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 Weapons System Evaluation Program at the Pacific Missile Range Facility at Kauai, Hawaii, 21156-21185 [2017-09137]
Download as PDF
21156
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules
April 5, 2017. We are extending the
comment period to allow the public
more time to comment on the proposed
rulemaking. The comment period is
now open through June 5, 2017.
DATES: The comment period for the
proposed rule published April 5, 2017
(82 FR 16542) is extended. Comments
and related material must be received by
the Coast Guard on or before June 5,
2017.
You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2016–0268 using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public
Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
further instructions on submitting
comments.
ADDRESSES:
If
you have questions about this proposed
rulemaking, call or email Mr. Todd
Haviland, Director, Great Lakes Pilotage,
Commandant (CG–WWM–2), Coast
Guard; telephone 202–372–2037, email
Todd.A.Haviland@uscg.mil, or fax 202–
372–1914.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast
Guard is adding an additional 30 days
to the comment period on the
supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking (SNPRM) for ‘‘Great Lakes
Pilotage Rates—2017 Annual Review’’
published in the Federal Register on
April 5, 2017 (82 FR 16542). We
received a request to extend the
comment period 60 days and to hold a
public meeting. The requester cited the
significance of the issues and the
questions raised by the SNPRM. We do
not see a need for a public meeting and
believe that an additional 30 days
should provide sufficient time to
comment on the proposed rule. The
comment period is now open through
June 5, 2017.
As we stated in the summary of the
SNPRM, the Coast Guard proposes to
modify its calculations for hourly
pilotage rates on the Great Lakes by
accounting for the ‘‘weighting factor,’’
which is a multiplier that can increase
the pilotage costs for larger vessels
traversing areas in the Great Lakes by a
factor of up to 1.45. While the weighting
factor has existed for decades, it has
never been included in any of the
previous ratemaking calculations. We
propose to add steps to our rate-setting
methodology to adjust hourly rates
downwards by an amount equal to the
average weighting factor, so that when
the weighting factor is applied, the cost
to the shippers and the corresponding
revenue generated for the pilot
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 May 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
associations will adjust to what was
originally intended. We note that until
a final rule is produced, the 2016 rates
will stay in effect, even if a final rule is
not published by the start of the 2017
season.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Public Participation and Request for
Comments
[Docket No. 201135–7135–01]
We view public participation as
essential to effective rulemaking, and
will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period.
Your comment can help shape the
outcome of this rulemaking. If you
submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this rulemaking,
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit
comments through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. If your material
cannot be submitted using https://
www.regulations.gov, contact the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
We accept anonymous comments. All
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and
the docket, visit https://
www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
The SNPRM we are seeking comments
on, and documents mentioned in the
SNPRM as being available in the
docket—including all public comments,
will be in our online docket at https://
www.regulations.gov and can be viewed
by following that Web site’s
instructions. Additionally, if you go to
the online docket and sign up for email
alerts, you will be notified when
comments are posted or a final rule is
published.
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
Weapons System Evaluation Program
at the Pacific Missile Range Facility at
Kauai, Hawaii
Dated: May 2, 2017.
Michael D. Emerson,
Director, Marine Transportation Systems,
U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2017–09177 Filed 5–4–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 218
RIN 0648–BG65
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS has received an
application, pursuant to the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), from
the U.S. Air Force 86 Fighter Weapons
Squadron (86 FWS) for authorization to
take marine mammals incidental to
Long Range Strike Weapons System
Evaluation Program (LRS WSEP)
activities in the Barking Sands
Underwater Range Expansion (BSURE)
area of the Pacific Missile Range Facility
(PMRF) off Kauai, Hawaii, for the period
of August 23, 2017, through August 22,
2022. NMFS is proposing regulations to
govern that take, and requests comments
on the proposed regulations.
DATES: Comments and information must
be received no later than June 5, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document by either of the
following methods:
• Electronic submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov, enter 0648–BG65
in the ‘‘Search’’ box, click the
‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, complete the
required fields, and enter or attach your
comments.
• Mail: Comments 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.
Instructions: NMFS may not consider
comments if they are sent by any other
method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period. Attachments to
electronic comments will be accepted in
Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules
file formats only. To help NMFS process
and review comments more efficiently,
please use only one method to submit
comments. All comments received are a
part of the public record and will
generally be posted on
www.regulations.gov without change.
All personal identifying information
(e.g., name, address) voluntarily
submitted by the commenter may be
publicly accessible. Do not submit
confidential business information or
otherwise sensitive or protected
information. NMFS will accept
anonymous comments (enter N/A in the
required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jaclyn Daly, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability
A copy of 86 FWS’s application and
any supporting documents, as well as a
list of the references cited in this
document, may be obtained online at:
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental/military.htm. In case of
problems accessing these documents,
please call the contact listed above (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). The
following associated documents are also
available at the same internet address:
list of the references used in this
document, the seasonal parameters
memo, and 86 FWS’s Environmental
Assessment (EA) titled, ‘‘Environmental
Assessment/Overseas Environmental
Assessment for the Long Range Strike
Weapon Systems Evaluation Program at
the Pacific Missile Range Facility at
Kauai, Hawaii.’’ Documents cited in this
notice may also be viewed, by
appointment, during regular business
hours, at the aforementioned address.
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Purpose and Need for Regulatory
Action
This proposed rule, to be issued
under the authority of the MMPA,
would establish a framework for
authorizing the take of marine mammals
incidental to LRS WSEP activities in the
BSURE area of the PMRF off Kauai,
Hawaii. We received an application
from 86 FWS requesting 5-year
regulations and authorization for the
take, by Level B harassment, of 16
species of marine mammals, and, by
Level A harassment of 4 of those
species. The regulations would be valid
from August 23, 2017, to August 22,
2022. Please see Background below for
definitions of Level A and Level B
harassment.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 May 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
Legal Authority for the Proposed Action
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16
U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A) directs the
Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon
request, the incidental, but not
intentional taking of small numbers of
marine mammals by U.S. citizens who
engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region for up to five years
if, after notice and public comment, the
agency makes certain findings and
issues regulations that set forth
permissible methods of taking pursuant
to that activity, as well as monitoring
and reporting requirements. Section
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and the
implementing regulations at 50 CFR part
216, subpart I provide the legal basis for
issuing this proposed rule containing
five-year regulations, and for any
subsequent Letters of Authorization
(LOA) issued pursuant to those
regulations. As directed by this legal
authority, this proposed rule contains
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements.
The National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Section 319,
Pub. L. 108–136, November 24, 2003)
(NDAA of 2004) 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, 16 U.S.C.
1362(18)(B)): ‘‘(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 Major Provisions Within
the Proposed Rule
Following is a summary of some of
the major provisions in this proposed
rule for 86 FWS’s LRS WSEP activities.
We have preliminarily determined that
86 FWS’s adherence to the proposed
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
measures listed below would achieve
the least practicable adverse impact on
the affected marine mammals. They
include:
• Restricting time of activities to
missions that will occur only during
day-light hours, only on weekdays, and
only during the summer or fall months.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21157
• Conducting visual aerial surveys
before and after mission activities each
day.
• Delaying mission activities if a
protected species is observed in the
impact zones, and resuming only after
one of the following conditions is met:
(1) The animal is observed exiting the
impact area; or (2) the impact area has
been clear of any additional sightings
for a period of 30 minutes.
• If daytime weather and/or sea
conditions preclude adequate
monitoring for detecting marine
mammals and other marine life,
delaying LRS WSEP strike operations
until adequate sea conditions exist for
monitoring to be undertaken.
• Using mission reporting forms to
track the use of the PMRF for missions
and protected species observations.
• Submitting 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.
• Using Passive Acoustic Monitoring
(PAM) by using the Navy’s hydrophones
within the PMRF to collect data before,
during, and after LRS WSEP missions.
This data will be stored at Space and
Naval Warfare Systems Command
(SPAWAR) to be analyzed as funding
allows.
• If unauthorized takes of marine
mammals (i.e., serious injury or
mortality) occur, ceasing operations and
reporting to NMFS and to the respective
Pacific Islands Region stranding
network representative immediately and
submitting a report to NMFS within 24
hours.
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the
MMPA(16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A) and (D))
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 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
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
21158
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring
and reporting of such takings are set
forth. NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible
impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact
resulting from the specified activity that
cannot be reasonably expected to, and is
not reasonably likely to, adversely affect
the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Summary of Request
On June 23, 2016, NMFS received a
request for regulations from 86 FWS for
the taking of small numbers of marine
mammals incidental to LRS WSEP
activities in the BSURE area of the
PMRF off Kauai, Hawaii. We received
revised drafts on November 29, 2016,
and December 21, 2016, which we
considered adequate and complete. On
January 6, 2017, we published a notice
of receipt of 86 FWS’s application in the
Federal Register (82 FR 1702),
requesting comments and information
for thirty days related to 86 FWS’s
request. We received comments from
private citizens, one marine mammal
research organization, and six nongovernmental organization (NGOs),
which we considered in the
development of this proposed rule.
The 86 FWS proposes taking marine
mammals incidental to LRS WSEP
activities by Level B harassment of 16
species of marine mammals and by
Level A harassment of 4 of those
species. NMFS has previously issued an
incidental harassment authorization
(IHA) to 86 FWS authorizing the taking
of marine mammals incidental to LRS
WSEP activities in the BSURE area of
the PMRF in 2016 (81 FR 67971;
October 3, 2016). The regulations
proposed in this action, if issued, would
be effective from August 23, 2017,
through August 22, 2022.
Description of the Specified Activity
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Overview
The 86 FWS proposes to conduct airto-surface missions 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’ realworld operational expectations in a time
of war. Due to threats to national
security, an increasing number of
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 May 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
strike weapons within the U.S. Navy’s
Hawaii Range Complex (HRC). LRS
WSEP objectives are to evaluate air-tosurface 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.
LRSWSEP missions involve the use of
multiple types of live and inert
munitions (bombs and missiles) scored
above, at, or just below the water’s
surface in the BSURE (Table 1). The
ordnance may be delivered by multiple
types of aircraft, including bombers and
fighter aircraft. Weapon performance
will be evaluated by an underwater
acoustic hydrophone array system as the
weapons strike the water surface. Net
explosive weight of the live munitions
ranges from 23 to 300 pounds (lbs).
Missions will occur annually over five
years from 2017 and 2021 (see Table 1),
primarily during the summer but may
occur in the fall as well. All missions
will be conducted during daylight
hours. LRS WSEP missions could
potentially take 16 species of marine
mammals by Level B harassment, and
additionally, 4 of those species by Level
A harassment.
Dates and Duration
The specified activity may occur
during the summer months, or less
likely in fall months, during the fiveyear period of validity of the proposed
regulations. Missions will occur only on
weekdays during daytime hours.
Missions will occur, on average,
approximately five days per year on
consecutive days. The LOA would be
valid from August 20, 2017, through
August 19, 2022.
Specified Geographical Region
The specific planned impact area is
approximately 44 nautical miles (nmi)
(81 kilometers (km)) offshore of Kauai,
Hawaii, in a water depth of about 15,240
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 188A (W–188A). The
BSURE consists of about 900 nmi 2 of
instrumented underwater ranges,
encompassing the deep-water portion of
the PMRF and providing over 80
percent of the 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 nmi (17 km) from the
north shore of Kauai and extends out to
40 nmi (74 km) from shore. The LRS
WSEP missions would employ live
weapons with long flight paths
requiring large amounts of airspace, and
would 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
and bombs from aircraft toward the
water surface. Depending on the
requirements of a given mission,
munitions may be inert (containing no
explosives or only a ‘‘spotting’’ charge)
or live (containing explosive charges).
Live munitions may detonate above, at,
or slightly below the water surface. The
actions include air-to-surface test
missions of the Joint Air-to-Surface
Stand-off Missile/Joint Air-to-Surface
Stand-off Missile-Extended Range
(JASSM/JASSM–ER), Small Diameter
Bomb-I/II (SDB–I/II), High-speed AntiRadiation Missile (HARM), Joint Direct
Attack Munition/Laser Joint Direct
Attack Munition (JDAM/LJDAM), and
Miniature Air-Launched Decoy (MALD),
including detonations above the water,
at the water surface, and slightly below
the water surface (Table 1).
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 and
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules
flight termination system 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. Each LRS
WSEP mission set will occur over a
maximum of five consecutive days per
year. Approximately 10 Air Force
personnel would be on temporary duty
to support each mission set.
Aircraft flight maneuver operations
and weapon release would be
conducted in W–188A. 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 the
PMRF. Aircraft supporting LSR WSEP
missions would primarily operate at
high altitudes—only flying below 3,000
ft 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 and sea turtles).
Protected marine species aerial surveys
would be temporary (approximately 30
minutes) 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 the PMRF Range Safety.
Daily mission briefs would specify
planned release conditions for each
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 May 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
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 nmi (370 km) and carries a
1,000-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 nmi (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
nmi (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.
High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile
(HARM)
The HARM is a supersonic air-tosurface missile designed to seek and
destroy enemy radar-equipped air
defense systems. The HARM has a
proportional guidance system that
homes in on enemy radar emissions
through fixed antenna and seeker head
in the missile nose. It has a range of up
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21159
to 80 nmi (148 km) and contains 45 lbs
of TNT-equivalent NEW. The explosive
used is PBXN–107.
Joint Direct Attack Munition/Laser Joint
Direct Attack Munition (JDAM/LJDAM)
The JDAM is a smart GPS–INS
weapon that uses an unguided gravity
bomb and adds a guidance and control
kit, converting it to a precision-guided
munition. The LJDAM variant adds a
laser sensor to the JDAM, permitting
guidance to a laser designated target.
Both JDAM and LJDAM contain 192 lbs
of TNT-equivalent NEW with multiple
fusing options, with detonations
occurring upon impact or with up to a
10-millisecond delay.
Miniature Air Launched Decoy/
Miniature Air Launched Decoy—
Jamming (MALD/MALD–J)
The MALD is an air-launched,
expendable decoy that will provide the
Air Force the capability to simulate,
deceive, decoy, and saturate an enemy’s
threat integrated air defense system
(IADS). The MALD production has
recently transitioned to include the
MALD–J variant, which has the same
decoy capability of the MALD plus the
addition of jamming IADS. The MALD
and MALD–J have ranges up to 500 nmi
(926 km) to include a 200 nmi (370 km)
dash with a 30-minute loiter mode. It
has no warhead, and no detonation
would occur upon impact with the
water surface.
Releases of live ordnance associated
with 2017–2021 missions would result
in either airbursts, surface detonations,
or subsurface detonations (10-ft (3 m)
water depth). Up to four SDB I/II
munitions could be released
simultaneously, such that each
ordnance would hit the water surface
within a few seconds of each other.
Aside from the SDB–I/II releases, all
other weapons would be released
separately, impacting the water surface
at different times. There will be a total
of five mission days per year during the
time frame of 2017 to 2021.
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 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. These
standard operating procedures are
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
21160
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules
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 nmi
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 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. The JDAM/LJDAM
munitions would also be set to impact
at the same point on the water surface.
All missions would be conducted in
accordance with applicable flight safety,
hazard area, and launch parameter
requirements established for the 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 nmi 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.
The 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.
The 86 FWS would also like to use a
maximum of eight target boats and a
maximum of 5,000 20-mm gunnery
rounds each year. The gunnery rounds
would be inert (do not contain
explosives), which would minimize the
potential for fragmentation and creation
of marine debris, and would be fired
against a target boat. Because the use of
target boats with inert munitions does
not have an acoustic component, it
would not take any marine mammals,
and is therefore not discussed further.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED TESTING AT THE PMRF FROM 2017 TO 2021
Type of munition
JASSM/JASSM–ER ...............
SDB–I ....................................
SDB–II ...................................
HARM ....................................
JDAM/LJDAM ........................
MALD/MALD–J ......................
Live or
inert
NEW
(lb)
Live ........
Live ........
Live ........
Live ........
Live ........
Inert .......
300
37
23
45
192
N/A
Type of aircraft
Bomber, Fighter ....
Bomber, Fighter ....
Bomber, Fighter ....
Fighter ...................
Bomber, Fighter ....
Fighter ...................
Detonation
scenario
Surface ..................
Surface ..................
Surface ..................
Surface ..................
Subsurface 1 ..........
N/A ........................
Number of Proposed Releases
2017
6
30
30
10
30
4
2018
6
30
30
10
30
4
2019
6
30
30
10
30
4
2020
6
30
30
10
30
4
2021
6
30
30
10
30
4
HARM = High Anti-Radiation Missile; JASSM = Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile; JASSM–ER = Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile—Extended Range; JDAM = Joint Direct Attack Munition; lb = pounds; LJDAM = Laser Joint Direct Attack Munition; MALD = Miniature Air Launched
Decoy; MALD–J = Miniature Air Launched Decoy—Jamming; N/A = not applicable (inert); SDB = Small Diameter Bomb
1 Assumes a 10-millisecond time-delayed fuse resulting in detonation occurring at an approximate 10-foot water depth.
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 May 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
NMFS’ draft 2016 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\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules
21161
TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE BSURE AREA
Species
Stock
abundance
(CV, Nmin,
most recent
abundance
survey) 2
ESA/MMPA
status;
strategic
(Y/N) 1
Stock
PBR 3
Occurrence in BSURE area
Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
Family: Balaenopteridae
Humpback whale (Megaptera
novaeangliae) 4.
Central North Pacific
N; 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 .............
Hawaii .....................
Y; Y ...........
0.1 ......
Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) .............
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 Exclusive Economic Zone.
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.
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.
Widely distributed year
more likely in waters
1,000 m depth.
Widely distributed year
more likely in waters
m depth.
round;
>
round;
> 500
Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
Family: Delphinidae
Hawaii .....................
–; N ............
False killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens)
Hawaii Pelagic ........
–; N ............
NWHI Stock ............
–; N ............
Pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata) .......
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Killer whale (Orcinus orca) .........................
Hawaii .....................
–; N ............
Short-finned pilot
macrorhynchus).
(Globicephala
Hawaii .....................
–; N ............
(Peponocephala
Hawaii Islands stock
–; N ............
Melon headed
electra).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
whale
whale
17:11 May 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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).
1 .........
9.3 ......
Uncommon; infrequent
sightings.
Regular.
2.3 ......
Regular.
23 .......
Year-round resident.
70 .......
Commonly observed around
Main Hawaiian Islands and
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.
Regular.
5,794 (0.20;
4,904; 2010).
4 .........
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
21162
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE BSURE AREA—Continued
Species
Stock
ESA/MMPA
status;
strategic
(Y/N) 1
Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) .....
Hawaii pelagic ........
–; N ............
Pantropical spotted
attenuata).
(Stenella
Hawaii pelagic ........
–; N ............
Striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoala) .......
Hawaii .....................
Spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris) .......
Stock
abundance
(CV, Nmin,
most recent
abundance
survey) 2
PBR 3
Occurrence in BSURE area
5,950 (0.59;
3,755; 2010).
15,917 (0.40;
11,508; 2010).
38 .......
–; N ............
20,650 (0.36;
15,391; 2010).
154 .....
Hawaii pelagic ........
–; N ............
Undet.
Rough-toothed dolphins (Steno
bredanensis).
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 .......
Common in deep offshore
waters.
Common; primary occurrence
between 100 and 4,000 m
depth.
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.
dolphin
115 .....
46 .......
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
schauinslandi).
seal
(Neomonachus
Hawaii .....................
Y; Y ...........
1,112 (n/a; 1,088;
2013).
Undet.
Predominantly occur at Northwestern Hawaiian Islands;
approximately 138 individuals in Main Hawaiian Islands.
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1 Endangered Species Act (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 (PBR), 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, 5 are listed as
endangered under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) and as depleted
throughout their range under the
MMPA. These are: Blue whale, fin
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 May 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
whale, sei whale, sperm whale, and the
Hawaiian monk seal. Only one of these
species, the sei whale, may be impacted
by 86 FWS’s activities.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Of the 25 species that may occur in
Hawaiian waters, only certain stocks
occur in the impact area during the
season in which LRS WSEP activities
may occur. Sixteen species are
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
considered likely to be in the impact
area during the five days of project
activities. Although sperm whales are
frequently detected in this area and
have even been satellite-tagged with
presence in this area of the PMRF (Baird
2016), because of the low density of this
species and the short duration of
mission activities, take was not
requested for this species. Similarly,
large baleen whales like the fin and blue
whales occur in this area in all or most
months of the year; however, their
densities during the time of the 86
FWS’s activities are very low (or 0) that
the probability they will be impacted by
the mission activities during the 4 hours
per day on the 5 days over the course
of the year is minimal, and no take was
modeled or requested for these species.
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 16 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.
