Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the U.S. Air Force 86 Fighter Weapons Squadron Conducting Long Range Strike Weapon Systems Evaluation Program at the Pacific Missile Range Facility at Kauai, Hawaii, 44277-44298 [2016-16114]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2016 / Notices
return or destruction of proprietary
information disclosed under APO in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305.
Timely notification of the return or
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective orders
is hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and terms of an
APO is a violation which is subject to
sanction.
We are issuing and publishing the
results and notice in accordance with
sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of
the Act.
Dated: June 28, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016–16053 Filed 7–6–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–042]
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip From
the People’s Republic of China:
Postponement of Preliminary
Determination of Antidumping Duty
Investigation
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
AGENCY:
DATES:
Effective Date: July 7, 2016.
Toni
Page at (202) 482–1398 or Lingjun Wang
at (202) 482–2316, AD/CVD Operations,
Enforcement and Compliance, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street
and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Background
On March 3, 2016, the Department of
Commerce (Department) initiated an
antidumping duty (AD) investigation of
imports of stainless steel sheet and strip
from the People’s Republic of China.1
The notice of initiation stated that, in
accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act), and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), we
would issue our preliminary
determination no later than 140 days
after the date of initiation, unless
postponed. Currently, the preliminary
determination is due no later than July
21, 2016.
Postponement of Preliminary
Determinations
Dated: June 30, 2016.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016–16134 Filed 7–6–16; 8:45 am]
1 See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip From the
People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Less Than
Fair Value Investigations, 81 FR 12711 (March 10,
2016).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jul 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Sections 733(c)(1)(B)(i) and (ii) of the
Act permit the Department to postpone
the time limit for the preliminary
determination if it concludes that the
parties concerned are cooperating and
determines that the case is
extraordinarily complicated by reason of
the number and complexity of the
transactions to be investigated or
adjustments to be considered, the
novelty of the issues presented, or the
number of firms whose activities must
be investigated, and additional time is
necessary to make the preliminary
determination. Under this section of the
Act, the Department may postpone the
preliminary determination until no later
than 190 days after the date on which
the Department initiated the
investigation.
The Department determines that the
parties involved in this investigation are
cooperating, and that the investigation
is extraordinarily complicated.
Additional time is required to analyze
the questionnaire responses and issue
any appropriate requests for
clarification and additional information.
Therefore, in accordance with section
733(c)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.205(f)(1), the Department is
postponing the time period for the
preliminary determination of this
investigation by 50 days, to September
9, 2016. Pursuant to section 735(a)(1) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the
deadline for the final determination will
continue to be 75 days after the date of
the preliminary determination, unless
postponed at a later date.
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44277
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XE675
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to the U.S. Air
Force 86 Fighter Weapons Squadron
Conducting Long Range Strike
Weapon Systems Evaluation Program
at the Pacific Missile Range Facility at
Kauai, Hawaii
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental
harassment authorization; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS (hereinafter, ‘‘we’’ or
‘‘our’’) received an application from the
U.S. Department of the Air Force, 86
Fighter Weapons Squadron (86 FWS),
requesting an Incidental Harassment
Authorization (IHA) to take marine
mammals, by harassment, incidental to
a Long Range Strike Weapon Systems
Evaluation Program (LRS WSEP) in the
Barking Sands Underwater Range
Extension (BSURE) area of the Pacific
Missile Range Facility (PMRF) at Kauai,
Hawaii. 86 FWS’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. Pursuant to the MMPA,
NMFS requests comments on its
proposal to issue an IHA to 86 FWS to
incidentally take, by Level A and Level
B harassment, two species of marine
mammals, the dwarf sperm whale
(Kogia sima) and pygmy sperm whale
(Kogia breviceps) during the specified
activity.
SUMMARY:
NMFS must receive comments
and information no later than August 8,
2016.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the
application should be addressed to Jolie
Harrison, Chief, Permits and
Conservation Division, Office of
Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The
email address for providing email
comments is ITP.McCue@noaa.gov.
Please include 0648–XE675 in the
subject line. Comments sent via email,
including all attachments, must not
exceed a 25-megabyte file size. NMFS is
not responsible for comments sent to
addresses other than the one provided
in this notice.
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
44278
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2016 / Notices
Instructions: All submitted comments
are a part of the public record, and
generally we will post them to https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental/military.htm without change.
All Personal Identifying Information (for
example, name, address, etc.)
voluntarily submitted by the commenter
may be publicly accessible. Do not
submit confidential business
information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information.
An electronic copy of the application
may be obtained by writing to the
address specified above, telephoning the
contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting the
internet at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
pr/permits/incidental/military.htm. The
following associated documents are also
available at the same internet address:
List of the references used in this
document, and 86 FWS’s Environmental
Assessment (EA) titled, ‘‘Environmental
Assessment/Overseas Environmental
Assessment for the Long Range Strike
Weapon Systems Evaluation Program
Operational Evaluations.’’ Documents
cited in this notice may also be viewed,
by appointment, during regular business
hours, at the aforementioned address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laura McCue, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the
MMPA(16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct 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 certain findings
are made and either regulations are
issued or, if the taking is limited to
harassment, a notice of a proposed
authorization is provided to the public
for review.
An authorization for incidental
takings for marine mammals shall be
granted if NMFS finds that the taking
will have a negligible impact on the
species or stock(s), will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for
subsistence uses (where relevant), and if
the permissible methods of taking and
requirements pertaining to the
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of
such taking are set forth. NMFS has
defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR
216.103 as ‘‘an impact resulting from
the specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jul 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’
The NDAA of 2004 (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 (Section
3(18)(B) of the MMPA): (i) Any act that
injures or has the significant potential to
injure a marine mammal or marine
mammal stock in the wild [Level A
Harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs
or is likely to disturb a marine mammal
or marine mammal stock in the wild by
causing disruption of natural behavioral
patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering, to a point where
such behavioral patterns are abandoned
or significantly altered [Level B
Harassment].
Summary of Request
On May 12, 2016, NMFS received an
application from 86 FWS for the taking
of marine mammals, by harassment,
incidental to the LRS WSEP within the
PMRF in Kauai, Hawaii from September
1, 2016 through August 31, 2017. 86
FWS submitted a revised version of the
renewal request on June 9, 2016 and
June 20, 2016, which we considered
adequate and complete.
The proposed LRS WSEP training
activities would occur on September 1,
2016, with a backup date of September
2, 2016.
86 FWS proposes actions that include
LRS WSEP test missions of the Joint AirTo-Surface Stand-off Missile (JASSM)
and the Small Diameter Bomb–I/II
(SDB–I/II) including detonations at the
water surface. These activities qualify as
a military readiness activities under the
MMPA and NDAA.
The following aspects of the proposed
LRS WSEP training activities have the
potential to take marine mammals:
Munition strikes and detonation effects
(overpressure and acoustic
components). Take, by Level B
harassment of individuals of dwarf
sperm whale and pygmy sperm whale
could potentially result from the
specified activity. Additionally,
although NMFS does not expect it to
occur, 86 FWS has also requested
authorization for Level A Harassment of
one individual dwarf sperm whale.
Therefore, 86 FWS has requested
authorization to take individuals of two
cetacean species by Level A and Level
B harassment.
86 FWS’s LRS WSEP training
activities may potentially impact marine
mammals at or near the water surface in
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the absence of mitigation. Marine
mammals could potentially be harassed,
injured, or killed by exploding and nonexploding projectiles, falling debris, or
ingestion of military expended
materials. However, based on analyses
provided in 86 FWS’s 2016 application,
2016 Environmental Assessment (EA),
and for reasons discussed later in this
document, we do not anticipate that 86
FWS’s LRS WSEP activities would
result in any serious injury or mortality
to marine mammals.
Description of the Specified Activity
Overview
86 FWS proposes to conduct air-tosurface mission in the BSURE area of
the PMRF. The LRS WSEP test objective
is to conduct operational evaluations of
long range strike weapons and other
munitions as part of LRS WSEP
operations to properly train units to
execute requirements within Designed
Operational Capability Statements,
which describe units’ real-world
operational expectations in a time of
war. Due to threats to national security,
increased missions involving air-tosurface activities have been directed by
the Department of Defense (DoD).
Accordingly, the U.S. Air Force seeks
the ability to conduct operational
evaluations of all phases of long range
strike weapons within the U.S. Navy’s
Hawaii Range Complex (HRC). The
actions would fulfill the Air Force’s
requirement to evaluate full-scale
maneuvers for such weapons, including
scoring capabilities under operationally
realistic scenarios. LRS WSEP objectives
are to evaluate air-to-surface and
maritime weapon employment data,
evaluate tactics, techniques, and
procedures in an operationally realistic
environment, and to determine the
impact of tactics, techniques, and
procedures on combat Air Force
training. The munitions associated with
the proposed activities are not part of a
typical unit’s training allocations, and
prior to attending a WSEP evaluation,
most pilots and weapon systems officers
have only dropped weapons in
simulators or used the aircraft’s
simulation mode. Without WSEP
operations, pilots would be using these
weapons for the first time in combat. On
average, half of the participants in each
unit drop an actual weapon for the first
time during a WSEP evaluation.
Consequently, WSEP is a military
readiness activity and is the last
opportunity for squadrons to receive
operational training and evaluations
before they deploy.
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2016 / Notices
Dates and Duration
86 FWS proposes to schedule the LRS
WSEP training missions over one day on
September 1, 2016, with a backup day
the following day. The proposed
missions would occur on a weekday
during daytime hours only, with all
missions occurring in one day. This IHA
would be valid from September 1, 2016
through August 31, 2017.
Specified Geographic Region
The specific planned impact area is
approximately 44 nautical miles
(nm)(81 kilometers (km)) offshore of
Kauai, Hawaii, in a water depth of about
15,240 feet (ft) (4,645 meters (m)) (see
Figure 2–2 of 86 FWS’s application). All
activities will take place within the
PMRF, which is located in Hawaii off
the western shores of the island of Kauai
and includes broad ocean areas to the
north, south, and west (see Figure 2–1
of 86 FWS’s application).
Within the PMRF, activities would
occur in the BSURE area, which lies in
Warning Area 188 (W–188). The BSURE
consists of about 900 nm2 of
instrumented underwater ranges,
encompassing the deepwater portion of
the PMRF and providing over 80
percent of PMRF’s underwater scoring
capability. The BSURE facilitates
training, tactics, development, and test
and evaluation for air, surface, and
subsurface weapons systems in deep
water. It provides a full spectrum of
range support, including radar,
underwater instrumentation, telemetry,
electronic warfare, remote target
command and control, communications,
data display and processing, and target/
weapon launching and recovery
facilities. The underwater tracking
system begins 9 nm (17 km) from the
north shore of Kauai and extends out to
40 nm (74 km) from shore. LRS WSEP
missions would employ live weapons
with long flight paths requiring large
amounts of airspace and conclude with
weapon impact and surface detonations
within the BSURE instrumented range.
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Detailed Description of Activities
The LRS WSEP training missions,
classified as military readiness
activities, refer to the deployment of live
(containing explosive charges) missiles
from aircraft toward the water surface.
The actions include air-to-surface test
missions of the JASSM and the SDB–I/
II including detonations at the water
surface.
Aircraft used for munition releases
would include bombers and fighter
aircraft. Additional airborne assets, such
as the P–3 Orion or the P–8 Poseidon,
would be used to relay telemetry (TM)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jul 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
and flight termination system (FTS)
streams between the weapon and
ground stations. Other support aircraft
would be associated with range
clearance activities before and during
the mission and with air-to-air refueling
operations. All weapon delivery aircraft
would originate from an out base and fly
into military-controlled airspace prior to
employment. Due to long transit times
between the out base and mission
location, air-to-air refueling may be
conducted in either W–188 or W–189.
Bombers, such as the B–1, would
deliver the weapons, conduct air-to-air
refueling, and return to their originating
base as part of one sortie. However,
when fighter aircraft are used, the
distance and corresponding transit time
to the various potential originating bases
would make return flights after each
mission day impractical. In these cases,
the aircraft would temporarily (less than
one week) park overnight at Hickam Air
Force Base (HAFB) and would return to
their home base at the conclusion of
each mission set. Multiple weapon
release aircraft would be used during
some missions, each potentially
releasing multiple munitions. The LRS
WSEP missions scheduled for 2016 are
proposed to occur in one day, with the
following day reserved as a back-up day.
Approximately 10 Air Force personnel
would be on temporary duty to support
the mission.
Aircraft flight maneuver operations
and weapon release would be
conducted in W–188A boundaries of
PMRF. Chase aircraft may be used to
evaluate weapon release and to track
weapons. Flight operations and
weapons delivery would be in
accordance with published Air Force
directives and weapon operational
release parameters, as well as all
applicable Navy safety regulations and
criteria established specifically for
PMRF. Aircraft supporting LSR WSEP
missions would primarily operate at
high altitudes—only flying below 3,000
feet for a limited time as needed for
escorting non-military vessels outside
the hazard area or for monitoring the
area for protected marine species (e.g.,
marine mammals, sea turtles). Protected
marine species aerial surveys would be
temporary and would focus on an area
surrounding the weapon impact point
on the water.
Post-mission surveys would focus on
the area down current of the weapon
impact location. Range clearance
procedures for each mission would
cover a much larger area for human
safety. Weapon release parameters
would be conducted as approved by
PMRF Range Safety. Daily mission
briefs would specify planned release
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44279
conditions for each mission. Aircraft
and weapons would be tracked for time,
space, and position information. The 86
FWS test director would coordinate
with the PMRF Range Safety Officer,
Operations Conductor, Range Facility
Control Officer, and other applicable
mission control personnel for aircraft
control, range clearance, and mission
safety.
Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-Off Missile/
Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-Off MissileExtended Range (JASSM/JASSM–ER)
The JASSM is a stealthy precision
cruise missile designed for launch
outside area defenses against hardened,
medium-hardened, soft, and area type
targets. The JASSM has a range of more
than 200 nm (370 km) and carries a
1,000-pound (lb) warhead with
approximately 300 lbs of 2,4,6trinitrotoluene (TNT) equivalent net
explosive weight (NEW). The specific
explosive used is AFX–757, a type of
plastic bonded explosive (PBX). The
weapon has the capability to fly a
preprogrammed route from launch to a
target, using Global Positioning System
(GPS) technology and an internal
navigation system (INS) combined with
a Terminal Area Model when available.
Additionally, the weapon has a
Common Low Observable Auto-Routing
function that gives the weapon the
ability to find the route that best utilizes
the low observable qualities of the
JASSM. In either case, these routes can
be modeled prior to weapon release.
The JASSM–ER has additional fuel and
a different engine for a greater range
than the JASSM (500 nm (926 km)) but
maintains the same functionality of the
JASSM.
Small Diameter Bomb–I/Small Diameter
Bomb–II (SDB–I/SDB–II)
The SDB–I is a 250-lb air-launched
GPS–INS guided weapon for fixed soft
to hardened targets. SDB–II expands the
SDB–I capability with network enabling
and uses a tri-mode sensor infrared,
millimeter, and semi-active laser to
attack both fixed and movable targets.
Both munitions have a range of up to 60
NM (111 km). The SDB–I contains 37
lbs of TNT-equivalent NEW, and the
SDB–II contains 23 lbs NEW. The
explosive used in both SDB–I and SDB–
II is AFX–757.
Initial phases of the LRS WSEP
operational evaluations are proposed for
September 2016 and would consist of
releasing only one live JASSM/JASSM–
ER and up to eight SDBs in military
controlled airspace (Table 1). Immediate
evaluations for JASSM/JASSM–ER and
SDB–I are needed; therefore, they are
the only munitions being proposed for
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
44280
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2016 / Notices
summer 2016 missions. Weapon release
parameters for 2016 missions would
involve a B–1 bomber releasing one live
JASSM and fighter aircraft, such as F–
15, F–16, or F–22, releasing live SDB–
I. Up to four SDB–I munitions would be
released simultaneously, similar to a
ripple effect, each hitting the water
surface within a few seconds of each
other; however, the SDB–I releases
would occur separate from the JASSM.
All releases would occur on the same
mission day.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED TESTING AT PMRF IN 2016
Net explosive
weight (lb)
Munition
Fusing option
JASSM/JASSM–ER ...................................
SDB–I ........................................................
Live/Instantaneous ....................................
Live/Instantaneous ....................................
300
37
Detonation scenario
Annual total
number of
munitions
Surface ....................
Surface ....................
1
8
ER = Extended Range; JASSM = Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile; lb = pounds; SDB = Small Diameter Bomb.
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
A typical mission day would consist
of pre-mission checks, safety review,
crew briefings, weather checks, clearing
airspace, range clearance, mitigations/
monitoring efforts, and other military
protocols prior to launch of weapons.
Potential delays could be the result of
multiple factors including, but not
limited to; adverse weather conditions
leading to unsafe take-off, landing, and
aircraft operations, inability to clear the
range of non-mission vessels or aircraft,
mechanical issues with mission aircraft
or munitions, or presence of protected
species in the impact area. If the
mission is cancelled due to any of these,
one back-up day has also been
scheduled as a contingency. These
standard operating procedures are
usually done in the morning, and live
range time may begin in late morning
once all checks are complete and
approval is granted from range control.
The range would be closed to the public
for a maximum of four hours per
mission day.
Each long range strike weapon would
be released in W–188A and would
follow a given flight path with
programmed GPS waypoints to mark its
course in the air. Long range strike
weapons would complete their
maximum flight range (up to 500 nm
distance for JASSM–ER) at an altitude of
approximately 18,000 ft (equivalent in
kms) mean sea level (MSL) and
terminate at a specified location for
scoring of the impact. The cruise time
would vary among the munitions but
would be about 45 minutes for JASSM/
JASSM–ER and 10 minutes for SDB–I/
II. The time frame between
employments of successive munitions
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jul 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
would vary, but releases could be
spaced by approximately one hour to
account for the JASSM cruise time. The
routes and associated safety profiles
would be contained within W–188A
boundaries. The objective of the route
designs is to complete full-scale evasive
maneuvers that avoid simulated threats
and would, therefore, not consist of a
standard ‘‘paper clip’’ or regularly
shaped route. The final impact point on
the water surface would be programmed
into the munitions for weapons scoring
and evaluations.
All missions would be conducted in
accordance with applicable flight safety,
hazard area, and launch parameter
requirements established for PMRF. A
weapon hazard region would be
established, with the size and shape
determined by the maximum distance a
weapon could travel in any direction
during its descent. The hazard area is
typically adjusted for potential wind
speed and direction, resulting in a
maximum composite safety footprint for
each mission (each footprint boundary
is at least 10 nm from the Kauai
coastline). This information is used to
establish a Launch Exclusion Area and
Aircraft Hazard Area. These exclusion
areas must be verified to be clear of all
non-mission and non-essential vessels
and aircraft before live weapons are
released. In addition, a buffer area must
also be clear on the water surface so that
vessels do not enter the exclusion area
during the launch window. Prior to
weapon release, a range sweep of the
hazard area would be conducted by
participating mission aircraft or other
appropriate aircraft, potentially
including S–61N helicopter, C–26
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
aircraft, fighter aircraft (F–15E, F–16, F–
22), or the Coast Guard’s C–130 aircraft.
PMRF has used small water craft
docked at the Port Allen public pier to
keep nearshore areas clear of tour boats
for some mission launch areas.
However, for missions with large hazard
areas that occur far offshore from Kauai,
it would be impractical for these smaller
vessels to conduct range clearance
activities. The composite safety
footprint weapons associated with LRS
WSEP missions is anticipated to be
rather large; therefore, it is likely that
range clearing activities would be
conducted solely by aircraft.
The Range Facility Control Officer is
responsible for establishing hazard
clearance areas, directing clearance and
surveillance assets, and reporting range
status to the Operations Conductor. The
Control Officer is also responsible for
submitting all Notice to Airmen
(NOTAMs) and Notice to Mariners
(NOTMARs), and for requesting all
Federal Aviation Administration
airspace clearances.
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of the Specified Activity
There are 25 marine mammal species
with potential or confirmed occurrence
in the proposed activity area; however,
not all of these species occur in this
region during the project timeframe.
Table 2 lists and summarizes key
information regarding stock status and
abundance of these species. Please see
NMFS’ 2015 Stock Assessment Reports
(SAR), available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
pr/sars for more detailed accounts of
these stocks’ status and abundance.
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2016 / Notices
44281
TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE BSURE AREA
Species
ESA/MMPA
Status;
Strategic
(Y/N) 1
Stock
Stock abundance
(CV, Nmin,
most
recent abundance
survey) 2
PBR 3
Occurrence in BSURE Area
Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
Family: Balaenopteridae
Humpback whale (Megaptera
novaeangliae).4
Central North Pacific ............
Y; Y
10,103 (0.300;
7,890; 2006)
83
Blue Whale (Balaenoptera
musculus).
Central North Pacific ............
Y; Y
81 (1.14; 38;
2010)
0.1
Fin whale (Balaenoptera
physalus.
Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis).
Hawaii ...................................
Y; Y
0.1
Hawaii ...................................
Y; Y
58 (1.12; 27;
2010)
178 (0.90; 93;
2010)
Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera
brydei/edeni).
Hawaii ...................................
-; N
798 (0.28;
633; 2010)
6.3
Minke whale (Balaenoptera
acutorostrata).
Hawaii ...................................
-; N
n/a (n/a; n/a;
2010)
Undet.
0.2
Seasonal; throughout known
breeding grounds during
winter and spring (most
common November
through April).
Seasonal; infrequent winter
migrant; few sightings,
mainly fall and winter; considered rare.
Seasonal, mainly fall and
winter; considered rare.
Rare; limited sightings of
seasonal migrants that
feed at higher latitudes.
Uncommon; distributed
throughout the Hawaiian
EEZ.
Regular but seasonal (October–April).
Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
Family: Physeteridae
Sperm whale (Physeter
macrocephalus).
Hawaii ...................................
Y; Y
3,354 (0.34;
2,539; 2010)
10.2
Widely distributed year
round; more likely in
waters >1,000 m depth,
most often >2,000 m.
Widely distributed year
round; more likely in
waters >1,000 m depth.
Widely distributed year
round; more likely in
waters >500 m depth.
Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
Family: Kogiidae
Pygmy sperm whale (Kogia
breviceps).
Hawaii ...................................
-; N
n/a (n/a; n/a;
2010)
Undet.
Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia
sima).
Hawaii ...................................
-; N
n/a (n/a; n/a;
2010)
Undet.
Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
Family delphinidae
Hawaii ...................................
-; N
False killer whale (Pseudorca
crassidens).
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Killer whale (Orcinus orca) ....
Hawaii Pelagic NWHI Stock
-; N
-; N
Pygmy killer whale (Feresa
attenuata).
Short-finned pilot whale
(Globicephala
macrorhynchus).
Hawaii ...................................
-; N
Hawaii ...................................
-; N
Melon headed whale
(Peponocephala electra).
Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops
truncatus).
Pantropical spotted dolphin
(Stenella attenuata).
Hawaii Islands stock .............
-; N
Hawaii pelagic ......................
-; N
Hawaii pelagic ......................
-; N
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jul 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
101 (1.00; 50;
2010)
1,540 (0.66;
928; 2010)
617 (1.11;
290; 2010)
3,433 (0.52;
2,274; 2010)
12,422 (0.43;
8,872; 2010)
5,794
4,904;
5,950
3,755;
15,917
11,508;
(0.20;
2010)
(0.59;
2010)
(0.40;
2010)
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
1
9.3
2.3
Uncommon; infrequent
sightings.
Regular.
Regular.
23
Year-round resident.
70
Commonly observed around
Main Hawaiian Islands and
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.
Regular.
4
38
115
07JYN1
Common in deep offshore
waters.
Common; primary occurrence between 100 and
4,000 m depth.
44282
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2016 / Notices
TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE BSURE AREA—Continued
Species
ESA/MMPA
Status;
Strategic
(Y/N) 1
Stock
Stock abundance
(CV, Nmin,
most
recent abundance
survey) 2
PBR 3
Occurrence in BSURE Area
Striped dolphin (Stenella
coeruleoala).
Hawaii ...................................
-; N
20,650 (0.36;
15,391; 2010)
154
Spinner dolphin (Stenella
longirostris).
Rough-toothed dolphins
(Steno bredanensis).
Hawaii pelagic ......................
-; N
Undet.
Hawaii stock .........................
-; N
n/a (n/a; n/a;
2010)
6,288 (0.39;
4,581; 2010)
Fraser’s dolphin
(Lagenodelphis hosei).
Hawaii ...................................
-; N
16,992 (0.66;
10,241; 2010)
102
Risso’s dolphin (Grampus
griseus).
Hawaii ...................................
-; N
7,256 (0.41;
5,207; 2010)
42
46
Occurs regularly year round
but infrequent sighting during survey.
Common year-round in offshore waters.
Common throughout the
Main Hawaiian Islands and
Hawaiian Islands EEZ.
Tropical species only recently documented within
Hawaiian Islands EEZ
(2002 survey).
Previously considered rare
but multiple sightings in
Hawaiian Islands EEZ during various surveys conducted from 2002–2012.
Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
Family: Ziphiidae
Cuvier’s beaked whale
(Ziphius cavirostris).
Hawaii ...................................
-; N
1,941 (n/a;
1,142; 2010)
11.4
Blainville’s beaked whale
(Mesoplodon densirostris).
Hawaii ...................................
-; N
2,338 (1.13;
1,088; 2010)
11
Longman’s beaked whale
(Indopacetus pacificus).
Hawaii ...................................
-; N
4,571 (0.65;
2,773; 2010)
28
Year-round occurrence but
difficult to detect due to
diving behavior.
Year-round occurrence but
difficult to detect due to
diving behavior.
Considered rare; however,
multiple sightings during
2010 survey.
