL........... CV = 0.25 \5\......
Northern Gulf of MMPA--NC.......... 17,777............. Uncommon
Mexico ESA--NL........... CV = 0.32 \6\......
Continental Shelf.
Northern Gulf of MMPA--NC.......... 5,806.............. Uncommon
Mexico Oceanic. ESA--NL........... CV = 0.39 \7\......
Atlantic spotted dolphin....... Northern Gulf of MMPA--NC.......... 37,611 \8\......... Common
Mexico. ESA--NL........... CV = 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
(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 EA 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 an
authorization to harass manatees and does not discuss this species
further in this notice.
[[Page 17400]]
Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals
This section of the notice for the proposed Authorization (79 FR
72631, December 8, 2014) included a summary and discussion of the ways
that the types of stressors associated with the specified activity
(e.g., ordnance detonation and vessel movement) have been observed to
impact marine mammals. 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 incidentally
take during their activities. The ``Negligible Impact Analysis''
section will include the analysis of how this specific activity will
impact marine mammals and will consider the content of this section,
the ``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' section, the
``Mitigation'' section, and the ``Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal
Habitat'' section to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of
this activity on the reproductive success or survivorship of
individuals and from that on the affected marine mammal populations or
stocks.
In summary, 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 Level A harassment (PTS) and by Level B
harassment (TTS and behavioral). In addition, NMFS also considered the
potential for harassment from vessel operations.
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 mortality. NMFS provided detailed
information on these potential effects in the notice for the proposed
Authorization (79 FR 72631, December 8, 2014). The information
presented in that notice has not changed.
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 EA. Eglin AFB analyzed the potential effects of
each in their EA and determined them to be insignificant. NMFS provided
a summary of the analyses in the notice for the proposed Authorization
(79 FR 72631, December 8, 2014). The information presented in that
notice has not changed.
Mitigation
In order to issue an incidental take authorization under section
101(a)(5)(D) 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 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 Eglin AFB's application for more
detailed information on the mitigation measures which include the
following:
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, gastrointestinal tract, 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 from the periphery.
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.
[[Page 17401]]
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).
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 earlier
in this section, 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.
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 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
[[Page 17402]]
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 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.
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.
The Authorization will require the following measures in the
Maritime WSEP Authorization. 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 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
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 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
[[Page 17403]]
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].
At NMFS' recommendation, Eglin AFB 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 4 in this document outlines the revised acoustic thresholds
used by NMFS for this Authorization when addressing noise impacts from
explosives.
Table 4--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 45.86 104 psi........... 39.1 M\1/3\ 91.4 M\1/3\
psi psi (1+[DRm/ (1+DRm/
10.081])\1/2\ Pa- 10.081])\1/2\ Pa-
sec. sec
Where: M = mass Where: M = mass
of the animals of the animals
in kg. in kg
DRm = depth of DRm = depth of
the receiver the receiver
(animal) in (animal) in
meters. 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 5 provides the estimated maximum range
or radius, from the detonation point to the various thresholds
described in Table 4. Eglin AFB uses the range information shown in
Table 5 (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 5--Distances (m) to Harassment Thresholds from Eglin AFB's Explosive Ordnance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mortality Level A harassment Level B Harassment
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slight GI PTS TTS Behavioral
lung track -----------------------------------------------
Munition NEW Total Detonation scenario Modified injury injury
(lbs) number Goertner ------------------- 230 dB 224 dB
model 1 Modified 187 dB peak 172 dB Peak 167 dB SEL
Goertner 237 dB SEL SPL SEL SPL
model 2 SPL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottlenose Dolphin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GBU-10........................... 945 2 Surface.............. 199 350 340 965 698 1,582 1,280 2,549
or GBU-24........................
GBU-12........................... 192 6 Surface.............. 111 233 198 726 409 2,027 752 2,023
or GBU-54........................
AGM-65 (Maverick)................ 86 6 Surface.............. 82 177 150 610 312 1,414 575 1,874
GBU-39........................... 37 4 Surface.............. 59 128 112 479 234 1,212 433 1,543
(LSDB)...........................
AGM-114 (Hellfire)............... 20 15 (10 ft............... 110 229 95 378 193 2,070 354 3,096
depth)...............
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........................... 0.1 1,000 Surface.............. 0 7 16 24 33 247 60 492
HEI 30 mm........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17404]]
Atlantic Spotted Dolphin and Unidentified Dolphin \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GBU-10........................... 945 2 Surface.............. 237 400 340 965 698 1,582 1,280 2,549
or GBU-24........................
GBU-12........................... 192 6 Surface.............. 138 274 198 726 409 2,027 752 2,023
or GBU-54........................