Humpback Whale
Humpback whales are found
worldwide in all ocean basins. In
winter, most humpback whales occur in
the subtropical and tropical waters of
the Northern and Southern Hemispheres
(Muto et al., 2015). These wintering
grounds are used for mating, giving
birth, and nursing new calves.
Humpback whales migrate nearly 3,000
mi (4,830 km) from their winter
breeding grounds to their summer
foraging grounds in Alaska.
There are five stocks of humpback
whales, one of which occurs in Hawaii:
The Central North Pacific Stock, which
consists of winter/spring populations in
the Hawaiian Islands, which migrate
primarily to northern British Columbia/
Southeast Alaska, the Gulf of Alaska,
and the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands
(Muto et al., 2015). The current
abundance estimate for the Central
North Pacific stock is 10,103 animals,
with potential biological removal (PBR)
at 83 animals, and this stock is
considered a strategic stock (Muto et al.,
2015). Humpback whales occur
seasonally in Hawaii, with peak
sightings between December and May
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 May 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
each year; however, sightings have
occurred in other months in very low
numbers. Most humpback whales
congregate off the island of Maui in the
shallow protected waters, but can be
seen off all of the islands, including the
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (Baird
2016).
Humpback whales were listed as
endangered under the Endangered
Species Conservation Act (ESCA) in
June 1970. In 1973, the ESA replaced
the ESCA, and humpbacks continued to
be listed as endangered. NMFS recently
evaluated the status of the species, and
on September 8, 2016, NMFS divided
the species into 14 distinct population
segments (DPS), removed the current
species-level listing, and in its place
listed four DPSs as endangered and one
DPS as threatened (81 FR 62259,
September 8, 2016). The remaining nine
DPSs were not listed. There is one DPS
that occurs in the action area: The
Hawaii DPS, which is not listed under
the ESA (81 FR 62259). Because this
rule resulted in the designation of DPSs
in the North Pacific, a parallel revision
of MMPA population structure in the
North Pacific is currently being
considered.
Sei Whale
Sei whales occur seasonally in Hawaii
in the winter and spring months and
feed in higher latitude feeding grounds
in the summer and fall (Carretta et al.,
2014). Sightings of this species are rare
in Hawaii. This species stays offshore of
the islands in deeper waters (Baird
2016). Average group size for this
species is 3.1 animals (Bradford et al.,
2017).
The abundance estimate for this stock
from a 2010 survey is 178 animals
(Carretta et al., 2014). More recent
estimates, based on the 2010 survey
pooled with sightings collected during
previous NMFS surveys of the eastern
Pacific, estimate the Hawaii stock of sei
whales to be 391 individuals (Bradford
et al., 2017). PBR is currently 0.2 sei
whales per year (Carretta et al., 2014).
The main threats to this stock are
fisheries interactions and increasing
levels of anthropogenic sound in the
ocean (Carretta et al., 2014). This stock
is listed as endangered under the ESA,
and is considered a depleted and
strategic stock under the MMPA.
Minke Whale
Minke whales occur seasonally in
Hawaii (Carretta et al., 2014). Sightings
of this species are rare; however,
acoustic detection of their ‘‘boing’’
sounds are common. An acoustic study
from 2007–2008 at a location 100 km
north of the island of Oahu detected
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21163
boings throughout the winter and spring
months from October until May, with a
peak in March (Baird 2016).
The current abundance estimate for
this stock is unknown and, therefore,
PBR is also unknown (Carretta et al.,
2014). There is insufficient data to
determine trends in the population. The
main threat to this stock is the
increasing level of anthropogenic sound
in the ocean (Carretta et al., 2014). This
stock is not listed as endangered or
threatened under the ESA and is not
considered strategic or designated as
depleted under the MMPA (Carretta et
al., 2014).
Pygmy Sperm Whale
Pygmy sperm whales are found in
tropical and warm-temperate 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
2016). Sightings are rare of this species,
but observations include lone
individuals or pairs, with an average
group size of 1.5 individuals (Baird
2016).
There is a single stock of Pygmy
sperm 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. (Carretta et al., 2014).
The main threats to this species are
fisheries interactions and effects from
underwater sounds such as active sonar
(Carretta et al., 2014). This stock is not
listed as endangered or threatened
under the ESA and is not considered
strategic or designated as depleted
under the MMPA (Carretta et al., 2014).
Dwarf Sperm Whale
Dwarf sperm whales are found
throughout the world in tropical to
warm-temperate waters (Carretta 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 2016). 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 observed group size of eight
individuals (Baird 2016). When there
are more than two animals together,
they are often loosely associated, with
up to several hundred meters between
pairs of individuals (Baird 2016).
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
21164
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
There is one stock of dwarf sperm
whales in Hawaii. Sighting data suggests
a small resident population off Hawaii
Island (Baird 2016). 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
2016). 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 (Carretta
et al., 2014).
Pygmy Killer Whale
Pygmy killer whales are found in
tropical and subtropical waters. The
Hawaii stock occurs year round in
Hawaii and has a small resident
population within the main Hawaiian
islands (Carretta et al., 2014). This
resident group stays within 20 km of
shore (Carretta et al., 2014) in water
depths between 500 and 3,500 m (Baird
2016), while other populations may
move farther offshore. The resident
population is less common off the
islands of Kauai and Niihau (Baird
2016). This stock forms stable social
groups, with group sizes ranging from 2
to 33 individuals, and with average
group sizes of 9 individuals (Baird
2016). Other research suggests a larger
average group size of 25.7 animals
(Bradford et al., 2017), but most of these
sightings were farther offshore in
pelagic waters.
The most recent abundance estimate
for this group in the SAR is 3,433
animals with PBR at 23 animals
(Carretta et al., 2014). More recently, the
abundance estimate for this stock, based
on a 2010 survey pooled with sightings
collected during previous NMFS
surveys of the eastern Pacific, is 10,640
animals (Bradford et al., 2017). The
main threats for this stock include
fisheries interactions and increases in
underwater sound in the ocean (Carretta
et al., 2014). This stock is not listed as
endangered or threatened under the
ESA and is not considered a depleted or
strategic stock under the MMPA
(Carretta et al., 2014).
Short-Finned Pilot Whale
Short-finned pilot whales are found
primarily in tropical and warmtemperate waters (Carretta et al., 2014).
This species prefers deeper waters,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 May 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
ranging from 324 m to 4,400 m, with
most sightings between 500 m and 3,000
m (Baird 2016). There are multiple
resident populations in Hawaii, with
small home ranges around one or two
islands, as well as a pelagic population
(Baird 2016). This stock forms stable
social groups, with average group size of
18 individuals, but may form large
aggregations of close to 200 individuals
(Baird 2016). Other research suggests a
larger average group size of 40.9
individuals (Bradford et al., 2017), but
most of these sightings were farther
offshore in pelagic waters.
The most recent abundance estimate
for this group in the SAR is 12,422
animals with PBR at 70 animals
(Carretta et al., 2014). More recently, the
abundance estimate for this stock, based
on a 2010 survey pooled with sightings
collected during previous NMFS
surveys of the eastern Pacific, is 19,503
animals (Bradford et al., 2017). The
main threat to this stock is interactions
with fisheries (Carretta et al., 2014).
This stock is not listed as endangered or
threatened under the ESA and is not
considered a depleted or strategic stock
under the MMPA (Carretta et al., 2014).
Melon-Headed Whale
Melon-headed whales are found in
tropical and warm-temperate waters
(Carretta et al., 2014). There are two
demographically-independent
populations in Hawaii, the Hawaiian
Islands stock and the Kohala resident
stock (Carretta et al., 2014). The resident
stock have a small range restricted to the
shallow waters around Hawaii Island,
whereas the Hawaiian Islands stock are
found all throughout the islands and out
into the pelagic areas (Carretta et al.,
2014). Only the latter stock may be
affected by 86 FWS’s activities. This
stock prefers waters deeper than 1,000
m (Baird 2016). This species forms large
groups, with average group size of
almost 250 individuals, with the largest
group documented at close to 800
individuals (Baird 2016). Other research
suggests a smaller average group size of
153 individuals (Bradford et al., 2017).
The most recent abundance estimate
for this stock in the SAR is 2,860
animals with PBR at 49 animals
(Carretta et al., 2014). More recently, the
abundance estimate for this stock, based
on a 2010 survey pooled with sightings
collected during previous NMFS
surveys of the eastern Pacific, is 8,666
individuals (Bradford et al., 2017). The
main threat to this species is human
induced, most likely through fisheries
interactions (Carretta et al., 2014) and
mid-frequency sonar testing (Baird
2016). This stock is not listed as
endangered or threatened under the
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ESA and is not considered a depleted or
strategic stock under the MMPA
(Carretta et al., 2014).
Bottlenose Dolphin
Bottlenose dolphins are found in
tropical to warm-temperate waters
(Carretta et al., 2014). They are common
throughout the Hawaiian Islands, with
coastal and offshore forms, and with
limited range movements between
islands and offshore waters (Carretta et
al., 2014). There are four resident
populations: (1) Kauai/Niihau, (2) Oahu,
(3) the 4-island region, and (4) Hawaii;
as well as one pelagic stock, which is
separated by the 1,000 m isobaths
(Carretta et al., 2014). Only the pelagic
population is considered here. Average
group size of bottlenose dolphins is 33.5
individuals (Bradford et al., 2017).
The most recent abundance estimate
for the pelagic stock in the SAR is 3,755
animals with PBR at 38 animals
(Carretta et al., 2014). More recently, the
abundance estimate for all of the stocks
in Hawaii, based on a 2010 survey
pooled with sightings collected during
previous NMFS surveys of the eastern
Pacific, is 21,815 individuals (Bradford
et al., 2017); however, this may be an
overestimate since most of the sightings
were in the Northwestern Hawaiian
Islands (Baird 2016). This stock is not
listed as endangered or threatened
under the ESA and is not considered a
depleted or strategic stock under the
MMPA (Carretta et al., 2014).
Pantropical Spotted Dolphin
Pantropical spotted dolphins are
found in tropical and subtropical waters
(Carretta et al., 2014). There are four
stocks in Hawaii: (1) The Oahu stock, (2)
the 4-Island stock, (3) the Hawaii Island
stock, and (4) the Hawaii pelagic stock.
Only the pelagic stock is considered
here. This species prefers deeper waters
between 1,500 m and 3,000 m (Baird
2016). This species forms large groups
with average group size of 60
individuals, with the largest group
estimated at 400 individuals (Baird
2016). Other research suggests a smaller
average group size of 43.2 individuals
(Bradford et al., 2017).
The most recent abundance estimate
for the pelagic stock in the SAR is
15,917 animals with PBR at 115 animals
(Carretta et al., 2014). More recently, the
abundance estimate for all of the stocks
in Hawaii, based on a 2010 survey
pooled with sightings collected during
previous NMFS surveys of the eastern
Pacific, is 55,795 individuals (Bradford
et al., 2017). The main threat to this
species is interactions with fisheries
(Baird 2016). This stock is not listed as
endangered or threatened under the
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules
ESA and is not considered a depleted or
strategic stock under the MMPA
(Carretta et al., 2014).
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Striped Dolphin
Striped dolphins are found in tropical
to warm-temperate waters (Carretta et
al., 2014). There is one stock of striped
dolphins in Hawaii. This is a deep water
species, preferring depths greater than
3,500 m (Baird 2016). This species
forms large groups, with an average
group size of 28 individuals, and a
maximum group size of 100 individuals
(Baird 2016). Other research suggests a
larger average group size of 52.6
individuals (Bradford et al., 2017).
The most recent abundance estimate
for the pelagic stock in the SAR is
20,651 animals with PBR at 154 animals
(Carretta et al., 2014). More recently, the
abundance estimate for all of the stocks
in Hawaii, based on a 2010 survey
pooled with sightings collected during
previous NMFS surveys of the eastern
Pacific, is 61,201 individuals (Bradford
et al., 2017). The main threat to this
species is disease (Carretta et al., 2014).
This stock is not listed as endangered or
threatened under the ESA and is not
considered a depleted or strategic stock
under the MMPA (Carretta et al., 2014).
Spinner Dolphin
Spinner dolphins are found in
tropical and warm-temperate waters
(Carretta et al., 2014). There are six
stocks in the main Hawaiian islands: (1)
Kauai/Niihau stock, (2) Oahu and the 4Islands region, (3) Hawaii island stock,
(4) Pearl & Hermes Reef, (5) Kure/
Midway, and (6) pelagic stock. The
boundary between the island-associated
stocks and the pelagic stock is 10 nmi
from shore (Carretta et al., 2014). Only
the pelagic stock is considered here. The
offshore stock is rarely sighted (Baird
2016), and most of the deep water
activity is at night when they feed. The
average group size for this species is 30
individuals with larger groups of nearly
300 animals observed (Baird 2016).
The most recent abundance estimate
for the pelagic stock in the SAR is 3,351
animals from a 2002 survey, which is
outdated (Carretta et al., 2014). The
main threat to this species is the
constant interactions with humans
during the day-time when they are
resting (Carretta et al., 2014; Baird
2016). This stock is not listed as
endangered or threatened under the
ESA and is not considered a depleted or
strategic stock under the MMPA
(Carretta et al., 2014).
Rough-Toothed Dolphin
Rough-toothed dolphins are found in
tropical and warm-temperate waters
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 May 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
(Carretta et al., 2014). While there is
evidence for two island-associated
stocks and one pelagic stock in Hawaii,
there is only one stock designated for
Hawaii (Carretta et al., 2014). Most
sightings of this species off Kauai are in
water depths of less than 1,000 m;
however, it is the most often sighted
species in depths greater than 3,000 m
(Baird 2016). This species forms stable
associations as part of larger groups,
with average group sizes of 11 animals
and maximum group sizes, observed off
Kauai, of 140 individuals (Baird 2016).
Other research suggests a larger average
group size of 25.3 individuals (Bradford
et al., 2017).
The most recent abundance estimate
for the pelagic stock in the SAR is 6,288
animals with PBR at 46 animals
(Carretta et al., 2014). More recently, the
abundance estimate for all of the stocks
in Hawaii, based on a 2010 survey
pooled with sightings collected during
previous NMFS surveys of the eastern
Pacific, is 72,528 individuals (Bradford
et al., 2017). The main threat to this
species is interactions with fisheries
(Carretta et al., 2014). This stock is not
listed as endangered or threatened
under the ESA and is not considered a
depleted or strategic stock under the
MMPA (Carretta et al., 2014).
Fraser’s Dolphin
Fraser’s dolphin are found in tropical
waters (Carretta et al., 2011). This is a
deep water species occurring offshore of
the Hawaiian islands, with sightings
occurring in water depths between
1,515 m and 4,600 m (Baird 2016). This
species forms large groups with average
group sizes between 75 and 110
individuals (Baird 2016). Other research
suggests a larger average group size of
283.3 individuals (Bradford et al., 2017).
The most recent abundance estimate
for the pelagic stock in the SAR is
10,226 animals with PBR at 47 animals
(Carretta et al., 2011). More recently, the
abundance estimate for all of the stocks
in Hawaii, based on a 2010 survey
pooled with sightings collected during
previous NMFS surveys of the eastern
Pacific, is 51,491 individuals (Bradford
et al., 2017). This stock is not listed as
endangered or threatened under the
ESA and is not considered a depleted or
strategic stock under the MMPA
(Carretta et al., 2011).
Risso’s Dolphin
Risso’s dolphins are found in tropical
to warm-temperate waters (Carretta et
al., 2014). This is a deep water species,
often found in depths greater than 3,000
m, and with the highest sighting rate in
depths greater than 4,500 m (Baird
2016). This species forms small groups,
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21165
with an average group size of 4
individuals, and a maximum group size
of 25 individuals off the coast of Hawaii
(Baird 2016). Other research, which was
conducted offshore, suggests a larger
average group size of 26.6 individuals
(Bradford et al., 2017), which may be
more representative of this species since
they occur more often offshore in deeper
waters.
The most recent abundance estimate
for the pelagic stock in the SAR is 7,256
animals with PBR at 42 animals
(Carretta et al., 2014). More recently, the
abundance estimate for all of the stocks
in Hawaii, based on a 2010 survey
pooled with sightings collected during
previous NMFS surveys of the eastern
Pacific, is 11,613 individuals (Bradford
et al., 2017). The main threat to this
species is interactions with fisheries
(Carretta et al., 2014). This stock is not
listed as endangered or threatened
under the ESA and is not considered a
depleted or strategic stock under the
MMPA (Carretta et al., 2014).
Longman’s Beaked Whale
Longman’s beaked whales are found
in tropical waters from the eastern
Pacific westward through the Indian
Ocean to the eastern coast of Africa
(Carretta et al., 2014). There is one stock
in Hawaii. Group sizes range from 18 to
110 individuals (Baird 2016), with an
average group size of 59.8 individuals
(Bradford et al., 2017).
The most recent abundance estimate
for the pelagic stock in the SAR is 4,571
animals with PBR at 28 animals
(Carretta et al., 2014). More recently, the
abundance estimate for all of the stocks
in Hawaii, based on a 2010 survey
pooled with sightings collected during
previous NMFS surveys of the eastern
Pacific, is 7,619 individuals (Bradford et
al., 2017). The main threats to this
species are interactions with fisheries
and increasing sounds in the ocean,
including military sonar (Carretta et al.,
2014). This stock is not listed as
endangered or threatened under the
ESA and is not considered a depleted or
strategic stock under the MMPA
(Carretta 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
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
21166
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 on 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 (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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 May 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
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
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, and
atmospheric sound), biological (e.g.,
sounds produced by marine mammals,
fish, and invertebrates), and
anthropogenic sound (e.g., vessels,
dredging, aircraft, and 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
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 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, and
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
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules
1997; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and
Hastings, 2008).
Animals are less sensitive to sounds
at the outer edges of their functional
hearing range and are more sensitive to
a range of frequencies within the middle
of their functional hearing range. For
mid-frequency cetaceans, functional
hearing estimates occur between
approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz,
with best hearing estimated to occur
between approximately 10 to less than
100 kHz (Finneran et al., 2005 and 2009,
Natchtigall et al., 2005 and 2008; Yuen
et al., 2005; Popov et al., 2010 and 2011;
and Schlundt et al., 2011).
On August 4, 2016, NMFS released its
Technical Guidance for Assessing the
Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on
Marine Mammal Hearing (81 FR 51694).
This new guidance established new
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
When considering the influence of
various kinds of sound on the marine
environment, it is necessary to
understand that different kinds of
marine life are sensitive to different
frequencies of sound. Current data
indicate that not all marine mammal
species have equal hearing capabilities
(Richardson et al., 1995; Southall et al.,
21167
thresholds for predicting onset of
temporary (TTS) and permanent
threshold shifts (PTS) for impulsive
(e.g., explosives and impact pile drivers)
and non-impulsive (e.g., vibratory pile
drivers) sound sources. These acoustic
thresholds are presented using dual
metrics of cumulative sound exposure
level (SELcum) and peak sound level
(PK) for impulsive sounds and SELcum
for non-impulsive sounds. The lower
and/or upper frequencies for some of
these functional hearing groups have
been modified from those designated by
Southall et al. (2007), and the revised
generalized hearing ranges are presented
in the new Guidance. The functional
hearing groups and the associated
frequencies are indicated in Table 3
below.
TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS AND THEIR GENERALIZED HEARING RANGE
Hearing group
Generalized hearing range *
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen whales) ................................................................................................
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose whales) .....................
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus
cruciger and L. australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals) .............................................................................................
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur seals) .........................................................................
7 Hz to 35 kHz.
150 Hz to 160 kHz.
275 Hz to 160 kHz.
50 Hz to 86 kHz.
60 Hz to 39 kHz.
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual species’
hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized hearing range chosen based on ∼65 dB threshold from normalized composite audiogram,
with the exception for lower limits for LF cetaceans (Southall et al., 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).
There are sixteen marine mammal
species with expected potential to cooccur with 86 FWS LRS WSEP military
readiness activities. These species fall
into the following hearing groups: (1)
Low-frequency cetaceans (humpback
whale (Megaptera novanglieae), sei
whale (Balaenoptera borealis), and
minke whale (Balaenoptera
acutorostrata)); (2) mid-frequency
cetaceans (Pygmy killer whale (Feresa
attenuata), short-finned pilot whale
(Globicephala macrorhynchus), melonheaded whale (Peponocephala electra),
bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus),
Pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella
attenuata), striped dolphin (Stenella
coeruleoala), spinner dolphin (Stenella
longirostris), rough-toothed dolphin
(Steno bredanensis), Fraser’s dolphin
(Lagenodelphis hosei), Risso’s dolphin
(Grampus griseus), and Longman’s
beaked whale (Indopacetus pacificus));
and (3) high-frequency cetaceans
(Pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps),
and dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima)).