Order—Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia (seals, sea lions)
Family: Phocidae
Hawaiian monk seal
(Neomonachus
schauinslandi).
Hawaii ...................................
Y; Y
1,112 (n/a;
1,088; 2013)
Undet.
Predominantly occur at
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands; approximately 138
individuals in Main Hawaiian Islands.
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
1 ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or
designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR (see footnote 3) or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
2 CV is coefficient of variation; N
min is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For certain stocks,
abundance estimates are actual counts of animals and there is no associated CV. The most recent abundance survey that is reflected in the
abundance estimate is presented; there may be more recent surveys that have not yet been incorporated into the estimate. All values presented
here are from the 2015 Pacific SARs, except humpback whales—see comment 4.
3 Potential biological removal, defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population size (OSP).
4 Values for humpback whales are from the 2015 Alaska SAR.
Of these 25 species, six are listed as
endangered under the ESA and as
depleted throughout its range under the
MMPA. These are: humpback whale,
blue whale, fin whale, sei whale, sperm
whale, and the Hawaiian monk seal.
Of the 25 species that may occur in
Hawaiian waters, only certain stocks
occur in the impact area, while others
are island-associated or do not occur at
the depths of the impact area (e.g. false
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jul 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
killer whale insular stock, islandassociated stocks of bottlenose, spinner,
and spotted dolphins). Only two species
are considered likely to be in the impact
area during the one day of project
activities (dwarf sperm whale and
pygmy sperm whale). Other species are
seasonal and only occur in these waters
in the fall or winter (humpback whale,
blue whale, fin whale, sei whale, minke
whale, killer whale); some are rare in
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the area (Longman’s beaked whale,
Bryde’s whale); and others are unlikely
to be impacted due to small density
estimates (False killer whale, pygmy
killer whale, short-finned pilot whale,
melon-headed whale, bottlenose
dolphin, Pantropical spotted dolphin,
striped dolphin, spinner dolphin,
rough-toothed dolphin, Fraser’s
dolphin, Risso’s dolphin, Cuvier’s
beaked whale, Blainville’s beaked
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2016 / Notices
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
whale, and Hawaiian monk seal).
Because these 22 species are unlikely to
occur within the BSURE area, 86 FWS
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.
We have reviewed 86 FWS’s species
descriptions, including life history
information, distribution, regional
distribution, diving behavior, and
acoustics and hearing, for accuracy and
completeness. We refer the reader to
Sections 3 and 4 of 86 FWS’s
application and to Chapter 3 in 86
FWS’s EA rather than reprinting the
information here.
Below, for those species that are likely
to be taken by the activities described,
we offer a brief introduction to the
species and relevant stock as well as
available information regarding
population trends and threats, and
describe any information regarding local
occurrence.
Dwarf Sperm Whale
Dwarf sperm whales are found
throughout the world in tropical to
warm-temperate waters (Caretta et al.,
2014). They are usually found in waters
deeper than 500 m, most often sighted
in depths between 500 and 1,000 m, but
they have been documented in depths
as shallow as 106 m and as deep as
4,700 m (Baird, in press). This species
is often alone or in small groups of up
to two to four individuals (average
group size of 2.7 individuals), with a
maximum group size observed of eight
individuals (Baird, in press). When
there are more than two animals
together, they are often loosely
associated, with up to several hundred
meters between pairs of individuals
(Baird, in press).
There is one stock of dwarf sperm
whales in Hawaii. Sighting data suggests
a small resident population off Hawaii
Island (Baird, in press). There are no
current abundance estimates for this
stock. In 2002, a survey off Hawaii
estimated the abundance at 17,159;
however, this data is outdated and is no
longer used. PBR cannot be calculated
due to insufficient data. It has been
suggested that this species is probably
one of the more abundant species of
cetaceans in Hawaiian waters (Baird, in
press). One of their main threats is
interactions with fisheries; however,
dwarf sperm whales are also sensitive to
high-intensity underwater sounds and
navy sonar testing. This stock is not
listed as endangered under the ESA and
is not considered strategic or designated
as depleted under the MMPA (Caretta et
al., 2013).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jul 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
Pygmy Sperm Whale
Pygmy killer whales are found in
tropical and subtropical waters
throughout the world (Ross and
Leatherwood 1994). This species prefers
deeper waters, with observations of this
species in greater than 4,000 m depth
(Baird et al., 2013); and, based on
stomach contents from stranded
individuals, pygmy sperm whales forage
between 600 and 1,200 m depth (Baird,
in press). Sightings are rare of this
species, but observations include lone
individuals or pairs, with an average
group size of 1.5 individuals (Baird, in
press).
There is a single stock of Pygmy killer
whales in Hawaii. Current abundance
estimates for this stock are unknown. A
2002 survey in Hawaii estimated 7,138
animals; however, this data is outdated
and is no longer used. PBR cannot be
calculated due to insufficient data.
(Caretta et al., 2014). The main threats
to this species are fisheries interactions
and effects from underwater sounds
such as active sonar (Caretta et al.,
2014). This stock is not listed as
endangered under the ESA, and is not
considered strategic or designated as
depleted under the MMPA (Caretta et
al., 2014).
Potential Effects of the Specified
Activity on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
This section includes a summary and
discussion of the ways that components
(e.g., munition strikes and detonation
effects) of the specified activity,
including mitigation, may impact
marine mammals and their habitat. The
Estimated Take by Incidental
Harassment section later in this
document will include a quantitative
analysis of the number of individuals
that we expect 86 FWS to take during
this activity. The Negligible Impact
Analysis section will include the
analysis of how this specific activity
would impact marine mammals, and
will consider the content of this section,
the Estimated Take by Incidental
Harassment section and the Proposed
Mitigation section to draw conclusions
regarding the likely impacts of these
activities on the reproductive success or
survivorship of individuals and from
that on the affected marine mammal
populations or stocks. In the following
discussion, we provide general
background information on sound and
marine mammal hearing before
considering potential effects to marine
mammals from sound produced by
surface detonations.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44283
Description of Sound Sources and
WSEP Sound Types
Sound travels in waves, the basic
components of which are frequency,
wavelength, velocity, and amplitude.
Frequency is the number of pressure
waves that pass by a reference point per
unit of time and is measured in hertz
(Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is
the distance between two peaks of a
sound wave. Amplitude is the height of
the sound pressure wave or the
‘‘loudness’’ of a sound and is typically
measured using the decibel (dB) scale.
A dB is the ratio between a measured
pressure (with sound) and a reference
pressure (sound at a constant pressure,
established by scientific standards). It is
a logarithmic unit that accounts for large
variations in amplitude; therefore,
relatively small changes in dB ratings
correspond to large changes in sound
pressure. When referring to sound
pressure levels (SPLs; the sound force
per unit area), sound is referenced in the
context of underwater sound pressure to
1 microPascal (mPa). One pascal is the
pressure resulting from a force of one
newton exerted over an area of one
square meter. The source level (SL)
represents the sound level at a distance
of 1 m from the source (referenced to 1
mPa). The received level is the sound
level at the listener’s position. Note that
we reference all underwater sound
levels in this document to a pressure of
1 mPa and all airborne sound levels in
this document are referenced to a
pressure of 20 mPa.
Root mean square (rms) is the
quadratic mean sound pressure over the
duration of an impulse. Rms is
calculated by squaring all of the sound
amplitudes, averaging the squares, and
then taking the square root of the
average (Urick, 1983). Rms accounts for
both positive and negative values;
squaring the pressures makes all values
positive so that one can account for the
values in the summation of pressure
levels (Hastings and Popper, 2005). This
measurement is often used in the
context of discussing behavioral effects,
in part because behavioral effects,
which often result from auditory cues,
may be better expressed through
averaged units than by peak pressures.
When underwater objects vibrate or
activity occurs, sound-pressure waves
are created. These waves alternately
compress and decompress the water as
the sound wave travels. Underwater
sound waves radiate in all directions
away from the source (similar to ripples
on the surface of a pond), except in
cases where the source is directional.
The compressions and decompressions
associated with sound waves are
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
44284
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2016 / Notices
detected as changes in pressure by
aquatic life and man-made sound
receptors such as hydrophones.
Even in the absence of sound from the
specified activity, the underwater
environment is typically loud due to
ambient sound. Ambient sound is
defined as environmental background
sound levels lacking a single source or
point (Richardson et al., 1995), and the
sound level of a region is defined by the
total acoustical energy being generated
by known and unknown sources. These
sources may include physical (e.g.,
waves, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric
sound), biological (e.g., sounds
produced by marine mammals, fish, and
invertebrates), and anthropogenic sound
(e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft,
construction). A number of sources
contribute to ambient sound, including
the following (Richardson et al., 1995):
• Wind and waves: The complex
interactions between wind and water
surface, including processes such as
breaking waves and wave-induced
bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a
main source of naturally occurring
ambient noise for frequencies between
200 Hz and 50 kHz (Mitson, 1995). In
general, ambient sound levels tend to
increase with increasing wind speed
and wave height. Surf noise becomes
important near shore, with
measurements collected at a distance of
8.5 km from shore showing an increase
of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz band
during heavy surf conditions.
• Precipitation: Sound from rain and
hail impacting the water surface can
become an important component of total
noise at frequencies above 500 Hz, and
possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet
times.
• Biological: Marine mammals can
contribute significantly to ambient noise
levels, as can some fish and shrimp. The
frequency band for biological
contributions is from approximately 12
Hz to over 100 kHz.
• Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient
noise related to human activity include
transportation (surface vessels and
aircraft), dredging and construction, oil
and gas drilling and production, seismic
surveys, sonar, explosions, and ocean
acoustic studies. Shipping noise
typically dominates the total ambient
noise for frequencies between 20 and
300 Hz. In general, the frequencies of
anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz
and, if higher frequency sound levels
are created, they attenuate rapidly
(Richardson et al., 1995). Sound from
identifiable anthropogenic sources other
than the activity of interest (e.g., a
passing vessel) is sometimes termed
background sound, as opposed to
ambient sound.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jul 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
The sum of the various natural and
anthropogenic sound sources at any
given location and time—which
comprise ‘‘ambient’’ or ‘‘background’’
sound—depends not only on the source
levels (as determined by current
weather conditions and levels of
biological and shipping activity) but
also on the ability of sound to propagate
through the environment. In turn, sound
propagation is dependent on the
spatially and temporally varying
properties of the water column and sea
floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a
result of the dependence on a large
number of varying factors, ambient
sound levels can be expected to vary
widely over both coarse and fine spatial
and temporal scales. Sound levels at a
given frequency and location can vary
by 10–20 dB from day to day
(Richardson et al., 1995). The result is
that, depending on the source type and
its intensity, sound from the specified
activity may be a negligible addition to
the local environment or could form a
distinctive signal that may affect marine
mammals.
The sounds produced by the proposed
WSEP activities are considered
impulsive, which is one of two general
sound types, the other being nonpulsed. The distinction between these
two sound types is important because
they have differing potential to cause
physical effects, particularly with regard
to hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in Southall
et al., 2007). Please see Southall et al.
(2007) for an in-depth discussion of
these concepts.
Impulsive sound sources (e.g.,
explosions, gunshots, sonic booms,
impact pile driving) produce signals
that are brief (typically considered to be
less than one second), broadband, atonal
transients (ANSI, 1986; Harris, 1998;
NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003) and occur
either as isolated events or repeated in
some succession. These sounds have a
relatively rapid rise from ambient
pressure to a maximal pressure value
followed by a rapid decay period that
may include a period of diminishing,
oscillating maximal and minimal
pressures, and generally have an
increased capacity to induce physical
injury as compared with sounds that
lack these features.
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory
modality for marine mammals, and
exposure to sound can have deleterious
effects. To appropriately assess these
potential effects, it is necessary to
understand the frequency ranges marine
mammals are able to hear. Current data
indicate that not all marine mammal
species have equal hearing capabilities
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok
and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings,
2008). To reflect this, Southall et al.
(2007) recommended that marine
mammals be divided into functional
hearing groups based on measured or
estimated hearing ranges on the basis of
available behavioral data, audiograms
derived using auditory evoked potential
techniques, anatomical modeling, and
other data. The lower and/or upper
frequencies for some of these functional
hearing groups have been modified from
those designated by Southall et al.
(2007). The functional groups and the
associated frequencies are indicated
below (note that these frequency ranges
do not necessarily correspond to the
range of best hearing, which varies by
species):
• Low frequency cetaceans (13
species of mysticetes): functional
hearing is estimated to occur between
approximately 7 Hz and 25 kHz (up to
30 kHz in some species), with best
hearing estimated to be from 100 Hz to
8 kHz (Watkins, 1986; Ketten, 1998;
Houser et al., 2001; Au et al., 2006;
Lucifredi and Stein, 2007; Ketten et al.,
2007; Parks et al., 2007a; Ketten and
Mountain, 2009; Tubelli et al., 2012);
• Mid-frequency cetaceans (32
species of dolphins, six species of larger
toothed whales, and 19 species of
beaked and bottlenose whales):
functional hearing is estimated to occur
between approximately 150 Hz and 160
kHz with best hearing from 10 to less
than 100 kHz (Johnson, 1967; White,
1977; Richardson et al., 1995;
Szymanski et al., 1999; Kastelein et al.,
2003; Finneran et al., 2005a, 2009;
Nachtigall et al., 2005, 2008; Yuen et al.,
2005; Popov et al., 2007; Au and
Hastings, 2008; Houser et al., 2008;
Pacini et al., 2010, 2011; Schlundt et al.,
2011);
• High frequency cetaceans (eight
species of true porpoises, six species of
river dolphins, and members of the
genera Kogia and Cephalorhynchus;
now considered to include two
members of the genus Lagenorhynchus
on the basis of recent echolocation data
and genetic data [May-Collado and
Agnarsson, 2006; Kyhn et al., 2009,
2010; Tougaard et al., 2010]): functional
hearing is estimated to occur between
approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz
(Popov and Supin, 1990a,b; Kastelein et
al., 2002; Popov et al., 2005);
• Phocid pinnipeds in Water:
functional hearing is estimated to occur
between approximately 75 Hz and 100
kHz with best hearing between 1–50
kHz (M2014
17:23 Jul 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
effects before providing discussion
specific to 86 FWS’s activities.
Richardson et al. (1995) described
zones of increasing intensity of effect
that might be expected to occur, in
relation to distance from a source and
assuming that the signal is within an
animal’s hearing range. First is the area
within which the acoustic signal would
be audible (potentially perceived) to the
animal, but not strong enough to elicit
any overt behavioral or physiological
response. The next zone corresponds
with the area where the signal is audible
to the animal and of sufficient intensity
to elicit behavioral or physiological
responsiveness. Third is a zone within
which, for signals of high intensity, the
received level is sufficient to potentially
cause discomfort or tissue damage to
auditory or other systems. Overlaying
these zones to a certain extent is the
area within which masking (i.e., when a
sound interferes with or masks the
ability of an animal to detect a signal of
interest that is above the absolute
hearing threshold) may occur; the
masking zone may be highly variable in
size.
We describe the more severe effects
(i.e., certain non-auditory physical or
physiological effects and mortality) only
briefly as we do not expect that there is
a reasonable likelihood that 86 FWS’s
activities may result in such effects (see
below for further discussion). Marine
mammals exposed to high-intensity
sound, or to lower-intensity sound for
prolonged periods, can experience
hearing threshold shift (TS), which is
the loss of hearing sensitivity at certain
frequency ranges (Kastak et al., 1999;
Schlundt et al., 2000; Finneran et al.,
2002, 2005b). TS can be permanent
(PTS), in which case the loss of hearing
sensitivity is not fully recoverable, or
temporary (TTS), in which case the
animal’s hearing threshold would
recover over time (Southall et al., 2007).
Repeated sound exposure that leads to
TTS could cause PTS. In severe cases of
PTS, there can be total or partial
deafness, while in most cases the animal
has an impaired ability to hear sounds
in specific frequency ranges (Kryter,
1985).
When PTS occurs, there is physical
damage to the sound receptors in the ear
(i.e., tissue damage), whereas TTS
represents primarily tissue fatigue and
is reversible (Southall et al., 2007). In
addition, other investigators have
suggested that TTS is within the normal
bounds of physiological variability and
tolerance and does not represent
physical injury (e.g., Ward, 1997).
Therefore, NMFS does not consider TTS
to constitute auditory injury.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44285
Relationships between TTS and PTS
thresholds have not been studied in
marine mammals—PTS data exists only
for a single harbor seal (Kastak et al.,
2008)—but are assumed to be similar to
those in humans and other terrestrial
mammals. PTS typically occurs at
exposure levels at least several decibels
above (a 40–dB threshold shift
approximates PTS onset; e.g., Kryter et
al., 1966; Miller, 1974) that inducing
mild TTS (a 6–dB threshold shift
approximates TTS onset; e.g., Southall
et al., 2007). Based on data from
terrestrial mammals, a precautionary
assumption is that the PTS thresholds
for impulse sounds (such as bombs) are
at least 6 dB higher than the TTS
threshold on a peak-pressure basis and
PTS cumulative sound exposure level
thresholds are 15 to 20 dB higher than
TTS cumulative sound exposure level
thresholds (Southall et al., 2007). Given
the higher level of sound or longer
exposure duration necessary to cause
PTS as compared with TTS, it is
considerably less likely that PTS could
occur.
Non-auditory physiological effects or
injuries that theoretically might occur in
marine mammals exposed to high level
underwater sound or as a secondary
effect of extreme behavioral reactions
(e.g., change in dive profile as a result
of an avoidance reaction) caused by
exposure to sound include neurological
effects, bubble formation, resonance
effects, and other types of organ or
tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; Southall
et al., 2007; Zimmer and Tyack, 2007).
86 FWS’s activities involve the use of
devices such as explosives that are
associated with these types of effects;
however, severe injury to marine
mammals is not anticipated from these
activities.
When a live or dead marine mammal
swims or floats onto shore and is
incapable of returning to sea, the event
is termed a ‘‘stranding’’ (16 U.S.C.
1421h(3)). Marine mammals are known
to strand for a variety of reasons, such
as infectious agents, biotoxicosis,
starvation, fishery interaction, ship
strike, unusual oceanographic or
weather events, sound exposure, or
combinations of these stressors
sustained concurrently or in series (e.g.,
Geraci et al., 1999). However, the cause
or causes of most strandings are
unknown (e.g., Best, 1982).
Combinations of dissimilar stressors
may combine to kill an animal or
dramatically reduce its fitness, even
though one exposure without the other
would not be expected to produce the
same outcome (e.g., Sih et al., 2004). For
further description of stranding events
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
44286
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2016 / Notices
see, e.g., Southall et al., 2006; Jepson et
al., 2013; Wright et al., 2013.
1. Temporary threshold shift—TTS is
the mildest form of hearing impairment
that can occur during exposure to sound
(Kryter, 1985). While experiencing TTS,
the hearing threshold rises, and a sound
must be at a higher level in order to be
heard. In terrestrial and marine
mammals, TTS can last from minutes or
hours to days (in cases of strong TTS).
In many cases, hearing sensitivity
recovers rapidly after exposure to the
sound ends. Few data on sound levels
and durations necessary to elicit mild
TTS have been obtained for marine
mammals, and none of the data
published at the time of this writing
concern TTS elicited by exposure to
multiple pulses of sound.
Marine mammal hearing plays a
critical role in communication with
conspecifics, and interpretation of
environmental cues for purposes such
as predator avoidance and prey capture.
Depending on the degree (elevation of
threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery
time), and frequency range of TTS, and
the context in which it is experienced,
TTS can have effects on marine
mammals ranging from discountable to
serious. For example, a marine mammal
may be able to readily compensate for
a brief, relatively small amount of TTS
in a non-critical frequency range that
occurs during a time where ambient
noise is lower and there are not as many
competing sounds present.
Alternatively, a larger amount and
longer duration of TTS sustained during
time when communication is critical for
successful mother/calf interactions
could have more serious impacts.
Currently, TTS data only exist for four
species of cetaceans (bottlenose
dolphin, beluga whale [Delphinapterus
leucas], harbor porpoise [Phocoena
phocoena], and Yangtze finless porpoise
[Neophocoena asiaeorientalis]) and
three species of pinnipeds (northern
elephant seal [Mirounga angustirostris],
harbor seal [Phoca vitulina], and
California sea lion [Zalophus
californianus]) exposed to a limited
number of sound sources (i.e., mostly
tones and octave-band noise) in
laboratory settings (e.g., Finneran et al.,
2002; Nachtigall et al., 2004; Kastak et
al., 2005; Lucke et al., 2009; Popov et
al., 2011). In general, harbor seals
(Kastak et al., 2005; Kastelein et al.,
2012a) and harbor porpoises (Lucke et
al., 2009; Kastelein et al., 2012b) have
a lower TTS onset than other measured
pinniped or cetacean species.
Additionally, the existing marine
mammal TTS data come from a limited
number of individuals within these
species. There are no data available on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jul 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
noise-induced hearing loss for
mysticetes. For summaries of data on
TTS in marine mammals or for further
discussion of TTS onset thresholds,
please see Southall et al. (2007) and
Finneran and Jenkins (2012).
2. Behavioral effects—Behavioral
disturbance may include a variety of
effects, including subtle changes in
behavior (e.g., minor or brief avoidance
of an area or changes in vocalizations),
more conspicuous changes in similar
behavioral activities, and more
sustained and/or potentially severe
reactions, such as displacement from or
abandonment of high-quality habitat.
Behavioral responses to sound are
highly variable and context-specific and
any reactions depend on numerous
intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g.,
species, state of maturity, experience,
current activity, reproductive state,
auditory sensitivity, time of day), as
well as the interplay between factors
(e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et
al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart,
2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral
reactions can vary not only among
individuals but also within an
individual, depending on previous
experience with a sound source,
context, and numerous other factors
(Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary
depending on characteristics associated
with the sound source (e.g., whether it
is moving or stationary, number of
sources, distance from the source).
Please see Appendices B–C of Southall
et al. (2007) for a review of studies
involving marine mammal behavioral
responses to sound.
Habituation can occur when an
animal’s response to a stimulus wanes
with repeated exposure, usually in the
absence of unpleasant associated events
(Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most
likely to habituate to sounds that are
predictable and unvarying. It is
important to note that habituation is
appropriately considered as a
‘‘progressive reduction in response to
stimuli that are perceived as neither
aversive nor beneficial,’’ rather than as,
more generally, moderation in response
to human disturbance (Bejder et al.,
2009). The opposite process is
sensitization, when an unpleasant
experience leads to subsequent
responses, often in the form of
avoidance, at a lower level of exposure.
As noted, behavioral state may affect the
type of response. For example, animals
that are resting may show greater
behavioral change in response to
disturbing sound levels than animals
that are highly motivated to remain in
an area for feeding (Richardson et al.,
1995; NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003).
Controlled experiments with captive
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
marine mammals have shown
pronounced behavioral reactions,
including avoidance of loud sound
sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran
et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild
marine mammals to loud pulsed sound
sources (typically seismic airguns or
acoustic harassment devices) have been
varied but often consist of avoidance
behavior or other behavioral changes
suggesting discomfort (Morton and
Symonds, 2002; see also Richardson et
al., 1995; Nowacek et al., 2007).
Available studies show wide variation
in response to underwater sound;
therefore, it is difficult to predict
specifically how any given sound in a
particular instance might affect marine
mammals perceiving the signal. If a
marine mammal does react briefly to an
underwater sound by changing its
behavior or moving a small distance, the
impacts of the change are unlikely to be
significant to the individual, let alone
the stock or population. However, if a
sound source displaces marine
mammals from an important feeding or
breeding area for a prolonged period,
impacts on individuals and populations
could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and
Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC,
2005). However, there are broad
categories of potential response, which
we describe in greater detail here, that
include alteration of dive behavior,
alteration of foraging behavior, effects to
breathing, interference with or alteration
of vocalization, avoidance, and flight.
Changes in dive behavior can vary
widely and may consist of increased or
decreased dive times and surface
intervals as well as changes in the rates
of ascent and descent during a dive (e.g.,
Frankel and Clark, 2000; Costa et al.,
2003; Ng and Leung, 2003; Nowacek et
al.; 2004; Goldbogen et al., 2013a,b).
Variations in dive behavior may reflect
interruptions in biologically significant
activities (e.g., foraging) or they may be
of little biological significance. The
impact of an alteration to dive behavior
resulting from an acoustic exposure
depends on what the animal is doing at
the time of the exposure and the type
and magnitude of the response.
Disruption of feeding behavior can be
difficult to correlate with anthropogenic
sound exposure, so it is usually inferred
by observed displacement from known
foraging areas, the appearance of
secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets
or sediment plumes), or changes in dive
behavior. As for other types of
behavioral response, the frequency,
duration, and temporal pattern of signal
presentation, as well as differences in
species sensitivity, are likely
contributing factors to differences in
response in any given circumstance
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2016 / Notices
(e.g., Croll et al., 2001; Nowacek et al.;
2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et
al., 2007). A determination of whether
foraging disruptions incur fitness
consequences would require
information on or estimates of the
energetic requirements of the affected
individuals and the relationship
between prey availability, foraging effort
and success, and the life history stage of
the animal.
Variations in respiration naturally
vary with different behaviors and
alterations to breathing rate as a
function of acoustic exposure can be
expected to co-occur with other
behavioral reactions, such as a flight
response or an alteration in diving.
However, respiration rates in and of
themselves may be representative of
annoyance or an acute stress response.
Various studies have shown that
respiration rates may either be
unaffected or could increase, depending
on the species and signal characteristics,
again highlighting the importance in
understanding species differences in the
tolerance of underwater noise when
determining the potential for impacts
resulting from anthropogenic sound
exposure (e.g., Kastelein et al., 2001,
2005b, 2006; Gailey et al., 2007).