AGM-65........................... 86 6 Surface.............. 101 216 150 610 312 1,414 575 1,874
(Maverick).......................
GBU-39........................... 37 4 Surface.............. 73 158 112 479 234 1,212 433 1,543
(LSDB)...........................
AGM-114.......................... 20 15 (10 ft............... 135 277 95 378 193 2,070 354 3,096
(Hellfire)....................... depth)...............
AGM-175.......................... 13 10 Surface.............. 47 104 79 307 165 1,020 305 1,343
(Griffin)........................
2.75 Rockets..................... 12 100 Surface.............. 45 100 77 281 161 1,010 296 1,339
PGU-13........................... 0.1 1,000 Surface.............. 0 9 16 24 33 247 60 492
HEI 30 mm........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 and Monitoring Zones
The ranges presented in Table 5 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 6 displays these ranges which
form the basis of the mitigation monitoring thresholds.
[[Page 17405]]
Table 6--Distances (m) to Harassment Thresholds for an Example Mission Day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Level B harassment
harassment -------------------------
Munition NEW (lbs) Total # per Detonation ------------- TTS Behavioral
day scenario PTS 187 dB -------------------------
SEL 172 dB SEL 67 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.........
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 6 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 5). 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 7). NMFS provided detailed information
on Eglin AFB's derivation of density estimates for the bottlenose and
Atlantic spotted dolphins in the notice for the proposed Authorization
(79 FR 72631, December 8, 2014). The information presented in that
notice has not changed and NMFS refers the reader to Section 3 of Eglin
AFB's application for detailed information on all equations used to
calculate densities presented in Table 7.
Table 7--Marine Mammal Density Estimates Within Eglin AFB's EGTTR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density
Species (animals/km
2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottlenose dolphin \1\..................................... 1.194
Atlantic spotted dolphin \2\............................... 0.265
Unidentified bottlenose dolphin/Atlantic spotted dolphin 0.009
\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).
Take Estimation
NMFS recalculated the takes proposed in previous notice for the
proposed Authorization (79 FR 72631, December 8, 2014) by eliminating
the double counting of the estimated take for each species and
appropriately rounding take estimates before summing the total take.
Table 8 indicates the modeled potential for lethality, injury, and
non-injurious harassment (including behavioral harassment) to marine
mammals in the absence of mitigation measures. Table 8 includes the
revised number of marine mammals, by species, that Eglin AFB could
potentially take incidental to the conduct of Maritime WSEP operations.
The re-calculation results in zero take by mortality, zero take by
slight lung injury, and zero take by gastrointestinal tract injury.
Compared to the take levels that NMFS previously proposed (79 FR 72631,
December 8, 2014), the re-estimation has reduced take estimates for
Level A harassment (PTS) by approximately five percent to a total of 38
marine mammals; reduced the take estimates for Level B harassment (TTS)
by approximately eight percent to a total of 445 marine mammals; and
reduced take estimates for Level B harassment (behavioral) by
approximately 51 percent to a total of 497 marine mammals. Based on the
remodeling of the number of marine mammals potentially affected by
maritime strike missions, NMFS would authorize take for Level A and
Level B harassment presented in Table 8 of this notice.
Eglin AFB and NMFS estimate that approximately 38 marine mammals
could be exposed to injurious Level A harassment noise levels (187 dB
SEL) and approximately 942 animals could be exposed to Level B
harassment (TTS and behavioral) noise levels.
Table 8--Re-Modeled Number of Marine Mammals Potentially Affected by Maritime WSEP Operations. Authorized Takes
for Level A and Level B Harassment Are the Same as Those Modeled. NMFS Would Not Authorize Takes for Mortality
or Serious Injury.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Level B Level B
Species Mortality harassment harassment harassment
(PTS only) (TTS) (behavioral)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottlenose dolphin......................................... 0 33 373 423
Atlantic spotted dolphin................................... 0 5 68 69
[[Page 17406]]
Unidentified bottlenose dolphin/Atlantic spotted dolphin... 0 0 4 5
----------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 0 38 445 497
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the mortality exposure estimates calculated by the
acoustic model, zero marine mammals are expected to be affected by
pressure levels associated with mortality or serious injury. Zero
marine mammals are expected to be exposed to pressure levels associated
with slight lung injury or gastrointestinal tract injury.
NMFS generally considers PTS to fall under the injury category
(Level A Harassment). An animal would need to stay very close to the
sound source for an extended amount of time to incur a serious degree
of PTS, which could increase the probability of mortality. In this
case, it would be highly unlikely for this scenario to unfold given the
nature of any anticipated acoustic exposures that could potentially
result from a mobile marine mammal that NMFS generally expects to
exhibit avoidance behavior to loud sounds within the EGTTR.