There are no phocid or otariid species
that will be impacted by 86 FWS’s
activities. A species’ functional hearing
group is a consideration when we
analyze the effects of exposure to sound
on marine mammals.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 May 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
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; Gotz 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
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
almost exclusively as a result of
exposure to 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.
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21168
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 May 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
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
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 in 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
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 exist only 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, and 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,
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules
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, and 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 to
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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 May 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
2005). 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.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
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21169
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,
and 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
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21170
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules
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 subtler
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). Disruptions 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 May 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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, and
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,
and precipitation) or anthropogenic
(e.g., shipping, sonar, and 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-tonoise ratio, temporal variability, and
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 it may result in a 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 caused by
anthropogenic noise may be considered
as a reduction in the communication
space of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009),
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 May 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
behavioral responses, or exhibit
temporary behavioral responses (e.g.
flight responses, temporary avoidance)
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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21171
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 munitions in its training
exercises that may detonate above, at, or
slightly below the water surface. The
explosions from these weapons would
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. 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).
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 gascontaining 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
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
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
21172
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Auditory Masking
While it may occur temporarily, 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.
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 marine mammals 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.
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).
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
Direct Strike by Ordnance
Another potential risk to marine
mammals is direct strike by ordnance,
in which the ordnance physically hits
an animal. Although strike from an item
at the surface of the water while the
animals are at the surface is possible,
the potential risk of a direct hit to an
animal within the target area would be
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
behavioral changes may include
(Richardson et al., 1995): Changing
durations of surfacing and dives,
number of blows per surfacing, 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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 May 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
low. 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.
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. The 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 TNT and research
department explosive (RDX), among
others. Various byproducts are
produced during and immediately after
detonation of TNT and RDX. During the
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules
very brief time that a detonation is in
progress, intermediate products may
include carbon ions, nitrogen ions,
oxygen ions, water, hydrogen cyanide,
carbon monoxide, nitrogen gas, nitrous
oxide, cyanic acid, and carbon dioxide
(Becker 1995). However, reactions
quickly occur between the
intermediates, and the final products
consist mainly of water, carbon
monoxide, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen
gas, although small amounts of other
compounds are typically produced as
well.
Chemicals introduced into the water
column would be quickly dispersed by
waves, currents, and tidal action, and
eventually become uniformly
distributed. A portion of the carbon
compounds such as carbon monoxide
and carbon dioxide would likely
become integrated into the carbonate
system (alkalinity and pH buffering
capacity of seawater). Some of the
nitrogen and carbon compounds,
including petroleum products, would be
metabolized or assimilated by
phytoplankton and bacteria. Most of the
gas products that do not react with the
water or become assimilated by
organisms would be released into the
atmosphere. Due to dilution, mixing,
and transformation, none of these
chemicals are expected to have
significant impacts on the marine
environment.
Explosive material that is not
consumed in a detonation could sink to
the substrate and bind to sediments.
However, the quantity of such materials
is expected to be inconsequential.
Research has shown that if munitions
function properly, nearly full
combustion of the explosive materials
will occur, and only extremely small
amounts of raw material will remain. In
addition, any remaining materials
would be naturally degraded. TNT
decomposes when exposed to sunlight
(ultraviolet radiation) and is also
degraded by microbial activity (Becker
1995). Several types of microorganisms
have been shown to metabolize TNT.
Similarly, RDX decomposes by
hydrolysis, ultraviolet radiation
exposure, and biodegradation.
While 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 May 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
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 (ITA) under section
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, NMFS must
set forth the permissible methods of
taking pursuant to such activity, and
other means of affecting the least
adverse impact practicable on such
species or stock and its habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating
grounds, and areas of similar
significance, and on the availability of
such species or stock for taking for
certain subsistence uses.
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:
Timing Restriction: The 86 FWS will
be restricted to certain times of the day
and certain months of the year. All
missions will occur on weekdays during
daylight hours only. Missions will not
occur during the months of January to
May when transmission loss is greater
due to winter/spring seasonal
conditions and when marine mammal
densities are higher.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21173
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 a maximum 8-mi (13 km)
radius around the impact point with
surveys typically flown in a star pattern.
This survey distance is much larger than
requirements for similar actions at the
PMRF and what was accomplished for
October 2016 missions. This expanded
area would encompass the entire
behavioral threshold ranges (SEL) for all
mid-frequency cetaceans, the entire PTS
threshold ranges (SEL) for lowfrequency cetaceans and phocids,
approximately 23 percent of the TTS
threshold ranges (SEL) for lowfrequency cetaceans and phocids, and
about 64 percent of the PTS threshold
range (SEL) for high-frequency
cetaceans (pygmy and dwarf sperm
whales) (Table 5). The survey distance
would not cover the entire behavioral
harassment ranges for low- and highfrequency cetaceans and phocids. 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 the 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 the
PMRF. Aerial surveys are typically
conducted at an altitude of about 200 ft,
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 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, premission 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,
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21174
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules
the aircraft may fly the survey pattern
multiple times.
Mission Delays: 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; or (2) 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
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 a serious 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, 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. 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 (ZOI) 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 86
FWS’s application for a description of
the method used to calculate impact
areas for explosives. The pressure and
energy levels considered to be of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 May 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
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 the 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, Level A harassment,
and Level B harassment. 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, midfrequency cetaceans, and highfrequency cetaceans.
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 8 mi (13 km) from the
target area radius around the impact
point, with surveys typically flown in a
star pattern, which is much larger than
requirements already in place for
similar actions at the PMRF and what
was accomplished for October 2016
missions.
NMFS discussed with the 86 FWS
and the U.S. Navy—whose hydrophones
and PAM equipment in the PMRF
would be used—the idea of using PAM
for mitigation purposes to supplement
visual surveys. Through these
discussions, NMFS and 86 FWS
attempted to determine if using PAM as
a mitigation tool was feasible. The Navy
described the constraints of using PAM
as a real-time mitigation tool due to the
limitations of the current technology.
These include limitations on the ability
to detect, classify, and estimate
locations of marine mammals around
the equipment; the fact that marine
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
mammals present in the area may not be
vocalizing; and the fact that
vocalizations made by some species
may be outside of the frequency
capabilities of the hydrophones. These
limitations are explained further, below.
In regards to the limitations to detect
classify, and estimate locations of
marine mammals around the
equipment, and the fact that some of
those animals may vocalize outside of
the frequency capabilities of the
hydrophones, the Navy states:
Based on current capabilities, and given
adequate time, vocalizing animals within an
indeterminate radius around a particular
phone are detected, but obtaining an
estimated position for all individual animals
passing through a predetermined area is not
assured. Detecting vocalizations on a phone
does not determine whether vocalizing
individuals would be within the established
mitigation zone in the timeframes required
for mitigation. Since detection ranges are
generally larger than current mitigation zones
for many activities, this would unnecessarily
delay events due to uncertainty in the
animals location.
To develop an estimated position for an
individual, it must be vocalizing and its
vocalizations must be detected on at least
three hydrophones. The hydrophones must
have the required bandwidth, and dynamic
range to capture the signal. In addition, calls
must be sufficiently loud so as to provide the
required signal to noise ratio on the
surrounding hydrophones. Typically, small
odontocetes echolocate with a directed beam
that makes detection of the call on multiple
hydrophones difficult. Developing an
estimated position of selected species
requires the presence of whistles which may
or may not be produced depending on the
behavioral state.
Large baleen species vocalize at
frequencies well below 1 kHz. There are few
broadband phones with low frequency
capabilities at PMRF and they are widely
spaced, especially on the southern portion of
the range. This makes estimating the
positions of low frequency baleen whales
difficult in that area. For minke whale
boings, it takes 30 to 45 minutes of calling
(e.g. observing 8 calls or more) to have good
confidence in a whale’s estimated position.
Additionally, even minke whales that have
been vocalizing for extended periods can,
and have, gone silent for hours at a time.
Extended gaps in calling have also been
noted for fin, sei, and Bryde’s whales. We are
currently unable to estimate positions of
humpbacks in real-time.
Beaked whales vocalize only during deep
foraging dives which occur at a rate of
approximately 10 per day. They produce
highly directed echolocation clicks that are
difficult to simultaneously detect on multiple
hydrophones. Current real-time systems
cannot follow individuals and at best
produce sparse positions with multiple false
locations.
The position estimation process must
occur in an area with hydrophones spaced to
allow the detection of the same echolocation
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules
click on at least three hydrophones.
Typically, a spacing of less than 4 km in
water depths of approximately 2 km is
preferred. In the absence of localizations, the
analyst can only determine with confidence
if a group of beaked whales is somewhere
within 6 km of a hydrophone. Beaked whales
produce stereotypic click trains during deep
(<700 m) foraging dives. The presence of a
vocalizing group can be readily detected by
an analyst by examining the click structure
and repetition rate. However, estimating
position is possible only if the same train of
clicks is detected on multiple hydrophones
which is often precluded by the animal’s
narrow beam pattern.
In regards to marine mammals not
vocalizing in the area, the Navy states:
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Animals must vocalize to be detected; the
lack of detections on a hydrophone may give
the false impression that the area is all clear.
The lack of vocalization detections is not a
direct measure of the absence of marine
mammals. If an event were to be moved
based upon low-confidence localizations, it
may inadvertently be moved to an area where
non-vocalizing animals of undetermined
species/ESA status are present.
NMFS decided that these analytical
and technical limitations preclude the
use of PAM as a real-time mitigation
tool. However, we will require the use
of PAM for monitoring purposes (as
described below).
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 adverse 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.
NMFS prescribes mitigation measures
that 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 May 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
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
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 adverse 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 ITA for an
activity, Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the
MMPA states that NMFS 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 ITAs must
include the suggested means of
accomplishing the necessary monitoring
and reporting that will result in
increased knowledge of the species and
of the level of taking or impacts on
populations of marine mammals that are
expected to be present in the proposed
action area.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21175
The 86 FWS submitted marine
mammal monitoring and reporting
measures in their LOA application. We
may modify or supplement these
measures based on comments or new
information received during the public
comment period. Any monitoring
requirement we prescribe will 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.
• Mitigation and monitoring
effectiveness.
NMFS proposes to include the
following monitoring and reporting
measures in the LRS WSEP
Authorization (if issued):
(1) Using mission reporting forms, the
86 FWS will track the use of the PMRF
for missions and protected species
observations.
(2) The 86 FWS will submit a
summary report of marine mammal
observations and LRS WSEP activities to
the NMFS PIRO and the Office of
Protected Resources 90 days after
completion of mission activities each
year. 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) The 86 FWS will monitor for
marine mammals in the proposed action
area through pre-mission aerial visual
surveys. If 86 FWS personnel observe or
detect any dead or injured marine
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
21176
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules
mammals prior to testing, or detect any
injured or dead marine mammal during
live fire exercises, 86 FWS must cease
operations and submit a report to NMFS
OPR and PIRO within 24 hours.
(4) The 86 FWS will monitor for
marine mammals once the mission has
ended or, if required, as soon as
personnel declare the mission area safe.
Post-mission aerial visual surveys 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. Postmission monitoring determines the
effectiveness of pre-mission mitigation
by reporting sightings of any marine
mammals within the ZOIs that may
have been affected by mission activities.
(5) As noted previously, PAM will not
be used as a real-time mitigation tool,
but the 86 FWS will use PAM by using
the Navy’s hydrophones for monitoring
within the PMRF, by collecting data
before, during, and after LRS WSEP
missions. This data will be stored at
SPAWAR to be analyzed as funding
allows.
(6) The 86 FWS must immediately
report any unauthorized takes of marine
mammals (i.e., serious injury or
mortality) to NMFS OPR and to the
respective Pacific Islands Region
stranding coordinator. The 86 FWS
must cease operations and submit a
report to NMFS within 24 hours.
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Adaptive Management
NMFS may modify (including
augment) the existing mitigation,
monitoring, or reporting measures (after
consulting with the 86 FWS regarding
the practicability of the modifications) if
doing so creates a reasonable likelihood
of more effectively accomplishing the
goals of the mitigation and monitoring
measures for these regulations.
Possible sources of data that could
contribute to the decision to modify the
mitigation, monitoring, or reporting
measures in an LOA include: (1) Results
from 86 FWS’s monitoring from the
previous year(s); (2) results from other
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 May 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
marine mammal and/or sound research
or studies; and (3) any information that
reveals marine mammals may have been
taken in a manner, extent or number not
authorized by these regulations or
subsequent LOAs.
If, through adaptive management, the
modifications to the mitigation,
monitoring, or reporting measures are
substantial, NMFS will publish a notice
of proposed LOA in the Federal
Register and solicit public comment. If,
however, NMFS determines that an
emergency exists that poses a significant
risk to the well-being of the species or
stocks of marine mammals in Hawaii, an
LOA may be modified without prior
notice or opportunity for public
comment. Notice would be published in
the Federal Register within 30 days of
the action.
Estimated Take by Incidental
Harassment
The NDAA of 2004 amended the
definition of harassment as it applies to
a military readiness activity (Section
3(18)(B) of the MMPA) to read as
follows: (i) Any act that injures or has
the significant potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild (Level A Harassment);
or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely
to disturb a marine mammal or marine
mammal stock in the wild by causing
disruption of natural behavioral
patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering, to a point where
such behavioral patterns are abandoned
or significantly altered (Level B
Harassment).
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 on 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 the PMRF BSURE
area. As described below, quantifying
take includes a consideration of acoustic
thresholds identified by NMFS above
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
which received levels marine mammals
are expected to be taken by either Level
A or Level B harassment; predicted
distances from the sound sources within
which animals are expected to be
exposed to sound levels above these
thresholds; and the density of marine
mammals within the areas ensonified
above the thresholds.
Level B Harassment
Of the potential effects described
earlier in this document, the following
are the types of effects that would result
from Level B harassment:
Behavioral Harassment—Exposure to
non-impulsive or impulsive sound,
which causes a behavioral disturbance
that rises to the level described in the
above definition, 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 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 exposure to explosives and
other impulsive sources resulting in
TTS as Level B harassment, not Level A
harassment.
Level A Harassment
Of the potential effects that were
described earlier, the following are the
types of effects that result from Level A
harassment and that may be expected
from 86 FWS activities:
Permanent Threshold Shift—PTS
(resulting from exposure to explosive
detonations) is irreversible, and NMFS
considers this to be an injury.
Table 4 outlines the explosive
thresholds used by NMFS for this action
when addressing noise impacts from
explosives.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
The 86 FWS completed acoustic
modeling to determine the distances
from their explosive ordnance
corresponding to NMFS’ explosive
thresholds; these distances were then
used with each species’ density to
determine exposure estimates. Below is
a summary of the methodology for those
modeling efforts.
The maximum estimated range, or
radius, from the detonation point to the
point at 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. These calculations incorporated
water depth, sediment type, wind
speed, bathymetry, and temperature/
salinity profiles (Table 5). Transmission
loss was calculated from the explosive
source depth down to an array of water
depth bins extending to the maximum
depths where marine mammals may
occur (see depth distributions in
Appendix B of the 86 FWS’s
application). Then impact volumes were
computed for each explosive source
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 May 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
(based on the total number of munitions
released on a representative mission
day). Impact areas were calculated from
scaling the impact volumes by each
depth bin, dividing by their depth
intervals, summing each value over the
entire water column and converting to
square kilometers. The total energy for
all weapons released as part of a
representative mission day was
calculated to assess impacts from the
accumulated energy resulting from
multiple weapon releases within a 24hour period. Given that there is a large
degree of uncertainty in knowing this
far in advance what types of explosives
could be released on any particular
mission day, in order to calculate the
number of munitions to be released per
mission day, the total number of each
munition proposed to be released per
year was divided by the annual number
of mission days.
Explosives generally will be separated
by some number of minutes, with the
exception of up to four SDB–I/II
munitions, which includes a burst
during which each ordnance hits the
water surface within a few seconds of
each other. For the purposes of
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21177
predicting the number of exposures
above threshold, calculating the area for
each independent explosive and then
adding those areas together and
multiplying by species density would
result in an overestimate. This is
because all explosions will occur within
4 hours and are generally targeting the
same spot, and several explosions have
very large zones, so it is likely that
many of the exposures will be
experienced by the same individual
animals. Therefore, to calculate take, we
instead summed the energy of the
expected number of separate explosives
per day to create one area of impact to
overlay with species density for that
area. Since there would be a total of five
mission days per year during the time
frame of 2017—2021, the analysis
assumed that in a representative
mission day the following munitions
and quantities would be released daily:
One JASSM, six JDAMs, six SDB-Is, six
SDB–IIs, and two HARMs.
The 86 FWS used the calculations for
transmission loss from the summer
season in their model, because the
parameters for the summer were more
conservative (i.e., resulted in larger
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
EP05MY17.009
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules
21178
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules
distances from the sound source) than
for the fall, taking into account wind
speed, sound speed, and transmission
loss (see 86 FWS’s seasonal parameters
memo). Missions will most likely occur
in the summer, but may also occur in
the fall. Transmission loss was
calculated from the explosive source
depth down to an array of water depth
volumes for each depth bin, dividing by
their depth intervals, summing each
value over the entire water column and
converting to square kilometers. The
radii shown in Table 5 are based on
these impact areas, and were used for
mitigation considerations.
bins extending to the maximum depths
where marine mammals may occur (see
depth distributions in Appendix B of
the 86 FWS’s application). Next, impact
volumes were computed for each
explosive source (i.e., total number of
munitions released on a representative
mission day). Impact areas were
calculated by scaling the impact
TABLE 5—DISTANCES (m) TO EXPLOSIVE THRESHOLDS USED TO CALCULATE PREDICTED TAKE FROM 86 FWS’S DAILY
EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE USE
Level A harassment 2
Mortality 1
Species
Slight lung
injury
GI tract
injury
237 dB SPL
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 (MHI Insular stock) .............
False Killer Whale (all other stocks) .................
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 .........................................
99
74
76
101
99
138
91
248
273
149
177
177
324
217
273
273
324
324
324
273
257
207
131
195
133
306
200
149
157
204
200
268
177
457
509
287
340
340
604
413
502
509
604
604
604
509
480
384
257
368
261
564
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
Level B harassment
PTS
Applicable
SEL *
5,415
5,415
5,415
5,415
5,415
5,415
1,575
20,058
20,058
1,575
1,575
1,575
1,575
1,575
1,575
1,575
1,575
1,575
1,575
1,575
1,575
1,575
1,575
1,575
1,575
4,621
TTS
Applicable
SPL *
Behavioral
Applicable
SEL *
1,241
1,241
1,241
1,241
1,241
1,241
413
4,879
4,879
413
413
413
413
413
413
413
413
413
413
413
413
413
413
413
413
1,394
Applicable
SPL *
55,464
55,464
55,464
55,464
55,464
55,464
8,019
71,452
71,452
8,019
8,019
8,019
8,019
8,019
8,019
8,019
8,019
8,019
8,019
8,019
8,019
8,019
8,019
8,019
8,019
55,687
2,266
2,266
2,266
2,266
2,266
2,266
763
7,204
7,204
763
763
763
763
763
763
763
763
763
763
763
763
763
763
763
763
2,549
Applicable
SEL *
59,039
59,039
59,039
59,039
59,039
59,039
11,948
74,804
74,804
11,948
11,948
11,948
11,948
11,948
11,948
11,948
11,948
11,948
11,948
11,948
11,948
11,948
11,948
11,948
11,948
58,736
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
2016 Marine Species Density Database
(NMSDD). The 86 FWS used fall
densities to estimate take. Fall densities
are more conservative than summer
densities because they include more
species. Density estimates provided in
Table 6 were extrapolated over the
depth distributions by multiplying the
density values by the percentage of time
spent at each depth interval. These
scaled densities were multiplied by the
corresponding depth bin in the impact
volume for each threshold and summed
to create a three-dimensional exposure
estimate. These estimates were then
multiplied by the number of events, or
total annual number of proposed
mission days. 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 THE IMPACT LOCATION IN THE PMRF
Density estimate
(animals per square kilometer)
Species
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Fall
Humpback whale .............................................................................................
Blue whale .......................................................................................................
Fin whale .........................................................................................................
Sei whale .........................................................................................................
Bryde’s whale ..................................................................................................
Minke whale .....................................................................................................
Sperm whale ....................................................................................................
Pygmy sperm whale ........................................................................................
Dwarf sperm whale ..........................................................................................