Marine mammals vocalize for
different purposes and across multiple
modes, such as whistling, echolocation
click production, calling, and singing.
Changes in vocalization behavior in
response to anthropogenic noise can
occur for any of these modes and may
result from a need to compete with an
increase in background noise or may
reflect increased vigilance or a startle
response. For example, in the presence
of potentially masking signals,
humpback whales and killer whales
have been observed to increase the
length of their songs (Miller et al., 2000;
Fristrup et al., 2003; Foote et al., 2004),
while right whales have been observed
to shift the frequency content of their
calls upward while reducing the rate of
calling in areas of increased
anthropogenic noise (Parks et al.,
2007b). In some cases, animals may
cease sound production during
production of aversive signals (Bowles
et al., 1994).
Avoidance is the displacement of an
individual from an area or migration
path as a result of the presence of a
sound or other stressors, and is one of
the most obvious manifestations of
disturbance in marine mammals
(Richardson et al., 1995). For example,
gray whales are known to change
direction—deflecting from customary
migratory paths—in order to avoid noise
from seismic surveys (Malme et al.,
1984). Avoidance may be short-term,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jul 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
with animals returning to the area once
the noise has ceased (e.g., Bowles et al.,
1994; Goold, 1996; Stone et al., 2000;
Morton and Symonds, 2002; Gailey et
al., 2007). Longer-term displacement is
possible, however, which may lead to
changes in abundance or distribution
patterns of the affected species in the
affected region if habituation to the
presence of the sound does not occur
(e.g., Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder et al.,
2006; Teilmann et al., 2006).
A flight response is a dramatic change
in normal movement to a directed and
rapid movement away from the
perceived location of a sound source.
The flight response differs from other
avoidance responses in the intensity of
the response (e.g., directed movement,
rate of travel). Relatively little
information on flight responses of
marine mammals to anthropogenic
signals exist, although observations of
flight responses to the presence of
predators have occurred (Connor and
Heithaus, 1996). The result of a flight
response could range from brief,
temporary exertion and displacement
from the area where the signal provokes
flight to, in extreme cases, marine
mammal strandings (Evans and
England, 2001). However, it should be
noted that response to a perceived
predator does not necessarily invoke
flight (Ford and Reeves, 2008), and
whether individuals are solitary or in
groups may influence the response.
Behavioral disturbance can also
impact marine mammals in more subtle
ways. Increased vigilance may result in
costs related to diversion of focus and
attention (i.e., when a response consists
of increased vigilance, it may come at
the cost of decreased attention to other
critical behaviors such as foraging or
resting). These effects have generally not
been demonstrated for marine
mammals, but studies involving fish
and terrestrial animals have shown that
increased vigilance may substantially
reduce feeding rates (e.g., Beauchamp
and Livoreil, 1997; Fritz et al., 2002;
Purser and Radford, 2011). In addition,
chronic disturbance can cause
population declines through reduction
of fitness (e.g., decline in body
condition) and subsequent reduction in
reproductive success, survival, or both
(e.g., Harrington and Veitch, 1992; Daan
et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 1998).
However, Ridgway et al. (2006) reported
that increased vigilance in bottlenose
dolphins exposed to sound over a fiveday period did not cause any sleep
deprivation or stress effects.
Many animals perform vital functions,
such as feeding, resting, traveling, and
socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour
cycle). Disruption of such functions
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44287
resulting from reactions to stressors
such as sound exposure are more likely
to be significant if they last more than
one diel cycle or recur on subsequent
days (Southall et al., 2007).
Consequently, a behavioral response
lasting less than one day and not
recurring on subsequent days is not
considered particularly severe unless it
could directly affect reproduction or
survival (Southall et al., 2007). Note that
there is a difference between multi-day
substantive behavioral reactions and
multi-day anthropogenic activities. For
example, just because an activity lasts
for multiple days does not necessarily
mean that individual animals are either
exposed to activity-related stressors for
multiple days or, further, exposed in a
manner resulting in sustained multi-day
substantive behavioral responses.
3. Stress responses—An animal’s
perception of a threat may be sufficient
to trigger stress responses consisting of
some combination of behavioral
responses, autonomic nervous system
responses, neuroendocrine responses, or
immune responses (e.g., Seyle, 1950;
Moberg, 2000). In many cases, an
animal’s first and sometimes most
economical (in terms of energetic costs)
response is behavioral avoidance of the
potential stressor. Autonomic nervous
system responses to stress typically
involve changes in heart rate, blood
pressure, and gastrointestinal activity.
These responses have a relatively short
duration and may or may not have a
significant long-term effect on an
animal’s fitness.
Neuroendocrine stress responses often
involve the hypothalamus-pituitaryadrenal system. Virtually all
neuroendocrine functions that are
affected by stress—including immune
competence, reproduction, metabolism,
and behavior—are regulated by pituitary
hormones. Stress-induced changes in
the secretion of pituitary hormones have
been implicated in failed reproduction,
altered metabolism, reduced immune
competence, and behavioral disturbance
(e.g., Moberg, 1987; Blecha, 2000).
Increases in the circulation of
glucocorticoids are also equated with
stress (Romano et al., 2004).
The primary distinction between
stress (which is adaptive and does not
normally place an animal at risk) and
‘‘distress’’ is the cost of the response.
During a stress response, an animal uses
glycogen stores that can be quickly
replenished once the stress is alleviated.
In such circumstances, the cost of the
stress response would not pose serious
fitness consequences. However, when
an animal does not have sufficient
energy reserves to satisfy the energetic
costs of a stress response, energy
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
44288
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2016 / Notices
resources must be diverted from other
functions. This state of distress will last
until the animal replenishes its
energetic reserves sufficient to restore
normal function.
Relationships between these
physiological mechanisms, animal
behavior, and the costs of stress
responses are well-studied through
controlled experiments and for both
laboratory and free-ranging animals
(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al.,
1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et
al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress
responses due to exposure to
anthropogenic sounds or other stressors
and their effects on marine mammals
have also been reviewed (Fair and
Becker, 2000; Romano et al., 2002b)
and, more rarely, studied in wild
populations (e.g., Romano et al., 2002a).
For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found
that noise reduction from reduced ship
traffic in the Bay of Fundy was
associated with decreased stress in
North Atlantic right whales. These and
other studies lead to a reasonable
expectation that some marine mammals
will experience physiological stress
responses upon exposure to acoustic
stressors and that it is possible that
some of these would be classified as
‘‘distress.’’ In addition, any animal
experiencing TTS would likely also
experience stress responses (NRC,
2003).
4. Auditory masking—Sound can
disrupt behavior through masking, or
interfering with, an animal’s ability to
detect, recognize, or discriminate
between acoustic signals of interest (e.g.,
those used for intraspecific
communication and social interactions,
prey detection, predator avoidance,
navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995).
Masking occurs when the receipt of a
sound is interfered with by another
coincident sound at similar frequencies
and at similar or higher intensity, and
may occur whether the sound is natural
(e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves,
precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g.,
shipping, sonar, seismic exploration) in
origin. The ability of a noise source to
mask biologically important sounds
depends on the characteristics of both
the noise source and the signal of
interest (e.g., signal-to-noise ratio,
temporal variability, direction), in
relation to each other and to an animal’s
hearing abilities (e.g., sensitivity,
frequency range, critical ratios,
frequency discrimination, directional
discrimination, age or TTS hearing loss),
and existing ambient noise and
propagation conditions.
Under certain circumstances, marine
mammals experiencing significant
masking could also be impaired from
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jul 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
maximizing their performance fitness in
survival and reproduction. Therefore,
when the coincident (masking) sound is
man-made, it may be considered
harassment when disrupting or altering
critical behaviors. It is important to
distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist
after the sound exposure, from masking,
which occurs during the sound
exposure. Because masking (without
resulting in TS) is not associated with
abnormal physiological function, it is
not considered a physiological effect,
but rather a potential behavioral effect.
The frequency range of the potentially
masking sound is important in
determining any potential behavioral
impacts. For example, low-frequency
signals may have less effect on highfrequency echolocation sounds
produced by odontocetes but are more
likely to affect detection of mysticete
communication calls and other
potentially important natural sounds
such as those produced by surf and
some prey species. The masking of
communication signals by
anthropogenic noise may be considered
as a reduction in the communication
space of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009)
and may result in energetic or other
costs as animals change their
vocalization behavior (e.g., Miller et al.,
2000; Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al.,
2007b; Di Iorio and Clark, 2009; Holt et
al., 2009). Masking can be reduced in
situations where the signal and noise
come from different directions
(Richardson et al., 1995), through
amplitude modulation of the signal, or
through other compensatory behaviors
(Houser and Moore, 2014). Masking can
be tested directly in captive species
(e.g., Erbe, 2008), but in wild
populations it must be either modeled
or inferred from evidence of masking
compensation. There are few studies
addressing real-world masking sounds
likely to be experienced by marine
mammals in the wild (e.g., Branstetter et
al., 2013).
Masking affects both senders and
receivers of acoustic signals and can
potentially have long-term chronic
effects on marine mammals at the
population level as well as at the
individual level. Low-frequency
ambient sound levels have increased by
as much as 20 dB (more than three times
in terms of SPL) in the world’s ocean
from pre-industrial periods, with most
of the increase from distant commercial
shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). All
anthropogenic sound sources, but
especially chronic and lower-frequency
signals (e.g., from vessel traffic),
contribute to elevated ambient sound
levels, thus intensifying masking.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The LRS WSEP training exercises
proposed for the incidental take of
marine mammals have the potential to
take marine mammals by exposing them
to impulsive noise and pressure waves
generated by live ordnance detonation
at the surface of the water. Exposure to
energy, pressure, or direct strike by
ordnance has the potential to result in
non-lethal injury (Level A harassment),
disturbance (Level B harassment),
serious injury, and/or mortality. In
addition, NMFS also considered the
potential for harassment from vessel and
aircraft operations.
Acoustic Effects, Underwater
Explosive detonations at the water
surface send a shock wave and sound
energy through the water and can
release gaseous by-products, create an
oscillating bubble, or cause a plume of
water to shoot up from the water
surface. The shock wave and
accompanying noise are of most concern
to marine animals. Depending on the
intensity of the shock wave and size,
location, and depth of the animal, an
animal can be injured, killed, suffer
non-lethal physical effects, experience
hearing related effects with or without
behavioral responses, or exhibit
temporary behavioral responses or
tolerance from hearing the blast sound.
Generally, exposures to higher levels of
impulse and pressure levels would
result in greater impacts to an
individual animal.
The effects of underwater detonations
on marine mammals are dependent on
several factors, including the size, type,
and depth of the animal; the depth,
intensity, and duration of the sound; the
depth of the water column; the substrate
of the habitat; the standoff distance
between activities and the animal; and
the sound propagation properties of the
environment. Thus, we expect impacts
to marine mammals from LRS WSEP
activities to result primarily from
acoustic pathways. As such, the degree
of the effect relates to the received level
and duration of the sound exposure, as
influenced by the distance between the
animal and the source. The further away
from the source, the less intense the
exposure should be.
The potential effects of underwater
detonations from the proposed LRS
WSEP training activities may include
one or more of the following: temporary
or permanent hearing impairment, nonauditory physical or physiological
effects, behavioral disturbance, and
masking (Richardson et al., 1995;
Gordon et al., 2004; Nowacek et al.,
2007; Southall et al., 2007). However,
the effects of noise on marine mammals
are highly variable, often depending on
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2016 / Notices
species and contextual factors (based on
Richardson et al., 1995).
In the absence of mitigation, impacts
to marine species could result from
physiological and behavioral responses
to both the type and strength of the
acoustic signature (Viada et al., 2008).
The type and severity of behavioral
impacts are more difficult to define due
to limited studies addressing the
behavioral effects of impulsive sounds
on marine mammals.
Hearing Impairment and Other
Physical Effects—Marine mammals
exposed to high intensity sound
repeatedly or for prolonged periods can
experience hearing threshold shift.
Given the available data, the received
level of a single pulse (with no
frequency weighting) might need to be
approximately 186 dB re 1 mPa2-s (i.e.,
186 dB sound exposure level (SEL) or
approximately 221–226 dB p-p (peak))
in order to produce brief, mild TTS.
Exposure to several strong pulses that
each have received levels near 190 dB
rms (175–180 dB SEL) might result in
cumulative exposure of approximately
186 dB SEL and thus slight TTS in a
small odontocete, assuming the TTS
threshold is (to a first approximation) a
function of the total received pulse
energy.
Non-auditory Physiological Effects—
Non-auditory physiological effects or
injuries that theoretically might occur in
marine mammals exposed to strong
underwater sound include stress and
other types of organ or tissue damage
(Cox et al., 2006; Southall et al., 2007).
Serious Injury/Mortality: 86 FWS
proposes to use surface detonations in
its training exercises. The explosions
from these weapons would send a shock
wave and blast noise through the water,
release gaseous by-products, create an
oscillating bubble, and cause a plume of
water to shoot up from the water
surface. The shock wave and blast noise
are of most concern to marine animals.
In general, potential impacts from
explosive detonations can range from
brief effects (such as short term
behavioral disturbance), tactile
perception, physical discomfort, slight
injury of the internal organs, and death
of the animal (Yelverton et al., 1973;
O’Keeffe and Young, 1984; DoN, 2001).
The effects of an underwater explosion
on a marine mammal depend on many
factors, including: the size, type, and
depth of both the animal and the
explosive charge; the depth of the water
column; the standoff distance between
the charge and the animal, and the
sound propagation properties of the
environment. Physical damage of tissues
resulting from a shock wave (from an
explosive detonation) constitutes an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jul 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
injury. Blast effects are greatest at the
gas-liquid interface (Landsberg, 2000)
and gas containing organs, particularly
the lungs and gastrointestinal tract, are
especially susceptible to damage
(Goertner, 1982; Yelverton et al., 1973).
Nasal sacs, larynx, pharynx, trachea,
and lungs may be damaged by
compression/expansion caused by the
oscillations of the blast gas bubble
(Reidenberg and Laitman, 2003). Severe
damage (from the shock wave) to the
ears can include tympanic membrane
rupture, fracture of the ossicles,
cochlear damage, hemorrhage, and
cerebrospinal fluid leakage into the
middle ear.
Non-lethal injury includes slight
injury to internal organs and the
auditory system; however, delayed
lethality can be a result of individual or
cumulative sublethal injuries (DoN,
2001). Immediate lethal injury would be
a result of massive combined trauma to
internal organs as a direct result of
proximity to the point of detonation
(DoN, 2001).
Disturbance Reactions
Disturbance includes a variety of
effects, including subtle changes in
behavior, more conspicuous changes in
activities, and displacement. Numerous
studies have shown that underwater
sounds are often readily detectable by
marine mammals in the water at
distances of many kilometers. However,
other studies have shown that marine
mammals at distances more than a few
kilometers away often show no apparent
response to activities of various types
(Miller et al., 2005). This is often true
even in cases when the sounds must be
readily audible to the animals based on
measured received levels and the
hearing sensitivity of that mammal
group. Although various baleen whales,
toothed whales, and (less frequently)
pinnipeds have been shown to react
behaviorally to underwater sound from
impulsive sources such as airguns, at
other times, mammals of all three types
have shown no overt reactions (e.g.,
Malme et al., 1986; Richardson et al.,
1995; Madsen and Mohl, 2000; Croll et
al., 2001; Jacobs and Terhune, 2002;
Madsen et al., 2002; MacLean and
Koski, 2005; Miller et al., 2005; Bain
and Williams, 2006).
Controlled experiments with captive
marine mammals showed pronounced
behavioral reactions, including
avoidance of loud sound sources
(Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran et al.,
2003). Observed responses of wild
marine mammals to loud pulsed sound
sources (typically seismic guns or
acoustic harassment devices) have been
varied but often consist of avoidance
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44289
behavior or other behavioral changes
suggesting discomfort (Morton and
Symonds, 2002; Thorson and Reyff,
2006; see also Gordon et al., 2004;
Wartzok et al., 2003; Nowacek et al.,
2007).
Because the few available studies
show wide variation in response to
underwater sound, it is difficult to
quantify exactly how sound from the
LRS WSEP operational testing would
affect marine mammals. It is likely that
the onset of surface detonations could
result in temporary, short term changes
in an animal’s typical behavior and/or
avoidance of the affected area. These
behavioral changes may include
(Richardson et al., 1995): changing
durations of surfacing and dives,
number of blows per surfacing, or
moving direction and/or speed;
reduced/increased vocal activities;
changing/cessation of certain behavioral
activities (such as socializing or
feeding); visible startle response or
aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke
slapping or jaw clapping); or avoidance
of areas where sound sources are
located.
The biological significance of any of
these behavioral disturbances is difficult
to predict, especially if the detected
disturbances appear minor. However
generally, one could expect the
consequences of behavioral
modification to be biologically
significant if the change affects growth,
survival, or reproduction. Significant
behavioral modifications that could
potentially lead to effects on growth,
survival, or reproduction include:
• Drastic changes in diving/surfacing
patterns (such as those thought to cause
beaked whale stranding due to exposure
to military mid-frequency tactical
sonar);
• Habitat abandonment due to loss of
desirable acoustic environment; and
• Cessation of feeding or social
interaction.
The onset of behavioral disturbance
from anthropogenic sound depends on
both external factors (characteristics of
sound sources and their paths) and the
specific characteristics of the receiving
animals (hearing, motivation,
experience, demography) and is difficult
to predict (Southall et al., 2007).
Auditory Masking
Natural and artificial sounds can
disrupt behavior by masking, or
interfering with, a marine mammal’s
ability to hear other sounds. Masking
occurs when the receipt of a sound
interferes with by another coincident
sound at similar frequencies and at
similar or higher levels (Clark et al.,
2009). While it may occur temporarily,
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
44290
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2016 / Notices
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
we do not expect auditory masking to
result in detrimental impacts to an
individual’s or population’s survival,
fitness, or reproductive success.
Dolphin movement is not restricted
within the BSURE area, allowing for
movement out of the area to avoid
masking impacts and the sound
resulting from the detonations is short
in duration. Also, masking is typically
of greater concern for those marine
mammals that utilize low frequency
communications, such as baleen whales
and, as such, is not likely to occur for
marine mammals in the BSURE area.
Vessel and Aircraft Presence
The marine mammals most vulnerable
to vessel strikes are slow-moving and/or
spend extended periods of time at the
surface in order to restore oxygen levels
within their tissues after deep dives
(e.g., North Atlantic right whales
(Eubalaena glacialis), fin whales, and
sperm whales). Smaller marine
mammals are agile and move more
quickly through the water, making them
less susceptible to ship strikes. NMFS
and 86 FWS are not aware of any vessel
strikes of dwarf and pygmy sperm
whales within in BSURE area during
training operations, and both parties do
not anticipate that potential 86 FWS
vessels engaged in the specified activity
would strike any marine mammals.
Dolphins within Hawaiian waters are
exposed to recreational, commercial,
and military vessels. Behaviorally,
marine mammals may or may not
respond to the operation of vessels and
associated noise. Responses to vessels
vary widely among marine mammals in
general, but also among different species
of small cetaceans. Responses may
include attraction to the vessel
(Richardson et al., 1995); altering travel
patterns to avoid vessels (Constantine,
2001; Nowacek et al., 2001; Lusseau,
2003, 2006); relocating to other areas
(Allen and Read, 2000); cessation of
feeding, resting, and social interaction
(Baker et al., 1983; Bauer and Herman,
1986; Hall, 1982; Krieger and Wing,
1984; Lusseau, 2003; Constantine et al.,
2004); abandoning feeding, resting, and
nursing areas (Jurasz and Jurasz 1979;
Dean et al., 1985; Glockner-Ferrari and
Ferrari, 1985, 1990; Lusseau, 2005;
Norris et al., 1985; Salden, 1988; Forest,
2001; Morton and Symonds, 2002;
Courbis, 2004; Bejder, 2006); stress
(Romano et al., 2004); and changes in
acoustic behavior (Van Parijs and
Corkeron, 2001). However, in some
studies marine mammals display no
reaction to vessels (Watkins, 1986;
Nowacek et al., 2003) and many
odontocetes show considerable
tolerance to vessel traffic (Richardson et
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jul 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
al., 1995). Dolphins may actually reduce
the energetic cost of traveling by riding
the bow or stern waves of vessels
(Williams et al., 1992; Richardson et al.,
1995).
Aircraft produce noise at frequencies
that are well within the frequency range
of cetacean hearing and also produce
visual signals such as the aircraft itself
and its shadow (Richardson et al., 1995,
Richardson and Wursig, 1997). A major
difference between aircraft noise and
noise caused by other anthropogenic
sources is that the sound is generated in
the air, transmitted through the water
surface and then propagates underwater
to the receiver, diminishing the received
levels significantly below what is heard
above the water’s surface. Sound
transmission from air to water is greatest
in a sound cone 26 degrees directly
under the aircraft.
There are fewer reports of reactions of
odontocetes to aircraft than those of
pinnipeds. Responses to aircraft by
pinnipeds include diving, slapping the
water with pectoral fins or tail fluke, or
swimming away from the track of the
aircraft (Richardson et al., 1995). The
nature and degree of the response, or the
lack thereof, are dependent upon the
nature of the flight (e.g., type of aircraft,
altitude, straight vs. circular flight
pattern). Wursig et al. (1998) assessed
the responses of cetaceans to aerial
surveys in the north central and western
Gulf of Mexico using a DeHavilland
Twin Otter fixed-wing airplane. The
plane flew at an altitude of 229 m (751.3
ft) at 204 km/hr (126.7 mph) and
maintained a minimum of 305 m (1,000
ft) straight line distance from the
cetaceans. Water depth was 100 to 1,000
m (328 to 3,281 ft). Bottlenose dolphins
most commonly responded by diving
(48 percent), while 14 percent
responded by moving away. Other
species (e.g., beluga (Delphinapterus
leucas) and sperm whales) show
considerable variation in reactions to
aircraft but diving or swimming away
from the aircraft are the most common
reactions to low flights (less than 500 m;
1,640 ft).
Direct Strike by Ordnance
Another potential risk to marine
mammals is direct strike by ordnance,
in which the ordnance physically hits
an animal. While strike from an item at
the surface of the water while the
animals is at the surface is possible, the
potential risk of a direct hit to an animal
within the target area would be so low
because marine mammals spend the
majority of their time below the surface
of the water, and the potential for one
bomb or missile to hit that animal at
that specific time is highly unlikely
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
since there are only a total of eight
bombs on one day.
Anticipated Effects on Habitat
Detonations of live ordnance would
result in temporary changes to the water
environment. An explosion on the
surface of the water from these weapons
could send a shock wave and blast noise
through the water, release gaseous byproducts, 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, 86 FWS does not
expect any long-term impacts with
regard to hazardous constituents to
occur. 86 FWS considered the
introduction of fuel, debris, ordnance,
and chemical materials into the water
column within its EA and determined
the potential effects of each to be
insignificant. We summarize 86 FWS’s
analyses in the following paragraphs
(for a complete discussion of potential
effects, please refer to section 3.0 in 86
FWS’s EA).
Metals typically used to construct
bombs and missiles include aluminum,
steel, and lead, among others.
Aluminum is also present in some
explosive materials. These materials
would settle to the seafloor after
munitions detonate. Metal ions would
slowly leach into the substrate and the
water column, causing elevated
concentrations in a small area around
the munitions fragments. Some of the
metals, such as aluminum, occur
naturally in the ocean at varying
concentrations and would not
necessarily impact the substrate or
water column. Other metals, such as
lead, could cause toxicity in microbial
communities in the substrate. However,
such effects would be localized to a very
small distance around munitions
fragments and would not significantly
affect the overall habitat quality of
sediments in the BSURE area. In
addition, metal fragments would
corrode, degrade, and become encrusted
over time.
Chemical materials include explosive
byproducts and also fuel, oil, and other
fluids associated with remotely
controlled target boats. Explosive
byproducts would be introduced into
the water column through detonation of
live munitions. Explosive materials
would include 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene
(TNT) and research department
explosive (RDX), among others. Various
byproducts are produced during and
immediately after detonation of TNT
and RDX. During the very brief time that
a detonation is in progress, intermediate
products may include carbon ions,
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2016 / Notices
nitrogen ions, oxygen ions, water,
hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide,
nitrogen gas, nitrous oxide, cyanic acid,
and carbon dioxide (Becker, 1995).
However, reactions quickly occur
between the intermediates, and the final
products consist mainly of water,
carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and
nitrogen gas, although small amounts of
other compounds are typically
produced as well.
Chemicals introduced into the water
column would be quickly dispersed by
waves, currents, and tidal action, and
eventually become uniformly
distributed. A portion of the carbon
compounds such as carbon monoxide
and carbon dioxide would likely
become integrated into the carbonate
system (alkalinity and pH buffering
capacity of seawater). Some of the
nitrogen and carbon compounds,
including petroleum products, would be
metabolized or assimilated by
phytoplankton and bacteria. Most of the
gas products that do not react with the
water or become assimilated by
organisms would be released into the
atmosphere. Due to dilution, mixing,
and transformation, none of these
chemicals are expected to have
significant impacts on the marine
environment.
Explosive material that is not
consumed in a detonation could sink to
the substrate and bind to sediments.
However, the quantity of such materials
is expected to be inconsequential.
Research has shown that if munitions
function properly, nearly full
combustion of the explosive materials
will occur, and only extremely small
amounts of raw material will remain. In
addition, any remaining materials
would be naturally degraded. TNT
decomposes when exposed to sunlight
(ultraviolet radiation), and is also
degraded by microbial activity (Becker,
1995). Several types of microorganisms
have been shown to metabolize TNT.
Similarly, RDX decomposes by
hydrolysis, ultraviolet radiation
exposure, and biodegradation.