NMFS has relied on the best available scientific information to
support the issuance of Eglin AFB's authorization. In the case of
authorizing Level A harassment, NMFS has estimated that no more than 33
bottlenose dolphins and 5 Atlantic spotted dolphins could, although
unlikely, experience minor permanent threshold shifts of hearing
sensitivity (PTS). The available data and analyses, as described more
fully in notice for the proposed Authorization (79 FR 72631, December
8, 2014) include extrapolation results of many studies on marine mammal
noise-induced temporary threshold shifts of hearing sensitivities. An
extensive review of TTS studies and experiments prompted NMFS to
conclude that possibility of minor PTS in the form of slight upward
shift of hearing threshold at certain frequency bands by a few
individuals of marine mammals is extremely low, but not unlikely.
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination
As explained previously, the term ``negligible impact'' is defined
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'' (50 CFR 216.103). The lack of likely 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, 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 PTS. Activities would only occur over a timeframe
of two to three weeks in beginning in February, 2015, with one, four-
hour mission occurring each 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.
Noise-induced threshold shifts (TS, which includes PTS) are defined
as increases in the threshold of audibility (i.e., the sound has to be
louder to be detected) of the ear at a certain frequency or range of
frequencies (ANSI 1995; Yost 2000). Several important factors relate to
the magnitude of TS, such as level, duration, spectral content
(frequency range), and temporal pattern (continuous, intermittent) of
exposure (Yost 2000; Henderson et al. 2008). TS occurs in terms of
frequency range (hertz [Hz] or kHz), hearing threshold level (dB), or
both frequency and hearing threshold level (CDC 2004).
In addition, there are different degrees of PTS: Ranging from
slight/mild to moderate and from severe to profound (Clark 1981).
Profound PTS or the complete loss of the ability to hear in one or both
ears is commonly referred to as deafness (CDC 2004; WHO 2006). High-
frequency PTS, presumably as a normal process of aging that occurs in
humans and other terrestrial mammals, has also been demonstrated in
captive cetaceans (Ridgway and Carder 1997; Yuen et al. 2005; Finneran
et al. 2005a; Houser and Finneran 2006; Finneran et al. 2007a; Schlundt
et al. 2011) and in stranded individuals (Mann et al. 2010).
In terms of what is analyzed for the potential PTS (Level A
harassment) in marine mammals as a result of Eglin AFB's Maritime WSEP
operations, if it occurs, NMFS has determined that the levels would be
slight/mild because research shows that most cetaceans show relatively
high levels of avoidance. Further, it is uncommon to sight marine
mammals within the target area, especially for prolonged durations.
[[Page 17407]]
Results from monitoring programs associated other Eglin AFB activities
have shown the absence of marine mammals within the EGTTR during
maritime operations. Avoidance varies among individuals and depends on
their activities or reasons for being in the area
While animals may be impacted in the immediate vicinity of the
activity, because of the short duration of the actual individual
explosions themselves (versus continual sound source operation)
combined with the short duration of the Maritime WSEP operations, NMFS
has 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 (PTS only, not slight lung injury or gastrointestinal tract
injury) 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 (i.e.,
four hours a day) and site-specific nature of the activity, and the
severity of effect would not be detrimental to rates of recruitment and
survival.
Moreover, the mitigation and monitoring measures required by the
Authorization (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 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 determined that this Authorization would
have no effect on ESA-listed marine mammal species. Therefore, NMFS has
determined that a section 7 consultation under the ESA is not required.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Eglin AFB provided NMFS with an Environmental Assessment titled,
Maritime Weapon Systems Evaluation Program (WSEP) Operational Testing
In The Eglin Gulf Testing And Training Range (EGTTR), Florida. The EA
analyzes the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of
the specified activities on marine mammals. NMFS, after review and
evaluation of the Eglin AFB EA for consistency with the regulations
published by the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) and NOAA
Administrative Order 216-6, Environmental Review Procedures for
Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, adopted the EA.
After considering the EA, the information in the IHA application, and
the Federal Register notice, as well as public comments, NMFS has
determined that the issuance of an Authorization is not likely to
result in significant impacts on the human environment and has prepared
a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). An Environmental Impact
Statement is not required and will not be prepared for the action.
Authorization
NMFS has issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization to Eglin AFB
for conducting Maritime WSEP operations in the EGGTR, provided the
previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements
are incorporated.
Dated: March 23, 2015.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-07429 Filed 3-31-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