Killer whale ......................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 May 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
0.02110
0.00005
0.00006
0.00016
0.00010
0.00423
0.00156
0.00291
0.00714
0.00006
Spring
Summer
0.02110
0.00005
0.00006
0.00016
0.00010
0.00423
0.00156
0.00291
0.00714
0.00006
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
0
0
0
0
0.00010
0
0.00156
0.00291
0.00714
0.00006
Winter
0.02110
0.00005
0.00006
0.00016
0.00010
0.00423
0.00156
0.00291
0.00714
0.00006
21179
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 6—MARINE MAMMAL DENSITY ESTIMATES WITHIN THE IMPACT LOCATION IN THE PMRF—Continued
Density estimate
(animals per square kilometer)
Species
Fall
False killer whale (Main Hawaiian Islands insular stock) ................................
False killer whale (all other stocks) .................................................................
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 ........................................................................................
Take Estimation
The resulting total number of marine
mammals potentially exposed to the
various levels of thresholds (mortality,
injury, and non-injurious harassment,
including behavioral harassment), in the
absence of mitigation measures, is listed
in Table 7. To eliminate doublecounting of animals, exposure results
from higher impact categories (e.g.,
mortality) were subtracted from lower
impact categories (e.g., Level A
Spring
0.00080
0.00071
0.00440
0.00919
0.00200
0.00316
0.00623
0.00335
0.00204
0.00470
0.021
0.00470
0.00030
0.00086
0.00310
0.00003
harassment). For impact categories with
dual criteria (e.g., SEL and SPL metrics
for PTS associated with Level A
harassment), numbers in the table are
based on the criterion resulting in the
greatest number of exposures. Exposure
levels include the possibility of injury to
marine mammals and harassment
(resulting in behavioral disruption
(Level B harassment) in the absence of
mitigation measures. The numbers
represent total impacts for all
detonations combined and do not take
Summer
0.00080
0.00071
0.00440
0.00919
0.00200
0.00316
0.00623
0.00335
0.00204
0.00470
0.021
0.00470
0.00030
0.00086
0.00310
0.00003
Winter
0.00080
0.00071
0.00440
0.00919
0.00200
0.00316
0.00623
0.00335
0.00204
0.00470
0.021
0.00470
0.00030
0.00086
0.00310
0.00003
0.00080
0.00071
0.00440
0.00919
0.00200
0.00316
0.00623
0.00335
0.00204
0.00470
0.021
0.00470
0.00030
0.00086
0.00310
0.00003
into account the required mitigation and
monitoring measures (see Section 11 of
the 86 FWS’s application), which are
expected to decrease the number of
exposures shown in the Table 7.
The 86 FWS and NMFS estimated that
16 species could be exposed to noise
levels constituting Level B harassment
(TTS and behavioral disruption), and 4
of those marine mammal species could
be exposed to injurious noise levels
(Level A harassment) (187 dB SEL) in
the absence of mitigation measures.
TABLE 7—MODELED NUMBER OF MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ANNUALLY BY LRS WSEP OPERATIONS
Species
Level A
harassment
(PTS only *)
Mortality
Level B
harassment
(TTS)
Level B
harassment
(behavioral)
Mysticetes (baleen whales)
Humpback whale .............................................................................................
Blue whale .......................................................................................................
Fin whale .........................................................................................................
Sei whale .........................................................................................................
Bryde’s whale ..................................................................................................
Minke whale .....................................................................................................
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
1
54
0
0
0
0
11
38
0
0
1
0
19
0
9
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
83
203
0
0
0
1
5
1
2
3
2
1
3
10
2
0
0
0
36
87
0
0
0
2
6
1
2
4
2
1
3
14
2
0
0
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Odontocetes (toothed whales and dolphins)
Sperm whale ....................................................................................................
Pygmy sperm whale ........................................................................................
Dwarf sperm whale ..........................................................................................
Killer whale ......................................................................................................
False killer whale (MHI Insular stock) .............................................................
False killer whale (all other stocks) .................................................................
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 .................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 May 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
21180
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 7—MODELED NUMBER OF MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ANNUALLY BY LRS WSEP OPERATIONS—
Continued
Species
Level A
harassment
(PTS only *)
Mortality
Longman’s beaked whale ................................................................................
Level B
harassment
(TTS)
Level B
harassment
(behavioral)
0
0
1
1
Hawaiian monk seal ........................................................................................
0
0
0
0
Total ..........................................................................................................
0
36
382
219
Pinnipeds
These modeled take numbers show
that the probability of some of these
species being impacted by the 86 FWS’s
activities is low (e.g., one modeled take
for behavioral harassment of 4 of the 16
species). However, realistically, these
species are seen in larger groups (rather
than on an individual basis); therefore,
we took into consideration average
group sizes to determine our actual
number of authorized takes. For
example, melon-headed whales have a
modeled take estimate of one
individual, but their average group size
is 153 individuals (Bradford et al.,
2017); therefore, we propose to
authorize 153 takes by Level B
harassment of melon headed whales, of
which one may be from TTS. Similarly,
for all species, if the modeled take was
less than average group size, we used
this same rationale and calculation to
determine the proposed takes by Level
B harassment (harassment resulting in
TTS or behavioral disruption). We
assumed that, of the total Level B
harassment takes, the modeled take
numbers would be used for TTS, and
the difference between TTS and the
average group size would be the
behavioral take. We did not adjust takes
for PTS, since, in all four instances of
predicted PTS, the number of PTS takes
was greater than average group size (e.g.,
average group size for dwarf sperm
whale is 2.7 (Baird 2016), and modeled
PTS takes is 22). Proposed authorized
take numbers are presented in Table 8.
TABLE 8—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF MARINE MAMMALS FOR PROPOSED AUTHORIZED TAKE BY LRS WSEP OPERATIONS
Species
Level A
harassment
(PTS only*)
Mortality
Level B
harassment
(TTS)
Level B
harassment
(behavioral)
Humpback whale .............................................................................................
Sei whale .........................................................................................................
Minke whale .....................................................................................................
Pygmy sperm whale ........................................................................................
Dwarf sperm 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 .................................................................................................
Longman’s beaked whale ................................................................................
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
1
9
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
54
0
11
83
203
1
5
1
2
3
2
1
3
10
2
1
38
*3
19
36
87
* 25
* 36
* 152
* 32
* 40
* 51
* 1 29
* 22
* 273
* 25
* 59
Total ..........................................................................................................
0
36
382
927
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
* Denotes an adjusted take value from what is represented in the modeled take numbers in Table 7. All mean group sizes were taken from
Bradford et al. (2017) except spinner dolphins, because this value was not available in this publication.
1 Mean group size was taken from Baird (2016).
Based on the mortality exposure
estimates calculated by the acoustic
model (and further supported by the
anticipated effectiveness of the
mitigation), 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 considers PTS to fall under the
injury category (Level A harassment). In
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 May 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
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
the case of authorizing Level A
harassment, NMFS has estimated that,
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
although unlikely, four marine mammal
species (humpback whale, minke whale,
dwarf sperm whale, and pygmy sperm
whale) could experience minor PTS of
hearing sensitivity. The available data
and analyses include extrapolation of
the results of many studies on marine
mammal noise-induced TTS. An
extensive review of TTS studies and
experiments prompted NMFS to
conclude that the possibility of minor
PTS in the form of slight upward shift
of hearing threshold at certain frequency
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules
bands by one individual marine
mammal is extremely low.
Analyses and Preliminary
Determinations
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Negligible Impact Analysis
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 Level B 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. In making a negligible impact
determination, NMFS considers the
following:
(1) The number of anticipated
injuries, serious injuries, or mortalities;
(2) The number, nature, intensity, and
duration of Level B harassment takes;
(3) The context in which the takes
occur (i.e., impacts to areas of
significance, impacts to local
populations, and cumulative impacts
when taking into account successive/
contemporaneous actions when added
to baseline data);
(4) 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);
(5) Impacts on habitat affecting rates
of recruitment/survival; and
(6) The effectiveness of monitoring
and mitigation measures to reduce the
number or severity of incidental take.
For reasons stated previously in this
document, the 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 occur
only over a timeframe of five days each
year in the summer months, over a
maximum of four hours per day.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 May 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
Behavioral disruption due to Level B
harassment would be limited to
reactions such as startle responses,
movements away from the area, and
short-term changes to behavioral state.
These impacts are expected to be
temporary and of short duration. We do
not anticipate that the effects would be
detrimental to rates of recruitment and
survival because we do not expect
serious or extended behavioral
responses that would result in energetic
effects at the level to impact fitness.
Noise-induced threshold shifts (TS,
which includes TTS and PTS) are
defined as increases in the threshold of
audibility of the ear (i.e., the sound has
to be louder to be detected) 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.
TTS was modeled to occur in 15
species of marine mammals from
mission activities. If TTS occurs, it is
expected to be at low levels and of short
duration. As explained above, TTS is
temporary with no long term effects to
species. The modeled take numbers are
expected to be overestimates since
NMFS expects that successful
implementation of the required aerialbased mitigation measures could avoid
TTS. 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.
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
marine mammals 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 exhibit
relatively high levels of avoidance.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21181
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.
Accordingly, NMFS’ predicted
estimates for Level A harassment take
(Table 8) 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
harassment 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, NMFS is proposing to
authorize (and analyze) the modeled
number of Level A harassment takes,
which does not take the mitigation or
avoidance into consideration. However,
we anticipate that, because of the
proposed mitigation measures, and the
likely short duration of exposures, any
PTS incurred would be in the form of
only a small degree of PTS, rather than
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
(i.e., maximum of four hours per day
over a maximum of five days per year),
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 at times) of significance
for the marine mammal populations
potentially affected by the exercises
(e.g., feeding or resting areas,
reproductive areas), and the activity
would occur only in a small part of their
overall range of those marine mammal
populations, so the impact of any
potential temporary displacement
would be negligible and animals would
be expected to return to the area after
the cessation of activities. Although the
proposed activity could result in Level
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
21182
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
A harassment (PTS only, as opposed to
slight lung injury or gastrointestinal
tract injury) and Level B harassment
(behavioral disturbance and TTS), the
level of harassment is not anticipated to
impact rates of recruitment or survival
of marine mammals, because the
number of exposed animals is expected
to be low due to the short-term and sitespecific nature of the activity.
Moreover, the proposed mitigation
and monitoring measures (described
earlier in this preamble for the proposed
rule) 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 animals have left
the area or relocated outside of the zone.
Furthermore, LRS WSEP missions may
be delayed or rescheduled for adverse
weather conditions.
In past missions (October 2016), the
86 FWS completed pre- and post-aerial
surveys. The 86 FWS did not observe
any marine mammals in the ZOI before
missions occurred, and did not observe
any marine mammals after missions
were completed. The 86 FWS was
authorized for Level A and Level B
harassment takes of five species, but
monitoring showed that they had zero
takes of any species from mission
activities.
Based on NMFS’ preliminary analysis
of the likely effects of the specified
activity on marine mammals and their
habitat, and taking into consideration
the implementation of the mitigation
and monitoring measures, NMFS
preliminarily finds that 86 FWS’s LRS
WSEP operations will result in the
incidental take of marine mammals, by
Level A and Level B harassment, and
that the taking from the LRS WSEP
activities will have a negligible impact
on the affected species or stocks.
Impact on Availability of Affected
Species 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
There is one marine mammal species
under NMFS’ jurisdiction that is listed
as endangered under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) with confirmed or
possible occurrence in the action area:
The sei whale. In March 2017, NMFS
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 May 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
initiated formal consultation under
Section 7 of the ESA. The Biological
Opinion will analyze the effects to the
one ESA listed species by the 86 FWS’
LRS WSEP activities.
National Environmental Policy Act
In 2016, 86 FWS provided NMFS with
an Environmental Assessment (EA)
titled, Environmental Assessment/
Overseas Environmental Assessment for
the Long Range Strike Weapon Systems
Evaluation Program at the Pacific
Missile Range Facility at Kauai, Hawaii.
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 the
EA. Information in 86 FWS’s
application, the EA, and this notice
collectively provide the environmental
information related to proposed
issuance of the regulations for public
review and comment. We will review all
comments submitted in response to this
notice as we complete the NEPA
process, including the decision of
whether to sign a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) prior to a
final decision on the LOA request. The
2016 NEPA documents are available for
review at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
permits/incidental/military.html.
Classification
The Office of Management and Budget
has determined that this proposed rule
is not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Chief Counsel for Regulation of the
Department of Commerce has certified
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration that this
proposed rule, if adopted, would not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
The RFA requires a Federal agency to
prepare an analysis of a rule’s impact on
small entities whenever the agency is
required to publish a notice of proposed
rulemaking. However, a Federal agency
may certify, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b),
that the action will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. A
description of this proposed rule and its
purpose are found earlier in the
preamble for this action and is not
repeated here. 86 FWS is the sole entity
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
that will be affected by this rulemaking
and is not a small governmental
jurisdiction, small organization, or small
business, as defined by the RFA. Any
requirements imposed by LOAs issued
pursuant to these regulations, and any
monitoring or reporting requirements
imposed by these regulations, will be
applicable only to 86 FWS.
NMFS does not expect the issuance of
these regulations or the associated LOAs
to result in any impacts to small entities
pursuant to the RFA. Because this
action, if adopted, would directly affect
86 FWS and not a small entity, NMFS
concludes the action would not result in
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility
analysis is necessary, and none has been
prepared.
This action does not contain any
collection of information requirements
for purposes of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 218
Regulations governing the taking and
importing of marine mammals.
Dated: May 2, 2017.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For reasons set forth in the preamble,
50 CFR part 218 is proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 218—REGULATIONS
GOVERNING THE TAKE OF MARINE
MAMMALS INCIDENTAL TO
SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES
1. The authority citation for part 218
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., unless
otherwise noted.
2. Add subpart F to part 218 to read
as follows:
■
Subpart F—Taking of Marine Mammals
Incidental to the U.S. Air Force 86
Fighter Weapons Squadron
Conducting Long Range Strike
Weapons System Evaluation Program
at the Pacific Missile Range Facility at
Kauai, Hawaii.
Sec.
218.50 Specified activity and specified
geographical region.
218.51 Effective dates.
218.52 Permissible methods of taking.
218.53 Prohibitions.
218.54 Mitigation.
218.55 Requirements for monitoring and
reporting.
218.56 Letters of Authorization.
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules
218.57 Renewals and Modifications of
Letters of Authorization.
218.58 [Reserved]
218.59 [Reserved]
impact on the species or stock of such
marine mammal for taking for
subsistence uses.
§ 218.54
§ 218.50 Specified activity and specified
geographical region.
(a) Regulations in this subpart apply
only to the 86 Fighter Weapons
Squadron (86 FWS) and those persons it
authorizes to conduct activities on its
behalf, for the taking of marine
mammals as outlined in paragraph (b) of
this section and incidental to Long
Range Strike Weapons System
Evaluation Program (LRS WSEP)
missions.
(b) The taking of marine mammals by
86 FWS pursuant to a Letter of
Authorization (LOA) is authorized only
if it occurs at the Barking Sands
Underwater Range Expansion (BSURE)
area of the Pacific Missile Range Facility
(PMRF) off Kauai, Hawaii.
§ 218.51
Effective dates.
Regulations in this subpart are
effective August 23, 2017, through
August 22, 2022.
§ 218.52
Permissible methods of taking.
Under a Letter of Authorization (LOA)
issued pursuant to § 216.106 and
§ 218.56 of this chapter, the Holder of
the LOA (herein after 86 FWS) may
incidentally, but not intentionally, take
marine mammals by Level A and Level
B harassment associated with LRS
WSEP activities within the area
described in § 218.50 of this subpart,
provided the activities are in
compliance with all terms, conditions,
and requirements of these regulations in
this subpart and the appropriate LOA.
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 218.53
Prohibitions.
Notwithstanding takings
contemplated in § 218.50 and
authorized by an LOA issued under
§ 216.106 and § 218.56 of this chapter,
no person in connection with the
activities described in § 218.50 of this
chapter may:
(a) Violate, or fail to comply with, the
terms, conditions, and requirements of
this subpart or an LOA issued under
§ 216.106 and § 218.56 of this chapter.
(b) Take any marine mammal not
specified in such LOAs;
(c) Take any marine mammal
specified in such LOAs in any manner
other than as specified;
(d) Take a marine mammal specified
in such LOAs if NMFS determines such
taking results in more than a negligible
impact on the species or stocks of such
marine mammal; or
(e) Take a marine mammal specified
in such LOAs if NMFS determines such
taking results in an unmitigable adverse
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 May 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
Mitigation requirements.
When conducting activities identified
in § 218.50 of this chapter, the
mitigation measures contained in the
LOA issued under § 216.106 and
§ 218.56 of this chapter must be
implemented. These mitigation
measures shall include but are not
limited to the following general
conditions:
(a) 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.
(b) Restrictions on time of activities;
missions will only occur during daylight hours, on weekdays, and only
during the summer or fall months.
(c) Visual aerial surveys before and
after mission activities each day.
(d) Required delay of mission
activities if a protected species is
observed in the impact zones. Mission
activities cannot resume until one of the
following conditions is met:
(1) The animal is observed exiting the
impact area; or
(2) The impact area has been clear of
any additional sightings for a period of
30 minutes.
(e) 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.
(f) Additional mitigation measures as
contained in an LOA.
§ 218.55 Requirements for monitoring and
reporting.
(a) Holders of LOAs issued pursuant
to § 218.56 for activities described in
§ 218.50(a) are required to cooperate
with NMFS, and any other Federal,
state, or local agency with authority to
monitor the impacts of the activity on
marine mammals. Unless specified
otherwise in the LOA, the Holder of the
LOA must notify the Pacific Islands
Region Stranding Coordinator, NMFS,
by email, at least 72 hours prior to LRS
WSEP missions. If the authorized
activity identified in § 218.50(a) is
thought to have resulted in the mortality
or injury of any marine mammals or
take of marine mammals not identified
in § 218.50(b), then the Holder of the
LOA must notify the Director, Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, or
designee, by telephone (301–427–8401),
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21183
within 48 hours of the injury or death.
The Holder of the LOA must also
contact the Pacific Islands Region
stranding coordinator, NMFS, by email,
at least one business day after
completion of missions to declare that
missions are complete.
(b) The Holder of the LOA will use
mission reporting forms to track their
use of the PMRF BSURE area for the
LRS WSEP missions and to track marine
mammal observations.
(c) Aerial surveys—Pre-mission aerial
surveys and post-mission aerial surveys
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. The proposed monitoring area
would be approximately 8 miles (13
kilometers) 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.
(d) The Holder of the LOA is required
to:
(1) Submit a draft report to NMFS
OPR on all monitoring conducted under
the LOA within 90 days of the
completion of marine mammal
monitoring, or 60 days prior to the
issuance of any subsequent LOA for
projects at the 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 a
minimum (see www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
permits/incidental/construction.htm),
and shall also include:
(i) Date and time of each LRS WSEP
mission;
(ii) 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
(iii) Results of the monitoring
program, including numbers by species/
stock of any marine mammals noted
injured or killed as a result of the LRS
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21184
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules
WSEP mission and number of marine
mammals (by species if possible) that
may have been harassed due to presence
within the zone of influence.
(2) The draft report will be subject to
review and comment by NMFS. Any
recommendations made by NMFS must
be addressed in the final report prior to
acceptance by NMFS. The draft report
will be considered the final report for
this activity under the LOA if NMFS has
not provided comments and
recommendations within 90 days of
receipt of the draft report.
(e) Reporting injured or dead marine
mammals:
(1) In the unanticipated event that the
specified activity clearly causes the take
of a marine mammal in a manner
prohibited by the LOA, 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:
(i) Time and date of the incident;
(ii) Description of the incident;
(iii) Environmental conditions (e.g.,
wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea
state, cloud cover, and visibility);
(iv) Description of all marine mammal
observations in the 24 hours preceding
the incident;
(v) Species identification or
description of the animal(s) involved;
(vi) Fate of the animal(s); and
(vii) Photographs or video footage of
the animal(s).
(2) 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. The 86 FWS may not
resume their activities until notified by
NMFS.
(3) 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.
(4) The report must include the same
information identified in paragraph
(e)(i) of this section. Activities may
continue while NMFS reviews the
circumstances of the incident. NMFS
will work with 86 FWS to determine
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 May 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
whether additional mitigation measures
or modifications to the activities are
appropriate.
(5) 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
LOA (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. The 86 FWS
shall provide photographs or video
footage or other documentation of the
stranded animal sighting to NMFS.
(f) Additional Conditions. (1) The
Holder of the LOA must inform the
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, (301–427–8400) or designee
(301–427–8401) prior to the initiation of
any changes to the monitoring plan for
a specified mission activity.
(2) A copy of the LOA must be in the
possession of the safety officer on duty
each day that long range strike missions
are conducted.
(3) The LOA 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.
§ 218.56
Letters of Authorization.
(a) To incidentally take marine
mammals pursuant to these regulations,
86 FWS must apply for and obtain an
LOA.