While we anticipate that the specified
activity may result in marine mammals
avoiding certain areas due to temporary
ensonification, this impact to habitat
and prey resources would be temporary
and reversible. The main impact
associated with the proposed activity
would be temporarily elevated noise
levels and the associated direct effects
on marine mammals, previously
discussed in this notice. Marine
mammals are anticipated to temporarily
vacate the area of live detonations.
However, these events are usually of
short duration, and animals are
anticipated to return to the activity area
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jul 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
during periods of non-activity. Thus,
based on the preceding discussion, we
do not anticipate that the proposed
activity would have any habitat-related
effects that could cause significant or
long-term consequences for individual
marine mammals or their populations.
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an incidental take
authorization under section 101(a)(5)(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 86 FWS have worked to
identify potential practicable and
effective mitigation measures, which
include a careful balancing of the likely
benefit of any particular measure to the
marine mammals with the likely effect
of that measure on personnel safety,
practicality of implementation, and
impact on the ‘‘military-readiness
activity.’’ We refer the reader to Section
11 of 86 FWS’s application for more
detailed information on the proposed
mitigation measures which include the
following:
Visual Aerial Surveys: For the LRS
WSEP activities, mitigation procedures
consist of visual aerial surveys of the
impact area for the presence of
protected marine species (including
marine mammals). During aerial
observation, Navy test range personnel
may survey the area from an S–61N
helicopter or C–62 aircraft that is based
at the PMRF land facility (typically
when missions are located relatively
close to shore). Alternatively, when
missions are located farther offshore,
surveys may be conducted from mission
aircraft (typically jet aircraft such as F–
15E, F–16, or F–22) or a U.S. Coast
Guard C–130 aircraft.
Protected species surveys typically
begin within one hour of weapon
release and as close to the impact time
as feasible, given human safety
requirements. Survey personnel must
depart the human hazard zone before
weapon release, in accordance with
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44291
Navy safety standards. Personnel
conduct aerial surveys within an area
defined by an approximately 2–NM
(3,704 m) radius around the impact
point, with surveys typically flown in a
star pattern. This survey distance is
consistent with requirements already in
place for similar actions at PMRF and
encompasses the entire TTS threshold
ranges (SEL) for mid-frequency
cetaceans (Table 5). For species in
which potential exposures have been
calculated (dwarf sperm whale and
pygmy sperm whale), the survey
distance would cover over half of the
PTS SEL range. Given operational
constraints, surveying these larger areas
would not be feasible.
Observers would consist of aircrew
operating the C–26, S–61N, and C–130
aircraft from PMRF and the Coast
Guard. These aircrew are trained and
experienced at conducting aerial marine
mammal surveys and have provided
similar support for other missions at
PMRF. Aerial surveys are typically
conducted at an altitude of about 200
feet, but altitude may vary somewhat
depending on sea state and atmospheric
conditions. If adverse weather
conditions preclude the ability for
aircraft to safely operate, missions
would either be delayed until the
weather clears or cancelled for the day.
For 2016 Long Range Strike WSEP
missions, one day has been designated
as a weather back-up day. The C–26 and
other aircraft would generally be
operated at a slightly higher altitude
than the helicopter. The observers will
be provided with the GPS location of
the impact area. Once the aircraft
reaches the impact area, pre-mission
surveys typically last for 30 minutes,
depending on the survey pattern. The
fixed-wing aircraft are faster than the
helicopter; and, therefore, protected
species may be more difficult to spot.
However, to compensate for the
difference in speed, the aircraft may fly
the survey pattern multiple times.
If a protected species is observed in
the impact area, weapon release would
be delayed until one of the following
conditions is met: (1) The animal is
observed exiting the impact area; (2) the
animal is thought to have exited the
impact area based on its course and
speed; or (3) the impact area has been
clear of any additional sightings for a
period of 30 minutes. All weapons will
be tracked and their water entry points
will be documented.
Post-mission surveys would begin
immediately after the mission is
complete and the Range Safety Officer
declares the human safety area is
reopened. Approximate transit time
from the perimeter of the human safety
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
44292
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2016 / Notices
area to the weapon impact area would
depend on the size of the human safety
area and vary between aircraft but is
expected to be less than 30 minutes.
Post-mission surveys would be
conducted by the same aircraft and
aircrew that conducted the pre-mission
surveys and would follow the same
patterns as pre-mission surveys but
would focus on the area down current
of the weapon impact area to determine
if protected species were affected by the
mission (observation of dead or injured
animals). If an injury or mortality occurs
to a protected species due to LRS WSEP
missions, NMFS would be notified
immediately.
A typical mission day would consist
of pre-mission checks, safety review,
crew briefings, weather checks, clearing
airspace, range clearance, mitigations/
monitoring efforts, and other military
protocols prior to launch of weapons.
Potential delays could be the result of
multiple factors including, but not
limited to, adverse weather conditions
leading to unsafe take-off, landing, and
aircraft operations, inability to clear the
range of non-mission vessels or aircraft,
mechanical issues with mission aircraft
or munitions, or presence of protected
species in the impact area. If the
mission is cancelled due to any of these,
one back-up day has also been
scheduled as a contingency. These
standard operating procedures are
usually done in the morning, and live
range time may begin in late morning
once all checks are complete and
approval is granted from range control.
The range would be closed to the public
for a maximum of four hours per
mission day.
Determination of the Zone of
Influence: The zone of influence is
defined as the area or volume of ocean
in which marine mammals could be
exposed to various pressure or acoustic
energy levels caused by exploding
ordnance. Refer to Appendix A of the
application for a description of the
method used to calculate impact areas
for explosives. The pressure and energy
levels considered to be of concern are
defined in terms of metrics, criteria, and
thresholds. A metric is a technical
standard of measurement that describes
the acoustic environment (e.g.,
frequency duration, temporal pattern,
and amplitude) and pressure at a given
location. Criteria are the resulting types
of possible impact and include
mortality, injury, and harassment. A
threshold is the level of pressure or
noise above which the impact criteria
are reached.
Standard impulsive and acoustic
metrics were used for the analysis of
underwater energy and pressure waves
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jul 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
in this document. Several different
metrics are important for understanding
risk assessment analysis of impacts to
marine mammals: SPL is the ratio of the
absolute sound pressure to a reference
level, SEL is measure of sound intensity
and duration, and positive impulse is
the time integral of the pressure over the
initial positive phase of an arrival.
The criteria and thresholds used to
estimate potential pressure and acoustic
impacts to marine mammals resulting
from detonations were obtained from
Finneran and Jenkins (2012) and
include mortality, injurious harassment
(Level A), and non-injurious harassment
(Level B). In some cases, separate
thresholds have been developed for
different species groups or functional
hearing groups. Functional hearing
groups included in the analysis are lowfrequency cetaceans, mid-frequency
cetaceans, high-frequency cetaceans,
and phocids.
Based on the ranges presented in
Table 5 and factoring operational
limitations associated with the mission,
86 FWS estimates that during premission surveys, the proposed
monitoring area would be
approximately 2 km (3.7 miles) from the
target area radius around the impact
point, with surveys typically flown in a
star pattern, which is consistent with
requirements already in place for
similar actions at PMRF and
encompasses the entire TTS threshold
ranges (SEL) for mid-frequency
cetaceans. For species in which
potential exposures have been
calculated (dwarf sperm whale and
pygmy sperm whale), the survey
distance would cover over half of the
PTS SEL range. Given operational
constraints, surveying these larger areas
would not be feasible.
Post-Mission Monitoring
Post-mission monitoring determines
the effectiveness of pre-mission
mitigation by reporting sightings of any
marine mammals. Post-mission
monitoring surveys will commence once
the mission has ended or, if required, as
soon as personnel declare the mission
area safe. Post-mission monitoring will
be identical to pre-mission surveys and
will occur approximately 30 minutes
after the munitions have been
detonated, concentrating on the area
down-current of the test site. Observers
will document and report any marine
mammal species, number, location, and
behavior of any animals observed.
We have carefully evaluated 86 FWS’s
proposed mitigation measures in the
context of ensuring that we prescribe
the means of effecting the least
practicable impact on the affected
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
marine mammal species and stocks and
their habitat. Our evaluation of potential
measures included consideration of the
following factors in relation to one
another:
• The manner in which, and the
degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure is
expected to minimize adverse impacts
to marine mammals;
• The proven or likely efficacy of the
specific measure to minimize adverse
impacts as planned; and
• The practicability of the measure
for applicant implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed
by NMFS should be able to accomplish,
have a reasonable likelihood of
accomplishing (based on current
science), or contribute to the
accomplishment of one or more of the
general goals listed here:
1. Avoidance or minimization of
injury or death of marine mammals
wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may
contribute to this goal).
2. A reduction in the numbers of
marine mammals (total number or
number at biologically important time
or location) exposed to stimuli expected
to result in incidental take (this goal
may contribute to 1, above, or to
reducing takes by behavioral harassment
only).
3. A reduction in the number of times
(total number or number at biologically
important time or location) individuals
would be exposed to stimuli 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 1,
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 our evaluation of 86 FWS’s
proposed measures, as well as other
measures that may be relevant to the
specified activity, we have preliminarily
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2016 / Notices
determined that the proposed mitigation
measures, including visual aerial
surveys and mission delays if protected
species are observed in the impact area,
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).
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an Authorization for
an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the
MMPA states that we must set forth
‘‘requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such
taking.’’ The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13)
indicate that requests for an
authorization must include the
suggested means of accomplishing the
necessary monitoring and reporting that
will result in increased knowledge of
the species and our expectations of the
level of taking or impacts on
populations of marine mammals present
in the proposed action area.
86 FWS submitted marine mammal
monitoring and reporting measures in
their IHA application. We may modify
or supplement these measures based on
comments or new information received
from the public during the public
comment period. Any monitoring
requirement we prescribe should
improve our understanding of one or
more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal
species in action area (e.g., presence,
abundance, distribution, density).
• Nature, scope, or context of likely
marine mammal exposure to potential
stressors/impacts (individual or
cumulative, acute or chronic), through
better understanding of: (1) Action or
environment (e.g., source
characterization, propagation, ambient
noise); (2) Affected species (e.g., life
history, dive patterns); (3) Cooccurrence of marine mammal species
with the action; or (4) Biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age,
calving or feeding areas).
• Individual responses to acute
stressors, or impacts of chronic
exposures (behavioral or physiological).
• How anticipated responses to
stressors impact either: (1) Long-term
fitness and survival of an individual; or
(2) Population, species, or stock.
• Effects on marine mammal habitat
and resultant impacts to marine
mammals.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jul 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
• Mitigation and monitoring
effectiveness.
NMFS proposes to include the
following measures in the LRS WSEP
Authorization (if issued). They are:
(1) 86 FWS will track the use of the
PMRF for missions and protected
species observations, through the use of
mission reporting forms.
(2) 86 FWS will submit a summary
report of marine mammal observations
and LRS WSEP activities to the NMFS
Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO)
and the Office of Protected Resources 90
days after expiration of the current
Authorization. This report must include
the following information: (i) Date and
time of each LRS WSEP exercise; (ii) a
complete description of the pre-exercise
and post-exercise activities related to
mitigating and monitoring the effects of
LRS WSEP exercises on marine mammal
populations; and (iii) results of the LRS
WSEP exercise monitoring, including
number of marine mammals (by species)
that may have been harassed due to
presence within the activity zone.
(3) 86 FWS will monitor for marine
mammals in the proposed action area. If
86 FWS personnel observe or detect any
dead or injured marine mammals prior
to testing, or detects any injured or dead
marine mammal during live fire
exercises, 86 FWS must cease
operations and submit a report to NMFS
within 24 hours.
(4) 86 FWS must immediately report
any unauthorized takes of marine
mammals (i.e., serious injury or
mortality) to NMFS and to the
respective Pacific Islands Region
stranding network representative. 86
FWS must cease operations and submit
a report to NMFS within 24 hours.
Estimated Numbers of Marine
Mammals Taken by Harassment
The NDAA amended the definition of
harassment as it applies to a ‘‘military
readiness activity’’ to read as follows
(Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA): (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].
NMFS’ analysis identified the
physiological responses, and behavioral
responses that could potentially result
from exposure to explosive detonations.
In this section, we will relate the
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44293
potential effects to marine mammals
from 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 PMRF BSURE
area.
86 FWS thresholds used for onset of
temporary threshold shift (TTS; Level B
Harassment) and onset of permanent
threshold shift (PTS; Level A
Harassment) are 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://nwtteis.com/
Portals/NWTT/DraftEIS2014/
SupportingDocs/NWTT_NMSDD_
Technical_Report_23_January%202014_
reduced.pdf.
Level B Harassment
Of the potential effects described
earlier in this document, the following
are the types of effects that fall into the
Level B harassment category:
Behavioral Harassment—Behavioral
disturbance that rises to the level
described in the above definition, when
resulting from exposures to nonimpulsive or impulsive sound, is Level
B harassment. Some of the lower level
physiological stress responses discussed
earlier would also likely co-occur with
the predicted harassments, although
these responses are more difficult to
detect and fewer data exist relating
these responses to specific received
levels of sound. When predicting Level
B harassment based on estimated
behavioral responses, those takes may
have a stress-related physiological
component.
Temporary Threshold Shift—As
discussed previously, TTS can affect
how an animal behaves in response to
the environment, including
conspecifics, predators, and prey. NMFS
classifies TTS (when resulting from
exposure to explosives and other
impulsive sources) as Level B
harassment, not Level A harassment
(injury).
Level A Harassment
Of the potential effects that were
described earlier, the following are the
types of effects that fall into the Level
A Harassment category:
Permanent Threshold Shift—PTS
(resulting from exposure to explosive
detonations) is irreversible and NMFS
considers this to be an injury.
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
44294
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2016 / Notices
Authorization when addressing noise
impacts from explosives.
86 FWS completed acoustic modeling
to determine the distances to NMFS’s
explosive thresholds from their
explosive ordnance, which was then
used with each species’ density to
determine number of exposure
estimates. Below is a summary of those
modeling efforts.
The maximum estimated range, or
radius, from the detonation point to
which the various thresholds extend for
all munitions proposed to be released in
a 24-hour time period was calculated
based on explosive acoustic
characteristics, sound propagation, and
sound transmission loss in the Study
Area, which incorporates water depth,
sediment type, wind speed, bathymetry,
and temperature/salinity profiles (Table
5). The ranges were used to calculate the
total area (circle) of the zones of
influence for each criterion/threshold.
To eliminate ‘‘double-counting’’ of
animals, impact areas from higher
impact categories (e.g., mortality) were
subtracted from areas associated with
lower impact categories (e.g., Level A
harassment). The estimated number of
marine mammals potentially exposed to
the various impact thresholds was then
calculated as the product of the adjusted
impact area, scaled animal density, and
number of events. Since the model
accumulates the energy from all
detonations within a 24-hour timeframe,
it is assumed that the same population
of animals is being impacted within that
time period. The population would
refresh after 24 hours. In this case, only
one mission day is planned for 2016,
and therefore, only one event is
modeled that would impact the same
population of animals. Details of the
acoustic modeling method are provided
in Appendix A of the application.
The resulting total number of marine
mammals potentially exposed to the
various levels of thresholds is shown in
Table 7. An animal is considered
‘‘exposed’’ to a sound if the received
sound level at the animal’s location is
above the background ambient acoustic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jul 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
level within a similar frequency band.
The exposure calculations from the
model output resulted in decimal
values, suggesting in most cases that a
fraction of an animal was exposed. To
eliminate this, the acoustic model
results were rounded to the nearest
whole animal to obtain the exposure
estimates from 2016 missions.
Furthermore, to eliminate ‘‘doublecounting’’ of animals, exposure results
from higher impact categories (e.g.,
mortality) were subtracted from lower
impact categories (e.g., Level A
harassment). For impact categories with
multiple criteria and/or thresholds (e.g.,
three criteria and four thresholds
associated with Level A harassment),
numbers in the table are based on the
threshold resulting in the greatest
number of exposures. These exposure
estimates do not take into account the
required mitigation and monitoring
measures, which may decrease the
potential for impacts.
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
EN07JY16.000
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Table 4 outlines the explosive
thresholds used by NMFS for this
44295
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2016 / Notices
TABLE 5—DISTANCES (m) TO EXPLOSIVE THRESHOLDS FROM 86 FWS’S EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE
Level A Harassment 2
Species
Humpback Whale .............
Blue Whale .......................
Fin Whale .........................
Sei Whale .........................
Bryde’s Whale ..................
Minke Whale ....................
Sperm Whale ...................
Pygmy Sperm Whale .......
Dwarf Sperm Whale .........
Killer Whale ......................
False Killer Whale ............
Pygmy Killer Whale ..........
Short-finned Pilot Whale ..
Melon-headed Whale .......
Bottlenose Dolphin ...........
Pantropical Spotted Dolphin ...............................
Striped Dolphin ................
Spinner Dolphin ...............
Rough-toothed Dolphin ....
Fraser’s Dolphin ...............
Risso’s Dolphin ................
Cuvier’s Beaked Whale ...
Blainville’s Beaked Whale
Longman’s Beaked Whale
Hawaiian Monk Seal ........
Mortality 1
Level B Harassment
GI tract
injury
Slight
lung
injury
237 dB SPL
PTS
Applicable
SEL*
TTS
Applicable
SPL*
Behavioral
Applicable
SEL*
Applicable
SPL*
Applicable
SEL*
38
28
28
38
38
55
33
105
121
59
72
147
91
121
121
81
59
62
83
81
118
72
206
232
126
153
277
186
228
232
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
2,161
2,161
2,161
2,161
2,161
2,161
753
6,565
6,565
753
753
753
753
753
753
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
3,450
3,450
330
330
330
330
330
330
6,565
6,565
6,565
6,565
6,565
6,565
3,198
20,570
20,570
3,198
3,198
3,198
3,198
3,198
3,198
597
597
597
597
597
597
597
6,565
6,565
597
597
597
597
597
597
13,163
13,163
13,163
13,163
13,163
13,163
4,206
57,109
57,109
4,206
4,206
4,206
4,206
4,206
4,206
147
147
147
121
110
85
51
79
52
135
277
277
277
232
216
175
110
166
113
256
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
753
753
753
753
753
753
753
753
753
1,452
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
1,107
3,198
3,198
3,198
3,198
3,198
3,198
3,198
3,198
3,198
3,871
597
597
597
597
597
597
597
597
597
1,881
4,206
4,206
4,206
4,206
4,206
4,206
4,206
4,206
4,206
6,565
1 Based
on Goertner (1982).
on Richmond et al. (1973).
*Based on the applicable Functional Hearing Group.
2 Based
Density Estimation
Density estimates for marine
mammals were derived from the Navy’s
2014 Marine Species Density Database
(NMSDD). NMFS refers the reader to
Section 3 of 86 FWS’s application for
detailed information on all equations
used to calculate densities presented in
Table 6.
TABLE 6—MARINE MAMMAL DENSITY
ESTIMATES WITHIN 86 FWS’S PMRF
Density
(animals/km2)
Species
Dwarf sperm whale ...............
Pygmy sperm whale .............
0.00714
0.00291
Take Estimation
Table 7 indicates the modeled
potential for lethality, injury, and non-
injurious harassment (including
behavioral harassment) to marine
mammals in the absence of mitigation
measures. 86 FWS and NMFS estimate
that one marine mammal species could
be exposed to injurious Level A
harassment noise levels (187 dB SEL)
and two species could be exposed to
Level B harassment (TTS and
Behavioral) noise levels in the absence
of mitigation measures.
TABLE 7—MODELED NUMBER OF MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY LRS WSEP OPERATIONS
Species
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Dwarf sperm whale ..........................................................................................
Pygmy sperm whale ........................................................................................
TOTAL .............................................................................................................
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jul 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
Level A
harassment
(PTS only)
Mortality
0
0
0
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
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Level B
harassment
(TTS)
1
0
1
9
3
12
Level B
harassment
(behavioral)
64
26
90
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
BSURE area.
NMFS has relied on the best available
scientific information to support the
issuance of 86 FWS’s authorization. In
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
44296
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2016 / Notices
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
the case of authorizing Level A
harassment, NMFS has estimated that
one dwarf sperm whale could, although
unlikely, experience minor permanent
threshold shifts of hearing sensitivity
(PTS). The available data and analyses,
as described more fully in this notice
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 one
individual marine mammal is extremely
low, but not unlikely.
Negligible Impact Analysis and
Preliminary Determinations
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.’’ A negligible
impact finding is based on the lack of
likely adverse effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). 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, we
consider other factors, such as the likely
nature of any responses (e.g., intensity,
duration), the context of any responses
(e.g., critical reproductive time or
location, migration), as well as the
number and nature of estimated Level A
harassment takes, the number of
estimated mortalities, and effects on
habitat.
To avoid repetition, the discussion
below applies to all the species listed in
Table 7 for which we propose to
authorize incidental take for 86 FWS’s
activities.
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;
• 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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jul 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
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, 86 FWS’s specified activities are
not likely to cause long-term behavioral
disturbance, serious injury, or death.
The takes from Level B harassment
would be due to potential behavioral
disturbance and TTS. The takes from
Level A harassment would be due to
potential PTS. Activities would only
occur over a timeframe of one day in
September, 2016.
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 2007). 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 2007; Henderson et al., 2008). TS
occurs in terms of frequency range (Hz
or kHz), hearing threshold level (dB), or
both frequency and hearing threshold
level.
In addition, there are different degrees
of PTS: Ranging from slight/mild to
moderate and from severe to profound.
Profound PTS or the complete loss of
the ability to hear in one or both ears is
commonly referred to as deafness. Highfrequency 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., 2005; Houser and
Finneran, 2006; Finneran et al., 2007;
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
one marine mammal as a result of 86
FWS’s LRS 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.
Avoidance varies among individuals
and depends on their activities or
reasons for being in the area.
NMFS’ predicted estimates for Level
A harassment take (Table 7) are likely
overestimates of the likely injury that
will occur. NMFS expects that
successful implementation of the
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
required aerial-based mitigation
measures could avoid Level A take.
Also, NMFS expects that some
individuals would avoid the source at
levels expected to result in injury.
Nonetheless, although NMFS expects
that Level A harassment is unlikely to
occur at the numbers proposed to be
authorized, because it is difficult to
quantify the degree to which the
mitigation and avoidance will reduce
the number of animals that might incur
PTS, we are proposing to authorize (and
analyze) the modeled number of Level
A takes (one), which does not take the
mitigation or avoidance into
consideration. However, we anticipate
that any PTS incurred because of
mitigation and the likely short duration
of exposures, would be in the form of
only a small degree of permanent
threshold shift and not total deafness.
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 LRS WSEP operations,
NMFS has preliminarily determined
that there will not be a substantial
impact on marine mammals or on the
normal functioning of the nearshore or
offshore waters off Kauai and its
ecosystems. We do not expect that the
proposed activity would impact rates of
recruitment or survival of marine
mammals since we do not expect
mortality (which would remove
individuals from the population) or
serious injury 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 or less on one day) and sitespecific nature of the activity. We do not
anticipate that the effects would be
detrimental to rates of recruitment and
survival because we do not expect
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2016 / Notices
serious of extended behavioral
responses that would result in energetic
effects at the level to impact fitness.
Moreover, the mitigation and
monitoring measures proposed for the
IHA (described earlier in this document)
are expected to further minimize the
potential for harassment. The protected
species surveys would require 86 FWS
to search the area for marine mammals,
and if any are found in the impact zone,
then the exercise would be suspended
until the animal(s) has left the area or
relocated outside of the zone.
Furthermore, LRS WSEP missions may
be delayed or rescheduled for adverse
weather conditions.
Based on the preliminary 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 86 FWS’s
LRS 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 LRS 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.
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
No marine mammal species listed
under the ESA are expected to be
affected by these activities. Therefore,
NMFS has determined that a section 7
consultation under the ESA is not
required.
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
In 2015, 86 FWS provided NMFS with
an EA titled, Environmental
Assessment/Overseas Environmental
Assessment for the Long Range Strick
Weapon Systems Evaluation Program
Operational Evaluations. The EA
analyzed the direct, indirect, and
cumulative environmental impacts of
the specified activities on marine
mammals. NMFS will review and
evaluate the 86 FWS EA for consistency
with the regulations published by the
Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ)
and NOAA Administrative Order 216–6,
Environmental Review Procedures for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Jul 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act, and
determine whether or not to adopt it.
Information in 86 FWS’s application,
EA, and this notice collectively provide
the environmental information related
to proposed issuance of the IHA for
public review and comment. We will
review all comments submitted in
response to this notice as we complete
the NEPA process, including decision of
whether to sign a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI), prior to a
final decision on the IHA request. The
2016 NEPA documents are available for
review at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
permits/incidental/military.html.
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary
determinations, we propose to issue an
IHA to 86 FWS for conducting LRS
WSEP activities, for a period of one year
from the date of issuance, provided the
previously mentioned mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements
are incorporated. The proposed
Authorization language is provided in
the next section. The wording contained
in this section is proposed for inclusion
in the Authorization (if issued).
1. This Authorization is valid for a
period of one year from the date of
issuance.
2. This Authorization is valid only for
activities associated with the LRS WSEP
operations utilizing munitions
identified in the Attachment.
3. The incidental taking, by Level A
and Level B harassment, is limited to:
Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima) and
Pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps) as
specified in Table 1 of this notice.
TABLE 1—AUTHORIZED TAKE
NUMBERS.
Level
A
takes
Level
B
takes
Dwarf sperm whale .........................
Pygmy sperm whale ........................
1
0
73
29
Total .........................................
1
102
Species
The taking by serious injury or death
of these species, the taking of these
species in violation of the conditions of
this Incidental Harassment
Authorization, or the taking by
harassment, serious injury or death of
any other species of marine mammal is
prohibited and may result in the
modification, suspension or revocation
of this Authorization.