(b) An LOA, unless suspended or
revoked, may be effective for a period of
time not to exceed the expiration date
of these regulations.
(c) If an LOA expires prior to the
expiration date of these regulations, 86
FWS must apply for and obtain a
renewal of the LOA.
(d) In the event of projected changes
to the activity or to mitigation and
monitoring measures required by an
LOA, 86 FWS must apply for and obtain
a modification of the LOA as described
in § 218.57.
(e) The LOA will set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental
taking;
(2) The number of marine mammals,
by species and age class, authorized to
be taken;
(3) Means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impact (i.e.,
mitigation) on the species of marine
mammals authorized for taking, on its
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
habitat, and on the availability of the
species for subsistence uses; and
(4) Requirements for monitoring and
reporting.
(f) Issuance of an LOA shall be based
on a determination that the level of
taking will be consistent with the
findings made for the total taking
allowable under these regulations.
(g) Notice of issuance or denial of an
LOA will be published in the Federal
Register within 30 days of a
determination.
§ 218.57 Renewals and Modifications of
Letters of Authorization.
(a) An LOA issued under § 216.106
and § 218.56 of this chapter for the
activity identified in § 218.50(a) will be
renewed or modified upon request by
the applicant, provided that:
(1) The proposed specified activity
and mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting measures, as well as the
anticipated impacts, are the same as
those described and analyzed for these
regulations (excluding changes made
pursuant to the adaptive management
provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section), and
(2) NMFS determines that the
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
measures required by the previous LOA
under these regulations were
implemented.
(b) For an LOA modification or
renewal request by the applicant that
include changes to the activity or the
mitigation, monitoring, or reporting
(excluding changes made pursuant to
the adaptive management provision in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section) that do
not change the findings made for the
regulations or result in no more than a
minor change in the total estimated
number of takes (or distribution by
species or years), NMFS may publish a
notice of proposed LOA in the Federal
Register, including the associated
analysis illustrating the change, and
solicit public comment before issuing
the LOA.
(c) An LOA issued under § 216.106
and § 218.56 of this chapter for the
activity identified in § 218.50(a) may be
modified by NMFS under the following
circumstances:
(1) Adaptive Management—NMFS
may modify (including augment) the
existing mitigation, monitoring, or
reporting measures (after consulting
with 86 FWS regarding the
practicability of the modifications) if
doing so creates a reasonable likelihood
of more effectively accomplishing the
goals of the mitigation and monitoring
set forth in the preamble for these
regulations.
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 86 / Friday, May 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(i) Possible sources of data that could
contribute to the decision to modify the
mitigation, monitoring, or reporting
measures in an LOA are:
(A) Results from 86 FWS’s monitoring
from previous years;
(B) Results from other marine
mammal and sound research or studies;
and
(C) Any information that reveals
marine mammals may have been taken
in a manner, extent or number not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 May 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
authorized by these regulations or
subsequent LOAs.
(ii) If, through adaptive management,
the modifications to the mitigation,
monitoring, or reporting measures are
substantial, NMFS will publish a notice
of proposed LOA in the Federal
Register and solicit public comment.
(2) Emergencies—If NMFS determines
that an emergency exists that poses a
significant risk to the well-being of the
species or stocks of marine mammals
specified LOAs issued pursuant to
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
21185
§ 216.106 and 218.50 of this chapter, an
LOA may be modified without prior
notice or opportunity for public
comment. Notice would be published in
the Federal Register within 30 days of
the action.
218.58
[Reserved]
218.59
[Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2017–09137 Filed 5–4–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 86 (Friday, May 5, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21156-21185]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09137]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 218
[Docket No. 201135-7135-01]
RIN 0648-BG65
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 Weapons System 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: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received an application, pursuant to the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), from the U.S. Air Force 86 Fighter
Weapons Squadron (86 FWS) for authorization to take marine mammals
incidental to Long Range Strike Weapons System Evaluation Program (LRS
WSEP) activities in the Barking Sands Underwater Range Expansion
(BSURE) area of the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) off Kauai,
Hawaii, for the period of August 23, 2017, through August 22, 2022.
NMFS is proposing regulations to govern that take, and requests
comments on the proposed regulations.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than June 5,
2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document by either of the
following methods:
Electronic submission: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov, enter 0648-BG65 in the ``Search'' box, click the
``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter or
attach your comments.
Mail: Comments 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.
Instructions: NMFS may not consider comments if they are sent by
any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after
the end of the comment period. Attachments to electronic comments will
be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF
[[Page 21157]]
file formats only. To help NMFS process and review comments more
efficiently, please use only one method to submit comments. All
comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be
posted on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the
commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential
business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields
if you wish to remain anonymous).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaclyn Daly, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability
A copy of 86 FWS's application and any supporting documents, as
well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be
obtained online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm. In case of problems accessing these documents, please
call the contact listed above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
The following associated documents are also available at the same
internet address: list of the references used in this document, the
seasonal parameters memo, and 86 FWS's Environmental Assessment (EA)
titled, ``Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment
for the Long Range Strike Weapon Systems Evaluation Program at the
Pacific Missile Range Facility at Kauai, Hawaii.'' Documents cited in
this notice may also be viewed, by appointment, during regular business
hours, at the aforementioned address.
Purpose and Need for Regulatory Action
This proposed rule, to be issued under the authority of the MMPA,
would establish a framework for authorizing the take of marine mammals
incidental to LRS WSEP activities in the BSURE area of the PMRF off
Kauai, Hawaii. We received an application from 86 FWS requesting 5-year
regulations and authorization for the take, by Level B harassment, of
16 species of marine mammals, and, by Level A harassment of 4 of those
species. The regulations would be valid from August 23, 2017, to August
22, 2022. Please see Background below for definitions of Level A and
Level B harassment.
Legal Authority for the Proposed Action
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A) directs
the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but
not intentional taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S.
citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial
fishing) within a specified geographical region for up to five years
if, after notice and public comment, the agency makes certain findings
and issues regulations that set forth permissible methods of taking
pursuant to that activity, as well as monitoring and reporting
requirements. Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and the implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 216, subpart I provide the legal basis for
issuing this proposed rule containing five-year regulations, and for
any subsequent Letters of Authorization (LOA) issued pursuant to those
regulations. As directed by this legal authority, this proposed rule
contains mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004
(Section 319, Pub. L. 108-136, November 24, 2003) (NDAA of 2004)
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, 16 U.S.C. 1362(18)(B)): ``(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 Major Provisions Within the Proposed Rule
Following is a summary of some of the major provisions in this
proposed rule for 86 FWS's LRS WSEP activities. We have preliminarily
determined that 86 FWS's adherence to the proposed mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting measures listed below would achieve the least
practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammals. They
include:
Restricting time of activities to missions that will occur
only during day-light hours, only on weekdays, and only during the
summer or fall months.
Conducting visual aerial surveys before and after mission
activities each day.
Delaying mission activities if a protected species is
observed in the impact zones, and resuming only after one of the
following conditions is met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the
impact area; or (2) the impact area has been clear of any additional
sightings for a period of 30 minutes.
If daytime weather and/or sea conditions preclude adequate
monitoring for detecting marine mammals and other marine life, delaying
LRS WSEP strike operations until adequate sea conditions exist for
monitoring to be undertaken.
Using mission reporting forms to track the use of the PMRF
for missions and protected species observations.
Submitting 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.
Using Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) by using the
Navy's hydrophones within the PMRF to collect data before, during, and
after LRS WSEP missions. This data will be stored at Space and Naval
Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) to be analyzed as funding allows.
If unauthorized takes of marine mammals (i.e., serious
injury or mortality) occur, ceasing operations and reporting to NMFS
and to the respective Pacific Islands Region stranding network
representative immediately and submitting a report to NMFS within 24
hours.
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA(16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)
and (D)) 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 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
[[Page 21158]]
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings
are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103
as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.
Summary of Request
On June 23, 2016, NMFS received a request for regulations from 86
FWS for the taking of small numbers of marine mammals incidental to LRS
WSEP activities in the BSURE area of the PMRF off Kauai, Hawaii. We
received revised drafts on November 29, 2016, and December 21, 2016,
which we considered adequate and complete. On January 6, 2017, we
published a notice of receipt of 86 FWS's application in the Federal
Register (82 FR 1702), requesting comments and information for thirty
days related to 86 FWS's request. We received comments from private
citizens, one marine mammal research organization, and six non-
governmental organization (NGOs), which we considered in the
development of this proposed rule.
The 86 FWS proposes taking marine mammals incidental to LRS WSEP
activities by Level B harassment of 16 species of marine mammals and by
Level A harassment of 4 of those species. NMFS has previously issued an
incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to 86 FWS authorizing the
taking of marine mammals incidental to LRS WSEP activities in the BSURE
area of the PMRF in 2016 (81 FR 67971; October 3, 2016). The
regulations proposed in this action, if issued, would be effective from
August 23, 2017, through August 22, 2022.
Description of the Specified Activity
Overview
The 86 FWS proposes to conduct air-to-surface missions 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, an increasing number of 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). 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.
LRSWSEP missions involve the use of multiple types of live and
inert munitions (bombs and missiles) scored above, at, or just below
the water's surface in the BSURE (Table 1). The ordnance may be
delivered by multiple types of aircraft, including bombers and fighter
aircraft. Weapon performance will be evaluated by an underwater
acoustic hydrophone array system as the weapons strike the water
surface. Net explosive weight of the live munitions ranges from 23 to
300 pounds (lbs). Missions will occur annually over five years from
2017 and 2021 (see Table 1), primarily during the summer but may occur
in the fall as well. All missions will be conducted during daylight
hours. LRS WSEP missions could potentially take 16 species of marine
mammals by Level B harassment, and additionally, 4 of those species by
Level A harassment.
Dates and Duration
The specified activity may occur during the summer months, or less
likely in fall months, during the five-year period of validity of the
proposed regulations. Missions will occur only on weekdays during
daytime hours. Missions will occur, on average, approximately five days
per year on consecutive days. The LOA would be valid from August 20,
2017, through August 19, 2022.
Specified Geographical Region
The specific planned impact area is approximately 44 nautical miles
(nmi) (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 188A (W-188A). The BSURE consists of about 900 nmi
\2\ of instrumented underwater ranges, encompassing the deep-water
portion of the PMRF and providing over 80 percent of the 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 nmi (17 km) from
the north shore of Kauai and extends out to 40 nmi (74 km) from shore.
The LRS WSEP missions would employ live weapons with long flight paths
requiring large amounts of airspace, and would 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 and bombs from aircraft toward the water surface.
Depending on the requirements of a given mission, munitions may be
inert (containing no explosives or only a ``spotting'' charge) or live
(containing explosive charges). Live munitions may detonate above, at,
or slightly below the water surface. The actions include air-to-surface
test missions of the Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile/Joint Air-
to-Surface Stand-off Missile-Extended Range (JASSM/JASSM-ER), Small
Diameter Bomb-I/II (SDB-I/II), High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile
(HARM), Joint Direct Attack Munition/Laser Joint Direct Attack Munition
(JDAM/LJDAM), and Miniature Air-Launched Decoy (MALD), including
detonations above the water, at the water surface, and slightly below
the water surface (Table 1).
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 and
[[Page 21159]]
flight termination system 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. Each LRS WSEP mission set will occur over
a maximum of five consecutive days per year. Approximately 10 Air Force
personnel would be on temporary duty to support each mission set.
Aircraft flight maneuver operations and weapon release would be
conducted in W-188A. 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 the PMRF.
Aircraft supporting LSR WSEP missions would primarily operate at high
altitudes--only flying below 3,000 ft 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
and sea turtles). Protected marine species aerial surveys would be
temporary (approximately 30 minutes) 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 the 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 nmi (370
km) and carries a 1,000-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 nmi (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 nmi (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.
High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM)
The HARM is a supersonic air-to-surface missile designed to seek
and destroy enemy radar-equipped air defense systems. The HARM has a
proportional guidance system that homes in on enemy radar emissions
through fixed antenna and seeker head in the missile nose. It has a
range of up to 80 nmi (148 km) and contains 45 lbs of TNT-equivalent
NEW. The explosive used is PBXN-107.
Joint Direct Attack Munition/Laser Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM/
LJDAM)
The JDAM is a smart GPS-INS weapon that uses an unguided gravity
bomb and adds a guidance and control kit, converting it to a precision-
guided munition. The LJDAM variant adds a laser sensor to the JDAM,
permitting guidance to a laser designated target. Both JDAM and LJDAM
contain 192 lbs of TNT-equivalent NEW with multiple fusing options,
with detonations occurring upon impact or with up to a 10-millisecond
delay.
Miniature Air Launched Decoy/Miniature Air Launched Decoy--Jamming
(MALD/MALD-J)
The MALD is an air-launched, expendable decoy that will provide the
Air Force the capability to simulate, deceive, decoy, and saturate an
enemy's threat integrated air defense system (IADS). The MALD
production has recently transitioned to include the MALD-J variant,
which has the same decoy capability of the MALD plus the addition of
jamming IADS. The MALD and MALD-J have ranges up to 500 nmi (926 km) to
include a 200 nmi (370 km) dash with a 30-minute loiter mode. It has no
warhead, and no detonation would occur upon impact with the water
surface.
Releases of live ordnance associated with 2017-2021 missions would
result in either airbursts, surface detonations, or subsurface
detonations (10-ft (3 m) water depth). Up to four SDB I/II munitions
could be released simultaneously, such that each ordnance would hit the
water surface within a few seconds of each other. Aside from the SDB-I/
II releases, all other weapons would be released separately, impacting
the water surface at different times. There will be a total of five
mission days per year during the time frame of 2017 to 2021.
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 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. These standard operating procedures are
[[Page 21160]]
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 nmi 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 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. The JDAM/LJDAM munitions would also be set to impact at
the same point on the water surface.
All missions would be conducted in accordance with applicable
flight safety, hazard area, and launch parameter requirements
established for the 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 nmi 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.
The 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.
The 86 FWS would also like to use a maximum of eight target boats
and a maximum of 5,000 20-mm gunnery rounds each year. The gunnery
rounds would be inert (do not contain explosives), which would minimize
the potential for fragmentation and creation of marine debris, and
would be fired against a target boat. Because the use of target boats
with inert munitions does not have an acoustic component, it would not
take any marine mammals, and is therefore not discussed further.
Table 1--Summary of Proposed Testing at the PMRF From 2017 to 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Proposed Releases
Type of munition Live or inert NEW Type of aircraft Detonation scenario --------------------------------------------
(lb) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JASSM/JASSM-ER................... Live................ 300 Bomber, Fighter..... Surface............ 6 6 6 6 6
SDB-I............................ Live................ 37 Bomber, Fighter..... Surface............ 30 30 30 30 30
SDB-II........................... Live................ 23 Bomber, Fighter..... Surface............ 30 30 30 30 30
HARM............................. Live................ 45 Fighter............. Surface............ 10 10 10 10 10
JDAM/LJDAM....................... Live................ 192 Bomber, Fighter..... Subsurface \1\..... 30 30 30 30 30
MALD/MALD-J...................... Inert............... N/A Fighter............. N/A................ 4 4 4 4 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARM = High Anti-Radiation Missile; JASSM = Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile; JASSM-ER = Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile--Extended Range;
JDAM = Joint Direct Attack Munition; lb = pounds; LJDAM = Laser Joint Direct Attack Munition; MALD = Miniature Air Launched Decoy; MALD-J = Miniature
Air Launched Decoy--Jamming; N/A = not applicable (inert); SDB = Small Diameter Bomb
\1\ Assumes a 10-millisecond time-delayed fuse resulting in detonation occurring at an approximate 10-foot water depth.
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' draft 2016 Stock
Assessment Reports (SAR), available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars for
more detailed accounts of these stocks' status and abundance.
[[Page 21161]]
Table 2--Marine Mammals That Could Occur in the BSURE Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock abundance
ESA/MMPA status; (CV, Nmin, most Occurrence in BSURE
Species Stock strategic (Y/N) \1\ recent abundance PBR \3\ area
survey) \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family: Balaenopteridae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale (Megaptera Central North Pacific. N; Y.................. 10,103 (0.300; 7,890; 83................... Seasonal; throughout
novaeangliae) \4\. 2006). known breeding
grounds during
winter and spring
(most common
November through
April).
Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus). Central North Pacific. Y; Y.................. 81 (1.14; 38; 2010).. 0.1.................. Seasonal; infrequent
winter migrant; few
sightings, mainly
fall and winter;
considered rare.
Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus... Hawaii................ Y; Y.................. 58 (1.12; 27; 2010).. 0.1.................. Seasonal, mainly fall
and winter;
considered rare.
Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis).. Hawaii................ Y; Y.................. 178 (0.90; 93; 2010). 0.2.................. Rare; limited
sightings of
seasonal migrants
that feed at higher
latitudes.
Bryde's whale (Balaenoptera brydei/ Hawaii................ -; N.................. 798 (0.28; 633; 2010) 6.3.................. Uncommon; distributed
edeni). throughout the
Hawaiian Exclusive
Economic Zone.
Minke whale (Balaenoptera Hawaii................ -; N.................. n/a (n/a; n/a; 2010). Undet................ Regular but seasonal
acutorostrata). (October-April).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family: Physeteridae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sperm whale (Physeter Hawaii................ Y; Y.................. 3,354 (0.34; 2,539; 10.2................. Widely distributed
macrocephalus). 2010). 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 breviceps) Hawaii................ -; N.................. n/a (n/a; n/a; 2010). Undet................ Widely distributed
year round; more
likely in waters >
1,000 m depth.
Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima)..... Hawaii................ -; N.................. n/a (n/a; n/a; 2010). Undet................ Widely 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; 2010). 1.................... Uncommon; infrequent
sightings.
False killer whale (Pseudorca Hawaii Pelagic........ -; N.................. 1,540 (0.66; 928; 9.3.................. Regular.
crassidens). 2010).
NWHI Stock............ -; N.................. 617 (1.11; 290; 2010) 2.3.................. Regular.
Pygmy killer whale (Feresa Hawaii................ -; N.................. 3,433 (0.52; 2,274; 23................... Year-round resident.
attenuata). 2010).
Short-finned pilot whale Hawaii................ -; N.................. 12,422 (0.43; 8,872; 70................... Commonly observed
(Globicephala macrorhynchus). 2010). around Main Hawaiian
Islands and
Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands.
Melon headed whale (Peponocephala Hawaii Islands stock.. -; N.................. 5,794 (0.20; 4,904; 4.................... Regular.
electra). 2010).
[[Page 21162]]
Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops Hawaii pelagic........ -; N.................. 5,950 (0.59; 3,755; 38................... Common in deep
truncatus). 2010). offshore waters.
Pantropical spotted dolphin Hawaii pelagic........ -; N.................. 15,917 (0.40; 11,508; 115.................. Common; primary
(Stenella attenuata). 2010). occurrence between
100 and 4,000 m
depth.
Striped dolphin (Stenella Hawaii................ -; N.................. 20,650 (0.36; 15,391; 154.................. Occurs regularly year
coeruleoala). 2010). round but infrequent
sighting during
survey.
Spinner dolphin (Stenella Hawaii pelagic........ -; N.................. n/a (n/a; n/a; 2010). Undet................ Common year-round in
longirostris). offshore waters.
Rough-toothed dolphins (Steno Hawaii stock.......... -; N.................. 6,288 (0.39; 4,581; 46................... Common throughout the
bredanensis). 2010). Main Hawaiian
Islands and Hawaiian
Islands EEZ.
Fraser's dolphin (Lagenodelphis Hawaii................ -; N.................. 16,992 (0.66; 10,241; 102.................. Tropical species only
hosei). 2010). recently documented
within Hawaiian
Islands EEZ (2002
survey).
Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus).. Hawaii................ -; N.................. 7,256 (0.41; 5,207; 42................... Previously considered
2010). 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 Hawaii................ -; N.................. 1,941 (n/a; 1,142; 11.4................. Year-round occurrence
cavirostris). 2010). but difficult to
detect due to diving
behavior.
Blainville's beaked whale Hawaii................ -; N.................. 2,338 (1.13; 1,088; 11................... Year-round occurrence
(Mesoplodon densirostris). 2010). but difficult to
detect due to diving
behavior.
Longman's beaked whale (Indopacetus Hawaii................ -; N.................. 4,571 (0.65; 2,773; 28................... Considered rare;
pacificus). 2010). however, multiple
sightings during
2010 survey.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order--Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia (seals, sea lions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family: Phocidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaiian monk seal (Neomonachus Hawaii................ Y; Y.................. 1,112 (n/a; 1,088; Undet................ Predominantly occur
schauinslandi). 2013). at Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands;
approximately 138
individuals in Main
Hawaiian Islands.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (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 (PBR), 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, 5 are listed as endangered under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and as depleted throughout their range
under the MMPA. These are: Blue whale, fin whale, sei whale, sperm
whale, and the Hawaiian monk seal. Only one of these species, the sei
whale, may be impacted by 86 FWS's activities.
Of the 25 species that may occur in Hawaiian waters, only certain
stocks occur in the impact area during the season in which LRS WSEP
activities may occur. Sixteen species are
[[Page 21163]]
considered likely to be in the impact area during the five days of
project activities. Although sperm whales are frequently detected in
this area and have even been satellite-tagged with presence in this
area of the PMRF (Baird 2016), because of the low density of this
species and the short duration of mission activities, take was not
requested for this species. Similarly, large baleen whales like the fin
and blue whales occur in this area in all or most months of the year;
however, their densities during the time of the 86 FWS's activities are
very low (or 0) that the probability they will be impacted by the
mission activities during the 4 hours per day on the 5 days over the
course of the year is minimal, and no take was modeled or requested for
these species.
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 16 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.
Humpback Whale
Humpback whales are found worldwide in all ocean basins. In winter,
most humpback whales occur in the subtropical and tropical waters of
the Northern and Southern Hemispheres (Muto et al., 2015). These
wintering grounds are used for mating, giving birth, and nursing new
calves. Humpback whales migrate nearly 3,000 mi (4,830 km) from their
winter breeding grounds to their summer foraging grounds in Alaska.
There are five stocks of humpback whales, one of which occurs in
Hawaii: The Central North Pacific Stock, which consists of winter/
spring populations in the Hawaiian Islands, which migrate primarily to
northern British Columbia/Southeast Alaska, the Gulf of Alaska, and the
Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (Muto et al., 2015). The current abundance
estimate for the Central North Pacific stock is 10,103 animals, with
potential biological removal (PBR) at 83 animals, and this stock is
considered a strategic stock (Muto et al., 2015). Humpback whales occur
seasonally in Hawaii, with peak sightings between December and May each
year; however, sightings have occurred in other months in very low
numbers. Most humpback whales congregate off the island of Maui in the
shallow protected waters, but can be seen off all of the islands,
including the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (Baird 2016).
Humpback whales were listed as endangered under the Endangered
Species Conservation Act (ESCA) in June 1970. In 1973, the ESA replaced
the ESCA, and humpbacks continued to be listed as endangered. NMFS
recently evaluated the status of the species, and on September 8, 2016,
NMFS divided the species into 14 distinct population segments (DPS),
removed the current species-level listing, and in its place listed four
DPSs as endangered and one DPS as threatened (81 FR 62259, September 8,
2016). The remaining nine DPSs were not listed. There is one DPS that
occurs in the action area: The Hawaii DPS, which is not listed under
the ESA (81 FR 62259). Because this rule resulted in the designation of
DPSs in the North Pacific, a parallel revision of MMPA population
structure in the North Pacific is currently being considered.
Sei Whale
Sei whales occur seasonally in Hawaii in the winter and spring
months and feed in higher latitude feeding grounds in the summer and
fall (Carretta et al., 2014). Sightings of this species are rare in
Hawaii. This species stays offshore of the islands in deeper waters
(Baird 2016). Average group size for this species is 3.1 animals
(Bradford et al., 2017).
The abundance estimate for this stock from a 2010 survey is 178
animals (Carretta et al., 2014). More recent estimates, based on the
2010 survey pooled with sightings collected during previous NMFS
surveys of the eastern Pacific, estimate the Hawaii stock of sei whales
to be 391 individuals (Bradford et al., 2017). PBR is currently 0.2 sei
whales per year (Carretta et al., 2014). The main threats to this stock
are fisheries interactions and increasing levels of anthropogenic sound
in the ocean (Carretta et al., 2014). This stock is listed as
endangered under the ESA, and is considered a depleted and strategic
stock under the MMPA.
Minke Whale
Minke whales occur seasonally in Hawaii (Carretta et al., 2014).
Sightings of this species are rare; however, acoustic detection of
their ``boing'' sounds are common. An acoustic study from 2007-2008 at
a location 100 km north of the island of Oahu detected boings
throughout the winter and spring months from October until May, with a
peak in March (Baird 2016).
The current abundance estimate for this stock is unknown and,
therefore, PBR is also unknown (Carretta et al., 2014). There is
insufficient data to determine trends in the population. The main
threat to this stock is the increasing level of anthropogenic sound in
the ocean (Carretta et al., 2014). This stock is not listed as
endangered or threatened under the ESA and is not considered strategic
or designated as depleted under the MMPA (Carretta et al., 2014).
Pygmy Sperm Whale
Pygmy sperm whales are found in tropical and warm-temperate 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 2016). Sightings are rare of this species, but
observations include lone individuals or pairs, with an average group
size of 1.5 individuals (Baird 2016).
There is a single stock of Pygmy sperm 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.
(Carretta et al., 2014). The main threats to this species are fisheries
interactions and effects from underwater sounds such as active sonar
(Carretta et al., 2014). This stock is not listed as endangered or
threatened under the ESA and is not considered strategic or designated
as depleted under the MMPA (Carretta et al., 2014).
Dwarf Sperm Whale
Dwarf sperm whales are found throughout the world in tropical to
warm-temperate waters (Carretta 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 2016). 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 observed group size of eight
individuals (Baird 2016). When there are more than two animals
together, they are often loosely associated, with up to several hundred
meters between pairs of individuals (Baird 2016).
[[Page 21164]]
There is one stock of dwarf sperm whales in Hawaii. Sighting data
suggests a small resident population off Hawaii Island (Baird 2016).
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
2016). 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 (Carretta et al., 2014).
Pygmy Killer Whale
Pygmy killer whales are found in tropical and subtropical waters.
The Hawaii stock occurs year round in Hawaii and has a small resident
population within the main Hawaiian islands (Carretta et al., 2014).
This resident group stays within 20 km of shore (Carretta et al., 2014)
in water depths between 500 and 3,500 m (Baird 2016), while other
populations may move farther offshore. The resident population is less
common off the islands of Kauai and Niihau (Baird 2016). This stock
forms stable social groups, with group sizes ranging from 2 to 33
individuals, and with average group sizes of 9 individuals (Baird
2016). Other research suggests a larger average group size of 25.7
animals (Bradford et al., 2017), but most of these sightings were
farther offshore in pelagic waters.
The most recent abundance estimate for this group in the SAR is
3,433 animals with PBR at 23 animals (Carretta et al., 2014). More
recently, the abundance estimate for this stock, based on a 2010 survey
pooled with sightings collected during previous NMFS surveys of the
eastern Pacific, is 10,640 animals (Bradford et al., 2017). The main
threats for this stock include fisheries interactions and increases in
underwater sound in the ocean (Carretta et al., 2014). This stock is
not listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA and is not
considered a depleted or strategic stock under the MMPA (Carretta et
al., 2014).
Short-Finned Pilot Whale
Short-finned pilot whales are found primarily in tropical and warm-
temperate waters (Carretta et al., 2014). This species prefers deeper
waters, ranging from 324 m to 4,400 m, with most sightings between 500
m and 3,000 m (Baird 2016). There are multiple resident populations in
Hawaii, with small home ranges around one or two islands, as well as a
pelagic population (Baird 2016). This stock forms stable social groups,
with average group size of 18 individuals, but may form large
aggregations of close to 200 individuals (Baird 2016). Other research
suggests a larger average group size of 40.9 individuals (Bradford et
al., 2017), but most of these sightings were farther offshore in
pelagic waters.
The most recent abundance estimate for this group in the SAR is
12,422 animals with PBR at 70 animals (Carretta et al., 2014). More
recently, the abundance estimate for this stock, based on a 2010 survey
pooled with sightings collected during previous NMFS surveys of the
eastern Pacific, is 19,503 animals (Bradford et al., 2017). The main
threat to this stock is interactions with fisheries (Carretta et al.,
2014). This stock is not listed as endangered or threatened under the
ESA and is not considered a depleted or strategic stock under the MMPA
(Carretta et al., 2014).
Melon-Headed Whale
Melon-headed whales are found in tropical and warm-temperate waters
(Carretta et al., 2014). There are two demographically-independent
populations in Hawaii, the Hawaiian Islands stock and the Kohala
resident stock (Carretta et al., 2014). The resident stock have a small
range restricted to the shallow waters around Hawaii Island, whereas
the Hawaiian Islands stock are found all throughout the islands and out
into the pelagic areas (Carretta et al., 2014). Only the latter stock
may be affected by 86 FWS's activities. This stock prefers waters
deeper than 1,000 m (Baird 2016). This species forms large groups, with
average group size of almost 250 individuals, with the largest group
documented at close to 800 individuals (Baird 2016). Other research
suggests a smaller average group size of 153 individuals (Bradford et
al., 2017).
The most recent abundance estimate for this stock in the SAR is
2,860 animals with PBR at 49 animals (Carretta et al., 2014). More
recently, the abundance estimate for this stock, based on a 2010 survey
pooled with sightings collected during previous NMFS surveys of the
eastern Pacific, is 8,666 individuals (Bradford et al., 2017). The main
threat to this species is human induced, most likely through fisheries
interactions (Carretta et al., 2014) and mid-frequency sonar testing
(Baird 2016). This stock is not listed as endangered or threatened
under the ESA and is not considered a depleted or strategic stock under
the MMPA (Carretta et al., 2014).
Bottlenose Dolphin
Bottlenose dolphins are found in tropical to warm-temperate waters
(Carretta et al., 2014). They are common throughout the Hawaiian
Islands, with coastal and offshore forms, and with limited range
movements between islands and offshore waters (Carretta et al., 2014).
There are four resident populations: (1) Kauai/Niihau, (2) Oahu, (3)
the 4-island region, and (4) Hawaii; as well as one pelagic stock,
which is separated by the 1,000 m isobaths (Carretta et al., 2014).
Only the pelagic population is considered here. Average group size of
bottlenose dolphins is 33.5 individuals (Bradford et al., 2017).
The most recent abundance estimate for the pelagic stock in the SAR
is 3,755 animals with PBR at 38 animals (Carretta et al., 2014). More
recently, the abundance estimate for all of the stocks in Hawaii, based
on a 2010 survey pooled with sightings collected during previous NMFS
surveys of the eastern Pacific, is 21,815 individuals (Bradford et al.,
2017); however, this may be an overestimate since most of the sightings
were in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (Baird 2016). This stock is
not listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA and is not
considered a depleted or strategic stock under the MMPA (Carretta et
al., 2014).
Pantropical Spotted Dolphin
Pantropical spotted dolphins are found in tropical and subtropical
waters (Carretta et al., 2014). There are four stocks in Hawaii: (1)
The Oahu stock, (2) the 4-Island stock, (3) the Hawaii Island stock,
and (4) the Hawaii pelagic stock. Only the pelagic stock is considered
here. This species prefers deeper waters between 1,500 m and 3,000 m
(Baird 2016). This species forms large groups with average group size
of 60 individuals, with the largest group estimated at 400 individuals
(Baird 2016). Other research suggests a smaller average group size of
43.2 individuals (Bradford et al., 2017).
The most recent abundance estimate for the pelagic stock in the SAR
is 15,917 animals with PBR at 115 animals (Carretta et al., 2014). More
recently, the abundance estimate for all of the stocks in Hawaii, based
on a 2010 survey pooled with sightings collected during previous NMFS
surveys of the eastern Pacific, is 55,795 individuals (Bradford et al.,
2017). The main threat to this species is interactions with fisheries
(Baird 2016). This stock is not listed as endangered or threatened
under the
[[Page 21165]]
ESA and is not considered a depleted or strategic stock under the MMPA
(Carretta et al., 2014).
Striped Dolphin
Striped dolphins are found in tropical to warm-temperate waters
(Carretta et al., 2014). There is one stock of striped dolphins in
Hawaii. This is a deep water species, preferring depths greater than
3,500 m (Baird 2016). This species forms large groups, with an average
group size of 28 individuals, and a maximum group size of 100
individuals (Baird 2016). Other research suggests a larger average
group size of 52.6 individuals (Bradford et al., 2017).
The most recent abundance estimate for the pelagic stock in the SAR
is 20,651 animals with PBR at 154 animals (Carretta et al., 2014). More
recently, the abundance estimate for all of the stocks in Hawaii, based
on a 2010 survey pooled with sightings collected during previous NMFS
surveys of the eastern Pacific, is 61,201 individuals (Bradford et al.,
2017). The main threat to this species is disease (Carretta et al.,
2014). This stock is not listed as endangered or threatened under the
ESA and is not considered a depleted or strategic stock under the MMPA
(Carretta et al., 2014).
Spinner Dolphin
Spinner dolphins are found in tropical and warm-temperate waters
(Carretta et al., 2014). There are six stocks in the main Hawaiian
islands: (1) Kauai/Niihau stock, (2) Oahu and the 4-Islands region, (3)
Hawaii island stock, (4) Pearl & Hermes Reef, (5) Kure/Midway, and (6)
pelagic stock. The boundary between the island-associated stocks and
the pelagic stock is 10 nmi from shore (Carretta et al., 2014). Only
the pelagic stock is considered here. The offshore stock is rarely
sighted (Baird 2016), and most of the deep water activity is at night
when they feed. The average group size for this species is 30
individuals with larger groups of nearly 300 animals observed (Baird
2016).
The most recent abundance estimate for the pelagic stock in the SAR
is 3,351 animals from a 2002 survey, which is outdated (Carretta et
al., 2014). The main threat to this species is the constant
interactions with humans during the day-time when they are resting
(Carretta et al., 2014; Baird 2016). This stock is not listed as
endangered or threatened under the ESA and is not considered a depleted
or strategic stock under the MMPA (Carretta et al., 2014).
Rough-Toothed Dolphin
Rough-toothed dolphins are found in tropical and warm-temperate
waters (Carretta et al., 2014). While there is evidence for two island-
associated stocks and one pelagic stock in Hawaii, there is only one
stock designated for Hawaii (Carretta et al., 2014). Most sightings of
this species off Kauai are in water depths of less than 1,000 m;
however, it is the most often sighted species in depths greater than
3,000 m (Baird 2016). This species forms stable associations as part of
larger groups, with average group sizes of 11 animals and maximum group
sizes, observed off Kauai, of 140 individuals (Baird 2016). Other
research suggests a larger average group size of 25.3 individuals
(Bradford et al., 2017).
The most recent abundance estimate for the pelagic stock in the SAR
is 6,288 animals with PBR at 46 animals (Carretta et al., 2014). More
recently, the abundance estimate for all of the stocks in Hawaii, based
on a 2010 survey pooled with sightings collected during previous NMFS
surveys of the eastern Pacific, is 72,528 individuals (Bradford et al.,
2017). The main threat to this species is interactions with fisheries
(Carretta et al., 2014). This stock is not listed as endangered or
threatened under the ESA and is not considered a depleted or strategic
stock under the MMPA (Carretta et al., 2014).
Fraser's Dolphin
Fraser's dolphin are found in tropical waters (Carretta et al.,
2011). This is a deep water species occurring offshore of the Hawaiian
islands, with sightings occurring in water depths between 1,515 m and
4,600 m (Baird 2016). This species forms large groups with average
group sizes between 75 and 110 individuals (Baird 2016). Other research
suggests a larger average group size of 283.3 individuals (Bradford et
al., 2017).
The most recent abundance estimate for the pelagic stock in the SAR
is 10,226 animals with PBR at 47 animals (Carretta et al., 2011). More
recently, the abundance estimate for all of the stocks in Hawaii, based
on a 2010 survey pooled with sightings collected during previous NMFS
surveys of the eastern Pacific, is 51,491 individuals (Bradford et al.,
2017). This stock is not listed as endangered or threatened under the
ESA and is not considered a depleted or strategic stock under the MMPA
(Carretta et al., 2011).
Risso's Dolphin
Risso's dolphins are found in tropical to warm-temperate waters
(Carretta et al., 2014). This is a deep water species, often found in
depths greater than 3,000 m, and with the highest sighting rate in
depths greater than 4,500 m (Baird 2016). This species forms small
groups, with an average group size of 4 individuals, and a maximum
group size of 25 individuals off the coast of Hawaii (Baird 2016).
Other research, which was conducted offshore, suggests a larger average
group size of 26.6 individuals (Bradford et al., 2017), which may be
more representative of this species since they occur more often
offshore in deeper waters.
The most recent abundance estimate for the pelagic stock in the SAR
is 7,256 animals with PBR at 42 animals (Carretta et al., 2014). More
recently, the abundance estimate for all of the stocks in Hawaii, based
on a 2010 survey pooled with sightings collected during previous NMFS
surveys of the eastern Pacific, is 11,613 individuals (Bradford et al.,
2017). The main threat to this species is interactions with fisheries
(Carretta et al., 2014). This stock is not listed as endangered or
threatened under the ESA and is not considered a depleted or strategic
stock under the MMPA (Carretta et al., 2014).
Longman's Beaked Whale
Longman's beaked whales are found in tropical waters from the
eastern Pacific westward through the Indian Ocean to the eastern coast
of Africa (Carretta et al., 2014). There is one stock in Hawaii. Group
sizes range from 18 to 110 individuals (Baird 2016), with an average
group size of 59.8 individuals (Bradford et al., 2017).
The most recent abundance estimate for the pelagic stock in the SAR
is 4,571 animals with PBR at 28 animals (Carretta et al., 2014). More
recently, the abundance estimate for all of the stocks in Hawaii, based
on a 2010 survey pooled with sightings collected during previous NMFS
surveys of the eastern Pacific, is 7,619 individuals (Bradford et al.,
2017). The main threats to this species are interactions with fisheries
and increasing sounds in the ocean, including military sonar (Carretta
et al., 2014). This stock is not listed as endangered or threatened
under the ESA and is not considered a depleted or strategic stock under
the MMPA (Carretta 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
[[Page 21166]]
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 on 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 [mu]Pa, and all airborne sound levels in
this document are referenced to a pressure of 20 [mu]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
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, and atmospheric sound), biological (e.g.,
sounds produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and
anthropogenic sound (e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, and
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,
and 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
[[Page 21167]]
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
When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the
marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds
of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Current
data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing
capabilities (Richardson et al., 1995; Southall et al., 1997; Wartzok
and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008).
Animals are less sensitive to sounds at the outer edges of their
functional hearing range and are more sensitive to a range of
frequencies within the middle of their functional hearing range. For
mid-frequency cetaceans, functional hearing estimates occur between
approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz, with best hearing estimated to occur
between approximately 10 to less than 100 kHz (Finneran et al., 2005
and 2009, Natchtigall et al., 2005 and 2008; Yuen et al., 2005; Popov
et al., 2010 and 2011; and Schlundt et al., 2011).
On August 4, 2016, NMFS released its Technical Guidance for
Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing
(81 FR 51694). This new guidance established new thresholds for
predicting onset of temporary (TTS) and permanent threshold shifts
(PTS) for impulsive (e.g., explosives and impact pile drivers) and non-
impulsive (e.g., vibratory pile drivers) sound sources. These acoustic
thresholds are presented using dual metrics of cumulative sound
exposure level (SELcum) and peak sound level (PK) for impulsive sounds
and SELcum for non-impulsive sounds. The lower and/or upper frequencies
for some of these functional hearing groups have been modified from
those designated by Southall et al. (2007), and the revised generalized
hearing ranges are presented in the new Guidance. The functional
hearing groups and the associated frequencies are indicated in Table 3
below.
Table 3--Marine Mammal Hearing Groups and Their Generalized Hearing
Range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing group Generalized hearing range *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen 7 Hz to 35 kHz.
whales).
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, 150 Hz to 160 kHz.
toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose
whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true 275 Hz to 160 kHz.
porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins,
cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus cruciger
and L. australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true 50 Hz to 86 kHz.
seals).
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea 60 Hz to 39 kHz.
lions and fur seals).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a
composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual
species' hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized
hearing range chosen based on ~65 dB threshold from normalized
composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF
cetaceans (Southall et al., 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).
There are sixteen marine mammal species with expected potential to
co-occur with 86 FWS LRS WSEP military readiness activities. These
species fall into the following hearing groups: (1) Low-frequency
cetaceans (humpback whale (Megaptera novanglieae), sei whale
(Balaenoptera borealis), and minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata));
(2) mid-frequency cetaceans (Pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata),
short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus), melon-headed
whale (Peponocephala electra), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus),
Pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata), striped dolphin
(Stenella coeruleoala), spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris), rough-
toothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis), Fraser's dolphin (Lagenodelphis
hosei), Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus), and Longman's beaked whale
(Indopacetus pacificus)); and (3) high-frequency cetaceans (Pygmy sperm
whale (Kogia breviceps), and dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima)). There are
no phocid or otariid species that will be impacted by 86 FWS's
activities. 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 as a result
of exposure to 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.