4. Mitigation
When conducting this activity, the
following mitigation measures must be
undertaken:
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44297
• If daytime weather and/or sea
conditions preclude adequate
monitoring for detecting marine
mammals and other marine life, LRS
WSEP strike operations must be delayed
until adequate sea conditions exist for
monitoring to be undertaken.
• On the morning of the LRS WSEP
strike mission, the test director and
safety officer will confirm that there are
no issues that would preclude mission
execution and that the weather is
adequate to support monitoring and
mitigation measures.
• If post-mission surveys determine
that an injury or lethal take of a marine
mammal has occurred, the next mission
will be suspended until the test
procedure and the monitoring methods
have been reviewed with NMFS and
appropriate changes made.
5. Monitoring
The holder of this Authorization is
required to cooperate with the National
Marine Fisheries Service and any other
Federal, state or local agency monitoring
the impacts of the activity on marine
mammals.
The holder of this Authorization will
track their use of the PMRF BSURE area
for the LRS WSEP missions and marine
mammal observations, through the use
of mission reporting forms.
Aerial surveys: Pre- and post- mission
will be conducted. Pre-mission surveys
would begin approximately one hour
prior to detonation. Post-detonation
monitoring surveys will commence once
the mission has ended or, if required, as
soon as personnel declare the mission
area safe.
Proposed monitoring area would be
approximately 2 km (3.7 miles) from the
target area radius around the impact
point, with surveys typically flown in a
star pattern. Aerial surveys would be
conducted at an altitude of about 200
feet, but altitude may vary somewhat
depending on sea state and atmospheric
conditions. If adverse weather
conditions preclude the ability for
aircraft to safely operate, missions
would either be delayed until the
weather clears or cancelled for the day.
The observers will be provided with the
GPS location of the impact area. Once
the aircraft reaches the impact area, premission surveys typically last for 30
minutes, depending on the survey
pattern. The aircraft may fly the survey
pattern multiple times.
6. Reporting
The holder of this Authorization is
required to:
(a) Submit a draft report on all
monitoring conducted under the IHA
within 90 days of the completion of
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
44298
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2016 / Notices
marine mammal monitoring, or 60 days
prior to the issuance of any subsequent
IHA for projects at PMRF, whichever
comes first. A final report shall be
prepared and submitted within 30 days
following resolution of comments on the
draft report from NMFS. This report
must contain the informational elements
described in the Monitoring Plan, at
minimum (see www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
permits/incidental/construction.htm),
and shall also include:
1. Date and time of each LRS WSEP
mission;
2. A complete description of the preexercise and post-exercise activities
related to mitigating and monitoring the
effects of LRS WSEP missions on marine
mammal populations; and
3. Results of the monitoring program,
including numbers by species/stock of
any marine mammals noted injured or
killed as a result of the LRS WSEP
mission and number of marine
mammals (by species if possible) that
may have been harassed due to presence
within the zone of influence.
The draft report will be subject to
review and comment by the National
Marine Fisheries Service. Any
recommendations made by the National
Marine Fisheries Service must be
addressed in the final report prior to
acceptance by the National Marine
Fisheries Service. The draft report will
be considered the final report for this
activity under this Authorization if the
National Marine Fisheries Service has
not provided comments and
recommendations within 90 days of
receipt of the draft report.
(b) Reporting injured or dead marine
mammals:
i. In the unanticipated event that the
specified activity clearly causes the take
of a marine mammal in a manner
prohibited by this IHA, such as an
injury for species not authorized (Level
A harassment), serious injury, or
mortality, 86 FWS shall immediately
cease the specified activities and report
the incident to the Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, and the Pacific
Islands Regional Stranding Coordinator,
NMFS. The report must include the
following information:
A. Time and date of the incident;
B. Description of the incident;
C. Environmental conditions (e.g.,
wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea
state, cloud cover, and visibility);
D. Description of all marine mammal
observations in the 24 hours preceding
the incident;
E. Species identification or
description of the animal(s) involved;
F. Fate of the animal(s); and
G. Photographs or video footage of the
animal(s).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jul 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
Activities shall not resume until NMFS
is able to review the circumstances of
the prohibited take. NMFS will work
with 86 FWS to determine what
measures are necessary to minimize the
likelihood of further prohibited take and
ensure MMPA compliance. 86 FWS may
not resume their activities until notified
by NMFS.
ii. In the event that 86 FWS discovers
an injured or dead marine mammal, and
the lead observer determines that the
cause of the injury or death is unknown
and the death is relatively recent (e.g.,
in less than a moderate state of
decomposition), 86 FWS shall
immediately report the incident to the
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
and the Pacific Islands Regional
Stranding Coordinator, NMFS.
The report must include the same
information identified in 6(b)(i) of this
IHA. Activities may continue while
NMFS reviews the circumstances of the
incident. NMFS will work with 86 FWS
to determine whether additional
mitigation measures or modifications to
the activities are appropriate.
iii. In the event that 86 FWS discovers
an injured or dead marine mammal, and
the lead observer determines that the
injury or death is not associated with or
related to the activities authorized in the
IHA (e.g., previously wounded animal,
carcass with moderate to advanced
decomposition, scavenger damage), 86
FWS shall report the incident to the
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
and the Pacific Islands Regional
Stranding Coordinator, NMFS, within
24 hours of the discovery. 86 FWS shall
provide photographs or video footage or
other documentation of the stranded
animal sighting to NMFS.
7. Additional Conditions
• The holder of this Authorization
must inform the Director, Office of
Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service, (301–427–8400) or
designee (301–427–8401) prior to the
initiation of any changes to the
monitoring plan for a specified mission
activity.
• A copy of this Authorization must
be in the possession of the safety officer
on duty each day that long range strike
missions are conducted.
• This Authorization may be
modified, suspended or withdrawn if
the holder fails to abide by the
conditions prescribed herein, or if
NMFS determines the authorized taking
is having more than a negligible impact
on the species or stock of affected
marine mammals.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analysis,
the draft authorization, and any other
aspect of this Federal Register notice of
proposed Authorization. Please include
with your comments any supporting
data or literature citations to help
inform our final decision on 86 FWS’s
renewal request for an MMPA
authorization.
Dated: July 1, 2016.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2016–16114 Filed 7–6–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XE461
Marine Mammals; Pinniped Removal
Authority; Approval of Application
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration,
Commerce (NOAA).
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
NMFS announces approval of
an application for a Letter of
Authorization (LOA) from the states of
Oregon, Washington, and Idaho for
lethal removal of individually
identifiable predatory California sea
lions (Zalophus californianus) in the
vicinity of Bonneville Dam to minimize
pinniped predation on Pacific salmon
and steelhead (Oncorhynchus spp.)
listed as threatened or endangered
under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) in the Columbia River in
Washington and Oregon. This
authorization is pursuant to the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). NMFS
also announces availability of decision
documents and other information relied
upon in making this determination.
ADDRESSES: Additional information
about our determination may be
obtained by visiting the NMFS West
Coast Region’s Web site: https://
www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov, or by
writing to us at: NMFS West Coast
Region, Protected Resources Division,
1201 Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland,
OR 97232.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Robert Anderson at the above address,
by phone at (503) 231–2226, or by email
at robert.c.anderson@noa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 130 (Thursday, July 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44277-44298]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16114]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XE675
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the U.S. Air Force 86 Fighter
Weapons Squadron Conducting Long Range Strike Weapon Systems Evaluation
Program at the Pacific Missile Range Facility at Kauai, Hawaii
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request
for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS (hereinafter, ``we'' or ``our'') received an application
from the U.S. Department of the Air Force, 86 Fighter Weapons Squadron
(86 FWS), requesting an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to
take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to a Long Range Strike
Weapon Systems Evaluation Program (LRS WSEP) in the Barking Sands
Underwater Range Extension (BSURE) area of the Pacific Missile Range
Facility (PMRF) at Kauai, Hawaii. 86 FWS'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. Pursuant to the MMPA, NMFS requests comments on its proposal
to issue an IHA to 86 FWS to incidentally take, by Level A and Level B
harassment, two species of marine mammals, the dwarf sperm whale (Kogia
sima) and pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps) during the specified
activity.
DATES: NMFS must receive comments and information no later than August
8, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie
Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway,
Silver Spring, MD 20910. The email address for providing email comments
is ITP.McCue@noaa.gov. Please include 0648-XE675 in the subject line.
Comments sent via email, including all attachments, must not exceed a
25-megabyte file size. NMFS is not responsible for comments sent to
addresses other than the one provided in this notice.
[[Page 44278]]
Instructions: All submitted comments are a part of the public
record, and generally we will post them to https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm without change. All Personal
Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily
submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit
confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected
information.
An electronic copy of the application may be obtained by writing to
the address specified above, telephoning the contact listed below (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting the internet at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm. The following
associated documents are also available at the same internet address:
List of the references used in this document, and 86 FWS's
Environmental Assessment (EA) titled, ``Environmental Assessment/
Overseas Environmental Assessment for the Long Range Strike Weapon
Systems Evaluation Program Operational Evaluations.'' Documents cited
in this notice may also be viewed, by appointment, during regular
business hours, at the aforementioned address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura McCue, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA(16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
direct 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 certain findings are made and either
regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a
notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for
review.
An authorization for incidental takings for marine mammals shall be
granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on
the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on
the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of such taking
are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103
as ``an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.''
The NDAA of 2004 (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 (Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA):
(i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A Harassment];
or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal
or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural
behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration,
surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where
such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level
B Harassment].
Summary of Request
On May 12, 2016, NMFS received an application from 86 FWS for the
taking of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to the LRS WSEP
within the PMRF in Kauai, Hawaii from September 1, 2016 through August
31, 2017. 86 FWS submitted a revised version of the renewal request on
June 9, 2016 and June 20, 2016, which we considered adequate and
complete.
The proposed LRS WSEP training activities would occur on September
1, 2016, with a backup date of September 2, 2016.
86 FWS proposes actions that include LRS WSEP test missions of the
Joint Air-To-Surface Stand-off Missile (JASSM) and the Small Diameter
Bomb-I/II (SDB-I/II) including detonations at the water surface. These
activities qualify as a military readiness activities under the MMPA
and NDAA.
The following aspects of the proposed LRS WSEP training activities
have the potential to take marine mammals: Munition strikes and
detonation effects (overpressure and acoustic components). Take, by
Level B harassment of individuals of dwarf sperm whale and pygmy sperm
whale could potentially result from the specified activity.
Additionally, although NMFS does not expect it to occur, 86 FWS has
also requested authorization for Level A Harassment of one individual
dwarf sperm whale. Therefore, 86 FWS has requested authorization to
take individuals of two cetacean species by Level A and Level B
harassment.
86 FWS's LRS WSEP training activities may potentially impact marine
mammals at or near the water surface in the absence of mitigation.
Marine mammals could potentially be harassed, injured, or killed by
exploding and non-exploding projectiles, falling debris, or ingestion
of military expended materials. However, based on analyses provided in
86 FWS's 2016 application, 2016 Environmental Assessment (EA), and for
reasons discussed later in this document, we do not anticipate that 86
FWS's LRS WSEP activities would result in any serious injury or
mortality to marine mammals.
Description of the Specified Activity
Overview
86 FWS proposes to conduct air-to-surface mission in the BSURE area
of the PMRF. The LRS WSEP test objective is to conduct operational
evaluations of long range strike weapons and other munitions as part of
LRS WSEP operations to properly train units to execute requirements
within Designed Operational Capability Statements, which describe
units' real-world operational expectations in a time of war. Due to
threats to national security, increased missions involving air-to-
surface activities have been directed by the Department of Defense
(DoD). Accordingly, the U.S. Air Force seeks the ability to conduct
operational evaluations of all phases of long range strike weapons
within the U.S. Navy's Hawaii Range Complex (HRC). The actions would
fulfill the Air Force's requirement to evaluate full-scale maneuvers
for such weapons, including scoring capabilities under operationally
realistic scenarios. LRS WSEP objectives are to evaluate air-to-surface
and maritime weapon employment data, evaluate tactics, techniques, and
procedures in an operationally realistic environment, and to determine
the impact of tactics, techniques, and procedures on combat Air Force
training. The munitions associated with the proposed activities are not
part of a typical unit's training allocations, and prior to attending a
WSEP evaluation, most pilots and weapon systems officers have only
dropped weapons in simulators or used the aircraft's simulation mode.
Without WSEP operations, pilots would be using these weapons for the
first time in combat. On average, half of the participants in each unit
drop an actual weapon for the first time during a WSEP evaluation.
Consequently, WSEP is a military readiness activity and is the last
opportunity for squadrons to receive operational training and
evaluations before they deploy.
[[Page 44279]]
Dates and Duration
86 FWS proposes to schedule the LRS WSEP training missions over one
day on September 1, 2016, with a backup day the following day. The
proposed missions would occur on a weekday during daytime hours only,
with all missions occurring in one day. This IHA would be valid from
September 1, 2016 through August 31, 2017.
Specified Geographic Region
The specific planned impact area is approximately 44 nautical miles
(nm)(81 kilometers (km)) offshore of Kauai, Hawaii, in a water depth of
about 15,240 feet (ft) (4,645 meters (m)) (see Figure 2-2 of 86 FWS's
application). All activities will take place within the PMRF, which is
located in Hawaii off the western shores of the island of Kauai and
includes broad ocean areas to the north, south, and west (see Figure 2-
1 of 86 FWS's application).
Within the PMRF, activities would occur in the BSURE area, which
lies in Warning Area 188 (W-188). The BSURE consists of about 900 nm\2\
of instrumented underwater ranges, encompassing the deepwater portion
of the PMRF and providing over 80 percent of PMRF's underwater scoring
capability. The BSURE facilitates training, tactics, development, and
test and evaluation for air, surface, and subsurface weapons systems in
deep water. It provides a full spectrum of range support, including
radar, underwater instrumentation, telemetry, electronic warfare,
remote target command and control, communications, data display and
processing, and target/weapon launching and recovery facilities. The
underwater tracking system begins 9 nm (17 km) from the north shore of
Kauai and extends out to 40 nm (74 km) from shore. LRS WSEP missions
would employ live weapons with long flight paths requiring large
amounts of airspace and conclude with weapon impact and surface
detonations within the BSURE instrumented range.
Detailed Description of Activities
The LRS WSEP training missions, classified as military readiness
activities, refer to the deployment of live (containing explosive
charges) missiles from aircraft toward the water surface. The actions
include air-to-surface test missions of the JASSM and the SDB-I/II
including detonations at the water surface.
Aircraft used for munition releases would include bombers and
fighter aircraft. Additional airborne assets, such as the P-3 Orion or
the P-8 Poseidon, would be used to relay telemetry (TM) and flight
termination system (FTS) streams between the weapon and ground
stations. Other support aircraft would be associated with range
clearance activities before and during the mission and with air-to-air
refueling operations. All weapon delivery aircraft would originate from
an out base and fly into military-controlled airspace prior to
employment. Due to long transit times between the out base and mission
location, air-to-air refueling may be conducted in either W-188 or W-
189. Bombers, such as the B-1, would deliver the weapons, conduct air-
to-air refueling, and return to their originating base as part of one
sortie. However, when fighter aircraft are used, the distance and
corresponding transit time to the various potential originating bases
would make return flights after each mission day impractical. In these
cases, the aircraft would temporarily (less than one week) park
overnight at Hickam Air Force Base (HAFB) and would return to their
home base at the conclusion of each mission set. Multiple weapon
release aircraft would be used during some missions, each potentially
releasing multiple munitions. The LRS WSEP missions scheduled for 2016
are proposed to occur in one day, with the following day reserved as a
back-up day. Approximately 10 Air Force personnel would be on temporary
duty to support the mission.
Aircraft flight maneuver operations and weapon release would be
conducted in W-188A boundaries of PMRF. Chase aircraft may be used to
evaluate weapon release and to track weapons. Flight operations and
weapons delivery would be in accordance with published Air Force
directives and weapon operational release parameters, as well as all
applicable Navy safety regulations and criteria established
specifically for PMRF. Aircraft supporting LSR WSEP missions would
primarily operate at high altitudes--only flying below 3,000 feet for a
limited time as needed for escorting non-military vessels outside the
hazard area or for monitoring the area for protected marine species
(e.g., marine mammals, sea turtles). Protected marine species aerial
surveys would be temporary and would focus on an area surrounding the
weapon impact point on the water.
Post-mission surveys would focus on the area down current of the
weapon impact location. Range clearance procedures for each mission
would cover a much larger area for human safety. Weapon release
parameters would be conducted as approved by PMRF Range Safety. Daily
mission briefs would specify planned release conditions for each
mission. Aircraft and weapons would be tracked for time, space, and
position information. The 86 FWS test director would coordinate with
the PMRF Range Safety Officer, Operations Conductor, Range Facility
Control Officer, and other applicable mission control personnel for
aircraft control, range clearance, and mission safety.
Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-Off Missile/Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-Off
Missile-Extended Range (JASSM/JASSM-ER)
The JASSM is a stealthy precision cruise missile designed for
launch outside area defenses against hardened, medium-hardened, soft,
and area type targets. The JASSM has a range of more than 200 nm (370
km) and carries a 1,000-pound (lb) warhead with approximately 300 lbs
of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT) equivalent net explosive weight (NEW).
The specific explosive used is AFX-757, a type of plastic bonded
explosive (PBX). The weapon has the capability to fly a preprogrammed
route from launch to a target, using Global Positioning System (GPS)
technology and an internal navigation system (INS) combined with a
Terminal Area Model when available. Additionally, the weapon has a
Common Low Observable Auto-Routing function that gives the weapon the
ability to find the route that best utilizes the low observable
qualities of the JASSM. In either case, these routes can be modeled
prior to weapon release. The JASSM-ER has additional fuel and a
different engine for a greater range than the JASSM (500 nm (926 km))
but maintains the same functionality of the JASSM.
Small Diameter Bomb-I/Small Diameter Bomb-II (SDB-I/SDB-II)
The SDB-I is a 250-lb air-launched GPS-INS guided weapon for fixed
soft to hardened targets. SDB-II expands the SDB-I capability with
network enabling and uses a tri-mode sensor infrared, millimeter, and
semi-active laser to attack both fixed and movable targets. Both
munitions have a range of up to 60 NM (111 km). The SDB-I contains 37
lbs of TNT-equivalent NEW, and the SDB-II contains 23 lbs NEW. The
explosive used in both SDB-I and SDB-II is AFX-757.
Initial phases of the LRS WSEP operational evaluations are proposed
for September 2016 and would consist of releasing only one live JASSM/
JASSM-ER and up to eight SDBs in military controlled airspace (Table
1). Immediate evaluations for JASSM/JASSM-ER and SDB-I are needed;
therefore, they are the only munitions being proposed for
[[Page 44280]]
summer 2016 missions. Weapon release parameters for 2016 missions would
involve a B-1 bomber releasing one live JASSM and fighter aircraft,
such as F-15, F-16, or F-22, releasing live SDB-I. Up to four SDB-I
munitions would be released simultaneously, similar to a ripple effect,
each hitting the water surface within a few seconds of each other;
however, the SDB-I releases would occur separate from the JASSM. All
releases would occur on the same mission day.
Table 1--Summary of Proposed Testing at PMRF in 2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual total
Munition Fusing option Net explosive Detonation scenario number of
weight (lb) munitions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JASSM/JASSM-ER.................... Live/Instantaneous... 300 Surface.............. 1
SDB-I............................. Live/Instantaneous... 37 Surface.............. 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ER = Extended Range; JASSM = Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile; lb = pounds; SDB = Small Diameter Bomb.
A typical mission day would consist of pre-mission checks, safety
review, crew briefings, weather checks, clearing airspace, range
clearance, mitigations/monitoring efforts, and other military protocols
prior to launch of weapons. Potential delays could be the result of
multiple factors including, but not limited to; adverse weather
conditions leading to unsafe take-off, landing, and aircraft
operations, inability to clear the range of non-mission vessels or
aircraft, mechanical issues with mission aircraft or munitions, or
presence of protected species in the impact area. If the mission is
cancelled due to any of these, one back-up day has also been scheduled
as a contingency. These standard operating procedures are usually done
in the morning, and live range time may begin in late morning once all
checks are complete and approval is granted from range control. The
range would be closed to the public for a maximum of four hours per
mission day.
Each long range strike weapon would be released in W-188A and would
follow a given flight path with programmed GPS waypoints to mark its
course in the air. Long range strike weapons would complete their
maximum flight range (up to 500 nm distance for JASSM-ER) at an
altitude of approximately 18,000 ft (equivalent in kms) mean sea level
(MSL) and terminate at a specified location for scoring of the impact.
The cruise time would vary among the munitions but would be about 45
minutes for JASSM/JASSM-ER and 10 minutes for SDB-I/II. The time frame
between employments of successive munitions would vary, but releases
could be spaced by approximately one hour to account for the JASSM
cruise time. The routes and associated safety profiles would be
contained within W-188A boundaries. The objective of the route designs
is to complete full-scale evasive maneuvers that avoid simulated
threats and would, therefore, not consist of a standard ``paper clip''
or regularly shaped route. The final impact point on the water surface
would be programmed into the munitions for weapons scoring and
evaluations.
All missions would be conducted in accordance with applicable
flight safety, hazard area, and launch parameter requirements
established for PMRF. A weapon hazard region would be established, with
the size and shape determined by the maximum distance a weapon could
travel in any direction during its descent. The hazard area is
typically adjusted for potential wind speed and direction, resulting in
a maximum composite safety footprint for each mission (each footprint
boundary is at least 10 nm from the Kauai coastline). This information
is used to establish a Launch Exclusion Area and Aircraft Hazard Area.
These exclusion areas must be verified to be clear of all non-mission
and non-essential vessels and aircraft before live weapons are
released. In addition, a buffer area must also be clear on the water
surface so that vessels do not enter the exclusion area during the
launch window. Prior to weapon release, a range sweep of the hazard
area would be conducted by participating mission aircraft or other
appropriate aircraft, potentially including S-61N helicopter, C-26
aircraft, fighter aircraft (F-15E, F-16, F-22), or the Coast Guard's C-
130 aircraft.
PMRF has used small water craft docked at the Port Allen public
pier to keep nearshore areas clear of tour boats for some mission
launch areas. However, for missions with large hazard areas that occur
far offshore from Kauai, it would be impractical for these smaller
vessels to conduct range clearance activities. The composite safety
footprint weapons associated with LRS WSEP missions is anticipated to
be rather large; therefore, it is likely that range clearing activities
would be conducted solely by aircraft.
The Range Facility Control Officer is responsible for establishing
hazard clearance areas, directing clearance and surveillance assets,
and reporting range status to the Operations Conductor. The Control
Officer is also responsible for submitting all Notice to Airmen
(NOTAMs) and Notice to Mariners (NOTMARs), and for requesting all
Federal Aviation Administration airspace clearances.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity
There are 25 marine mammal species with potential or confirmed
occurrence in the proposed activity area; however, not all of these
species occur in this region during the project timeframe. Table 2
lists and summarizes key information regarding stock status and
abundance of these species. Please see NMFS' 2015 Stock Assessment
Reports (SAR), available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars for more detailed
accounts of these stocks' status and abundance.
[[Page 44281]]
Table 2--Marine Mammals That Could Occur in the BSURE Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock
ESA/MMPA abundance (CV,
Status; Nmin, most Occurrence in
Species Stock Strategic (Y/ recent PBR \3\ BSURE Area
N) \1\ abundance
survey) \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family: Balaenopteridae
Humpback whale (Megaptera Central North Y; Y 10,103 (0.300; 83 Seasonal;
novaeangliae).\4\ Pacific. 7,890; 2006) throughout
known breeding
grounds during
winter and
spring (most
common
November
through
April).
Blue Whale (Balaenoptera Central North Y; Y 81 (1.14; 38; 0.1 Seasonal;
musculus). Pacific. 2010) infrequent
winter
migrant; few
sightings,
mainly fall
and winter;
considered
rare.
Fin whale (Balaenoptera Hawaii.......... Y; Y 58 (1.12; 27; 0.1 Seasonal,
physalus. 2010) mainly fall
and winter;
considered
rare.
Sei whale (Balaenoptera Hawaii.......... Y; Y 178 (0.90; 93; 0.2 Rare; limited
borealis). 2010) sightings of
seasonal
migrants that
feed at higher
latitudes.
Bryde's whale (Balaenoptera Hawaii.......... -; N 798 (0.28; 6.3 Uncommon;
brydei/edeni). 633; 2010) distributed
throughout the
Hawaiian EEZ.
Minke whale (Balaenoptera Hawaii.......... -; N n/a (n/a; n/a; Undet. Regular but
acutorostrata). 2010) seasonal
(October-April
).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family: Physeteridae
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sperm whale (Physeter Hawaii.......... Y; Y 3,354 (0.34; 10.2 Widely
macrocephalus). 2,539; 2010) distributed
year round;
more likely in
waters >1,000
m depth, most
often >2,000
m.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family: Kogiidae
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pygmy sperm whale (Kogia Hawaii.......... -; N n/a (n/a; n/a; Undet. Widely
breviceps). 2010) distributed
year round;
more likely in
waters >1,000
m depth.
Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia Hawaii.......... -; N n/a (n/a; n/a; Undet. Widely
sima). 2010) distributed
year round;
more likely in
waters >500 m
depth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family delphinidae
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Killer whale (Orcinus orca).. Hawaii.......... -; N 101 (1.00; 50; 1 Uncommon;
2010) infrequent
sightings.
False killer whale (Pseudorca Hawaii Pelagic -; N 1,540 (0.66; 9.3 Regular.
crassidens). NWHI Stock. -; N 928; 2010) 2.3 Regular.
617 (1.11;
290; 2010)
Pygmy killer whale (Feresa Hawaii.......... -; N 3,433 (0.52; 23 Year-round
attenuata). 2,274; 2010) resident.
Short-finned pilot whale Hawaii.......... -; N 12,422 (0.43; 70 Commonly
(Globicephala macrorhynchus). 8,872; 2010) observed
around Main
Hawaiian
Islands and
Northwestern
Hawaiian
Islands.
Melon headed whale Hawaii Islands -; N 5,794 (0.20; 4 Regular.
(Peponocephala electra). stock. 4,904; 2010)
Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops Hawaii pelagic.. -; N 5,950 (0.59; 38 Common in deep
truncatus). 3,755; 2010) offshore
waters.
Pantropical spotted dolphin Hawaii pelagic.. -; N 15,917 (0.40; 115 Common; primary
(Stenella attenuata). 11,508; 2010) occurrence
between 100
and 4,000 m
depth.
[[Page 44282]]
Striped dolphin (Stenella Hawaii.......... -; N 20,650 (0.36; 154 Occurs
coeruleoala). 15,391; 2010) regularly year
round but
infrequent
sighting
during survey.
Spinner dolphin (Stenella Hawaii pelagic.. -; N n/a (n/a; n/a; Undet. Common year-
longirostris). 2010) round in
offshore
waters.
Rough-toothed dolphins (Steno Hawaii stock.... -; N 6,288 (0.39; 46 Common
bredanensis). 4,581; 2010) throughout the
Main Hawaiian
Islands and
Hawaiian
Islands EEZ.
Fraser's dolphin Hawaii.......... -; N 16,992 (0.66; 102 Tropical
(Lagenodelphis hosei). 10,241; 2010) species only
recently
documented
within
Hawaiian
Islands EEZ
(2002 survey).
Risso's dolphin (Grampus Hawaii.......... -; N 7,256 (0.41; 42 Previously
griseus). 5,207; 2010) considered
rare but
multiple
sightings in
Hawaiian
Islands EEZ
during various
surveys
conducted from
2002-2012.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family: Ziphiidae
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cuvier's beaked whale Hawaii.......... -; N 1,941 (n/a; 11.4 Year-round
(Ziphius cavirostris). 1,142; 2010) occurrence but
difficult to
detect due to
diving
behavior.
Blainville's beaked whale Hawaii.......... -; N 2,338 (1.13; 11 Year-round
(Mesoplodon densirostris). 1,088; 2010) occurrence but
difficult to
detect due to
diving
behavior.
Longman's beaked whale Hawaii.......... -; N 4,571 (0.65; 28 Considered
(Indopacetus pacificus). 2,773; 2010) rare; however,
multiple
sightings
during
2010 survey.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order--Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia (seals, sea lions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family: Phocidae
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaiian monk seal Hawaii.......... Y; Y 1,112 (n/a; Undet. Predominantly
(Neomonachus schauinslandi). 1,088; 2013) occur at
Northwestern
Hawaiian
Islands;
approximately
138
individuals in
Main Hawaiian
Islands.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species
is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one
for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR (see footnote 3) or which is determined to be
declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not
applicable. For certain stocks, abundance estimates are actual counts of animals and there is no associated
CV. The most recent abundance survey that is reflected in the abundance estimate is presented; there may be
more recent surveys that have not yet been incorporated into the estimate. All values presented here are from
the 2015 Pacific SARs, except humpback whales--see comment 4.
\3\ Potential biological removal, defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural
mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its
optimum sustainable population size (OSP).
\4\ Values for humpback whales are from the 2015 Alaska SAR.
Of these 25 species, six are listed as endangered under the ESA and
as depleted throughout its range under the MMPA. These are: humpback
whale, blue whale, fin whale, sei whale, sperm whale, and the Hawaiian
monk seal.
Of the 25 species that may occur in Hawaiian waters, only certain
stocks occur in the impact area, while others are island-associated or
do not occur at the depths of the impact area (e.g. false killer whale
insular stock, island-associated stocks of bottlenose, spinner, and
spotted dolphins). Only two species are considered likely to be in the
impact area during the one day of project activities (dwarf sperm whale
and pygmy sperm whale). Other species are seasonal and only occur in
these waters in the fall or winter (humpback whale, blue whale, fin
whale, sei whale, minke whale, killer whale); some are rare in the area
(Longman's beaked whale, Bryde's whale); and others are unlikely to be
impacted due to small density estimates (False killer whale, pygmy
killer whale, short-finned pilot whale, melon-headed whale, bottlenose
dolphin, Pantropical spotted dolphin, striped dolphin, spinner dolphin,
rough-toothed dolphin, Fraser's dolphin, Risso's dolphin, Cuvier's
beaked whale, Blainville's beaked
[[Page 44283]]
whale, and Hawaiian monk seal). Because these 22 species are unlikely
to occur within the BSURE area, 86 FWS 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.
We have reviewed 86 FWS's species descriptions, including life
history information, distribution, regional distribution, diving
behavior, and acoustics and hearing, for accuracy and completeness. We
refer the reader to Sections 3 and 4 of 86 FWS's application and to
Chapter 3 in 86 FWS's EA rather than reprinting the information here.
Below, for those species that are likely to be taken by the
activities described, we offer a brief introduction to the species and
relevant stock as well as available information regarding population
trends and threats, and describe any information regarding local
occurrence.
Dwarf Sperm Whale
Dwarf sperm whales are found throughout the world in tropical to
warm-temperate waters (Caretta et al., 2014). They are usually found in
waters deeper than 500 m, most often sighted in depths between 500 and
1,000 m, but they have been documented in depths as shallow as 106 m
and as deep as 4,700 m (Baird, in press). This species is often alone
or in small groups of up to two to four individuals (average group size
of 2.7 individuals), with a maximum group size observed of eight
individuals (Baird, in press). When there are more than two animals
together, they are often loosely associated, with up to several hundred
meters between pairs of individuals (Baird, in press).
There is one stock of dwarf sperm whales in Hawaii. Sighting data
suggests a small resident population off Hawaii Island (Baird, in
press). There are no current abundance estimates for this stock. In
2002, a survey off Hawaii estimated the abundance at 17,159; however,
this data is outdated and is no longer used. PBR cannot be calculated
due to insufficient data. It has been suggested that this species is
probably one of the more abundant species of cetaceans in Hawaiian
waters (Baird, in press). One of their main threats is interactions
with fisheries; however, dwarf sperm whales are also sensitive to high-
intensity underwater sounds and navy sonar testing. This stock is not
listed as endangered under the ESA and is not considered strategic or
designated as depleted under the MMPA (Caretta et al., 2013).
Pygmy Sperm Whale
Pygmy killer whales are found in tropical and subtropical waters
throughout the world (Ross and Leatherwood 1994). This species prefers
deeper waters, with observations of this species in greater than 4,000
m depth (Baird et al., 2013); and, based on stomach contents from
stranded individuals, pygmy sperm whales forage between 600 and 1,200 m
depth (Baird, in press). Sightings are rare of this species, but
observations include lone individuals or pairs, with an average group
size of 1.5 individuals (Baird, in press).
There is a single stock of Pygmy killer whales in Hawaii. Current
abundance estimates for this stock are unknown. A 2002 survey in Hawaii
estimated 7,138 animals; however, this data is outdated and is no
longer used. PBR cannot be calculated due to insufficient data.
(Caretta et al., 2014). The main threats to this species are fisheries
interactions and effects from underwater sounds such as active sonar
(Caretta et al., 2014). This stock is not listed as endangered under
the ESA, and is not considered strategic or designated as depleted
under the MMPA (Caretta et al., 2014).
Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that
components (e.g., munition strikes and detonation effects) of the
specified activity, including mitigation, may impact marine mammals and
their habitat. The Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment section
later in this document will include a quantitative analysis of the
number of individuals that we expect 86 FWS to take during this
activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis section will include the
analysis of how this specific activity would impact marine mammals, and
will consider the content of this section, the Estimated Take by
Incidental Harassment section and the Proposed Mitigation section to
draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on
the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and from that
on the affected marine mammal populations or stocks. In the following
discussion, we provide general background information on sound and
marine mammal hearing before considering potential effects to marine
mammals from sound produced by surface detonations.
Description of Sound Sources and WSEP Sound Types
Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are
frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number
of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and
is measured in hertz (Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is the
distance between two peaks of a sound wave. Amplitude is the height of
the sound pressure wave or the ``loudness'' of a sound and is typically
measured using the decibel (dB) scale. A dB is the ratio between a
measured pressure (with sound) and a reference pressure (sound at a
constant pressure, established by scientific standards). It is a
logarithmic unit that accounts for large variations in amplitude;
therefore, relatively small changes in dB ratings correspond to large
changes in sound pressure. When referring to sound pressure levels
(SPLs; the sound force per unit area), sound is referenced in the
context of underwater sound pressure to 1 microPascal ([mu]Pa). One
pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of one newton exerted
over an area of one square meter. The source level (SL) represents the
sound level at a distance of 1 m from the source (referenced to 1
[mu]Pa). The received level is the sound level at the listener's
position. Note that we reference all underwater sound levels in this
document to a pressure of 1 [micro]Pa and all airborne sound levels in
this document are referenced to a pressure of 20 [micro]Pa.
Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over
the duration of an impulse. Rms is calculated by squaring all of the
sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square
root of the average (Urick, 1983). Rms accounts for both positive and
negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so
that one can account for the values in the summation of pressure levels
(Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often used in the
context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral
effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed
through averaged units than by peak pressures.
When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure
waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the
water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in all
directions away from the source (similar to ripples on the surface of a
pond), except in cases where the source is directional. The
compressions and decompressions associated with sound waves are
[[Page 44284]]
detected as changes in pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound
receptors such as hydrophones.
Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the
underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound. Ambient
sound is defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a
single source or point (Richardson et al., 1995), and the sound level
of a region is defined by the total acoustical energy being generated
by known and unknown sources. These sources may include physical (e.g.,
waves, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., sounds
produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and anthropogenic
sound (e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, construction). A number of
sources contribute to ambient sound, including the following
(Richardson et al., 1995):
Wind and waves: The complex interactions between wind and
water surface, including processes such as breaking waves and wave-
induced bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a main source of
naturally occurring ambient noise for frequencies between 200 Hz and 50
kHz (Mitson, 1995). In general, ambient sound levels tend to increase
with increasing wind speed and wave height. Surf noise becomes
important near shore, with measurements collected at a distance of 8.5
km from shore showing an increase of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz band
during heavy surf conditions.
Precipitation: Sound from rain and hail impacting the
water surface can become an important component of total noise at
frequencies above 500 Hz, and possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet
times.
Biological: Marine mammals can contribute significantly to
ambient noise levels, as can some fish and shrimp. The frequency band
for biological contributions is from approximately 12 Hz to over 100
kHz.
Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient noise related to human
activity include transportation (surface vessels and aircraft),
dredging and construction, oil and gas drilling and production, seismic
surveys, sonar, explosions, and ocean acoustic studies. Shipping noise
typically dominates the total ambient noise for frequencies between 20
and 300 Hz. In general, the frequencies of anthropogenic sounds are
below 1 kHz and, if higher frequency sound levels are created, they
attenuate rapidly (Richardson et al., 1995). Sound from identifiable
anthropogenic sources other than the activity of interest (e.g., a
passing vessel) is sometimes termed background sound, as opposed to
ambient sound.
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at
any given location and time--which comprise ``ambient'' or
``background'' sound--depends not only on the source levels (as
determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and
shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate
through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the
spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea
floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a
large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected
to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales.
Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB
from day to day (Richardson et al., 1995). The result is that,
depending on the source type and its intensity, sound from the
specified activity may be a negligible addition to the local
environment or could form a distinctive signal that may affect marine
mammals.
The sounds produced by the proposed WSEP activities are considered
impulsive, which is one of two general sound types, the other being
non-pulsed. The distinction between these two sound types is important
because they have differing potential to cause physical effects,
particularly with regard to hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in Southall et
al., 2007). Please see Southall et al. (2007) for an in-depth
discussion of these concepts.
Impulsive sound sources (e.g., explosions, gunshots, sonic booms,
impact pile driving) produce signals that are brief (typically
considered to be less than one second), broadband, atonal transients
(ANSI, 1986; Harris, 1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003) and occur either as
isolated events or repeated in some succession. These sounds have a
relatively rapid rise from ambient pressure to a maximal pressure value
followed by a rapid decay period that may include a period of
diminishing, oscillating maximal and minimal pressures, and generally
have an increased capacity to induce physical injury as compared with
sounds that lack these features.
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals,
and exposure to sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately
assess these potential effects, it is necessary to understand the
frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate
that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities
(e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and
Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) recommended
that marine mammals be divided into functional hearing groups based on
measured or estimated hearing ranges on the basis of available
behavioral data, audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential
techniques, anatomical modeling, and other data. The lower and/or upper
frequencies for some of these functional hearing groups have been
modified from those designated by Southall et al. (2007). The
functional groups and the associated frequencies are indicated below
(note that these frequency ranges do not necessarily correspond to the
range of best hearing, which varies by species):
Low frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes):
functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and
25 kHz (up to 30 kHz in some species), with best hearing estimated to
be from 100 Hz to 8 kHz (Watkins, 1986; Ketten, 1998; Houser et al.,
2001; Au et al., 2006; Lucifredi and Stein, 2007; Ketten et al., 2007;
Parks et al., 2007a; Ketten and Mountain, 2009; Tubelli et al., 2012);
Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, six
species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and
bottlenose whales): functional hearing is estimated to occur between
approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz with best hearing from 10 to less than
100 kHz (Johnson, 1967; White, 1977; Richardson et al., 1995; Szymanski
et al., 1999; Kastelein et al., 2003; Finneran et al., 2005a, 2009;
Nachtigall et al., 2005, 2008; Yuen et al., 2005; Popov et al., 2007;
Au and Hastings, 2008; Houser et al., 2008; Pacini et al., 2010, 2011;
Schlundt et al., 2011);
High frequency cetaceans (eight species of true porpoises,
six species of river dolphins, and members of the genera Kogia and
Cephalorhynchus; now considered to include two members of the genus
Lagenorhynchus on the basis of recent echolocation data and genetic
data [May-Collado and Agnarsson, 2006; Kyhn et al., 2009, 2010;
Tougaard et al., 2010]): functional hearing is estimated to occur
between approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz (Popov and Supin, 1990a,b;
Kastelein et al., 2002; Popov et al., 2005);
Phocid pinnipeds in Water: functional hearing is estimated
to occur between approximately 75 Hz and 100 kHz with best hearing
between 1-50 kHz (M[oslash]hl, 1968; Terhune and Ronald, 1971, 1972;
Richardson et al., 1995; Kastak and Schusterman, 1999;
[[Page 44285]]
Reichmuth, 2008; Kastelein et al., 2009); and
Otariid pinnipeds in Water: functional hearing is
estimated to occur between approximately 100 Hz and 48 kHz, with best
hearing between 2-48 kHz (Schusterman et al., 1972; Moore and
Schusterman, 1987; Babushina et al., 1991; Richardson et al., 1995;
Kastak and Schusterman, 1998; Kastelein et al., 2005a; Mulsow and
Reichmuth, 2007; Mulsow et al., 2011a, b).
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et
al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have
consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing
compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth et al.,
2013).
There are two marine mammal species (both cetaceans, the dwarf and
pygmy sperm whale) with expected potential to co-occur with 86 FWS WSEP
military readiness activities. The Kogia species are classified as
high-frequency cetaceans. A species' functional hearing group is a
consideration when we analyze the effects of exposure to sound on
marine mammals.
Acoustic Impacts
Please refer to the information given previously (Description of
Sound Sources) regarding sound, characteristics of sound types, and
metrics used in this document. Anthropogenic sounds cover a broad range
of frequencies and sound levels and can have a range of highly variable
impacts on marine life, from none or minor to potentially severe
responses, depending on received levels, duration of exposure,
behavioral context, and various other factors. The potential effects of
underwater sound from active acoustic sources can potentially result in
one or more of the following: temporary or permanent hearing
impairment, non-auditory physical or physiological effects, behavioral
disturbance, stress, and masking (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et
al., 2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007; G[ouml]tz et
al., 2009). The degree of effect is intrinsically related to the signal
characteristics, received level, distance from the source, and duration
of the sound exposure. In general, sudden, high level sounds can cause
hearing loss, as can longer exposures to lower level sounds. Temporary
or permanent loss of hearing will occur almost exclusively for noise
within an animal's hearing range. We first describe specific
manifestations of acoustic effects before providing discussion specific
to 86 FWS's activities.
Richardson et al. (1995) described zones of increasing intensity of
effect that might be expected to occur, in relation to distance from a
source and assuming that the signal is within an animal's hearing
range. First is the area within which the acoustic signal would be
audible (potentially perceived) to the animal, but not strong enough to
elicit any overt behavioral or physiological response. The next zone
corresponds with the area where the signal is audible to the animal and
of sufficient intensity to elicit behavioral or physiological
responsiveness. Third is a zone within which, for signals of high
intensity, the received level is sufficient to potentially cause
discomfort or tissue damage to auditory or other systems. Overlaying
these zones to a certain extent is the area within which masking (i.e.,
when a sound interferes with or masks the ability of an animal to
detect a signal of interest that is above the absolute hearing
threshold) may occur; the masking zone may be highly variable in size.
We describe the more severe effects (i.e., certain non-auditory
physical or physiological effects and mortality) only briefly as we do
not expect that there is a reasonable likelihood that 86 FWS's
activities may result in such effects (see below for further
discussion). Marine mammals exposed to high-intensity sound, or to
lower-intensity sound for prolonged periods, can experience hearing
threshold shift (TS), which is the loss of hearing sensitivity at
certain frequency ranges (Kastak et al., 1999; Schlundt et al., 2000;
Finneran et al., 2002, 2005b). TS can be permanent (PTS), in which case
the loss of hearing sensitivity is not fully recoverable, or temporary
(TTS), in which case the animal's hearing threshold would recover over
time (Southall et al., 2007). Repeated sound exposure that leads to TTS
could cause PTS. In severe cases of PTS, there can be total or partial
deafness, while in most cases the animal has an impaired ability to
hear sounds in specific frequency ranges (Kryter, 1985).
When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in
the ear (i.e., tissue damage), whereas TTS represents primarily tissue
fatigue and is reversible (Southall et al., 2007). In addition, other
investigators have suggested that TTS is within the normal bounds of
physiological variability and tolerance and does not represent physical
injury (e.g., Ward, 1997). Therefore, NMFS does not consider TTS to
constitute auditory injury.
Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied
in marine mammals--PTS data exists only for a single harbor seal
(Kastak et al., 2008)--but are assumed to be similar to those in humans
and other terrestrial mammals. PTS typically occurs at exposure levels
at least several decibels above (a 40-dB threshold shift approximates
PTS onset; e.g., Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974) that inducing mild
TTS (a 6-dB threshold shift approximates TTS onset; e.g., Southall et
al., 2007). Based on data from terrestrial mammals, a precautionary
assumption is that the PTS thresholds for impulse sounds (such as
bombs) are at least 6 dB higher than the TTS threshold on a peak-
pressure basis and PTS cumulative sound exposure level thresholds are
15 to 20 dB higher than TTS cumulative sound exposure level thresholds
(Southall et al., 2007). Given the higher level of sound or longer
exposure duration necessary to cause PTS as compared with TTS, it is
considerably less likely that PTS could occur.
Non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that theoretically
might occur in marine mammals exposed to high level underwater sound or
as a secondary effect of extreme behavioral reactions (e.g., change in
dive profile as a result of an avoidance reaction) caused by exposure
to sound include neurological effects, bubble formation, resonance
effects, and other types of organ or tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006;
Southall et al., 2007; Zimmer and Tyack, 2007). 86 FWS's activities
involve the use of devices such as explosives that are associated with
these types of effects; however, severe injury to marine mammals is not
anticipated from these activities.
When a live or dead marine mammal swims or floats onto shore and is
incapable of returning to sea, the event is termed a ``stranding'' (16
U.S.C. 1421h(3)). Marine mammals are known to strand for a variety of
reasons, such as infectious agents, biotoxicosis, starvation, fishery
interaction, ship strike, unusual oceanographic or weather events,
sound exposure, or combinations of these stressors sustained
concurrently or in series (e.g., Geraci et al., 1999). However, the
cause or causes of most strandings are unknown (e.g., Best, 1982).
Combinations of dissimilar stressors may combine to kill an animal or
dramatically reduce its fitness, even though one exposure without the
other would not be expected to produce the same outcome (e.g., Sih et
al., 2004). For further description of stranding events
[[Page 44286]]
see, e.g., Southall et al., 2006; Jepson et al., 2013; Wright et al.,
2013.
1. Temporary threshold shift--TTS is the mildest form of hearing
impairment that can occur during exposure to sound (Kryter, 1985).
While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises, and a sound must
be at a higher level in order to be heard. In terrestrial and marine
mammals, TTS can last from minutes or hours to days (in cases of strong
TTS). In many cases, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after
exposure to the sound ends. Few data on sound levels and durations
necessary to elicit mild TTS have been obtained for marine mammals, and
none of the data published at the time of this writing concern TTS
elicited by exposure to multiple pulses of sound.
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with
conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes
such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree
(elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and
frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS
can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to
serious. For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily compensate
for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency
range that occurs during a time where ambient noise is lower and there
are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger
amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during time when
communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could
have more serious impacts.
Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans
(bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale [Delphinapterus leucas], harbor
porpoise [Phocoena phocoena], and Yangtze finless porpoise [Neophocoena
asiaeorientalis]) and three species of pinnipeds (northern elephant
seal [Mirounga angustirostris], harbor seal [Phoca vitulina], and
California sea lion [Zalophus californianus]) exposed to a limited
number of sound sources (i.e., mostly tones and octave-band noise) in
laboratory settings (e.g., Finneran et al., 2002; Nachtigall et al.,
2004; Kastak et al., 2005; Lucke et al., 2009; Popov et al., 2011). In
general, harbor seals (Kastak et al., 2005; Kastelein et al., 2012a)
and harbor porpoises (Lucke et al., 2009; Kastelein et al., 2012b) have
a lower TTS onset than other measured pinniped or cetacean species.
Additionally, the existing marine mammal TTS data come from a limited
number of individuals within these species. There are no data available
on noise-induced hearing loss for mysticetes. For summaries of data on
TTS in marine mammals or for further discussion of TTS onset
thresholds, please see Southall et al. (2007) and Finneran and Jenkins
(2012).
2. Behavioral effects--Behavioral disturbance may include a variety
of effects, including subtle changes in behavior (e.g., minor or brief
avoidance of an area or changes in vocalizations), more conspicuous
changes in similar behavioral activities, and more sustained and/or
potentially severe reactions, such as displacement from or abandonment
of high-quality habitat. Behavioral responses to sound are highly
variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on numerous
intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., species, state of maturity,
experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity,
time of day), as well as the interplay between factors (e.g.,
Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007;
Weilgart, 2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral reactions can vary not
only among individuals but also within an individual, depending on
previous experience with a sound source, context, and numerous other
factors (Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary depending on
characteristics associated with the sound source (e.g., whether it is
moving or stationary, number of sources, distance from the source).
Please see Appendices B-C of Southall et al. (2007) for a review of
studies involving marine mammal behavioral responses to sound.
Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes
with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated
events (Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most likely to habituate to
sounds that are predictable and unvarying. It is important to note that
habituation is appropriately considered as a ``progressive reduction in
response to stimuli that are perceived as neither aversive nor
beneficial,'' rather than as, more generally, moderation in response to
human disturbance (Bejder et al., 2009). The opposite process is
sensitization, when an unpleasant experience leads to subsequent
responses, often in the form of avoidance, at a lower level of
exposure. As noted, behavioral state may affect the type of response.
For example, animals that are resting may show greater behavioral
change in response to disturbing sound levels than animals that are
highly motivated to remain in an area for feeding (Richardson et al.,
1995; NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). Controlled experiments with
captive marine mammals have shown pronounced behavioral reactions,
including avoidance of loud sound sources (Ridgway et al., 1997;
Finneran et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild marine mammals to
loud pulsed sound sources (typically seismic airguns or acoustic
harassment devices) have been varied but often consist of avoidance
behavior or other behavioral changes suggesting discomfort (Morton and
Symonds, 2002; see also Richardson et al., 1995; Nowacek et al., 2007).
Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater
sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given
sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving
the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater
sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts
of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let
alone the stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces
marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a
prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be
significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC,
2005). However, there are broad categories of potential response, which
we describe in greater detail here, that include alteration of dive
behavior, alteration of foraging behavior, effects to breathing,
interference with or alteration of vocalization, avoidance, and flight.
Changes in dive behavior can vary widely and may consist of
increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as
changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive (e.g., Frankel
and Clark, 2000; Costa et al., 2003; Ng and Leung, 2003; Nowacek et
al.; 2004; Goldbogen et al., 2013a,b). Variations in dive behavior may
reflect interruptions in biologically significant activities (e.g.,
foraging) or they may be of little biological significance. The impact
of an alteration to dive behavior resulting from an acoustic exposure
depends on what the animal is doing at the time of the exposure and the
type and magnitude of the response.
Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with
anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed
displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary
indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes in dive
behavior. As for other types of behavioral response, the frequency,
duration, and temporal pattern of signal presentation, as well as
differences in species sensitivity, are likely contributing factors to
differences in response in any given circumstance
[[Page 44287]]
(e.g., Croll et al., 2001; Nowacek et al.; 2004; Madsen et al., 2006;
Yazvenko et al., 2007). A determination of whether foraging disruptions
incur fitness consequences would require information on or estimates of
the energetic requirements of the affected individuals and the
relationship between prey availability, foraging effort and success,
and the life history stage of the animal.