[[Page 21168]]
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 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 in 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 exist only 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,
and 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,
[[Page 21169]]
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, and
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 to 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). 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.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, and 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
[[Page 21170]]
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 subtler
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).
Disruptions 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 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, and 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, and precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g.,
shipping, sonar, and 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, and 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 it may
result in a 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 caused by anthropogenic noise may
be considered as a reduction in the communication space of animals
(e.g., Clark et al., 2009),
[[Page 21171]]
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 (e.g. flight responses, temporary
avoidance) 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 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 munitions in its
training exercises that may detonate above, at, or slightly below the
water surface. 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). 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
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
[[Page 21172]]
behavioral changes may include (Richardson et al., 1995): Changing
durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, 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
While it may occur temporarily, 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 marine mammals 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.
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. Although
strike from an item at the surface of the water while the animals are
at the surface is possible, the potential risk of a direct hit to an
animal within the target area would be low. 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.
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. The 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 TNT and
research department explosive (RDX), among others. Various byproducts
are produced during and immediately after detonation of TNT and RDX.
During the
[[Page 21173]]
very brief time that a detonation is in progress, intermediate products
may include carbon ions, nitrogen ions, oxygen ions, water, hydrogen
cyanide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen gas, nitrous oxide, cyanic acid, and
carbon dioxide (Becker 1995). However, reactions quickly occur between
the intermediates, and the final products consist mainly of water,
carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen gas, although small
amounts of other compounds are typically produced as well.
Chemicals introduced into the water column would be quickly
dispersed by waves, currents, and tidal action, and eventually become
uniformly distributed. A portion of the carbon compounds such as carbon
monoxide and carbon dioxide would likely become integrated into the
carbonate system (alkalinity and pH buffering capacity of seawater).
Some of the nitrogen and carbon compounds, including petroleum
products, would be metabolized or assimilated by phytoplankton and
bacteria. Most of the gas products that do not react with the water or
become assimilated by organisms would be released into the atmosphere.
Due to dilution, mixing, and transformation, none of these chemicals
are expected to have significant impacts on the marine environment.
Explosive material that is not consumed in a detonation could sink
to the substrate and bind to sediments. However, the quantity of such
materials is expected to be inconsequential. Research has shown that if
munitions function properly, nearly full combustion of the explosive
materials will occur, and only extremely small amounts of raw material
will remain. In addition, any remaining materials would be naturally
degraded. TNT decomposes when exposed to sunlight (ultraviolet
radiation) and is also degraded by microbial activity (Becker 1995).
Several types of microorganisms have been shown to metabolize TNT.
Similarly, RDX decomposes by hydrolysis, ultraviolet radiation
exposure, and biodegradation.
While 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 (ITA) under
section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible
methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of
affecting the least adverse impact practicable on such species or stock
and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating
grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of
such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses.
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:
Timing Restriction: The 86 FWS will be restricted to certain times
of the day and certain months of the year. All missions will occur on
weekdays during daylight hours only. Missions will not occur during the
months of January to May when transmission loss is greater due to
winter/spring seasonal conditions and when marine mammal densities are
higher.
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 a maximum 8-mi (13 km)
radius around the impact point with surveys typically flown in a star
pattern. This survey distance is much larger than requirements for
similar actions at the PMRF and what was accomplished for October 2016
missions. This expanded area would encompass the entire behavioral
threshold ranges (SEL) for all mid-frequency cetaceans, the entire PTS
threshold ranges (SEL) for low-frequency cetaceans and phocids,
approximately 23 percent of the TTS threshold ranges (SEL) for low-
frequency cetaceans and phocids, and about 64 percent of the PTS
threshold range (SEL) for high-frequency cetaceans (pygmy and dwarf
sperm whales) (Table 5). The survey distance would not cover the entire
behavioral harassment ranges for low- and high-frequency cetaceans and
phocids. 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 the 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 the PMRF. Aerial
surveys are typically conducted at an altitude of about 200 ft, 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 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,
[[Page 21174]]
the aircraft may fly the survey pattern multiple times.
Mission Delays: 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;
or (2) 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 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 a serious 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, 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. 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 (ZOI)
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 86 FWS's 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 the 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, Level
A harassment, and Level B harassment. 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, and
high-frequency cetaceans.
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 8 mi (13 km) from the target area radius around the
impact point, with surveys typically flown in a star pattern, which is
much larger than requirements already in place for similar actions at
the PMRF and what was accomplished for October 2016 missions.
NMFS discussed with the 86 FWS and the U.S. Navy--whose hydrophones
and PAM equipment in the PMRF would be used--the idea of using PAM for
mitigation purposes to supplement visual surveys. Through these
discussions, NMFS and 86 FWS attempted to determine if using PAM as a
mitigation tool was feasible. The Navy described the constraints of
using PAM as a real-time mitigation tool due to the limitations of the
current technology. These include limitations on the ability to detect,
classify, and estimate locations of marine mammals around the
equipment; the fact that marine mammals present in the area may not be
vocalizing; and the fact that vocalizations made by some species may be
outside of the frequency capabilities of the hydrophones. These
limitations are explained further, below.
In regards to the limitations to detect classify, and estimate
locations of marine mammals around the equipment, and the fact that
some of those animals may vocalize outside of the frequency
capabilities of the hydrophones, the Navy states:
Based on current capabilities, and given adequate time,
vocalizing animals within an indeterminate radius around a
particular phone are detected, but obtaining an estimated position
for all individual animals passing through a predetermined area is
not assured. Detecting vocalizations on a phone does not determine
whether vocalizing individuals would be within the established
mitigation zone in the timeframes required for mitigation. Since
detection ranges are generally larger than current mitigation zones
for many activities, this would unnecessarily delay events due to
uncertainty in the animals location.
To develop an estimated position for an individual, it must be
vocalizing and its vocalizations must be detected on at least three
hydrophones. The hydrophones must have the required bandwidth, and
dynamic range to capture the signal. In addition, calls must be
sufficiently loud so as to provide the required signal to noise
ratio on the surrounding hydrophones. Typically, small odontocetes
echolocate with a directed beam that makes detection of the call on
multiple hydrophones difficult. Developing an estimated position of
selected species requires the presence of whistles which may or may
not be produced depending on the behavioral state.
Large baleen species vocalize at frequencies well below 1 kHz.
There are few broadband phones with low frequency capabilities at
PMRF and they are widely spaced, especially on the southern portion
of the range. This makes estimating the positions of low frequency
baleen whales difficult in that area. For minke whale boings, it
takes 30 to 45 minutes of calling (e.g. observing 8 calls or more)
to have good confidence in a whale's estimated position.
Additionally, even minke whales that have been vocalizing for
extended periods can, and have, gone silent for hours at a time.
Extended gaps in calling have also been noted for fin, sei, and
Bryde's whales. We are currently unable to estimate positions of
humpbacks in real-time.
Beaked whales vocalize only during deep foraging dives which
occur at a rate of approximately 10 per day. They produce highly
directed echolocation clicks that are difficult to simultaneously
detect on multiple hydrophones. Current real-time systems cannot
follow individuals and at best produce sparse positions with
multiple false locations.
The position estimation process must occur in an area with
hydrophones spaced to allow the detection of the same echolocation
[[Page 21175]]
click on at least three hydrophones. Typically, a spacing of less
than 4 km in water depths of approximately 2 km is preferred. In the
absence of localizations, the analyst can only determine with
confidence if a group of beaked whales is somewhere within 6 km of a
hydrophone. Beaked whales produce stereotypic click trains during
deep (<700 m) foraging dives. The presence of a vocalizing group can
be readily detected by an analyst by examining the click structure
and repetition rate. However, estimating position is possible only
if the same train of clicks is detected on multiple hydrophones
which is often precluded by the animal's narrow beam pattern.
In regards to marine mammals not vocalizing in the area, the Navy
states:
Animals must vocalize to be detected; the lack of detections on
a hydrophone may give the false impression that the area is all
clear. The lack of vocalization detections is not a direct measure
of the absence of marine mammals. If an event were to be moved based
upon low-confidence localizations, it may inadvertently be moved to
an area where non-vocalizing animals of undetermined species/ESA
status are present.
NMFS decided that these analytical and technical limitations
preclude the use of PAM as a real-time mitigation tool. However, we
will require the use of PAM for monitoring purposes (as described
below).
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 adverse 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.
NMFS prescribes mitigation measures that 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 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 adverse 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 ITA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(A) of
the MMPA states that NMFS 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 ITAs
must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary
monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the
species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine
mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area.
The 86 FWS submitted marine mammal monitoring and reporting
measures in their LOA application. We may modify or supplement these
measures based on comments or new information received during the
public comment period. Any monitoring requirement we prescribe will
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 monitoring and reporting
measures in the LRS WSEP Authorization (if issued):
(1) Using mission reporting forms, the 86 FWS will track the use of
the PMRF for missions and protected species observations.
(2) The 86 FWS will submit a summary report of marine mammal
observations and LRS WSEP activities to the NMFS PIRO and the Office of
Protected Resources 90 days after completion of mission activities each
year. 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) The 86 FWS will monitor for marine mammals in the proposed
action area through pre-mission aerial visual surveys. If 86 FWS
personnel observe or detect any dead or injured marine
[[Page 21176]]
mammals prior to testing, or detect any injured or dead marine mammal
during live fire exercises, 86 FWS must cease operations and submit a
report to NMFS OPR and PIRO within 24 hours.
(4) The 86 FWS will monitor for marine mammals once the mission has
ended or, if required, as soon as personnel declare the mission area
safe. Post-mission aerial visual surveys 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. Post-
mission monitoring determines the effectiveness of pre-mission
mitigation by reporting sightings of any marine mammals within the ZOIs
that may have been affected by mission activities.
(5) As noted previously, PAM will not be used as a real-time
mitigation tool, but the 86 FWS will use PAM by using the Navy's
hydrophones for monitoring within the PMRF, by collecting data before,
during, and after LRS WSEP missions. This data will be stored at SPAWAR
to be analyzed as funding allows.
(6) The 86 FWS must immediately report any unauthorized takes of
marine mammals (i.e., serious injury or mortality) to NMFS OPR and to
the respective Pacific Islands Region stranding coordinator. The 86 FWS
must cease operations and submit a report to NMFS within 24 hours.
Adaptive Management
NMFS may modify (including augment) the existing mitigation,
monitoring, or reporting measures (after consulting with the 86 FWS
regarding the practicability of the modifications) if doing so creates
a reasonable likelihood of more effectively accomplishing the goals of
the mitigation and monitoring measures for these regulations.
Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision to
modify the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in an LOA
include: (1) Results from 86 FWS's monitoring from the previous
year(s); (2) results from other marine mammal and/or sound research or
studies; and (3) any information that reveals marine mammals may have
been taken in a manner, extent or number not authorized by these
regulations or subsequent LOAs.
If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the
mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS
will publish a notice of proposed LOA in the Federal Register and
solicit public comment. If, however, NMFS determines that an emergency
exists that poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species
or stocks of marine mammals in Hawaii, an LOA may be modified without
prior notice or opportunity for public comment. Notice would be
published in the Federal Register within 30 days of the action.
Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment
The NDAA of 2004 amended the definition of harassment as it applies
to a military readiness activity (Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA) to read
as follows: (i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential
to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A
Harassment); or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption
of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a
point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly
altered (Level B Harassment).
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 on 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 the PMRF BSURE area. As described
below, quantifying take includes a consideration of acoustic thresholds
identified by NMFS above which received levels marine mammals are
expected to be taken by either Level A or Level B harassment; predicted
distances from the sound sources within which animals are expected to
be exposed to sound levels above these thresholds; and the density of
marine mammals within the areas ensonified above the thresholds.
Level B Harassment
Of the potential effects described earlier in this document, the
following are the types of effects that would result from Level B
harassment:
Behavioral Harassment--Exposure to non-impulsive or impulsive
sound, which causes a behavioral disturbance that rises to the level
described in the above definition, 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 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 exposure to
explosives and other impulsive sources resulting in TTS as Level B
harassment, not Level A harassment.
Level A Harassment
Of the potential effects that were described earlier, the following
are the types of effects that result from Level A harassment and that
may be expected from 86 FWS activities:
Permanent Threshold Shift--PTS (resulting from exposure to
explosive detonations) is irreversible, and NMFS considers this to be
an injury.
Table 4 outlines the explosive thresholds used by NMFS for this
action when addressing noise impacts from explosives.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 21177]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY17.009
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
The 86 FWS completed acoustic modeling to determine the distances
from their explosive ordnance corresponding to NMFS' explosive
thresholds; these distances were then used with each species' density
to determine exposure estimates. Below is a summary of the methodology
for those modeling efforts.
The maximum estimated range, or radius, from the detonation point
to the point at 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. These calculations incorporated
water depth, sediment type, wind speed, bathymetry, and temperature/
salinity profiles (Table 5). Transmission loss was calculated from the
explosive source depth down to an array of water depth bins extending
to the maximum depths where marine mammals may occur (see depth
distributions in Appendix B of the 86 FWS's application). Then impact
volumes were computed for each explosive source (based on the total
number of munitions released on a representative mission day). Impact
areas were calculated from scaling the impact volumes by each depth
bin, dividing by their depth intervals, summing each value over the
entire water column and converting to square kilometers. The total
energy for all weapons released as part of a representative mission day
was calculated to assess impacts from the accumulated energy resulting
from multiple weapon releases within a 24-hour period. Given that there
is a large degree of uncertainty in knowing this far in advance what
types of explosives could be released on any particular mission day, in
order to calculate the number of munitions to be released per mission
day, the total number of each munition proposed to be released per year
was divided by the annual number of mission days.
Explosives generally will be separated by some number of minutes,
with the exception of up to four SDB-I/II munitions, which includes a
burst during which each ordnance hits the water surface within a few
seconds of each other. For the purposes of predicting the number of
exposures above threshold, calculating the area for each independent
explosive and then adding those areas together and multiplying by
species density would result in an overestimate. This is because all
explosions will occur within 4 hours and are generally targeting the
same spot, and several explosions have very large zones, so it is
likely that many of the exposures will be experienced by the same
individual animals. Therefore, to calculate take, we instead summed the
energy of the expected number of separate explosives per day to create
one area of impact to overlay with species density for that area. Since
there would be a total of five mission days per year during the time
frame of 2017--2021, the analysis assumed that in a representative
mission day the following munitions and quantities would be released
daily: One JASSM, six JDAMs, six SDB-Is, six SDB-IIs, and two HARMs.
The 86 FWS used the calculations for transmission loss from the
summer season in their model, because the parameters for the summer
were more conservative (i.e., resulted in larger
[[Page 21178]]
distances from the sound source) than for the fall, taking into account
wind speed, sound speed, and transmission loss (see 86 FWS's seasonal
parameters memo). Missions will most likely occur in the summer, but
may also occur in the fall. Transmission loss was calculated from the
explosive source depth down to an array of water depth bins extending
to the maximum depths where marine mammals may occur (see depth
distributions in Appendix B of the 86 FWS's application). Next, impact
volumes were computed for each explosive source (i.e., total number of
munitions released on a representative mission day). Impact areas were
calculated by scaling the impact volumes for each depth bin, dividing
by their depth intervals, summing each value over the entire water
column and converting to square kilometers. The radii shown in Table 5
are based on these impact areas, and were used for mitigation
considerations.
Table 5--Distances (m) to Explosive Thresholds Used To Calculate Predicted Take From 86 FWS's Daily Explosive Ordnance Use
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.................................. 99 200 204 5,415 1,241 55,464 2,266 59,039
Blue Whale...................................... 74 149 204 5,415 1,241 55,464 2,266 59,039
Fin Whale....................................... 76 157 204 5,415 1,241 55,464 2,266 59,039
Sei Whale....................................... 101 204 204 5,415 1,241 55,464 2,266 59,039
Bryde's Whale................................... 99 200 204 5,415 1,241 55,464 2,266 59,039
Minke Whale..................................... 138 268 204 5,415 1,241 55,464 2,266 59,039
Sperm Whale..................................... 91 177 204 1,575 413 8,019 763 11,948
Pygmy Sperm Whale............................... 248 457 204 20,058 4,879 71,452 7,204 74,804
Dwarf Sperm Whale............................... 273 509 204 20,058 4,879 71,452 7,204 74,804
Killer Whale.................................... 149 287 204 1,575 413 8,019 763 11,948
False Killer Whale (MHI Insular stock).......... 177 340 204 1,575 413 8,019 763 11,948
False Killer Whale (all other stocks)........... 177 340 204 1,575 413 8,019 763 11,948
Pygmy Killer Whale.............................. 324 604 204 1,575 413 8,019 763 11,948
Short-finned Pilot Whale........................ 217 413 204 1,575 413 8,019 763 11,948
Melon-headed Whale.............................. 273 502 204 1,575 413 8,019 763 11,948
Bottlenose Dolphin.............................. 273 509 204 1,575 413 8,019 763 11,948
Pantropical Spotted Dolphin..................... 324 604 204 1,575 413 8,019 763 11,948
Striped Dolphin................................. 324 604 204 1,575 413 8,019 763 11,948
Spinner Dolphin................................. 324 604 204 1,575 413 8,019 763 11,948
Rough-toothed Dolphin........................... 273 509 204 1,575 413 8,019 763 11,948
Fraser's Dolphin................................ 257 480 204 1,575 413 8,019 763 11,948
Risso's Dolphin................................. 207 384 204 1,575 413 8,019 763 11,948
Cuvier's Beaked Whale........................... 131 257 204 1,575 413 8,019 763 11,948
Blainville's Beaked Whale....................... 195 368 204 1,575 413 8,019 763 11,948
Longman's Beaked Whale.......................... 133 261 204 1,575 413 8,019 763 11,948
Hawaiian Monk Seal.............................. 306 564 204 4,621 1,394 55,687 2,549 58,736
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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
2016 Marine Species Density Database (NMSDD). The 86 FWS used fall
densities to estimate take. Fall densities are more conservative than
summer densities because they include more species. Density estimates
provided in Table 6 were extrapolated over the depth distributions by
multiplying the density values by the percentage of time spent at each
depth interval. These scaled densities were multiplied by the
corresponding depth bin in the impact volume for each threshold and
summed to create a three-dimensional exposure estimate. These estimates
were then multiplied by the number of events, or total annual number of
proposed mission days. 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 the Impact Location in the PMRF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density estimate (animals per square kilometer)
Species ---------------------------------------------------------------
Fall Spring Summer Winter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale.................................. 0.02110 0.02110 0 0.02110
Blue whale...................................... 0.00005 0.00005 0 0.00005
Fin whale....................................... 0.00006 0.00006 0 0.00006
Sei whale....................................... 0.00016 0.00016 0 0.00016
Bryde's whale................................... 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010
Minke whale..................................... 0.00423 0.00423 0 0.00423
Sperm whale..................................... 0.00156 0.00156 0.00156 0.00156
Pygmy sperm whale............................... 0.00291 0.00291 0.00291 0.00291
Dwarf sperm whale............................... 0.00714 0.00714 0.00714 0.00714
Killer whale.................................... 0.00006 0.00006 0.00006 0.00006
[[Page 21179]]
False killer whale (Main Hawaiian Islands 0.00080 0.00080 0.00080 0.00080
insular stock).................................
False killer whale (all other stocks)........... 0.00071 0.00071 0.00071 0.00071
Pygmy killer whale.............................. 0.00440 0.00440 0.00440 0.00440
Short-finned pilot whale........................ 0.00919 0.00919 0.00919 0.00919
Melon-headed whale.............................. 0.00200 0.00200 0.00200 0.00200
Bottlenose dolphin.............................. 0.00316 0.00316 0.00316 0.00316
Pantropical spotted dolphin..................... 0.00623 0.00623 0.00623 0.00623
Striped dolphin................................. 0.00335 0.00335 0.00335 0.00335
Spinner dolphin................................. 0.00204 0.00204 0.00204 0.00204
Rough-toothed dolphin........................... 0.00470 0.00470 0.00470 0.00470
Fraser's dolphin................................ 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021
Risso's dolphin................................. 0.00470 0.00470 0.00470 0.00470
Cuvier's beaked whale........................... 0.00030 0.00030 0.00030 0.00030
Blainville's beaked whale....................... 0.00086 0.00086 0.00086 0.00086
Longman's beaked whale.......................... 0.00310 0.00310 0.00310 0.00310
Hawaiian monk seal.............................. 0.00003 0.00003 0.00003 0.00003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Estimation
The resulting total number of marine mammals potentially exposed to
the various levels of thresholds (mortality, injury, and non-injurious
harassment, including behavioral harassment), in the absence of
mitigation measures, is listed in Table 7. 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 dual criteria (e.g., SEL and
SPL metrics for PTS associated with Level A harassment), numbers in the
table are based on the criterion resulting in the greatest number of
exposures. Exposure levels include the possibility of injury to marine
mammals and harassment (resulting in behavioral disruption (Level B
harassment) in the absence of mitigation measures. The numbers
represent total impacts for all detonations combined and do not take
into account the required mitigation and monitoring measures (see
Section 11 of the 86 FWS's application), which are expected to decrease
the number of exposures shown in the Table 7.