Variations in respiration naturally vary with different behaviors
and alterations to breathing rate as a function of acoustic exposure
can be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a
flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates
in and of themselves may be representative of annoyance or an acute
stress response. Various studies have shown that respiration rates may
either be unaffected or could increase, depending on the species and
signal characteristics, again highlighting the importance in
understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noise
when determining the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic
sound exposure (e.g., Kastelein et al., 2001, 2005b, 2006; Gailey et
al., 2007).
Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple
modes, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and
singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic
noise can occur for any of these modes and may result from a need to
compete with an increase in background noise or may reflect increased
vigilance or a startle response. For example, in the presence of
potentially masking signals, humpback whales and killer whales have
been observed to increase the length of their songs (Miller et al.,
2000; Fristrup et al., 2003; Foote et al., 2004), while right whales
have been observed to shift the frequency content of their calls upward
while reducing the rate of calling in areas of increased anthropogenic
noise (Parks et al., 2007b). In some cases, animals may cease sound
production during production of aversive signals (Bowles et al., 1994).
Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or
migration path as a result of the presence of a sound or other
stressors, and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance
in marine mammals (Richardson et al., 1995). For example, gray whales
are known to change direction--deflecting from customary migratory
paths--in order to avoid noise from seismic surveys (Malme et al.,
1984). Avoidance may be short-term, with animals returning to the area
once the noise has ceased (e.g., Bowles et al., 1994; Goold, 1996;
Stone et al., 2000; Morton and Symonds, 2002; Gailey et al., 2007).
Longer-term displacement is possible, however, which may lead to
changes in abundance or distribution patterns of the affected species
in the affected region if habituation to the presence of the sound does
not occur (e.g., Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder et al., 2006; Teilmann
et al., 2006).
A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a
directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound
source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in
the intensity of the response (e.g., directed movement, rate of
travel). Relatively little information on flight responses of marine
mammals to anthropogenic signals exist, although observations of flight
responses to the presence of predators have occurred (Connor and
Heithaus, 1996). The result of a flight response could range from
brief, temporary exertion and displacement from the area where the
signal provokes flight to, in extreme cases, marine mammal strandings
(Evans and England, 2001). However, it should be noted that response to
a perceived predator does not necessarily invoke flight (Ford and
Reeves, 2008), and whether individuals are solitary or in groups may
influence the response.
Behavioral disturbance can also impact marine mammals in more
subtle ways. Increased vigilance may result in costs related to
diversion of focus and attention (i.e., when a response consists of
increased vigilance, it may come at the cost of decreased attention to
other critical behaviors such as foraging or resting). These effects
have generally not been demonstrated for marine mammals, but studies
involving fish and terrestrial animals have shown that increased
vigilance may substantially reduce feeding rates (e.g., Beauchamp and
Livoreil, 1997; Fritz et al., 2002; Purser and Radford, 2011). In
addition, chronic disturbance can cause population declines through
reduction of fitness (e.g., decline in body condition) and subsequent
reduction in reproductive success, survival, or both (e.g., Harrington
and Veitch, 1992; Daan et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 1998). However,
Ridgway et al. (2006) reported that increased vigilance in bottlenose
dolphins exposed to sound over a five-day period did not cause any
sleep deprivation or stress effects.
Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting,
traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruption
of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors such as sound
exposure are more likely to be significant if they last more than one
diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007).
Consequently, a behavioral response lasting less than one day and not
recurring on subsequent days is not considered particularly severe
unless it could directly affect reproduction or survival (Southall et
al., 2007). Note that there is a difference between multi-day
substantive behavioral reactions and multi-day anthropogenic
activities. For example, just because an activity lasts for multiple
days does not necessarily mean that individual animals are either
exposed to activity-related stressors for multiple days or, further,
exposed in a manner resulting in sustained multi-day substantive
behavioral responses.
3. Stress responses--An animal's perception of a threat may be
sufficient to trigger stress responses consisting of some combination
of behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses,
neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses (e.g., Seyle, 1950;
Moberg, 2000). In many cases, an animal's first and sometimes most
economical (in terms of energetic costs) response is behavioral
avoidance of the potential stressor. Autonomic nervous system responses
to stress typically involve changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and
gastrointestinal activity. These responses have a relatively short
duration and may or may not have a significant long-term effect on an
animal's fitness.
Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-
pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that
are affected by stress--including immune competence, reproduction,
metabolism, and behavior--are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-
induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been
implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune
competence, and behavioral disturbance (e.g., Moberg, 1987; Blecha,
2000). Increases in the circulation of glucocorticoids are also equated
with stress (Romano et al., 2004).
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does
not normally place an animal at risk) and ``distress'' is the cost of
the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores
that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such
circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious
fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient
energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response,
energy
[[Page 44288]]
resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of distress
will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves
sufficient to restore normal function.
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal
behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through
controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals
(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; Jessop et al., 2003;
Krausman et al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress responses due to
exposure to anthropogenic sounds or other stressors and their effects
on marine mammals have also been reviewed (Fair and Becker, 2000;
Romano et al., 2002b) and, more rarely, studied in wild populations
(e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found
that noise reduction from reduced ship traffic in the Bay of Fundy was
associated with decreased stress in North Atlantic right whales. These
and other studies lead to a reasonable expectation that some marine
mammals will experience physiological stress responses upon exposure to
acoustic stressors and that it is possible that some of these would be
classified as ``distress.'' In addition, any animal experiencing TTS
would likely also experience stress responses (NRC, 2003).
4. Auditory masking--Sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or
interfering with, an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or
discriminate between acoustic signals of interest (e.g., those used for
intraspecific communication and social interactions, prey detection,
predator avoidance, navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995). Masking
occurs when the receipt of a sound is interfered with by another
coincident sound at similar frequencies and at similar or higher
intensity, and may occur whether the sound is natural (e.g., snapping
shrimp, wind, waves, precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., shipping,
sonar, seismic exploration) in origin. The ability of a noise source to
mask biologically important sounds depends on the characteristics of
both the noise source and the signal of interest (e.g., signal-to-noise
ratio, temporal variability, direction), in relation to each other and
to an animal's hearing abilities (e.g., sensitivity, frequency range,
critical ratios, frequency discrimination, directional discrimination,
age or TTS hearing loss), and existing ambient noise and propagation
conditions.
Under certain circumstances, marine mammals experiencing
significant masking could also be impaired from maximizing their
performance fitness in survival and reproduction. Therefore, when the
coincident (masking) sound is man-made, it may be considered harassment
when disrupting or altering critical behaviors. It is important to
distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from
masking, which occurs during the sound exposure. Because masking
(without resulting in TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological
function, it is not considered a physiological effect, but rather a
potential behavioral effect.
The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important
in determining any potential behavioral impacts. For example, low-
frequency signals may have less effect on high-frequency echolocation
sounds produced by odontocetes but are more likely to affect detection
of mysticete communication calls and other potentially important
natural sounds such as those produced by surf and some prey species.
The masking of communication signals by anthropogenic noise may be
considered as a reduction in the communication space of animals (e.g.,
Clark et al., 2009) and may result in energetic or other costs as
animals change their vocalization behavior (e.g., Miller et al., 2000;
Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 2007b; Di Iorio and Clark, 2009; Holt
et al., 2009). Masking can be reduced in situations where the signal
and noise come from different directions (Richardson et al., 1995),
through amplitude modulation of the signal, or through other
compensatory behaviors (Houser and Moore, 2014). Masking can be tested
directly in captive species (e.g., Erbe, 2008), but in wild populations
it must be either modeled or inferred from evidence of masking
compensation. There are few studies addressing real-world masking
sounds likely to be experienced by marine mammals in the wild (e.g.,
Branstetter et al., 2013).
Masking affects both senders and receivers of acoustic signals and
can potentially have long-term chronic effects on marine mammals at the
population level as well as at the individual level. Low-frequency
ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than
three times in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial
periods, with most of the increase from distant commercial shipping
(Hildebrand, 2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, but especially
chronic and lower-frequency signals (e.g., from vessel traffic),
contribute to elevated ambient sound levels, thus intensifying masking.
The LRS WSEP training exercises proposed for the incidental take of
marine mammals have the potential to take marine mammals by exposing
them to impulsive noise and pressure waves generated by live ordnance
detonation at the surface of the water. Exposure to energy, pressure,
or direct strike by ordnance has the potential to result in non-lethal
injury (Level A harassment), disturbance (Level B harassment), serious
injury, and/or mortality. In addition, NMFS also considered the
potential for harassment from vessel and aircraft operations.
Acoustic Effects, Underwater
Explosive detonations at the water surface send a shock wave and
sound energy through the water and can release gaseous by-products,
create an oscillating bubble, or cause a plume of water to shoot up
from the water surface. The shock wave and accompanying noise are of
most concern to marine animals. Depending on the intensity of the shock
wave and size, location, and depth of the animal, an animal can be
injured, killed, suffer non-lethal physical effects, experience hearing
related effects with or without behavioral responses, or exhibit
temporary behavioral responses or tolerance from hearing the blast
sound. Generally, exposures to higher levels of impulse and pressure
levels would result in greater impacts to an individual animal.
The effects of underwater detonations on marine mammals are
dependent on several factors, including the size, type, and depth of
the animal; the depth, intensity, and duration of the sound; the depth
of the water column; the substrate of the habitat; the standoff
distance between activities and the animal; and the sound propagation
properties of the environment. Thus, we expect impacts to marine
mammals from LRS WSEP activities to result primarily from acoustic
pathways. As such, the degree of the effect relates to the received
level and duration of the sound exposure, as influenced by the distance
between the animal and the source. The further away from the source,
the less intense the exposure should be.
The potential effects of underwater detonations from the proposed
LRS WSEP training activities may include one or more of the following:
temporary or permanent hearing impairment, non-auditory physical or
physiological effects, behavioral disturbance, and masking (Richardson
et al., 1995; Gordon et al., 2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et
al., 2007). However, the effects of noise on marine mammals are highly
variable, often depending on
[[Page 44289]]
species and contextual factors (based on Richardson et al., 1995).
In the absence of mitigation, impacts to marine species could
result from physiological and behavioral responses to both the type and
strength of the acoustic signature (Viada et al., 2008). The type and
severity of behavioral impacts are more difficult to define due to
limited studies addressing the behavioral effects of impulsive sounds
on marine mammals.
Hearing Impairment and Other Physical Effects--Marine mammals
exposed to high intensity sound repeatedly or for prolonged periods can
experience hearing threshold shift. Given the available data, the
received level of a single pulse (with no frequency weighting) might
need to be approximately 186 dB re 1 [mu]Pa2-s (i.e., 186 dB sound
exposure level (SEL) or approximately 221-226 dB p-p (peak)) in order
to produce brief, mild TTS. Exposure to several strong pulses that each
have received levels near 190 dB rms (175-180 dB SEL) might result in
cumulative exposure of approximately 186 dB SEL and thus slight TTS in
a small odontocete, assuming the TTS threshold is (to a first
approximation) a function of the total received pulse energy.
Non-auditory Physiological Effects--Non-auditory physiological
effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in marine mammals
exposed to strong underwater sound include stress and other types of
organ or tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; Southall et al., 2007).
Serious Injury/Mortality: 86 FWS proposes to use surface
detonations in its training exercises. The explosions from these
weapons would send a shock wave and blast noise through the water,
release gaseous by-products, create an oscillating bubble, and cause a
plume of water to shoot up from the water surface. The shock wave and
blast noise are of most concern to marine animals. In general,
potential impacts from explosive detonations can range from brief
effects (such as short term behavioral disturbance), tactile
perception, physical discomfort, slight injury of the internal organs,
and death of the animal (Yelverton et al., 1973; O'Keeffe and Young,
1984; DoN, 2001). The effects of an underwater explosion on a marine
mammal depend on many factors, including: the size, type, and depth of
both the animal and the explosive charge; the depth of the water
column; the standoff distance between the charge and the animal, and
the sound propagation properties of the environment. Physical damage of
tissues resulting from a shock wave (from an explosive detonation)
constitutes an injury. Blast effects are greatest at the gas-liquid
interface (Landsberg, 2000) and gas containing organs, particularly the
lungs and gastrointestinal tract, are especially susceptible to damage
(Goertner, 1982; Yelverton et al., 1973). Nasal sacs, larynx, pharynx,
trachea, and lungs may be damaged by compression/expansion caused by
the oscillations of the blast gas bubble (Reidenberg and Laitman,
2003). Severe damage (from the shock wave) to the ears can include
tympanic membrane rupture, fracture of the ossicles, cochlear damage,
hemorrhage, and cerebrospinal fluid leakage into the middle ear.
Non-lethal injury includes slight injury to internal organs and the
auditory system; however, delayed lethality can be a result of
individual or cumulative sublethal injuries (DoN, 2001). Immediate
lethal injury would be a result of massive combined trauma to internal
organs as a direct result of proximity to the point of detonation (DoN,
2001).
Disturbance Reactions
Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including subtle changes
in behavior, more conspicuous changes in activities, and displacement.
Numerous studies have shown that underwater sounds are often readily
detectable by marine mammals in the water at distances of many
kilometers. However, other studies have shown that marine mammals at
distances more than a few kilometers away often show no apparent
response to activities of various types (Miller et al., 2005). This is
often true even in cases when the sounds must be readily audible to the
animals based on measured received levels and the hearing sensitivity
of that mammal group. Although various baleen whales, toothed whales,
and (less frequently) pinnipeds have been shown to react behaviorally
to underwater sound from impulsive sources such as airguns, at other
times, mammals of all three types have shown no overt reactions (e.g.,
Malme et al., 1986; Richardson et al., 1995; Madsen and Mohl, 2000;
Croll et al., 2001; Jacobs and Terhune, 2002; Madsen et al., 2002;
MacLean and Koski, 2005; Miller et al., 2005; Bain and Williams, 2006).
Controlled experiments with captive marine mammals showed
pronounced behavioral reactions, including avoidance of loud sound
sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran et al., 2003). Observed
responses of wild marine mammals to loud pulsed sound sources
(typically seismic guns or acoustic harassment devices) have been
varied but often consist of avoidance behavior or other behavioral
changes suggesting discomfort (Morton and Symonds, 2002; Thorson and
Reyff, 2006; see also Gordon et al., 2004; Wartzok et al., 2003;
Nowacek et al., 2007).
Because the few available studies show wide variation in response
to underwater sound, it is difficult to quantify exactly how sound from
the LRS WSEP operational testing would affect marine mammals. It is
likely that the onset of surface detonations could result in temporary,
short term changes in an animal's typical behavior and/or avoidance of
the affected area. These behavioral changes may include (Richardson et
al., 1995): changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows
per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased
vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities
(such as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or
aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); or
avoidance of areas where sound sources are located.
The biological significance of any of these behavioral disturbances
is difficult to predict, especially if the detected disturbances appear
minor. However generally, one could expect the consequences of
behavioral modification to be biologically significant if the change
affects growth, survival, or reproduction. Significant behavioral
modifications that could potentially lead to effects on growth,
survival, or reproduction include:
Drastic changes in diving/surfacing patterns (such as
those thought to cause beaked whale stranding due to exposure to
military mid-frequency tactical sonar);
Habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic
environment; and
Cessation of feeding or social interaction.
The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic sound
depends on both external factors (characteristics of sound sources and
their paths) and the specific characteristics of the receiving animals
(hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is difficult to
predict (Southall et al., 2007).
Auditory Masking
Natural and artificial sounds can disrupt behavior by masking, or
interfering with, a marine mammal's ability to hear other sounds.
Masking occurs when the receipt of a sound interferes with by another
coincident sound at similar frequencies and at similar or higher levels
(Clark et al., 2009). While it may occur temporarily,
[[Page 44290]]
we do not expect auditory masking to result in detrimental impacts to
an individual's or population's survival, fitness, or reproductive
success. Dolphin movement is not restricted within the BSURE area,
allowing for movement out of the area to avoid masking impacts and the
sound resulting from the detonations is short in duration. Also,
masking is typically of greater concern for those marine mammals that
utilize low frequency communications, such as baleen whales and, as
such, is not likely to occur for marine mammals in the BSURE area.
Vessel and Aircraft Presence
The marine mammals most vulnerable to vessel strikes are slow-
moving and/or spend extended periods of time at the surface in order to
restore oxygen levels within their tissues after deep dives (e.g.,
North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis), fin whales, and
sperm whales). Smaller marine mammals are agile and move more quickly
through the water, making them less susceptible to ship strikes. NMFS
and 86 FWS are not aware of any vessel strikes of dwarf and pygmy sperm
whales within in BSURE area during training operations, and both
parties do not anticipate that potential 86 FWS vessels engaged in the
specified activity would strike any marine mammals.
Dolphins within Hawaiian waters are exposed to recreational,
commercial, and military vessels. Behaviorally, marine mammals may or
may not respond to the operation of vessels and associated noise.
Responses to vessels vary widely among marine mammals in general, but
also among different species of small cetaceans. Responses may include
attraction to the vessel (Richardson et al., 1995); altering travel
patterns to avoid vessels (Constantine, 2001; Nowacek et al., 2001;
Lusseau, 2003, 2006); relocating to other areas (Allen and Read, 2000);
cessation of feeding, resting, and social interaction (Baker et al.,
1983; Bauer and Herman, 1986; Hall, 1982; Krieger and Wing, 1984;
Lusseau, 2003; Constantine et al., 2004); abandoning feeding, resting,
and nursing areas (Jurasz and Jurasz 1979; Dean et al., 1985; Glockner-
Ferrari and Ferrari, 1985, 1990; Lusseau, 2005; Norris et al., 1985;
Salden, 1988; Forest, 2001; Morton and Symonds, 2002; Courbis, 2004;
Bejder, 2006); stress (Romano et al., 2004); and changes in acoustic
behavior (Van Parijs and Corkeron, 2001). However, in some studies
marine mammals display no reaction to vessels (Watkins, 1986; Nowacek
et al., 2003) and many odontocetes show considerable tolerance to
vessel traffic (Richardson et al., 1995). Dolphins may actually reduce
the energetic cost of traveling by riding the bow or stern waves of
vessels (Williams et al., 1992; Richardson et al., 1995).
Aircraft produce noise at frequencies that are well within the
frequency range of cetacean hearing and also produce visual signals
such as the aircraft itself and its shadow (Richardson et al., 1995,
Richardson and Wursig, 1997). A major difference between aircraft noise
and noise caused by other anthropogenic sources is that the sound is
generated in the air, transmitted through the water surface and then
propagates underwater to the receiver, diminishing the received levels
significantly below what is heard above the water's surface. Sound
transmission from air to water is greatest in a sound cone 26 degrees
directly under the aircraft.
There are fewer reports of reactions of odontocetes to aircraft
than those of pinnipeds. Responses to aircraft by pinnipeds include
diving, slapping the water with pectoral fins or tail fluke, or
swimming away from the track of the aircraft (Richardson et al., 1995).
The nature and degree of the response, or the lack thereof, are
dependent upon the nature of the flight (e.g., type of aircraft,
altitude, straight vs. circular flight pattern). Wursig et al. (1998)
assessed the responses of cetaceans to aerial surveys in the north
central and western Gulf of Mexico using a DeHavilland Twin Otter
fixed-wing airplane. The plane flew at an altitude of 229 m (751.3 ft)
at 204 km/hr (126.7 mph) and maintained a minimum of 305 m (1,000 ft)
straight line distance from the cetaceans. Water depth was 100 to 1,000
m (328 to 3,281 ft). Bottlenose dolphins most commonly responded by
diving (48 percent), while 14 percent responded by moving away. Other
species (e.g., beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) and sperm whales) show
considerable variation in reactions to aircraft but diving or swimming
away from the aircraft are the most common reactions to low flights
(less than 500 m; 1,640 ft).
Direct Strike by Ordnance
Another potential risk to marine mammals is direct strike by
ordnance, in which the ordnance physically hits an animal. While strike
from an item at the surface of the water while the animals is at the
surface is possible, the potential risk of a direct hit to an animal
within the target area would be so low because marine mammals spend the
majority of their time below the surface of the water, and the
potential for one bomb or missile to hit that animal at that specific
time is highly unlikely since there are only a total of eight bombs on
one day.
Anticipated Effects on Habitat
Detonations of live ordnance would result in temporary changes to
the water environment. An explosion on the surface of the water 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, 86 FWS does not expect any long-term impacts
with regard to hazardous constituents to occur. 86 FWS considered the
introduction of fuel, debris, ordnance, and chemical materials into the
water column within its EA and determined the potential effects of each
to be insignificant. We summarize 86 FWS's analyses in the following
paragraphs (for a complete discussion of potential effects, please
refer to section 3.0 in 86 FWS's EA).
Metals typically used to construct bombs and missiles include
aluminum, steel, and lead, among others. Aluminum is also present in
some explosive materials. These materials would settle to the seafloor
after munitions detonate. Metal ions would slowly leach into the
substrate and the water column, causing elevated concentrations in a
small area around the munitions fragments. Some of the metals, such as
aluminum, occur naturally in the ocean at varying concentrations and
would not necessarily impact the substrate or water column. Other
metals, such as lead, could cause toxicity in microbial communities in
the substrate. However, such effects would be localized to a very small
distance around munitions fragments and would not significantly affect
the overall habitat quality of sediments in the BSURE area. In
addition, metal fragments would corrode, degrade, and become encrusted
over time.
Chemical materials include explosive byproducts and also fuel, oil,
and other fluids associated with remotely controlled target boats.
Explosive byproducts would be introduced into the water column through
detonation of live munitions. Explosive materials would include 2,4,6-
trinitrotoluene (TNT) and research department explosive (RDX), among
others. Various byproducts are produced during and immediately after
detonation of TNT and RDX. During the very brief time that a detonation
is in progress, intermediate products may include carbon ions,
[[Page 44291]]
nitrogen ions, oxygen ions, water, hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide,
nitrogen gas, nitrous oxide, cyanic acid, and carbon dioxide (Becker,
1995). However, reactions quickly occur between the intermediates, and
the final products consist mainly of water, carbon monoxide, carbon
dioxide, and nitrogen gas, although small amounts of other compounds
are typically produced as well.
Chemicals introduced into the water column would be quickly
dispersed by waves, currents, and tidal action, and eventually become
uniformly distributed. A portion of the carbon compounds such as carbon
monoxide and carbon dioxide would likely become integrated into the
carbonate system (alkalinity and pH buffering capacity of seawater).
Some of the nitrogen and carbon compounds, including petroleum
products, would be metabolized or assimilated by phytoplankton and
bacteria. Most of the gas products that do not react with the water or
become assimilated by organisms would be released into the atmosphere.
Due to dilution, mixing, and transformation, none of these chemicals
are expected to have significant impacts on the marine environment.
Explosive material that is not consumed in a detonation could sink
to the substrate and bind to sediments. However, the quantity of such
materials is expected to be inconsequential. Research has shown that if
munitions function properly, nearly full combustion of the explosive
materials will occur, and only extremely small amounts of raw material
will remain. In addition, any remaining materials would be naturally
degraded. TNT decomposes when exposed to sunlight (ultraviolet
radiation), and is also degraded by microbial activity (Becker, 1995).
Several types of microorganisms have been shown to metabolize TNT.
Similarly, RDX decomposes by hydrolysis, ultraviolet radiation
exposure, and biodegradation.
While we anticipate that the specified activity may result in
marine mammals avoiding certain areas due to temporary ensonification,
this impact to habitat and prey resources would be temporary and
reversible. The main impact associated with the proposed activity would
be temporarily elevated noise levels and the associated direct effects
on marine mammals, previously discussed in this notice. Marine mammals
are anticipated to temporarily vacate the area of live detonations.
However, these events are usually of short duration, and animals are
anticipated to return to the activity area during periods of non-
activity. Thus, based on the preceding discussion, we do not anticipate
that the proposed activity would have any habitat-related effects that
could cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine
mammals or their populations.
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an incidental take authorization under section
101(a)(5)(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 86 FWS have worked to identify potential practicable and
effective mitigation measures, which include a careful balancing of the
likely benefit of any particular measure to the marine mammals with the
likely effect of that measure on personnel safety, practicality of
implementation, and impact on the ``military-readiness activity.'' We
refer the reader to Section 11 of 86 FWS's application for more
detailed information on the proposed mitigation measures which include
the following:
Visual Aerial Surveys: For the LRS WSEP activities, mitigation
procedures consist of visual aerial surveys of the impact area for the
presence of protected marine species (including marine mammals). During
aerial observation, Navy test range personnel may survey the area from
an S-61N helicopter or C-62 aircraft that is based at the PMRF land
facility (typically when missions are located relatively close to
shore). Alternatively, when missions are located farther offshore,
surveys may be conducted from mission aircraft (typically jet aircraft
such as F-15E, F-16, or F-22) or a U.S. Coast Guard C-130 aircraft.
Protected species surveys typically begin within one hour of weapon
release and as close to the impact time as feasible, given human safety
requirements. Survey personnel must depart the human hazard zone before
weapon release, in accordance with Navy safety standards. Personnel
conduct aerial surveys within an area defined by an approximately 2-NM
(3,704 m) radius around the impact point, with surveys typically flown
in a star pattern. This survey distance is consistent with requirements
already in place for similar actions at PMRF and encompasses the entire
TTS threshold ranges (SEL) for mid-frequency cetaceans (Table 5). For
species in which potential exposures have been calculated (dwarf sperm
whale and pygmy sperm whale), the survey distance would cover over half
of the PTS SEL range. Given operational constraints, surveying these
larger areas would not be feasible.
Observers would consist of aircrew operating the C-26, S-61N, and
C-130 aircraft from PMRF and the Coast Guard. These aircrew are trained
and experienced at conducting aerial marine mammal surveys and have
provided similar support for other missions at PMRF. Aerial surveys are
typically conducted at an altitude of about 200 feet, but altitude may
vary somewhat depending on sea state and atmospheric conditions. If
adverse weather conditions preclude the ability for aircraft to safely
operate, missions would either be delayed until the weather clears or
cancelled for the day. For 2016 Long Range Strike WSEP missions, one
day has been designated as a weather back-up day. The C-26 and other
aircraft would generally be operated at a slightly higher altitude than
the helicopter. The observers will be provided with the GPS location of
the impact area. Once the aircraft reaches the impact area, pre-mission
surveys typically last for 30 minutes, depending on the survey pattern.
The fixed-wing aircraft are faster than the helicopter; and, therefore,
protected species may be more difficult to spot. However, to compensate
for the difference in speed, the aircraft may fly the survey pattern
multiple times.
If a protected species is observed in the impact area, weapon
release would be delayed until one of the following conditions is met:
(1) The animal is observed exiting the impact area; (2) the animal is
thought to have exited the impact area based on its course and speed;
or (3) the impact area has been clear of any additional sightings for a
period of 30 minutes. All weapons will be tracked and their water entry
points will be documented.
Post-mission surveys would begin immediately after the mission is
complete and the Range Safety Officer declares the human safety area is
reopened. Approximate transit time from the perimeter of the human
safety
[[Page 44292]]
area to the weapon impact area would depend on the size of the human
safety area and vary between aircraft but is expected to be less than
30 minutes. Post-mission surveys would be conducted by the same
aircraft and aircrew that conducted the pre-mission surveys and would
follow the same patterns as pre-mission surveys but would focus on the
area down current of the weapon impact area to determine if protected
species were affected by the mission (observation of dead or injured
animals). If an injury or mortality occurs to a protected species due
to LRS WSEP missions, NMFS would be notified immediately.
A typical mission day would consist of pre-mission checks, safety
review, crew briefings, weather checks, clearing airspace, range
clearance, mitigations/monitoring efforts, and other military protocols
prior to launch of weapons. Potential delays could be the result of
multiple factors including, but not limited to, adverse weather
conditions leading to unsafe take-off, landing, and aircraft
operations, inability to clear the range of non-mission vessels or
aircraft, mechanical issues with mission aircraft or munitions, or
presence of protected species in the impact area. If the mission is
cancelled due to any of these, one back-up day has also been scheduled
as a contingency. These standard operating procedures are usually done
in the morning, and live range time may begin in late morning once all
checks are complete and approval is granted from range control. The
range would be closed to the public for a maximum of four hours per
mission day.
Determination of the Zone of Influence: The zone of influence is
defined as the area or volume of ocean in which marine mammals could be
exposed to various pressure or acoustic energy levels caused by
exploding ordnance. Refer to Appendix A of the application for a
description of the method used to calculate impact areas for
explosives. The pressure and energy levels considered to be of concern
are defined in terms of metrics, criteria, and thresholds. A metric is
a technical standard of measurement that describes the acoustic
environment (e.g., frequency duration, temporal pattern, and amplitude)
and pressure at a given location. Criteria are the resulting types of
possible impact and include mortality, injury, and harassment. A
threshold is the level of pressure or noise above which the impact
criteria are reached.
Standard impulsive and acoustic metrics were used for the analysis
of underwater energy and pressure waves in this document. Several
different metrics are important for understanding risk assessment
analysis of impacts to marine mammals: SPL is the ratio of the absolute
sound pressure to a reference level, SEL is measure of sound intensity
and duration, and positive impulse is the time integral of the pressure
over the initial positive phase of an arrival.
The criteria and thresholds used to estimate potential pressure and
acoustic impacts to marine mammals resulting from detonations were
obtained from Finneran and Jenkins (2012) and include mortality,
injurious harassment (Level A), and non-injurious harassment (Level B).
In some cases, separate thresholds have been developed for different
species groups or functional hearing groups. Functional hearing groups
included in the analysis are low-frequency cetaceans, mid-frequency
cetaceans, high-frequency cetaceans, and phocids.
Based on the ranges presented in Table 5 and factoring operational
limitations associated with the mission, 86 FWS estimates that during
pre-mission surveys, the proposed monitoring area would be
approximately 2 km (3.7 miles) from the target area radius around the
impact point, with surveys typically flown in a star pattern, which is
consistent with requirements already in place for similar actions at
PMRF and encompasses the entire TTS threshold ranges (SEL) for mid-
frequency cetaceans. For species in which potential exposures have been
calculated (dwarf sperm whale and pygmy sperm whale), the survey
distance would cover over half of the PTS SEL range. Given operational
constraints, surveying these larger areas would not be feasible.
Post-Mission Monitoring
Post-mission monitoring determines the effectiveness of pre-mission
mitigation by reporting sightings of any marine mammals. Post-mission
monitoring surveys will commence once the mission has ended or, if
required, as soon as personnel declare the mission area safe. Post-
mission monitoring will be identical to pre-mission surveys and will
occur approximately 30 minutes after the munitions have been detonated,
concentrating on the area down-current of the test site. Observers will
document and report any marine mammal species, number, location, and
behavior of any animals observed.
We have carefully evaluated 86 FWS'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. Our evaluation of potential measures included
consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:
The manner in which, and the degree to which, the
successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize
adverse impacts to marine mammals;
The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to
minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
The practicability of the measure for applicant
implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to
accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on
current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of
the general goals listed here:
1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals
wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or
number at biologically important time or location) exposed to stimuli
expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1,
above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment only).
3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at
biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed
to stimuli 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 1, 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 our evaluation of 86 FWS's proposed measures, as well as
other measures that may be relevant to the specified activity, we have
preliminarily
[[Page 44293]]
determined that the proposed mitigation measures, including visual
aerial surveys and mission delays if protected species are observed in
the impact area, 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).
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an Authorization for an activity, section
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that we must set forth ``requirements
pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.'' The MMPA
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that
requests for an authorization must include the suggested means of
accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result
in increased knowledge of the species and our expectations of the level
of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals present in the
proposed action area.
86 FWS submitted marine mammal monitoring and reporting measures in
their IHA application. We may modify or supplement these measures based
on comments or new information received from the public during the
public comment period. Any monitoring requirement we prescribe should
improve our understanding of one or more of the following:
Occurrence of marine mammal species in action area (e.g.,
presence, abundance, distribution, density).
Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2)
Affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) Co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) Biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas).
Individual responses to acute stressors, or impacts of
chronic exposures (behavioral or physiological).
How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
Long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or (2) Population,
species, or stock.
Effects on marine mammal habitat and resultant impacts to
marine mammals.
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
NMFS proposes to include the following measures in the LRS WSEP
Authorization (if issued). They are:
(1) 86 FWS will track the use of the PMRF for missions and
protected species observations, through the use of mission reporting
forms.
(2) 86 FWS will submit a summary report of marine mammal
observations and LRS WSEP activities to the NMFS Pacific Islands
Regional Office (PIRO) and the Office of Protected Resources 90 days
after expiration of the current Authorization. This report must include
the following information: (i) Date and time of each LRS WSEP exercise;
(ii) a complete description of the pre-exercise and post-exercise
activities related to mitigating and monitoring the effects of LRS WSEP
exercises on marine mammal populations; and (iii) results of the LRS
WSEP exercise monitoring, including number of marine mammals (by
species) that may have been harassed due to presence within the
activity zone.
(3) 86 FWS will monitor for marine mammals in the proposed action
area. If 86 FWS personnel observe or detect any dead or injured marine
mammals prior to testing, or detects any injured or dead marine mammal
during live fire exercises, 86 FWS must cease operations and submit a
report to NMFS within 24 hours.
(4) 86 FWS must immediately report any unauthorized takes of marine
mammals (i.e., serious injury or mortality) to NMFS and to the
respective Pacific Islands Region stranding network representative. 86
FWS must cease operations and submit a report to NMFS within 24 hours.
Estimated Numbers of Marine Mammals Taken by Harassment
The NDAA amended the definition of harassment as it applies to a
``military readiness activity'' to read as follows (Section 3(18)(B) of
the MMPA): (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].
NMFS' analysis identified the physiological responses, and
behavioral responses that could potentially result from exposure to
explosive detonations. In this section, we will relate the potential
effects to marine mammals from 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 PMRF BSURE area.
86 FWS thresholds used for onset of temporary threshold shift (TTS;
Level B Harassment) and onset of permanent threshold shift (PTS; Level
A Harassment) are 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://nwtteis.com/Portals/NWTT/DraftEIS2014/SupportingDocs/NWTT_NMSDD_Technical_Report_23_January%202014_reduced.pdf.
Level B Harassment
Of the potential effects described earlier in this document, the
following are the types of effects that fall into the Level B
harassment category:
Behavioral Harassment--Behavioral disturbance that rises to the
level described in the above definition, when resulting from exposures
to non-impulsive or impulsive sound, is Level B harassment. Some of the
lower level physiological stress responses discussed earlier would also
likely co-occur with the predicted harassments, although these
responses are more difficult to detect and fewer data exist relating
these responses to specific received levels of sound. When predicting
Level B harassment based on estimated behavioral responses, those takes
may have a stress-related physiological component.
Temporary Threshold Shift--As discussed previously, TTS can affect
how an animal behaves in response to the environment, including
conspecifics, predators, and prey. NMFS classifies TTS (when resulting
from exposure to explosives and other impulsive sources) as Level B
harassment, not Level A harassment (injury).
Level A Harassment
Of the potential effects that were described earlier, the following
are the types of effects that fall into the Level A Harassment
category:
Permanent Threshold Shift--PTS (resulting from exposure to
explosive detonations) is irreversible and NMFS considers this to be an
injury.
[[Page 44294]]
Table 4 outlines the explosive thresholds used by NMFS for this
Authorization when addressing noise impacts from explosives.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07JY16.000
86 FWS completed acoustic modeling to determine the distances to
NMFS's explosive thresholds from their explosive ordnance, which was
then used with each species' density to determine number of exposure
estimates. Below is a summary of those modeling efforts.
The maximum estimated range, or radius, from the detonation point
to which the various thresholds extend for all munitions proposed to be
released in a 24-hour time period was calculated based on explosive
acoustic characteristics, sound propagation, and sound transmission
loss in the Study Area, which incorporates water depth, sediment type,
wind speed, bathymetry, and temperature/salinity profiles (Table 5).
The ranges were used to calculate the total area (circle) of the zones
of influence for each criterion/threshold. To eliminate ``double-
counting'' of animals, impact areas from higher impact categories
(e.g., mortality) were subtracted from areas associated with lower
impact categories (e.g., Level A harassment). The estimated number of
marine mammals potentially exposed to the various impact thresholds was
then calculated as the product of the adjusted impact area, scaled
animal density, and number of events. Since the model accumulates the
energy from all detonations within a 24-hour timeframe, it is assumed
that the same population of animals is being impacted within that time
period. The population would refresh after 24 hours. In this case, only
one mission day is planned for 2016, and therefore, only one event is
modeled that would impact the same population of animals. Details of
the acoustic modeling method are provided in Appendix A of the
application.
The resulting total number of marine mammals potentially exposed to
the various levels of thresholds is shown in Table 7. An animal is
considered ``exposed'' to a sound if the received sound level at the
animal's location is above the background ambient acoustic level within
a similar frequency band. The exposure calculations from the model
output resulted in decimal values, suggesting in most cases that a
fraction of an animal was exposed. To eliminate this, the acoustic
model results were rounded to the nearest whole animal to obtain the
exposure estimates from 2016 missions. Furthermore, to eliminate
``double-counting'' of animals, exposure results from higher impact
categories (e.g., mortality) were subtracted from lower impact
categories (e.g., Level A harassment). For impact categories with
multiple criteria and/or thresholds (e.g., three criteria and four
thresholds associated with Level A harassment), numbers in the table
are based on the threshold resulting in the greatest number of
exposures. These exposure estimates do not take into account the
required mitigation and monitoring measures, which may decrease the
potential for impacts.
[[Page 44295]]
Table 5--Distances (m) to Explosive Thresholds From 86 FWS's Explosive Ordnance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Harassment \2\ Level B Harassment
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mortality GI tract PTS TTS Behavioral
Species \1\ Slight lung injury ----------------------------------------------------------------
injury ------------- Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable
237 dB SPL SEL* SPL* SEL* SPL* SEL*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback Whale.................................. 38 81 165 2,161 330 6,565 597 13,163
Blue Whale...................................... 28 59 165 2,161 330 6,565 597 13,163
Fin Whale....................................... 28 62 165 2,161 330 6,565 597 13,163
Sei Whale....................................... 38 83 165 2,161 330 6,565 597 13,163
Bryde's Whale................................... 38 81 165 2,161 330 6,565 597 13,163
Minke Whale..................................... 55 118 165 2,161 330 6,565 597 13,163
Sperm Whale..................................... 33 72 165 753 330 3,198 597 4,206
Pygmy Sperm Whale............................... 105 206 165 6,565 3,450 20,570 6,565 57,109
Dwarf Sperm Whale............................... 121 232 165 6,565 3,450 20,570 6,565 57,109
Killer Whale.................................... 59 126 165 753 330 3,198 597 4,206
False Killer Whale.............................. 72 153 165 753 330 3,198 597 4,206
Pygmy Killer Whale.............................. 147 277 165 753 330 3,198 597 4,206
Short-finned Pilot Whale........................ 91 186 165 753 330 3,198 597 4,206
Melon-headed Whale.............................. 121 228 165 753 330 3,198 597 4,206
Bottlenose Dolphin.............................. 121 232 165 753 330 3,198 597 4,206
Pantropical Spotted Dolphin..................... 147 277 165 753 330 3,198 597 4,206
Striped Dolphin................................. 147 277 165 753 330 3,198 597 4,206
Spinner Dolphin................................. 147 277 165 753 330 3,198 597 4,206
Rough-toothed Dolphin........................... 121 232 165 753 330 3,198 597 4,206
Fraser's Dolphin................................ 110 216 165 753 330 3,198 597 4,206
Risso's Dolphin................................. 85 175 165 753 330 3,198 597 4,206
Cuvier's Beaked Whale........................... 51 110 165 753 330 3,198 597 4,206
Blainville's Beaked Whale....................... 79 166 165 753 330 3,198 597 4,206
Longman's Beaked Whale.......................... 52 113 165 753 330 3,198 597 4,206
Hawaiian Monk Seal.............................. 135 256 165 1,452 1,107 3,871 1,881 6,565
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on Goertner (1982).
\2\ Based on Richmond et al. (1973).
*Based on the applicable Functional Hearing Group.
Density Estimation
Density estimates for marine mammals were derived from the Navy's
2014 Marine Species Density Database (NMSDD). NMFS refers the reader to
Section 3 of 86 FWS's application for detailed information on all
equations used to calculate densities presented in Table 6.
Table 6--Marine Mammal Density Estimates Within 86 FWS's PMRF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density
Species (animals/
km\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dwarf sperm whale....................................... 0.00714
Pygmy sperm whale....................................... 0.00291
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Estimation
Table 7 indicates the modeled potential for lethality, injury, and
non-injurious harassment (including behavioral harassment) to marine
mammals in the absence of mitigation measures. 86 FWS and NMFS estimate
that one marine mammal species could be exposed to injurious Level A
harassment noise levels (187 dB SEL) and two species could be exposed
to Level B harassment (TTS and Behavioral) noise levels in the absence
of mitigation measures.
Table 7--Modeled Number of Marine Mammals Potentially Affected by LRS WSEP Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Level B Level B
Species Mortality harassment harassment harassment
(PTS only) (TTS) (behavioral)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dwarf sperm whale............................... 0 1 9 64
Pygmy sperm whale............................... 0 0 3 26
TOTAL........................................... 0 1 12 90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 BSURE area.
NMFS has relied on the best available scientific information to
support the issuance of 86 FWS's authorization. In
[[Page 44296]]
the case of authorizing Level A harassment, NMFS has estimated that one
dwarf sperm whale could, although unlikely, experience minor permanent
threshold shifts of hearing sensitivity (PTS). The available data and
analyses, as described more fully in this notice 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 one individual marine mammal is extremely
low, but not unlikely.
Negligible Impact Analysis and Preliminary Determinations
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.'' A negligible impact finding is based on the
lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival (i.e., population-level effects). 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, we consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any
responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context of any responses
(e.g., critical reproductive time or location, migration), as well as
the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, the number
of estimated mortalities, and effects on habitat.
To avoid repetition, the discussion below applies to all the
species listed in Table 7 for which we propose to authorize incidental
take for 86 FWS's activities.
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;
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, 86 FWS's specified activities are not likely to
cause long-term behavioral disturbance, serious injury, or death.
The takes from Level B harassment would be due to potential
behavioral disturbance and TTS. The takes from Level A harassment would
be due to potential PTS. Activities would only occur over a timeframe
of one day in September, 2016.
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 2007). 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 2007; Henderson et al., 2008). TS occurs in terms of
frequency range (Hz or kHz), hearing threshold level (dB), or both
frequency and hearing threshold level.
In addition, there are different degrees of PTS: Ranging from
slight/mild to moderate and from severe to profound. Profound PTS or
the complete loss of the ability to hear in one or both ears is
commonly referred to as deafness. 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., 2005; Houser and
Finneran, 2006; Finneran et al., 2007; 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 one marine mammal as a result of 86 FWS's LRS 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.
Avoidance varies among individuals and depends on their activities or
reasons for being in the area.
NMFS' predicted estimates for Level A harassment take (Table 7) are
likely overestimates of the likely injury that will occur. NMFS expects
that successful implementation of the required aerial-based mitigation
measures could avoid Level A take. Also, NMFS expects that some
individuals would avoid the source at levels expected to result in
injury. Nonetheless, although NMFS expects that Level A harassment is
unlikely to occur at the numbers proposed to be authorized, because it
is difficult to quantify the degree to which the mitigation and
avoidance will reduce the number of animals that might incur PTS, we
are proposing to authorize (and analyze) the modeled number of Level A
takes (one), which does not take the mitigation or avoidance into
consideration. However, we anticipate that any PTS incurred because of
mitigation and the likely short duration of exposures, would be in the
form of only a small degree of permanent threshold shift and not total
deafness.
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 LRS WSEP operations, NMFS has
preliminarily determined that there will not be a substantial impact on
marine mammals or on the normal functioning of the nearshore or
offshore waters off Kauai and its ecosystems. We do not expect that the
proposed activity would impact rates of recruitment or survival of
marine mammals since we do not expect mortality (which would remove
individuals from the population) or serious injury 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 or less on one day) and site-specific nature of the
activity. We do not anticipate that the effects would be detrimental to
rates of recruitment and survival because we do not expect
[[Page 44297]]
serious of extended behavioral responses that would result in energetic
effects at the level to impact fitness.
Moreover, the mitigation and monitoring measures proposed for the
IHA (described earlier in this document) are expected to further
minimize the potential for harassment. The protected species surveys
would require 86 FWS to search the area for marine mammals, and if any
are found in the impact zone, then the exercise would be suspended
until the animal(s) has left the area or relocated outside of the zone.
Furthermore, LRS WSEP missions may be delayed or rescheduled for
adverse weather conditions.
Based on the preliminary 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 86 FWS's LRS 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 LRS 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)
No marine mammal species listed under the ESA are expected to be
affected by these activities. Therefore, NMFS has determined that a
section 7 consultation under the ESA is not required.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
In 2015, 86 FWS provided NMFS with an EA titled, Environmental
Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the Long Range Strick
Weapon Systems Evaluation Program Operational Evaluations. The EA
analyzed the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of
the specified activities on marine mammals. NMFS will review and
evaluate the 86 FWS 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, and determine whether or not to
adopt it. Information in 86 FWS's application, EA, and this notice
collectively provide the environmental information related to proposed
issuance of the IHA for public review and comment. We will review all
comments submitted in response to this notice as we complete the NEPA
process, including decision of whether to sign a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI), prior to a final decision on the IHA
request. The 2016 NEPA documents are available for review at
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.html.
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary determinations, we propose to
issue an IHA to 86 FWS for conducting LRS WSEP activities, for a period
of one year from the date of issuance, provided the previously
mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are
incorporated. The proposed Authorization language is provided in the
next section. The wording contained in this section is proposed for
inclusion in the Authorization (if issued).
1. This Authorization is valid for a period of one year from the
date of issuance.
2. This Authorization is valid only for activities associated with
the LRS WSEP operations utilizing munitions identified in the
Attachment.
3. The incidental taking, by Level A and Level B harassment, is
limited to: Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima) and Pygmy sperm whale (Kogia
breviceps) as specified in Table 1 of this notice.
Table 1--Authorized Take Numbers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Level
Species A B
takes takes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dwarf sperm whale....................................... 1 73
Pygmy sperm whale....................................... 0 29
---------------
Total............................................... 1 102
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The taking by serious injury or death of these species, the taking
of these species in violation of the conditions of this Incidental
Harassment Authorization, or the taking by harassment, serious injury
or death of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may
result in the modification, suspension or revocation of this
Authorization.
4. Mitigation
When conducting this activity, the following mitigation measures
must be undertaken:
If daytime weather and/or sea conditions preclude adequate
monitoring for detecting marine mammals and other marine life, LRS WSEP
strike operations must be delayed until adequate sea conditions exist
for monitoring to be undertaken.
On the morning of the LRS WSEP strike mission, the test
director and safety officer will confirm that there are no issues that
would preclude mission execution and that the weather is adequate to
support monitoring and mitigation measures.
If post-mission surveys determine that an injury or lethal
take of a marine mammal has occurred, the next mission will be
suspended until the test procedure and the monitoring methods have been
reviewed with NMFS and appropriate changes made.
5. Monitoring
The holder of this Authorization is required to cooperate with the
National Marine Fisheries Service and any other Federal, state or local
agency monitoring the impacts of the activity on marine mammals.
The holder of this Authorization will track their use of the PMRF
BSURE area for the LRS WSEP missions and marine mammal observations,
through the use of mission reporting forms.
Aerial surveys: Pre- and post- mission will be conducted. Pre-
mission surveys would begin approximately one hour prior to detonation.
Post-detonation monitoring surveys will commence once the mission has
ended or, if required, as soon as personnel declare the mission area
safe.
Proposed monitoring area would be approximately 2 km (3.7 miles)
from the target area radius around the impact point, with surveys
typically flown in a star pattern. Aerial surveys would be conducted at
an altitude of about 200 feet, but altitude may vary somewhat depending
on sea state and atmospheric conditions. If adverse weather conditions
preclude the ability for aircraft to safely operate, missions would
either be delayed until the weather clears or cancelled for the day.
The observers will be provided with the GPS location of the impact
area. Once the aircraft reaches the impact area, pre-mission surveys
typically last for 30 minutes, depending on the survey pattern. The
aircraft may fly the survey pattern multiple times.
6. Reporting
The holder of this Authorization is required to:
(a) Submit a draft report on all monitoring conducted under the IHA
within 90 days of the completion of
[[Page 44298]]
marine mammal monitoring, or 60 days prior to the issuance of any
subsequent IHA for projects at PMRF, whichever comes first. A final
report shall be prepared and submitted within 30 days following
resolution of comments on the draft report from NMFS. This report must
contain the informational elements described in the Monitoring Plan, at
minimum (see www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm),
and shall also include:
1. Date and time of each LRS WSEP mission;
2. A complete description of the pre-exercise and post-exercise
activities related to mitigating and monitoring the effects of LRS WSEP
missions on marine mammal populations; and
3. Results of the monitoring program, including numbers by species/
stock of any marine mammals noted injured or killed as a result of the
LRS WSEP mission and number of marine mammals (by species if possible)
that may have been harassed due to presence within the zone of
influence.
The draft report will be subject to review and comment by the
National Marine Fisheries Service. Any recommendations made by the
National Marine Fisheries Service must be addressed in the final report
prior to acceptance by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The draft
report will be considered the final report for this activity under this
Authorization if the National Marine Fisheries Service has not provided
comments and recommendations within 90 days of receipt of the draft
report.
(b) Reporting injured or dead marine mammals:
i. In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this IHA,
such as an injury for species not authorized (Level A harassment),
serious injury, or mortality, 86 FWS shall immediately cease the
specified activities and report the incident to the Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, and the Pacific Islands Regional Stranding
Coordinator, NMFS. The report must include the following information:
A. Time and date of the incident;
B. Description of the incident;
C. Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction,
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
D. Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours
preceding the incident;
E. Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
F. Fate of the animal(s); and
G. Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with 86 FWS to
determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of
further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. 86 FWS may not
resume their activities until notified by NMFS.
ii. In the event that 86 FWS discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead observer determines that the cause of the injury
or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (e.g., in less
than a moderate state of decomposition), 86 FWS shall immediately
report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the
Pacific Islands Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS.
The report must include the same information identified in 6(b)(i)
of this IHA. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the
circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with 86 FWS to determine
whether additional mitigation measures or modifications to the
activities are appropriate.
iii. In the event that 86 FWS discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead observer determines that the injury or death is
not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced
decomposition, scavenger damage), 86 FWS shall report the incident to
the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Pacific Islands
Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS, within 24 hours of the discovery.
86 FWS shall provide photographs or video footage or other
documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS.
7. Additional Conditions
The holder of this Authorization must inform the Director,
Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, (301-
427-8400) or designee (301-427-8401) prior to the initiation of any
changes to the monitoring plan for a specified mission activity.
A copy of this Authorization must be in the possession of
the safety officer on duty each day that long range strike missions are
conducted.
This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn
if the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if
NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible
impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analysis, the draft authorization, and
any other aspect of this Federal Register notice of proposed
Authorization. Please include with your comments any supporting data or
literature citations to help inform our final decision on 86 FWS's
renewal request for an MMPA authorization.
Dated: July 1, 2016.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-16114 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P