The 86 FWS and NMFS estimated that 16 species could be exposed to
noise levels constituting Level B harassment (TTS and behavioral
disruption), and 4 of those marine mammal species could be exposed to
injurious noise levels (Level A harassment) (187 dB SEL) in the absence
of mitigation measures.
Table 7--Modeled Number of Marine Mammals Potentially Affected Annually by LRS WSEP Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Level B Level B
Species Mortality harassment harassment harassment
(PTS only *) (TTS) (behavioral)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mysticetes (baleen whales)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale.................................. 0 4 54 38
Blue whale...................................... 0 0 0 0
Fin whale....................................... 0 0 0 0
Sei whale....................................... 0 0 0 1
Bryde's whale................................... 0 0 0 0
Minke whale..................................... 0 1 11 19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Odontocetes (toothed whales and dolphins)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sperm whale..................................... 0 0 0 0
Pygmy sperm whale............................... 0 9 83 36
Dwarf sperm whale............................... 0 22 203 87
Killer whale.................................... 0 0 0 0
False killer whale (MHI Insular stock).......... 0 0 0 0
False killer whale (all other stocks)........... 0 0 0 0
Pygmy killer whale.............................. 0 0 1 2
Short-finned pilot whale........................ 0 0 5 6
Melon-headed whale.............................. 0 0 1 1
Bottlenose dolphin.............................. 0 0 2 2
Pantropical spotted dolphin..................... 0 0 3 4
Striped dolphin................................. 0 0 2 2
Spinner dolphin................................. 0 0 1 1
Rough-toothed dolphin........................... 0 0 3 3
Fraser's dolphin................................ 0 0 10 14
Risso's dolphin................................. 0 0 2 2
Cuvier's beaked whale........................... 0 0 0 0
Blainville's beaked whale....................... 0 0 0 0
[[Page 21180]]
Longman's beaked whale.......................... 0 0 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pinnipeds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaiian monk seal.............................. 0 0 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 0 36 382 219
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These modeled take numbers show that the probability of some of
these species being impacted by the 86 FWS's activities is low (e.g.,
one modeled take for behavioral harassment of 4 of the 16 species).
However, realistically, these species are seen in larger groups (rather
than on an individual basis); therefore, we took into consideration
average group sizes to determine our actual number of authorized takes.
For example, melon-headed whales have a modeled take estimate of one
individual, but their average group size is 153 individuals (Bradford
et al., 2017); therefore, we propose to authorize 153 takes by Level B
harassment of melon headed whales, of which one may be from TTS.
Similarly, for all species, if the modeled take was less than average
group size, we used this same rationale and calculation to determine
the proposed takes by Level B harassment (harassment resulting in TTS
or behavioral disruption). We assumed that, of the total Level B
harassment takes, the modeled take numbers would be used for TTS, and
the difference between TTS and the average group size would be the
behavioral take. We did not adjust takes for PTS, since, in all four
instances of predicted PTS, the number of PTS takes was greater than
average group size (e.g., average group size for dwarf sperm whale is
2.7 (Baird 2016), and modeled PTS takes is 22). Proposed authorized
take numbers are presented in Table 8.
Table 8--Estimated Number of Marine Mammals for Proposed Authorized Take by LRS WSEP Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Level B Level B
Species Mortality harassment harassment harassment
(PTS only*) (TTS) (behavioral)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale.................................. 0 4 54 38
Sei whale....................................... 0 0 0 * 3
Minke whale..................................... 0 1 11 19
Pygmy sperm whale............................... 0 9 83 36
Dwarf sperm whale............................... 0 22 203 87
Pygmy killer whale.............................. 0 0 1 * 25
Short-finned pilot whale........................ 0 0 5 * 36
Melon-headed whale.............................. 0 0 1 * 152
Bottlenose dolphin.............................. 0 0 2 * 32
Pantropical spotted dolphin..................... 0 0 3 * 40
Striped dolphin................................. 0 0 2 * 51
Spinner dolphin................................. 0 0 1 * \1\ 29
Rough-toothed dolphin........................... 0 0 3 * 22
Fraser's dolphin................................ 0 0 10 * 273
Risso's dolphin................................. 0 0 2 * 25
Longman's beaked whale.......................... 0 0 1 * 59
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 0 36 382 927
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Denotes an adjusted take value from what is represented in the modeled take numbers in Table 7. All mean group
sizes were taken from Bradford et al. (2017) except spinner dolphins, because this value was not available in
this publication.
\1\ Mean group size was taken from Baird (2016).
Based on the mortality exposure estimates calculated by the
acoustic model (and further supported by the anticipated effectiveness
of the mitigation), 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 considers PTS to fall under the injury category (Level A
harassment). 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 the case of
authorizing Level A harassment, NMFS has estimated that, although
unlikely, four marine mammal species (humpback whale, minke whale,
dwarf sperm whale, and pygmy sperm whale) could experience minor PTS of
hearing sensitivity. The available data and analyses include
extrapolation of the results of many studies on marine mammal noise-
induced TTS. An extensive review of TTS studies and experiments
prompted NMFS to conclude that the possibility of minor PTS in the form
of slight upward shift of hearing threshold at certain frequency
[[Page 21181]]
bands by one individual marine mammal is extremely low.
Analyses and Preliminary Determinations
Negligible Impact Analysis
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 Level B
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. In making a
negligible impact determination, NMFS considers the following:
(1) The number of anticipated injuries, serious injuries, or
mortalities;
(2) The number, nature, intensity, and duration of Level B
harassment takes;
(3) The context in which the takes occur (i.e., impacts to areas of
significance, impacts to local populations, and cumulative impacts when
taking into account successive/contemporaneous actions when added to
baseline data);
(4) 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);
(5) Impacts on habitat affecting rates of recruitment/survival; and
(6) The effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures to
reduce the number or severity of incidental take.
For reasons stated previously in this document, the 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 occur only over a timeframe
of five days each year in the summer months, over a maximum of four
hours per day.
Behavioral disruption due to Level B harassment would be limited to
reactions such as startle responses, movements away from the area, and
short-term changes to behavioral state. These impacts are expected to
be temporary and of short duration. We do not anticipate that the
effects would be detrimental to rates of recruitment and survival
because we do not expect serious or extended behavioral responses that
would result in energetic effects at the level to impact fitness.
Noise-induced threshold shifts (TS, which includes TTS and PTS) are
defined as increases in the threshold of audibility of the ear (i.e.,
the sound has to be louder to be detected) 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.
TTS was modeled to occur in 15 species of marine mammals from
mission activities. If TTS occurs, it is expected to be at low levels
and of short duration. As explained above, TTS is temporary with no
long term effects to species. The modeled take numbers are expected to
be overestimates since NMFS expects that successful implementation of
the required aerial-based mitigation measures could avoid TTS. 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.
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 marine mammals 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 exhibit
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.
Accordingly, NMFS' predicted estimates for Level A harassment take
(Table 8) 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 harassment 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, NMFS is proposing to authorize (and analyze) the
modeled number of Level A harassment takes, which does not take the
mitigation or avoidance into consideration. However, we anticipate
that, because of the proposed mitigation measures, and the likely short
duration of exposures, any PTS incurred would be in the form of only a
small degree of PTS, rather than 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 (i.e.,
maximum of four hours per day over a maximum of five days per year),
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 at
times) of significance for the marine mammal populations potentially
affected by the exercises (e.g., feeding or resting areas, reproductive
areas), and the activity would occur only in a small part of their
overall range of those marine mammal populations, so the impact of any
potential temporary displacement would be negligible and animals would
be expected to return to the area after the cessation of activities.
Although the proposed activity could result in Level
[[Page 21182]]
A harassment (PTS only, as opposed to slight lung injury or
gastrointestinal tract injury) and Level B harassment (behavioral
disturbance and TTS), the level of harassment is not anticipated to
impact rates of recruitment or survival of marine mammals, because the
number of exposed animals is expected to be low due to the short-term
and site-specific nature of the activity.
Moreover, the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures
(described earlier in this preamble for the proposed rule) 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 animals have left the area or relocated outside of
the zone. Furthermore, LRS WSEP missions may be delayed or rescheduled
for adverse weather conditions.
In past missions (October 2016), the 86 FWS completed pre- and
post-aerial surveys. The 86 FWS did not observe any marine mammals in
the ZOI before missions occurred, and did not observe any marine
mammals after missions were completed. The 86 FWS was authorized for
Level A and Level B harassment takes of five species, but monitoring
showed that they had zero takes of any species from mission activities.
Based on NMFS' preliminary analysis of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring
measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that 86 FWS's LRS WSEP operations
will result in the incidental take of marine mammals, by Level A and
Level B harassment, and that the taking from the LRS WSEP activities
will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.
Impact on Availability of Affected Species 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
There is one marine mammal species under NMFS' jurisdiction that is
listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) with
confirmed or possible occurrence in the action area: The sei whale. In
March 2017, NMFS initiated formal consultation under Section 7 of the
ESA. The Biological Opinion will analyze the effects to the one ESA
listed species by the 86 FWS' LRS WSEP activities.
National Environmental Policy Act
In 2016, 86 FWS provided NMFS with an Environmental Assessment (EA)
titled, Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for
the Long Range Strike Weapon Systems Evaluation Program at the Pacific
Missile Range Facility at Kauai, Hawaii. 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 the EA.
Information in 86 FWS's application, the EA, and this notice
collectively provide the environmental information related to proposed
issuance of the regulations for public review and comment. We will
review all comments submitted in response to this notice as we complete
the NEPA process, including the decision of whether to sign a Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI) prior to a final decision on the LOA
request. The 2016 NEPA documents are available for review at
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.html.
Classification
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this
proposed rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce
has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The RFA requires a Federal agency to prepare an analysis of a rule's
impact on small entities whenever the agency is required to publish a
notice of proposed rulemaking. However, a Federal agency may certify,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that the action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
A description of this proposed rule and its purpose are found earlier
in the preamble for this action and is not repeated here. 86 FWS is the
sole entity that will be affected by this rulemaking and is not a small
governmental jurisdiction, small organization, or small business, as
defined by the RFA. Any requirements imposed by LOAs issued pursuant to
these regulations, and any monitoring or reporting requirements imposed
by these regulations, will be applicable only to 86 FWS.
NMFS does not expect the issuance of these regulations or the
associated LOAs to result in any impacts to small entities pursuant to
the RFA. Because this action, if adopted, would directly affect 86 FWS
and not a small entity, NMFS concludes the action would not result in a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is necessary, and none
has been prepared.
This action does not contain any collection of information
requirements for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 218
Regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals.
Dated: May 2, 2017.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 218 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 218--REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS
INCIDENTAL TO SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 218 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Add subpart F to part 218 to read as follows:
Subpart F--Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to the U.S. Air
Force 86 Fighter Weapons Squadron Conducting Long Range Strike
Weapons System Evaluation Program at the Pacific Missile Range
Facility at Kauai, Hawaii.
Sec.
218.50 Specified activity and specified geographical region.
218.51 Effective dates.
218.52 Permissible methods of taking.
218.53 Prohibitions.
218.54 Mitigation.
218.55 Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
218.56 Letters of Authorization.
[[Page 21183]]
218.57 Renewals and Modifications of Letters of Authorization.
218.58 [Reserved]
218.59 [Reserved]
Sec. 218.50 Specified activity and specified geographical region.
(a) Regulations in this subpart apply only to the 86 Fighter
Weapons Squadron (86 FWS) and those persons it authorizes to conduct
activities on its behalf, for the taking of marine mammals as outlined
in paragraph (b) of this section and incidental to Long Range Strike
Weapons System Evaluation Program (LRS WSEP) missions.
(b) The taking of marine mammals by 86 FWS pursuant to a Letter of
Authorization (LOA) is authorized only if it occurs at the Barking
Sands Underwater Range Expansion (BSURE) area of the Pacific Missile
Range Facility (PMRF) off Kauai, Hawaii.
Sec. 218.51 Effective dates.
Regulations in this subpart are effective August 23, 2017, through
August 22, 2022.
Sec. 218.52 Permissible methods of taking.
Under a Letter of Authorization (LOA) issued pursuant to Sec.
216.106 and Sec. 218.56 of this chapter, the Holder of the LOA (herein
after 86 FWS) may incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine
mammals by Level A and Level B harassment associated with LRS WSEP
activities within the area described in Sec. 218.50 of this subpart,
provided the activities are in compliance with all terms, conditions,
and requirements of these regulations in this subpart and the
appropriate LOA.
Sec. 218.53 Prohibitions.
Notwithstanding takings contemplated in Sec. 218.50 and authorized
by an LOA issued under Sec. 216.106 and Sec. 218.56 of this chapter,
no person in connection with the activities described in Sec. 218.50
of this chapter may:
(a) Violate, or fail to comply with, the terms, conditions, and
requirements of this subpart or an LOA issued under Sec. 216.106 and
Sec. 218.56 of this chapter.
(b) Take any marine mammal not specified in such LOAs;
(c) Take any marine mammal specified in such LOAs in any manner
other than as specified;
(d) Take a marine mammal specified in such LOAs if NMFS determines
such taking results in more than a negligible impact on the species or
stocks of such marine mammal; or
(e) Take a marine mammal specified in such LOAs if NMFS determines
such taking results in an unmitigable adverse impact on the species or
stock of such marine mammal for taking for subsistence uses.
Sec. 218.54 Mitigation requirements.
When conducting activities identified in Sec. 218.50 of this
chapter, the mitigation measures contained in the LOA issued under
Sec. 216.106 and Sec. 218.56 of this chapter must be implemented.
These mitigation measures shall include but are not limited to the
following general conditions:
(a) 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.
(b) Restrictions on time of activities; missions will only occur
during day-light hours, on weekdays, and only during the summer or fall
months.
(c) Visual aerial surveys before and after mission activities each
day.
(d) Required delay of mission activities if a protected species is
observed in the impact zones. Mission activities cannot resume until
one of the following conditions is met:
(1) The animal is observed exiting the impact area; or
(2) The impact area has been clear of any additional sightings for
a period of 30 minutes.
(e) 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.
(f) Additional mitigation measures as contained in an LOA.
Sec. 218.55 Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
(a) Holders of LOAs issued pursuant to Sec. 218.56 for activities
described in Sec. 218.50(a) are required to cooperate with NMFS, and
any other Federal, state, or local agency with authority to monitor the
impacts of the activity on marine mammals. Unless specified otherwise
in the LOA, the Holder of the LOA must notify the Pacific Islands
Region Stranding Coordinator, NMFS, by email, at least 72 hours prior
to LRS WSEP missions. If the authorized activity identified in Sec.
218.50(a) is thought to have resulted in the mortality or injury of any
marine mammals or take of marine mammals not identified in Sec.
218.50(b), then the Holder of the LOA must notify the Director, Office
of Protected Resources, NMFS, or designee, by telephone (301-427-8401),
within 48 hours of the injury or death. The Holder of the LOA must also
contact the Pacific Islands Region stranding coordinator, NMFS, by
email, at least one business day after completion of missions to
declare that missions are complete.
(b) The Holder of the LOA will use mission reporting forms to track
their use of the PMRF BSURE area for the LRS WSEP missions and to track
marine mammal observations.
(c) Aerial surveys--Pre-mission aerial surveys and post-mission
aerial surveys 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. The proposed
monitoring area would be approximately 8 miles (13 kilometers) 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.
(d) The Holder of the LOA is required to:
(1) Submit a draft report to NMFS OPR on all monitoring conducted
under the LOA within 90 days of the completion of marine mammal
monitoring, or 60 days prior to the issuance of any subsequent LOA for
projects at the 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 a minimum
(see www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm), and
shall also include:
(i) Date and time of each LRS WSEP mission;
(ii) 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
(iii) Results of the monitoring program, including numbers by
species/stock of any marine mammals noted injured or killed as a result
of the LRS
[[Page 21184]]
WSEP mission and number of marine mammals (by species if possible) that
may have been harassed due to presence within the zone of influence.
(2) The draft report will be subject to review and comment by NMFS.
Any recommendations made by NMFS must be addressed in the final report
prior to acceptance by NMFS. The draft report will be considered the
final report for this activity under the LOA if NMFS has not provided
comments and recommendations within 90 days of receipt of the draft
report.
(e) Reporting injured or dead marine mammals:
(1) In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the LOA,
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:
(i) Time and date of the incident;
(ii) Description of the incident;
(iii) Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction,
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
(iv) Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours
preceding the incident;
(v) Species identification or description of the animal(s)
involved;
(vi) Fate of the animal(s); and
(vii) Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
(2) 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. The 86 FWS may not
resume their activities until notified by NMFS.
(3) 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.
(4) The report must include the same information identified in
paragraph (e)(i) of this section. 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.
(5) 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 LOA
(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.
The 86 FWS shall provide photographs or video footage or other
documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS.
(f) Additional Conditions. (1) The Holder of the LOA must inform
the Director, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301-427-8400) or
designee (301-427-8401) prior to the initiation of any changes to the
monitoring plan for a specified mission activity.
(2) A copy of the LOA must be in the possession of the safety
officer on duty each day that long range strike missions are conducted.
(3) The LOA 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.
Sec. 218.56 Letters of Authorization.
(a) To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to these
regulations, 86 FWS must apply for and obtain an LOA.
(b) An LOA, unless suspended or revoked, may be effective for a
period of time not to exceed the expiration date of these regulations.
(c) If an LOA expires prior to the expiration date of these
regulations, 86 FWS must apply for and obtain a renewal of the LOA.
(d) In the event of projected changes to the activity or to
mitigation and monitoring measures required by an LOA, 86 FWS must
apply for and obtain a modification of the LOA as described in Sec.
218.57.
(e) The LOA will set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental taking;
(2) The number of marine mammals, by species and age class,
authorized to be taken;
(3) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact (i.e.,
mitigation) on the species of marine mammals authorized for taking, on
its habitat, and on the availability of the species for subsistence
uses; and
(4) Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
(f) Issuance of an LOA shall be based on a determination that the
level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the total
taking allowable under these regulations.
(g) Notice of issuance or denial of an LOA will be published in the
Federal Register within 30 days of a determination.
Sec. 218.57 Renewals and Modifications of Letters of Authorization.
(a) An LOA issued under Sec. 216.106 and Sec. 218.56 of this
chapter for the activity identified in Sec. 218.50(a) will be renewed
or modified upon request by the applicant, provided that:
(1) The proposed specified activity and mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting measures, as well as the anticipated impacts, are the same as
those described and analyzed for these regulations (excluding changes
made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1)
of this section), and
(2) NMFS determines that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
measures required by the previous LOA under these regulations were
implemented.
(b) For an LOA modification or renewal request by the applicant
that include changes to the activity or the mitigation, monitoring, or
reporting (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management
provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section) that do not change the
findings made for the regulations or result in no more than a minor
change in the total estimated number of takes (or distribution by
species or years), NMFS may publish a notice of proposed LOA in the
Federal Register, including the associated analysis illustrating the
change, and solicit public comment before issuing the LOA.
(c) An LOA issued under Sec. 216.106 and Sec. 218.56 of this
chapter for the activity identified in Sec. 218.50(a) may be modified
by NMFS under the following circumstances:
(1) Adaptive Management--NMFS may modify (including augment) the
existing mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures (after
consulting with 86 FWS regarding the practicability of the
modifications) if doing so creates a reasonable likelihood of more
effectively accomplishing the goals of the mitigation and monitoring
set forth in the preamble for these regulations.
[[Page 21185]]
(i) Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision
to modify the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in an LOA
are:
(A) Results from 86 FWS's monitoring from previous years;
(B) Results from other marine mammal and sound research or studies;
and
(C) Any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken
in a manner, extent or number not authorized by these regulations or
subsequent LOAs.
(ii) If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the
mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS
will publish a notice of proposed LOA in the Federal Register and
solicit public comment.
(2) Emergencies--If NMFS determines that an emergency exists that
poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stocks of
marine mammals specified LOAs issued pursuant to Sec. 216.106 and
218.50 of this chapter, an LOA may be modified without prior notice or
opportunity for public comment. Notice would be published in the
Federal Register within 30 days of the action.
218.58 [Reserved]
218.59 [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2017-09137 Filed 5-4-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P